Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
9/11 Required Reading: "500 Days"
737 views
Skip to first unread message
Anthony Marsh
Sep 12, 2012, 9:06:42 AM9/12/12
to
Bush lied.
curtjester1
Sep 12, 2012, 8:03:20 PM9/12/12
to
On Sep 12, 9:06 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Bush lied.
http://commonground.ca/2012/06/911-bamboozle/
CJ
> Bush lied.
http://commonground.ca/2012/06/911-bamboozle/
CJ
Anthony Marsh
Sep 13, 2012, 4:14:40 PM9/13/12
to
John McAdams
Sep 13, 2012, 11:15:26 PM9/13/12
to
On 12 Sep 2012 09:06:42 -0400, Anthony Marsh
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Bush lied.
Tony has become a Truther!
It had to happen. He hates Republicans so that it had to happen.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Bush lied.
Tony has become a Truther!
It had to happen. He hates Republicans so that it had to happen.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Sep 14, 2012, 6:46:06 PM9/14/12
to
On 9/13/2012 11:15 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 12 Sep 2012 09:06:42 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Bush lied.
>
> Tony has become a Truther!
>
I have lost several friends and they have threatened me because I argue
> On 12 Sep 2012 09:06:42 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Bush lied.
>
> Tony has become a Truther!
>
against the Truthers. The moment the second plane hit I said it was al
Qaeda.
> It had to happen. He hates Republicans so that it had to happen.
>
CIA so much?
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
John McAdams
Sep 15, 2012, 8:56:07 PM9/15/12
to
On 14 Sep 2012 18:46:06 -0400, Anthony Marsh
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 9/13/2012 11:15 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 12 Sep 2012 09:06:42 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Bush lied.
>>
>> Tony has become a Truther!
>>
>
>I have lost several friends and they have threatened me because I argue
>against the Truthers. The moment the second plane hit I said it was al
>Qaeda.
>
>> It had to happen. He hates Republicans so that it had to happen.
>>
>
>Not just Republicans. Why don't you claim it was the CIA if I hate the
>CIA so much?
>
Because you hate Republican office holders more.
>On 9/13/2012 11:15 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 12 Sep 2012 09:06:42 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Bush lied.
>>
>> Tony has become a Truther!
>>
>
>I have lost several friends and they have threatened me because I argue
>against the Truthers. The moment the second plane hit I said it was al
>Qaeda.
>
>> It had to happen. He hates Republicans so that it had to happen.
>>
>
>Not just Republicans. Why don't you claim it was the CIA if I hate the
>CIA so much?
>
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Reagor King
Sep 16, 2012, 5:31:46 PM9/16/12
to
In article <i98558tp3rtp355hc...@4ax.com>,
doggie again as soon as I read that.
Btw, where on earth has Mr. Blubaugh gone? I do sooo miss his sweeping
generalizations regarding how "all" LNs are Republican, and mindlessly
conservative, and so on and so forth, ad nauseum. Surely I all by myself
did not drive him away when I challenged not almost all, but all of his
sweeping generalizations that I saw, including those about "all" CTs being
Democrats and raging liberals?
John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 12 Sep 2012 09:06:42 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Bush lied.
>
> Tony has become a Truther!
>
> It had to happen. He hates Republicans so that it had to happen.
You "forgot" to include a C&C warning on that. I startled my poor little
> On 12 Sep 2012 09:06:42 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Bush lied.
>
> Tony has become a Truther!
>
> It had to happen. He hates Republicans so that it had to happen.
doggie again as soon as I read that.
Btw, where on earth has Mr. Blubaugh gone? I do sooo miss his sweeping
generalizations regarding how "all" LNs are Republican, and mindlessly
conservative, and so on and so forth, ad nauseum. Surely I all by myself
did not drive him away when I challenged not almost all, but all of his
sweeping generalizations that I saw, including those about "all" CTs being
Democrats and raging liberals?
John Reagor King
Sep 16, 2012, 5:34:22 PM9/16/12
to
In article
<53e8a227-ade6-46ed...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
By Jim Fetzer???
Why does it not surprise me that you would post that link?
Lemme tell y'all a little story (yet again) about Jim Fetzer and his
good friend and co-author (in some literary works) Jim Marrs.
Quite recently I had the marvelously educational experience of having
what might be called a "dialogue" with both of these men. After simply
mentioning unequivocally that I had not yet read certain works
co-authored by Mr. Fetzer and Mr. Marrs, I noted a common claim, which I
did NOT AT ANY TIME ATTRIBUTE TO EITHER OF THESE MEN, that the
"horizontal" shadow of the rifle in 133-b, "proves beyond reasonable
doubt" that 133-b was faked or forged or whatever term du jour is used,
since Oswald is holding the rifle only somewhat tilted to his right, but
not nearly horizontal. Naturally, being the ornery Texan that I am, I
said that I had made a video proving beyond all reasonable doubt that
someone, anyone, can with superb, childish ease replicate that shadow to
absolute perfection naturally, merely by standing in what is called the
"sunlight," and tilting one's long, narrow object (it doesn't matter in
the slightest what the object is) to one's right AND forward, and
instantly the shadow on the ground behind rotates to the horizontal in
relation to one's on shadow. I also said, truthfully, that several CTs
in this newsgroup and over in the other slum newsgroup told me point
blank, in more than one year, that they absolutely refused to ever,
ever, ever go "outdoors" and even try this, even though the average ten
year old child can do it with superb ease, and not one of them ever
posted a link to a Youtube video showing them as "honestly trying it,"
even after I posted the link to my Youtube video several times over
several months.
Irrationally, Mr. Fetzer (which was not the slightest surprise to me)
went immediately on the rampage attack. He falsely accused me of
criticizing his and Mr. Marrs's study of the backyard photos, even
though I had prior to that plainly said that I HAD NO IDEA whether or
not their study had even mentioned the rifle shadow in 133-b. I then
countered with the fact that I did not find his co-author's work in
"Crossfire" to be at all credible, most especially because the book
grossly misrepresents Jack Ruby's WC testimony.
Mr. Marrs himself then entered the fray, after Mr. Fetzer declared that
he suspected my complaints about "Crossfire" to be "bogus" or some such
nonsense. Mr. Marrs gave me the following erudite advice: "How about
reading Ruby's words instead of making up your own version?" Mr. Marrs
then proceeded to quote verbatim several passages of Ruby's WC testimony
that seemed to support the same views that he had expressed many years
earlier in "Crossfire," that in begging Earl Warren that he be taken
from Dallas to Washington and that only in Washington could he tell the
truth, Ruby was "obviously" hinting that he knew more about the
assassination of JFK than he was willing to tell in Dallas.
When I quoted the portions of the same WC Ruby testimony in which Ruby
unequivocally said that the reason he wanted to be gotten out of Dallas
and taken to Washington was because the John Birch Society of Dallas was
trying to falsely implicate him in "a plot to assassinate JFK" and "a
plot to silence Oswald," Mr. Marrs very suddenly made an absolute
about-face, and said to me something to the effect of, "How do we know
what Ruby really said, since the government altered his testimony?"
When I noted in reply to that, that Mr. Marrs was exhibiting a blatantly
obvious double-standardm first claiming to me that I should read what
Ruby said and then quoting portions of Ruby's WC testimony to me,
without mentioning any belief on his part that the portions he was
quoting weren't what Ruby said, and having made no such claim about the
portions of the same testimony quoted verbatim in "Crossfire" either,
both Mr. Fetzer and Mr. Marrs fell abruptly silent.
Go look at the thread on Amazon if you don't believe me:
http://www.amazon.com/forum/jfk%20assassination?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx
1VLRED2TYB89B&cdPage=1&cdSort=newest&cdThread=Tx2UDM1Q2Q956B4&cdMessage=M
x338MVMUGWZ6WP
Everyone will be helplessly unable to locate a single article even
*claimed* to be by Fetzer or Marrs dating later than my September 5
article which includes this text:
**********
Now you are contradicting yourself, Mr. Marrs. In your first response to
me that Mr. Fetzer posted, you admonished me, "How about reading Ruby's
words instead of making up your own version?" You then quoted several
excerpts from his WC testimony yourself, making no mention that you did
not believe that that's what Ruby actually said. Now you suddenly tell
me that we can't trust that testimony as printed anyway, so what's the
point of reading "Ruby's words" if they aren't Ruby's words anyway?
**********
So indeed, I am provably correct, that both Mr. Fetzer and Mr. Marrs
fell abruptly silent immediately after I posted that article.
Gee, I "wonder" why?
Not.
<53e8a227-ade6-46ed...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Why does it not surprise me that you would post that link?
Lemme tell y'all a little story (yet again) about Jim Fetzer and his
good friend and co-author (in some literary works) Jim Marrs.
Quite recently I had the marvelously educational experience of having
what might be called a "dialogue" with both of these men. After simply
mentioning unequivocally that I had not yet read certain works
co-authored by Mr. Fetzer and Mr. Marrs, I noted a common claim, which I
did NOT AT ANY TIME ATTRIBUTE TO EITHER OF THESE MEN, that the
"horizontal" shadow of the rifle in 133-b, "proves beyond reasonable
doubt" that 133-b was faked or forged or whatever term du jour is used,
since Oswald is holding the rifle only somewhat tilted to his right, but
not nearly horizontal. Naturally, being the ornery Texan that I am, I
said that I had made a video proving beyond all reasonable doubt that
someone, anyone, can with superb, childish ease replicate that shadow to
absolute perfection naturally, merely by standing in what is called the
"sunlight," and tilting one's long, narrow object (it doesn't matter in
the slightest what the object is) to one's right AND forward, and
instantly the shadow on the ground behind rotates to the horizontal in
relation to one's on shadow. I also said, truthfully, that several CTs
in this newsgroup and over in the other slum newsgroup told me point
blank, in more than one year, that they absolutely refused to ever,
ever, ever go "outdoors" and even try this, even though the average ten
year old child can do it with superb ease, and not one of them ever
posted a link to a Youtube video showing them as "honestly trying it,"
even after I posted the link to my Youtube video several times over
several months.
Irrationally, Mr. Fetzer (which was not the slightest surprise to me)
went immediately on the rampage attack. He falsely accused me of
criticizing his and Mr. Marrs's study of the backyard photos, even
though I had prior to that plainly said that I HAD NO IDEA whether or
not their study had even mentioned the rifle shadow in 133-b. I then
countered with the fact that I did not find his co-author's work in
"Crossfire" to be at all credible, most especially because the book
grossly misrepresents Jack Ruby's WC testimony.
Mr. Marrs himself then entered the fray, after Mr. Fetzer declared that
he suspected my complaints about "Crossfire" to be "bogus" or some such
nonsense. Mr. Marrs gave me the following erudite advice: "How about
reading Ruby's words instead of making up your own version?" Mr. Marrs
then proceeded to quote verbatim several passages of Ruby's WC testimony
that seemed to support the same views that he had expressed many years
earlier in "Crossfire," that in begging Earl Warren that he be taken
from Dallas to Washington and that only in Washington could he tell the
truth, Ruby was "obviously" hinting that he knew more about the
assassination of JFK than he was willing to tell in Dallas.
When I quoted the portions of the same WC Ruby testimony in which Ruby
unequivocally said that the reason he wanted to be gotten out of Dallas
and taken to Washington was because the John Birch Society of Dallas was
trying to falsely implicate him in "a plot to assassinate JFK" and "a
plot to silence Oswald," Mr. Marrs very suddenly made an absolute
about-face, and said to me something to the effect of, "How do we know
what Ruby really said, since the government altered his testimony?"
When I noted in reply to that, that Mr. Marrs was exhibiting a blatantly
obvious double-standardm first claiming to me that I should read what
Ruby said and then quoting portions of Ruby's WC testimony to me,
without mentioning any belief on his part that the portions he was
quoting weren't what Ruby said, and having made no such claim about the
portions of the same testimony quoted verbatim in "Crossfire" either,
both Mr. Fetzer and Mr. Marrs fell abruptly silent.
Go look at the thread on Amazon if you don't believe me:
http://www.amazon.com/forum/jfk%20assassination?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx
1VLRED2TYB89B&cdPage=1&cdSort=newest&cdThread=Tx2UDM1Q2Q956B4&cdMessage=M
x338MVMUGWZ6WP
Everyone will be helplessly unable to locate a single article even
*claimed* to be by Fetzer or Marrs dating later than my September 5
article which includes this text:
**********
Now you are contradicting yourself, Mr. Marrs. In your first response to
me that Mr. Fetzer posted, you admonished me, "How about reading Ruby's
words instead of making up your own version?" You then quoted several
excerpts from his WC testimony yourself, making no mention that you did
not believe that that's what Ruby actually said. Now you suddenly tell
me that we can't trust that testimony as printed anyway, so what's the
point of reading "Ruby's words" if they aren't Ruby's words anyway?
**********
So indeed, I am provably correct, that both Mr. Fetzer and Mr. Marrs
fell abruptly silent immediately after I posted that article.
Gee, I "wonder" why?
Not.
Anthony Marsh
Sep 17, 2012, 10:03:00 AM9/17/12
to
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
mainframetech
Sep 17, 2012, 9:38:41 PM9/17/12
to
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.
Chris
curtjester1
Sep 18, 2012, 8:21:37 PM9/18/12
to
havoc, and cause divisiveness for power, financial gain and control.
IOW, it took an inside job of great magnitude to accomplish all of 9/11
and make it look like it was done by 'others.' Somebody on my facebook
gave a quote by John Stockwell, former CIA man who gave a defintion of the
CIA and their true objectives. In large, it meant keeping the
divisiveness going, and letting the economics of our country weaken.
Here is a little on him:
CJ
curtjester1
Sep 18, 2012, 8:22:05 PM9/18/12
to
On Sep 16, 5:34 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <53e8a227-ade6-46ed-972b-f58e89bf0...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> http://www.amazon.com/forum/jfk%20assassination?_encoding=UTF8&cdForu...
are tampered, and were generally used for propaganda type purposes instead
of honing in on the ways and character of an assassin.
CJ
> In article
> <53e8a227-ade6-46ed-972b-f58e89bf0...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> 1VLRED2TYB89B&cdPage=1&cdSort=newest&cdThread=Tx2UDM1Q2Q956B4&cdMessage=M
> x338MVMUGWZ6WP
>
> Everyone will be helplessly unable to locate a single article even
> *claimed* to be by Fetzer or Marrs dating later than my September 5
> article which includes this text:
>
> **********
>
> Now you are contradicting yourself, Mr. Marrs. In your first response to
> me that Mr. Fetzer posted, you admonished me, "How about reading Ruby's
> words instead of making up your own version?" You then quoted several
> excerpts from his WC testimony yourself, making no mention that you did
> not believe that that's what Ruby actually said. Now you suddenly tell
> me that we can't trust that testimony as printed anyway, so what's the
> point of reading "Ruby's words" if they aren't Ruby's words anyway?
>
> **********
>
> So indeed, I am provably correct, that both Mr. Fetzer and Mr. Marrs
> fell abruptly silent immediately after I posted that article.
>
> Gee, I "wonder" why?
>
> Not.
I am not sure that this has to do with 9/11, but many think the BY Photo
> x338MVMUGWZ6WP
>
> Everyone will be helplessly unable to locate a single article even
> *claimed* to be by Fetzer or Marrs dating later than my September 5
> article which includes this text:
>
> **********
>
> Now you are contradicting yourself, Mr. Marrs. In your first response to
> me that Mr. Fetzer posted, you admonished me, "How about reading Ruby's
> words instead of making up your own version?" You then quoted several
> excerpts from his WC testimony yourself, making no mention that you did
> not believe that that's what Ruby actually said. Now you suddenly tell
> me that we can't trust that testimony as printed anyway, so what's the
> point of reading "Ruby's words" if they aren't Ruby's words anyway?
>
> **********
>
> So indeed, I am provably correct, that both Mr. Fetzer and Mr. Marrs
> fell abruptly silent immediately after I posted that article.
>
> Gee, I "wonder" why?
>
> Not.
are tampered, and were generally used for propaganda type purposes instead
of honing in on the ways and character of an assassin.
CJ
John Reagor King
Sep 18, 2012, 8:22:12 PM9/18/12
to
In article
<6cfaa52a-63e6-4a55...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
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?
<6cfaa52a-63e6-4a55...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
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?
mainframetech
Sep 19, 2012, 1:47:33 PM9/19/12
to
> <6cfaa52a-63e6-4a55-a6a5-3d5a112f3...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
Here is the petition and the names. Come back and tell us what you
found...:)
http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php
If you are interested in other 'truth' sites, here are a few of
them:
http://www.911truth.org/
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/
And there are many more since the subject is so popular. Put "911
truth" into Google and see the names of many organizations, incluiding
firefighters and many other occupations...:)
Chris
found...:)
http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php
If you are interested in other 'truth' sites, here are a few of
them:
http://www.911truth.org/
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/
And there are many more since the subject is so popular. Put "911
truth" into Google and see the names of many organizations, incluiding
firefighters and many other occupations...:)
Chris
Anthony Marsh
Sep 19, 2012, 4:04:49 PM9/19/12
to
On 9/18/2012 8:22 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article
> <6cfaa52a-63e6-4a55...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 12, 8:03 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sep 12, 9:06 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bush lied.
>>>
>>> http://commonground.ca/2012/06/911-bamboozle/
>>>
>>> CJ
>>
>> 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
I believe they have a Web site. Learn how to use the Internet.
> In article
> <6cfaa52a-63e6-4a55...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 12, 8:03 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sep 12, 9:06 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bush lied.
>>>
>>> http://commonground.ca/2012/06/911-bamboozle/
>>>
>>> CJ
>>
>> 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?
>
John Reagor King
Sep 19, 2012, 8:26:42 PM9/19/12
to
In article
<aa089741-aa0b-4fd8...@f6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
often that "proves" fakery is the shadow of the rifle in 133-b, which I
myself have proved in my Youtube video is not in and of itself evidence of
fakery. When it was so easy for me to demonstrate that that particular
claim was invalid, it makes me wonder about the other claims of fakery for
the three photos.
<aa089741-aa0b-4fd8...@f6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
curtjester1 <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I am not sure that this has to do with 9/11, but many think the BY Photo
> are tampered, and were generally used for propaganda type purposes instead
> of honing in on the ways and character of an assassin.
Many do think the photos were faked, and one of the claims I've seen most
> I am not sure that this has to do with 9/11, but many think the BY Photo
> are tampered, and were generally used for propaganda type purposes instead
> of honing in on the ways and character of an assassin.
often that "proves" fakery is the shadow of the rifle in 133-b, which I
myself have proved in my Youtube video is not in and of itself evidence of
fakery. When it was so easy for me to demonstrate that that particular
claim was invalid, it makes me wonder about the other claims of fakery for
the three photos.
curtjester1
Sep 19, 2012, 8:36:38 PM9/19/12
to
Sandy McCroskey
Sep 19, 2012, 11:02:49 PM9/19/12
to
he no doubt knows as well as anybody, that the 911truth.org list is
largely bogus, that it includes "sanitation engineers," for example, and
other such people whose area of expertise is in no way relevant to the
issue under discussion; nor that there are, of course, crackpots in any
field and that even if a large number of people on this list had real
qualifications this would be a mere fraction of all the architects and
engineers in the world, most of whom have seen nothing mysterious about
the WTC towers' collapse almost into their own footprints, as they know a
little something about the way the buildings were constructed.
/sm
John Reagor King
Sep 20, 2012, 6:10:18 PM9/20/12
to
In article <5059...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Yeah, I already looked at that the other day, even though I don't know
how to use the Internet, according to you only, and nowhere does it list
the names of anywhere close to 1700 architects and engineers who have
said that the 9/11 catastrophe was done with controlled demolition, and
who also say they can prove it.
> Learn how to use the Internet.
Learn how to make a believable claim.
> > 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?
>
> Why don't you interview each for yourself and report back to us?
Since I'm not the one who claimed that there are more than 1700 such
people, I'll leave that up to mainframetech, who did claim it. That
poster can provide proof that anywhere close to this many of them are
actually real persons to begin with who will confirm that they have made
the claim attributed to them.
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 9/18/2012 8:22 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article
> > <6cfaa52a-63e6-4a55...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> > mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sep 12, 8:03 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sep 12, 9:06 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Bush lied.
> >>>
> >>> http://commonground.ca/2012/06/911-bamboozle/
> >>>
> >>> CJ
> >>
> >> 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
>
> I believe they have a Web site.
Could that be this?
> On 9/18/2012 8:22 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article
> > <6cfaa52a-63e6-4a55...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> > mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sep 12, 8:03 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sep 12, 9:06 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Bush lied.
> >>>
> >>> http://commonground.ca/2012/06/911-bamboozle/
> >>>
> >>> CJ
> >>
> >> 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
>
> I believe they have a Web site.
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Yeah, I already looked at that the other day, even though I don't know
how to use the Internet, according to you only, and nowhere does it list
the names of anywhere close to 1700 architects and engineers who have
said that the 9/11 catastrophe was done with controlled demolition, and
who also say they can prove it.
> Learn how to use the Internet.
> > 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?
>
> Why don't you interview each for yourself and report back to us?
people, I'll leave that up to mainframetech, who did claim it. That
poster can provide proof that anywhere close to this many of them are
actually real persons to begin with who will confirm that they have made
the claim attributed to them.
Anthony Marsh
Sep 20, 2012, 8:49:32 PM9/20/12
to
theory? No.
>> Learn how to use the Internet.
>
> Learn how to make a believable claim.
>
>>> 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?
>>
>> Why don't you interview each for yourself and report back to us?
>
> Since I'm not the one who claimed that there are more than 1700 such
> people, I'll leave that up to mainframetech, who did claim it. That
did not vouch for what each person believes.
> poster can provide proof that anywhere close to this many of them are
> actually real persons to begin with who will confirm that they have made
> the claim attributed to them.
>
That is a straw man argument you invented.
curtjester1
Sep 21, 2012, 6:22:38 PM9/21/12
to
> <aa089741-aa0b-4fd8-b16a-7e5e32277...@f6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
http://newsblaze.com/story/20090509170209kays.nb/topstory.html
CJ
>
> curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I am not sure that this has to do with 9/11, but many think the BY Photo
> > are tampered, and were generally used for propaganda type purposes instead
> > of honing in on the ways and character of an assassin.
>
> Many do think the photos were faked, and one of the claims I've seen most
> often that "proves" fakery is the shadow of the rifle in 133-b, which I
> myself have proved in my Youtube video is not in and of itself evidence of
> fakery. When it was so easy for me to demonstrate that that particular
> claim was invalid, it makes me wonder about the other claims of fakery for
> the three photos.
And from the great Jack White who recently passed:
> curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I am not sure that this has to do with 9/11, but many think the BY Photo
> > are tampered, and were generally used for propaganda type purposes instead
> > of honing in on the ways and character of an assassin.
>
> Many do think the photos were faked, and one of the claims I've seen most
> often that "proves" fakery is the shadow of the rifle in 133-b, which I
> myself have proved in my Youtube video is not in and of itself evidence of
> fakery. When it was so easy for me to demonstrate that that particular
> claim was invalid, it makes me wonder about the other claims of fakery for
> the three photos.
http://newsblaze.com/story/20090509170209kays.nb/topstory.html
CJ
John Reagor King
Sep 22, 2012, 7:46:24 PM9/22/12
to
In article <505b9e27$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
My goodness, not only are you very poor in following discussions, you're
also very poor in taking notice of previous texts from other posters
that you yourself quote in your replies. I still see this text above
from where both you and I quoted it in our replies:
"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."
I only see one single theory mentioned there, that 9/11 was done with
controlled demolition. ;-)
also very poor in taking notice of previous texts from other posters
that you yourself quote in your replies. I still see this text above
from where both you and I quoted it in our replies:
"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."
controlled demolition. ;-)
John Reagor King
Sep 22, 2012, 7:46:55 PM9/22/12
to
In article
<b92a04d8-9446-4bf0...@l14g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
Here are some more articles about the great Jack White:
http://dperry1943.com/ctkastory.html
http://dperry1943.com/bledsoe.html
http://dperry1943.com/document.html
http://dperry1943.com/mote.html
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread
/78fade6663409c58/299374a6f89f151e?show_docid=299374a6f89f151e#
http://www.jfk-info.com/mshack2.htm
http://www.jfk-info.com/jackvid2.htm
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax-jw.htm
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-135674.html
http://facts-carlier-jfk-assassination.blogspot.com/2012/06/jack-white-19
27-2012.html
A fair number of these were obviously posted by CTs.
<b92a04d8-9446-4bf0...@l14g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
http://dperry1943.com/ctkastory.html
http://dperry1943.com/bledsoe.html
http://dperry1943.com/document.html
http://dperry1943.com/mote.html
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread
/78fade6663409c58/299374a6f89f151e?show_docid=299374a6f89f151e#
http://www.jfk-info.com/mshack2.htm
http://www.jfk-info.com/jackvid2.htm
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax-jw.htm
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-135674.html
http://facts-carlier-jfk-assassination.blogspot.com/2012/06/jack-white-19
27-2012.html
A fair number of these were obviously posted by CTs.
curtjester1
Sep 23, 2012, 2:58:07 PM9/23/12
to
> <b92a04d8-9446-4bf0-8c5b-d99708a9f...@l14g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
The House Select Committee on Assassinations, the second major
investigatory body, conducted Pinrose Distance Statistics, where they
would compare body measurements of known Oswald photos with the
controversial shots of Lee in these suspicious poses. However, in
their final report, they left out important statistical data, that did
not jive. The essential chin measurements would have spoiled their
report, so they were omitted!
Jack White was able to account for the fact that one face has a frown
and one a smile, by the use of touchup, just on the lips. Everything
else in the face is identical, an impossibility, when you consider all
of the muscles in your face! Mister White actually models these
scientific facial characteristics, by mimicking a smile and a frown in
the video!
And so there you have it, a clever forgery was pulled off by using
graphics blenders in some sophisticated facility. Jack White has
unveiled this forgery very convincingly, from what I can tell, and the
implication of this is indeed chilly ... indeed most nefarious. A
conspiracy to frame Lee Oswald as the sole shooter of John Kennedy was
concocted, and the infamous backyard photos were an integral part of
this plot. Jim Marrs thanks Jack White for his groundbreaking work at
the end of the video, and urges citizens to look beyond the government
experts for the truth.
I fear that very few Americans even know anything about this clever
fabrication of these images of Oswald; it truly looks like they were
manipulated in a photographic lab of a very high caliber. I hope that
my humble article will reach a great amount of people, and that they
will begin to view this video in numbers; it contains razor-sharp
explanations for these enigmas of the camera, this flagrant trickery
that fooled 'We the People'. Most certainly they then will come to the
same conclusions that I have come to: that President Kennedy was slain
on the 'Streets of Dallas' by a cache of vengeful powerbrokers (Right
Wing Extremists) who found it a necessity to rid themselves of a
liberal JFK, and his progressive policies, that really transformed our
country and put it on a better path.
REQUIRED VIEWING FOR ALL AMERICANS!
Fake: The Forged Photograph that Framed Lee Harvey Oswald
The Many Faces Of Lee Harvey Oswald
Valuable biographical information on Jack White
"Inquiry is the life blood of truth, and the careful report of inquiry
is the newspaperman's cross and grail."
Penn Jones Jr. -Forgive My Grief
P.S. I have not been able to locate any convincing reb
CJ
>
>
>
>
>
> curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 19, 8:26 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <aa089741-aa0b-4fd8-b16a-7e5e32277...@f6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I am not sure that this has to do with 9/11, but many think the BY Photo
> > > > are tampered, and were generally used for propaganda type purposes instead
> > > > of honing in on the ways and character of an assassin.
>
> > > Many do think the photos were faked, and one of the claims I've seen most
> > > often that "proves" fakery is the shadow of the rifle in 133-b, which I
> > > myself have proved in my Youtube video is not in and of itself evidence of
> > > fakery. When it was so easy for me to demonstrate that that particular
> > > claim was invalid, it makes me wonder about the other claims of fakery for
> > > the three photos.
>
> > And from the great Jack White who recently passed:
>
> >http://newsblaze.com/story/20090509170209kays.nb/topstory.html
>
> Here are some more articles about the great Jack White:
>
> http://dperry1943.com/ctkastory.html
>
> http://dperry1943.com/bledsoe.html
>
> http://dperry1943.com/document.html
>
> http://dperry1943.com/mote.html
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
>
>
>
>
> curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 19, 8:26 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <aa089741-aa0b-4fd8-b16a-7e5e32277...@f6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I am not sure that this has to do with 9/11, but many think the BY Photo
> > > > are tampered, and were generally used for propaganda type purposes instead
> > > > of honing in on the ways and character of an assassin.
>
> > > Many do think the photos were faked, and one of the claims I've seen most
> > > often that "proves" fakery is the shadow of the rifle in 133-b, which I
> > > myself have proved in my Youtube video is not in and of itself evidence of
> > > fakery. When it was so easy for me to demonstrate that that particular
> > > claim was invalid, it makes me wonder about the other claims of fakery for
> > > the three photos.
>
> > And from the great Jack White who recently passed:
>
> >http://newsblaze.com/story/20090509170209kays.nb/topstory.html
>
> Here are some more articles about the great Jack White:
>
> http://dperry1943.com/ctkastory.html
>
> http://dperry1943.com/bledsoe.html
>
> http://dperry1943.com/document.html
>
> http://dperry1943.com/mote.html
>
>
> http://www.jfk-info.com/mshack2.htm
>
> http://www.jfk-info.com/jackvid2.htm
>
> http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax-jw.htm
>
> http://cosmoquest.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-135674.html
>
> http://facts-carlier-jfk-assassination.blogspot.com/2012/06/jack-whit...
> http://www.jfk-info.com/mshack2.htm
>
> http://www.jfk-info.com/jackvid2.htm
>
> http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax-jw.htm
>
> http://cosmoquest.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-135674.html
>
> 27-2012.html
>
> A fair number of these were obviously posted by CTs.
From the author of the link I previously posted:
>
> A fair number of these were obviously posted by CTs.
The House Select Committee on Assassinations, the second major
investigatory body, conducted Pinrose Distance Statistics, where they
would compare body measurements of known Oswald photos with the
controversial shots of Lee in these suspicious poses. However, in
their final report, they left out important statistical data, that did
not jive. The essential chin measurements would have spoiled their
report, so they were omitted!
Jack White was able to account for the fact that one face has a frown
and one a smile, by the use of touchup, just on the lips. Everything
else in the face is identical, an impossibility, when you consider all
of the muscles in your face! Mister White actually models these
scientific facial characteristics, by mimicking a smile and a frown in
the video!
And so there you have it, a clever forgery was pulled off by using
graphics blenders in some sophisticated facility. Jack White has
unveiled this forgery very convincingly, from what I can tell, and the
implication of this is indeed chilly ... indeed most nefarious. A
conspiracy to frame Lee Oswald as the sole shooter of John Kennedy was
concocted, and the infamous backyard photos were an integral part of
this plot. Jim Marrs thanks Jack White for his groundbreaking work at
the end of the video, and urges citizens to look beyond the government
experts for the truth.
I fear that very few Americans even know anything about this clever
fabrication of these images of Oswald; it truly looks like they were
manipulated in a photographic lab of a very high caliber. I hope that
my humble article will reach a great amount of people, and that they
will begin to view this video in numbers; it contains razor-sharp
explanations for these enigmas of the camera, this flagrant trickery
that fooled 'We the People'. Most certainly they then will come to the
same conclusions that I have come to: that President Kennedy was slain
on the 'Streets of Dallas' by a cache of vengeful powerbrokers (Right
Wing Extremists) who found it a necessity to rid themselves of a
liberal JFK, and his progressive policies, that really transformed our
country and put it on a better path.
REQUIRED VIEWING FOR ALL AMERICANS!
Fake: The Forged Photograph that Framed Lee Harvey Oswald
The Many Faces Of Lee Harvey Oswald
Valuable biographical information on Jack White
"Inquiry is the life blood of truth, and the careful report of inquiry
is the newspaperman's cross and grail."
Penn Jones Jr. -Forgive My Grief
P.S. I have not been able to locate any convincing reb
CJ
mainframetech
Sep 23, 2012, 6:58:01 PM9/23/12
to
started as a 9/11 thread on the 3 towers that collapsed at the WTC.
Chris
curtjester1
Sep 24, 2012, 10:59:50 PM9/24/12
to
the poster (King) who took it off topic. I just decided to answer
what he went off on after I put in my two cents on 9/11 and the
collapses (that look like demotitions that some people somehow think
that they don't). Sometimes I find stuff on the net I like, like the
post on the BY Photos) which I hadn't run into before. And I am one
who sees a clear line of conspiracy between JFK, Watergate, and 9/11.
It's about a mad dash for control at any expense, especially the
Public's.
CJ
mainframetech
Sep 25, 2012, 10:20:14 AM9/25/12
to
been speaking in the U.S. and in other countries where the people are
far more believing that the collapses were controlled demolition.
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Chris
John Reagor King
Sep 25, 2012, 6:05:32 PM9/25/12
to
In article
<051ad4cf-68b1-46b5...@v15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 8:22?pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <6cfaa52a-63e6-4a55-a6a5-3d5a112f3...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > ?mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > ? For another scrupulously honest site dealing with the fall of the
> > > ? ?Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC
> > that? ?Where may we see a list of the names of all 1700+ of these
from you to me. Sorry about that. Ok, let's take a look at this. Ah,
cool, you can click on each one and see their profile and their statement
about 9/11.
Richard Gage says:
'The WTC Twin Towers and Building #7 appear to have been brought down not
by jet impacts and/or fires as we have been led to believe - but by
controlled demolition with explosives. The evidence noted on
AE911Truth.org and other excellent websites is "prima facie" and will,
with the increasing public awareness and demand for the truth, result in a
new truly independent investigation with subpoena power. A/E's must now
become leaders for 9/11 Truth - Join Us!'
He says he believes that the buildings were brought down by controlled
demolition. But where does he say he himself can prove it? I don't see
that.
Daniel B. Barnum says:
'I have "known" from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that
they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by
the airplanes that ran into them.'
Nowhere does he say he himself can prove it, however.
David Paul Helpern says:
"The speed and symmetry of the collapses is not consistent with the
damage. A new investigation is needed."
Now wait, he does not specifically say here that controlled demolition
was used, although I suppose he may be implying that. But where does he
say he himself can prove it? I don't see him saying any such thing.
Kevin A. Kelly says:
"The Presentation made by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth at the
AIA Convention in San Francisco made a sufficient case that a new
investigation into the collapses of the 3 high rise buildings on 9/11/01
would be worthwhile."
Well now wait. I thought you said that all these people have said that
9/11 definitely *was* caused by controlled demolition, and that they can
prove it. But that's not quite what Mr. Kelly is saying here. He is
merely saying that due to the presentation for 911 Truth a new
investigation would be worthwhile. He isn't saying it actually *was*
caused by controlled demolition, or that he himself can prove it. He is
obviously just articulating a possibility.
Paul Stevenson Oles says:
"There appear too many unexplained events and unverified circumstances
to be satisfied with the official version of the New York building
collapses. As unthinkable as it is to suspect the United States
government or military of willful complicity in these horrendous acts,
it is even more heinous to allow such complicity--if indeed it
exists--to remain undiscovered and unpunished. Therefore, a thorough and
impartial investigation by an independent, well-funded commission is
fully merited."
He's definitely unsatisfied with the official explanation, but nowhere
there does he specifically say that the collapses were due to controlled
demolition, nor does he come anywhere remotely close to specifically
saying he can prove it.
Eason Cross says:
"The third building evidence is truly troubling. The 'why' is very hard
to comprehend."
I guess he means WTC 7, but he just says he's very troubled by it, and
does not comprehend why it collapsed. But he's not specifically saying
that he believes it *did* collapse due to controlled demolition, nor is
he saying he can prove it.
Harry G. Robinson III says:
"The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated.
The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to
implode as they did."
Well, he certainly seems to believe that controlled demolition was
involved. But he's not saying that he himself can prove it.
Abby Goodman's statement at this moment is "pending review."
Alan Anderson, Jr. says:
"? Why were two extremely tall buildings (110 stories - 1,362 feet),
completely destroyed, after burning for less than two hours, each coming
straight down, symmetrically, at freefall speed, all elements
characteristic of a controlled demolition, rather than toppling to the
side and failing only partially if at all?
? Why did Building 7collapse? It was 47 stories high (571 feet), steel
frame, more than 300 feet from the nearest tower (WTC 1), was not hit by
an airplane, had no significant fire, and yet it too was completely
destroyed coming straight down, symmetrically, at freefall speed as if
by controlled demolition.
? What materials in the WTC provided the fuel to generate enough heat
(2,500 degrees F) to create the pools of molten steel reported by
firefighters and cleanup crews, when jet fuel has an open air burning
temperature of 600 degrees F and a maximum burning temperature of 1,800
degrees F?
? Why did the US Government spend only $600,000 to investigate the
collapse of all three WTC skyscrapers, when it spent $40 million to
investigate Clinton?s sex life?"
Heh, well he sure has a lot of questions, and especially like his last
one. And he certainly appears to believe that controlled demolition was
involved. But he's not saying that he himself can prove it.
Alan Haymond says:
"Suspicious on 9/11 about the collapses and the size of the original
hole in the Pentagon. Thoroughly convinced of cover up by April '02 -
too many unanswered questions. Recommend David Ray Griffin's books."
He says he's suspicious of the collapses, and was convinced well under a
year later that there was a coverup. But nowhere there does he
specifically say that he believes the collapses were the result of
controlled demolition, nor does he specifically say that he can prove it.
I've cited only the first ten here, but I've spent quite a lot of time
looking at many of the others, including in the engineers farther down
and also in the non-U.S. list. In some of them I'm finding the
qualifications listed in the Bio section to be questionable. I saw one
that listed his experience only in railroad engineering, and another who
didn't really list any experience with anything. I do see quite a few
saying they believed controlled demolitions were involved, but I'm also
seeing about the same number who merely are voicing suspicions and
calling for further investigation.
I haven't even found one yet, however, who specifically says that he or
she can prove that the buildings collapsed due to controlled
demolitions. There are a lot of them I haven't looked at yet, so I
won't deny that there may be some that I haven't seen yet who say that,
but I've looked at something like a hundred of them so far, and I still
haven't found one yet who says they can prove this.
Your original statement that I first replied to was this:
"Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC 9/11
catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can prove it."
In my reply I was obviously asking if it was really true that more than
1700 of them really said what you're attributing to them, and in your
reply to me you produced a link to a webpage that clearly shows your
statement to be rather exaggerated.
<051ad4cf-68b1-46b5...@v15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 8:22?pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <6cfaa52a-63e6-4a55-a6a5-3d5a112f3...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> > > ? For another scrupulously honest site dealing with the fall of the
> > > ? ?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
> > > prove it.
> >
> > 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?
>
> 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
> > not there are really that many, and so that we may independently verify
> > that they really are accredited architects and engineers?
>
> Here is the petition and the names. Come back and tell us what you
> found...:)
> http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php
from you to me. Sorry about that. Ok, let's take a look at this. Ah,
cool, you can click on each one and see their profile and their statement
about 9/11.
Richard Gage says:
'The WTC Twin Towers and Building #7 appear to have been brought down not
by jet impacts and/or fires as we have been led to believe - but by
controlled demolition with explosives. The evidence noted on
AE911Truth.org and other excellent websites is "prima facie" and will,
with the increasing public awareness and demand for the truth, result in a
new truly independent investigation with subpoena power. A/E's must now
become leaders for 9/11 Truth - Join Us!'
He says he believes that the buildings were brought down by controlled
demolition. But where does he say he himself can prove it? I don't see
that.
Daniel B. Barnum says:
'I have "known" from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that
they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by
the airplanes that ran into them.'
Nowhere does he say he himself can prove it, however.
David Paul Helpern says:
"The speed and symmetry of the collapses is not consistent with the
damage. A new investigation is needed."
Now wait, he does not specifically say here that controlled demolition
was used, although I suppose he may be implying that. But where does he
say he himself can prove it? I don't see him saying any such thing.
Kevin A. Kelly says:
"The Presentation made by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth at the
AIA Convention in San Francisco made a sufficient case that a new
investigation into the collapses of the 3 high rise buildings on 9/11/01
would be worthwhile."
Well now wait. I thought you said that all these people have said that
9/11 definitely *was* caused by controlled demolition, and that they can
prove it. But that's not quite what Mr. Kelly is saying here. He is
merely saying that due to the presentation for 911 Truth a new
investigation would be worthwhile. He isn't saying it actually *was*
caused by controlled demolition, or that he himself can prove it. He is
obviously just articulating a possibility.
Paul Stevenson Oles says:
"There appear too many unexplained events and unverified circumstances
to be satisfied with the official version of the New York building
collapses. As unthinkable as it is to suspect the United States
government or military of willful complicity in these horrendous acts,
it is even more heinous to allow such complicity--if indeed it
exists--to remain undiscovered and unpunished. Therefore, a thorough and
impartial investigation by an independent, well-funded commission is
fully merited."
He's definitely unsatisfied with the official explanation, but nowhere
there does he specifically say that the collapses were due to controlled
demolition, nor does he come anywhere remotely close to specifically
saying he can prove it.
Eason Cross says:
"The third building evidence is truly troubling. The 'why' is very hard
to comprehend."
I guess he means WTC 7, but he just says he's very troubled by it, and
does not comprehend why it collapsed. But he's not specifically saying
that he believes it *did* collapse due to controlled demolition, nor is
he saying he can prove it.
Harry G. Robinson III says:
"The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated.
The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to
implode as they did."
Well, he certainly seems to believe that controlled demolition was
involved. But he's not saying that he himself can prove it.
Abby Goodman's statement at this moment is "pending review."
Alan Anderson, Jr. says:
"? Why were two extremely tall buildings (110 stories - 1,362 feet),
completely destroyed, after burning for less than two hours, each coming
straight down, symmetrically, at freefall speed, all elements
characteristic of a controlled demolition, rather than toppling to the
side and failing only partially if at all?
? Why did Building 7collapse? It was 47 stories high (571 feet), steel
frame, more than 300 feet from the nearest tower (WTC 1), was not hit by
an airplane, had no significant fire, and yet it too was completely
destroyed coming straight down, symmetrically, at freefall speed as if
by controlled demolition.
? What materials in the WTC provided the fuel to generate enough heat
(2,500 degrees F) to create the pools of molten steel reported by
firefighters and cleanup crews, when jet fuel has an open air burning
temperature of 600 degrees F and a maximum burning temperature of 1,800
degrees F?
? Why did the US Government spend only $600,000 to investigate the
collapse of all three WTC skyscrapers, when it spent $40 million to
investigate Clinton?s sex life?"
Heh, well he sure has a lot of questions, and especially like his last
one. And he certainly appears to believe that controlled demolition was
involved. But he's not saying that he himself can prove it.
Alan Haymond says:
"Suspicious on 9/11 about the collapses and the size of the original
hole in the Pentagon. Thoroughly convinced of cover up by April '02 -
too many unanswered questions. Recommend David Ray Griffin's books."
He says he's suspicious of the collapses, and was convinced well under a
year later that there was a coverup. But nowhere there does he
specifically say that he believes the collapses were the result of
controlled demolition, nor does he specifically say that he can prove it.
I've cited only the first ten here, but I've spent quite a lot of time
looking at many of the others, including in the engineers farther down
and also in the non-U.S. list. In some of them I'm finding the
qualifications listed in the Bio section to be questionable. I saw one
that listed his experience only in railroad engineering, and another who
didn't really list any experience with anything. I do see quite a few
saying they believed controlled demolitions were involved, but I'm also
seeing about the same number who merely are voicing suspicions and
calling for further investigation.
I haven't even found one yet, however, who specifically says that he or
she can prove that the buildings collapsed due to controlled
demolitions. There are a lot of them I haven't looked at yet, so I
won't deny that there may be some that I haven't seen yet who say that,
but I've looked at something like a hundred of them so far, and I still
haven't found one yet who says they can prove this.
Your original statement that I first replied to was this:
"Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC 9/11
catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can prove it."
1700 of them really said what you're attributing to them, and in your
reply to me you produced a link to a webpage that clearly shows your
statement to be rather exaggerated.
curtjester1
Sep 25, 2012, 9:14:20 PM9/25/12
to
John Reagor King
Oct 6, 2012, 6:43:42 PM10/6/12
to
Fascinating that mainframetech went abruptly silent on this issue as
soon as I posted this.
In article <caeruleo-588FA8...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
soon as I posted this.
In article <caeruleo-588FA8...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
curtjester1
Oct 6, 2012, 9:08:42 PM10/6/12
to
On Oct 6, 6:43 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Fascinating that mainframetech went abruptly silent on this issue as
> soon as I posted this.
>
> In article <caeruleo-588FA8.14112025092...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Fascinating that mainframetech went abruptly silent on this issue as
> soon as I posted this.
>
> > <051ad4cf-68b1-46b5-8d2d-9fb69b44c...@v15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
similar topic and have finished off topics without your response. I think
what's important here is that so many professionals have stated a strong
opinion to their felt reasons for the falls. When one says provable they
might be wanting the exact scientific play by play of fall and won't
accept anything less. Very unrealistic to expect something of that
nature. If you feel like thumping your chest, why don't you come up with
something that says it wasn't by a demolition? Kinda unproductive to just
nitpick and not really say anything non- conspiratorial about it. I
posted a couple of items above that you didn't respond to. One was a
tremendous fire that burnt for much longer and would have been more
flame-worthy with the oxygen available to fuel the intense fire that did
not seem to want to compromise any of the beams. Also I showed a B-25
crashing into the Empire State Building and it had fire as well, and just
stuck into the building. Do you have any patterns of buildings coming down
via fire that look like demolitions? And isn't it true that many
buildings that are done in by many various impacts, just tend to topple
instead of come seemingly straight down? As for myself, I can't see even
IF the steel were hot enough to cause a compromised collapse, that it
wouldn't just collapse at the one point of it's compromising, and just
have the building topple over. I wonder if we will be hearing from you,
Mr. Chest Thumper?
CJ
curtjester1
Oct 7, 2012, 11:10:04 AM10/7/12
to
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Beijing_Mandarin_Oriental_Hotel_fi...
>
> CJ
Supposed CIA Informant on how 9/11 Towers went down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=rnbMjAN7Bws&feature=endscreen
CJ
mainframetech
Oct 7, 2012, 11:14:41 AM10/7/12
to
On Oct 6, 6:43 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Fascinating that mainframetech went abruptly silent on this issue as
> soon as I posted this.
>
> In article <caeruleo-588FA8.14112025092...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Fascinating that mainframetech went abruptly silent on this issue as
> soon as I posted this.
>
> John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> 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
>
> > > > > ? 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?
>
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.
>
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.
>
the subject often haven't looked into it far enough to be convinced.
Obviously, the 1,700+ signatories have looked far enough to convince
themselves that a new investigation needs to be done. Gage (and
others that speak on behalf of the organization) are able to prove the
contention by careful analysis of the dust from many lovations around
the WTC site. The dust contains something that other dust around NYC
does notr contain, and that is nano-thermite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite
On top of that discovery, they (as architects and engineers) have
satisfied themselves that the story of NIST was full of holes and that
the collapse of the 3 towers was accomplished by controlled
demolition. Their fields allow them the knowledge to make that sort
of determination for themselves and therefore to sign the request for
the investigation. Certainly those that think they know better can
find an architect or engineer to debate the topic with. I'm not in
those fields, but I believe I've seen enough evidence that it was
controlled demolition to suit me. The falling into their own
foootprint of 3 tall buildings, the extreme explosions heard in each
of the buildings before they fell, the sounds of explosions throughout
the buildings heard by firemen while they were in the buildings.
The freefall that tower 7 took when it went was (to me) impossible
for any building to take unless the supports were suddenly cut at the
core all at once. As well the statement by NIST that office fires
were enough to soften the steel in the building and allow it to fall
in such a perfect way for 3 buildings in the same event. NIST also
suggested that a single column could be bent and the whole building
would fall, if it was the right column. That's not sensible to me.
Now much of the above information I learned from looking into the
available information, of which there is much, both pro and con for
controlled demolition. The AE911truth group doesn't let intself get
into who did it, or why did they do it, or other possible political
reasons. They're (for now) only interested in determining
'officially' how the 3 towers fell. Conspiracies are for theorists,
and they have kept away from such, and stuck with scientific evidence
and method.
> > Daniel B. Barnum says:
>
> > 'I have "known" from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that
> > they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by
> > the airplanes that ran into them.'
>
> > Nowhere does he say he himself can prove it, however.
>
knowledge to make that determination, and spending many semesters
teaching the public architecture so they would understand his decision
would be ridiculous.
Barnum's resume is here:
http://www.hbl-architects.com/team/daniel_barnum.html
> > David Paul Helpern says:
>
> > "The speed and symmetry of the collapses is not consistent with the
> > damage. A new investigation is needed."
>
> > Now wait, he does not specifically say here that controlled demolition
> > was used, although I suppose he may be implying that. But where does he
> > say he himself can prove it? I don't see him saying any such thing.
>
reason for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
> > Kevin A. Kelly says:
>
> > "The Presentation made by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth at the
> > AIA Convention in San Francisco made a sufficient case that a new
> > investigation into the collapses of the 3 high rise buildings on 9/11/01
> > would be worthwhile."
>
> > Well now wait. I thought you said that all these people have said that
> > 9/11 definitely *was* caused by controlled demolition, and that they can
> > prove it. But that's not quite what Mr. Kelly is saying here. He is
> > merely saying that due to the presentation for 911 Truth a new
> > investigation would be worthwhile. He isn't saying it actually *was*
> > caused by controlled demolition, or that he himself can prove it. He is
> > obviously just articulating a possibility.
>
for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
> > Paul Stevenson Oles says:
>
> > "There appear too many unexplained events and unverified circumstances
> > to be satisfied with the official version of the New York building
> > collapses. As unthinkable as it is to suspect the United States
> > government or military of willful complicity in these horrendous acts,
> > it is even more heinous to allow such complicity--if indeed it
> > exists--to remain undiscovered and unpunished. Therefore, a thorough and
> > impartial investigation by an independent, well-funded commission is
> > fully merited."
>
> > He's definitely unsatisfied with the official explanation, but nowhere
> > there does he specifically say that the collapses were due to controlled
> > demolition, nor does he come anywhere remotely close to specifically
> > saying he can prove it.
>
for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
> > Eason Cross says:
>
> > "The third building evidence is truly troubling. The 'why' is very hard
> > to comprehend."
>
> > I guess he means WTC 7, but he just says he's very troubled by it, and
> > does not comprehend why it collapsed. But he's not specifically saying
> > that he believes it *did* collapse due to controlled demolition, nor is
> > he saying he can prove it.
>
for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
> > Harry G. Robinson III says:
>
> > "The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated.
> > The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to
> > implode as they did."
>
> > Well, he certainly seems to believe that controlled demolition was
> > involved. But he's not saying that he himself can prove it.
>
for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
> > Abby Goodman's statement at this moment is "pending review."
>
> > Alan Anderson, Jr. says:
>
> > "? Why were two extremely tall buildings (110 stories - 1,362 feet),
> > completely destroyed, after burning for less than two hours, each coming
> > straight down, symmetrically, at freefall speed, all elements
> > characteristic of a controlled demolition, rather than toppling to the
> > side and failing only partially if at all?
> > ? Why did Building 7collapse? It was 47 stories high (571 feet), steel
> > frame, more than 300 feet from the nearest tower (WTC 1), was not hit by
> > an airplane, had no significant fire, and yet it too was completely
> > destroyed coming straight down, symmetrically, at freefall speed as if
> > by controlled demolition.
> > ? What materials in the WTC provided the fuel to generate enough heat
> > (2,500 degrees F) to create the pools of molten steel reported by
> > firefighters and cleanup crews, when jet fuel has an open air burning
> > temperature of 600 degrees F and a maximum burning temperature of 1,800
> > degrees F?
> > ? Why did the US Government spend only $600,000 to investigate the
> > collapse of all three WTC skyscrapers, when it spent $40 million to
> > investigate Clinton?s sex life?"
>
> > Heh, well he sure has a lot of questions, and especially like his last
> > one. And he certainly appears to believe that controlled demolition was
> > involved. But he's not saying that he himself can prove it.
>
for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
> > Alan Haymond says:
>
> > "Suspicious on 9/11 about the collapses and the size of the original
> > hole in the Pentagon. Thoroughly convinced of cover up by April '02 -
> > too many unanswered questions. Recommend David Ray Griffin's books."
>
> > He says he's suspicious of the collapses, and was convinced well under a
> > year later that there was a coverup. But nowhere there does he
> > specifically say that he believes the collapses were the result of
> > controlled demolition, nor does he specifically say that he can prove it.
>
for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
> > I've cited only the first ten here, but I've spent quite a lot of time
> > looking at many of the others, including in the engineers farther down
> > and also in the non-U.S. list. In some of them I'm finding the
> > qualifications listed in the Bio section to be questionable. I saw one
> > that listed his experience only in railroad engineering, and another who
> > didn't really list any experience with anything. I do see quite a few
> > saying they believed controlled demolitions were involved, but I'm also
> > seeing about the same number who merely are voicing suspicions and
> > calling for further investigation.
>
> > I haven't even found one yet, however, who specifically says that he or
> > she can prove that the buildings collapsed due to controlled
> > demolitions. There are a lot of them I haven't looked at yet, so I
> > won't deny that there may be some that I haven't seen yet who say that,
> > but I've looked at something like a hundred of them so far, and I still
> > haven't found one yet who says they can prove this.
>
> > Your original statement that I first replied to was this:
>
> > "Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC 9/11
> > catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can prove it."
>
> > In my reply I was obviously asking if it was really true that more than
> > 1700 of them really said what you're attributing to them, and in your
> > reply to me you produced a link to a webpage that clearly shows your
> > statement to be rather exaggerated.
are saying that they believe that controlled demolition was used. The
reason is that they don't believe the NIST story which was put
together by people in the correct fields to determine the cause of the
collapses, and if the collapses were not by softened steel, the only
other method of dropping buildings, especially where they fall into
their own footprints almost exactly, is controlled demolition.
However, would it help you to hear it from controlled demolition
specialists?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcwnJTpholc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc
If this topic is interesting for you, I would suggest that you look
a bit deeper than the theories of the 'debunkers' and go through the
evidence. There are many videos available on the 'net.
To see the interest of others around the world in the topic, use
"for 911 truth" in a Google search and see how many organizations have
been put together on the subject.
To see and hear the experience of a man that was in building 7 when
the explosions were going off go here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LO5V2CJpzI
Chris
Sandy McCroskey
Oct 7, 2012, 6:06:20 PM10/7/12
to
"controlled demo" theory, or, I would think, you would have quickly become
*un*convinced, like any reasonable person.
Try the resources here:
http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18
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.
architects had no specific expertise related to controlled demolition?
http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/topten/no-expertise/
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.
/sm
Anthony Marsh
Oct 8, 2012, 12:03:39 AM10/8/12
to
aluminum of the plane on the rusted steel beams.
Aluminum+rust=thermite.
> On top of that discovery, they (as architects and engineers) have
> satisfied themselves that the story of NIST was full of holes and that
> the collapse of the 3 towers was accomplished by controlled
> demolition. Their fields allow them the knowledge to make that sort
> of determination for themselves and therefore to sign the request for
> the investigation. Certainly those that think they know better can
> find an architect or engineer to debate the topic with. I'm not in
> those fields, but I believe I've seen enough evidence that it was
> controlled demolition to suit me. The falling into their own
> foootprint of 3 tall buildings, the extreme explosions heard in each
> of the buildings before they fell, the sounds of explosions throughout
> the buildings heard by firemen while they were in the buildings.
>
> The freefall that tower 7 took when it went was (to me) impossible
> for any building to take unless the supports were suddenly cut at the
> core all at once. As well the statement by NIST that office fires
sequence with a slight delay between floors. Have you ever watched BOOM?
> were enough to soften the steel in the building and allow it to fall
> in such a perfect way for 3 buildings in the same event. NIST also
> suggested that a single column could be bent and the whole building
> would fall, if it was the right column. That's not sensible to me.
>
bring down the whole building.
Like a house of cards.
propaganda.
> If this topic is interesting for you, I would suggest that you look
> a bit deeper than the theories of the 'debunkers' and go through the
> evidence. There are many videos available on the 'net.
>
> To see the interest of others around the world in the topic, use
> "for 911 truth" in a Google search and see how many organizations have
> been put together on the subject.
>
> To see and hear the experience of a man that was in building 7 when
> the explosions were going off go here:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LO5V2CJpzI
>
> Chris
>
Anthony Marsh
Oct 8, 2012, 12:09:57 AM10/8/12
to
demolitions. It appears that you have never actually seen a real
controlled demolition.
> nitpick and not really say anything non- conspiratorial about it. I
> posted a couple of items above that you didn't respond to. One was a
> tremendous fire that burnt for much longer and would have been more
> flame-worthy with the oxygen available to fuel the intense fire that did
> not seem to want to compromise any of the beams. Also I showed a B-25
> crashing into the Empire State Building and it had fire as well, and just
> stuck into the building. Do you have any patterns of buildings coming down
fully laden masssive jumbo jets.
> via fire that look like demolitions? And isn't it true that many
> buildings that are done in by many various impacts, just tend to topple
> instead of come seemingly straight down? As for myself, I can't see even
pancaking into their own footprint.
mainframetech
Oct 8, 2012, 12:14:24 AM10/8/12
to
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.
Now that's not too evidential a base for believing anything...:)
That's closer to theories than anything I'm looking for. Actually,
they HAVE proved 'controlled demolition' with science, not theories.
It sounds like you didn't research the subject, you looked at sites
and information that will bolster your view of the world, and avoid
evidence that scares you out of your pants. That's not very
scientific. With science, you start with the data and information,
then form a belief from that, testing it against all other
possibilities. Try it...:)
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.
Interestingly enough, I presented 2 'controlled demolition' experts
here and they have both been wiped out. Talk about fear! Now why
would that be? Is someone not ewanting that EVIDENCE to get out?
Here they are again, try to leave them available for those who think
with open minds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcwnJTpholc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k82vowo7doE
curtjester1
Oct 8, 2012, 12:14:40 AM10/8/12
to
>
> 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.
>
> /sm
Why don't you find groups that support the 'official story', like
> 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.
>
> /sm
that?
Here are other groups that are compelled to find further truth
Pilots for 9 11 Truth
Patriots for 9 11 Truth
Scholars for 9 11 Truth
Veterans for 9 11 Truth
Architects for 9 11 Truth
Scientists for 9 11 Truth
Firefighters for 9 11 Truth
Press for Truth 9 11
add Military officers and other groups as well.
CJ
Sandy McCroskey
Oct 8, 2012, 5:23:00 PM10/8/12
to
It can't be proved any more than, say, the theory that Neil Armstrong
never walked on the moon.
But the CD theory is also as ridiculous as that.
Next you'll be telling me there weren't even any planes.
> Now that's not too evidential a base for believing anything...:)
> That's closer to theories than anything I'm looking for. Actually,
> they HAVE proved 'controlled demolition' with science, not theories.
> It sounds like you didn't research the subject, you looked at sites
> and information that will bolster your view of the world, and avoid
> evidence that scares you out of your pants. That's not very
> scientific. With science, you start with the data and information,
> then form a belief from that, testing it against all other
> possibilities. Try it...:)
>
curious about how alternative realities are maintained. The similarities
are striking between the perpetuation of certain urban legends about the
Kennedy assassination and the stubborn persistence of delirious
misinterpretations of the fall of the World Trade Center.
Some theories are so ridiculous that a person capable of believing them in
the first place is likely to be impervious to any evidence to the
contrary. But I do what I can.
The way-out theory is your thinking that 99.99999 percent of the
"architects and engineers" (and not sanitation engineers) in the world
are afraid to admit something that such an astute non-expert as yourself
can see just as plain as the nose on your face.
And wow, whoever's behind this plot would have had to count on that.
But never fear. The Truthers are on the trail!
Too funny.
> Interestingly enough, I presented 2 'controlled demolition' experts
> here and they have both been wiped out. Talk about fear! Now why
> would that be?
anything intentionally.)
Is someone not ewanting that EVIDENCE to get out?
> Here they are again, try to leave them available for those who think
> with open minds:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcwnJTpholc
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k82vowo7doE
>
/sm
Anthony Marsh
Oct 8, 2012, 7:58:19 PM10/8/12
to
mainframetech
Oct 8, 2012, 8:03:13 PM10/8/12
to
think it isn't true! So you have NO backup for your contention that
'controlled demolition' was not used to bring down the 3 towers, right?
Meaning that I must be right as far as any debate on the matter because
you are unable to mount a decent viewpoint. Your own personal opinion
counts only in your house, not here where you have to prove your point.
Do you have any facts to support your view? So far you've produced
nothing but your personal opinion, which carries no weight here. I'm able
to produce scientrific proof and studies backing up my contentions and
those of the architects and Engineers.
> It can't be proved any more than, say, the theory that Neil Armstrong
> never walked on the moon.
> But the CD theory is also as ridiculous as that.
>
THEORY. Nope. I'm talking about facts...I have NO interest in your
theories. I've pointed out facts concerning the bringing down of the 3
towers, now do you have any facts to say otherwise?
> Next you'll be telling me there weren't even any planes.
>
towers. I saw NO plane that hit the WTC 7 tower. Did you?
> > Now that's not too evidential a base for believing anything...:)
> > That's closer to theories than anything I'm looking for. Actually,
> > they HAVE proved 'controlled demolition' with science, not theories.
> > It sounds like you didn't research the subject, you looked at sites
> > and information that will bolster your view of the world, and avoid
> > evidence that scares you out of your pants. That's not very
> > scientific. With science, you start with the data and information,
> > then form a belief from that, testing it against all other
> > possibilities. Try it...:)
>
> I've seen both the bunk and the debunking, of course. I have long been
> curious about how alternative realities are maintained. The similarities
> are striking between the perpetuation of certain urban legends about the
> Kennedy assassination and the stubborn persistence of delirious
> misinterpretations of the fall of the World Trade Center.
>
I'm an evidence person. I'm NOT interested in your theories of
conspiracies or legends. Where are your facts that prove conclusions?
If you have no facts, then you've lost your point and are howling at the
moon.
> Some theories are so ridiculous that a person capable of believing them in
> the first place is likely to be impervious to any evidence to the
> contrary. But I do what I can.
>
people back over a hundred years ago knew that man flying in a device was
'ridiculous' and they stated their belief loudly. they said it couldn't
be becasue 'it was ridiculous'. Now here we are flying around al over the
place in planes. Don't you feel silly?
fall of the towers was 'controlled demolition' were crackpots? Even
though they are experts in that field and you are probably not? What do
you base your 'fact' on? Leprechauns?
> The way-out theory is your thinking that 99.99999 percent of the
> "architects and engineers" (and not sanitation engineers) in the world
> are afraid to admit something that such an astute non-expert as yourself
> can see just as plain as the nose on your face.
> And wow, whoever's behind this plot would have had to count on that.
> But never fear. The Truthers are on the trail!
> Too funny.
>
argument like a grown adult?
> > Interestingly enough, I presented 2 'controlled demolition' experts
> > here and they have both been wiped out. Talk about fear! Now why
> > would that be?
>
> (Not sure if you're blaming me or an earlier poster, I didn't delete
> anything intentionally.)
>
disappeared.
> Is someone not wanting that EVIDENCE to get out?
>
> > Here they are again, try to leave them available for those who think
> > with open minds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcwnJTpholc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k82vowo7doE
>
> Have you perused the helpful links I sent?
Of course, and I left a comment on them. They looked like conspiracy
> > Here they are again, try to leave them available for those who think
> > with open minds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcwnJTpholc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k82vowo7doE
>
> Have you perused the helpful links I sent?
documents and I'm not into that stuff. The inevitable Randi sees
conspiracies everywhere made to fool him, but he's too smart. However, I
like facts and will be glad to present whatever I can on the current
topic. Now how about you? Have any facts to support your opinion that
all the facts are wrong or lies?
You might want to watch the effort on the part of Popular Mechanics as
they tried to prove AE911truth wrong. They were soundly stomped by facts
and scientific knowledge!
Chris
John Reagor King
Oct 8, 2012, 8:53:47 PM10/8/12
to
In article
<3f828de9-5a1c-4015...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 6:43?pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Fascinating that mainframetech went abruptly silent on this issue as
> > soon as I posted this.
> >
> > In article <caeruleo-588FA8.14112025092...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
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.
> > > > ? ?Here is the petition and the names. ?Come back and tell us what you
to me too.
> > > Richard Gage says:
> >
> > > 'The WTC Twin Towers and Building #7 appear to have been brought down not
> > > by jet impacts and/or fires as we have been led to believe - but by
> > > controlled demolition with explosives. The evidence noted on
> > > AE911Truth.org and other excellent websites is "prima facie" and will,
> > > with the increasing public awareness and demand for the truth, result in
> > > a
> > > new truly independent investigation with subpoena power. A/E's must now
> > > become leaders for 9/11 Truth - Join Us!'
> >
> > > He says he believes that the buildings were brought down by controlled
> > > demolition. ?But where does he say he himself can prove it? ?I don't see
> Gage (and
> others that speak on behalf of the organization) are able to prove the
> contention by careful analysis of the dust from many lovations around
> the WTC site.
Richard Gage has specifically said he can prove this? Please quote him
verbatim saying that exact thing, along with the original source for the
quote. He certainly did not specifically say he could prove this in the
quote I provided above.
> The dust contains something that other dust around NYC
> does notr contain, and that is nano-thermite.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite
That may be. It still does not support your original claim that more than
1700 of these people have specifically stated that the buildings most
definitely *were* brought down by controlled demolition, nor does it
support your original claim that all of them also specifically stated that
they can *prove* this to be true. Very few of them that I found
specifically stated either of the things you said they did.
> On top of that discovery, they (as architects and engineers) have
> satisfied themselves that the story of NIST was full of holes and that
> the collapse of the 3 towers was accomplished by controlled
> demolition.
All 1700+ of them have "satisfied themselves" of this? Why do so few of
them specifically say that on that website then? Merely saying that
they have doubts about the official explanation isn't quite the same
thing as specifically stating that they are completely "satisfied" that
the buildings most definitely *were* brought down by controlled
demolition. You are still exaggerating what these people have actually
stated.
> Their fields allow them the knowledge to make that sort
> of determination for themselves and therefore to sign the request for
> the investigation.
Yes, a request for further investigation. Because they have doubts.
That's still not the same thing as them specifically stating that they
are *all* *entirely* convinced that the buildings most definitely *were*
claim that anywhere even remotely close to 1700 of these people have
actually specifically stated the things you claimed that they
specifically stated.
> I'm not in
> those fields, but I believe I've seen enough evidence that it was
> controlled demolition to suit me. The falling into their own
> foootprint of 3 tall buildings,
I don't see why that's absolutely impossible from the plane impacts
only. And I've seen more than enough of the footage to plainly see that
neither WCT One or Two collapsed straight downward. In both cases parts
of the buildings toppled to the sides.
> > > Daniel B. Barnum says:
> >
> > > 'I have "known" from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that
> > > they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by
> > > the airplanes that ran into them.'
> >
> > > Nowhere does he say he himself can prove it, however.
> >
> Think how foolish that is. If he is an architect, then he has the
> knowledge to make that determination, and spending many semesters
> teaching the public architecture so they would understand his decision
> would be ridiculous.
>
> Barnum's resume is here:
> http://www.hbl-architects.com/team/daniel_barnum.html
I did not say anything even slightly "foolish." I did not say that he
doesn't have the knowledge to make such a determination. I am merely
pointing out to you that in that quote I provided he did not say what
you claimed all 1700+ of these people said, that they can prove this is
what actually happened. He did not specifically say that.
> > > David Paul Helpern says:
> >
> > > "The speed and symmetry of the collapses is not consistent with the
> > > damage. A new investigation is needed."
> >
> > > Now wait, he does not specifically say here that controlled demolition
> > > was used, although I suppose he may be implying that. ?But where does he
> > > say he himself can prove it? ?I don't see him saying any such thing.
explanation. You are engaging in too much speculation, reading into his
statement something he may or may not have meant. Just because he signed
the petition does not automatically mean that he is 100% convinced that
the buildings most definitely *did* collapse due to controlled demolition,
and merely signing the petition doesn't automatically mean that he himself
can *prove* it to be so. Sure, he MIGHT have meant what you think he
meant, but you're acting as if it is an absolute certainty that that's
what he meant, and that is not necessarily so.
> > > Kevin A. Kelly says:
> >
> > > "The Presentation made by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth at the
> > > AIA Convention in San Francisco made a sufficient case that a new
> > > investigation into the collapses of the 3 high rise buildings on 9/11/01
> > > would be worthwhile."
> >
> > > Well now wait. ?I thought you said that all these people have said that
> > > caused by controlled demolition, or that he himself can prove it. ?He is
is the equivalent of them saying that the buildings most definitely
*did* collapse for the reason you claim, and that signing the petition
in and of itself is the equivalent of each of these people specifically
stating that they can *prove* it, is simply not in evidence.
> > > Paul Stevenson Oles says:
> >
> > > "There appear too many unexplained events and unverified circumstances
> > > to be satisfied with the official version of the New York building
> > > collapses. As unthinkable as it is to suspect the United States
> > > government or military of willful complicity in these horrendous acts,
> > > it is even more heinous to allow such complicity--if indeed it
> > > exists--to remain undiscovered and unpunished. Therefore, a thorough and
> > > impartial investigation by an independent, well-funded commission is
> > > fully merited."
> >
> > > He's definitely unsatisfied with the official explanation, but nowhere
> > > there does he specifically say that the collapses were due to controlled
> > > demolition, nor does he come anywhere remotely close to specifically
> > > saying he can prove it.
> >
> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
Wrong. That is the implication in *your* *opinion*. You have no possible
way of knowing that in each and every case that that was the actual
*intent* of each of these people when they signed the petition. And
average common sense would indicate that not all of these people would
have absolutely identical viewpoints regarding the signing of this
petition. You are assuming too much about their viewpoints. You are
assuming they meant certain things without actually seeing them
specifically state what you think they meant.
> > > Eason Cross says:
> >
> > > "The third building evidence is truly troubling. The 'why' is very hard
> > > to comprehend."
> >
> > > I guess he means WTC 7, but he just says he's very troubled by it, and
> > > does not comprehend why it collapsed. ?But he's not specifically saying
regarding his signing of it. I don't see him saying that he is signing
the petition because he's satisfied as to the true reason for the
collapse. I see him saying that he is *dissatisfied* with the official
explanation. That isn't quite the same thing as him specifically saying
that he is completely *satisfied* as to any alternate explanation.
> > > Harry G. Robinson III says:
> >
> > > "The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated.
> > > The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to
> > > implode as they did."
> >
> > > Well, he certainly seems to believe that controlled demolition was
> > > involved. ?But he's not saying that he himself can prove it.
misguided conclusion in identical wording? And even if in this case he
said he *is* satisfied as to why he thinks the buildings "really" came
down, he did NOT say that he himself can PROVE it, so I disagree with
you that he was "implying" that he CAN merely by signing the petition.
That MIGHT have been what he meant by signing the petition, but you have
no possible way of knowing that for certain unless you can quote him
verbatim, along with the original source for the quote, saying very
*specifically* that the *reason* he signed the petition is that he *can*
prove this. It has to be a quote something like this:
"One of the reasons I signed the petition is because I am quite
confident that I myself can prove that the buildings collapsed due to
controlled demolition."
Until you can quote him verbatim saying something like that, you are
merely speculating when you claim that his signing the petition alone
"implies" that this was one of his reasons for signing it.
> > > Abby Goodman's statement at this moment is "pending review."
> >
> > > Alan Anderson, Jr. says:
> >
> > > "? Why were two extremely tall buildings (110 stories - 1,362 feet),
> > > completely destroyed, after burning for less than two hours, each coming
> > > straight down, symmetrically, at freefall speed, all elements
> > > characteristic of a controlled demolition, rather than toppling to the
> > > side and failing only partially if at all?
> > > ? Why did Building 7collapse? It was 47 stories high (571 feet), steel
> > > frame, more than 300 feet from the nearest tower (WTC 1), was not hit by
> > > an airplane, had no significant fire, and yet it too was completely
> > > destroyed coming straight down, symmetrically, at freefall speed as if
> > > by controlled demolition.
> > > ? What materials in the WTC provided the fuel to generate enough heat
> > > (2,500 degrees F) to create the pools of molten steel reported by
> > > firefighters and cleanup crews, when jet fuel has an open air burning
> > > temperature of 600 degrees F and a maximum burning temperature of 1,800
> > > degrees F?
> > > ? Why did the US Government spend only $600,000 to investigate the
> > > collapse of all three WTC skyscrapers, when it spent $40 million to
> > > investigate Clinton?s sex life?"
> >
> > > Heh, well he sure has a lot of questions, and especially like his last
> > > one. ?And he certainly appears to believe that controlled demolition was
> > > involved. ?But he's not saying that he himself can prove it.
> > > Alan Haymond says:
> >
> > > "Suspicious on 9/11 about the collapses and the size of the original
> > > hole in the Pentagon. Thoroughly convinced of cover up by April '02 -
> > > too many unanswered questions. Recommend David Ray Griffin's books."
> >
> > > He says he's suspicious of the collapses, and was convinced well under a
> > > year later that there was a coverup. ?But nowhere there does he
implies that exact thing.
> > > I've cited only the first ten here, but I've spent quite a lot of time
> > > looking at many of the others, including in the engineers farther down
> > > and also in the non-U.S. list. ?In some of them I'm finding the
> > > qualifications listed in the Bio section to be questionable. ?I saw one
only your OPINION that that's what they all meant. And what they
actually SAID when signing the petition clearly shows that many of them
signed it, not so much because they are completely satisfied that the
buildings most definitely WERE brought down by controlled demolition,
but mainly because they have their doubts about whether or not the
impacts of the planes alone brought down the buildings. You are acting
as if every single one of these people signed the petition out of a
sense of absolute CERTAINTY that controlled demolition was used, and
that is NOT what most of them GAVE as their reasons for signing the
petition. How would you know better than these people themselves why
each of them signed the petition? And again, simple common sense would
indicate that the likelihood of this many people having absolutely
identical reasons for signing it is so incredibly remote as to not be
worth serious considerations.
> The
> reason is that they don't believe the NIST story which was put
> together by people in the correct fields to determine the cause of the
> collapses, and if the collapses were not by softened steel, the only
> other method of dropping buildings, especially where they fall into
> their own footprints almost exactly, is controlled demolition.
> However, would it help you to hear it from controlled demolition
> specialists?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcwnJTpholc
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc
>
> If this topic is interesting for you, I would suggest that you look
> a bit deeper than the theories of the 'debunkers' and go through the
> evidence. There are many videos available on the 'net.
>
> To see the interest of others around the world in the topic, use
> "for 911 truth" in a Google search and see how many organizations have
> been put together on the subject.
>
> To see and hear the experience of a man that was in building 7 when
> the explosions were going off go here:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LO5V2CJpzI
I've already seen many, if not all, of these videos, thank you. None of
this comes within one-million light-years of proving your original
statement to be correct:
"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."
No, most of them have signed off for the reasons they themselves gave,
which they themselves would know far better than you or me. You are
attributing viewpoints to many of them that they did not say they had.
<3f828de9-5a1c-4015...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 6:43?pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Fascinating that mainframetech went abruptly silent on this issue as
> > soon as I posted this.
> >
> > In article <caeruleo-588FA8.14112025092...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > ?John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > ? For another scrupulously honest site dealing with the fall of the
> > > > > > THREE towers, go here:
> >
> > > > > >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.
That may be, but your original claim is still provably false. Here are
> >
> > > > > > ? 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.
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."
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.
> > > > ? ?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,
> > > >http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php
> >
> > > Thank you, and I have no idea why it took me six days to see this reply
> > > cool, you can click on each one and see their profile and their statement
> > > about 9/11.
> >
> Chris interjects:
> Sorry I didn't see your comment. If I had, I would've replied
> immediately.
All right, no problem. I won't deny that sometimes I miss replies made
> > > about 9/11.
> >
> Chris interjects:
> Sorry I didn't see your comment. If I had, I would've replied
> immediately.
to me too.
> > > Richard Gage says:
> >
> > > 'The WTC Twin Towers and Building #7 appear to have been brought down not
> > > by jet impacts and/or fires as we have been led to believe - but by
> > > controlled demolition with explosives. The evidence noted on
> > > AE911Truth.org and other excellent websites is "prima facie" and will,
> > > with the increasing public awareness and demand for the truth, result in
> > > a
> > > new truly independent investigation with subpoena power. A/E's must now
> > > become leaders for 9/11 Truth - Join Us!'
> >
> > > He says he believes that the buildings were brought down by controlled
> > > 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.
> >
> As a convinced person myself, I sometimes forget that newbies to
> the subject often haven't looked into it far enough to be convinced.
> Obviously, the 1,700+ signatories have looked far enough to convince
> themselves that a new investigation needs to be done.
> Gage (and
> others that speak on behalf of the organization) are able to prove the
> contention by careful analysis of the dust from many lovations around
> the WTC site.
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.
> The dust contains something that other dust around NYC
> does notr contain, and that is nano-thermite.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite
1700 of these people have specifically stated that the buildings most
definitely *were* brought down by controlled demolition, nor does it
support your original claim that all of them also specifically stated that
they can *prove* this to be true. Very few of them that I found
specifically stated either of the things you said they did.
> On top of that discovery, they (as architects and engineers) have
> satisfied themselves that the story of NIST was full of holes and that
> the collapse of the 3 towers was accomplished by controlled
> demolition.
them specifically say that on that website then? Merely saying that
they have doubts about the official explanation isn't quite the same
thing as specifically stating that they are completely "satisfied" that
the buildings most definitely *were* brought down by controlled
demolition. You are still exaggerating what these people have actually
stated.
> Their fields allow them the knowledge to make that sort
> of determination for themselves and therefore to sign the request for
> the investigation.
That's still not the same thing as them specifically stating that they
are *all* *entirely* convinced that the buildings most definitely *were*
brought down by controlled demolition.
> Certainly those that think they know better can
> find an architect or engineer to debate the topic with.
I'm not saying I know better, I'm merely disputing your obviously false
> find an architect or engineer to debate the topic with.
claim that anywhere even remotely close to 1700 of these people have
actually specifically stated the things you claimed that they
specifically stated.
> I'm not in
> those fields, but I believe I've seen enough evidence that it was
> controlled demolition to suit me. The falling into their own
> foootprint of 3 tall buildings,
only. And I've seen more than enough of the footage to plainly see that
neither WCT One or Two collapsed straight downward. In both cases parts
of the buildings toppled to the sides.
> > > Daniel B. Barnum says:
> >
> > > 'I have "known" from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that
> > > they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by
> > > the airplanes that ran into them.'
> >
> > > Nowhere does he say he himself can prove it, however.
> >
> Think how foolish that is. If he is an architect, then he has the
> knowledge to make that determination, and spending many semesters
> teaching the public architecture so they would understand his decision
> would be ridiculous.
>
> Barnum's resume is here:
> http://www.hbl-architects.com/team/daniel_barnum.html
doesn't have the knowledge to make such a determination. I am merely
pointing out to you that in that quote I provided he did not say what
you claimed all 1700+ of these people said, that they can prove this is
what actually happened. He did not specifically say that.
> > > David Paul Helpern says:
> >
> > > "The speed and symmetry of the collapses is not consistent with the
> > > damage. A new investigation is needed."
> >
> > > Now wait, he does not specifically say here that controlled demolition
> > > say he himself can prove it? ?I don't see him saying any such thing.
> >
> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the
> reason for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
No, he signed the petition because he has doubts about the official
> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the
> reason for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
explanation. You are engaging in too much speculation, reading into his
statement something he may or may not have meant. Just because he signed
the petition does not automatically mean that he is 100% convinced that
the buildings most definitely *did* collapse due to controlled demolition,
and merely signing the petition doesn't automatically mean that he himself
can *prove* it to be so. Sure, he MIGHT have meant what you think he
meant, but you're acting as if it is an absolute certainty that that's
what he meant, and that is not necessarily so.
> > > Kevin A. Kelly says:
> >
> > > "The Presentation made by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth at the
> > > AIA Convention in San Francisco made a sufficient case that a new
> > > investigation into the collapses of the 3 high rise buildings on 9/11/01
> > > would be worthwhile."
> >
> > > 9/11 definitely *was* caused by controlled demolition, and that they can
> > > prove it. ?But that's not quite what Mr. Kelly is saying here. ?He is
> > > merely saying that due to the presentation for 911 Truth a new
> > > investigation would be worthwhile. ?He isn't saying it actually *was*
> > > caused by controlled demolition, or that he himself can prove it. ?He is
> > > obviously just articulating a possibility.
> >
> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
See above. Your contention that signing the petition in and of itself
> >
> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
is the equivalent of them saying that the buildings most definitely
*did* collapse for the reason you claim, and that signing the petition
in and of itself is the equivalent of each of these people specifically
stating that they can *prove* it, is simply not in evidence.
> > > Paul Stevenson Oles says:
> >
> > > "There appear too many unexplained events and unverified circumstances
> > > to be satisfied with the official version of the New York building
> > > collapses. As unthinkable as it is to suspect the United States
> > > government or military of willful complicity in these horrendous acts,
> > > it is even more heinous to allow such complicity--if indeed it
> > > exists--to remain undiscovered and unpunished. Therefore, a thorough and
> > > impartial investigation by an independent, well-funded commission is
> > > fully merited."
> >
> > > He's definitely unsatisfied with the official explanation, but nowhere
> > > there does he specifically say that the collapses were due to controlled
> > > demolition, nor does he come anywhere remotely close to specifically
> > > saying he can prove it.
> >
> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
way of knowing that in each and every case that that was the actual
*intent* of each of these people when they signed the petition. And
average common sense would indicate that not all of these people would
have absolutely identical viewpoints regarding the signing of this
petition. You are assuming too much about their viewpoints. You are
assuming they meant certain things without actually seeing them
specifically state what you think they meant.
> > > Eason Cross says:
> >
> > > "The third building evidence is truly troubling. The 'why' is very hard
> > > to comprehend."
> >
> > > I guess he means WTC 7, but he just says he's very troubled by it, and
> > > that he believes it *did* collapse due to controlled demolition, nor is
> > > he saying he can prove it.
> >
> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
Again, wrong. That is not necessarily the implication in his own mind
> > > he saying he can prove it.
> >
> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
regarding his signing of it. I don't see him saying that he is signing
the petition because he's satisfied as to the true reason for the
collapse. I see him saying that he is *dissatisfied* with the official
explanation. That isn't quite the same thing as him specifically saying
that he is completely *satisfied* as to any alternate explanation.
> > > Harry G. Robinson III says:
> >
> > > "The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated.
> > > The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to
> > > implode as they did."
> >
> > > Well, he certainly seems to believe that controlled demolition was
> >
> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
Good lordy, how many times are you just going to repeat exactly the same
> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
misguided conclusion in identical wording? And even if in this case he
said he *is* satisfied as to why he thinks the buildings "really" came
down, he did NOT say that he himself can PROVE it, so I disagree with
you that he was "implying" that he CAN merely by signing the petition.
That MIGHT have been what he meant by signing the petition, but you have
no possible way of knowing that for certain unless you can quote him
verbatim, along with the original source for the quote, saying very
*specifically* that the *reason* he signed the petition is that he *can*
prove this. It has to be a quote something like this:
"One of the reasons I signed the petition is because I am quite
confident that I myself can prove that the buildings collapsed due to
controlled demolition."
Until you can quote him verbatim saying something like that, you are
merely speculating when you claim that his signing the petition alone
"implies" that this was one of his reasons for signing it.
> > > Abby Goodman's statement at this moment is "pending review."
> >
> > > Alan Anderson, Jr. says:
> >
> > > "? Why were two extremely tall buildings (110 stories - 1,362 feet),
> > > completely destroyed, after burning for less than two hours, each coming
> > > straight down, symmetrically, at freefall speed, all elements
> > > characteristic of a controlled demolition, rather than toppling to the
> > > side and failing only partially if at all?
> > > ? Why did Building 7collapse? It was 47 stories high (571 feet), steel
> > > frame, more than 300 feet from the nearest tower (WTC 1), was not hit by
> > > an airplane, had no significant fire, and yet it too was completely
> > > destroyed coming straight down, symmetrically, at freefall speed as if
> > > by controlled demolition.
> > > ? What materials in the WTC provided the fuel to generate enough heat
> > > (2,500 degrees F) to create the pools of molten steel reported by
> > > firefighters and cleanup crews, when jet fuel has an open air burning
> > > temperature of 600 degrees F and a maximum burning temperature of 1,800
> > > degrees F?
> > > ? Why did the US Government spend only $600,000 to investigate the
> > > collapse of all three WTC skyscrapers, when it spent $40 million to
> > > investigate Clinton?s sex life?"
> >
> > > Heh, well he sure has a lot of questions, and especially like his last
> > > involved. ?But he's not saying that he himself can prove it.
> >
> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
Wrong. That is pure speculation on your part.
> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
> > > Alan Haymond says:
> >
> > > "Suspicious on 9/11 about the collapses and the size of the original
> > > hole in the Pentagon. Thoroughly convinced of cover up by April '02 -
> > > too many unanswered questions. Recommend David Ray Griffin's books."
> >
> > > He says he's suspicious of the collapses, and was convinced well under a
> > > specifically say that he believes the collapses were the result of
> > > controlled demolition, nor does he specifically say that he can prove it.
> >
> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
Still just speculation on your part that just signing the petition
> > > controlled demolition, nor does he specifically say that he can prove it.
> >
> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
implies that exact thing.
> > > I've cited only the first ten here, but I've spent quite a lot of time
> > > looking at many of the others, including in the engineers farther down
> > > qualifications listed in the Bio section to be questionable. ?I saw one
> > > that listed his experience only in railroad engineering, and another who
> > > didn't really list any experience with anything. ?I do see quite a few
> > > saying they believed controlled demolitions were involved, but I'm also
> > > seeing about the same number who merely are voicing suspicions and
> > > calling for further investigation.
> >
> > > I haven't even found one yet, however, who specifically says that he or
> > > she can prove that the buildings collapsed due to controlled
> > > demolitions. ?There are a lot of them I haven't looked at yet, so I
> > > seeing about the same number who merely are voicing suspicions and
> > > calling for further investigation.
> >
> > > I haven't even found one yet, however, who specifically says that he or
> > > she can prove that the buildings collapsed due to controlled
> > > won't deny that there may be some that I haven't seen yet who say that,
> > > but I've looked at something like a hundred of them so far, and I still
> > > haven't found one yet who says they can prove this.
> >
> > > Your original statement that I first replied to was this:
> >
> > > "Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC 9/11
> > > catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can prove it."
> >
> > > In my reply I was obviously asking if it was really true that more than
> > > 1700 of them really said what you're attributing to them, and in your
> > > reply to me you produced a link to a webpage that clearly shows your
> > > statement to be rather exaggerated.
>
> I gave you a correct version above. By signing the petition, they
> are saying that they believe that controlled demolition was used.
No they are NOT saying that merely by SIGNING the petition. That is
> > > but I've looked at something like a hundred of them so far, and I still
> > > haven't found one yet who says they can prove this.
> >
> > > Your original statement that I first replied to was this:
> >
> > > "Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC 9/11
> > > catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can prove it."
> >
> > > In my reply I was obviously asking if it was really true that more than
> > > 1700 of them really said what you're attributing to them, and in your
> > > reply to me you produced a link to a webpage that clearly shows your
> > > statement to be rather exaggerated.
>
> I gave you a correct version above. By signing the petition, they
> are saying that they believe that controlled demolition was used.
only your OPINION that that's what they all meant. And what they
actually SAID when signing the petition clearly shows that many of them
signed it, not so much because they are completely satisfied that the
buildings most definitely WERE brought down by controlled demolition,
but mainly because they have their doubts about whether or not the
impacts of the planes alone brought down the buildings. You are acting
as if every single one of these people signed the petition out of a
sense of absolute CERTAINTY that controlled demolition was used, and
that is NOT what most of them GAVE as their reasons for signing the
petition. How would you know better than these people themselves why
each of them signed the petition? And again, simple common sense would
indicate that the likelihood of this many people having absolutely
identical reasons for signing it is so incredibly remote as to not be
worth serious considerations.
> The
> reason is that they don't believe the NIST story which was put
> together by people in the correct fields to determine the cause of the
> collapses, and if the collapses were not by softened steel, the only
> other method of dropping buildings, especially where they fall into
> their own footprints almost exactly, is controlled demolition.
> However, would it help you to hear it from controlled demolition
> specialists?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcwnJTpholc
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc
>
> If this topic is interesting for you, I would suggest that you look
> a bit deeper than the theories of the 'debunkers' and go through the
> evidence. There are many videos available on the 'net.
>
> To see the interest of others around the world in the topic, use
> "for 911 truth" in a Google search and see how many organizations have
> been put together on the subject.
>
> To see and hear the experience of a man that was in building 7 when
> the explosions were going off go here:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LO5V2CJpzI
this comes within one-million light-years of proving your original
statement to be correct:
"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."
which they themselves would know far better than you or me. You are
attributing viewpoints to many of them that they did not say they had.
John Reagor King
Oct 8, 2012, 8:54:32 PM10/8/12
to
In article
<fba60ba2-0fcf-4d5f...@c2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 6:06?pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > On 10/7/12 11:14 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> >
> > > On Oct 6, 6:43 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> Fascinating that mainframetech went abruptly silent on this issue as
> > >> soon as I posted this.
> >
> > >> In article <caeruleo-588FA8.14112025092...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > >>> qualifications listed in the Bio section to be questionable. ?I saw one
Now wait a minute, you don't seem to really be addressing in a meaningful
way what the previous poster said. Just because a person is a bonafide
architect or engineer doesn't automatically mean that that person knows
all that much about controlled demolitions. There are many aspects of
architecture and engineering that don't deal with demolition at all.
There are many different *types* of engineering and architectural fields.
Not all architects are the same *type* of architect. Not all engineers
are the same *type* of engineer. I can't remember whether or not I
already noted this in this thread, but when I looked through their
statements in the petition, I remember seeing one, for example, who gave
his experience as railroad engineering. How does that qualify him to talk
knowledgeably about controlled demolitions of multi-story buildings, when
nothing in his own stated field of expertise has anything to do with
multi-story buildings in any context? Don't tell me that this isn't a
perfectly valid point for me to raise, because it quite obviously is.
And architects? I would think that most architects worldwide have
specialties *within* the overall field of architecture. As I said above,
there is not just one single *type* of architect. Many architects
*design* buildings, but that does not automatically mean that they're all
equally knowledgeable about the *demolition* of buildings. Common sense
would indicate that some of them are more knowledgeable than others.
This is also a perfectly reasonable point for me to raise, obviously.
<fba60ba2-0fcf-4d5f...@c2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 6:06?pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > On 10/7/12 11:14 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> >
> > > On Oct 6, 6:43 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> Fascinating that mainframetech went abruptly silent on this issue as
> > >> soon as I posted this.
> >
> > >> In article <caeruleo-588FA8.14112025092...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > >> ? John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>> I've cited only the first ten here, but I've spent quite a lot of time
> > >>> looking at many of the others, including in the engineers farther down
> > >>> and also in the non-U.S. list. ?In some of them I'm finding the
> >
> > >>> I've cited only the first ten here, but I've spent quite a lot of time
> > >>> looking at many of the others, including in the engineers farther down
> > >>> qualifications listed in the Bio section to be questionable. ?I saw one
> > >>> that listed his experience only in railroad engineering, and another
> > >>> who
> > >>> didn't really list any experience with anything. ?I do see quite a few
> > >>> who
> > >>> saying they believed controlled demolitions were involved, but I'm also
> > >>> seeing about the same number who merely are voicing suspicions and
> > >>> calling for further investigation.
> >
> > >>> I haven't even found one yet, however, who specifically says that he or
> > >>> she can prove that the buildings collapsed due to controlled
> > >>> demolitions. ?There are a lot of them I haven't looked at yet, so I
> > >>> seeing about the same number who merely are voicing suspicions and
> > >>> calling for further investigation.
> >
> > >>> I haven't even found one yet, however, who specifically says that he or
> > >>> she can prove that the buildings collapsed due to controlled
way what the previous poster said. Just because a person is a bonafide
architect or engineer doesn't automatically mean that that person knows
all that much about controlled demolitions. There are many aspects of
architecture and engineering that don't deal with demolition at all.
There are many different *types* of engineering and architectural fields.
Not all architects are the same *type* of architect. Not all engineers
are the same *type* of engineer. I can't remember whether or not I
already noted this in this thread, but when I looked through their
statements in the petition, I remember seeing one, for example, who gave
his experience as railroad engineering. How does that qualify him to talk
knowledgeably about controlled demolitions of multi-story buildings, when
nothing in his own stated field of expertise has anything to do with
multi-story buildings in any context? Don't tell me that this isn't a
perfectly valid point for me to raise, because it quite obviously is.
And architects? I would think that most architects worldwide have
specialties *within* the overall field of architecture. As I said above,
there is not just one single *type* of architect. Many architects
*design* buildings, but that does not automatically mean that they're all
equally knowledgeable about the *demolition* of buildings. Common sense
would indicate that some of them are more knowledgeable than others.
This is also a perfectly reasonable point for me to raise, obviously.
mainframetech
Oct 9, 2012, 3:58:02 PM10/9/12
to
careers that may be affected by small minded people who can't deal
with new information and facts, so that they had to say the more
'acceptable' phrase 'might have'. Do you think they were really so
unsure of what they saw that they immediately rushed to sign the
petition? Naah.
> > Gage (and
> > others that speak on behalf of the organization) are able to prove the
> > 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
>
> 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.
>
what I've done, though I'm not putting myself forward as a scientist
or such. Here is a video of Gage saying to some news people that
thermite was found along with melted steel (an impossibility in jet
fuel or office fires like the towers) in the dust from the
collapses...tons of it. He also mentions Dr. Stephen Jones, PhD that
did some of the analysis, and who is a physicist. Jones has published
some peer reviewed papers on the compounds found in the towers
debris. To find that statement go to point 4:20 in the video. Or
watch the whole thing and get a layman's view of some of the science
involved:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkcxVdDSAY4
As a side note, molten (not just melted) steel stayed in the
basements of the 3 buildings that collapsed for weeks after the
original collapses. Nothing known to be in the buildings could cause
that. Jet fuel and office equipment just won't reach the temperatures
need to soften steel or to melt it. However, a few incendiary
chemicals can do it, such as Thermite or Thermate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3Ot1JxNdE
While the molten steel was seen weeks later by many people including
firefighters, NIST, who was supposed to analyze everything and come up
with what happened, denies that they ever heard of any molten steel.
Ridiculous in light of the preceding video, and proof that a proper
investigation was not done.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg
As an addendum, and not critical for the debate, but interesting in
its own light, here is Dr. Steven Jones speaking of how the analysis
was done, and what the chemistry of the nano-thermite was. Mind you,
all these videos are speaking of factual evidence, NOT some silly
'conspiracy theories'.
> > The dust contains something that other dust around NYC
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite
>
> That may be. It still does not support your original claim that more than
> 1700 of these people have specifically stated that the buildings most
> definitely *were* brought down by controlled demolition, nor does it
> support your original claim that all of them also specifically stated that
> they can *prove* this to be true. Very few of them that I found
> specifically stated either of the things you said they did.
>
That has been dealt with above. You're repeating. I can't show you
>
> That may be. It still does not support your original claim that more than
> 1700 of these people have specifically stated that the buildings most
> definitely *were* brought down by controlled demolition, nor does it
> support your original claim that all of them also specifically stated that
> they can *prove* this to be true. Very few of them that I found
> specifically stated either of the things you said they did.
>
everyone of the 1,725 or more people and their beliefs, but there is
enough factual information for any science minded person to realize
that there was 'controlled demolition' involved from the facts
supplied. There is a video of many of the experts that have come to
believe that there was 'controlled demolition' involved, and they have
spoken for the video. It's called “9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts
Speak Out.” So some of the people your speaking of are there.
> > On top of that discovery, they (as architects and engineers) have
> > satisfied themselves that the story of NIST was full of holes and that
> > the collapse of the 3 towers was accomplished by controlled
> > demolition.
>
> All 1700+ of them have "satisfied themselves" of this? Why do so few of
> them specifically say that on that website then? Merely saying that
> they have doubts about the official explanation isn't quite the same
> thing as specifically stating that they are completely "satisfied" that
> the buildings most definitely *were* brought down by controlled
> demolition. You are still exaggerating what these people have actually
> stated.
>
Since they signed the petition, using intelligence and common sense,
we can imply that they have come to the same conclusion, though some
would rather take the safe way and say it couched in those terms until
they have 'official' evidence.
> > Their fields allow them the knowledge to make that sort
> > of determination for themselves and therefore to sign the request for
> > the investigation.
>
> Yes, a request for further investigation. Because they have doubts.
> That's still not the same thing as them specifically stating that they
> are *all* *entirely* convinced that the buildings most definitely *were*
> brought down by controlled demolition.
>
that a number of the members didn't believe the 'controlled
demolition' evidence, it wouldn't change the evidence, which stays
there unimpeachable.
> > Certainly those that think they know better can
> > find an architect or engineer to debate the topic with.
>
> I'm not saying I know better, I'm merely disputing your obviously false
> claim that anywhere even remotely close to 1700 of these people have
> actually specifically stated the things you claimed that they
> specifically stated.
>
> > I'm not in
> > those fields, but I believe I've seen enough evidence that it was
> > controlled demolition to suit me. The falling into their own
> > foootprint of 3 tall buildings,
>
> I don't see why that's absolutely impossible from the plane impacts
> only. And I've seen more than enough of the footage to plainly see that
> neither WCT One or Two collapsed straight downward. In both cases parts
> of the buildings toppled to the sides.
>
qualified your statement with the highest possible quaklifier -
'absolutely'. Thst means to me that you are holding on to your belief
by fingernails. Go through the videos supplied above and you will see
facts and evidence, and NOT any theories.
other than planes hitting the buildings causing fires that weakened
the steel and causing the collapses (which the facts belie).
Actually, I can't think of anything except 'controlled demolition'.
The facts don't bear out the jet fuel or office fires, so something
has to have caused the collapse which have never happened before in
any building anywhere from heat.
> > > > Eason Cross says:
>
> > > > "The third building evidence is truly troubling. The 'why' is very hard
> > > > to comprehend."
>
> > > > I guess he means WTC 7, but he just says he's very troubled by it, and
> > > > does not comprehend why it collapsed. ?But he's not specifically saying
> > > > that he believes it *did* collapse due to controlled demolition, nor is
> > > > he saying he can prove it.
>
> > See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> > for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
>
> Again, wrong. That is not necessarily the implication in his own mind
> regarding his signing of it. I don't see him saying that he is signing
> the petition because he's satisfied as to the true reason for the
> collapse. I see him saying that he is *dissatisfied* with the official
> explanation. That isn't quite the same thing as him specifically saying
> that he is completely *satisfied* as to any alternate explanation.
>
> > > > Harry G. Robinson III says:
>
> > > > "The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated.
> > > > The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to
> > > > implode as they did."
>
> > > > Well, he certainly seems to believe that controlled demolition was
> > > > involved. ?But he's not saying that he himself can prove it.
>
> > See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> > for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
>
> Good lordy, how many times are you just going to repeat exactly the same
> misguided conclusion in identical wording? And even if in this case he
> said he *is* satisfied as to why he thinks the buildings "really" came
> down, he did NOT say that he himself can PROVE it, so I disagree with
> you that he was "implying" that he CAN merely by signing the petition.
> That MIGHT have been what he meant by signing the petition, but you have
> no possible way of knowing that for certain unless you can quote him
> verbatim, along with the original source for the quote, saying very
> *specifically* that the *reason* he signed the petition is that he *can*
> prove this. It has to be a quote something like this:
>
Picking at every one of ten statements helps nothing. I've given the
counter argument to the one that you keep putting in here after each
of the statements. Most professionals won't make a statement that is
too controversial without the investigation bearing them out. They
don't want those 'small minded' folks to affect their income.
> "One of the reasons I signed the petition is because I am quite
> confident that I myself can prove that the buildings collapsed due to
> controlled demolition."
>
> Until you can quote him verbatim saying something like that, you are
> merely speculating when you claim that his signing the petition alone
> "implies" that this was one of his reasons for signing it.
>
and are not speaking based on the society they live in.
and know why a professional would make a statement that was more
circumspect.
> > > > Alan Haymond says:
>
> > > > "Suspicious on 9/11 about the collapses and the size of the original
> > > > hole in the Pentagon. Thoroughly convinced of cover up by April '02 -
> > > > too many unanswered questions. Recommend David Ray Griffin's books."
>
> > > > He says he's suspicious of the collapses, and was convinced well under a
> > > > year later that there was a coverup. ?But nowhere there does he
> > > > specifically say that he believes the collapses were the result of
> > > > controlled demolition, nor does he specifically say that he can prove it.
>
> > See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> > for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
>
> Still just speculation on your part that just signing the petition
> implies that exact thing.
>
certainly do. Let's argue one of them, and then we can broaden the
discussion to include the others if necessary. Obviously, I am
speaking of what I believe, as are you. I came to my beliefs, not
only of the collapses, but of the signatories to the petition from
evidence and facts. I have a reasonable person's knowledge of
people and why they do things, and I suspect you can have that too.
AsI have noted so many times in one way or another, professionals as
are in this list are not going to immediately go whole hog and state
their belief is something that a number of people have been convinced
is false. Thety will say something less clear and direct, while still
looking for the 'official' investigation.
important facts and centering on repeating over and over your liturgy
that the statements aren't as I said. For the sake of argument (this
once), I will say you are completely right about my assumption of the
signatorie's viewpoints. But what are your thoughts on the more
important facts and evidence presented to you showing a cause for the
collapse of the towers? Why do you keep avoiding that? Have you been
anaesthetized by the common story, or are you still in that same frame
of mind that it didn't happen that way because you decided it was
ridiculous? Meaning that you viewed no evidence and saw no facts.
Chris
mainframetech
Oct 9, 2012, 3:58:26 PM10/9/12
to
On Oct 8, 8:54 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
Well, of course. Note above that I said "Over time they examined
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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcwnJTpholc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw1Lh7lYMNo
It's a bit picky to try to make a point this way. My point is that
the members of AE911truth.org are interested in facts and evidence and
not everyone's conspiracy theories. They have members that have done
experiments and have published scientific papers in peer reviewed
journals with data from the collapse. They are because of their
career choices, more scientific in their outlook and decisions, and
they have avoided all the nonsense with conspiracies and theories.
> There are many different *types* of engineering and architectural fields.
> Not all architects are the same *type* of architect. Not all engineers
> are the same *type* of engineer. I can't remember whether or not I
> already noted this in this thread, but when I looked through their
> statements in the petition, I remember seeing one, for example, who gave
> his experience as railroad engineering. How does that qualify him to talk
> knowledgeably about controlled demolitions of multi-story buildings, when
> nothing in his own stated field of expertise has anything to do with
> multi-story buildings in any context?
Didn't it occur to you that the railroad engineer didn't speak as a
consultant on controlled demolition? Many of us know what that is,
and manyt of us have sen videos of such demolitions. Those that are
more spatially oriented might find that the facts given by NIST didn't
fit the situation. You don't need a construction contractor to tell
you that the house is leaning to one side and a lot of work is going
to be required to fix it, even though you're not a construction
'expert' yourself. You need to use common sense here.
> Don't tell me that this isn't a
> perfectly valid point for me to raise, because it quite obviously is.
Any point you want to raise is OK to raise in these newsgroups.
Everyone prefers that we stay on topic, but they can accept a lot of
variation.
> And architects? I would think that most architects worldwide have
> specialties *within* the overall field of architecture. As I said above,
> there is not just one single *type* of architect. Many architects
> *design* buildings, but that does not automatically mean that they're all
> equally knowledgeable about the *demolition* of buildings. Common sense
> would indicate that some of them are more knowledgeable than others.
> This is also a perfectly reasonable point for me to raise, obviously.
See above.
Picking at my statements may be good debate technique, but getting
to the root of the topic, like what made buildings fall down, killing
thousands, and how can we keep them from doing it again, may be a bit
more important. Yet that information is shied away from by people
here in this thread and by the government who used NIST to put out a
totally incompetent report of what happened. They have already been
proven wrong in some cases, and they have admitted it. And they still
don't have an 'official' reason for building 7 to have fallen. Try
checking the facts and not avoiding them and the evidence. Forget
those sick old theories and conspiracies.
Chris
> In article
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'
to get their belief that a new investigation done properly is
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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcwnJTpholc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw1Lh7lYMNo
It's a bit picky to try to make a point this way. My point is that
the members of AE911truth.org are interested in facts and evidence and
not everyone's conspiracy theories. They have members that have done
experiments and have published scientific papers in peer reviewed
journals with data from the collapse. They are because of their
career choices, more scientific in their outlook and decisions, and
they have avoided all the nonsense with conspiracies and theories.
> There are many different *types* of engineering and architectural fields.
> Not all architects are the same *type* of architect. Not all engineers
> are the same *type* of engineer. I can't remember whether or not I
> already noted this in this thread, but when I looked through their
> statements in the petition, I remember seeing one, for example, who gave
> his experience as railroad engineering. How does that qualify him to talk
> knowledgeably about controlled demolitions of multi-story buildings, when
> nothing in his own stated field of expertise has anything to do with
> multi-story buildings in any context?
consultant on controlled demolition? Many of us know what that is,
and manyt of us have sen videos of such demolitions. Those that are
more spatially oriented might find that the facts given by NIST didn't
fit the situation. You don't need a construction contractor to tell
you that the house is leaning to one side and a lot of work is going
to be required to fix it, even though you're not a construction
'expert' yourself. You need to use common sense here.
> Don't tell me that this isn't a
> perfectly valid point for me to raise, because it quite obviously is.
Everyone prefers that we stay on topic, but they can accept a lot of
variation.
> And architects? I would think that most architects worldwide have
> specialties *within* the overall field of architecture. As I said above,
> there is not just one single *type* of architect. Many architects
> *design* buildings, but that does not automatically mean that they're all
> equally knowledgeable about the *demolition* of buildings. Common sense
> would indicate that some of them are more knowledgeable than others.
> This is also a perfectly reasonable point for me to raise, obviously.
Picking at my statements may be good debate technique, but getting
to the root of the topic, like what made buildings fall down, killing
thousands, and how can we keep them from doing it again, may be a bit
more important. Yet that information is shied away from by people
here in this thread and by the government who used NIST to put out a
totally incompetent report of what happened. They have already been
proven wrong in some cases, and they have admitted it. And they still
don't have an 'official' reason for building 7 to have fallen. Try
checking the facts and not avoiding them and the evidence. Forget
those sick old theories and conspiracies.
Chris
John Reagor King
Oct 9, 2012, 3:59:23 PM10/9/12
to
In article <507201be$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Does it bother you that you cannot come within a million light-years of
*proving* that these are, um, CIA assets?
Let me eyeball this:
"James Randi Educational Foundation a place to discuss skepticism,
critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively
way"
Lol, the CIA is into the paranormal?
I think most of us know how seriously to take your claims of who is and
isn't involved with the CIA, which is not seriously at all. It must have
been a "paranormal" former employee of the CIA who got you kicked off of
Compuserve. And did you ever actually *prove* that Ed Dolan ever worked
for the CIA in any capacity whatsoever? Nope.
And what on earth is taking you so long to simply admit that you made a
mistake when you falsely claimed that I ever said that JFK already had his
fists up by Z225, when you've never once seen me say that? ;-)
*proving* that these are, um, CIA assets?
Let me eyeball this:
"James Randi Educational Foundation a place to discuss skepticism,
critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively
way"
Lol, the CIA is into the paranormal?
I think most of us know how seriously to take your claims of who is and
isn't involved with the CIA, which is not seriously at all. It must have
been a "paranormal" former employee of the CIA who got you kicked off of
Compuserve. And did you ever actually *prove* that Ed Dolan ever worked
for the CIA in any capacity whatsoever? Nope.
And what on earth is taking you so long to simply admit that you made a
mistake when you falsely claimed that I ever said that JFK already had his
fists up by Z225, when you've never once seen me say that? ;-)
John Reagor King
Oct 9, 2012, 4:02:48 PM10/9/12
to
In article
<464a960e-a602-4e1a...@z8g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech <mainfr...@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
think it is true that the buildings were brought down by controlled
demolition, you think it can be proven that they were, and you
furthermore, as I noted in my reply to you yesterday, exaggerate the
significance of all these people signing the petition. You claim that the
act of signing, in and of itself, automatically implies that every person
who signed it is 100% convinced that the buildings fell because of
controlled demolition, and that the mere act of signing the petition is
the same thing as all of them specifically stating that they themselves
can prove it to be true. You ignore the reasons these people themselves
actually *gave* for signing the petition. Plenty of them merely said that
they had doubts about the official explanation, *without* specifically
saying that they were *totally* convinced that the explanation is
incorrect. You do realize that there are various reasons why such people
might sign such a thing? You act as if all 1700+ of them had absolutely
identical reasons in every detail for signing it. That is highly
implausible. Different people have different viewpoints. You'll never,
in any circumstances, have that many different people from that many
different backgrounds from that many different countries from that many
different cultures agreeing 100% on every detail. Ever. There will
*always* be differences of opinion. *Some* of them will sign the petition
because they *are* totally convinced of controlled demolition. *Others*
will sign the petition simply because they aren't *certain* whether there
was controlled demolition or not, and simply feel that further
investigation should be done into the matter. And there will be all sorts
of variations in between as far as their reasons for signing the petition.
This is obvious common sense.
> So you have NO backup for your contention that
> 'controlled demolition' was not used to bring down the 3 towers, right?
I seem to recall he has indeed presented at least some evidence to the
contrary.
> Meaning that I must be right as far as any debate on the matter because
> you are unable to mount a decent viewpoint.
The same can be said of you in reverse. You have falsely claimed that
literally *all* of these people signed the petition for absolutely
identical reasons, ignoring the reasons that they themselves gave for
signing the petition, which include a variety of viewpoints on the issue,
not one single viewpoint only. You can accuse Sandy of not backing up his
claims very well, but you're not backing up your claims very well either.
> Your own personal opinion
> counts only in your house, not here where you have to prove your point.
The same can be said of your personal opinion.
> Do you have any facts to support your view? So far you've produced
> nothing but your personal opinion, which carries no weight here. I'm able
> to produce scientrific proof and studies backing up my contentions and
> those of the architects and Engineers.
Yes, you've produced *some*. However, you have also made some obviously
exaggerated statements as well. You originally claimed, falsely, that
every single one of the people who signed that petition were absolutely
convinced that the buildings, without a shadow of a doubt, were brought
down by controlled demolition, and also falsely claimed that every person
who signed the petition could prove this to be true. But when I looked at
the actual reasons they gave for signing the petition, I quickly saw that
most of them did not say either of those things. And I do not buy your
argument that I saw yesterday that the act of signing, in and of itself,
"implies" that that is what every one of these people meant. I'd almost
be willing to bet money that if I contacted some of them, and asked them
if your claim of why they signed the petition is correct, at least some of
them would say no, that is not why they signed the petition.
Shall we put that to the test?
> > It can't be proved any more than, say, the theory that Neil Armstrong
> > never walked on the moon.
> > But the CD theory is also as ridiculous as that.
>
> Hmm. I think I see your problem. You think we're talking about a
> THEORY. Nope. I'm talking about facts...
No you aren't, certainly not entirely anyway. You incorrectly claimed, as
if it was proven fact, that every one of those people signed the petition
for a single, absolutely identical reason, and ignored the reasons these
people themselves gave for signing the petition. How would you know why
they signed the petition better than they themselves know why they signed
the petition?
> I have NO interest in your
> theories.
Now wait a minute, you're acting as if Sandy is the only person on earth
who has ever proposed that the buildings came down as the result of the
plane crashes alone. In reality, millions of people worldwide believe
that was the sole cause of the collapse of the buildings, just as there
are many who believe otherwise. And how many certified architects and
engineers are there worldwide who do NOT believe that the buildings were
brought down by controlled demolition? Is it more or less than 1700?
Unless you can *prove* that the *majority* of all of them worldwide
believe controlled demolition was used, your own argument also has its
weaknesses.
> I've pointed out facts concerning the bringing down of the 3
> towers, now do you have any facts to say otherwise?
No. You have pointed out what you *believe* in your *opinion* are facts.
And I know you are hardly the only person to have such an opinion. You
are ignoring the *fact* that you also are expressing a mere *opinion*, not
a proven *fact*. It is not a proven fact merely because you honestly
believe that it is, and merely because others honestly believe so as well.
Anyone can be wrong without realizing it. Anyone.
> > Next you'll be telling me there weren't even any planes.
> >
> I've seen videos of a plane that hit into each of the 2 tall
> towers. I saw NO plane that hit the WTC 7 tower. Did you?
Did burning debris slam down upon WTC 7, however, from the taller towers?
I seem to recall it did. That alone raises at least a *possibility* that
that is what caused the collapse of WTC 7. You may not *believe* in that
possibility in your *opinion*. Many others also do not believe in that
possibility in their *opinions*. But it is still nothing more than an
*opinion* that controlled demolition brought down WTC 7. You and others
may honestly *believe* that it is already "proven" or can be "proven" that
controlled demolition was used, but that also is nothing more than an
*opinion*, regardless of how many or how few people share that *opinion*.
It is not yet conclusively *proven* in any realistic sense that even WTC 7
alone was brought down in the way you think it was.
Yes or no, can you *prove* that the *majority* of building demolition
experts worldwide believe that even *one* of those buildings *was* brought
down by controlled demolition? Let's now be more specific than just
architects and engineers, since I suspect you knew perfectly well years
ago, or if you didn't you should have since it is simple common sense,
that not nearly all architects, and not nearly all engineers have any
particular expertise in controlled demolitions of buildings. What about
demolition experts specifically? What percentage of *them* worldwide
believe that only the planes brought down the buildings, and what
percentage believe otherwise? Do you have any figures on that at all, and
if you do, what is your source? And remember also that no matter what
source you give, others can independently verify whether the source is
credible or not. And I'm not going to buy any argument such as equating
stated doubts with absolute certainty. If they are not *quoted*
*verbatim* as *specifically* stating that they *do* believe the buildings
*were* brought down by controlled demolition, it would be misleading of
you to claim that that's what they are implying when they don't
specifically say so themselves.
> > > Now that's not too evidential a base for believing anything...:)
> > > That's closer to theories than anything I'm looking for. ?Actually,
> > > scientific. ?With science, you start with the data and information,
you exaggerate evidence of controlled demolition and downplay evidence
to the contrary.
> I'm NOT interested in your theories of
> conspiracies or legends. Where are your facts that prove conclusions?
> If you have no facts, then you've lost your point and are howling at the
> moon.
Same can be said of you, most especially if you cannot prove that the
*majority* of demolitions experts worldwide agree with you.
> > Some theories are so ridiculous that a person capable of believing them in
> > the first place is likely to be impervious to any evidence to the
> > contrary. But I do what I can.
>
> So far you've done nothing. I understand that many 'right thinking'
> people back over a hundred years ago knew that man flying in a device was
> 'ridiculous' and they stated their belief loudly. they said it couldn't
> be becasue 'it was ridiculous'. Now here we are flying around al over the
> place in planes. Don't you feel silly?
He shouldn't, because that is a corruption of the actual argument he has
been making to you.
> > >> 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
that there really are crackpots in *every* field, something you should
have known perfectly well years ago. He quite obviously was not
suggesting that *all* of the people who believe that controlled demolition
was used are crackpots. He was merely suggesting the possibility that
*some* of them are.
> Even
> though they are experts in that field and you are probably not?
As you also are not? And I'll remind you yet again that nowhere even
remotely close to all of the people who signed that petition gave the
reasons you have falsely attributed to them.
> What do
> you base your 'fact' on? Leprechauns?
Did a leprechaun tell you that all 1700+ of those people signed the
petition for absolutely 100% identical reasons, even though simple common
sense would indicate otherwise, and even though the reasons they
themselves gave were nowhere even remotely close to being absolutely
identical?
> > The way-out theory is your thinking that 99.99999 percent of the
> > "architects and engineers" (and not sanitation engineers) in the world
> > are afraid to admit something that such an astute non-expert as yourself
> > can see just as plain as the nose on your face.
> > And wow, whoever's behind this plot would have had to count on that.
> > But never fear. The Truthers are on the trail!
> > Too funny.
> Ridicule doesn't work with me. When are you going to try factual
> argument like a grown adult?
I would make the same suggestion to you. Don't jump to conclusions as
to exactly why all of those people signed that petition. Read what they
*said* were their reasons for signing it instead.
> > > ? ? Interestingly enough, I presented 2 'controlled demolition' experts
> > > here and they have both been wiped out. Talk about fear! ?Now why
childishly simple for anyone to still view all, not almost all, but all
the links you gave in your articles, so isn't it irrelevant whether or not
other posters snipped those out in their replies?
> > ? ?Is someone not wanting that EVIDENCE to get out?
did snip them it would be irrelevant, since this article of yours that
I'm now replying to will remain visible no matter what I do. And I've
seen videos and documentaries which dispute some of the claims in those
videos you've cited.
> > Have you perused the helpful links I sent?
>
> Of course, and I left a comment on them. They looked like conspiracy
> documents and I'm not into that stuff. The inevitable Randi sees
> conspiracies everywhere made to fool him, but he's too smart. However, I
> like facts and will be glad to present whatever I can on the current
> topic. Now how about you? Have any facts to support your opinion that
> all the facts are wrong or lies?
Do you have any facts to support your opinion that all 1700+ of those
people signed that petition for absolutely identical reasons? If you do,
I have not seen you produce them yet. I have only seen you produce a
totally unsupported opinion that all of them intentionally *implied* an
identical viewpoint merely by signing the document and literally no other
reason, even though that is simply not in evidence in the reasons many of
them gave for signing it.
> You might want to watch the effort on the part of Popular Mechanics as
> they tried to prove AE911truth wrong. They were soundly stomped by facts
> and scientific knowledge!
So that's one group who, according to you, failed to prove the viewpoint
wrong. How many others haven't failed?
<464a960e-a602-4e1a...@z8g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech <mainfr...@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.
> >
> > >>> 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!
> > >>> 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.
> >
> >
> > 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
> > 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!
think it is true that the buildings were brought down by controlled
demolition, you think it can be proven that they were, and you
furthermore, as I noted in my reply to you yesterday, exaggerate the
significance of all these people signing the petition. You claim that the
act of signing, in and of itself, automatically implies that every person
who signed it is 100% convinced that the buildings fell because of
controlled demolition, and that the mere act of signing the petition is
the same thing as all of them specifically stating that they themselves
can prove it to be true. You ignore the reasons these people themselves
actually *gave* for signing the petition. Plenty of them merely said that
they had doubts about the official explanation, *without* specifically
saying that they were *totally* convinced that the explanation is
incorrect. You do realize that there are various reasons why such people
might sign such a thing? You act as if all 1700+ of them had absolutely
identical reasons in every detail for signing it. That is highly
implausible. Different people have different viewpoints. You'll never,
in any circumstances, have that many different people from that many
different backgrounds from that many different countries from that many
different cultures agreeing 100% on every detail. Ever. There will
*always* be differences of opinion. *Some* of them will sign the petition
because they *are* totally convinced of controlled demolition. *Others*
will sign the petition simply because they aren't *certain* whether there
was controlled demolition or not, and simply feel that further
investigation should be done into the matter. And there will be all sorts
of variations in between as far as their reasons for signing the petition.
This is obvious common sense.
> So you have NO backup for your contention that
> 'controlled demolition' was not used to bring down the 3 towers, right?
contrary.
> Meaning that I must be right as far as any debate on the matter because
> you are unable to mount a decent viewpoint.
literally *all* of these people signed the petition for absolutely
identical reasons, ignoring the reasons that they themselves gave for
signing the petition, which include a variety of viewpoints on the issue,
not one single viewpoint only. You can accuse Sandy of not backing up his
claims very well, but you're not backing up your claims very well either.
> Your own personal opinion
> counts only in your house, not here where you have to prove your point.
> 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.
exaggerated statements as well. You originally claimed, falsely, that
every single one of the people who signed that petition were absolutely
convinced that the buildings, without a shadow of a doubt, were brought
down by controlled demolition, and also falsely claimed that every person
who signed the petition could prove this to be true. But when I looked at
the actual reasons they gave for signing the petition, I quickly saw that
most of them did not say either of those things. And I do not buy your
argument that I saw yesterday that the act of signing, in and of itself,
"implies" that that is what every one of these people meant. I'd almost
be willing to bet money that if I contacted some of them, and asked them
if your claim of why they signed the petition is correct, at least some of
them would say no, that is not why they signed the petition.
Shall we put that to the test?
> > It can't be proved any more than, say, the theory that Neil Armstrong
> > never walked on the moon.
> > But the CD theory is also as ridiculous as that.
>
> Hmm. I think I see your problem. You think we're talking about a
> THEORY. Nope. I'm talking about facts...
if it was proven fact, that every one of those people signed the petition
for a single, absolutely identical reason, and ignored the reasons these
people themselves gave for signing the petition. How would you know why
they signed the petition better than they themselves know why they signed
the petition?
> I have NO interest in your
> theories.
who has ever proposed that the buildings came down as the result of the
plane crashes alone. In reality, millions of people worldwide believe
that was the sole cause of the collapse of the buildings, just as there
are many who believe otherwise. And how many certified architects and
engineers are there worldwide who do NOT believe that the buildings were
brought down by controlled demolition? Is it more or less than 1700?
Unless you can *prove* that the *majority* of all of them worldwide
believe controlled demolition was used, your own argument also has its
weaknesses.
> I've pointed out facts concerning the bringing down of the 3
> towers, now do you have any facts to say otherwise?
And I know you are hardly the only person to have such an opinion. You
are ignoring the *fact* that you also are expressing a mere *opinion*, not
a proven *fact*. It is not a proven fact merely because you honestly
believe that it is, and merely because others honestly believe so as well.
Anyone can be wrong without realizing it. Anyone.
> > Next you'll be telling me there weren't even any planes.
> >
> I've seen videos of a plane that hit into each of the 2 tall
> towers. I saw NO plane that hit the WTC 7 tower. Did you?
I seem to recall it did. That alone raises at least a *possibility* that
that is what caused the collapse of WTC 7. You may not *believe* in that
possibility in your *opinion*. Many others also do not believe in that
possibility in their *opinions*. But it is still nothing more than an
*opinion* that controlled demolition brought down WTC 7. You and others
may honestly *believe* that it is already "proven" or can be "proven" that
controlled demolition was used, but that also is nothing more than an
*opinion*, regardless of how many or how few people share that *opinion*.
It is not yet conclusively *proven* in any realistic sense that even WTC 7
alone was brought down in the way you think it was.
Yes or no, can you *prove* that the *majority* of building demolition
experts worldwide believe that even *one* of those buildings *was* brought
down by controlled demolition? Let's now be more specific than just
architects and engineers, since I suspect you knew perfectly well years
ago, or if you didn't you should have since it is simple common sense,
that not nearly all architects, and not nearly all engineers have any
particular expertise in controlled demolitions of buildings. What about
demolition experts specifically? What percentage of *them* worldwide
believe that only the planes brought down the buildings, and what
percentage believe otherwise? Do you have any figures on that at all, and
if you do, what is your source? And remember also that no matter what
source you give, others can independently verify whether the source is
credible or not. And I'm not going to buy any argument such as equating
stated doubts with absolute certainty. If they are not *quoted*
*verbatim* as *specifically* stating that they *do* believe the buildings
*were* brought down by controlled demolition, it would be misleading of
you to claim that that's what they are implying when they don't
specifically say so themselves.
> > > Now that's not too evidential a base for believing anything...:)
> > > they HAVE proved 'controlled demolition' with science, not theories.
> > > It sounds like you didn't research the subject, you looked at sites
> > > and information that will bolster your view of the world, and avoid
> > > evidence that scares you out of your pants. ?That's not very
> > > It sounds like you didn't research the subject, you looked at sites
> > > and information that will bolster your view of the world, and avoid
> > > scientific. ?With science, you start with the data and information,
> > > then form a belief from that, testing it against all other
> > > possibilities. ?Try it...:)
> >
> > I've seen both the bunk and the debunking, of course. I have long been
> > curious about how alternative realities are maintained. The similarities
> > are striking between the perpetuation of certain urban legends about the
> > Kennedy assassination and the stubborn persistence of delirious
> > misinterpretations of the fall of the World Trade Center.
>
> Odd that you would say all that and produce NO evidence of any kind.
> I'm an evidence person.
You are an evidence-exaggeration person. It is very clear to me that
> > I've seen both the bunk and the debunking, of course. I have long been
> > curious about how alternative realities are maintained. The similarities
> > are striking between the perpetuation of certain urban legends about the
> > Kennedy assassination and the stubborn persistence of delirious
> > misinterpretations of the fall of the World Trade Center.
>
> Odd that you would say all that and produce NO evidence of any kind.
> I'm an evidence person.
you exaggerate evidence of controlled demolition and downplay evidence
to the contrary.
> I'm NOT interested in your theories of
> conspiracies or legends. Where are your facts that prove conclusions?
> If you have no facts, then you've lost your point and are howling at the
> moon.
*majority* of demolitions experts worldwide agree with you.
> > Some theories are so ridiculous that a person capable of believing them in
> > the first place is likely to be impervious to any evidence to the
> > contrary. But I do what I can.
>
> So far you've done nothing. I understand that many 'right thinking'
> people back over a hundred years ago knew that man flying in a device was
> 'ridiculous' and they stated their belief loudly. they said it couldn't
> be becasue 'it was ridiculous'. Now here we are flying around al over the
> place in planes. Don't you feel silly?
been making to you.
> > >> 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.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > There are crackpots in any field.
>
> Is that one of your 'facts'? That people that have stated that the
> fall of the towers was 'controlled demolition' were crackpots?
Strawman. He was simply giving you the obvious common-sense observation
> > > to get their belief that a new investigation done properly is
> > > needed.
> >
> > There are crackpots in any field.
>
> Is that one of your 'facts'? That people that have stated that the
> fall of the towers was 'controlled demolition' were crackpots?
that there really are crackpots in *every* field, something you should
have known perfectly well years ago. He quite obviously was not
suggesting that *all* of the people who believe that controlled demolition
was used are crackpots. He was merely suggesting the possibility that
*some* of them are.
> Even
> though they are experts in that field and you are probably not?
remotely close to all of the people who signed that petition gave the
reasons you have falsely attributed to them.
> What do
> you base your 'fact' on? Leprechauns?
petition for absolutely 100% identical reasons, even though simple common
sense would indicate otherwise, and even though the reasons they
themselves gave were nowhere even remotely close to being absolutely
identical?
> > The way-out theory is your thinking that 99.99999 percent of the
> > "architects and engineers" (and not sanitation engineers) in the world
> > are afraid to admit something that such an astute non-expert as yourself
> > can see just as plain as the nose on your face.
> > And wow, whoever's behind this plot would have had to count on that.
> > But never fear. The Truthers are on the trail!
> > Too funny.
> Ridicule doesn't work with me. When are you going to try factual
> argument like a grown adult?
to exactly why all of those people signed that petition. Read what they
*said* were their reasons for signing it instead.
> > > ? ? Interestingly enough, I presented 2 'controlled demolition' experts
> > > here and they have both been wiped out. Talk about fear! ?Now why
> > > would that be?
> >
> > (Not sure if you're blaming me or an earlier poster, I didn't delete
> > anything intentionally.)
>
> Odd than that those items that others might want to look up
> disappeared.
But since your original articles have not yet disappeared, it is still
> >
> > (Not sure if you're blaming me or an earlier poster, I didn't delete
> > anything intentionally.)
>
> Odd than that those items that others might want to look up
> disappeared.
childishly simple for anyone to still view all, not almost all, but all
the links you gave in your articles, so isn't it irrelevant whether or not
other posters snipped those out in their replies?
> > ? ?Is someone not wanting that EVIDENCE to get out?
> >
> > > Here they are again, try to leave them available for those who think
> > > with open minds:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcwnJTpholc
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k82vowo7doE
See how I'm leaving those in and not snipping them? However, even if I
> > > Here they are again, try to leave them available for those who think
> > > with open minds:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcwnJTpholc
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k82vowo7doE
did snip them it would be irrelevant, since this article of yours that
I'm now replying to will remain visible no matter what I do. And I've
seen videos and documentaries which dispute some of the claims in those
videos you've cited.
> > Have you perused the helpful links I sent?
>
> Of course, and I left a comment on them. They looked like conspiracy
> documents and I'm not into that stuff. The inevitable Randi sees
> conspiracies everywhere made to fool him, but he's too smart. However, I
> like facts and will be glad to present whatever I can on the current
> topic. Now how about you? Have any facts to support your opinion that
> all the facts are wrong or lies?
people signed that petition for absolutely identical reasons? If you do,
I have not seen you produce them yet. I have only seen you produce a
totally unsupported opinion that all of them intentionally *implied* an
identical viewpoint merely by signing the document and literally no other
reason, even though that is simply not in evidence in the reasons many of
them gave for signing it.
> You might want to watch the effort on the part of Popular Mechanics as
> they tried to prove AE911truth wrong. They were soundly stomped by facts
> and scientific knowledge!
wrong. How many others haven't failed?
Sandy McCroskey
Oct 9, 2012, 8:40:18 PM10/9/12
to
> 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?
>
Your problem is exactly that you take to be facts what are nothing but
delusional misinterpretations of the Truthers. These delusions didn't
start with the evidence but with the Truthers paranoid suspicion. Now,
knowing the Cheney/Bush administration, I could see where they were coming
from. But rationally considered, they didn't make a lick of sense.
That was back when people were coming out with the CD theory and it was
being debunked.
>> Next you'll be telling me there weren't even any planes.
>>
> I've seen videos of a plane that hit into each of the 2 tall
> towers. I saw NO plane that hit the WTC 7 tower. Did you?
>
That building collapsed because of damage from debris that fell from the
other buildings (some "controlled" demo!) and the extensive fires that
can be seen on videos. The fire crew was pulled out in the nick of time,
when it was realized the building could not be saved.
>>> Now that's not too evidential a base for believing anything...:)
>>> That's closer to theories than anything I'm looking for. Actually,
>>> they HAVE proved 'controlled demolition' with science, not theories.
>>> It sounds like you didn't research the subject, you looked at sites
>>> and information that will bolster your view of the world, and avoid
>>> evidence that scares you out of your pants. That's not very
>>> scientific. With science, you start with the data and information,
>>> then form a belief from that, testing it against all other
>>> possibilities. Try it...:)
>>
>> I've seen both the bunk and the debunking, of course. I have long been
>> curious about how alternative realities are maintained. The similarities
>> are striking between the perpetuation of certain urban legends about the
>> Kennedy assassination and the stubborn persistence of delirious
>> misinterpretations of the fall of the World Trade Center.
>>
>
> Odd that you would say all that and produce NO evidence of any kind.
Have you followed any of those links?
> I'm an evidence person. I'm NOT interested in your theories of
> conspiracies or legends. Where are your facts that prove conclusions?
> If you have no facts, then you've lost your point and are howling at the
> moon.
>
>> Some theories are so ridiculous that a person capable of believing them in
>> the first place is likely to be impervious to any evidence to the
>> contrary. But I do what I can.
>>
>
> So far you've done nothing. I understand that many 'right thinking'
> people back over a hundred years ago knew that man flying in a device was
> 'ridiculous' and they stated their belief loudly. they said it couldn't
> be becasue 'it was ridiculous'. Now here we are flying around al over the
> place in planes. Don't you feel silly?
>
You have either looked at only one side and there's still hope for you.
That's why I gave you the link to the resources.
Or you have looked at both sides, and this is still your conclusion. In
which case, I am certainly not going to convince you by arguing on this
newsgroup, and it's not wasting any time trying.
> That people that have stated that the
> fall of the towers was 'controlled demolition' were crackpots?
> Even
> though they are experts in that field and you are probably not? What do
> you base your 'fact' on? Leprechauns?
(Let's leave just plain common sense out of the equation for now.)
>
>> The way-out theory is your thinking that 99.99999 percent of the
>> "architects and engineers" (and not sanitation engineers) in the world
>> are afraid to admit something that such an astute non-expert as yourself
>> can see just as plain as the nose on your face.
>> And wow, whoever's behind this plot would have had to count on that.
>> But never fear. The Truthers are on the trail!
>> Too funny.
>>
> Ridicule doesn't work with me. When are you going to try factual
> argument like a grown adult?
>
>
>>> Interestingly enough, I presented 2 'controlled demolition' experts
>>> here and they have both been wiped out. Talk about fear! Now why
>>> would that be?
>>
>> (Not sure if you're blaming me or an earlier poster, I didn't delete
>> anything intentionally.)
>>
>
> Odd than that those items that others might want to look up
> disappeared.
>
message without paying any attention to it. But your attitude is amusing.
>> Is someone not wanting that EVIDENCE to get out?
>>
>>> Here they are again, try to leave them available for those who think
>>> with open minds:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcwnJTpholc
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k82vowo7doE
>>
>> Have you perused the helpful links I sent?
>
> Of course, and I left a comment on them. They looked like conspiracy
> documents and I'm not into that stuff.
documents" where you have gotten your, uh, ideas.
> The inevitable Randi sees
> conspiracies everywhere made to fool him, but he's too smart.
fooling people like yourself.
> However, I
> like facts and will be glad to present whatever I can on the current
> topic. Now how about you? Have any facts to support your opinion that
> all the facts are wrong or lies?
>
> You might want to watch the effort on the part of Popular Mechanics as
> they tried to prove AE911truth wrong. They were soundly stomped by facts
> and scientific knowledge!
>
way you judged that particular debate, I know that we're not going to
find any common ground on what is a rational argument and what
constitutes proof. Have fun!
/sandy
mainframetech
Oct 9, 2012, 8:53:02 PM10/9/12
to
On Oct 9, 4:02 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <464a960e-a602-4e1a-a982-a0d1df40c...@z8g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
It's interesting that you would rather spend your time picking at me
than discussing the real problem of the 3 towers coming down due to
'controlled demolition'. In previous posts I have given my answers to
your picking and I stand on them. That leaves us with the facts and
evidence that have been shown to you and which you seem to have ignored.
Why is it that evidence is something you want to avoid? Is it because YOU
decided that evidence can't mean anything since YOU know it's all
ridiculous?
I woudl very much like to see you tell us what you think happened to
building 7 when no planes ran into it, and no jet fuel was left in it.
> > So you have NO backup for your contention that
> > 'controlled demolition' was not used to bring down the 3 towers, right?
>
> I seem to recall he has indeed presented at least some evidence to the
> contrary.
>
None at all that I can remember. You've gotten us do far away from the
really important facts and evidence, that we would have to go back and
play it from there. However, since you chimedin and are trying to save
him from embarrassment, perhaps you and I can have a siscussion aboutr the
facts. What do you say?
> > Meaning that I must be right as far as any debate on the matter because
> > you are unable to mount a decent viewpoint.
>
> The same can be said of you in reverse. You have falsely claimed that
> literally *all* of these people signed the petition for absolutely
> identical reasons, ignoring the reasons that they themselves gave for
> signing the petition, which include a variety of viewpoints on the issue,
> not one single viewpoint only. You can accuse Sandy of not backing up his
> claims very well, but you're not backing up your claims very well either.
>
I still contend that I did not falsely assume anything of the kind, and
that my statements were true, based on a knowledge of human reactions to
certain situations. However, For arguments sake (this once) I'll grant
your needs and say you're right. Now can we get on with a serious
discussion, or are you unable to do that? Would you rather run away from
the facts and evidence and just sit around picking at me? What do you
say?
> > Your own personal opinion
> > counts only in your house, not here where you have to prove your point.
>
> The same can be said of your personal opinion.
>
Nope. Won't do. I use facts and evidence in discussing the topic. The
general rule (which some folks don't follow) is that you discuss the topic
and not the person. You wanted to talk on the side about whether my
statement about AE911truth members was true or not. That is discussing
the person. I went along with it for a while, but we need to get back on
track. We're here because you found it more fun to pick at me than to
discuss the topic at hand.
> > Do you have any facts to support your view? So far you've produced
> > nothing but your personal opinion, which carries no weight here. I'm able
> > to produce scientific proof and studies backing up my contentions and
said I will concede your point for the sake of argument (this once), why
are you so scared of the topic? Afraid that facts and evidence weren't
what you expected? You thought maybe that you would walk into some
'conspiracy theorist' with baloney for brains? Since you admit that I've
presented 'some' evidence, what is your opinion of those facts? Agree?
Disagree? If so, tell me why factually.
> > > It can't be proved any more than, say, the theory that Neil Armstrong
> > > never walked on the moon.
> > > But the CD theory is also as ridiculous as that.
>
> > Hmm. I think I see your problem. You think we're talking about a
> > THEORY. Nope. I'm talking about facts...
>
> No you aren't, certainly not entirely anyway. You incorrectly claimed, as
> if it was proven fact, that every one of those people signed the petition
> for a single, absolutely identical reason, and ignored the reasons these
> people themselves gave for signing the petition. How would you know why
> they signed the petition better than they themselves know why they signed
> the petition?
>
My oh my. Really trying to work that one to death, eh? Anything to
stay away from the main topic. I've answered your comments on my
statement above, so there's no reason to keep repeating it. It as if that
was the only thing you found that you could hang your hat on, so you have
to keep saying it, since you can't deal with the facts that were shown to
you aboutr the collapses.
> > I have NO interest in your
> > theories.
>
Good, I have no theories. Only facts and evidence.
> Now wait a minute, you're acting as if Sandy is the only person on earth
> who has ever proposed that the buildings came down as the result of the
> plane crashes alone. In reality, millions of people worldwide believe
> that was the sole cause of the collapse of the buildings, just as there
> are many who believe otherwise. And how many certified architects and
> engineers are there worldwide who do NOT believe that the buildings were
> brought down by controlled demolition? Is it more or less than 1700?
> Unless you can *prove* that the *majority* of all of them worldwide
> believe controlled demolition was used, your own argument also has its
> weaknesses.
>
I see you're off picking at how many people believe one thing and how
many believe another. I'm talking about facts and evidence, not beliefs
with no facts behind them. Many people 'believe' many things, including
leprechauns, but they can't provide facts to support their beliefs.
Let's try and get you into the arena of facts and see what you have to
say. Jump right in and give your evidence as to the fall of the 3 towers
and how it was accomplished. Tell me about temperatures and the melting
point of steel and things like that. Not what someone around the world
thinks of it all from a little TV and a lot of disbelief because they were
told something by their government.
> > I've pointed out facts concerning the bringing down of the 3
> > towers, now do you have any facts to say otherwise?
>
> No. You have pointed out what you *believe* in your *opinion* are facts.
> And I know you are hardly the only person to have such an opinion. You
> are ignoring the *fact* that you also are expressing a mere *opinion*, not
> a proven *fact*. It is not a proven fact merely because you honestly
> believe that it is, and merely because others honestly believe so as well.
> Anyone can be wrong without realizing it. Anyone.
>
My my my. You also completely misunderstand me and then try to figure
me out. That can't be done from an erroneous base like yours. You see, I
came by me 'beliefs' from looking into the evidence and data. I listened
carefully and I looked around. I tried to make the 'official' story work,
because I wanted it to be true, but there were too many errors in it. I
was finally forced to accept the facts and evidence that I saw, and came
to the obvious conclusion that it was 'controlled demolition'. There
really aren't too many possibilities anyway. Planes ran into the
buildings and they fell, or it was controlled demolition and they fell.
> > > Next you'll be telling me there weren't even any planes.
>
> > I've seen videos of a plane that hit into each of the 2 tall
> > towers. I saw NO plane that hit the WTC 7 tower. Did you?
>
> Did burning debris slam down upon WTC 7, however, from the taller towers?
> I seem to recall it did. That alone raises at least a *possibility* that
> that is what caused the collapse of WTC 7. You may not *believe* in that
> possibility in your *opinion*. Many others also do not believe in that
> possibility in their *opinions*. But it is still nothing more than an
> *opinion* that controlled demolition brought down WTC 7. You and others
> may honestly *believe* that it is already "proven" or can be "proven" that
> controlled demolition was used, but that also is nothing more than an
> *opinion*, regardless of how many or how few people share that *opinion*.
> It is not yet conclusively *proven* in any realistic sense that even WTC 7
> alone was brought down in the way you think it was.
>
Please stop trying to say what I think and just say what YOU think.
You're not good enough a mind reader. Now let's look at your discussion
of the topic. You keep saying MY opinion, yet I got MY opinion from facts
and evidence. It's certainly an extremely tiny possibility that the
damage to building 7 caused it to fall, however, the building stayed up
very well on its own for many hours after the damage was done. Also, if
you looked into the evidence, then you saw that the time of the fall of
building 7 was known and they put warnings out all the way down to the
workers on the street, who advised the people standing around to move back
as the building was coming down. As well, Larry Silverstein made a
foolish comment that they tried to cover up 3 years later when he said:
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander,
telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the
fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the
smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and
we watched the building collapse." From:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/cutter.html
Note that I present the link where a particular copy is shown from, so
it can be checked. Please try to do the same, thanks! The statement
above was from Larry Silverstein, who had recently bought the WTC complex.
Some folks have said he didn't mean they wanted to bring the building
down, but he made it clear when he said 'we watched the building
collapse'. The term 'pull' is one used in demolition work, and came from
actually using a tractor or bulldozer to pull a cable that was attached to
a building and pull the building down. That would be an impossibility
nowadays with a skyscraper of 47 stories tall. If you want to see him
saying the above quote I can find the video of him doing it. Here's the
video of the street where they were telling people to back up, the
building was coming down. The best place to jump into it is at 1:00
minutes in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jlxw9TZ_0Cc
This is the same countdown, different witness. Go into the video at
1:40:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD5tyjiHOd4
> Yes or no, can you *prove* that the *majority* of building demolition
> experts worldwide believe that even *one* of those buildings *was* brought
> down by controlled demolition? Let's now be more specific than just
> architects and engineers, since I suspect you knew perfectly well years
> ago, or if you didn't you should have since it is simple common sense,
> that not nearly all architects, and not nearly all engineers have any
> particular expertise in controlled demolitions of buildings. What about
> demolition experts specifically? What percentage of *them* worldwide
> believe that only the planes brought down the buildings, and what
> percentage believe otherwise? Do you have any figures on that at all, and
> if you do, what is your source? And remember also that no matter what
> source you give, others can independently verify whether the source is
> credible or not. And I'm not going to buy any argument such as equating
> stated doubts with absolute certainty. If they are not *quoted*
> *verbatim* as *specifically* stating that they *do* believe the buildings
> *were* brought down by controlled demolition, it would be misleading of
> you to claim that that's what they are implying when they don't
> specifically say so themselves.
>
You're doing it again. You are afraid to deal with the facts and
evidence, you just want to poke at me. I've dealt with that above.
> > > > Now that's not too evidential a base for believing anything...:)
> > > > That's closer to theories than anything I'm looking for. ?Actually,
> > > > they HAVE proved 'controlled demolition' with science, not theories.
> > > > It sounds like you didn't research the subject, you looked at sites
> > > > and information that will bolster your view of the world, and avoid
> > > > evidence that scares you out of your pants. ?That's not very
> > > > scientific. ?With science, you start with the data and information,
> > > > then form a belief from that, testing it against all other
> > > > possibilities. ?Try it...:)
>
> > > I've seen both the bunk and the debunking, of course. I have long been
> > > curious about how alternative realities are maintained. The similarities
> > > are striking between the perpetuation of certain urban legends about the
> > > Kennedy assassination and the stubborn persistence of delirious
> > > misinterpretations of the fall of the World Trade Center.
>
> > Odd that you would say all that and produce NO evidence of any kind.
> > I'm an evidence person.
>
> You are an evidence-exaggeration person. It is very clear to me that
> you exaggerate evidence of controlled demolition and downplay evidence
> to the contrary.
>
I have no alternative evidence from you to downplay...:)
> > I'm NOT interested in your theories of
> > conspiracies or legends. Where are your facts that prove conclusions?
> > If you have no facts, then you've lost your point and are howling at the
> > moon.
>
> Same can be said of you, most especially if you cannot prove that the
> *majority* of demolitions experts worldwide agree with you.
>
You really are afraid of the evidence aren't you? That's why you run
away when the subject of evidence comes up.
> > > Some theories are so ridiculous that a person capable of believing them in
> > > the first place is likely to be impervious to any evidence to the
> > > contrary. But I do what I can.
>
> > So far you've done nothing. I understand that many 'right thinking'
> > people back over a hundred years ago knew that man flying in a device was
> > 'ridiculous' and they stated their belief loudly. they said it couldn't
> > be because 'it was ridiculous'. Now here we are flying around all over the
> > > >> 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.
>
> > > There are crackpots in any field.
>
> > Is that one of your 'facts'? That people that have stated that the
> > fall of the towers was 'controlled demolition' were crackpots?
>
> Strawman. He was simply giving you the obvious common-sense observation
> that there really are crackpots in *every* field, something you should
> have known perfectly well years ago. He quite obviously was not
> suggesting that *all* of the people who believe that controlled demolition
> was used are crackpots. He was merely suggesting the possibility that
> *some* of them are.
>
No doubt. Still, they seem perfectly in control of their faculties
and they have said it was 'controlled demolition'. Is anyone going to
deal with that, or just run away?
> > Even
> > though they are experts in that field and you are probably not?
>
> As you also are not? And I'll remind you yet again that nowhere even
> remotely close to all of the people who signed that petition gave the
> reasons you have falsely attributed to them.
>
Nope. Won't do. I've answered that one before, you just keep
forgetting.
> > What do
> > you base your 'fact' on? Leprechauns?
>
> Did a leprechaun tell you that all 1700+ of those people signed the
> petition for absolutely 100% identical reasons, even though simple common
> sense would indicate otherwise, and even though the reasons they
> themselves gave were nowhere even remotely close to being absolutely
> identical?
>
Repeat. Ignored.
> > > The way-out theory is your thinking that 99.99999 percent of the
> > > "architects and engineers" (and not sanitation engineers) in the world
> > > are afraid to admit something that such an astute non-expert as yourself
> > > can see just as plain as the nose on your face.
> > > And wow, whoever's behind this plot would have had to count on that.
> > > But never fear. The Truthers are on the trail!
> > > Too funny.
> > Ridicule doesn't work with me. When are you going to try factual
> > argument like a grown adult?
>
> I would make the same suggestion to you. Don't jump to conclusions as
> to exactly why all of those people signed that petition. Read what they
> *said* were their reasons for signing it instead.
>
You're not off that subject yet? How can you ever hold a
conversation if that's all you do, repeating something you believe
you're right about?
> > > > ? ? Interestingly enough, I presented 2 'controlled demolition' experts
> > > > here and they have both been wiped out. Talk about fear! ?Now why
> > > > would that be?
>
> > > (Not sure if you're blaming me or an earlier poster, I didn't delete
> > > anything intentionally.)
>
> > Odd than that those items that others might want to look up
> > disappeared.
>
> But since your original articles have not yet disappeared, it is still
> childishly simple for anyone to still view all, not almost all, but all
> the links you gave in your articles, so isn't it irrelevant whether or not
> other posters snipped those out in their replies?
>
The general habit in this particular forum is to leave all of a
person's text there and simply make your comments in between, or at
the end. You may not have known that.
> > > ? ?Is someone not wanting that EVIDENCE to get out?
>
> > > > Here they are again, try to leave them available for those who think
> > > > with open minds:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcwnJTpholc
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k82vowo7doE
>
> See how I'm leaving those in and not snipping them? However, even if I
> did snip them it would be irrelevant, since this article of yours that
> I'm now replying to will remain visible no matter what I do. And I've
> seen videos and documentaries which dispute some of the claims in those
> videos you've cited.
>
Yes, I've heard a few newbies use that excuse, but in reality, after
a day or two the origuinals are harder to find and if you are in the
midst of replying and need the informatin, it's not available to you,
and if you try to get it you can lose the open reply box and lose a
lot of work.
> > > Have you perused the helpful links I sent?
>
> > Of course, and I left a comment on them. They looked like conspiracy
> > documents and I'm not into that stuff. The inevitable Randi sees
> > conspiracies everywhere made to fool him, but he's too smart. However, I
> > like facts and will be glad to present whatever I can on the current
> > topic. Now how about you? Have any facts to support your opinion that
> > all the facts are wrong or lies?
>
> Do you have any facts to support your opinion that all 1700+ of those
> people signed that petition for absolutely identical reasons? If you do,
> I have not seen you produce them yet. I have only seen you produce a
> totally unsupported opinion that all of them intentionally *implied* an
> identical viewpoint merely by signing the document and literally no other
> reason, even though that is simply not in evidence in the reasons many of
> them gave for signing it.
>
Nope, won't do. We've been there and you're becoming a broken
record, I guess becasue you ahve no facts to prove your viewpoint of
the fall of the towers.
> > You might want to watch the effort on the part of Popular Mechanics as
> > they tried to prove AE911truth wrong. They were soundly stomped by facts
> > and scientific knowledge!
>
> So that's one group who, according to you, failed to prove the viewpoint
> wrong. How many others haven't failed?
I don't think too many major publications took it up like Pop Mech
did. There were plenty individuals and bloggers, but few serious
people with facts. Many of those were conspiracy theorists which I'm
not interested in.
I'll leave you with this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LLHTh_UjBc
The emergency management person stuck inside building 7. He got out
with difficulty. Experienced major explosion inside the building.
Chris
> In article
> <464a960e-a602-4e1a-a982-a0d1df40c...@z8g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
than discussing the real problem of the 3 towers coming down due to
'controlled demolition'. In previous posts I have given my answers to
your picking and I stand on them. That leaves us with the facts and
evidence that have been shown to you and which you seem to have ignored.
Why is it that evidence is something you want to avoid? Is it because YOU
decided that evidence can't mean anything since YOU know it's all
ridiculous?
I woudl very much like to see you tell us what you think happened to
building 7 when no planes ran into it, and no jet fuel was left in it.
> > So you have NO backup for your contention that
> > 'controlled demolition' was not used to bring down the 3 towers, right?
>
> I seem to recall he has indeed presented at least some evidence to the
> contrary.
>
really important facts and evidence, that we would have to go back and
play it from there. However, since you chimedin and are trying to save
him from embarrassment, perhaps you and I can have a siscussion aboutr the
facts. What do you say?
> > Meaning that I must be right as far as any debate on the matter because
> > you are unable to mount a decent viewpoint.
>
> The same can be said of you in reverse. You have falsely claimed that
> literally *all* of these people signed the petition for absolutely
> identical reasons, ignoring the reasons that they themselves gave for
> signing the petition, which include a variety of viewpoints on the issue,
> not one single viewpoint only. You can accuse Sandy of not backing up his
> claims very well, but you're not backing up your claims very well either.
>
that my statements were true, based on a knowledge of human reactions to
certain situations. However, For arguments sake (this once) I'll grant
your needs and say you're right. Now can we get on with a serious
discussion, or are you unable to do that? Would you rather run away from
the facts and evidence and just sit around picking at me? What do you
say?
> > Your own personal opinion
> > counts only in your house, not here where you have to prove your point.
>
> The same can be said of your personal opinion.
>
general rule (which some folks don't follow) is that you discuss the topic
and not the person. You wanted to talk on the side about whether my
statement about AE911truth members was true or not. That is discussing
the person. I went along with it for a while, but we need to get back on
track. We're here because you found it more fun to pick at me than to
discuss the topic at hand.
> > Do you have any facts to support your view? So far you've produced
> > nothing but your personal opinion, which carries no weight here. I'm able
> > those of the architects and Engineers.
>
> Yes, you've produced *some*. However, you have also made some obviously
> exaggerated statements as well. You originally claimed, falsely, that
> every single one of the people who signed that petition were absolutely
> convinced that the buildings, without a shadow of a doubt, were brought
> down by controlled demolition, and also falsely claimed that every person
> who signed the petition could prove this to be true. But when I looked at
> the actual reasons they gave for signing the petition, I quickly saw that
> most of them did not say either of those things. And I do not buy your
> argument that I saw yesterday that the act of signing, in and of itself,
> "implies" that that is what every one of these people meant. I'd almost
> be willing to bet money that if I contacted some of them, and asked them
> if your claim of why they signed the petition is correct, at least some of
> them would say no, that is not why they signed the petition.
>
> Shall we put that to the test?
>
Lordee! Are you daft? We've done that bit of yours to death. I've
>
> Yes, you've produced *some*. However, you have also made some obviously
> exaggerated statements as well. You originally claimed, falsely, that
> every single one of the people who signed that petition were absolutely
> convinced that the buildings, without a shadow of a doubt, were brought
> down by controlled demolition, and also falsely claimed that every person
> who signed the petition could prove this to be true. But when I looked at
> the actual reasons they gave for signing the petition, I quickly saw that
> most of them did not say either of those things. And I do not buy your
> argument that I saw yesterday that the act of signing, in and of itself,
> "implies" that that is what every one of these people meant. I'd almost
> be willing to bet money that if I contacted some of them, and asked them
> if your claim of why they signed the petition is correct, at least some of
> them would say no, that is not why they signed the petition.
>
> Shall we put that to the test?
>
said I will concede your point for the sake of argument (this once), why
are you so scared of the topic? Afraid that facts and evidence weren't
what you expected? You thought maybe that you would walk into some
'conspiracy theorist' with baloney for brains? Since you admit that I've
presented 'some' evidence, what is your opinion of those facts? Agree?
Disagree? If so, tell me why factually.
> > > It can't be proved any more than, say, the theory that Neil Armstrong
> > > never walked on the moon.
> > > But the CD theory is also as ridiculous as that.
>
> > Hmm. I think I see your problem. You think we're talking about a
> > THEORY. Nope. I'm talking about facts...
>
> No you aren't, certainly not entirely anyway. You incorrectly claimed, as
> if it was proven fact, that every one of those people signed the petition
> for a single, absolutely identical reason, and ignored the reasons these
> people themselves gave for signing the petition. How would you know why
> they signed the petition better than they themselves know why they signed
> the petition?
>
stay away from the main topic. I've answered your comments on my
statement above, so there's no reason to keep repeating it. It as if that
was the only thing you found that you could hang your hat on, so you have
to keep saying it, since you can't deal with the facts that were shown to
you aboutr the collapses.
> > I have NO interest in your
> > theories.
>
> Now wait a minute, you're acting as if Sandy is the only person on earth
> who has ever proposed that the buildings came down as the result of the
> plane crashes alone. In reality, millions of people worldwide believe
> that was the sole cause of the collapse of the buildings, just as there
> are many who believe otherwise. And how many certified architects and
> engineers are there worldwide who do NOT believe that the buildings were
> brought down by controlled demolition? Is it more or less than 1700?
> Unless you can *prove* that the *majority* of all of them worldwide
> believe controlled demolition was used, your own argument also has its
> weaknesses.
>
many believe another. I'm talking about facts and evidence, not beliefs
with no facts behind them. Many people 'believe' many things, including
leprechauns, but they can't provide facts to support their beliefs.
Let's try and get you into the arena of facts and see what you have to
say. Jump right in and give your evidence as to the fall of the 3 towers
and how it was accomplished. Tell me about temperatures and the melting
point of steel and things like that. Not what someone around the world
thinks of it all from a little TV and a lot of disbelief because they were
told something by their government.
> > I've pointed out facts concerning the bringing down of the 3
> > towers, now do you have any facts to say otherwise?
>
> No. You have pointed out what you *believe* in your *opinion* are facts.
> And I know you are hardly the only person to have such an opinion. You
> are ignoring the *fact* that you also are expressing a mere *opinion*, not
> a proven *fact*. It is not a proven fact merely because you honestly
> believe that it is, and merely because others honestly believe so as well.
> Anyone can be wrong without realizing it. Anyone.
>
me out. That can't be done from an erroneous base like yours. You see, I
came by me 'beliefs' from looking into the evidence and data. I listened
carefully and I looked around. I tried to make the 'official' story work,
because I wanted it to be true, but there were too many errors in it. I
was finally forced to accept the facts and evidence that I saw, and came
to the obvious conclusion that it was 'controlled demolition'. There
really aren't too many possibilities anyway. Planes ran into the
buildings and they fell, or it was controlled demolition and they fell.
> > > Next you'll be telling me there weren't even any planes.
>
> > I've seen videos of a plane that hit into each of the 2 tall
> > towers. I saw NO plane that hit the WTC 7 tower. Did you?
>
> Did burning debris slam down upon WTC 7, however, from the taller towers?
> I seem to recall it did. That alone raises at least a *possibility* that
> that is what caused the collapse of WTC 7. You may not *believe* in that
> possibility in your *opinion*. Many others also do not believe in that
> possibility in their *opinions*. But it is still nothing more than an
> *opinion* that controlled demolition brought down WTC 7. You and others
> may honestly *believe* that it is already "proven" or can be "proven" that
> controlled demolition was used, but that also is nothing more than an
> *opinion*, regardless of how many or how few people share that *opinion*.
> It is not yet conclusively *proven* in any realistic sense that even WTC 7
> alone was brought down in the way you think it was.
>
You're not good enough a mind reader. Now let's look at your discussion
of the topic. You keep saying MY opinion, yet I got MY opinion from facts
and evidence. It's certainly an extremely tiny possibility that the
damage to building 7 caused it to fall, however, the building stayed up
very well on its own for many hours after the damage was done. Also, if
you looked into the evidence, then you saw that the time of the fall of
building 7 was known and they put warnings out all the way down to the
workers on the street, who advised the people standing around to move back
as the building was coming down. As well, Larry Silverstein made a
foolish comment that they tried to cover up 3 years later when he said:
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander,
telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the
fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the
smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and
we watched the building collapse." From:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/cutter.html
Note that I present the link where a particular copy is shown from, so
it can be checked. Please try to do the same, thanks! The statement
above was from Larry Silverstein, who had recently bought the WTC complex.
Some folks have said he didn't mean they wanted to bring the building
down, but he made it clear when he said 'we watched the building
collapse'. The term 'pull' is one used in demolition work, and came from
actually using a tractor or bulldozer to pull a cable that was attached to
a building and pull the building down. That would be an impossibility
nowadays with a skyscraper of 47 stories tall. If you want to see him
saying the above quote I can find the video of him doing it. Here's the
video of the street where they were telling people to back up, the
building was coming down. The best place to jump into it is at 1:00
minutes in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jlxw9TZ_0Cc
This is the same countdown, different witness. Go into the video at
1:40:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD5tyjiHOd4
> Yes or no, can you *prove* that the *majority* of building demolition
> experts worldwide believe that even *one* of those buildings *was* brought
> down by controlled demolition? Let's now be more specific than just
> architects and engineers, since I suspect you knew perfectly well years
> ago, or if you didn't you should have since it is simple common sense,
> that not nearly all architects, and not nearly all engineers have any
> particular expertise in controlled demolitions of buildings. What about
> demolition experts specifically? What percentage of *them* worldwide
> believe that only the planes brought down the buildings, and what
> percentage believe otherwise? Do you have any figures on that at all, and
> if you do, what is your source? And remember also that no matter what
> source you give, others can independently verify whether the source is
> credible or not. And I'm not going to buy any argument such as equating
> stated doubts with absolute certainty. If they are not *quoted*
> *verbatim* as *specifically* stating that they *do* believe the buildings
> *were* brought down by controlled demolition, it would be misleading of
> you to claim that that's what they are implying when they don't
> specifically say so themselves.
>
evidence, you just want to poke at me. I've dealt with that above.
> > > > Now that's not too evidential a base for believing anything...:)
> > > > That's closer to theories than anything I'm looking for. ?Actually,
> > > > they HAVE proved 'controlled demolition' with science, not theories.
> > > > It sounds like you didn't research the subject, you looked at sites
> > > > and information that will bolster your view of the world, and avoid
> > > > evidence that scares you out of your pants. ?That's not very
> > > > scientific. ?With science, you start with the data and information,
> > > > then form a belief from that, testing it against all other
> > > > possibilities. ?Try it...:)
>
> > > I've seen both the bunk and the debunking, of course. I have long been
> > > curious about how alternative realities are maintained. The similarities
> > > are striking between the perpetuation of certain urban legends about the
> > > Kennedy assassination and the stubborn persistence of delirious
> > > misinterpretations of the fall of the World Trade Center.
>
> > Odd that you would say all that and produce NO evidence of any kind.
> > I'm an evidence person.
>
> You are an evidence-exaggeration person. It is very clear to me that
> you exaggerate evidence of controlled demolition and downplay evidence
> to the contrary.
>
> > I'm NOT interested in your theories of
> > conspiracies or legends. Where are your facts that prove conclusions?
> > If you have no facts, then you've lost your point and are howling at the
> > moon.
>
> Same can be said of you, most especially if you cannot prove that the
> *majority* of demolitions experts worldwide agree with you.
>
away when the subject of evidence comes up.
> > > Some theories are so ridiculous that a person capable of believing them in
> > > the first place is likely to be impervious to any evidence to the
> > > contrary. But I do what I can.
>
> > So far you've done nothing. I understand that many 'right thinking'
> > people back over a hundred years ago knew that man flying in a device was
> > 'ridiculous' and they stated their belief loudly. they said it couldn't
> > place in planes. Don't you feel silly?
>
> He shouldn't, because that is a corruption of the actual argument he has
> been making to you.
>
As usual. No facts.
>
> He shouldn't, because that is a corruption of the actual argument he has
> been making to you.
>
> > > >> 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.
>
> > > There are crackpots in any field.
>
> > Is that one of your 'facts'? That people that have stated that the
> > fall of the towers was 'controlled demolition' were crackpots?
>
> Strawman. He was simply giving you the obvious common-sense observation
> that there really are crackpots in *every* field, something you should
> have known perfectly well years ago. He quite obviously was not
> suggesting that *all* of the people who believe that controlled demolition
> was used are crackpots. He was merely suggesting the possibility that
> *some* of them are.
>
and they have said it was 'controlled demolition'. Is anyone going to
deal with that, or just run away?
> > Even
> > though they are experts in that field and you are probably not?
>
> As you also are not? And I'll remind you yet again that nowhere even
> remotely close to all of the people who signed that petition gave the
> reasons you have falsely attributed to them.
>
forgetting.
> > What do
> > you base your 'fact' on? Leprechauns?
>
> Did a leprechaun tell you that all 1700+ of those people signed the
> petition for absolutely 100% identical reasons, even though simple common
> sense would indicate otherwise, and even though the reasons they
> themselves gave were nowhere even remotely close to being absolutely
> identical?
>
> > > The way-out theory is your thinking that 99.99999 percent of the
> > > "architects and engineers" (and not sanitation engineers) in the world
> > > are afraid to admit something that such an astute non-expert as yourself
> > > can see just as plain as the nose on your face.
> > > And wow, whoever's behind this plot would have had to count on that.
> > > But never fear. The Truthers are on the trail!
> > > Too funny.
> > Ridicule doesn't work with me. When are you going to try factual
> > argument like a grown adult?
>
> I would make the same suggestion to you. Don't jump to conclusions as
> to exactly why all of those people signed that petition. Read what they
> *said* were their reasons for signing it instead.
>
conversation if that's all you do, repeating something you believe
you're right about?
> > > > ? ? Interestingly enough, I presented 2 'controlled demolition' experts
> > > > here and they have both been wiped out. Talk about fear! ?Now why
> > > > would that be?
>
> > > (Not sure if you're blaming me or an earlier poster, I didn't delete
> > > anything intentionally.)
>
> > Odd than that those items that others might want to look up
> > disappeared.
>
> But since your original articles have not yet disappeared, it is still
> childishly simple for anyone to still view all, not almost all, but all
> the links you gave in your articles, so isn't it irrelevant whether or not
> other posters snipped those out in their replies?
>
person's text there and simply make your comments in between, or at
the end. You may not have known that.
> > > ? ?Is someone not wanting that EVIDENCE to get out?
>
> > > > Here they are again, try to leave them available for those who think
> > > > with open minds:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcwnJTpholc
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k82vowo7doE
>
> See how I'm leaving those in and not snipping them? However, even if I
> did snip them it would be irrelevant, since this article of yours that
> I'm now replying to will remain visible no matter what I do. And I've
> seen videos and documentaries which dispute some of the claims in those
> videos you've cited.
>
a day or two the origuinals are harder to find and if you are in the
midst of replying and need the informatin, it's not available to you,
and if you try to get it you can lose the open reply box and lose a
lot of work.
> > > Have you perused the helpful links I sent?
>
> > Of course, and I left a comment on them. They looked like conspiracy
> > documents and I'm not into that stuff. The inevitable Randi sees
> > conspiracies everywhere made to fool him, but he's too smart. However, I
> > like facts and will be glad to present whatever I can on the current
> > topic. Now how about you? Have any facts to support your opinion that
> > all the facts are wrong or lies?
>
> Do you have any facts to support your opinion that all 1700+ of those
> people signed that petition for absolutely identical reasons? If you do,
> I have not seen you produce them yet. I have only seen you produce a
> totally unsupported opinion that all of them intentionally *implied* an
> identical viewpoint merely by signing the document and literally no other
> reason, even though that is simply not in evidence in the reasons many of
> them gave for signing it.
>
record, I guess becasue you ahve no facts to prove your viewpoint of
the fall of the towers.
> > You might want to watch the effort on the part of Popular Mechanics as
> > they tried to prove AE911truth wrong. They were soundly stomped by facts
> > and scientific knowledge!
>
> So that's one group who, according to you, failed to prove the viewpoint
> wrong. How many others haven't failed?
did. There were plenty individuals and bloggers, but few serious
people with facts. Many of those were conspiracy theorists which I'm
not interested in.
I'll leave you with this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LLHTh_UjBc
The emergency management person stuck inside building 7. He got out
with difficulty. Experienced major explosion inside the building.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
Oct 9, 2012, 9:53:00 PM10/9/12
to
phony journals and had its OWN psychic protects. i.e. the Stargate
Project. I don't mind that you are no naive. That's actually quite
refreshing in this modern age of Google. I just cringe at how uneducated
you are.
> I think most of us know how seriously to take your claims of who is and
> isn't involved with the CIA, which is not seriously at all. It must have
> been a "paranormal" former employee of the CIA who got you kicked off of
> Compuserve. And did you ever actually *prove* that Ed Dolan ever worked
> for the CIA in any capacity whatsoever? Nope.
>
programs. In fact he laughed off one claim of psychic remote viewing to
identify exactly where the frogs were.
Of course I proved that Ned Dolan was a CIA officer. First he admitted it
and then I found his biography when he ran for office in the AFIO. You
really need to stop these stupid challenges. They make you look like a
freshman.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/AFIO1988.gif
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.
mainframetech
Oct 10, 2012, 3:28:43 PM10/10/12
to
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?
>
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 planes and all sorts of conspiracies, I'm into facts and
evidence.
> Your problem is exactly that you take to be facts what are nothing but
> delusional misinterpretations of the Truthers. These delusions didn't
> start with the evidence but with the Truthers paranoid suspicion. Now,
> knowing the Cheney/Bush administration, I could see where they were coming
> from. But rationally considered, they didn't make a lick of sense.
>
able to determine that the facts that I looked up on my own are "nothing
but delusional misinterpretations of the Truthers"? Especially since I
didn't get them from the truthers! How did you determine that my seeing
videos of molten steel in the basements of the collapsed buildings were
only delusions? How did the truthers delude me when I looked up the
melting point of steel and the maximum temperatures reached in jet fuel
and office fires? Now who's talking 'conspiracy theories'? On top of all
that direct knowledge I went and got, you've finally stumpoed me. What in
hell has Bush/Cheney got to do with facts and evidence of the collapses?
Are you feeling OK? Any problems walking, or balancing?
> That was back when people were coming out with the CD theory and it was
> being debunked.
>
intellectual? Sounded knowledgeable? Were you aware that the 'controleld
demolition' method was not debunked in the 3 towers case, it was proven.
Any 'debunking was strictly 'theories'. But I'll be happy to look over
any of them you'd like me to, and give you my opinion. Just put it out
there...:) Remember ing of course, I'm only interested in facts not
guesses.
> >> Next you'll be telling me there weren't even any planes.
>
> > I've seen videos of a plane that hit into each of the 2 tall
> > towers. I saw NO plane that hit the WTC 7 tower. Did you?
>
> Of course not. Whoever said that there was?
>
> That building collapsed because of damage from debris that fell from the
> other buildings (some "controlled" demo!) and the extensive fires that
> can be seen on videos. The fire crew was pulled out in the nick of time,
> when it was realized the building could not be saved.
>
that were scheduled for a particular time. They gave the information to
the news media an hour ahead of time. There was a countdown and large
explosions and the building came down exactly like a controlled demolished
building would into it's own footprint. The key there is that it is
impossible to simply 'pull' a 47 story building on a moment's notice. 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!
> >>> Now that's not too evidential a base for believing anything...:)
> >>> That's closer to theories than anything I'm looking for. Actually,
> >>> they HAVE proved 'controlled demolition' with science, not theories.
> >>> It sounds like you didn't research the subject, you looked at sites
> >>> and information that will bolster your view of the world, and avoid
> >>> evidence that scares you out of your pants. That's not very
> >>> scientific. With science, you start with the data and information,
> >>> then form a belief from that, testing it against all other
> >>> possibilities. Try it...:)
>
> >> I've seen both the bunk and the debunking, of course. I have long been
> >> curious about how alternative realities are maintained. The similarities
> >> are striking between the perpetuation of certain urban legends about the
> >> Kennedy assassination and the stubborn persistence of delirious
> >> misinterpretations of the fall of the World Trade Center.
>
> > Odd that you would say all that and produce NO evidence of any kind.
>
> I gave you a source for all the evidence you would need.
> Have you followed any of those links?
>
ain't. I would like evidence or facts relating to the factual discussion
that I'm trying to have on the 3 towers. I looked at the link provided
and found that, like the PopMech attempt at debunking, they cherry picked
a few cases that they could say something negative about and declared that
they had proved something.
An example would be when they spoke of molten pools of steel in the
basements. The fact that the pools were found WEEKS later wasn't
mentioned. In fact the few paltry pools they produced in their example
were not created as a standard cutting torch would be used, it was held on
a specific place for a long time on a solid steel object, generating a
mess that no cutter would ever create under normal circumstances. As
well, their molten pools cooled and hardened in 20 minutes. The pools
weighing tons (estimated) in the basements of the towers were hard to get
to and were far too large to be the result of some cutting torches. The
molten pools lasted for many weeks as per the firemen who witnessed them
right after the collapse before they had done any cutting on the steel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM
The firemen in the video described something very different thasn a few
cutting torches making some sparks. They were talking about a serious
river of molten stell at one point. The Randi effort at debunking was
sophomoric.
Here's your link to the Randi site,
http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18
Which then pointed me to an Italian site that did the work for them
of making the example here:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/12/molten-metal-pools-may-have-simple.html
Compare for yourself.
> > I'm an evidence person. I'm NOT interested in your theories of
> > conspiracies or legends. Where are your facts that prove conclusions?
> > If you have no facts, then you've lost your point and are howling at the
> > moon.
>
> >> Some theories are so ridiculous that a person capable of believing them in
> >> the first place is likely to be impervious to any evidence to the
> >> contrary. But I do what I can.
>
> > So far you've done nothing. I understand that many 'right thinking'
> > people back over a hundred years ago knew that man flying in a device was
> > 'ridiculous' and they stated their belief loudly. they said it couldn't
> > be becasue 'it was ridiculous'. Now here we are flying around al over the
> > place in planes. Don't you feel silly?
>
> This is old news. All the facts are out there. I can't add a whit to it.
>
determine what they are saying.
> You have either looked at only one side and there's still hope for you.
> That's why I gave you the link to the resources.
>
beliefs with no effort to prove anything to me, who you must consider an
oddball for wanting evidence and facts instead of your opinion that the
facts are all ridiculous. Can you actually say WHY you think they are
ridiculous?
> Or you have looked at both sides, and this is still your conclusion. In
> which case, I am certainly not going to convince you by arguing on this
> newsgroup, and it's not wasting any time trying.
>
putting up one link. It appears that you looked only at the things you
believed that supported your own feelings and ignored any evidence to the
contrary as 'conspiracy theories', which is handy when you don't want to
get involved. The reason people shy away from the truth is that they see
a large responsibility if they accept the evidence. It means they have to
do difficult and sometimes unpleasnt things to make it right, and many
don't want to face that sort of effort, they just want to sit in fron of
the TV and be lulled by car commercials.
would think that people working with explosives can't be too crackpottish
or they would blast themselves quickly into oblivion. "Controlled
Demolition' is not toys for kids.
> > That people that have stated that the
> > fall of the towers was 'controlled demolition' were crackpots?
>
> Yessiree.
>
> > Even
> > though they are experts in that field and you are probably not? What do
> > you base your 'fact' on? Leprechauns?
>
> Have you perused *any* of the helpful links I offered.
> (Let's leave just plain common sense out of the equation for now.)
>
above. My question stands...What do
> > you base your 'fact' (crackpots) on?
>
>
> >> The way-out theory is your thinking that 99.99999 percent of the
> >> "architects and engineers" (and not sanitation engineers) in the world
> >> are afraid to admit something that such an astute non-expert as yourself
> >> can see just as plain as the nose on your face.
> >> And wow, whoever's behind this plot would have had to count on that.
> >> But never fear. The Truthers are on the trail!
> >> Too funny.
>
> > Ridicule doesn't work with me. When are you going to try factual
> > argument like a grown adult?
>
> When a serious subject is under discussion.
>
So it's easier for you to slide away from the discussion by saying it's
>
> >> The way-out theory is your thinking that 99.99999 percent of the
> >> "architects and engineers" (and not sanitation engineers) in the world
> >> are afraid to admit something that such an astute non-expert as yourself
> >> can see just as plain as the nose on your face.
> >> And wow, whoever's behind this plot would have had to count on that.
> >> But never fear. The Truthers are on the trail!
> >> Too funny.
>
> > Ridicule doesn't work with me. When are you going to try factual
> > argument like a grown adult?
>
> When a serious subject is under discussion.
>
not serious? Thousands of lives lost, and it's not serious? If it were
caused by planes hitting buildings and the resultant fires, wouldn't we
want to know how it happened and get into the guts of it and find out what
could be done to save lives the next time Al Qaeda steals planes?
Wouldn't we save the steel and other parts of the buildings to find out
why they came down? It was the law BTW. All those answers haven't been
worked out yet, no matter what you were told. They still can't explain
the falling of building 7. They gave specific reasons for the fall of the
twin towers, but simply left out any explanation for building 7.
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfm
>
>
> >>> Interestingly enough, I presented 2 'controlled demolition' experts
> >>> here and they have both been wiped out. Talk about fear! Now why
> >>> would that be?
>
> >> (Not sure if you're blaming me or an earlier poster, I didn't delete
> >> anything intentionally.)
>
> > Odd than that those items that others might want to look up
> > disappeared.
>
> If it happened in my reply, I may have deleted what came after my
> message without paying any attention to it. But your attitude is amusing.
>
> >> Is someone not wanting that EVIDENCE to get out?
>
> >>> Here they are again, try to leave them available for those who think
> >>> with open minds:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcwnJTpholc
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k82vowo7doE
>
> >> Have you perused the helpful links I sent?
>
> > Of course, and I left a comment on them. They looked like conspiracy
> > documents and I'm not into that stuff.
>
> They are, of course, the very opposite of the kind of "conspiracy
> documents" where you have gotten your, uh, ideas.
could try dealing with. It's obvious that Randi didn't try to deal with
the WTC facts, he linked to another group that did it, and they cherry
picked some facts they thought they could argue with. Turns out they
couldn't, and I put my comments above on their attempt, with an example
and witnesses. Real facts are hard to deal with, even for self-proclaimed
experts.
>
> > The inevitable Randi sees
> > conspiracies everywhere made to fool him, but he's too smart.
>
> He sees conspiracy theorists out there who really do a good job of
> fooling people like yourself.
when corroborated. Theories don't interest me, nor do their websites.
Of course, the many blogs out there that purport to have solved the whole
'conspiracy' thing are in the business of convincing people too. As much
as the CTs...:)
>
> > However, I
> > like facts and will be glad to present whatever I can on the current
> > topic. Now how about you? Have any facts to support your opinion that
> > all the facts are wrong or lies?
>
> > You might want to watch the effort on the part of Popular Mechanics as
> > they tried to prove AE911truth wrong. They were soundly stomped by facts
> > and scientific knowledge!
>
> I am not going to argue with anyone who could say that. If that's the
> way you judged that particular debate, I know that we're not going to
> find any common ground on what is a rational argument and what
> constitutes proof. Have fun!
face, especially if it suggests that we have a responsibility to act on
the facts. You think that saying that PopMech was wrong is a crime? Are
they the holy bible? Or do they want rreaders and the fact that many of
the population believe the 'official' story means they will get read
becasue they support that belief.
Come back when you have learned more...:)
Chris
John Reagor King
Oct 10, 2012, 9:19:46 PM10/10/12
to
In article
<e6e3951c-d467-4263...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech <mainfr...@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:
> >
> > > > > > > >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
> > said WAS done, period. ?But when I looked at what they actually said,
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.
> > > > > 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
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
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:
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
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]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_con
spiracy_theories
**********
The NIST said there was no clear chain of custody to prove that the
samples of dust actually came from the WTC site. However, it is also
said there, and farther down in the article, that the NIST has so far
not adequately investigated their own samples which supposedly DO have a
clear chain of custody, and I would not disagree with anyone who said
that the NIST definitely should investigate this matter further to
clarify this issue.
Be that as it may, for the time being anyway it cannot reasonably be
said that it has yet been *proven* in any realistic sense that thermite
(or nano-thermite) was actually present at the site.
Now, on this site the argument is in support of some form of thermite
being present, but look carefully: the claim is solely based on
photographic evidence only:
http://rense.com/general75/thrm.htm
This one also does not make any claim of thermite actually being *found*
at the site, and once again seems to rely on photographic evidence only
to support the claim:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/thermite.php
Then there's this one:
"The study, however, shows that the dust was collected from four
different sites, three of which were not in the immediate area
surrounding the fallen towers. Most of the samples are collections of
dust taken from blocks away."
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Scientists_find_active_superthermite_in_WTC
_0404.html
Here again a question is raised about the validity of at least some of
the samples, this time regarding the location from which they were
supposedly collected. And these seem to be the same four samples
referenced on Wikipedia above, which supposedly lack adequate chain of
custody.
This one repeats essentially the same arguments:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermite.html
This page certainly explains a great deal about the properties of
thermite and related substances, but once again the basis of the claim
that there was even thermite present at the site at all is the same dust
samples with the same questionable chain of custody:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
Basically the same argument here as in several of the sites above:
http://www.dailycensored.com/2009/04/05/scientists-find-active-super-ther
mite-in-wtc-dust/
Here the argument that any form of thermite was actually found in any
sample does not seem to me to be adequately sustained:
http://rt.com/usa/news/did-nano-thermite-take-down-the-wtc/
Now, I also have a question about these substances themselves. Is it
really true that the *only* possible way for thermite and nano-thermite
and so forth to appear is for it to have been intentionally placed there
as an explosive? Or can these compounds be produced in other ways as
well? I'm looking now at websites unrelated to 9/11, and specifically
looking into how these thermite compounds are formed. What I'm seeing is
a variety of ways in which they can form, not one particular way only.
How do we know for certain that the only possible explanation for the
presence of thermite substances is intentional placement in the buildings?
There is no other possible chemical reaction, none whatsoever, that can
produce these substances? That is not quite what I'm seeing in this
documentation.
Now, back to the Gage video you cited. At about 1:30 several videos of
the collapse of WTC 7 are shown, and a bit later one of those is shown
alongside another video of a building known to have been brought down by
controlled demolition. I immediately noticed something that has been
brought up here by at least one other poster, and which I have also seen
in television documentaries in which this whole issue is discussed. In
the video on the right which we know is of a building being brought down
by controlled demolition, I clearly see multiple explosions on multiple
floors of the building as it is being brought down. I see no such thing
in any of the videos of the collapse of WTC 7, even other videos besides
the one being shown here.
Here are some videos of known controlled demolitions of buildings, none of
which have anything to do with 9/11. In almost every case I can clearly
see multiple explosions on different floors of the buildings, and/or
different parts of each structure being brought down, and in several cases
I can clearly see fire blasting out at multiple points in the structures:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK50So-yYRU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcb37yyHgT8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L1FhnHaRbQ
I honestly do not see anything of the sort in any video I have ever seen
of the collapse of WTC 7. I also fairly recently, around the anniversary
last month in fact, spent many hours watching again all or nearly all of
the known videos of the collapses of WTC 1 and 2. In none of them did I
see anything that looked at all like an explosion below the floors which
the planes impacted. Instead in both cases I could clearly see, at least
in some of the videos, that the top part of each building above the point
of impact began to topple over sideways, but no explosions whatsoever
below that as the buildings were starting to come down.
And this is also a question that has been brought up in several
documentaries. If these buildings were brought down by controlled
demolition, when and how was this all set up? Wouldn't it take a fairly
large group of people to go inside each building and place explosives in
enough different parts of the buildings for this to work? How many people
do you think were involved directly in the placement of these explosives?
Approximately 50,000 people worked in these buildings on each typical
weekday leading up to the attack. Why are there no witnesses to these
people placing explosives throughout these buildings? Did these people do
this only at night? But isn't it true that even at night and on weekends
some of the people would do work in their offices on the weekends and at
night, perhaps a few of them even very late at night? And still not a
single witness to all these other people placing these explosives? And
New York is The City That Never Sleeps, especially the Manhattan Borough.
Believe me, I should know; I have several friends who live in Manhattan,
some of whom used to live here in Texas, and I have visited them a fair
number of times since 1990. Even very late at night, even in the very
early hours of the morning, there are always people out on the streets in
every part of Manhattan. How were these demolition people getting in and
out of these buildings with all their equipment without being seen by
people on the street? Did they drive their vans into the parking garage
first and only then unload their explosives out of sight of people on the
street? Do we have any witnesses to such vehicles going into the garage
at odd times of night?
And still more questions. Since this would of course be timed to coincide
with the plane strikes, this would indicate advance knowledge that the
planes would be flown into the buildings on that date. So let's say for
the sake of argument that all four planes, since the other two which
didn't go to NYC would still obviously be involved directly in the same
plot, were not really flown by Islamic terrorists, or at least that
whoever set all this up was also involved in the demolition of the
buildings. I guess your scenario is that our government was essentially
behind this whole thing. What do you think the motivation of the
government would be for this? To make it appear plausible to the American
public, and indeed the world, that the attack was committed by Islamic
terrorists, so that it would then justify our subsequent wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq, possibly to free up oil reserves and so forth?
I am not understanding this at all. Why would controlled demolitions of
these buildings even be necessary to achieve these goals? Wouldn't the
plane crashes all by themselves be more than enough to outrage the
American people? Wouldn't we all have been just as outraged, or nearly as
much, even if the buildings *hadn't* collapsed? Wouldn't the idea of
Islamic terrorists crashing a plane into the Pentagon *alone* be more than
enough to obtain a sufficient level of public outrage? Wouldn't the
additional crashes into the towers *alone* be more than enough, since even
in the first moments hundreds of people were killed? And there was yet
*another* crash near Shanksville. That didn't kill anyone on the ground
or in any building, but it did kill everyone on board. When that also is
added to everything else, wouldn't we all be just as outraged, or nearly
so, at the idea that Islamic terrorists did all this, even *without* a
single building anywhere in this country collapsing in addition?
I'm sorry, I just don't see the point of adding to that an *intentional*
demolition of the buildings using explosives. That seems like totally
unnecessary overkill for *any* conspiracy scenario involving our
government, no matter what that scenario is. And my goodness, the risks.
How many people, total, would have to be involved in this to pull it off?
It would have to be a lot more people than just the ones who placed the
explosives in the building. Someone has to pay for all that, just for
starters. It has to also include the people who flew the planes, and the
people who orchestrated all of this. How many people, minimum, would be
required for all this to work? One-hundred people at the very least with
some sort of direct involvement? Two-hundred? Three-hundred? And think
what would happen if it ever got out that our government was behind this.
The outrage against Islamic terrorists would obviously pale in comparison
to the public outrage that would occur if it was ever proven that our
government did this. We would more likely than not have a violent
revolution. And what about the severe damage to our economy, from which
we even today have not quite fully recovered? That damage was greatly
increased by the collapse of those buildings, obviously. Had the
buildings not collapsed, and in some sense been at least partially
salvageable, it obviously would not have had nearly as significant an
effect on our entire economy. Just to name one example, without the
collapse of the buildings, it might not have even been necessary to close
the stock exchange for several days.
I'm just not seeing who would benefit from all this. If the goal is to
make it more plausible to the public that we needed to go to war in
Afghanistan and Iraq, I don't see how there is any overall economic
benefit to that, since any benefit to freeing up oil reserves in Iraq, for
example, would be mitigated by the severe damage to our economy caused by
the attack in the first place.
In short, what is the point? The four plane crashes all by themselves,
and pinning it on Islamic terrorists, would be more than enough to
convince the public of all this, *without* it being even slightly
necessary to add *considerably* to the destruction, and add *considerably*
to the economic damage, by *also* collapsing the buildings purposefully,
since that part of it actually *decreases* any economic benefit, for the
government or anyone else. Why would these conspirators benefit *more*
from adding the collapses when they would more likely benefit more from
the *lack* of collapses, since the four plane crashes alone would do the
trick nicely, and not cost us nearly as much money?
> As a side note, molten (not just melted) steel stayed in the
> basements of the 3 buildings that collapsed for weeks after the
> original collapses. Nothing known to be in the buildings could cause
> that. Jet fuel and office equipment just won't reach the temperatures
> need to soften steel or to melt it. However, a few incendiary
> chemicals can do it, such as Thermite or Thermate.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3Ot1JxNdE
And I have seen many other experts dispute this, and who say that the jet
fuel, etc. *was* enough to achieve such temperatures. How do you know for
certain which group of experts is correct? And I ask again: what do the
*majority* of experts worldwide say about all this? How do you know that
the ones you are paying attention to comprise the *majority*? Because I
submit that if it is only a *minority* of the experts in the world who
agree that these buildings collapsed due to causes that were additional to
the plane strikes alone, then the case for that could be considered to be
weakened somewhat.
> While the molten steel was seen weeks later by many people including
> firefighters, NIST, who was supposed to analyze everything and come up
> with what happened, denies that they ever heard of any molten steel.
> Ridiculous in light of the preceding video, and proof that a proper
> investigation was not done.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg
That may be, but doesn't it have to be proven first, conclusively, that
the *only* possible way to achieve these temperatures is to use methods
that are *additional* to the plane strikes? I do not yet see that such a
thing has been proven conclusively. I see a lot of people *claiming* that
it is, but I also see a lot of people claiming exactly the opposite, and
plenty of them are certified experts too. Do we yet have a real consensus
on this from the *majority* of experts?
> As an addendum, and not critical for the debate, but interesting in
> its own light, here is Dr. Steven Jones speaking of how the analysis
> was done, and what the chemistry of the nano-thermite was. Mind you,
> all these videos are speaking of factual evidence, NOT some silly
> 'conspiracy theories'.
But sooner or later we have to address who was behind this and why they
would do it this way. And at this time I am not able to think of any
scenario that is even remotely plausible.
> > > The dust contains something that other dust around NYC
> > > does not contain, and that is nano-thermite.
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite
> >
> > That may be. ?It still does not support your original claim that more than
earlier reply to me you repeated this exact text seven times without the
slightest change in wording:
"See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the
reason for the collapse is in his signing the petition."
It was as if you thought that the more times you repeated it, the "more
true" it would become. ;-) Now you're accusing me of doing the same
thing you did? Do you know what that's called? It starts with the
letter "h."
And very much unlike you, I did not repeat myself over and over and over
in absolutely identical wording. In each, uh, "repetition" I quite
obviously elaborated further on what I perceived to be the inherent
fallacy of your essential argument about why the 1700+ people signed the
petition. Since you kept stating the same position repeatedly, I
naturally expressed my disagreements repeatedly.
In other words, I, uh, "repeated" myself, as you call it, only because
you kept repeating and repeating and repeating yourself *first*. I find
it fascinating that you criticize me for something you, not I, started.
;-)
> I can't show you
> everyone of the 1,725 or more people and their beliefs, but there is
> enough factual information for any science minded person to realize
> that there was 'controlled demolition' involved from the facts
> supplied.
In your *opinion* it is factual information. In the *opinions* of some,
not all, experts in the world it is factual information. I have not yet
seen a shred of credible evidence to suggest that the *majority* of the
experts in the world as yet *share* this *opinion*, nor have I yet seen
evidence that it is only a minority either. I've seen nothing either
way. And because all of this is still *opinion*, this does NOT support
your argument that all these people had nearly identical motivations for
signing the petition. And how do you know that at least some of them
haven't had second thoughts by now? How do you know that there aren't
at least some of them who now regret having signed it, for various
reasons.
The reason I keep repeating myself is that you continuously and
repeatedly seem to ignore human nature. Motivations are going to vary
widely among this large a group of people, no matter what the issue is.
> There is a video of many of the experts that have come to
> believe that there was 'controlled demolition' involved, and they have
> spoken for the video. It's called ?9/11: Explosive Evidence ? Experts
> Speak Out.? So some of the people your speaking of are there.
*Some* of them, yes. But not anywhere even remotely close to *all* of
them, correct?
> > > ? ?On top of that discovery, they (as architects and engineers) have
> > them specifically say that on that website then? ?Merely saying that
> That was dealt with above.
You have an extraordinarily different definition of "dealt with" than I
do. I have not once seen you make an even remotely plausible argument
to support your sweeping generalization.
> Since they signed the petition, using intelligence and common sense,
> we can imply that they have come to the same conclusion,
No we CANNOT *infer* (that's the proper word for that context) that they
all came to the same conclusion. You are ignoring well-known aspects of
human nature. You will *never* have this large a number of people come to
exactly the same conclusion on *anything*. People are just too varied for
that. I continue to tell you (and the ONLY reason I'm restating this
again is because you keep repeating your own argument FIRST) that there
are a lot more possibilities of motivation than you are willing to admit.
Some would sign the document because they *are* totally convinced.
Others would sign the document merely because they have significant
doubts, and believe further investigation needs to be done to clarify what
really happened, and they don't have to be totally convinced that
demolition occurred to have sufficient cause to sign the petition. And
there can be all sorts of other variations in motive in between. That's
how humans are, Chris.
> though some
> would rather take the safe way and say it couched in those terms until
> they have 'official' evidence.
Look who's repeating now. You're still trying to attribute nearly
identical motivations to much too large a group of people, people of
different economic backgrounds, social backgrounds, religious backgrounds,
political backgrounds, cultural backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, and
multiple nationalities. All of those variations alone are going to ensure
a wide variety of viewpoints and approaches on any issue, not just this
one issue, and a wide variety of motivations to sign the petition.
> > > Their fields allow them the knowledge to make that sort
> > > of determination for themselves and therefore to sign the request for
> > > the investigation.
> >
> > Yes, a request for further investigation. ?Because they have doubts.
> If you were successful in proving
> that a number of the members didn't believe the 'controlled
> demolition' evidence, it wouldn't change the evidence, which stays
> there unimpeachable.
Strawman. I never once suggested that any of these people signed the
petition because they *didn't* believe in any possibility of controlled
demolition. Instead, what I keep trying and trying and trying to get
across to you is that they *vary* in their *degree* of certainty as to
whether or not controlled demolition was used. Some of them are
absolutely certain. Others are nearly certain. Others think it is likely
but they're not fully committed to it yet. Others think it is at least
somewhat likely. Some simply have doubts about the official explanation
and want further investigation to be done. All of these are perfectly
plausible reasons for signing this petition, Chris. They don't have to
have nearly identical motivations to want to sign it. And again you're
repeating yourself when you say that the evidence is unimpeachable. No,
it is unimpeachable in your *opinion*. It is unimpeachable in the
*opinions* of *some* experts in the world. But plenty of other people
think the evidence is most definitely impeachable, and I've seen and heard
them say it many times over the past several years, and plenty of those
people are certified experts too.
> > > Certainly those that think they know better can
> > > find an architect or engineer to debate the topic with.
> >
> > I'm not saying I know better, I'm merely disputing your obviously false
> > claim that anywhere even remotely close to 1700 of these people have
> > actually specifically stated the things you claimed that they
> > specifically stated.
> >
> You're repeating yourself.
Only because you repeated yourself first.
> See above.
What am I supposed to see above? An incessant repetition of an
implausible argument that ignores well-known human nature regarding
variety of motivation? An incessant repetition claiming the evidence to
be irrefutable when in fact it has been refuted many times by many
different people? An incessant repetition of you continuing to try to put
words in these people's mouths as to why they themselves signed the
petition, when they themselves would know why far better than you or I
ever could?
> > > 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
> > neither WCT One or Two collapsed straight downward. ?In both cases parts
insisting and insisting and insisting on applying nearly identical
motivations to much to large a group of people for that to be at all
plausible, and you keep insisting and insisting and insisting that the
evidence for demolition is much more conclusive than it actually is.
> Go through the videos supplied above and you will see
> facts and evidence, and NOT any theories.
Been there, done that, and I see gaping holes in the reasoning. I've also
been through many *other* videos and documentaries which *dispute* the
claims made in the videos you're talking about. And one thing most of
these videos are sorely lacking in, and that is a plausible explanation of
*how* this was done, as far as the sheer logistics of setting up all these
explosives in the first place without it being noticed by other witnesses
even if it was only done in the dead of night. No matter what you feel
about silly conspiracy theories, the logistics of exactly *how* this was
achieved logistically would have to be credibly addressed in order to
support *any* theory of controlled demolition on 9/11.
> > > > > Paul Stevenson Oles says:
> >
> > > > > "There appear too many unexplained events and unverified
> > > > > circumstances
> > > > > to be satisfied with the official version of the New York building
> > > > > collapses. As unthinkable as it is to suspect the United States
> > > > > government or military of willful complicity in these horrendous
> > > > > acts,
> > > > > it is even more heinous to allow such complicity--if indeed it
> > > > > exists--to remain undiscovered and unpunished. Therefore, a thorough
> > > > > and
> > > > > impartial investigation by an independent, well-funded commission is
> > > > > fully merited."
> >
> > > > > He's definitely unsatisfied with the official explanation, but
> > > > > nowhere
> > > > > there does he specifically say that the collapses were due to
> > > > > controlled
> > > > > demolition, nor does he come anywhere remotely close to specifically
> > > > > saying he can prove it.
> >
> > > See above. ?The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
themselves brought down the buildings, I am at a loss to understand why
you are asking me to present other credible possibilities.
> Actually, I can't think of anything except 'controlled demolition'.
Oh, you can't think of anything else? Anything at all? Then you seem
to be much more biased than I am.
> The facts don't bear out the jet fuel or office fires,
So you, and only *some* experts say.
> so something
> has to have caused the collapse which have never happened before in
> any building anywhere from heat.
Lol! Never happened before in any building anywhere from heat. I think
you got that from at least one of those videos, because I seem to recall
in one of those practically those exact words are spoken. How many
previous examples would we have of such a thing? How many previous
examples are there of large passenger jets nearly full of fuel crashing
into skyscrapers? Are there even *any* previous examples that are
especially similar to 9/11?
> > > > > Eason Cross says:
> >
> > > > > "The third building evidence is truly troubling. The 'why' is very
> > > > > hard
> > > > > to comprehend."
> >
> > > > > I guess he means WTC 7, but he just says he's very troubled by it,
> > > > > and
> > > > > does not comprehend why it collapsed. ?But he's not specifically
> > > > > saying
> > > > > that he believes it *did* collapse due to controlled demolition, nor
> > > > > is
> > > > > he saying he can prove it.
> >
> > > See above. ?The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> > regarding his signing of it. ?I don't see him saying that he is signing
> > explanation. ?That isn't quite the same thing as him specifically saying
of human nature.
> > > > > Harry G. Robinson III says:
> >
> > > > > "The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically
> > > > > generated.
> > > > > The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to
> > > > > implode as they did."
> >
> > > > > Well, he certainly seems to believe that controlled demolition was
> > > > > involved. ?But he's not saying that he himself can prove it.
> >
> > > See above. ?The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
realize that you are now directly contradicting yourself? Not in any
way, shape, or form are you taking a broad view of all the possibilities
of human motivation that would convince this large group of people to
sign this petition. Nor do you seem to be willing to consider at all
alternate possibilities to what some, but not nearly all, experts
consider to be clear evidence of controlled demolition.
> Picking at every one of ten statements helps nothing.
You are ignoring what else I said in the very article to which you were
here responding, even though you yourself quoted it below. Here it is
again:
**********
I've cited only the first ten here, but I've spent quite a lot of time
looking at many of the others, including in the engineers farther down
and also in the non-U.S. list. In some of them I'm finding the
qualifications listed in the Bio section to be questionable. I saw one
I did not look only at the ten statements I quoted. I looked at many,
many, many others. I did not find even ONE of them specifically saying
that they THEMSELVES could PROVE that controlled demolition was used.
And I continued to find a wide variety of reasons being given by these
people for signing the petition. I also found a wide variety of areas of
expertise, levels of expertise, experience, etc. As noted above, some of
these people, just based on what they themselves say of their own
expertise and experience, don't seem very well qualified at all to judge
this matter. That's yet another thing you have failed to take into
account when trying to attribute nearly identical motivations to all of
these people: their own qualifications. That also is a distinct variation
to these people to be added to the list of varieties of backgrounds that I
gave above. And what about their *ages*, Chris? You've got all these
different people of all different backgrounds, fields of expertise,
cultures, nationalities, races, gender, sexual orientation, experience,
and ages, and you are trying to pigeonhole such an incredibly diverse
group of people into a single common motivation to sign this petition?
It is astonishing to me that the inherent fallacy of this approach isn't
blindingly obvious to you.
> I've given the
> counter argument to the one that you keep putting in here after each
> of the statements.
Yes, and each time you give it, it is just as woefully unconvincing as
the time before. This group of people is much too diverse, in far too
many different ways, for your sweeping generalization to be at all
plausible.
> Most professionals won't make a statement that is
> too controversial without the investigation bearing them out.
"Professionals"? Professionals in which age range? Professionals in
which political group? Professionals in which religious group?
Professionals in which cultural group? Professionals of which
nationality? Professionals of which ethnic group? Professionals of what
amount of experience? I'm not buying this. Yet another variation of
common human nature you're failing to take into account is that some
people are more outspoken than others. Some people don't care about being
controversial, others do, and every variation in between. Pigeonholing
this incredibly diverse group of people into a common motivation is
ignoring human nature. Here's yet another possibility: did it ever occur
to you that at least some of these people signed the petition just to *be*
controversial and for no other reason? Don't tell me there aren't people
like that in the world, because there are plenty of them. And you're
acting like all of them have nearly identical risks to their careers.
No. For some of them the risk will be greater than others. Depending on
all sorts of contexts, including the nature of the communities they live
and work in, for some of them it would hardly affect their careers no
matter what they say about this issue, and for others it might affect
their careers significantly, in either negative *or* positive ways,
depending on the circumstances. That is yet another variation you seem to
have failed to consider.
> They
> don't want those 'small minded' folks to affect their income.
That cannot possibly be a motivation for all, or even nearly all, of
these people. I would think quite a few of these people wouldn't care
in the slightest about that. What if most of their customers pay little
attention to things like this on the Internet, Chris? Is that another
variation you have failed to consider?
> > "One of the reasons I signed the petition is because I am quite
> > confident that I myself can prove that the buildings collapsed due to
> > controlled demolition."
> >
> > Until you can quote him verbatim saying something like that, you are
> > merely speculating when you claim that his signing the petition alone
> > "implies" that this was one of his reasons for signing it.
> >
> Wromg. You assume that these people mean only EXACTLY their words,
> and are not speaking based on the society they live in.
Oh no, I'm sure at least some of them are leaving things unsaid in the
reasons they are giving publicly for signing the petition. But see,
that's yet another variation. Different people will leave different
things unsaid for different reasons, especially with such wide variation
in the types of careers they have and the types of business they are
involved in, not to mention all the other differences in circumstances
I've already mentioned. Others, as I said above, will be more outspoken,
and *won't* leave anything unsaid. That's just the problem: without
knowing these people personally, there is no possible way for you or I to
know for certain what these people are, or are not, leaving out in their
statements, and exactly *why* they are, or are not doing so. And what on
earth do you mean by "not speaking based on the society they live in"?
Are you saying that the society a person lives in has no significant
effect on what people do and do not say publicly, and that such things do
not differ widely from society to society? If that's what you mean, I
strongly disagree.
> > > See above. ?The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
personality is like beyond the public statement above, and knowing how
honest or dishonest he generally is, how ethical or unethical he
generally is, how outspoken he generally is, and so many other things?
I don't agree with that at all.
> > > > > Alan Haymond says:
> >
> > > > > "Suspicious on 9/11 about the collapses and the size of the original
> > > > > hole in the Pentagon. Thoroughly convinced of cover up by April '02 -
> > > > > too many unanswered questions. Recommend David Ray Griffin's books."
> >
> > > > > He says he's suspicious of the collapses, and was convinced well
> > > > > under a
> > > > > year later that there was a coverup. ?But nowhere there does he
> > > > > specifically say that he believes the collapses were the result of
> > > > > controlled demolition, nor does he specifically say that he can prove
> > > > > it.
> >
> > > See above. ?The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
variety of human nature? I already understood your argument the first
time, and I don't find it any more plausible no matter how many times
you repeat it.
> > > > > I've cited only the first ten here, but I've spent quite a lot of
> > > > > time
> > > > > looking at many of the others, including in the engineers farther
> > > > > down
> > > > > and also in the non-U.S. list. ?In some of them I'm finding the
> > > > > qualifications listed in the Bio section to be questionable. ?I saw
> > > > > one
> > > > > that listed his experience only in railroad engineering, and another
> > > > > who
> > > > > didn't really list any experience with anything. ?I do see quite a
> > > > > few
> > > > > saying they believed controlled demolitions were involved, but I'm
> > > > > also
> > > > > seeing about the same number who merely are voicing suspicions and
> > > > > calling for further investigation.
> >
> > > > > I haven't even found one yet, however, who specifically says that he
> > > > > or
> > > > > she can prove that the buildings collapsed due to controlled
> > > > > demolitions. ?There are a lot of them I haven't looked at yet, so I
> > > > > won't deny that there may be some that I haven't seen yet who say
> > > > > that,
> > > > > but I've looked at something like a hundred of them so far, and I
> > > > > still
> > > > > haven't found one yet who says they can prove this.
And there is where you yourself quoted me saying that I had looked at a
much larger number of these statements than just the ten I quoted, and
that I had continued to find a wide variety of reasons being given, a wide
variety of levels and types of expertise, a wide variety of ages, a wide
variety of cultures and nationalities, etc.
> > > > > Your original statement that I first replied to was this:
> >
> > > > > "Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC
> > > > > 9/11
> > > > > catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can prove
> > > > > it."
> >
> > > > > In my reply I was obviously asking if it was really true that more
> > > > > than
> > > > > 1700 of them really said what you're attributing to them, and in your
> > > > > reply to me you produced a link to a webpage that clearly shows your
> > > > > statement to be rather exaggerated.
> >
> > > ? I gave you a correct version above. ?By signing the petition, they
> > only your OPINION that that's what they all meant. ?And what they
> > each of them signed the petition? ?And again, simple common sense would
> Let's argue one of them, and then we can broaden the
> discussion to include the others if necessary. Obviously, I am
> speaking of what I believe, as are you. I came to my beliefs, not
> only of the collapses, but of the signatories to the petition from
> evidence and facts.
Or an alternate explanation: you came to your beliefs due to the
consideration of a smaller amount of evidence and facts than you realize.
> I have a reasonable person's knowledge of
> people and why they do things,
You do? I have not seen much of an obvious sign of that here.
> and I suspect you can have that too.
I suspect that I am a good deal more cognizant of the realities of human
nature than you are. Sorry, but it seems obvious to me. I'm accepting
a much wider variety of human traits than you are, and none of the
traits I have mentioned are at all "unusual."
> AsI have noted so many times in one way or another, professionals as
> are in this list are not going to immediately go whole hog and state
> their belief is something that a number of people have been convinced
> is false.
That depends greatly on their level of professionalism, which can vary
widely, and can vary in a lot of different ways.
> Thety will say something less clear and direct, while still
> looking for the 'official' investigation.
They will say the things they say for a wide variety of reasons. Any
group of humans this large and this diverse in this many different ways
is always going to do that, no matter what the subject.
> > > The
> > > reason is that they don't believe the NIST story which was put
> > > together by people in the correct fields to determine the cause of the
> > > collapses, and if the collapses were not by softened steel, the only
> > > other method of dropping buildings, especially where they fall into
> > > their own footprints almost exactly, is controlled demolition.
> > > However, would it help you to hear it from controlled demolition
> > > specialists?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcwnJTpholc
At 1:30: "I mean nobody, absolutely nobody can deny that that was
controlled demolition."
Provably false beyond all possible doubt. Plenty of *other* very *real*
experts *have* denied it. And I will thank you in advance not to try to
attribute some common ulterior motive to the experts which dispute this,
because obviously that argument won't work any better than the one you're
using for the experts you agree with. *Some* of them, I'm sure, *do* have
an ulterior motive for disputing the demolition angle. But just as with
the experts who do believe in demolition, there is just not one single
"type" of person among the experts who dispute it.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc
Uh-huh. Let's look at some other videos as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMNNPnXBH4M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsUYhrXonXQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gQjJnON0rQ
Just to address one of the many arguments made in those, in *all* of the
videos and films and so forth I have ever seen of controlled demolitions
(many more than just these) that also have *sound*, the explosions are
*very* loud and *very* obvious. But nothing like that at all is heard in
any of the videos of any of the WTC buildings collapsing. Most especially
for the two tall towers, it is mainly just a continuous roar that has very
little variation as they are coming down. I've never heard anything even
remotely like the very obvious and very loud explosions in videos with
audio of *known* controlled demolitions. I also do not recall ever
hearing any distinct loud explosion in any video of WTC 7 collapsing
either.
> > > ? ?If this topic is interesting for you, I would suggest that you look
> >
> > > ? ?To see the interest of others around the world in the topic, use
> > I've already seen many, if not all, of these videos, thank you. ?None of
centering on repeating over and over your liturgy that all these
statements were made for nearly identical reasons by such an incredibly
large and diverse group of people.
> For the sake of argument (this
> once), I will say you are completely right about my assumption of the
> signatorie's viewpoints. But what are your thoughts on the more
> important facts and evidence presented to you showing a cause for the
> collapse of the towers? Why do you keep avoiding that?
Avoiding it? I've posted a lot of reasons in this article alone to
support my viewpoints. Did you not take into account that you and I have
only started discussing this subject for the first time ever very
recently? Obviously I started out with simply addressing what I saw as a
severe flaw in your original claim that all of the people who signed the
petition had nearly identical reasons for doing so. You and I didn't even
start discussing the evidence pro and con collapse for the first time
until later, at least not in any great detail.
> Have you been
> anaesthetized by the common story, or are you still in that same frame
> of mind that it didn't happen that way because you decided it was
> ridiculous? Meaning that you viewed no evidence and saw no facts.
I have made it plain in this article that I have viewed and considered
plenty of evidence, thank you. In our very few previous exchanges on this
subject, which have only taken place over a very small number of days and
articles, you had no possible way of knowing how much I have or have not
already studied 9/11 in the past eleven years since it happened. We're
only just now getting to our first extensive discussions of this evidence.
Prior to today you would have had no possible way of knowing what anything
even remotely close to my complete position is on 9/11, because this is
the very first day I have ever talked about it in any detail in my entire
decade of posting to this newsgroup, and I still haven't expressed
anywhere close to everything I believe about 9/11.
<e6e3951c-d467-4263...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech <mainfr...@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:
> >
> > > > > > > >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
> > > 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
> > > NIST.
> >
> > 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
> >
> > "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
> > 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
> > 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'.
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.
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.
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > > 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.
> > > Obviously, the 1,700+ signatories have looked far enough to convince
> > > themselves that a new investigation needs to be done.
> >
> >
> 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
> True, but I corrected that and made a further statement above.
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.
> >
> > 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
> >
> 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
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:
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
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]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_con
spiracy_theories
**********
The NIST said there was no clear chain of custody to prove that the
samples of dust actually came from the WTC site. However, it is also
said there, and farther down in the article, that the NIST has so far
not adequately investigated their own samples which supposedly DO have a
clear chain of custody, and I would not disagree with anyone who said
that the NIST definitely should investigate this matter further to
clarify this issue.
Be that as it may, for the time being anyway it cannot reasonably be
said that it has yet been *proven* in any realistic sense that thermite
(or nano-thermite) was actually present at the site.
Now, on this site the argument is in support of some form of thermite
being present, but look carefully: the claim is solely based on
photographic evidence only:
http://rense.com/general75/thrm.htm
This one also does not make any claim of thermite actually being *found*
at the site, and once again seems to rely on photographic evidence only
to support the claim:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/thermite.php
Then there's this one:
"The study, however, shows that the dust was collected from four
different sites, three of which were not in the immediate area
surrounding the fallen towers. Most of the samples are collections of
dust taken from blocks away."
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Scientists_find_active_superthermite_in_WTC
_0404.html
Here again a question is raised about the validity of at least some of
the samples, this time regarding the location from which they were
supposedly collected. And these seem to be the same four samples
referenced on Wikipedia above, which supposedly lack adequate chain of
custody.
This one repeats essentially the same arguments:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermite.html
This page certainly explains a great deal about the properties of
thermite and related substances, but once again the basis of the claim
that there was even thermite present at the site at all is the same dust
samples with the same questionable chain of custody:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
Basically the same argument here as in several of the sites above:
http://www.dailycensored.com/2009/04/05/scientists-find-active-super-ther
mite-in-wtc-dust/
Here the argument that any form of thermite was actually found in any
sample does not seem to me to be adequately sustained:
http://rt.com/usa/news/did-nano-thermite-take-down-the-wtc/
Now, I also have a question about these substances themselves. Is it
really true that the *only* possible way for thermite and nano-thermite
and so forth to appear is for it to have been intentionally placed there
as an explosive? Or can these compounds be produced in other ways as
well? I'm looking now at websites unrelated to 9/11, and specifically
looking into how these thermite compounds are formed. What I'm seeing is
a variety of ways in which they can form, not one particular way only.
How do we know for certain that the only possible explanation for the
presence of thermite substances is intentional placement in the buildings?
There is no other possible chemical reaction, none whatsoever, that can
produce these substances? That is not quite what I'm seeing in this
documentation.
Now, back to the Gage video you cited. At about 1:30 several videos of
the collapse of WTC 7 are shown, and a bit later one of those is shown
alongside another video of a building known to have been brought down by
controlled demolition. I immediately noticed something that has been
brought up here by at least one other poster, and which I have also seen
in television documentaries in which this whole issue is discussed. In
the video on the right which we know is of a building being brought down
by controlled demolition, I clearly see multiple explosions on multiple
floors of the building as it is being brought down. I see no such thing
in any of the videos of the collapse of WTC 7, even other videos besides
the one being shown here.
Here are some videos of known controlled demolitions of buildings, none of
which have anything to do with 9/11. In almost every case I can clearly
see multiple explosions on different floors of the buildings, and/or
different parts of each structure being brought down, and in several cases
I can clearly see fire blasting out at multiple points in the structures:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK50So-yYRU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcb37yyHgT8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L1FhnHaRbQ
I honestly do not see anything of the sort in any video I have ever seen
of the collapse of WTC 7. I also fairly recently, around the anniversary
last month in fact, spent many hours watching again all or nearly all of
the known videos of the collapses of WTC 1 and 2. In none of them did I
see anything that looked at all like an explosion below the floors which
the planes impacted. Instead in both cases I could clearly see, at least
in some of the videos, that the top part of each building above the point
of impact began to topple over sideways, but no explosions whatsoever
below that as the buildings were starting to come down.
And this is also a question that has been brought up in several
documentaries. If these buildings were brought down by controlled
demolition, when and how was this all set up? Wouldn't it take a fairly
large group of people to go inside each building and place explosives in
enough different parts of the buildings for this to work? How many people
do you think were involved directly in the placement of these explosives?
Approximately 50,000 people worked in these buildings on each typical
weekday leading up to the attack. Why are there no witnesses to these
people placing explosives throughout these buildings? Did these people do
this only at night? But isn't it true that even at night and on weekends
some of the people would do work in their offices on the weekends and at
night, perhaps a few of them even very late at night? And still not a
single witness to all these other people placing these explosives? And
New York is The City That Never Sleeps, especially the Manhattan Borough.
Believe me, I should know; I have several friends who live in Manhattan,
some of whom used to live here in Texas, and I have visited them a fair
number of times since 1990. Even very late at night, even in the very
early hours of the morning, there are always people out on the streets in
every part of Manhattan. How were these demolition people getting in and
out of these buildings with all their equipment without being seen by
people on the street? Did they drive their vans into the parking garage
first and only then unload their explosives out of sight of people on the
street? Do we have any witnesses to such vehicles going into the garage
at odd times of night?
And still more questions. Since this would of course be timed to coincide
with the plane strikes, this would indicate advance knowledge that the
planes would be flown into the buildings on that date. So let's say for
the sake of argument that all four planes, since the other two which
didn't go to NYC would still obviously be involved directly in the same
plot, were not really flown by Islamic terrorists, or at least that
whoever set all this up was also involved in the demolition of the
buildings. I guess your scenario is that our government was essentially
behind this whole thing. What do you think the motivation of the
government would be for this? To make it appear plausible to the American
public, and indeed the world, that the attack was committed by Islamic
terrorists, so that it would then justify our subsequent wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq, possibly to free up oil reserves and so forth?
I am not understanding this at all. Why would controlled demolitions of
these buildings even be necessary to achieve these goals? Wouldn't the
plane crashes all by themselves be more than enough to outrage the
American people? Wouldn't we all have been just as outraged, or nearly as
much, even if the buildings *hadn't* collapsed? Wouldn't the idea of
Islamic terrorists crashing a plane into the Pentagon *alone* be more than
enough to obtain a sufficient level of public outrage? Wouldn't the
additional crashes into the towers *alone* be more than enough, since even
in the first moments hundreds of people were killed? And there was yet
*another* crash near Shanksville. That didn't kill anyone on the ground
or in any building, but it did kill everyone on board. When that also is
added to everything else, wouldn't we all be just as outraged, or nearly
so, at the idea that Islamic terrorists did all this, even *without* a
single building anywhere in this country collapsing in addition?
I'm sorry, I just don't see the point of adding to that an *intentional*
demolition of the buildings using explosives. That seems like totally
unnecessary overkill for *any* conspiracy scenario involving our
government, no matter what that scenario is. And my goodness, the risks.
How many people, total, would have to be involved in this to pull it off?
It would have to be a lot more people than just the ones who placed the
explosives in the building. Someone has to pay for all that, just for
starters. It has to also include the people who flew the planes, and the
people who orchestrated all of this. How many people, minimum, would be
required for all this to work? One-hundred people at the very least with
some sort of direct involvement? Two-hundred? Three-hundred? And think
what would happen if it ever got out that our government was behind this.
The outrage against Islamic terrorists would obviously pale in comparison
to the public outrage that would occur if it was ever proven that our
government did this. We would more likely than not have a violent
revolution. And what about the severe damage to our economy, from which
we even today have not quite fully recovered? That damage was greatly
increased by the collapse of those buildings, obviously. Had the
buildings not collapsed, and in some sense been at least partially
salvageable, it obviously would not have had nearly as significant an
effect on our entire economy. Just to name one example, without the
collapse of the buildings, it might not have even been necessary to close
the stock exchange for several days.
I'm just not seeing who would benefit from all this. If the goal is to
make it more plausible to the public that we needed to go to war in
Afghanistan and Iraq, I don't see how there is any overall economic
benefit to that, since any benefit to freeing up oil reserves in Iraq, for
example, would be mitigated by the severe damage to our economy caused by
the attack in the first place.
In short, what is the point? The four plane crashes all by themselves,
and pinning it on Islamic terrorists, would be more than enough to
convince the public of all this, *without* it being even slightly
necessary to add *considerably* to the destruction, and add *considerably*
to the economic damage, by *also* collapsing the buildings purposefully,
since that part of it actually *decreases* any economic benefit, for the
government or anyone else. Why would these conspirators benefit *more*
from adding the collapses when they would more likely benefit more from
the *lack* of collapses, since the four plane crashes alone would do the
trick nicely, and not cost us nearly as much money?
> As a side note, molten (not just melted) steel stayed in the
> basements of the 3 buildings that collapsed for weeks after the
> original collapses. Nothing known to be in the buildings could cause
> that. Jet fuel and office equipment just won't reach the temperatures
> need to soften steel or to melt it. However, a few incendiary
> chemicals can do it, such as Thermite or Thermate.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3Ot1JxNdE
fuel, etc. *was* enough to achieve such temperatures. How do you know for
certain which group of experts is correct? And I ask again: what do the
*majority* of experts worldwide say about all this? How do you know that
the ones you are paying attention to comprise the *majority*? Because I
submit that if it is only a *minority* of the experts in the world who
agree that these buildings collapsed due to causes that were additional to
the plane strikes alone, then the case for that could be considered to be
weakened somewhat.
> While the molten steel was seen weeks later by many people including
> firefighters, NIST, who was supposed to analyze everything and come up
> with what happened, denies that they ever heard of any molten steel.
> Ridiculous in light of the preceding video, and proof that a proper
> investigation was not done.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg
the *only* possible way to achieve these temperatures is to use methods
that are *additional* to the plane strikes? I do not yet see that such a
thing has been proven conclusively. I see a lot of people *claiming* that
it is, but I also see a lot of people claiming exactly the opposite, and
plenty of them are certified experts too. Do we yet have a real consensus
on this from the *majority* of experts?
> As an addendum, and not critical for the debate, but interesting in
> its own light, here is Dr. Steven Jones speaking of how the analysis
> was done, and what the chemistry of the nano-thermite was. Mind you,
> all these videos are speaking of factual evidence, NOT some silly
> 'conspiracy theories'.
would do it this way. And at this time I am not able to think of any
scenario that is even remotely plausible.
> > > The dust contains something that other dust around NYC
> > > does not contain, and that is nano-thermite.
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite
> >
> > 1700 of these people have specifically stated that the buildings most
> > definitely *were* brought down by controlled demolition, nor does it
> > support your original claim that all of them also specifically stated that
> > they can *prove* this to be true. ?Very few of them that I found
> > definitely *were* brought down by controlled demolition, nor does it
> > support your original claim that all of them also specifically stated that
> > specifically stated either of the things you said they did.
> >
> That has been dealt with above. You're repeating.
Lol! Isn't that a bit of a pot/kettle statement, Chris? In your
> >
> That has been dealt with above. You're repeating.
earlier reply to me you repeated this exact text seven times without the
slightest change in wording:
"See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the
reason for the collapse is in his signing the petition."
true" it would become. ;-) Now you're accusing me of doing the same
thing you did? Do you know what that's called? It starts with the
letter "h."
And very much unlike you, I did not repeat myself over and over and over
in absolutely identical wording. In each, uh, "repetition" I quite
obviously elaborated further on what I perceived to be the inherent
fallacy of your essential argument about why the 1700+ people signed the
petition. Since you kept stating the same position repeatedly, I
naturally expressed my disagreements repeatedly.
In other words, I, uh, "repeated" myself, as you call it, only because
you kept repeating and repeating and repeating yourself *first*. I find
it fascinating that you criticize me for something you, not I, started.
;-)
> I can't show you
> everyone of the 1,725 or more people and their beliefs, but there is
> enough factual information for any science minded person to realize
> that there was 'controlled demolition' involved from the facts
> supplied.
not all, experts in the world it is factual information. I have not yet
seen a shred of credible evidence to suggest that the *majority* of the
experts in the world as yet *share* this *opinion*, nor have I yet seen
evidence that it is only a minority either. I've seen nothing either
way. And because all of this is still *opinion*, this does NOT support
your argument that all these people had nearly identical motivations for
signing the petition. And how do you know that at least some of them
haven't had second thoughts by now? How do you know that there aren't
at least some of them who now regret having signed it, for various
reasons.
The reason I keep repeating myself is that you continuously and
repeatedly seem to ignore human nature. Motivations are going to vary
widely among this large a group of people, no matter what the issue is.
> There is a video of many of the experts that have come to
> believe that there was 'controlled demolition' involved, and they have
> Speak Out.? So some of the people your speaking of are there.
*Some* of them, yes. But not anywhere even remotely close to *all* of
them, correct?
> > > ? ?On top of that discovery, they (as architects and engineers) have
> > > satisfied themselves that the story of NIST was full of holes and that
> > > the collapse of the 3 towers was accomplished by controlled
> > > demolition.
> >
> > All 1700+ of them have "satisfied themselves" of this? ?Why do so few of
> > > the collapse of the 3 towers was accomplished by controlled
> > > demolition.
> >
> > them specifically say that on that website then? ?Merely saying that
> > they have doubts about the official explanation isn't quite the same
> > thing as specifically stating that they are completely "satisfied" that
> > the buildings most definitely *were* brought down by controlled
> > demolition. ?You are still exaggerating what these people have actually
> > thing as specifically stating that they are completely "satisfied" that
> > the buildings most definitely *were* brought down by controlled
> > stated.
> >
> You continue to repeat your point.
Because you continued to repeat your point first.
> >
> You continue to repeat your point.
> That was dealt with above.
do. I have not once seen you make an even remotely plausible argument
to support your sweeping generalization.
> Since they signed the petition, using intelligence and common sense,
> we can imply that they have come to the same conclusion,
all came to the same conclusion. You are ignoring well-known aspects of
human nature. You will *never* have this large a number of people come to
exactly the same conclusion on *anything*. People are just too varied for
that. I continue to tell you (and the ONLY reason I'm restating this
again is because you keep repeating your own argument FIRST) that there
are a lot more possibilities of motivation than you are willing to admit.
Some would sign the document because they *are* totally convinced.
Others would sign the document merely because they have significant
doubts, and believe further investigation needs to be done to clarify what
really happened, and they don't have to be totally convinced that
demolition occurred to have sufficient cause to sign the petition. And
there can be all sorts of other variations in motive in between. That's
how humans are, Chris.
> though some
> would rather take the safe way and say it couched in those terms until
> they have 'official' evidence.
identical motivations to much too large a group of people, people of
different economic backgrounds, social backgrounds, religious backgrounds,
political backgrounds, cultural backgrounds, ethnic backgrounds, and
multiple nationalities. All of those variations alone are going to ensure
a wide variety of viewpoints and approaches on any issue, not just this
one issue, and a wide variety of motivations to sign the petition.
> > > Their fields allow them the knowledge to make that sort
> > > of determination for themselves and therefore to sign the request for
> > > the investigation.
> >
> > That's still not the same thing as them specifically stating that they
> > are *all* *entirely* convinced that the buildings most definitely *were*
> > brought down by controlled demolition.
> >
> You're repeating yourself again.
Only because you repeated yourself first.
> > are *all* *entirely* convinced that the buildings most definitely *were*
> > brought down by controlled demolition.
> >
> You're repeating yourself again.
> If you were successful in proving
> that a number of the members didn't believe the 'controlled
> demolition' evidence, it wouldn't change the evidence, which stays
> there unimpeachable.
petition because they *didn't* believe in any possibility of controlled
demolition. Instead, what I keep trying and trying and trying to get
across to you is that they *vary* in their *degree* of certainty as to
whether or not controlled demolition was used. Some of them are
absolutely certain. Others are nearly certain. Others think it is likely
but they're not fully committed to it yet. Others think it is at least
somewhat likely. Some simply have doubts about the official explanation
and want further investigation to be done. All of these are perfectly
plausible reasons for signing this petition, Chris. They don't have to
have nearly identical motivations to want to sign it. And again you're
repeating yourself when you say that the evidence is unimpeachable. No,
it is unimpeachable in your *opinion*. It is unimpeachable in the
*opinions* of *some* experts in the world. But plenty of other people
think the evidence is most definitely impeachable, and I've seen and heard
them say it many times over the past several years, and plenty of those
people are certified experts too.
> > > Certainly those that think they know better can
> > > find an architect or engineer to debate the topic with.
> >
> > I'm not saying I know better, I'm merely disputing your obviously false
> > claim that anywhere even remotely close to 1700 of these people have
> > actually specifically stated the things you claimed that they
> > specifically stated.
> >
> You're repeating yourself.
> See above.
What am I supposed to see above? An incessant repetition of an
implausible argument that ignores well-known human nature regarding
variety of motivation? An incessant repetition claiming the evidence to
be irrefutable when in fact it has been refuted many times by many
different people? An incessant repetition of you continuing to try to put
words in these people's mouths as to why they themselves signed the
petition, when they themselves would know why far better than you or I
ever could?
> > > I'm not in
> > > those fields, but I believe I've seen enough evidence that it was
> > > foootprint of 3 tall buildings,
> >
> > I don't see why that's absolutely impossible from the plane impacts
> > only. ?And I've seen more than enough of the footage to plainly see that
> >
> > I don't see why that's absolutely impossible from the plane impacts
> > neither WCT One or Two collapsed straight downward. ?In both cases parts
> > of the buildings toppled to the sides.
> >
> Notice your own words: not "absolutely impossible". You've
> qualified your statement with the highest possible quaklifier -
> 'absolutely'. Thst means to me that you are holding on to your belief
> by fingernails.
Nonsense. You're the one who seems to me to be doing that. You keep
> >
> Notice your own words: not "absolutely impossible". You've
> qualified your statement with the highest possible quaklifier -
> 'absolutely'. Thst means to me that you are holding on to your belief
> by fingernails.
insisting and insisting and insisting on applying nearly identical
motivations to much to large a group of people for that to be at all
plausible, and you keep insisting and insisting and insisting that the
evidence for demolition is much more conclusive than it actually is.
> Go through the videos supplied above and you will see
> facts and evidence, and NOT any theories.
been through many *other* videos and documentaries which *dispute* the
claims made in the videos you're talking about. And one thing most of
these videos are sorely lacking in, and that is a plausible explanation of
*how* this was done, as far as the sheer logistics of setting up all these
explosives in the first place without it being noticed by other witnesses
even if it was only done in the dead of night. No matter what you feel
about silly conspiracy theories, the logistics of exactly *how* this was
achieved logistically would have to be credibly addressed in order to
support *any* theory of controlled demolition on 9/11.
> > > > > Paul Stevenson Oles says:
> >
> > > > > "There appear too many unexplained events and unverified
> > > > > circumstances
> > > > > to be satisfied with the official version of the New York building
> > > > > collapses. As unthinkable as it is to suspect the United States
> > > > > government or military of willful complicity in these horrendous
> > > > > acts,
> > > > > it is even more heinous to allow such complicity--if indeed it
> > > > > exists--to remain undiscovered and unpunished. Therefore, a thorough
> > > > > and
> > > > > impartial investigation by an independent, well-funded commission is
> > > > > fully merited."
> >
> > > > > He's definitely unsatisfied with the official explanation, but
> > > > > nowhere
> > > > > there does he specifically say that the collapses were due to
> > > > > controlled
> > > > > demolition, nor does he come anywhere remotely close to specifically
> > > > > saying he can prove it.
> >
> > > for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
> >
> > Wrong. ?That is the implication in *your* *opinion*. ?You have no possible
> >
> > way of knowing that in each and every case that that was the actual
> > *intent* of each of these people when they signed the petition. ?And
> > average common sense would indicate that not all of these people would
> > have absolutely identical viewpoints regarding the signing of this
> > petition. ?You are assuming too much about their viewpoints. ?You are
> > have absolutely identical viewpoints regarding the signing of this
> > assuming they meant certain things without actually seeing them
> > specifically state what you think they meant.
> >
> Well now, let's look at that. Please present credible possibilities
> other than planes hitting the buildings causing fires that weakened
> the steel and causing the collapses (which the facts belie).
Since I'm not the one claiming that anything more than the plane crashes
> > specifically state what you think they meant.
> >
> Well now, let's look at that. Please present credible possibilities
> other than planes hitting the buildings causing fires that weakened
> the steel and causing the collapses (which the facts belie).
themselves brought down the buildings, I am at a loss to understand why
you are asking me to present other credible possibilities.
> Actually, I can't think of anything except 'controlled demolition'.
to be much more biased than I am.
> The facts don't bear out the jet fuel or office fires,
> so something
> has to have caused the collapse which have never happened before in
> any building anywhere from heat.
you got that from at least one of those videos, because I seem to recall
in one of those practically those exact words are spoken. How many
previous examples would we have of such a thing? How many previous
examples are there of large passenger jets nearly full of fuel crashing
into skyscrapers? Are there even *any* previous examples that are
especially similar to 9/11?
> > > > > Eason Cross says:
> >
> > > > > "The third building evidence is truly troubling. The 'why' is very
> > > > > hard
> > > > > to comprehend."
> >
> > > > > I guess he means WTC 7, but he just says he's very troubled by it,
> > > > > and
> > > > > does not comprehend why it collapsed. ?But he's not specifically
> > > > > saying
> > > > > that he believes it *did* collapse due to controlled demolition, nor
> > > > > is
> > > > > he saying he can prove it.
> >
> > > for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
> >
> > Again, wrong. ?That is not necessarily the implication in his own mind
> >
> > regarding his signing of it. ?I don't see him saying that he is signing
> > the petition because he's satisfied as to the true reason for the
> > collapse. ?I see him saying that he is *dissatisfied* with the official
> > explanation. ?That isn't quite the same thing as him specifically saying
> > that he is completely *satisfied* as to any alternate explanation.
>
> Yes, but it is handled above.
Not in any plausible way that takes into account the well-known aspects
>
> Yes, but it is handled above.
of human nature.
> > > > > Harry G. Robinson III says:
> >
> > > > > "The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically
> > > > > generated.
> > > > > The destruction was symmetrically initiated to cause the buildings to
> > > > > implode as they did."
> >
> > > > > Well, he certainly seems to believe that controlled demolition was
> > > > > involved. ?But he's not saying that he himself can prove it.
> >
> > > for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
> >
> > Good lordy, how many times are you just going to repeat exactly the same
> > misguided conclusion in identical wording? ?And even if in this case he
> >
> > Good lordy, how many times are you just going to repeat exactly the same
> > said he *is* satisfied as to why he thinks the buildings "really" came
> > down, he did NOT say that he himself can PROVE it, so I disagree with
> > you that he was "implying" that he CAN merely by signing the petition.
> > That MIGHT have been what he meant by signing the petition, but you have
> > no possible way of knowing that for certain unless you can quote him
> > verbatim, along with the original source for the quote, saying very
> > *specifically* that the *reason* he signed the petition is that he *can*
> > prove this. ?It has to be a quote something like this:
> > down, he did NOT say that he himself can PROVE it, so I disagree with
> > you that he was "implying" that he CAN merely by signing the petition.
> > That MIGHT have been what he meant by signing the petition, but you have
> > no possible way of knowing that for certain unless you can quote him
> > verbatim, along with the original source for the quote, saying very
> > *specifically* that the *reason* he signed the petition is that he *can*
> >
> Welp, you have to try and take a broad view of the possibilities.
That seems to me to be what you're failing to do, not me. Do you
> Welp, you have to try and take a broad view of the possibilities.
realize that you are now directly contradicting yourself? Not in any
way, shape, or form are you taking a broad view of all the possibilities
of human motivation that would convince this large group of people to
sign this petition. Nor do you seem to be willing to consider at all
alternate possibilities to what some, but not nearly all, experts
consider to be clear evidence of controlled demolition.
> Picking at every one of ten statements helps nothing.
here responding, even though you yourself quoted it below. Here it is
again:
**********
I've cited only the first ten here, but I've spent quite a lot of time
looking at many of the others, including in the engineers farther down
qualifications listed in the Bio section to be questionable. I saw one
that listed his experience only in railroad engineering, and another who
didn't really list any experience with anything. I do see quite a few
saying they believed controlled demolitions were involved, but I'm also
seeing about the same number who merely are voicing suspicions and
calling for further investigation.
I haven't even found one yet, however, who specifically says that he or
she can prove that the buildings collapsed due to controlled
demolitions. There are a lot of them I haven't looked at yet, so I
seeing about the same number who merely are voicing suspicions and
calling for further investigation.
I haven't even found one yet, however, who specifically says that he or
she can prove that the buildings collapsed due to controlled
won't deny that there may be some that I haven't seen yet who say that,
but I've looked at something like a hundred of them so far, and I still
haven't found one yet who says they can prove this.
**********
but I've looked at something like a hundred of them so far, and I still
haven't found one yet who says they can prove this.
I did not look only at the ten statements I quoted. I looked at many,
many, many others. I did not find even ONE of them specifically saying
that they THEMSELVES could PROVE that controlled demolition was used.
And I continued to find a wide variety of reasons being given by these
people for signing the petition. I also found a wide variety of areas of
expertise, levels of expertise, experience, etc. As noted above, some of
these people, just based on what they themselves say of their own
expertise and experience, don't seem very well qualified at all to judge
this matter. That's yet another thing you have failed to take into
account when trying to attribute nearly identical motivations to all of
these people: their own qualifications. That also is a distinct variation
to these people to be added to the list of varieties of backgrounds that I
gave above. And what about their *ages*, Chris? You've got all these
different people of all different backgrounds, fields of expertise,
cultures, nationalities, races, gender, sexual orientation, experience,
and ages, and you are trying to pigeonhole such an incredibly diverse
group of people into a single common motivation to sign this petition?
It is astonishing to me that the inherent fallacy of this approach isn't
blindingly obvious to you.
> I've given the
> counter argument to the one that you keep putting in here after each
> of the statements.
the time before. This group of people is much too diverse, in far too
many different ways, for your sweeping generalization to be at all
plausible.
> Most professionals won't make a statement that is
> too controversial without the investigation bearing them out.
which political group? Professionals in which religious group?
Professionals in which cultural group? Professionals of which
nationality? Professionals of which ethnic group? Professionals of what
amount of experience? I'm not buying this. Yet another variation of
common human nature you're failing to take into account is that some
people are more outspoken than others. Some people don't care about being
controversial, others do, and every variation in between. Pigeonholing
this incredibly diverse group of people into a common motivation is
ignoring human nature. Here's yet another possibility: did it ever occur
to you that at least some of these people signed the petition just to *be*
controversial and for no other reason? Don't tell me there aren't people
like that in the world, because there are plenty of them. And you're
acting like all of them have nearly identical risks to their careers.
No. For some of them the risk will be greater than others. Depending on
all sorts of contexts, including the nature of the communities they live
and work in, for some of them it would hardly affect their careers no
matter what they say about this issue, and for others it might affect
their careers significantly, in either negative *or* positive ways,
depending on the circumstances. That is yet another variation you seem to
have failed to consider.
> They
> don't want those 'small minded' folks to affect their income.
these people. I would think quite a few of these people wouldn't care
in the slightest about that. What if most of their customers pay little
attention to things like this on the Internet, Chris? Is that another
variation you have failed to consider?
> > "One of the reasons I signed the petition is because I am quite
> > confident that I myself can prove that the buildings collapsed due to
> > controlled demolition."
> >
> > Until you can quote him verbatim saying something like that, you are
> > merely speculating when you claim that his signing the petition alone
> > "implies" that this was one of his reasons for signing it.
> >
> Wromg. You assume that these people mean only EXACTLY their words,
> and are not speaking based on the society they live in.
reasons they are giving publicly for signing the petition. But see,
that's yet another variation. Different people will leave different
things unsaid for different reasons, especially with such wide variation
in the types of careers they have and the types of business they are
involved in, not to mention all the other differences in circumstances
I've already mentioned. Others, as I said above, will be more outspoken,
and *won't* leave anything unsaid. That's just the problem: without
knowing these people personally, there is no possible way for you or I to
know for certain what these people are, or are not, leaving out in their
statements, and exactly *why* they are, or are not doing so. And what on
earth do you mean by "not speaking based on the society they live in"?
Are you saying that the society a person lives in has no significant
effect on what people do and do not say publicly, and that such things do
not differ widely from society to society? If that's what you mean, I
strongly disagree.
> > > for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
> >
> > Wrong. ?That is pure speculation on your part.
> >
> >
> Nope. We both have reasonable knowledge of humans in our society
> and know why a professional would make a statement that was more
> circumspect.
Without knowing that professional personally, and knowing what his
> Nope. We both have reasonable knowledge of humans in our society
> and know why a professional would make a statement that was more
> circumspect.
personality is like beyond the public statement above, and knowing how
honest or dishonest he generally is, how ethical or unethical he
generally is, how outspoken he generally is, and so many other things?
I don't agree with that at all.
> > > > > Alan Haymond says:
> >
> > > > > "Suspicious on 9/11 about the collapses and the size of the original
> > > > > hole in the Pentagon. Thoroughly convinced of cover up by April '02 -
> > > > > too many unanswered questions. Recommend David Ray Griffin's books."
> >
> > > > > He says he's suspicious of the collapses, and was convinced well
> > > > > under a
> > > > > year later that there was a coverup. ?But nowhere there does he
> > > > > specifically say that he believes the collapses were the result of
> > > > > controlled demolition, nor does he specifically say that he can prove
> > > > > it.
> >
> > > for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
> >
> > Still just speculation on your part that just signing the petition
> > implies that exact thing.
>
> Ditto, see bove.
See what above? A continuous refusal to take into account the wide
> >
> > Still just speculation on your part that just signing the petition
> > implies that exact thing.
>
> Ditto, see bove.
variety of human nature? I already understood your argument the first
time, and I don't find it any more plausible no matter how many times
you repeat it.
> > > > > I've cited only the first ten here, but I've spent quite a lot of
> > > > > time
> > > > > looking at many of the others, including in the engineers farther
> > > > > down
> > > > > and also in the non-U.S. list. ?In some of them I'm finding the
> > > > > qualifications listed in the Bio section to be questionable. ?I saw
> > > > > one
> > > > > that listed his experience only in railroad engineering, and another
> > > > > who
> > > > > didn't really list any experience with anything. ?I do see quite a
> > > > > few
> > > > > saying they believed controlled demolitions were involved, but I'm
> > > > > also
> > > > > seeing about the same number who merely are voicing suspicions and
> > > > > calling for further investigation.
> >
> > > > > I haven't even found one yet, however, who specifically says that he
> > > > > or
> > > > > she can prove that the buildings collapsed due to controlled
> > > > > demolitions. ?There are a lot of them I haven't looked at yet, so I
> > > > > won't deny that there may be some that I haven't seen yet who say
> > > > > that,
> > > > > but I've looked at something like a hundred of them so far, and I
> > > > > still
> > > > > haven't found one yet who says they can prove this.
much larger number of these statements than just the ten I quoted, and
that I had continued to find a wide variety of reasons being given, a wide
variety of levels and types of expertise, a wide variety of ages, a wide
variety of cultures and nationalities, etc.
> > > > > Your original statement that I first replied to was this:
> >
> > > > > "Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC
> > > > > 9/11
> > > > > catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can prove
> > > > > it."
> >
> > > > > In my reply I was obviously asking if it was really true that more
> > > > > than
> > > > > 1700 of them really said what you're attributing to them, and in your
> > > > > reply to me you produced a link to a webpage that clearly shows your
> > > > > statement to be rather exaggerated.
> >
> > > are saying that they believe that controlled demolition was used.
> >
> > No they are NOT saying that merely by SIGNING the petition. ?That is
> >
> > only your OPINION that that's what they all meant. ?And what they
> > actually SAID when signing the petition clearly shows that many of them
> > signed it, not so much because they are completely satisfied that the
> > buildings most definitely WERE brought down by controlled demolition,
> > but mainly because they have their doubts about whether or not the
> > impacts of the planes alone brought down the buildings. ?You are acting
> > signed it, not so much because they are completely satisfied that the
> > buildings most definitely WERE brought down by controlled demolition,
> > but mainly because they have their doubts about whether or not the
> > as if every single one of these people signed the petition out of a
> > sense of absolute CERTAINTY that controlled demolition was used, and
> > that is NOT what most of them GAVE as their reasons for signing the
> > petition. ?How would you know better than these people themselves why
> > sense of absolute CERTAINTY that controlled demolition was used, and
> > that is NOT what most of them GAVE as their reasons for signing the
> > each of them signed the petition? ?And again, simple common sense would
> > indicate that the likelihood of this many people having absolutely
> > identical reasons for signing it is so incredibly remote as to not be
> > worth serious considerations.
>
> You must get tired of the picky arguments repeated so many times, I
> certainly do.
Indeed.
> > identical reasons for signing it is so incredibly remote as to not be
> > worth serious considerations.
>
> You must get tired of the picky arguments repeated so many times, I
> certainly do.
> Let's argue one of them, and then we can broaden the
> discussion to include the others if necessary. Obviously, I am
> speaking of what I believe, as are you. I came to my beliefs, not
> only of the collapses, but of the signatories to the petition from
> evidence and facts.
consideration of a smaller amount of evidence and facts than you realize.
> I have a reasonable person's knowledge of
> people and why they do things,
> and I suspect you can have that too.
nature than you are. Sorry, but it seems obvious to me. I'm accepting
a much wider variety of human traits than you are, and none of the
traits I have mentioned are at all "unusual."
> AsI have noted so many times in one way or another, professionals as
> are in this list are not going to immediately go whole hog and state
> their belief is something that a number of people have been convinced
> is false.
widely, and can vary in a lot of different ways.
> Thety will say something less clear and direct, while still
> looking for the 'official' investigation.
group of humans this large and this diverse in this many different ways
is always going to do that, no matter what the subject.
> > > The
> > > reason is that they don't believe the NIST story which was put
> > > together by people in the correct fields to determine the cause of the
> > > collapses, and if the collapses were not by softened steel, the only
> > > other method of dropping buildings, especially where they fall into
> > > their own footprints almost exactly, is controlled demolition.
> > > However, would it help you to hear it from controlled demolition
> > > specialists?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcwnJTpholc
controlled demolition."
Provably false beyond all possible doubt. Plenty of *other* very *real*
experts *have* denied it. And I will thank you in advance not to try to
attribute some common ulterior motive to the experts which dispute this,
because obviously that argument won't work any better than the one you're
using for the experts you agree with. *Some* of them, I'm sure, *do* have
an ulterior motive for disputing the demolition angle. But just as with
the experts who do believe in demolition, there is just not one single
"type" of person among the experts who dispute it.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc
Uh-huh. Let's look at some other videos as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMNNPnXBH4M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsUYhrXonXQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gQjJnON0rQ
Just to address one of the many arguments made in those, in *all* of the
videos and films and so forth I have ever seen of controlled demolitions
(many more than just these) that also have *sound*, the explosions are
*very* loud and *very* obvious. But nothing like that at all is heard in
any of the videos of any of the WTC buildings collapsing. Most especially
for the two tall towers, it is mainly just a continuous roar that has very
little variation as they are coming down. I've never heard anything even
remotely like the very obvious and very loud explosions in videos with
audio of *known* controlled demolitions. I also do not recall ever
hearing any distinct loud explosion in any video of WTC 7 collapsing
either.
> > > ? ?If this topic is interesting for you, I would suggest that you look
> > > a bit deeper than the theories of the 'debunkers' and go through the
> > > evidence. ?There are many videos available on the 'net.
> >
> > > ? ?To see the interest of others around the world in the topic, use
> > > "for 911 truth" in a Google search and see how many organizations have
> > > been put together on the subject.
> >
> > > ? ?To see and hear the experience of a man that was in building 7 when
> > > been put together on the subject.
> >
> > I've already seen many, if not all, of these videos, thank you. ?None of
> > this comes within one-million light-years of proving your original
> > statement to be correct:
> >
> > "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."
> >
> > No, most of them have signed off for the reasons they themselves gave,
> > which they themselves would know far better than you or me. ?You are
> > statement to be correct:
> >
> > "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."
> >
> > No, most of them have signed off for the reasons they themselves gave,
> > attributing viewpoints to many of them that they did not say they had.
>
> Lordee! There has to be a reason that you are ignoring the more
> important facts and centering on repeating over and over your liturgy
> that the statements aren't as I said.
Lordee! There has to be a reason that you are ignoring human nature and
>
> Lordee! There has to be a reason that you are ignoring the more
> important facts and centering on repeating over and over your liturgy
> that the statements aren't as I said.
centering on repeating over and over your liturgy that all these
statements were made for nearly identical reasons by such an incredibly
large and diverse group of people.
> For the sake of argument (this
> once), I will say you are completely right about my assumption of the
> signatorie's viewpoints. But what are your thoughts on the more
> important facts and evidence presented to you showing a cause for the
> collapse of the towers? Why do you keep avoiding that?
support my viewpoints. Did you not take into account that you and I have
only started discussing this subject for the first time ever very
recently? Obviously I started out with simply addressing what I saw as a
severe flaw in your original claim that all of the people who signed the
petition had nearly identical reasons for doing so. You and I didn't even
start discussing the evidence pro and con collapse for the first time
until later, at least not in any great detail.
> Have you been
> anaesthetized by the common story, or are you still in that same frame
> of mind that it didn't happen that way because you decided it was
> ridiculous? Meaning that you viewed no evidence and saw no facts.
plenty of evidence, thank you. In our very few previous exchanges on this
subject, which have only taken place over a very small number of days and
articles, you had no possible way of knowing how much I have or have not
already studied 9/11 in the past eleven years since it happened. We're
only just now getting to our first extensive discussions of this evidence.
Prior to today you would have had no possible way of knowing what anything
even remotely close to my complete position is on 9/11, because this is
the very first day I have ever talked about it in any detail in my entire
decade of posting to this newsgroup, and I still haven't expressed
anywhere close to everything I believe about 9/11.
John Reagor King
Oct 10, 2012, 9:20:10 PM10/10/12
to
In article <5074adac$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> 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?
> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/AFIO1988.gif
Sorry, I don't see his name anywhere there.
> 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. ;-)
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@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?
> 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
> and then I found his biography when he ran for office in the AFIO.
> You
> really need to stop these stupid challenges. They make you look like a
> freshman.
> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/AFIO1988.gif
Sorry, I don't see his name anywhere there.
> 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.
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? ;-)
John Reagor King
Oct 10, 2012, 9:20:57 PM10/10/12
to
In article
<e2e886dc-a530-42d4...@p14g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech <mainfr...@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
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.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcwnJTpholc
Yes, yes, I've already seen that several times now.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw1Lh7lYMNo
I already watched that earlier today.
> 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
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
> 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?
<e2e886dc-a530-42d4...@p14g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech <mainfr...@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.
> >
> > > 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
> > > 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
> > 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
>
> 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:
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.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcwnJTpholc
Yes, yes, I've already seen that several times now.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw1Lh7lYMNo
I already watched that earlier today.
> 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.
motivation, honesty, ulterior motive, etc.
> They have members that have done
> experiments
> and have published scientific papers in peer reviewed
> journals with data from the collapse.
> They are because of their
> career choices,
of them are there for that exact reason, and neither do I.
> more 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.
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.
> > 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
> > statements in the petition, I remember seeing one, for example, who gave
> > 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
> > 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?
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.
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.
> > 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.
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.
> > This is also a perfectly reasonable point for me to raise, obviously.
>
> See above.
>
> Picking at my statements may be good debate technique, but getting
> to the root of the topic, like what made buildings fall down, killing
> thousands, and how can we keep them from doing it again, may be a bit
> more important.
> Yet that information is shied away from by people
> here in this thread
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.
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.
John Reagor King
Oct 10, 2012, 9:38:53 PM10/10/12
to
In article
<9287c1c6-27cd-4c9c...@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > ? Yep! Like I said, you think you have 'proved' it isn't true because YOU
> > actually *gave* for signing the petition. ?Plenty of them merely said that
> > 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,
> > *always* be differences of opinion. ?*Some* of them will sign the petition
> > because they *are* totally convinced of controlled demolition. ?*Others*
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:
http://www.ae911truth.org/
**********
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 from there since, but remember there were
two major gaps of several days. The first was mine, when it took me six
days to notice you had replied to me. The second was yours, when after
*eleven* days you had not yet noticed my reply to you, and *still* didn't
notice it until I posted it *again* four days ago. It has only been
during the past four days that you and I have been replying to each other
on consecutive days and getting a real exchange going.
> However, since you chimedin and are trying to save
> him from embarrassment, perhaps you and I can have a siscussion aboutr the
> facts. What do you say?
Fine with me. I think I've been composing my replies to you since just
before noon today, and it is at this moment 4:22 p.m. Thus I have already
been discussing this evidence with you in a very extensive manner, as is
by now well-known to be my habit in this newsgroup; in fact, I'm sure many
here think I do it *too* extensively.
> > > Meaning that I must be right as far as any debate on the matter because
> > > you are unable to mount a decent viewpoint.
> >
> > The same can be said of you in reverse. ?You have falsely claimed that
posted a little over an hour ago on that subject. I'm sorry, but I do not
have the impression that your knowledge of human reactions and motivations
is very extensive or realistic, but of course that opinion my change as
this discussion progresses.
> However, For arguments sake (this once) I'll grant
> your needs and say you're right.
Bully for you.
> Now can we get on with a serious
> discussion, or are you unable to do that?
I'm quite obviously able to do it. I've been doing exactly that here
for a decade now. You seem to be very unfamiliar with my posting
history.
> Would you rather run away from
> the facts and evidence and just sit around picking at me?
Since I never ran away from the facts in the first place, I find that to
be an absurd question. And excuse me, but, uh, "picking"? Laddy, this is
Usenet, and any time you post any claim that others find to be
questionable or lacking in plausible foundation, you can expect others to
do all the "picking" they like, on the details, on the overall picture,
and any element in between.
> What do you
> say?
Is there any reason from my history here that would cause a reasonable
person to think my answer would be anything but "yes"? :D
> > > Your own personal opinion
> > > counts only in your house, not here where you have to prove your point.
> >
> > The same can be said of your personal opinion.
>
> Nope. Won't do. I use facts and evidence in discussing the topic.
You use *some* facts and evidence, yes. But you also often use
unfounded assumptions and sweeping generalizations, I've noticed.
> The
> general rule (which some folks don't follow) is that you discuss the topic
> and not the person.
I have discussed your *claims*, and naturally the attitude behind those
claims is not entirely irrelevant.
> You wanted to talk on the side about whether my
> statement about AE911truth members was true or not.
What do you mean, "on the side"? In that short article of yours I quoted
above, which is the first article of yours that I ever replied to in this
thread, that was the only issue you mentioned in the entire article. You
otherwise said nothing whatsoever about any other aspect of this in *that*
article. So if I was "on the side," as you put it, that was only because
you were *first*.
> That is discussing
> the person.
No, that is also discussing your *claim*, which I instantly found to be
quite unrealistic when I first read it.
> I went along with it for a while,
Yes, so you're just as "guilty" as I am on getting off "on the side," and
you're the one who started it first by bringing up only the supposed
viewpoints of the people who signed the petition and literally no other
aspect of 9/11.
> but we need to get back on
> track.
That's fine.
> We're here because you found it more fun to pick at me than to
> discuss the topic at hand.
Bull. I do not control what you type, nor do I control what you post.
You, not I, started this exchange with this single claim and nothing else:
"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."
That was posted on September 17, and is your very earliest article in this
thread. How is it my fault that you began by bringing up only that single
claim and nothing else? Now yes, right above that sentence you had also
posted a link, but you did not otherwise discuss it in any detail. I
simply replied to what you said. Now you blame me for addressing a topic
you want to get away from, when you're the one and only person in this
thread who first brought up that topic in the first place?
> > > 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
> > exaggerated statements as well. ?You originally claimed, falsely, that
the discussion with a very short article that mostly contained only a
single claim that I decided to address. In ALL of my replies to you
since in this discussion I have addressed *every* point you have raised.
> Afraid that facts and evidence weren't
> what you expected?
Oh please.
> You thought maybe that you would walk into some
> 'conspiracy theorist' with baloney for brains? Since you admit that I've
> presented 'some' evidence, what is your opinion of those facts? Agree?
> Disagree? If so, tell me why factually.
I've been telling you that for the past five hours today. There are still
several other threads that I want to get to today, all of which have to do
with the actual primary topic of this newsgroup, before I get the hell out
of this dratted place for the evening. Why don't you wait until you've
read all four of my replies to you today before you decide that I am
intentionally avoiding anything.
> > > > It can't be proved any more than, say, the theory that Neil Armstrong
> > > > never walked on the moon.
> > > > But the CD theory is also as ridiculous as that.
> >
> > > ? Hmm. ?I think I see your problem. ?You think we're talking about a
> > > THEORY. ?Nope. ?I'm talking about facts...
> >
> > No you aren't, certainly not entirely anyway. ?You incorrectly claimed, as
ONLY your original claim of why these people signed the petition, and
almost literally no other aspect of 9/11 whatsoever. And you went right
along with it in all your replies to me until yesterday. These articles
of yours from yesterday, which I did not see for the first time until
today, are your earliest replies to me in which you have complained that
we were straying off the topic you wanted to talk about, even though
before yesterday you were straying right along with me on the exact topic
you yourself started in your first article in this thread.
> I've answered your comments on my
> statement above, so there's no reason to keep repeating it.
Exactly.
> It as if that
> was the only thing you found that you could hang your hat on,
It was the only thing you talked about with me, from the day I first
replied to you, September 17, until these articles of yours from yesterday
which I'm just now seeing for the first time today, and I have by now
spent more than five hours replying to each and every one of your four
replies to me that were posted yesterday. And I haven't shied away from a
single important point you raised. How is it my fault that until
yesterday you also replied to me primarily only about your perceived
reasons as to why those people signed that petition?
> so you have
> to keep saying it, since you can't deal with the facts that were shown to
> you aboutr the collapses.
Oh good gawd, I can deal with the facts just fine, when they really *are*
facts. I've also gotten rather good by now at spotting when certain
supposed "facts" are ill-supported. Again, these articles of yours from
yesterday represent the first time in this thread that you have begun to
substantively address those other issues, so why you're now complaining
that I didn't do that earlier, when you didn't either, is beyond me.
> > > I have NO interest in your
> > > theories.
> >
> Good, I have no theories. Only facts and evidence.
>
> > Now wait a minute, you're acting as if Sandy is the only person on earth
> > who has ever proposed that the buildings came down as the result of the
> > plane crashes alone. ?In reality, millions of people worldwide believe
only specific claim, aside from also posting that link, that you made at
all in your first article in this thread. And which is pretty much the
only aspect of 9/11 you've ever discussed with me in this thread until
yesterday. And naturally, what you call "picking" is in reality
demonstrating to you how your original claim failed to take into account
the great diversity of the people who signed the petition.
> I'm talking about facts and evidence, not beliefs
> with no facts behind them.
At first you talked about almost nothing but the beliefs of the people
who signed the petition:
"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 jump to any conclusion regarding what I will and will not discuss.
> > > I've pointed out facts concerning the bringing down of the 3
> > > towers, now do you have any facts to say otherwise?
> >
> > No. ?You have pointed out what you *believe* in your *opinion* are facts.
> > And I know you are hardly the only person to have such an opinion. ?You
> > > > Next you'll be telling me there weren't even any planes.
> >
> > > ? I've seen videos of a plane that hit into each of the 2 tall
> > > towers. ?I saw NO plane that hit the WTC 7 tower. ?Did you?
> > that is what caused the collapse of WTC 7. ?You may not *believe* in that
> > possibility in your *opinion*. ?Many others also do not believe in that
> > possibility in their *opinions*. ?But it is still nothing more than an
> > *opinion* that controlled demolition brought down WTC 7. ?You and others
first article here from facts and evidence. Now that we are finally
branching out into the actual main subject of what caused the tower to
collapse, a branching out that you delayed more than I did, I do indeed
see that you have considered at least *some* of the facts and evidence,
but I have yet to see you mention for the first time ever in this thread
some other very serious considerations which also must be taken into
account to support *any* theory of why the buildings collapsed, no matter
what that theory is.
> It's certainly an extremely tiny possibility that the
> damage to building 7 caused it to fall, however, the building stayed up
> very well on its own for many hours after the damage was done. Also, if
> you looked into the evidence, then you saw that the time of the fall of
> building 7 was known and they put warnings out all the way down to the
> workers on the street, who advised the people standing around to move back
> as the building was coming down.
I have just watched a video on that as well, and I'm not sure you're
correct about the time of the fall of the building being known in advance,
if by that you mean an exact time. I do know that a warning to evacuate
was put out prior to the collapse of WTC 7, but I feel I need to explore
further what the exact origin of that warning was. And as I've said, I've
already spent an awful lot of time today in this thread only, and I have
not even gotten to any thread about the JFK assassination yet today, so my
time may be limited to address 9/11 in the coming days. But I hope you
will not accuse me again of purposefully trying to avoid a discussion of
this, because I'm not. But no one, including you, can address everything
simultaneously, and there are other things that are important to me too.
> As well, Larry Silverstein made a
> foolish comment that they tried to cover up 3 years later when he said:
>
> "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander,
> telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the
> fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the
> smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and
> we watched the building collapse." From:
> http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/cutter.html
Well now wait a minute. I know the main intent of that is to dispute the
official explanation. However, it also suggests the possibility of an
alternate explanation, if not for why WTC 7 collapsed, then at least for
the order to evacuate. They had had such terrible loss of life already.
The two large towers had already collapsed many hours earlier. The
earliest estimates were that thousands of people had been killed, and
indeed though the early estimates which much higher than the reality, the
final death toll still remained in the thousands, plural. Nothing even
remotely like this had ever happened in a single day in any American city
in the entire history of this country. And more than 100 firefighters
alone had already been lost on this single day. Why does the evacuation
order necessarily need to be motivated by an advance knowledge of the time
the building would collapse? This does at least confirm that there was
indeed a raging fire in the building, and given the horrific death toll
that had already happened that morning, I'm not sure I blame them for
finally deciding to cut their losses and evacuate the building due to the
fire alone, and not necessarily due to any suspicion at that time that
this building might also collapse.
Ok, I'm very sorry Chris, but I've got to stop here. I've now been
posting in this newsgroup for almost six hours, and only in this thread,
and I really want to get to some of the JFK stuff now. I have also not
yet eaten anything today. If there is any important issue that you
brought up that I didn't get to, I will be more than happy to address it
if you'll remind me, *when* I *have* *time*.
Deal?
<9287c1c6-27cd-4c9c...@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > 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
> > demolition, you think it can be proven that they were, and you
> > furthermore, as I noted in my reply to you yesterday, exaggerate 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > saying that they were *totally* convinced that the explanation is
> > 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
> > different backgrounds from that many different countries from that many
> > *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
> > was controlled demolition or not, and simply feel that further
> > 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
> > 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'.
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.
as well.
> That leaves us with the facts and
> evidence that have been shown to you and which you seem to have ignored.
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 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?
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.
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.
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:
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.
Chris
9/11 catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they can
prove it.
**********
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 from there since, but remember there were
two major gaps of several days. The first was mine, when it took me six
days to notice you had replied to me. The second was yours, when after
*eleven* days you had not yet noticed my reply to you, and *still* didn't
notice it until I posted it *again* four days ago. It has only been
during the past four days that you and I have been replying to each other
on consecutive days and getting a real exchange going.
> However, since you chimedin and are trying to save
> him from embarrassment, perhaps you and I can have a siscussion aboutr the
> facts. What do you say?
before noon today, and it is at this moment 4:22 p.m. Thus I have already
been discussing this evidence with you in a very extensive manner, as is
by now well-known to be my habit in this newsgroup; in fact, I'm sure many
here think I do it *too* extensively.
> > > Meaning that I must be right as far as any debate on the matter because
> > > you are unable to mount a decent viewpoint.
> >
> > literally *all* of these people signed the petition for absolutely
> > identical reasons, ignoring the reasons that they themselves gave for
> > signing the petition, which include a variety of viewpoints on the issue,
> > not one single viewpoint only. ?You can accuse Sandy of not backing up his
> > identical reasons, ignoring the reasons that they themselves gave for
> > signing the petition, which include a variety of viewpoints on the issue,
> > claims very well, but you're not backing up your claims very well either.
>
> I still contend that I did not falsely assume anything of the kind, and
> that my statements were true, based on a knowledge of human reactions to
> certain situations.
You'll be needing to read my first and very long reply to you that I
>
> I still contend that I did not falsely assume anything of the kind, and
> that my statements were true, based on a knowledge of human reactions to
> certain situations.
posted a little over an hour ago on that subject. I'm sorry, but I do not
have the impression that your knowledge of human reactions and motivations
is very extensive or realistic, but of course that opinion my change as
this discussion progresses.
> However, For arguments sake (this once) I'll grant
> your needs and say you're right.
> Now can we get on with a serious
> discussion, or are you unable to do that?
for a decade now. You seem to be very unfamiliar with my posting
history.
> Would you rather run away from
> the facts and evidence and just sit around picking at me?
be an absurd question. And excuse me, but, uh, "picking"? Laddy, this is
Usenet, and any time you post any claim that others find to be
questionable or lacking in plausible foundation, you can expect others to
do all the "picking" they like, on the details, on the overall picture,
and any element in between.
> What do you
> say?
Is there any reason from my history here that would cause a reasonable
person to think my answer would be anything but "yes"? :D
> > > Your own personal opinion
> > > counts only in your house, not here where you have to prove your point.
> >
> > The same can be said of your personal opinion.
>
> Nope. Won't do. I use facts and evidence in discussing the topic.
unfounded assumptions and sweeping generalizations, I've noticed.
> The
> general rule (which some folks don't follow) is that you discuss the topic
> and not the person.
claims is not entirely irrelevant.
> You wanted to talk on the side about whether my
> statement about AE911truth members was true or not.
above, which is the first article of yours that I ever replied to in this
thread, that was the only issue you mentioned in the entire article. You
otherwise said nothing whatsoever about any other aspect of this in *that*
article. So if I was "on the side," as you put it, that was only because
you were *first*.
> That is discussing
> the person.
quite unrealistic when I first read it.
> I went along with it for a while,
you're the one who started it first by bringing up only the supposed
viewpoints of the people who signed the petition and literally no other
aspect of 9/11.
> but we need to get back on
> track.
> We're here because you found it more fun to pick at me than to
> discuss the topic at hand.
You, not I, started this exchange with this single claim and nothing else:
"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."
thread. How is it my fault that you began by bringing up only that single
claim and nothing else? Now yes, right above that sentence you had also
posted a link, but you did not otherwise discuss it in any detail. I
simply replied to what you said. Now you blame me for addressing a topic
you want to get away from, when you're the one and only person in this
thread who first brought up that topic in the first place?
> > > Do you have any facts to support your view? ?So far you've produced
> > > nothing but your personal opinion, which carries no weight here. ?I'm
> > > able
> > > to produce scientific proof and studies backing up my contentions and
> > > those of the architects and Engineers.
> >
> > Yes, you've produced *some*. ?However, you have also made some obviously
> > > to produce scientific proof and studies backing up my contentions and
> > > those of the architects and Engineers.
> >
> > exaggerated statements as well. ?You originally claimed, falsely, that
> > every single one of the people who signed that petition were absolutely
> > convinced that the buildings, without a shadow of a doubt, were brought
> > down by controlled demolition, and also falsely claimed that every person
> > who signed the petition could prove this to be true. ?But when I looked at
> > convinced that the buildings, without a shadow of a doubt, were brought
> > down by controlled demolition, and also falsely claimed that every person
> > the actual reasons they gave for signing the petition, I quickly saw that
> > most of them did not say either of those things. ?And I do not buy your
> > argument that I saw yesterday that the act of signing, in and of itself,
> > "implies" that that is what every one of these people meant. ?I'd almost
> > be willing to bet money that if I contacted some of them, and asked them
> > if your claim of why they signed the petition is correct, at least some of
> > them would say no, that is not why they signed the petition.
> >
> > Shall we put that to the test?
> >
> Lordee! Are you daft? We've done that bit of yours to death. I've
> said I will concede your point for the sake of argument (this once), why
> are you so scared of the topic?
Why on earth do you think I'm "scared" of it? You started your part of
> > if your claim of why they signed the petition is correct, at least some of
> > them would say no, that is not why they signed the petition.
> >
> > Shall we put that to the test?
> >
> Lordee! Are you daft? We've done that bit of yours to death. I've
> said I will concede your point for the sake of argument (this once), why
> are you so scared of the topic?
the discussion with a very short article that mostly contained only a
single claim that I decided to address. In ALL of my replies to you
since in this discussion I have addressed *every* point you have raised.
> Afraid that facts and evidence weren't
> what you expected?
> You thought maybe that you would walk into some
> 'conspiracy theorist' with baloney for brains? Since you admit that I've
> presented 'some' evidence, what is your opinion of those facts? Agree?
> Disagree? If so, tell me why factually.
several other threads that I want to get to today, all of which have to do
with the actual primary topic of this newsgroup, before I get the hell out
of this dratted place for the evening. Why don't you wait until you've
read all four of my replies to you today before you decide that I am
intentionally avoiding anything.
> > > > 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.
> >
> > > THEORY. ?Nope. ?I'm talking about facts...
> >
> > No you aren't, certainly not entirely anyway. ?You incorrectly claimed, as
> > if it was proven fact, that every one of those people signed the petition
> > for a single, absolutely identical reason, and ignored the reasons these
> > people themselves gave for signing the petition. ?How would you know why
> > for a single, absolutely identical reason, and ignored the reasons these
> > they signed the petition better than they themselves know why they signed
> > the petition?
> >
> My oh my. Really trying to work that one to death, eh? Anything to
> stay away from the main topic.
No, I stayed right on the topic you yourself started, which at first was
> > the petition?
> >
> My oh my. Really trying to work that one to death, eh? Anything to
> stay away from the main topic.
ONLY your original claim of why these people signed the petition, and
almost literally no other aspect of 9/11 whatsoever. And you went right
along with it in all your replies to me until yesterday. These articles
of yours from yesterday, which I did not see for the first time until
today, are your earliest replies to me in which you have complained that
we were straying off the topic you wanted to talk about, even though
before yesterday you were straying right along with me on the exact topic
you yourself started in your first article in this thread.
> I've answered your comments on my
> statement above, so there's no reason to keep repeating it.
> It as if that
> was the only thing you found that you could hang your hat on,
replied to you, September 17, until these articles of yours from yesterday
which I'm just now seeing for the first time today, and I have by now
spent more than five hours replying to each and every one of your four
replies to me that were posted yesterday. And I haven't shied away from a
single important point you raised. How is it my fault that until
yesterday you also replied to me primarily only about your perceived
reasons as to why those people signed that petition?
> so you have
> to keep saying it, since you can't deal with the facts that were shown to
> you aboutr the collapses.
facts. I've also gotten rather good by now at spotting when certain
supposed "facts" are ill-supported. Again, these articles of yours from
yesterday represent the first time in this thread that you have begun to
substantively address those other issues, so why you're now complaining
that I didn't do that earlier, when you didn't either, is beyond me.
> > > I have NO interest in your
> > > theories.
> >
> Good, I have no theories. Only facts and evidence.
>
> > Now wait a minute, you're acting as if Sandy is the only person on earth
> > who has ever proposed that the buildings came down as the result of the
> > that was the sole cause of the collapse of the buildings, just as there
> > are many who believe otherwise. ?And how many certified architects and
> > engineers are there worldwide who do NOT believe that the buildings were
> > brought down by controlled demolition? ?Is it more or less than 1700?
> > Unless you can *prove* that the *majority* of all of them worldwide
> > believe controlled demolition was used, your own argument also has its
> > weaknesses.
>
> I see you're off picking at how many people believe one thing and how
> many believe another.
Of course I was. I was addressing your original *claim*. You know, the
> > believe controlled demolition was used, your own argument also has its
> > weaknesses.
>
> I see you're off picking at how many people believe one thing and how
> many believe another.
only specific claim, aside from also posting that link, that you made at
all in your first article in this thread. And which is pretty much the
only aspect of 9/11 you've ever discussed with me in this thread until
yesterday. And naturally, what you call "picking" is in reality
demonstrating to you how your original claim failed to take into account
the great diversity of the people who signed the petition.
> I'm talking about facts and evidence, not beliefs
> with no facts behind them.
who signed the petition:
"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."
> Many people 'believe' many things, including
> leprechauns, but they can't provide facts to support their beliefs.
> Let's try and get you into the arena of facts and see what you have to
> say. Jump right in and give your evidence as to the fall of the 3 towers
> and how it was accomplished. Tell me about temperatures and the melting
> point of steel and things like that. Not what someone around the world
> thinks of it all from a little TV and a lot of disbelief because they were
> told something by their government.
You *really* need to read my earlier replies to you from today before
> leprechauns, but they can't provide facts to support their beliefs.
> Let's try and get you into the arena of facts and see what you have to
> say. Jump right in and give your evidence as to the fall of the 3 towers
> and how it was accomplished. Tell me about temperatures and the melting
> point of steel and things like that. Not what someone around the world
> thinks of it all from a little TV and a lot of disbelief because they were
> told something by their government.
you jump to any conclusion regarding what I will and will not discuss.
> > > I've pointed out facts concerning the bringing down of the 3
> > > towers, now do you have any facts to say otherwise?
> >
> > And I know you are hardly the only person to have such an opinion. ?You
> > are ignoring the *fact* that you also are expressing a mere *opinion*, not
> > a proven *fact*. ?It is not a proven fact merely because you honestly
> > believe that it is, and merely because others honestly believe so as well.
> > Anyone can be wrong without realizing it. ?Anyone.
>
> My my my. You also completely misunderstand me and then try to figure
> me out. That can't be done from an erroneous base like yours. You see, I
> came by me 'beliefs' from looking into the evidence and data. I listened
> carefully and I looked around. I tried to make the 'official' story work,
> because I wanted it to be true, but there were too many errors in it. I
> was finally forced to accept the facts and evidence that I saw, and came
> to the obvious conclusion that it was 'controlled demolition'. There
> really aren't too many possibilities anyway. Planes ran into the
> buildings and they fell, or it was controlled demolition and they fell.
One would think it was one or the other, indeed. ;-)
> My my my. You also completely misunderstand me and then try to figure
> me out. That can't be done from an erroneous base like yours. You see, I
> came by me 'beliefs' from looking into the evidence and data. I listened
> carefully and I looked around. I tried to make the 'official' story work,
> because I wanted it to be true, but there were too many errors in it. I
> was finally forced to accept the facts and evidence that I saw, and came
> to the obvious conclusion that it was 'controlled demolition'. There
> really aren't too many possibilities anyway. Planes ran into the
> buildings and they fell, or it was controlled demolition and they fell.
> > > > Next you'll be telling me there weren't even any planes.
> >
> > > towers. ?I saw NO plane that hit the WTC 7 tower. ?Did you?
> >
> > Did burning debris slam down upon WTC 7, however, from the taller towers?
> > I seem to recall it did. ?That alone raises at least a *possibility* that
> > Did burning debris slam down upon WTC 7, however, from the taller towers?
> > that is what caused the collapse of WTC 7. ?You may not *believe* in that
> > possibility in your *opinion*. ?Many others also do not believe in that
> > possibility in their *opinions*. ?But it is still nothing more than an
> > *opinion* that controlled demolition brought down WTC 7. ?You and others
> > may honestly *believe* that it is already "proven" or can be "proven" that
> > controlled demolition was used, but that also is nothing more than an
> > *opinion*, regardless of how many or how few people share that *opinion*.
> > It is not yet conclusively *proven* in any realistic sense that even WTC 7
> > alone was brought down in the way you think it was.
>
> Please stop trying to say what I think and just say what YOU think.
> You're not good enough a mind reader. Now let's look at your discussion
> of the topic. You keep saying MY opinion, yet I got MY opinion from facts
> and evidence.
I do not see how you got your opinion of the only claim you made in your
> > controlled demolition was used, but that also is nothing more than an
> > *opinion*, regardless of how many or how few people share that *opinion*.
> > It is not yet conclusively *proven* in any realistic sense that even WTC 7
> > alone was brought down in the way you think it was.
>
> Please stop trying to say what I think and just say what YOU think.
> You're not good enough a mind reader. Now let's look at your discussion
> of the topic. You keep saying MY opinion, yet I got MY opinion from facts
> and evidence.
first article here from facts and evidence. Now that we are finally
branching out into the actual main subject of what caused the tower to
collapse, a branching out that you delayed more than I did, I do indeed
see that you have considered at least *some* of the facts and evidence,
but I have yet to see you mention for the first time ever in this thread
some other very serious considerations which also must be taken into
account to support *any* theory of why the buildings collapsed, no matter
what that theory is.
> It's certainly an extremely tiny possibility that the
> damage to building 7 caused it to fall, however, the building stayed up
> very well on its own for many hours after the damage was done. Also, if
> you looked into the evidence, then you saw that the time of the fall of
> building 7 was known and they put warnings out all the way down to the
> workers on the street, who advised the people standing around to move back
> as the building was coming down.
correct about the time of the fall of the building being known in advance,
if by that you mean an exact time. I do know that a warning to evacuate
was put out prior to the collapse of WTC 7, but I feel I need to explore
further what the exact origin of that warning was. And as I've said, I've
already spent an awful lot of time today in this thread only, and I have
not even gotten to any thread about the JFK assassination yet today, so my
time may be limited to address 9/11 in the coming days. But I hope you
will not accuse me again of purposefully trying to avoid a discussion of
this, because I'm not. But no one, including you, can address everything
simultaneously, and there are other things that are important to me too.
> As well, Larry Silverstein made a
> foolish comment that they tried to cover up 3 years later when he said:
>
> "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander,
> telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the
> fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the
> smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and
> we watched the building collapse." From:
> http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/cutter.html
official explanation. However, it also suggests the possibility of an
alternate explanation, if not for why WTC 7 collapsed, then at least for
the order to evacuate. They had had such terrible loss of life already.
The two large towers had already collapsed many hours earlier. The
earliest estimates were that thousands of people had been killed, and
indeed though the early estimates which much higher than the reality, the
final death toll still remained in the thousands, plural. Nothing even
remotely like this had ever happened in a single day in any American city
in the entire history of this country. And more than 100 firefighters
alone had already been lost on this single day. Why does the evacuation
order necessarily need to be motivated by an advance knowledge of the time
the building would collapse? This does at least confirm that there was
indeed a raging fire in the building, and given the horrific death toll
that had already happened that morning, I'm not sure I blame them for
finally deciding to cut their losses and evacuate the building due to the
fire alone, and not necessarily due to any suspicion at that time that
this building might also collapse.
Ok, I'm very sorry Chris, but I've got to stop here. I've now been
posting in this newsgroup for almost six hours, and only in this thread,
and I really want to get to some of the JFK stuff now. I have also not
yet eaten anything today. If there is any important issue that you
brought up that I didn't get to, I will be more than happy to address it
if you'll remind me, *when* I *have* *time*.
Deal?
Sandy McCroskey
Oct 10, 2012, 9:42:53 PM10/10/12
to
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-debunked-repeatedly-thruther-ignore-science-and-facts.html
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.
http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
<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
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
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.
That's all I've got to say. Have fun!
/sandy
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-debunked-repeatedly-thruther-ignore-science-and-facts.html
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.
http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
<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
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!"
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. "
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?"
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."
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.
That's all I've got to say. Have fun!
/sandy
Anthony Marsh
Oct 11, 2012, 11:03:31 AM10/11/12
to
> 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.
>
Anthony Marsh
Oct 11, 2012, 11:03:37 AM10/11/12
to
On 10/10/2012 9:20 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <5074adac$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthon...@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.
> In article <5074adac$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthon...@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?
>
That's my point. You refuse to look at the evidence.
Bottom left with the beard.
mainframetech
Oct 11, 2012, 4:12:23 PM10/11/12
to
On Oct 10, 9:19 pm, John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <e6e3951c-d467-4263-9c88-bc17f61d1...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
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?
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?
Hmm. Sounds like you're suspicious of a conspiracy to fool folks about
that...:) The material was found in dust samples from all around the
collapse site. It had collected on roof tops and other places. The proof
is that thermite would not be laying all around the streets of NYC for no
reason, it's not a natural element, and no one has yet found a reason
other than the collapse for putting it there. The dust from the collapse
was inches high in some areas that were originally clean. Thermite has
only on reason to exist, and that's to be an incendiary chemical.
Here is one of the studies prompted by the collapses. It answers
questions posed by the site that Randi linked to that supposedly answered
all the questions about the event. As it turns out, one of them was that
workers with acetylene torches were cutting metal and the debris from that
get into things and made it look like there were steel and other bits in
the dust. This study shows that at least one sample was drawn 10 minutes
after the towers fell, so that there was absolutely NO torches being used
at that time to affect the dust. All samples were verified with
affidavits and in one case a video tro show their finder and their
location. Here's the study, note the various institutions involved and
that the journal is "peer reviewed":
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf
> 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:
>
It seems perfectly normal to not see complaints that thermite ((or
nano-thermite) was present in 'official' report on the subject. The
goverment wanted, as is often the case, to answer the public as to how it
happened and to do it quickly. The first version of a report from NIST,
who was assigned to report on the collapses, failed to mention WTC
building 7 at all except in passing. When the uproar died down, they
included WTC7 in a new version. This correction process happened again
after it was proved with facts and evidence that what had been reported
was wrong to do with the speed with which WTC7 fell. It turned out to be
freefall, which is impossible for this type of building construction.
AE911truth was the group bringing up the error, and they got an admission
of error from NIST.
The presence of Thermite or a relative of it was not 'claimed' by the
scientists that did the study, it was proven. See the study link above.
Other less scientific guesses that certain effects on steel beams are from
thermite are possible, based on appearance, but are not proven facts and
therefore should not be used as evidence of thermite involvement.
There is an interesting point to be made on the photo of a upright
streel beam with a cut diagonal on it. It's suggested by the text on the
photo that cutting torches did it and not thermite. While that is a
possibility, consider that workers using cutting torches will not cut
diagonally across a beam like this unless absolutely forced, because it is
a much longer cut than if they cut horizontally. It wastes acetylene,
oxygen and time and money. However, cutter charges are explosives that
are used in the 'controlled demolition' business to cut beams of this
sort, and the charges are usually set against the beam diagonally so that
when the beam is cut, it won't keep supporting the weight, but will slide
off and come down. This again, is not proof of thermite use, only
interesting information for us to consider. Another fact is that many
witnesses and many videos show many and sometimes very large explosions
inside the 3 buildings, often just before they fell. Because of this, we
must consider that explosives may have been used in the felling of the
buildings.
> http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
>
See above for answers to this link.
> 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]
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition...
> spiracy_theories
>
> **********
>
A note here about Wikipedia. Whoever gets to it first and enters an
article on a subject gets their view into Wikipedia. The staff will on
occasion support one or the other viewpoint on a subject to the point that
they will keep re-establishing it after someone else tries to re-write or
edit it in a fashion that the staff has decided is wrong. This decision
making is almost entirely subjective, and therefore Wikipedia is not a
good reference in the case of a disputed event. They will often take a
side and support it, rather than show both sides of the issue.
> The NIST said there was no clear chain of custody to prove that the
> samples of dust actually came from the WTC site. However, it is also
> said there, and farther down in the article, that the NIST has so far
> not adequately investigated their own samples which supposedly DO have a
> clear chain of custody, and I would not disagree with anyone who said
> that the NIST definitely should investigate this matter further to
> clarify this issue.
>
Given that their has been quite an outbreak of disbelief in the
findings of NIST over time, it would behoove them to do the investigation
of dust samples (that can still be found) just to corroborate the work of
the scientists who did the original work. In the event of a disagreement
it would have been wise, but for some reason, NIST didn't want to even
entertain the idea and walked away from it. There were affidavits made
and videos of statements of custody and acquisition made with the study,
so the scientists thought of that, and the chains of custody are as good
as can be in the circumstances.
A very important point here is that there were a number of scientists
working on the project with the dust, and there were a few different
institutions whose names were mentioned as 'home locations' for them. As
well, the work was done in a scientific manner, and can be viewed by
anyone. The work of the scientists was 'peer reviewed' meaning that
others looked over their work and found it acceptable.
We must then consider human factors, which I hate to do, but it was
made necessary by complaints that the study was SOMEHOW wrong. We must
consider that the study would cause NIST and their directors to be very
embarrassed by a study proving that they had missed a very important
element in their report, and that the 'official' reaon for the fall might
not have been terrorists. This couldn't be allowed to take control of the
viewpoints of the public, so complaints and pressure had to have been
applied to the journal in relation to the study in question. The study is
available online to anyone that might want to see if the proper protocols
were used and proper scientific methods were applied.
> Be that as it may, for the time being anyway it cannot reasonably be
> said that it has yet been *proven* in any realistic sense that thermite
> (or nano-thermite) was actually present at the site.
>
Actually, we can readily look over the work done and see that it was
professional and proper. Therefore it can be accepted as evidence, since
it is entirely factual. It was also not produced by just one person, and
was peer reviewed as well, so there have been many hands checking on the
study and verifying it's accuracy. Many would like to hang their hat on
anything they can find to disagree with the findings, but they will wind
up picking nits, and avoiding the major findings and methods of the study.
> Now, on this site the argument is in support of some form of thermite
> being present, but look carefully: the claim is solely based on
> photographic evidence only:
>
> http://rense.com/general75/thrm.htm
>
I wouldn't take anything said by Rense as gospel. They have the
reputation of going with anything 'conspiratorial', and they are often
light on evidence, using mainly implication. I can't accept their
articles as fact.
> This one also does not make any claim of thermite actually being *found*
> at the site, and once again seems to rely on photographic evidence only
> to support the claim:
>
> http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/thermite.php
>
A ridiculous 'conspiracy' blog. Not of any use in our quest for
truth. Facts in doubt.
> Then there's this one:
>
> "The study, however, shows that the dust was collected from four
> different sites, three of which were not in the immediate area
> surrounding the fallen towers. Most of the samples are collections of
> dust taken from blocks away."
>
> http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Scientists_find_active_superthermite_in...
far away the dust clouds were blown by the original collapse. But we also
have the fact that material that was found in the samples cannot be found
in any area of NYC away from the collapse site and it's environs.
therrmite is not natural to any urban (or suburban) venue. It is made in
laboratories.
> This one repeats essentially the same arguments:
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermite.html
>
Here's some text from this link:
"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very
unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been
identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that
this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the
collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started
prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A
detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to
determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures
exposed to severe and long-burning fires.
Thermite Use as an Explanation
The "deep mystery" of the melted steel may be yielding its secrets to
investigators not beholden to the federal government. Professor Steven
Jones has pointed out that the severe corrosion, intergranular
melting, and abundance of sulfur are consistent with the theory of
thermite arson."
From: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html
The above text makes it clear that the writer has no clue as to
what caused the corrosion of steel they saw in the samples. They
considerd it an "unusual event". Throughout the text they makes
various guesses saying "it is possible that" often. It ended with a
recommendation for a study to find the answers. Now, looking at the
last paragraph, they finally give credit to Steven Jones, PhD's
viewpoint and make it known that he is "not beholden to the federal
government". An odd sort of thing to say in a 'debunking' article.
They are suggesting that the idea of "Thermite Arson" was palatable to
them.
> This page certainly explains a great deal about the properties of
> thermite and related substances, but once again the basis of the claim
> that there was even thermite present at the site at all is the same dust
> samples with the same questionable chain of custody:
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
>
This site also supports the work of Jones and others by mentioning
him in their end discussion of methods:
They give redundant excuses made by NIST and others as to why it
couldn't be done with thermite and then they answer their own
statement:
"1. That the surreptitious preparation of the Twin Towers was too
prone to exposure.
2. That setting up the demolitions to start from the Towers' crash
zones was technically unfeasible.
3. That thermite is unsuitable as a tool of controlled demolition.
These arguments have taken on the appearance of straw men with their
continued repetition -- including by NIST itself -- after being
publicly shown to be based on false assumptions. The 9-11Research FAQ
on Demolition addressed the first two starting in 2004, and Steven
Jones and others addressed the third starting in 2006 by pointing out
the existence of explosive variants of thermite."
> Basically the same argument here as in several of the sites above:
>
> http://www.dailycensored.com/2009/04/05/scientists-find-active-super-...
> mite-in-wtc-dust/
>
If this is saying the same as one above, then my response is the
same for it.
> Here the argument that any form of thermite was actually found in any
> sample does not seem to me to be adequately sustained:
>
> http://rt.com/usa/news/did-nano-thermite-take-down-the-wtc/
>
This last link reminds me of something funny that can be found by
Google. It says that NIST stated that unequivocally explosives were
not used in the collapses. They were asked if they checked for
explosives, and they said, NO. Here's backup from the NIST site:
"22. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers
being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for
explosives or thermite residues?
[Answer] NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the
steel."
From: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm#
Now, this site has a video that isn't working.
Here's a quote from the Q&A it presents:
"RT: Professor Niels Harrit, you examined the rubble that came from
the World Trade Center. What did you find in it?
Niels Harrit: Well, in there we find the remains of what we
characterize as thermetic material, and this is a very energetic
material which can be used either for melting iron, or it can be
designed as an explosive.
RT: So, what effect would nano-thermite have had on the collapse of
the towers on September 11?
Niels Harrit: Actually, within this group of authors behind this
paper, which we published in April, there are diverging opinions about
what this nano-thermite was used for. And my opinion is: we should not
speculate on a scenario for the demolition. There is no doubt that the
three towers were demolished on 9/11. But beyond that there is very
solid evidence that some thermite has been used for melting the steel
beams. We do not know if the thermite that we have found is the same
thermite which has been used for melting the beams. It’s very, very
possible that different varieties were used, and I personally am
certain that conventional explosives were used too, in abundance."
Thereis a lot more of the same, but it sounds like they are
endorsing thermite and intentional demolition to me.
It is a good point to make the following information available. It
wa a violation of the law to remove all the steel and debris from the
site before certain testing had been done by the fire department, and
separate laws that certain testing by the police and other law
enforcement agencies be done, especially in the event that terrorism
is suspected.
> Now, I also have a question about these substances themselves. Is it
> really true that the *only* possible way for thermite and nano-thermite
> and so forth to appear is for it to have been intentionally placed there
> as an explosive? Or can these compounds be produced in other ways as
> well? I'm looking now at websites unrelated to 9/11, and specifically
> looking into how these thermite compounds are formed. What I'm seeing is
> a variety of ways in which they can form, not one particular way only.
> How do we know for certain that the only possible explanation for the
> presence of thermite substances is intentional placement in the buildings?
> There is no other possible chemical reaction, none whatsoever, that can
> produce these substances? That is not quite what I'm seeing in this
> documentation.
>
In answer, I'll use the statement of chemistry professor Niels
Harrit in the last link:
"RT: In terms of the nano-thermite, the traces of which you did find,
what are the possible explanations for its presence in the World Trade
Center? I mean, could it have been in the airplanes, or could it have
been a naturally occurring substance in any way?
Niels Harrit [answer]: The two last options I can definitely rule out.
It could not have come from the airplanes. If it had been there
beforehand – those who put it there, I urge them to step forward and
tell us how and why it got there. One thing, which has been mentioned
frequently in the discussion following our publication, is that this
could be the primer paint which was applied to the steel beams in
order to prevent corrosion. And many of the ingredients are the same.
In terms of the iron oxide, as I told you, which is red in color, you
see it hugely on steel beams when they are protected, it’s iron oxide…
So, some of the chemicals in there are the same. But the composition
of the primer paint used… there are two very good reasons for it not
being paint, in my opinion. One is that the composition, chemical
composition of the paint, primer paint, used in the World Trade
Center, according to NIST (the National Institute of Standards and
Technology) is vastly different from that what we are seeing. To be
specific, I’d say that we are missing large amounts of chromium, zinc,
and magnesium. Next, which can be understood by everyone, is that the
paint applied on the steel beams is stable to elevated temperatures.
NIST did experiments with the steel beams, because they wanted to use
the appearance of the paint as a measure for the temperature the steel
beams had been exposed to. And let me be specific. When you heat this
steel beam up 250 degrees Centigrade, it starts cracking. This is
because the steel expands more than the paint. They get what they call
mat cracks. And it keeps on cracking until the temperature is above
650 degrees, where it starts peeling off, forming scales. This
continues to about 800 degrees, when this scaling becomes excessive.
But it does not burn. So, the paint on the steel beams is stable
beyond 800 degrees Centigrade. Now, the stuff we have found ignites at
430 degrees Centigrade. So, it is not the primer paint. So, what I can
say is… Is this nano-thermite? Well, it quacks like a duck, it waggles
like a duck, it looks like a duck, maybe it’s a duck? This is all we
can say."
So he says it didn't get there in the rubble of the towers from the
plane, or from a coating on the beams. He thinks it was done by
people and would like to know who and how they did it.
> Now, back to the Gage video you cited. At about 1:30 several videos of
> the collapse of WTC 7 are shown, and a bit later one of those is shown
> alongside another video of a building known to have been brought down by
> controlled demolition. I immediately noticed something that has been
> brought up here by at least one other poster, and which I have also seen
> in television documentaries in which this whole issue is discussed. In
> the video on the right which we know is of a building being brought down
> by controlled demolition, I clearly see multiple explosions on multiple
> floors of the building as it is being brought down. I see no such thing
> in any of the videos of the collapse of WTC 7, even other videos besides
> the one being shown here.
Yes, they're hard to see and not well defined. I don't think they
prove demolition or not. To give you some solid facts, let me show
you a video of firemen that were in the building before one of the
collapses, which I DO consider useful evidence of the 'machine gun
crackle' of small explosions associated sometimes with demolition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2A8VMg_B64
Here's a demolition for comparison that used the multiple machine
gun bursts to weaken the building, there are many shots of the same
demolition, so you can skip ahead. Notice that the short small
explosions don't necessary show to the outside of the building:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI
Other witnesses to explosions in the buildings:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urNEAakzOYk&feature=endscreen&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1zED8dy63w&feature=endscreen&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAoWDcu9r8A
>
> Here are some videos of known controlled demolitions of buildings, none of
> which have anything to do with 9/11. In almost every case I can clearly
> see multiple explosions on different floors of the buildings, and/or
> different parts of each structure being brought down, and in several cases
> I can clearly see fire blasting out at multiple points in the structures:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK50So-yYRU
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcb37yyHgT8
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L1FhnHaRbQ
>
In the first video above, I don't see explosions outside the high
rise buildings very often, but I see smoke puffs that might be from
the building collapsing and causing air to be compressed and pushed
out floor by floor. While it is suggestive that we can sometimes see
the puffs of smoke, and even an occasional series of flashes, the
smoke puffs aren't good evidence to me, only possibilities. The
flashes and the multiple cracks are good evidence to me of explosive
demolition. This was the case in the towers as per the firemen that
were in the building in the video above.
> I honestly do not see anything of the sort in any video I have ever seen
> of the collapse of WTC 7. I also fairly recently, around the anniversary
> last month in fact, spent many hours watching again all or nearly all of
> the known videos of the collapses of WTC 1 and 2. In none of them did I
> see anything that looked at all like an explosion below the floors which
> the planes impacted. Instead in both cases I could clearly see, at least
> in some of the videos, that the top part of each building above the point
> of impact began to topple over sideways, but no explosions whatsoever
> below that as the buildings were starting to come down.
>
Notice that the tops of the buildings did not fall sideways. One of
the indicators for controlled demolition is that a buildng falls into
its own footprint. This is almost impossible (not completely
impossible) and rare enough that I've never seen it anywhere happen in
a natural fall of a building. I have seen failed demolitions where
the top or part of a building will fall, but it is obvious when it
happens. Some people have said they can see progressive explosions
that do not show flashes outside, which happens often (check it). The
videos they show have the progressive puffs to a degree, but not what
I would call good evidence. I was more impressed by the descriptions
of the firemen in the video above. They were actually in the building
when the 'crackle' of the progressive explosions went off.
Consider that a building is made up of many levels and each one can
support everything above it and then some. The twin towers both broke
up from the top down, progressing floor by floor, which generated the
idea of 'pancaking'. Oddly though, if there had been pancaking, we
would see the floors stacked on each other to some degree in the
debris at the bottom, but there wasn't any of that. Only mashed up
debris of columns with some concrete here and there and an awful lot
of dust. Personally, I would leave out the 'pancaking' theory. As
well, as the floors support the ones above, and the damage to the twin
towers was somewhat in the middle and on one side mostly, you would
expect the building to be weaker on that side where the plane might
have cut the supports. That should cause the building (or part of it)
to fall sideways toward the weaker side, and that didn't happen
either. The fall occurred as if there were NO supports in the
building at all! In the case of WTC7, it was proven that it fell at
pure freefall speed, and the twins faster than normally they would
under normal circumstances. Given the levels of support under the
falling part of the buildings, they should have caused at least SOME
pause before they gave out and let the fall continue. NIST has
admitted that freefall was true for WTC7 at least for the first 100
feet.
> And this is also a question that has been brought up in several
> documentaries. If these buildings were brought down by controlled
> demolition, when and how was this all set up? Wouldn't it take a fairly
> large group of people to go inside each building and place explosives in
> enough different parts of the buildings for this to work? How many people
> do you think were involved directly in the placement of these explosives?
> Approximately 50,000 people worked in these buildings on each typical
> weekday leading up to the attack. Why are there no witnesses to these
> people placing explosives throughout these buildings? Did these people do
> this only at night? But isn't it true that even at night and on weekends
> some of the people would do work in their offices on the weekends and at
> night, perhaps a few of them even very late at night? And still not a
> single witness to all these other people placing these explosives? And
> New York is The City That Never Sleeps, especially the Manhattan Borough.
> Believe me, I should know; I have several friends who live in Manhattan,
> some of whom used to live here in Texas, and I have visited them a fair
> number of times since 1990. Even very late at night, even in the very
> early hours of the morning, there are always people out on the streets in
> every part of Manhattan. How were these demolition people getting in and
> out of these buildings with all their equipment without being seen by
> people on the street? Did they drive their vans into the parking garage
> first and only then unload their explosives out of sight of people on the
> street? Do we have any witnesses to such vehicles going into the garage
> at odd times of night?
>
You're asking a question that is beyond the factual and evidential
information I have. I will give you a tentative answer, but I won't
guarantee it because there isn't enough fact to back it up. The
source is also in question, so this is just a 'scenario':
http://theintelhub.com/2011/08/01/the-missing-security-tapes-from-the-world-trade-center/
In one of the twin towers there was also a computer executive that
had been working in the building for years and he had experienced work
going on on an unused floor. Heavy equipment moving,etc. and all at
night, when he had to fo certain work himself.
> And still more questions. Since this would of course be timed to coincide
> with the plane strikes, this would indicate advance knowledge that the
> planes would be flown into the buildings on that date. So let's say for
> the sake of argument that all four planes, since the other two which
> didn't go to NYC would still obviously be involved directly in the same
> plot, were not really flown by Islamic terrorists, or at least that
> whoever set all this up was also involved in the demolition of the
> buildings. I guess your scenario is that our government was essentially
> behind this whole thing. What do you think the motivation of the
> government would be for this? To make it appear plausible to the American
> public, and indeed the world, that the attack was committed by Islamic
> terrorists, so that it would then justify our subsequent wars in
> Afghanistan and Iraq, possibly to free up oil reserves and so forth?
>
It wouldn't have to be synchronized with the planes. This is also
outside the area of fact and evidence, and any possibilities I give
you are NOT proof of anything, simply possible scenarios among many.
Since there were explosives used as well as Thermate, they both can be
set off by remote devices. So one waits for planes (weeks if
necessary), and when its time, let's it go. Considering that WTC7 was
taken down by plan, at a specific time, it had to be set up in
advance, and it had to be started off by remote device. Both twin
towers acted oddly in that respect. The towers were struck by the
planes, and the jet fuel was determined by NIST to have been mostly
exhausted within 15 minutes, the scene was filled by grey and black
smoke, indicative of fires that lack oxygen, and so not burning
hotly. But even though the fires were essentially now of lower
intensity, the buildings came down (opposite of the plane strikes) in
progressive manner, possibly as if to a command from a remote
device. As to political reasons, Aagain I'm not into that stuff at
this point and can only give you stories from others which I do NOT
consider facts or evidence.
The general consensus of the conspiracy people is that Pearl Harbor
could well have been a 'false flag' operation that FDR needed to start
the WW2. There are many reasons which have been stated over the
years. The same reasons may apply to the WTC tragedy. Even though
there's no proof at this point that it was a conspiracy, still the
political people made a lot of use out of the event. They were able
to create the PATRIOT Act which gave them control of the populace,
they wer able t o point at an enemy and go to war with them withthe
approval of the public, and many other benefits. However, I don't
hold with that at this time. Later after an incestigation into the 3
tower sfalling, we can consider the political ramifications and the
guilty, if any.
> I am not understanding this at all. Why would controlled demolitions of
> these buildings even be necessary to achieve these goals? Wouldn't the
> plane crashes all by themselves be more than enough to outrage the
> American people? Wouldn't we all have been just as outraged, or nearly as
> much, even if the buildings *hadn't* collapsed? Wouldn't the idea of
> Islamic terrorists crashing a plane into the Pentagon *alone* be more than
> enough to obtain a sufficient level of public outrage? Wouldn't the
> additional crashes into the towers *alone* be more than enough, since even
> in the first moments hundreds of people were killed? And there was yet
> *another* crash near Shanksville. That didn't kill anyone on the ground
> or in any building, but it did kill everyone on board. When that also is
> added to everything else, wouldn't we all be just as outraged, or nearly
> so, at the idea that Islamic terrorists did all this, even *without* a
> single building anywhere in this country collapsing in addition?
>
I don't guarantee anything whatsoever about the 2 'wandering'
planes at the Pentagon and that went down in the open field. I have
looked at them, but have not gathered enough facts to make
statements. However, if the fall of the towers turns out to be
verified as a 'controlled demolition', then we would have to consider
those other events as part of a 'conspiracy' of some kind. If Pearl
Harbor were planned to move the public who were pacifist at the time,
then the loss of the battleships and all the others, as well as the
loss of the people would be a major loss. If so, then the WTC was
smaller by comparison I think. But I have no facts for that.
> I'm sorry, I just don't see the point of adding to that an *intentional*
> demolition of the buildings using explosives. That seems like totally
> unnecessary overkill for *any* conspiracy scenario involving our
> government, no matter what that scenario is. And my goodness, the risks.
> How many people, total, would have to be involved in this to pull it off?
> It would have to be a lot more people than just the ones who placed the
> explosives in the building. Someone has to pay for all that, just for
> starters. It has to also include the people who flew the planes, and the
> people who orchestrated all of this. How many people, minimum, would be
> required for all this to work? One-hundred people at the very least with
> some sort of direct involvement? Two-hundred? Three-hundred? And think
> what would happen if it ever got out that our government was behind this.
> The outrage against Islamic terrorists would obviously pale in comparison
> to the public outrage that would occur if it was ever proven that our
> government did this. We would more likely than not have a violent
> revolution. And what about the severe damage to our economy, from which
> we even today have not quite fully recovered? That damage was greatly
> increased by the collapse of those buildings, obviously. Had the
> buildings not collapsed, and in some sense been at least partially
> salvageable, it obviously would not have had nearly as significant an
> effect on our entire economy. Just to name one example, without the
> collapse of the buildings, it might not have even been necessary to close
> the stock exchange for several days.
>
Yes, it's all quite comprehensive, isn't it? Some of the
sidelights are suggestive. The stock exchange being closed reminded
me of the 'bets' that were taken against the 2 airplane companies all
in a mountain of investment 2 days before the event. It does make you
wonder how so many people knew it was goingf to happen. As well, more
in our bailiwick, is the planned demolition of WTC7. It didn't come
down on its own, but on command. There was a countdown and warnings
to get personnel out of the way, and even an error in reporting it to
the news media/. They were told a time that WTC7 would fall, and they
went on the air and announced the fall of WTC7 and the time it fell,
but the building could be seen in the background of the announcer,
looking fine...:) Soon after, the building fell as planned. We also
have the words of the owner, Larry Silverstein that the building was
intentionally 'pulled' (meaning demolished). The was completely
impossible unless set up weeks and maybe months ahead of time, and set
off by a remote control. It wasn't a natural fall. That part is
fact. The video of Silverstein is evidence for it, and the silly
excuses they came up with 3 years later weren't convincing for me or
most people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsXdBlv2yvg
If you analyze the words of Silverstein, you will see that he
himself defines the meaning of 'pull it' by saying "they made the
decision to 'pull' and we watched it collapse."
> I'm just not seeing who would benefit from all this. If the goal is to
> make it more plausible to the public that we needed to go to war in
> Afghanistan and Iraq, I don't see how there is any overall economic
> benefit to that, since any benefit to freeing up oil reserves in Iraq, for
> example, would be mitigated by the severe damage to our economy caused by
> the attack in the first place.
>
Thsat's all political stuff, which I'm not ready to debate yet. I
could find reasons for all the questions and answers, but I'm more
concerned at the moment with proving 'controlled demolition'.
> In short, what is the point? The four plane crashes all by themselves,
> and pinning it on Islamic terrorists, would be more than enough to
> convince the public of all this, *without* it being even slightly
> necessary to add *considerably* to the destruction, and add *considerably*
> to the economic damage, by *also* collapsing the buildings purposefully,
> since that part of it actually *decreases* any economic benefit, for the
> government or anyone else. Why would these conspirators benefit *more*
> from adding the collapses when they would more likely benefit more from
> the *lack* of collapses, since the four plane crashes alone would do the
> trick nicely, and not cost us nearly as much money?
>
LOL! Don't think in terms of money spent. Most politicians don't
think in those terms, since the money is put up by you and me...:) It
doesn't cost them anything. But this is again more politics, and
while I think there are answers to your questions that make sense, I'm
not ready to 'prove' them and I'd rather stay in the CD world.
> > As a side note, molten (not just melted) steel stayed in the
> > basements of the 3 buildings that collapsed for weeks after the
> > original collapses. Nothing known to be in the buildings could cause
> > that. Jet fuel and office equipment just won't reach the temperatures
> > need to soften steel or to melt it. However, a few incendiary
> > chemicals can do it, such as Thermite or Thermate.
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3Ot1JxNdE
>
> And I have seen many other experts dispute this, and who say that the jet
> fuel, etc. *was* enough to achieve such temperatures. How do you know for
> certain which group of experts is correct? And I ask again: what do the
> *majority* of experts worldwide say about all this? How do you know that
> the ones you are paying attention to comprise the *majority*? Because I
> submit that if it is only a *minority* of the experts in the world who
> agree that these buildings collapsed due to causes that were additional to
> the plane strikes alone, then the case for that could be considered to be
> weakened somewhat.
>
One has to look at all the areas of concern, not just each little
item alone. First, no one could poll ALL experts in the world, so
nothing would get done or be believed if that kind of thinking were
used. We each have to take the word of the experts that we feel have
more reason to be honest, and competent enough to produce the right
answers. None of us is wise or schooled enough to be doing this stuff
alone. Remember, I've pointed out 2 scenarios for the tower
collapses. If you can think of more reasonable ones, I'll include
them in the list. But I have the 2 and I can only choose between
them. When I see the facts about Larry Silverstein, I'm convinced
that there is something planned about the event, and when I see
scientists taking a chance on their reputations to publish contrary
information and tests, I am also impressed as to their contention of
controlled demolition, but putting all the facts together has
convinced me that it was indeed CD.
==================================================
I have to do a few task and chores now, but I will be back to
address the rest ogf this as soon as possible. Please leave it this
way, and I'll finish up as soon as I can. Thanks! Chris
==================================================
> In article
> <e6e3951c-d467-4263-9c88-bc17f61d1...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
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?
>
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.
>
once myself. How many legitimate scenarios can you see for bringing
down the 3 towers?
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?
that...:) The material was found in dust samples from all around the
collapse site. It had collected on roof tops and other places. The proof
is that thermite would not be laying all around the streets of NYC for no
reason, it's not a natural element, and no one has yet found a reason
other than the collapse for putting it there. The dust from the collapse
was inches high in some areas that were originally clean. Thermite has
only on reason to exist, and that's to be an incendiary chemical.
Here is one of the studies prompted by the collapses. It answers
questions posed by the site that Randi linked to that supposedly answered
all the questions about the event. As it turns out, one of them was that
workers with acetylene torches were cutting metal and the debris from that
get into things and made it look like there were steel and other bits in
the dust. This study shows that at least one sample was drawn 10 minutes
after the towers fell, so that there was absolutely NO torches being used
at that time to affect the dust. All samples were verified with
affidavits and in one case a video tro show their finder and their
location. Here's the study, note the various institutions involved and
that the journal is "peer reviewed":
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf
> 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:
>
nano-thermite) was present in 'official' report on the subject. The
goverment wanted, as is often the case, to answer the public as to how it
happened and to do it quickly. The first version of a report from NIST,
who was assigned to report on the collapses, failed to mention WTC
building 7 at all except in passing. When the uproar died down, they
included WTC7 in a new version. This correction process happened again
after it was proved with facts and evidence that what had been reported
was wrong to do with the speed with which WTC7 fell. It turned out to be
freefall, which is impossible for this type of building construction.
AE911truth was the group bringing up the error, and they got an admission
of error from NIST.
The presence of Thermite or a relative of it was not 'claimed' by the
scientists that did the study, it was proven. See the study link above.
Other less scientific guesses that certain effects on steel beams are from
thermite are possible, based on appearance, but are not proven facts and
therefore should not be used as evidence of thermite involvement.
There is an interesting point to be made on the photo of a upright
streel beam with a cut diagonal on it. It's suggested by the text on the
photo that cutting torches did it and not thermite. While that is a
possibility, consider that workers using cutting torches will not cut
diagonally across a beam like this unless absolutely forced, because it is
a much longer cut than if they cut horizontally. It wastes acetylene,
oxygen and time and money. However, cutter charges are explosives that
are used in the 'controlled demolition' business to cut beams of this
sort, and the charges are usually set against the beam diagonally so that
when the beam is cut, it won't keep supporting the weight, but will slide
off and come down. This again, is not proof of thermite use, only
interesting information for us to consider. Another fact is that many
witnesses and many videos show many and sometimes very large explosions
inside the 3 buildings, often just before they fell. Because of this, we
must consider that explosives may have been used in the felling of the
buildings.
> http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
>
See above for answers to this link.
> 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]
>
> spiracy_theories
>
> **********
>
A note here about Wikipedia. Whoever gets to it first and enters an
article on a subject gets their view into Wikipedia. The staff will on
occasion support one or the other viewpoint on a subject to the point that
they will keep re-establishing it after someone else tries to re-write or
edit it in a fashion that the staff has decided is wrong. This decision
making is almost entirely subjective, and therefore Wikipedia is not a
good reference in the case of a disputed event. They will often take a
side and support it, rather than show both sides of the issue.
> The NIST said there was no clear chain of custody to prove that the
> samples of dust actually came from the WTC site. However, it is also
> said there, and farther down in the article, that the NIST has so far
> not adequately investigated their own samples which supposedly DO have a
> clear chain of custody, and I would not disagree with anyone who said
> that the NIST definitely should investigate this matter further to
> clarify this issue.
>
findings of NIST over time, it would behoove them to do the investigation
of dust samples (that can still be found) just to corroborate the work of
the scientists who did the original work. In the event of a disagreement
it would have been wise, but for some reason, NIST didn't want to even
entertain the idea and walked away from it. There were affidavits made
and videos of statements of custody and acquisition made with the study,
so the scientists thought of that, and the chains of custody are as good
as can be in the circumstances.
A very important point here is that there were a number of scientists
working on the project with the dust, and there were a few different
institutions whose names were mentioned as 'home locations' for them. As
well, the work was done in a scientific manner, and can be viewed by
anyone. The work of the scientists was 'peer reviewed' meaning that
others looked over their work and found it acceptable.
We must then consider human factors, which I hate to do, but it was
made necessary by complaints that the study was SOMEHOW wrong. We must
consider that the study would cause NIST and their directors to be very
embarrassed by a study proving that they had missed a very important
element in their report, and that the 'official' reaon for the fall might
not have been terrorists. This couldn't be allowed to take control of the
viewpoints of the public, so complaints and pressure had to have been
applied to the journal in relation to the study in question. The study is
available online to anyone that might want to see if the proper protocols
were used and proper scientific methods were applied.
> Be that as it may, for the time being anyway it cannot reasonably be
> said that it has yet been *proven* in any realistic sense that thermite
> (or nano-thermite) was actually present at the site.
>
professional and proper. Therefore it can be accepted as evidence, since
it is entirely factual. It was also not produced by just one person, and
was peer reviewed as well, so there have been many hands checking on the
study and verifying it's accuracy. Many would like to hang their hat on
anything they can find to disagree with the findings, but they will wind
up picking nits, and avoiding the major findings and methods of the study.
> Now, on this site the argument is in support of some form of thermite
> being present, but look carefully: the claim is solely based on
> photographic evidence only:
>
> http://rense.com/general75/thrm.htm
>
reputation of going with anything 'conspiratorial', and they are often
light on evidence, using mainly implication. I can't accept their
articles as fact.
> This one also does not make any claim of thermite actually being *found*
> at the site, and once again seems to rely on photographic evidence only
> to support the claim:
>
> http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/thermite.php
>
truth. Facts in doubt.
> Then there's this one:
>
> "The study, however, shows that the dust was collected from four
> different sites, three of which were not in the immediate area
> surrounding the fallen towers. Most of the samples are collections of
> dust taken from blocks away."
>
> _0404.html
>
> Here again a question is raised about the validity of at least some of
> the samples, this time regarding the location from which they were
> supposedly collected. And these seem to be the same four samples
> referenced on Wikipedia above, which supposedly lack adequate chain of
> custody.
>
If you've watched the collapses of the various towers, you've seen how
>
> Here again a question is raised about the validity of at least some of
> the samples, this time regarding the location from which they were
> supposedly collected. And these seem to be the same four samples
> referenced on Wikipedia above, which supposedly lack adequate chain of
> custody.
>
far away the dust clouds were blown by the original collapse. But we also
have the fact that material that was found in the samples cannot be found
in any area of NYC away from the collapse site and it's environs.
therrmite is not natural to any urban (or suburban) venue. It is made in
laboratories.
> This one repeats essentially the same arguments:
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermite.html
>
"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very
unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been
identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that
this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the
collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started
prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A
detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to
determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures
exposed to severe and long-burning fires.
Thermite Use as an Explanation
The "deep mystery" of the melted steel may be yielding its secrets to
investigators not beholden to the federal government. Professor Steven
Jones has pointed out that the severe corrosion, intergranular
melting, and abundance of sulfur are consistent with the theory of
thermite arson."
From: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html
The above text makes it clear that the writer has no clue as to
what caused the corrosion of steel they saw in the samples. They
considerd it an "unusual event". Throughout the text they makes
various guesses saying "it is possible that" often. It ended with a
recommendation for a study to find the answers. Now, looking at the
last paragraph, they finally give credit to Steven Jones, PhD's
viewpoint and make it known that he is "not beholden to the federal
government". An odd sort of thing to say in a 'debunking' article.
They are suggesting that the idea of "Thermite Arson" was palatable to
them.
> This page certainly explains a great deal about the properties of
> thermite and related substances, but once again the basis of the claim
> that there was even thermite present at the site at all is the same dust
> samples with the same questionable chain of custody:
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
>
him in their end discussion of methods:
They give redundant excuses made by NIST and others as to why it
couldn't be done with thermite and then they answer their own
statement:
"1. That the surreptitious preparation of the Twin Towers was too
prone to exposure.
2. That setting up the demolitions to start from the Towers' crash
zones was technically unfeasible.
3. That thermite is unsuitable as a tool of controlled demolition.
These arguments have taken on the appearance of straw men with their
continued repetition -- including by NIST itself -- after being
publicly shown to be based on false assumptions. The 9-11Research FAQ
on Demolition addressed the first two starting in 2004, and Steven
Jones and others addressed the third starting in 2006 by pointing out
the existence of explosive variants of thermite."
> Basically the same argument here as in several of the sites above:
>
> mite-in-wtc-dust/
>
If this is saying the same as one above, then my response is the
same for it.
> Here the argument that any form of thermite was actually found in any
> sample does not seem to me to be adequately sustained:
>
> http://rt.com/usa/news/did-nano-thermite-take-down-the-wtc/
>
Google. It says that NIST stated that unequivocally explosives were
not used in the collapses. They were asked if they checked for
explosives, and they said, NO. Here's backup from the NIST site:
"22. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers
being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for
explosives or thermite residues?
[Answer] NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the
steel."
From: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm#
Now, this site has a video that isn't working.
Here's a quote from the Q&A it presents:
"RT: Professor Niels Harrit, you examined the rubble that came from
the World Trade Center. What did you find in it?
Niels Harrit: Well, in there we find the remains of what we
characterize as thermetic material, and this is a very energetic
material which can be used either for melting iron, or it can be
designed as an explosive.
RT: So, what effect would nano-thermite have had on the collapse of
the towers on September 11?
Niels Harrit: Actually, within this group of authors behind this
paper, which we published in April, there are diverging opinions about
what this nano-thermite was used for. And my opinion is: we should not
speculate on a scenario for the demolition. There is no doubt that the
three towers were demolished on 9/11. But beyond that there is very
solid evidence that some thermite has been used for melting the steel
beams. We do not know if the thermite that we have found is the same
thermite which has been used for melting the beams. It’s very, very
possible that different varieties were used, and I personally am
certain that conventional explosives were used too, in abundance."
Thereis a lot more of the same, but it sounds like they are
endorsing thermite and intentional demolition to me.
It is a good point to make the following information available. It
wa a violation of the law to remove all the steel and debris from the
site before certain testing had been done by the fire department, and
separate laws that certain testing by the police and other law
enforcement agencies be done, especially in the event that terrorism
is suspected.
> Now, I also have a question about these substances themselves. Is it
> really true that the *only* possible way for thermite and nano-thermite
> and so forth to appear is for it to have been intentionally placed there
> as an explosive? Or can these compounds be produced in other ways as
> well? I'm looking now at websites unrelated to 9/11, and specifically
> looking into how these thermite compounds are formed. What I'm seeing is
> a variety of ways in which they can form, not one particular way only.
> How do we know for certain that the only possible explanation for the
> presence of thermite substances is intentional placement in the buildings?
> There is no other possible chemical reaction, none whatsoever, that can
> produce these substances? That is not quite what I'm seeing in this
> documentation.
>
Harrit in the last link:
"RT: In terms of the nano-thermite, the traces of which you did find,
what are the possible explanations for its presence in the World Trade
Center? I mean, could it have been in the airplanes, or could it have
been a naturally occurring substance in any way?
Niels Harrit [answer]: The two last options I can definitely rule out.
It could not have come from the airplanes. If it had been there
beforehand – those who put it there, I urge them to step forward and
tell us how and why it got there. One thing, which has been mentioned
frequently in the discussion following our publication, is that this
could be the primer paint which was applied to the steel beams in
order to prevent corrosion. And many of the ingredients are the same.
In terms of the iron oxide, as I told you, which is red in color, you
see it hugely on steel beams when they are protected, it’s iron oxide…
So, some of the chemicals in there are the same. But the composition
of the primer paint used… there are two very good reasons for it not
being paint, in my opinion. One is that the composition, chemical
composition of the paint, primer paint, used in the World Trade
Center, according to NIST (the National Institute of Standards and
Technology) is vastly different from that what we are seeing. To be
specific, I’d say that we are missing large amounts of chromium, zinc,
and magnesium. Next, which can be understood by everyone, is that the
paint applied on the steel beams is stable to elevated temperatures.
NIST did experiments with the steel beams, because they wanted to use
the appearance of the paint as a measure for the temperature the steel
beams had been exposed to. And let me be specific. When you heat this
steel beam up 250 degrees Centigrade, it starts cracking. This is
because the steel expands more than the paint. They get what they call
mat cracks. And it keeps on cracking until the temperature is above
650 degrees, where it starts peeling off, forming scales. This
continues to about 800 degrees, when this scaling becomes excessive.
But it does not burn. So, the paint on the steel beams is stable
beyond 800 degrees Centigrade. Now, the stuff we have found ignites at
430 degrees Centigrade. So, it is not the primer paint. So, what I can
say is… Is this nano-thermite? Well, it quacks like a duck, it waggles
like a duck, it looks like a duck, maybe it’s a duck? This is all we
can say."
So he says it didn't get there in the rubble of the towers from the
plane, or from a coating on the beams. He thinks it was done by
people and would like to know who and how they did it.
> Now, back to the Gage video you cited. At about 1:30 several videos of
> the collapse of WTC 7 are shown, and a bit later one of those is shown
> alongside another video of a building known to have been brought down by
> controlled demolition. I immediately noticed something that has been
> brought up here by at least one other poster, and which I have also seen
> in television documentaries in which this whole issue is discussed. In
> the video on the right which we know is of a building being brought down
> by controlled demolition, I clearly see multiple explosions on multiple
> floors of the building as it is being brought down. I see no such thing
> in any of the videos of the collapse of WTC 7, even other videos besides
> the one being shown here.
prove demolition or not. To give you some solid facts, let me show
you a video of firemen that were in the building before one of the
collapses, which I DO consider useful evidence of the 'machine gun
crackle' of small explosions associated sometimes with demolition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2A8VMg_B64
Here's a demolition for comparison that used the multiple machine
gun bursts to weaken the building, there are many shots of the same
demolition, so you can skip ahead. Notice that the short small
explosions don't necessary show to the outside of the building:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI
Other witnesses to explosions in the buildings:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urNEAakzOYk&feature=endscreen&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1zED8dy63w&feature=endscreen&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAoWDcu9r8A
>
> Here are some videos of known controlled demolitions of buildings, none of
> which have anything to do with 9/11. In almost every case I can clearly
> see multiple explosions on different floors of the buildings, and/or
> different parts of each structure being brought down, and in several cases
> I can clearly see fire blasting out at multiple points in the structures:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK50So-yYRU
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcb37yyHgT8
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L1FhnHaRbQ
>
rise buildings very often, but I see smoke puffs that might be from
the building collapsing and causing air to be compressed and pushed
out floor by floor. While it is suggestive that we can sometimes see
the puffs of smoke, and even an occasional series of flashes, the
smoke puffs aren't good evidence to me, only possibilities. The
flashes and the multiple cracks are good evidence to me of explosive
demolition. This was the case in the towers as per the firemen that
were in the building in the video above.
> I honestly do not see anything of the sort in any video I have ever seen
> of the collapse of WTC 7. I also fairly recently, around the anniversary
> last month in fact, spent many hours watching again all or nearly all of
> the known videos of the collapses of WTC 1 and 2. In none of them did I
> see anything that looked at all like an explosion below the floors which
> the planes impacted. Instead in both cases I could clearly see, at least
> in some of the videos, that the top part of each building above the point
> of impact began to topple over sideways, but no explosions whatsoever
> below that as the buildings were starting to come down.
>
the indicators for controlled demolition is that a buildng falls into
its own footprint. This is almost impossible (not completely
impossible) and rare enough that I've never seen it anywhere happen in
a natural fall of a building. I have seen failed demolitions where
the top or part of a building will fall, but it is obvious when it
happens. Some people have said they can see progressive explosions
that do not show flashes outside, which happens often (check it). The
videos they show have the progressive puffs to a degree, but not what
I would call good evidence. I was more impressed by the descriptions
of the firemen in the video above. They were actually in the building
when the 'crackle' of the progressive explosions went off.
Consider that a building is made up of many levels and each one can
support everything above it and then some. The twin towers both broke
up from the top down, progressing floor by floor, which generated the
idea of 'pancaking'. Oddly though, if there had been pancaking, we
would see the floors stacked on each other to some degree in the
debris at the bottom, but there wasn't any of that. Only mashed up
debris of columns with some concrete here and there and an awful lot
of dust. Personally, I would leave out the 'pancaking' theory. As
well, as the floors support the ones above, and the damage to the twin
towers was somewhat in the middle and on one side mostly, you would
expect the building to be weaker on that side where the plane might
have cut the supports. That should cause the building (or part of it)
to fall sideways toward the weaker side, and that didn't happen
either. The fall occurred as if there were NO supports in the
building at all! In the case of WTC7, it was proven that it fell at
pure freefall speed, and the twins faster than normally they would
under normal circumstances. Given the levels of support under the
falling part of the buildings, they should have caused at least SOME
pause before they gave out and let the fall continue. NIST has
admitted that freefall was true for WTC7 at least for the first 100
feet.
> And this is also a question that has been brought up in several
> documentaries. If these buildings were brought down by controlled
> demolition, when and how was this all set up? Wouldn't it take a fairly
> large group of people to go inside each building and place explosives in
> enough different parts of the buildings for this to work? How many people
> do you think were involved directly in the placement of these explosives?
> Approximately 50,000 people worked in these buildings on each typical
> weekday leading up to the attack. Why are there no witnesses to these
> people placing explosives throughout these buildings? Did these people do
> this only at night? But isn't it true that even at night and on weekends
> some of the people would do work in their offices on the weekends and at
> night, perhaps a few of them even very late at night? And still not a
> single witness to all these other people placing these explosives? And
> New York is The City That Never Sleeps, especially the Manhattan Borough.
> Believe me, I should know; I have several friends who live in Manhattan,
> some of whom used to live here in Texas, and I have visited them a fair
> number of times since 1990. Even very late at night, even in the very
> early hours of the morning, there are always people out on the streets in
> every part of Manhattan. How were these demolition people getting in and
> out of these buildings with all their equipment without being seen by
> people on the street? Did they drive their vans into the parking garage
> first and only then unload their explosives out of sight of people on the
> street? Do we have any witnesses to such vehicles going into the garage
> at odd times of night?
>
information I have. I will give you a tentative answer, but I won't
guarantee it because there isn't enough fact to back it up. The
source is also in question, so this is just a 'scenario':
http://theintelhub.com/2011/08/01/the-missing-security-tapes-from-the-world-trade-center/
In one of the twin towers there was also a computer executive that
had been working in the building for years and he had experienced work
going on on an unused floor. Heavy equipment moving,etc. and all at
night, when he had to fo certain work himself.
> And still more questions. Since this would of course be timed to coincide
> with the plane strikes, this would indicate advance knowledge that the
> planes would be flown into the buildings on that date. So let's say for
> the sake of argument that all four planes, since the other two which
> didn't go to NYC would still obviously be involved directly in the same
> plot, were not really flown by Islamic terrorists, or at least that
> whoever set all this up was also involved in the demolition of the
> buildings. I guess your scenario is that our government was essentially
> behind this whole thing. What do you think the motivation of the
> government would be for this? To make it appear plausible to the American
> public, and indeed the world, that the attack was committed by Islamic
> terrorists, so that it would then justify our subsequent wars in
> Afghanistan and Iraq, possibly to free up oil reserves and so forth?
>
outside the area of fact and evidence, and any possibilities I give
you are NOT proof of anything, simply possible scenarios among many.
Since there were explosives used as well as Thermate, they both can be
set off by remote devices. So one waits for planes (weeks if
necessary), and when its time, let's it go. Considering that WTC7 was
taken down by plan, at a specific time, it had to be set up in
advance, and it had to be started off by remote device. Both twin
towers acted oddly in that respect. The towers were struck by the
planes, and the jet fuel was determined by NIST to have been mostly
exhausted within 15 minutes, the scene was filled by grey and black
smoke, indicative of fires that lack oxygen, and so not burning
hotly. But even though the fires were essentially now of lower
intensity, the buildings came down (opposite of the plane strikes) in
progressive manner, possibly as if to a command from a remote
device. As to political reasons, Aagain I'm not into that stuff at
this point and can only give you stories from others which I do NOT
consider facts or evidence.
The general consensus of the conspiracy people is that Pearl Harbor
could well have been a 'false flag' operation that FDR needed to start
the WW2. There are many reasons which have been stated over the
years. The same reasons may apply to the WTC tragedy. Even though
there's no proof at this point that it was a conspiracy, still the
political people made a lot of use out of the event. They were able
to create the PATRIOT Act which gave them control of the populace,
they wer able t o point at an enemy and go to war with them withthe
approval of the public, and many other benefits. However, I don't
hold with that at this time. Later after an incestigation into the 3
tower sfalling, we can consider the political ramifications and the
guilty, if any.
> I am not understanding this at all. Why would controlled demolitions of
> these buildings even be necessary to achieve these goals? Wouldn't the
> plane crashes all by themselves be more than enough to outrage the
> American people? Wouldn't we all have been just as outraged, or nearly as
> much, even if the buildings *hadn't* collapsed? Wouldn't the idea of
> Islamic terrorists crashing a plane into the Pentagon *alone* be more than
> enough to obtain a sufficient level of public outrage? Wouldn't the
> additional crashes into the towers *alone* be more than enough, since even
> in the first moments hundreds of people were killed? And there was yet
> *another* crash near Shanksville. That didn't kill anyone on the ground
> or in any building, but it did kill everyone on board. When that also is
> added to everything else, wouldn't we all be just as outraged, or nearly
> so, at the idea that Islamic terrorists did all this, even *without* a
> single building anywhere in this country collapsing in addition?
>
planes at the Pentagon and that went down in the open field. I have
looked at them, but have not gathered enough facts to make
statements. However, if the fall of the towers turns out to be
verified as a 'controlled demolition', then we would have to consider
those other events as part of a 'conspiracy' of some kind. If Pearl
Harbor were planned to move the public who were pacifist at the time,
then the loss of the battleships and all the others, as well as the
loss of the people would be a major loss. If so, then the WTC was
smaller by comparison I think. But I have no facts for that.
> I'm sorry, I just don't see the point of adding to that an *intentional*
> demolition of the buildings using explosives. That seems like totally
> unnecessary overkill for *any* conspiracy scenario involving our
> government, no matter what that scenario is. And my goodness, the risks.
> How many people, total, would have to be involved in this to pull it off?
> It would have to be a lot more people than just the ones who placed the
> explosives in the building. Someone has to pay for all that, just for
> starters. It has to also include the people who flew the planes, and the
> people who orchestrated all of this. How many people, minimum, would be
> required for all this to work? One-hundred people at the very least with
> some sort of direct involvement? Two-hundred? Three-hundred? And think
> what would happen if it ever got out that our government was behind this.
> The outrage against Islamic terrorists would obviously pale in comparison
> to the public outrage that would occur if it was ever proven that our
> government did this. We would more likely than not have a violent
> revolution. And what about the severe damage to our economy, from which
> we even today have not quite fully recovered? That damage was greatly
> increased by the collapse of those buildings, obviously. Had the
> buildings not collapsed, and in some sense been at least partially
> salvageable, it obviously would not have had nearly as significant an
> effect on our entire economy. Just to name one example, without the
> collapse of the buildings, it might not have even been necessary to close
> the stock exchange for several days.
>
sidelights are suggestive. The stock exchange being closed reminded
me of the 'bets' that were taken against the 2 airplane companies all
in a mountain of investment 2 days before the event. It does make you
wonder how so many people knew it was goingf to happen. As well, more
in our bailiwick, is the planned demolition of WTC7. It didn't come
down on its own, but on command. There was a countdown and warnings
to get personnel out of the way, and even an error in reporting it to
the news media/. They were told a time that WTC7 would fall, and they
went on the air and announced the fall of WTC7 and the time it fell,
but the building could be seen in the background of the announcer,
looking fine...:) Soon after, the building fell as planned. We also
have the words of the owner, Larry Silverstein that the building was
intentionally 'pulled' (meaning demolished). The was completely
impossible unless set up weeks and maybe months ahead of time, and set
off by a remote control. It wasn't a natural fall. That part is
fact. The video of Silverstein is evidence for it, and the silly
excuses they came up with 3 years later weren't convincing for me or
most people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsXdBlv2yvg
If you analyze the words of Silverstein, you will see that he
himself defines the meaning of 'pull it' by saying "they made the
decision to 'pull' and we watched it collapse."
> I'm just not seeing who would benefit from all this. If the goal is to
> make it more plausible to the public that we needed to go to war in
> Afghanistan and Iraq, I don't see how there is any overall economic
> benefit to that, since any benefit to freeing up oil reserves in Iraq, for
> example, would be mitigated by the severe damage to our economy caused by
> the attack in the first place.
>
could find reasons for all the questions and answers, but I'm more
concerned at the moment with proving 'controlled demolition'.
> In short, what is the point? The four plane crashes all by themselves,
> and pinning it on Islamic terrorists, would be more than enough to
> convince the public of all this, *without* it being even slightly
> necessary to add *considerably* to the destruction, and add *considerably*
> to the economic damage, by *also* collapsing the buildings purposefully,
> since that part of it actually *decreases* any economic benefit, for the
> government or anyone else. Why would these conspirators benefit *more*
> from adding the collapses when they would more likely benefit more from
> the *lack* of collapses, since the four plane crashes alone would do the
> trick nicely, and not cost us nearly as much money?
>
think in those terms, since the money is put up by you and me...:) It
doesn't cost them anything. But this is again more politics, and
while I think there are answers to your questions that make sense, I'm
not ready to 'prove' them and I'd rather stay in the CD world.
> > As a side note, molten (not just melted) steel stayed in the
> > basements of the 3 buildings that collapsed for weeks after the
> > original collapses. Nothing known to be in the buildings could cause
> > that. Jet fuel and office equipment just won't reach the temperatures
> > need to soften steel or to melt it. However, a few incendiary
> > chemicals can do it, such as Thermite or Thermate.
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3Ot1JxNdE
>
> And I have seen many other experts dispute this, and who say that the jet
> fuel, etc. *was* enough to achieve such temperatures. How do you know for
> certain which group of experts is correct? And I ask again: what do the
> *majority* of experts worldwide say about all this? How do you know that
> the ones you are paying attention to comprise the *majority*? Because I
> submit that if it is only a *minority* of the experts in the world who
> agree that these buildings collapsed due to causes that were additional to
> the plane strikes alone, then the case for that could be considered to be
> weakened somewhat.
>
item alone. First, no one could poll ALL experts in the world, so
nothing would get done or be believed if that kind of thinking were
used. We each have to take the word of the experts that we feel have
more reason to be honest, and competent enough to produce the right
answers. None of us is wise or schooled enough to be doing this stuff
alone. Remember, I've pointed out 2 scenarios for the tower
collapses. If you can think of more reasonable ones, I'll include
them in the list. But I have the 2 and I can only choose between
them. When I see the facts about Larry Silverstein, I'm convinced
that there is something planned about the event, and when I see
scientists taking a chance on their reputations to publish contrary
information and tests, I am also impressed as to their contention of
controlled demolition, but putting all the facts together has
convinced me that it was indeed CD.
==================================================
I have to do a few task and chores now, but I will be back to
address the rest ogf this as soon as possible. Please leave it this
way, and I'll finish up as soon as I can. Thanks! Chris
==================================================
Anthony Marsh
Oct 11, 2012, 9:00:26 PM10/11/12
to
decision was to pull down the building in a controlled way so that it
would not damage any surrounding buildings.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 11, 2012, 9:03:10 PM10/11/12
to
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
> steel is impossible from jet fuel or office fires? You don't think that
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
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?
>
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.
>>
>>> 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 planes and all sorts of conspiracies, I'm into facts and
> evidence.
>
>> Your problem is exactly that you take to be facts what are nothing but
>> delusional misinterpretations of the Truthers. These delusions didn't
>> start with the evidence but with the Truthers paranoid suspicion. Now,
>> knowing the Cheney/Bush administration, I could see where they were coming
>> from. But rationally considered, they didn't make a lick of sense.
>>
> Now you're going to attempt to psychoanalyze me too? :) How were you
> able to determine that the facts that I looked up on my own are "nothing
> but delusional misinterpretations of the Truthers"? Especially since I
> didn't get them from the truthers! How did you determine that my seeing
> videos of molten steel in the basements of the collapsed buildings were
> only delusions? How did the truthers delude me when I looked up the
> melting point of steel and the maximum temperatures reached in jet fuel
> and office fires? Now who's talking 'conspiracy theories'? On top of all
Did you watch the documentary where they put an I-beam over a pit filled
with jet fuel and lit it?
The steel will eventually WEAKEN and sag.
> that direct knowledge I went and got, you've finally stumpoed me. What in
> hell has Bush/Cheney got to do with facts and evidence of the collapses?
> Are you feeling OK? Any problems walking, or balancing?
>
>
>> That was back when people were coming out with the CD theory and it was
>> being debunked.
>>
> LOL! You decided that it was debunked? Why? Because it sounded
> intellectual? Sounded knowledgeable? Were you aware that the 'controleld
> demolition' method was not debunked in the 3 towers case, it was proven.
> Any 'debunking was strictly 'theories'. But I'll be happy to look over
> any of them you'd like me to, and give you my opinion. Just put it out
> there...:) Remember ing of course, I'm only interested in facts not
> guesses.
>
>>>> Next you'll be telling me there weren't even any planes.
>>
>>> I've seen videos of a plane that hit into each of the 2 tall
>>> towers. I saw NO plane that hit the WTC 7 tower. Did you?
>>
>> Of course not. Whoever said that there was?
>>
>> That building collapsed because of damage from debris that fell from the
>> other buildings (some "controlled" demo!) and the extensive fires that
>> can be seen on videos. The fire crew was pulled out in the nick of time,
>> when it was realized the building could not be saved.
>>
>
> There was no 'nick of time'. There are witnesses to the warnings given
> that were scheduled for a particular time. They gave the information to
> the news media an hour ahead of time. There was a countdown and large
> explosions and the building came down exactly like a controlled demolished
> building would into it's own footprint. The key there is that it is
Why don't we see flashes of light from the explosions of successive floors?
> impossible to simply 'pull' a 47 story building on a moment's notice. 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!
>
It helps to have your brother in charge of security.
> mentioned. In fact the few paltry pools they produced in their example
> were not created as a standard cutting torch would be used, it was held on
> a specific place for a long time on a solid steel object, generating a
> mess that no cutter would ever create under normal circumstances. As
> well, their molten pools cooled and hardened in 20 minutes. The pools
> weighing tons (estimated) in the basements of the towers were hard to get
> to and were far too large to be the result of some cutting torches. The
> molten pools lasted for many weeks as per the firemen who witnessed them
> right after the collapse before they had done any cutting on the steel:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM
>
> The firemen in the video described something very different thasn a few
> cutting torches making some sparks. They were talking about a serious
> river of molten stell at one point. The Randi effort at debunking was
> sophomoric.
>
Should we ignore terrorism when only 2 people are assassinated?
> caused by planes hitting buildings and the resultant fires, wouldn't we
> want to know how it happened and get into the guts of it and find out what
> could be done to save lives the next time Al Qaeda steals planes?
As George Bush so famously said, "Fool me once shame on you. But if you
try to fool me again you can't do it."
> Wouldn't we save the steel and other parts of the buildings to find out
> why they came down? It was the law BTW. All those answers haven't been
quickly they destroyed JFK's limousine, the Best Evidence.
mainframetech
Oct 11, 2012, 10:49:57 PM10/11/12
to
> > While the molten steel was seen weeks later by many people including
> > > firefighters, NIST, who was supposed to analyze everything and come up
> > > with what happened, denies that they ever heard of any molten steel.
> > > Ridiculous in light of the preceding video, and proof that a proper
> > > investigation was not done. Here's the NIST spokesman denying that anyone saw molten steel. Just plain foolish of him, but it gives anyone the idea that NIST didn't do their assignment very well, or was intentionally pretending to know nothing so they wouldn't have to answer to it.
> > > firefighters, NIST, who was supposed to analyze everything and come up
> > > with what happened, denies that they ever heard of any molten steel.
> > > Ridiculous in light of the preceding video, and proof that a proper
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg
>
> > That may be, but doesn't it have to be proven first, conclusively, that
> > the *only* possible way to achieve these temperatures is to use methods
> > that are *additional* to the plane strikes? I do not yet see that such a
> > thing has been proven conclusively. I see a lot of people *claiming* that
> > it is, but I also see a lot of people claiming exactly the opposite, and
> > plenty of them are certified experts too. Do we yet have a real consensus
> > on this from the *majority* of experts?
>
Let's have a sensible debate. Picking at that helps nothing. If
>
> > That may be, but doesn't it have to be proven first, conclusively, that
> > the *only* possible way to achieve these temperatures is to use methods
> > that are *additional* to the plane strikes? I do not yet see that such a
> > thing has been proven conclusively. I see a lot of people *claiming* that
> > it is, but I also see a lot of people claiming exactly the opposite, and
> > plenty of them are certified experts too. Do we yet have a real consensus
> > on this from the *majority* of experts?
>
necessary I can go find a chemistry site or similar and prove it from the
ground up, but I thought we were beyond silliness. I can tell you that I
looked up the melting and softening point of steel long ago and found it,
and it was above the temperatures typical for jet fuel and an office
furniture fire, both of which were inhibited proven by the grey and black
smoke.
In an effort to generate a lighter air about our efforts, I have gone
and done the work that you must not ever have done. I found a math
article by A.K. Dewdney, a mathematician who once maintained a series of
articles in Scientific American. He has actually done the hard work of
doing the calculations after hunting down the fire levels and temperatures
for softening and melting of steel and the temperatures for burning jet
fuel and office furniture. He done the calculations that perove
'conclusively' that the jet fuekl and office furniture fires did not
weaken the steel enough to cause it to soften and let the fall occur.
Since this is a critical part of the discussion, showing that internal
fires could not be the culprit for the collapses, you will no doubt want
to pick at it, so I will link to irt and you can pick at all the equations
he had to generate to come to the andwers:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/temperatures_of_structural_steel.pdf
> > > As an addendum, and not critical for the debate, but interesting in
> > > its own light, here is Dr. Steven Jones speaking of how the analysis
> > > was done, and what the chemistry of the nano-thermite was. Mind you,
> > > all these videos are speaking of factual evidence, NOT some silly
> > > 'conspiracy theories'.
>
> > But sooner or later we have to address who was behind this and why they
> > would do it this way. And at this time I am not able to think of any
> > scenario that is even remotely plausible.
>
magnified.
> > > > > The dust contains something that other dust around NYC
> > > > > does not contain, and that is nano-thermite.
> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite
>
> > > > That may be. ?It still does not support your original claim that more than
> > > > 1700 of these people have specifically stated that the buildings most
> > > > definitely *were* brought down by controlled demolition, nor does it
> > > > support your original claim that all of them also specifically stated that
> > > > they can *prove* this to be true. ?Very few of them that I found
> > > > specifically stated either of the things you said they did.
>
> > > That has been dealt with above. You're repeating.
>
> > Lol! Isn't that a bit of a pot/kettle statement, Chris? In your
> > earlier reply to me you repeated this exact text seven times without the
> > slightest change in wording:
>
> > "See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the
> > reason for the collapse is in his signing the petition."
>
becasueyou had repeated your comment about the person's reasond for
joining the organization?
> > It was as if you thought that the more times you repeated it, the "more
> > true" it would become. ;-) Now you're accusing me of doing the same
> > thing you did? Do you know what that's called? It starts with the
> > letter "h."
>
> > And very much unlike you, I did not repeat myself over and over and over
> > in absolutely identical wording. In each, uh, "repetition" I quite
> > obviously elaborated further on what I perceived to be the inherent
> > fallacy of your essential argument about why the 1700+ people signed the
> > petition. Since you kept stating the same position repeatedly, I
> > naturally expressed my disagreements repeatedly.
>
> > In other words, I, uh, "repeated" myself, as you call it, only because
> > you kept repeating and repeating and repeating yourself *first*. I find
> > it fascinating that you criticize me for something you, not I, started.
> > ;-)
>
> > > I can't show you
> > > everyone of the 1,725 or more people and their beliefs, but there is
> > > enough factual information for any science minded person to realize
> > > that there was 'controlled demolition' involved from the facts
> > > supplied.
>
> > In your *opinion* it is factual information. In the *opinions* of some,
> > not all, experts in the world it is factual information. I have not yet
> > seen a shred of credible evidence to suggest that the *majority* of the
> > experts in the world as yet *share* this *opinion*, nor have I yet seen
> > evidence that it is only a minority either.
the 'opinions' of some, the opinions of 'all', shreds of 'credible
evidence', the majority of experts, etc. All this statement needs is
complete and 'credible evidence' that you are talking the truth. Are your
statistics right? We need some master level evidence of it. Where is it?
You want to pick at all the tiny little bits of something that some people
say, but not produce the kind of stringent evidence you demand. Not very
consistent. Now for the general population I happen to have numbers, and
maybe even a pie chart. I don't thin\k anyone has done a poll of
'experts' yet. Here it is:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread215616/pg1
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? You have decided already, but here's another
opportunity...:)
> > I've seen nothing either
> > way. And because all of this is still *opinion*, this does NOT support
> > your argument that all these people had nearly identical motivations for
> > signing the petition. And how do you know that at least some of them
> > haven't had second thoughts by now? How do you know that there aren't
> > at least some of them who now regret having signed it, for various
> > reasons.
>
things you've seen that you consider only opinion, and I'll be glad to
clear it up for you. Oh, wait a moment. You're back at the signing
petitions again. Forget it. I've answered all that. We're on the
subject of whether the facts and evidence are legitimate and what they
mean. Expecially to you.
> > The reason I keep repeating myself is that you continuously and
> > repeatedly seem to ignore human nature. Motivations are going to vary
> > widely among this large a group of people, no matter what the issue is.
>
> > > There is a video of many of the experts that have come to
> > > believe that there was 'controlled demolition' involved, and they have
> > > spoken for the video. It's called ?9/11: Explosive Evidence ? Experts
> > > Speak Out.? So some of the people your speaking of are there.
>
> > *Some* of them, yes. But not anywhere even remotely close to *all* of
> > them, correct?
>
to see if the ones you recognized had altered their opinions to now
thinking that it was CD? That would change your origianl picking
base.
> > > > > ? ?On top of that discovery, they (as architects and engineers) have
> > > > > satisfied themselves that the story of NIST was full of holes and that
> > > > > the collapse of the 3 towers was accomplished by controlled
> > > > > demolition.
>
> > > > All 1700+ of them have "satisfied themselves" of this? ?Why do so few of
> > > > them specifically say that on that website then? ?Merely saying that
> > > > they have doubts about the official explanation isn't quite the same
> > > > thing as specifically stating that they are completely "satisfied" that
> > > > the buildings most definitely *were* brought down by controlled
> > > > demolition. ?You are still exaggerating what these people have actually
> > > > stated.
>
> > > You continue to repeat your point.
>
> > Because you continued to repeat your point first.
>
> > > That was dealt with above.
>
> > You have an extraordinarily different definition of "dealt with" than I
> > do. I have not once seen you make an even remotely plausible argument
> > to support your sweeping generalization.
>
should your decisions and opinions apply to me?
> > > Since they signed the petition, using intelligence and common sense,
> > > we can imply that they have come to the same conclusion,
>
> > No we CANNOT *infer* (that's the proper word for that context) that they
> > all came to the same conclusion. You are ignoring well-known aspects of
> > human nature. You will *never* have this large a number of people come to
> > exactly the same conclusion on *anything*. People are just too varied for
> > that. I continue to tell you (and the ONLY reason I'm restating this
> > again is because you keep repeating your own argument FIRST) that there
> > are a lot more possibilities of motivation than you are willing to admit.
> > Some would sign the document because they *are* totally convinced.
> > Others would sign the document merely because they have significant
> > doubts, and believe further investigation needs to be done to clarify what
> > really happened, and they don't have to be totally convinced that
> > demolition occurred to have sufficient cause to sign the petition. And
> > there can be all sorts of other variations in motive in between. That's
> > how humans are, Chris.
>
have already laid out about why they might use different wording to
represent their joining the organization. Careers being part of it.
So you see, human nature was considerd, but it sounds like you missed
it.
signatories and their reasons. We have done it to death, and it's old
hat now. We need to get on with important subjects that might one day
lead to major changes in the USA.
> > > > > Certainly those that think they know better can
> > > > > find an architect or engineer to debate the topic with.
>
> > > > I'm not saying I know better, I'm merely disputing your obviously false
> > > > claim that anywhere even remotely close to 1700 of these people have
> > > > actually specifically stated the things you claimed that they
> > > > specifically stated.
>
> > > You're repeating yourself.
>
> > Only because you repeated yourself first.
>
> > > See above.
>
> > What am I supposed to see above? An incessant repetition of an
> > implausible argument that ignores well-known human nature regarding
> > variety of motivation? An incessant repetition claiming the evidence to
> > be irrefutable when in fact it has been refuted many times by many
> > different people? An incessant repetition of you continuing to try to put
> > words in these people's mouths as to why they themselves signed the
> > petition, when they themselves would know why far better than you or I
> > ever could?
>
comments, though most of them seemed duplicates of the same point.
Trying to pry you away from that sideline argument has been quite
difficult. I admit to some people the main argument of the cause for
the collapses is scary, but we have to buck up and deal with it, at
least to our mild little level.
> > > > > I'm not in
> > > > > those fields, but I believe I've seen enough evidence that it was
> > > > > controlled demolition to suit me. ?The falling into their own
> > > > > foootprint of 3 tall buildings,
>
> > > > I don't see why that's absolutely impossible from the plane impacts
> > > > only. ?And I've seen more than enough of the footage to plainly see that
> > > > neither WCT One or Two collapsed straight downward. ?In both cases parts
> > > > of the buildings toppled to the sides.
>
> > > Notice your own words: not "absolutely impossible". You've
> > > 'absolutely'. That means to me that you are holding on to your belief
> > > by fingernails.
>
> > Nonsense. You're the one who seems to me to be doing that. You keep
> > insisting and insisting and insisting on applying nearly identical
> > motivations to much to large a group of people for that to be at all
> > plausible, and you keep insisting and insisting and insisting that the
> > evidence for demolition is much more conclusive than it actually is.
The evidence and facts dealing with the collapses is solid, but if
>
> > Nonsense. You're the one who seems to me to be doing that. You keep
> > insisting and insisting and insisting on applying nearly identical
> > motivations to much to large a group of people for that to be at all
> > plausible, and you keep insisting and insisting and insisting that the
> > evidence for demolition is much more conclusive than it actually is.
you think that some part of it is not, let me know, as a decent
debater and I will deal with it.
>
> > > Go through the videos supplied above and you will see
> > > facts and evidence, and NOT any theories.
>
> > Been there, done that, and I see gaping holes in the reasoning. I've also
> > been through many *other* videos and documentaries which *dispute* the
> > claims made in the videos you're talking about. And one thing most of
> > these videos are sorely lacking in, and that is a plausible explanation of
> > *how* this was done, as far as the sheer logistics of setting up all these
> > explosives in the first place without it being noticed by other witnesses
> > even if it was only done in the dead of night. No matter what you feel
> > about silly conspiracy theories, the logistics of exactly *how* this was
> > achieved logistically would have to be credibly addressed in order to
> > support *any* theory of controlled demolition on 9/11.
>
You need to be able to decide which videos are presenting the truth,
> > > Go through the videos supplied above and you will see
> > > facts and evidence, and NOT any theories.
>
> > Been there, done that, and I see gaping holes in the reasoning. I've also
> > been through many *other* videos and documentaries which *dispute* the
> > claims made in the videos you're talking about. And one thing most of
> > these videos are sorely lacking in, and that is a plausible explanation of
> > *how* this was done, as far as the sheer logistics of setting up all these
> > explosives in the first place without it being noticed by other witnesses
> > even if it was only done in the dead of night. No matter what you feel
> > about silly conspiracy theories, the logistics of exactly *how* this was
> > achieved logistically would have to be credibly addressed in order to
> > support *any* theory of controlled demolition on 9/11.
>
but if you're not able, I can see it would be difficult. Spatial
comprehension and a number of other mental tools dealing with space
and 3 dimensional mechanisms would make it much easier, how are you in
those areas? As before, you see 'gaping holes' and forget to mention
them. You mention other videos and forget to mention them. If there
are any that you DO think are correct, you've forgotten to mention
them too.
Did you really got through those videos? If so, why keep your
thoughs and information to yourself? Afraid I would successfully
argue them down?
hiting the buildings, and CD. So if not one, must be the other.
Above I've linked to a math paper by A.K. Dewdney with a math ruindown
proving finally that jet fule and ofice fuerniture fires did NOT cause
the steel to melt, ot even to softem So that leaves us eith the only
other possibility that we both saw.
> > > The facts don't bear out the jet fuel or office fires,
>
> > So you, and only *some* experts say.
>
math that jet fuel and office fires couldn't do the job. He did the
work that we and many others failed to do. It is an important step in
the full process.
> > > so something
> > > has to have caused the collapse which have never happened before in
> > > any building anywhere from heat.
>
> > Lol! Never happened before in any building anywhere from heat. I think
> > you got that from at least one of those videos, because I seem to recall
> > in one of those practically those exact words are spoken. How many
> > previous examples would we have of such a thing? How many previous
> > examples are there of large passenger jets nearly full of fuel crashing
> > into skyscrapers? Are there even *any* previous examples that are
> > especially similar to 9/11?
>
and it may have happened once before that. There are no major jet
crashes that I know of except the Pentagon, which is a completely
different set of issues. However, with the computer capability they
have in designing, they calculated that the buildings would withstand
an impact of a Boeing 707 fully loaded with fuel and all, and stand
just fine. Though a plane that hit the tower was a 767, it was also
carrying less fuel and was only a small amount heavier than the 707.
When the strikes occurred, the buildings stayed up just fine for about
an hour. The fires had died down by then to minor fires here and
there. When the twin towers fell they fell progressively, not from
the impact site, but from above it. That progresion went down the
whole building without any pause which is not possible.
> > > > > > > Eason Cross says:
>
> > > > > > > "The third building evidence is truly troubling. The 'why' is very
> > > > > > > hard
> > > > > > > to comprehend."
>
> > > > > > > I guess he means WTC 7, but he just says he's very troubled by it,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > does not comprehend why it collapsed. ?But he's not specifically
> > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > that he believes it *did* collapse due to controlled demolition, nor
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > he saying he can prove it.
>
> > > > > See above. ?The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> > > > > for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
>
> > > > Again, wrong. ?That is not necessarily the implication in his own mind
> > > > regarding his signing of it. ?I don't see him saying that he is signing
> > > > the petition because he's satisfied as to the true reason for the
> > > > collapse. ?I see him saying that he is *dissatisfied* with the official
> > > > explanation. ?That isn't quite the same thing as him specifically saying
> > > > that he is completely *satisfied* as to any alternate explanation.
>
> > > Yes, but it is handled above.
>
> > Not in any plausible way that takes into account the well-known aspects
> > of human nature.
>
need to study human nature and discover that. They will use all sorts
of relaxed statements, but they're saying the same basic thing. They
don't like the information the government put out, and they want an
independent investigation with subpoena power.
> > **********
>
> > I did not look only at the ten statements I quoted. I looked at many,
> > many, many others. I did not find even ONE of them specifically saying
> > that they THEMSELVES could PROVE that controlled demolition was used.
> > And I continued to find a wide variety of reasons being given by these
> > people for signing the petition. I also found a wide variety of areas of
> > expertise, levels of expertise, experience, etc. As noted above, some of
> > these people, just based on what they themselves say of their own
> > expertise and experience, don't seem very well qualified at all to judge
> > this matter. That's yet another thing you have failed to take into
> > account when trying to attribute nearly identical motivations to all of
> > these people: their own qualifications. That also is a distinct variation
> > to these people to be added to the list of varieties of backgrounds that I
> > gave above. And what about their *ages*, Chris? You've got all these
> > different people of all different backgrounds, fields of expertise,
> > cultures, nationalities, races, gender, sexual orientation, experience,
> > and ages, and you are trying to pigeonhole such an incredibly diverse
> > group of people into a single common motivation to sign this petition?
>
LOL! Do many millions of people vote for just one of 2 candidates
>
> > I did not look only at the ten statements I quoted. I looked at many,
> > many, many others. I did not find even ONE of them specifically saying
> > that they THEMSELVES could PROVE that controlled demolition was used.
> > And I continued to find a wide variety of reasons being given by these
> > people for signing the petition. I also found a wide variety of areas of
> > expertise, levels of expertise, experience, etc. As noted above, some of
> > these people, just based on what they themselves say of their own
> > expertise and experience, don't seem very well qualified at all to judge
> > this matter. That's yet another thing you have failed to take into
> > account when trying to attribute nearly identical motivations to all of
> > these people: their own qualifications. That also is a distinct variation
> > to these people to be added to the list of varieties of backgrounds that I
> > gave above. And what about their *ages*, Chris? You've got all these
> > different people of all different backgrounds, fields of expertise,
> > cultures, nationalities, races, gender, sexual orientation, experience,
> > and ages, and you are trying to pigeonhole such an incredibly diverse
> > group of people into a single common motivation to sign this petition?
>
for president? Yep. And all of them different in background, race,
creed, language and home country they emigrated from.
> > It is astonishing to me that the inherent fallacy of this approach isn't
> > blindingly obvious to you.
>
> > > I've given the
> > > counter argument to the one that you keep putting in here after each
> > > of the statements.
>
> > Yes, and each time you give it, it is just as woefully unconvincing as
> > the time before. This group of people is much too diverse, in far too
> > many different ways, for your sweeping generalization to be at all
> > plausible.
>
cause of the fal of the towers? Or is that shaky ground and you don't
want to leave the ground you're on?
> > > Most professionals won't make a statement that is
> > > too controversial without the investigation bearing them out.
>
> > "Professionals"? Professionals in which age range? Professionals in
> > which political group? Professionals in which religious group?
> > Professionals in which cultural group? Professionals of which
> > nationality? Professionals of which ethnic group? Professionals of what
> > amount of experience? I'm not buying this. Yet another variation of
> > common human nature you're failing to take into account is that some
> > people are more outspoken than others. Some people don't care about being
> > controversial, others do, and every variation in between. Pigeonholing
> > this incredibly diverse group of people into a common motivation is
> > ignoring human nature. Here's yet another possibility: did it ever occur
> > to you that at least some of these people signed the petition just to *be*
> > controversial and for no other reason? Don't tell me there aren't people
> > like that in the world, because there are plenty of them. And you're
> > acting like all of them have nearly identical risks to their careers.
> > No. For some of them the risk will be greater than others. Depending on
> > all sorts of contexts, including the nature of the communities they live
> > and work in, for some of them it would hardly affect their careers no
> > matter what they say about this issue, and for others it might affect
> > their careers significantly, in either negative *or* positive ways,
> > depending on the circumstances. That is yet another variation you seem to
> > have failed to consider.
>
over your one claim to fame.
> > > They
> > > don't want those 'small minded' folks to affect their income.
>
> > That cannot possibly be a motivation for all, or even nearly all, of
> > these people. I would think quite a few of these people wouldn't care
> > in the slightest about that. What if most of their customers pay little
> > attention to things like this on the Internet, Chris? Is that another
> > variation you have failed to consider?
>
> > > > "One of the reasons I signed the petition is because I am quite
> > > > confident that I myself can prove that the buildings collapsed due to
> > > > controlled demolition."
>
> > > > Until you can quote him verbatim saying something like that, you are
> > > > merely speculating when you claim that his signing the petition alone
> > > > "implies" that this was one of his reasons for signing it.
>
> > > and are not speaking based on the society they live in.
>
> > Oh no, I'm sure at least some of them are leaving things unsaid in the
> > reasons they are giving publicly for signing the petition. But see,
> > that's yet another variation.
You mean you're not going to give chapter and verse on these
>
> > Oh no, I'm sure at least some of them are leaving things unsaid in the
> > reasons they are giving publicly for signing the petition. But see,
> > that's yet another variation.
'bvariations', these different reasons, and all the other flotsam and
jetsam you've drawn into your one little argument? Have you forgotten
that I have passed on this argument and for argument's sake let it go,
so we can get to important things.
> > > > > > > Alan Haymond says:
>
> > > > > > > "Suspicious on 9/11 about the collapses and the size of the original
> > > > > > > hole in the Pentagon. Thoroughly convinced of cover up by April '02 -
> > > > > > > too many unanswered questions. Recommend David Ray Griffin's books."
>
> > > > > > > He says he's suspicious of the collapses, and was convinced well
> > > > > > > under a
> > > > > > > year later that there was a coverup. ?But nowhere there does he
> > > > > > > specifically say that he believes the collapses were the result of
> > > > > > > controlled demolition, nor does he specifically say that he can prove
> > > > > > > it.
>
> > > > > See above. ?The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> > > > > for the collapse is in his signing the petition.
>
> > > > Still just speculation on your part that just signing the petition
> > > > implies that exact thing.
>
>
> > See what above? A continuous refusal to take into account the wide
> > variety of human nature? I already understood your argument the first
> > time, and I don't find it any more plausible no matter how many times
> > you repeat it.
>
No, I wanted you to check my pas on ths particular picky item. I
> > See what above? A continuous refusal to take into account the wide
> > variety of human nature? I already understood your argument the first
> > time, and I don't find it any more plausible no matter how many times
> > you repeat it.
>
will grant your point of view on the signatories this once, so we ca
nmget on with it. Thouhg I rather expect when we get there, you wioll
want to get back to arguing about signatory motives...:)
realize that, but obviously YOU did...:)
> > > I have a reasonable person's knowledge of
> > > people and why they do things,
>
> > You do? I have not seen much of an obvious sign of that here.
>
problem you see in me. But you were unable to see beyond your opinion
of me.
> > > and I suspect you can have that too.
>
> > I suspect that I am a good deal more cognizant of the realities of human
> > nature than you are. Sorry, but it seems obvious to me. I'm accepting
> > a much wider variety of human traits than you are, and none of the
> > traits I have mentioned are at all "unusual."
>
saying? How much admission of knowledge did I hide? :)) I've tried
to warn you of the ego errors.
> > > AsI have noted so many times in one way or another, professionals as
> > > are in this list are not going to immediately go whole hog and state
> > > their belief is something that a number of people have been convinced
> > > is false.
>
> > That depends greatly on their level of professionalism, which can vary
> > widely, and can vary in a lot of different ways.
>
> > > looking for the 'official' investigation.
>
> > They will say the things they say for a wide variety of reasons. Any
> > group of humans this large and this diverse in this many different ways
> > is always going to do that, no matter what the subject.
>
> > > > > The
> > > > > reason is that they don't believe the NIST story which was put
> > > > > together by people in the correct fields to determine the cause of the
> > > > > collapses, and if the collapses were not by softened steel, the only
> > > > > other method of dropping buildings, especially where they fall into
> > > > > their own footprints almost exactly, is controlled demolition.
> > > > > However, would it help you to hear it from controlled demolition
> > > > > specialists?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcwnJTpholc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw1Lh7lYMNo
>
> > They will say the things they say for a wide variety of reasons. Any
> > group of humans this large and this diverse in this many different ways
> > is always going to do that, no matter what the subject.
>
> > > > > The
> > > > > reason is that they don't believe the NIST story which was put
> > > > > together by people in the correct fields to determine the cause of the
> > > > > collapses, and if the collapses were not by softened steel, the only
> > > > > other method of dropping buildings, especially where they fall into
> > > > > their own footprints almost exactly, is controlled demolition.
> > > > > However, would it help you to hear it from controlled demolition
> > > > > specialists?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcwnJTpholc
>
> > Provably false beyond all possible doubt. Plenty of *other* very *real*
> > experts *have* denied it. And I will thank you in advance not to try to
> > attribute some common ulterior motive to the experts which dispute this,
> > because obviously that argument won't work any better than the one you're
> > using for the experts you agree with. *Some* of them, I'm sure, *do* have
> > an ulterior motive for disputing the demolition angle. But just as with
> > the experts who do believe in demolition, there is just not one single
> > "type" of person among the experts who dispute it.
>
LOL! 'Provably false'? What is, the video, the person giving his
> > Provably false beyond all possible doubt. Plenty of *other* very *real*
> > experts *have* denied it. And I will thank you in advance not to try to
> > attribute some common ulterior motive to the experts which dispute this,
> > because obviously that argument won't work any better than the one you're
> > using for the experts you agree with. *Some* of them, I'm sure, *do* have
> > an ulterior motive for disputing the demolition angle. But just as with
> > the experts who do believe in demolition, there is just not one single
> > "type" of person among the experts who dispute it.
>
opinion? What? You cleverly don't give any information so that no one
can argue with you. Do some work and find an opposite opinion from a
CD worker and I'll be happy to look it over and consider if it will
meet my criterias for evidence. You'd say experts have 'denied it',
but you produce no expert saying anything at all. If no proof is
presented, then you might as well have said nothing.
>
> > Uh-huh. Let's look at some other videos as well:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMNNPnXBH4M
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsUYhrXonXQ
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gQjJnON0rQ
>
epecially about there being NO explosions in the towers, and secondly,
that there were not synchronized rows of small explosions like the
examples of CD. Actually, I've already shown cases of both, but here
they are again, proving the errors in those 2 videos:
First, lobby explosions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZMRAOGR8gQ
Second, rows of short, small explosions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2A8VMg_B64
> > Just to address one of the many arguments made in those, in *all* of the
> > videos and films and so forth I have ever seen of controlled demolitions
> > (many more than just these) that also have *sound*, the explosions are
> > *very* loud and *very* obvious. But nothing like that at all is heard in
> > any of the videos of any of the WTC buildings collapsing. Most especially
> > for the two tall towers, it is mainly just a continuous roar that has very
> > little variation as they are coming down. I've never heard anything even
> > remotely like the very obvious and very loud explosions in videos with
> > audio of *known* controlled demolitions. I also do not recall ever
> > hearing any distinct loud explosion in any video of WTC 7 collapsing
> > either.
>
explosions in the buildings and some heard from outside the
buildings. Here are examples of both cases so that no one can say
that any longer. Whoever told you that lied to you:
As firemen and police mafe calls home, they hear a large explosion
in the lobby of one of the towers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAoWDcu9r8A
Here is Barry Jennings who was in the WTC7 building all morning, and
finally rescued after experiencing explosions in the building:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q
Here are reports of countless bombs or explosionsgoing off inside
one of the twin towers by people INSIDE the building.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlAkF7E2nCs
indications you gave in expressing your opinion of my point of view.
What did you think of the information surrounding Larry Silverstein,
the owner of the buildings?
Chris
Sam McClung
Oct 12, 2012, 4:52:54 PM10/12/12
to
> "mainframetech" <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote in part
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
99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%
, the exceptions being the closeted gruppe and a few others like posnochio,
bugnochio, o'reilynochio, and others of that mindset
> http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread215616/pg1
>
> 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
>
> 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?
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
99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%
, the exceptions being the closeted gruppe and a few others like posnochio,
bugnochio, o'reilynochio, and others of that mindset
mainframetech
Oct 12, 2012, 5:34:48 PM10/12/12
to
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...:)
> 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."
>
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).
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.
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.)
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
>
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
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.)
>
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 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?
>
the Silverstein video and short comment about 'pulling it' was NOT to
pull a team of people out of anywhere. Try listening to what he said
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'. There was no mistake there. He
said 'pull' and immediately then said they watched it fall. The
excuse you tried took them 3 years before they made it up. He defined
the 'pull' phrase right in front of you and you missed it because of
your preconceived notions fed by debunkers. Second, Silverstein had
bought the complex a few months before the collapse. The complex had
extreme asbestos problems throughout much of the buildings in the
complex. The cost for abatement of the asbestos would be as much or
more than the cost of the buildings, and the city was getting antsy
about having the work done. A cost so high is a possible motive, but
the size of the insurance payment was huge and there was a clause in
the contract that doubled the payoff if there were a TERRRORIST cause
for any damage to the buildings. Third, Silverstein was interviewed
about the buildings and tried 'on the spot' to cover up the collapse
of WTC7, but he made big errors and now we have the proof in his own
words. Fourth, a simple piece of luck in talking with the military
might have brought the possibility of a 'false flag' operation, which
would also benefit the military and the administration. Profiteering
would run rampant. The silly story presented by the 'debunkers' fails.
> "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.
weight in this type of discussion? Are you knowledgeable in why NIST did
anything? I've presented a paper doing all the calculations and research
on temperatures, and the result of that is that temperatures from burning
jet fuel and office furniture wouldn't reach the temperature to weaken
steel. So that one is pushed aside. If you have something that
counteracts the paper proving fires didn't weaken the steel, now's the
time to put it out there.
Now there's a good video. No story, just the scene of a few fires
here and there in WTC7, and some areas that burned and were out now,
nearby. Also you can see the fire in one area coming out grey and
black, meaning the fire was oxygen starved and therefore at a lower
temperature than what it could have been. As well, you can see the
smoke being held against the building and going past other windows,
giving the impression that many more windows were burning than really
were. Here's a video of the One Meridian Plaza fire in a 38 story
high rise. It burned for 18 hours, much longer than the WTC7. No
weakening of any metal supports was seen, and the building steel frame
stood for many years before they demolished it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzwxrDNxcps
OK. I think we've dealt with that one. A long involved narration
trying to show that WTC7 came down for the reasons of fires and
damage. First, fires have already been proven that they weren't
involved because of the temperatures not being reached to weaken
steel. See above link. Second, the damage didn't bring the building
down. It stayed up as long as they let it after the damage was done
by falling debris. The buildings were planned to handle large planes
crashing into them. An amount of debris from nearby wasn't much
different, though probably less concentrated. Third, it has been
shown that there was a countdown and an intentional CD done to bring
the building down. This could not have been done without weeks or
months of preparation. If the preparation was done in advance for the
purpose of bringing down WTC7, then the other towers were probably
also prepared. This would have to be after a known 'terrorist' attack
would be made by planes crashing into the building, a situation
already known to the authorities as a possibility. The various
reasons for causing the collapses have been listed above.
>
> "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.
>
facts. You must lean on the 'debunkers' in hope they can do it for
you...:)
> "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!
way you ignore evidence and redfuse to discuss it.
>
> "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.
>
> That's all I've got to say. Have fun!
>
Anthony Marsh
Oct 12, 2012, 5:39:10 PM10/12/12
to
heard lots of explosions. You can't have it both ways.
> buildings. Here are examples of both cases so that no one can say
> that any longer. Whoever told you that lied to you:
> As firemen and police mafe calls home, they hear a large explosion
> in the lobby of one of the towers:
collapse of the roof? How can you prove it was an explosion of
nano-thermite if you claim that nano-thermite is relatively quiet? You
are undercutting your own arguments. Maybe C4. OK, where is the residue
from the C4, the discoloration? Just by sound can you tell the
difference between a high explosive and jet fuel blowing up?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAoWDcu9r8A
> Here is Barry Jennings who was in the WTC7 building all morning, and
> finally rescued after experiencing explosions in the building:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q
floor collapse?
> Here are reports of countless bombs or explosionsgoing off inside
> one of the twin towers by people INSIDE the building.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlAkF7E2nCs
>
he declared it Not Worth Saving and recommend that it should be brought
down, not saved. Before they had a chance to do that it collapsed on its
own.
> Chris
>
>
Sandy McCroskey
Oct 12, 2012, 9:52:46 PM10/12/12
to
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
> 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...:)
>
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.
>
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.
>> 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?
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.
>
>> You didn't get that from a Truther? This makes a lot more sense, though:
> http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/97789-thermite-myth...
>
> 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.
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.
> You have provided NO backup for that
> statement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2TMVDYpp2Q
> 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
>
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,
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.
> 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.
spectrogram.
> 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.
which I excerpted.
> 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.
>
about Larry Silverstein.
(Of course, alleging CD in itself is implicitly a conspiracy theory, no
matter how you slice it.)
>>
>> 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.
>
long time now, I?ll admit. I've forgotten some of what I read, back
when. But I?m sure there is a *reasonable* explanation for everything.
Sound levels of these ?explosions? were nothing like those used in CD.
>> 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?
>>
> 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.
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.
> 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'.
Watching is a passive act.
> There was no mistake there. He
> said 'pull' and immediately then said they watched it fall.
And "watched it fall" is a helluva lot different from ?took it down.?
> The
> excuse you tried took them 3 years before they made it up. He defined
> the 'pull' phrase right in front of you and you missed it because of
> your preconceived notions fed by debunkers. Second, Silverstein had
> bought the complex a few months before the collapse. The complex had
> extreme asbestos problems throughout much of the buildings in the
> complex. The cost for abatement of the asbestos would be as much or
> more than the cost of the buildings, and the city was getting antsy
> about having the work done. A cost so high is a possible motive, but
> the size of the insurance payment was huge and there was a clause in
> the contract that doubled the payoff if there were a TERRRORIST cause
> for any damage to the buildings. Third, Silverstein was interviewed
> about the buildings and tried 'on the spot' to cover up the collapse
> of WTC7, but he made big errors and now we have the proof in his own
> words. Fourth, a simple piece of luck in talking with the military
> might have brought the possibility of a 'false flag' operation, which
> would also benefit the military and the administration. Profiteering
> would run rampant. The silly story presented by the 'debunkers' fails.
>
Stuff and nonsense.
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.
>> "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.
> 'As YOU pointed out'? Do you actually think your statements carry
> weight in this type of discussion?
> Are you knowledgeable in why NIST did
> anything? I've presented a paper
You didn?t do any such thing. You linked to a web article.
I really don't think this was an attempt at misrepresentation though.
You probably don?t know what ?peer-reviewed? means either.
(No more than does, or so it would seem, Steven Jones.)
> doing all the calculations and research
> on temperatures, and the result of that is that temperatures from burning
> jet fuel and office furniture wouldn't reach the temperature to weaken
> steel. So that one is pushed aside. If you have something that
> counteracts the paper proving fires didn't weaken the steel, now's the
> time to put it out there.
>
>> Check out this video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNhslGDz9lw
>
> Now there's a good video. No story, just the scene of a few fires
> here and there in WTC7, and some areas that burned and were out now,
> nearby. Also you can see the fire in one area coming out grey and
> black, meaning the fire was oxygen starved and therefore at a lower
> temperature than what it could have been. As well, you can see the
> smoke being held against the building and going past other windows,
> giving the impression that many more windows were burning than really
> were. Here's a video of the One Meridian Plaza fire in a 38 story
> high rise. It burned for 18 hours, much longer than the WTC7. No
> weakening of any metal supports was seen, and the building steel frame
> stood for many years before they demolished it.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzwxrDNxcps
Philly building was also a high-rise that was on fire. That's about
where the similarity ends.
>
>> And this link:http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
>
> OK. I think we've dealt with that one. A long involved narration
> trying to show that WTC7 came down for the reasons of fires and
> damage. First, fires have already been proven that they weren't
> involved because of the temperatures not being reached to weaken
> steel. See above link.
(Hey, two can play that game. Only, I'm right. Ha ha)
> Second, the damage didn't bring the building
> down. It stayed up as long as they let it after the damage was done
> by falling debris. The buildings were planned to handle large planes
> crashing into them. An amount of debris from nearby wasn't much
> different, though probably less concentrated. Third, it has been
> shown that there was a countdown and an intentional CD done to bring
> the building down. This could not have been done without weeks or
> months of preparation.
Any documented, authenticated (i.e., other than anecdotal), hard
evidence of anything like that? Or even of a window of opportunity when
this could have been accomplished?
> If the preparation was done in advance for the
> purpose of bringing down WTC7, then the other towers were probably
> also prepared.
(Psst, "preparation" is always done "in advance.")
> This would have to be after a known 'terrorist' attack
> would be made by planes crashing into the building,
of "This," would have been some time before.
> a situation
> already known to the authorities as a possibility.
> The various
> reasons for causing the collapses have been listed above.
>
Damn, I must have missed that! It was a hoot, I'm sure. But I don't have
any more time now.
Or was that when you were talking about "false flag" operations?
And you don't call yourself a CT?
/sandy
Anthony Marsh
Oct 13, 2012, 10:43:46 AM10/13/12
to
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
believe.
> and I both can point to experts who support our positions (I just happen
> to have more on my side).
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
JFK assassination and Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. Everyone
else is a kook because only you government specialists have the real
information.
extreme fires from the planes fusing aluminum to rust.
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 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.
>
for them? NO ONE ever claimed that steel beams were fireproof.
it's summer blend or winter blend or ethanol blend.
the difference between 124 decibels and 128 decibels.
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. 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.
>
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.?
>
>
>
>
>
>> The
>> excuse you tried took them 3 years before they made it up. He defined
>> the 'pull' phrase right in front of you and you missed it because of
>> your preconceived notions fed by debunkers. Second, Silverstein had
>> bought the complex a few months before the collapse. The complex had
>> extreme asbestos problems throughout much of the buildings in the
>> complex. The cost for abatement of the asbestos would be as much or
>> more than the cost of the buildings, and the city was getting antsy
>> about having the work done. A cost so high is a possible motive, but
>> the size of the insurance payment was huge and there was a clause in
>> the contract that doubled the payoff if there were a TERRRORIST cause
>> for any damage to the buildings. Third, Silverstein was interviewed
>> about the buildings and tried 'on the spot' to cover up the collapse
>> of WTC7, but he made big errors and now we have the proof in his own
>> words. Fourth, a simple piece of luck in talking with the military
>> might have brought the possibility of a 'false flag' operation, which
>> would also benefit the military and the administration. Profiteering
>> would run rampant. The silly story presented by the 'debunkers' fails.
>>
>
> This is just ?stuff,? as Biden said of Ryan last night.
> Stuff and nonsense.
>
> 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.
>
truthers to point out your phony arguments.
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.
After the fire
By February 26 city officials had determined One Meridian Plaza was not
in danger of collapse.[11] There was structural damage to horizontal
steel beams and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Under
extreme fire exposure the beams and girders sagged and twisted and
cracks appeared in the concrete floors. However, the overall structure
was stable and able to support the weight of the building. Thermal
expansion of the steel frame caused some of the granite panels to be
dislodged from the building's facade.
A more similar case was the Windsor Hotel in Madrid.
The structure was divided into two halves by a technical floor without
windows. It was a very solid building, with a central core of reinforced
concrete that resisted the high temperatures of the fire without collapsing.
The fire
Around midnight, on Saturday, February 12, 2005, a fire was detected on
the 21st floor. The fire spread quickly throughout the entire building,
leading to the collapse of the outermost, steel parts of the upper
floors; firefighters needed almost 24 hours to extinguish it.
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).
>
>
> /sandy
Saintly Oswald
Oct 13, 2012, 12:10:21 PM10/13/12
to
On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 9:06:43 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Bush lied.
Too late to copyright that one. Maybe you could prove that Dick Cheney was wearing gloves or something.
> Bush lied.
Too late to copyright that one. Maybe you could prove that Dick Cheney was wearing gloves or something.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 13, 2012, 12:12:37 PM10/13/12
to
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.
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/pics/htchar1.gif
> 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.
>
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
> 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.
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.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
light on each floor in sequence. Otherwise you are just talking nonsense.
>> 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?
>>
before as routine building maintenance.
You really can not think that they planned to explode the buildings
before they even built them to blame it on terrorists to justify
invading Iraq. We had already invaded Iraq a few years earlier without
any need to stage a fake terrorist attack.
Bush could have justified it by saying that the Iraq ambassador had
stepped on the toes of the American ambassador at a UN party.
> 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. Try listening to what he said
> 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'. There was no mistake there. He
> said 'pull' and immediately then said they watched it fall. The
Demoiltions (years before 9/11) who explained that when they decide to
bring down a building with a Controlled Demolition that is known as
pulling the building. In the early days they often did PULL it down with
cables.
> excuse you tried took them 3 years before they made it up. He defined
> the 'pull' phrase right in front of you and you missed it because of
> your preconceived notions fed by debunkers. Second, Silverstein had
> bought the complex a few months before the collapse. The complex had
> extreme asbestos problems throughout much of the buildings in the
> complex. The cost for abatement of the asbestos would be as much or
> more than the cost of the buildings, and the city was getting antsy
> about having the work done. A cost so high is a possible motive, but
> the size of the insurance payment was huge and there was a clause in
> the contract that doubled the payoff if there were a TERRRORIST cause
> for any damage to the buildings. Third, Silverstein was interviewed
> about the buildings and tried 'on the spot' to cover up the collapse
> of WTC7, but he made big errors and now we have the proof in his own
> words. Fourth, a simple piece of luck in talking with the military
> might have brought the possibility of a 'false flag' operation, which
> would also benefit the military and the administration. Profiteering
> would run rampant. The silly story presented by the 'debunkers' fails.
>
advantage of a tragedy to blame it on the enemy. For example one of the
plans in Operation Northwoods was that if there were an accident with
the Alan Shepard launch they would fabricate evidence to pin it on the
Cubans and then invade Cuba.
>> "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.
> 'As YOU pointed out'? Do you actually think your statements carry
> weight in this type of discussion? Are you knowledgeable in why NIST did
> anything? I've presented a paper doing all the calculations and research
> on temperatures, and the result of that is that temperatures from burning
> jet fuel and office furniture wouldn't reach the temperature to weaken
> steel. So that one is pushed aside. If you have something that
> counteracts the paper proving fires didn't weaken the steel, now's the
> time to put it out there.
>
until it sags.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 13, 2012, 12:15:10 PM10/13/12
to
actually the conspirators themselves just covering their tracks.
Like Nixon investigating Watergate.
Or the FBI investigating the murder of the 5 bookies in Boston.
Sandy McCroskey
Oct 13, 2012, 10:39:40 PM10/13/12
to
On 10/13/12 10:43 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>> 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,
>snip<
> 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
> 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.
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.
>
>> 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?
>
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.
>
denied Nixon’s guilt in Watergate. You’ve 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.
>
impervious,” which matters little here.
Some claim "only" that steel beams can’t 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.
>
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.
>
Recordings indicate a much more dramatic difference than four decibels.
>snip<
>>> 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.
story after the Truthers got to it.
> The fire crew was long gone.
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.
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.
>
So?
>>
>>> 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.
>
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.
>
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.
>
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).
>
seem to believe controlled demo brought down the towers? Excuse me if I
can’t make out your position clearly. I’m 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?
/sandy
mainframetech
Oct 13, 2012, 10:43:18 PM10/13/12
to
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
> 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.
rather than MY words. Those are the important thing here in my view.
> 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.
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.
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.
>
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.
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.
I don't listen to 9/11 CTs for information. I look for it where I can
find it. If a CTer mentions a source, I might check it out, but I don't
suddenly believe the infromation just because a CT led me to it. That
would be like a denier, hearing only what they want to hear. The only
arguments I listen to are those of scientists and knowledgeable people who
are in a position to make statements of fact about what was in the dust.
Jones was the first, though not the last, to find Thermite and often not
mentioned, also found iron microspheres (another anomaly). Large amounts
of iron microspheres are extremely suggestive of quick melting of steel or
iron (which is the main component of steel). They should not be in dust
samples from the towers unless there was melting of the metal, which would
not happen if the towers simply were weakened and fell. From Dewdney's
temperature calculations, we now kpow that melt or softening points of
steel weren't reached. So we are left with iron microspheres in the dust.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/residues.html
Dewdney's paper on the temperatures reached and the fact that they didn't
reach either the softening or melting point of steel. I'm not the
scientist, he is, and he is 'noted'. You have probably forgotten by now
of his paper that was put here for you. Jet fuel was proven to not be
what weakened the steel. Here's the rundown on Dewdney:
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~akd/PERSONAL/hp.html
As a sidepoint, which is important for all deniers, much of their
information was from NIST, and here's what NIST has to say about their
work:
"The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the
instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower.
For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable
collapse sequence," although it includes little analysis of the structural
behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were
reached and collapse became inevitable." From:
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfm
They sure brought themsleves down a long way with that statement.
> > You have provided NO backup for that
> > statement.
>
> No? Well, you seem to like videos:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2TMVDYpp2Q
>
certainly not comparable to the huge box beams in the towers at core and
outside surfaces. Many of those were 2 inches think. As well, the air in
a floor of the towers was restricted, meaning it would not be as hot while
burning. Most of the fuel in one of the towers burned outside the
building as the plane pushed it outside, leaving much less inside. This
can be seen in the crash videos. The other has a somewhat similar
situation, where the fuel was spread over a large area, some of which was
outside the building. The fuel wouldn't concentrate as the video
experiment would do. I bet the deniers loved that video though. Here's
the paper showing the work to fit the real situation:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/temperatures_of_structural_steel.pdf
To go a bit further with that, first, the WTC7 building wasn't hit by a
plane with a load of jet fuel. It had some small fires, some from diesel
fuel for generators, but that was minimal as the videos show, and like jet
fuel, would burn off fairly quickly if it was set off at all. Also office
furniture burns at a lower temperature than jet or diesel fuel. We must
also consider that the fuel from the planes would have spread out and
burned off quickly, leaving only office furniture to burn. My general
feeling about the small 'I' beam experiment doesn't answer the question
about the collapse. Remember too, that the twin towers buildings stayed
up for about an hour after the fuel had ignited, and by the time of the
collapse had been cooling from the initial flash fire. WTC7 of course,
didn't have that situation. It also lasted until it was intentionally
taken down by CD.
> > 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).
>
for the words 'phone', 'hijacked', highjacked' and even 'plane', and I
didn't find any of them. I don't know why Dewdney would mention
phone(s) becasue he was only concerned with temperatures. Please
check what you looked up. It might have been a different document.
> >> 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.
>
paper that said that the right temps weren't reached to soften or melt
it. I would think though, that fireproofing gives belt along with the
suspenders. Extra protection. Of course, we have to consider that NO
building has ever come down from fire ever. Because of that, there
must have been a building with fireproofing that was in bad
maintenance and was coming off. Yet no steel frame building has been
brought down until the 3 towers. Don't forget One Meridian Plaza:
http://articles.philly.com/2011-02-23/news/28620726_1_bloomer-meridian-fire-significant-fires
there are other reports of 'molten steel/metal' in the towers, as per
the above video. I will correct one statement. I said 'molten
metal', but the hot metal seen was reddish yellow and so was not at
the molten stage, but at a point before it.
> > 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.
>
> I guess you didn't read the whole page that leads to the conclusion,
> which I excerpted.
>
guesses that any denier would be happy with. They mentioned molten
aluminum, but there's no proof of what metal was 'molten'. It would
be nice for the makers of the video to have it be aluminum though.
The mention of 'elevator hydraulics was a nice touch too, but how much
of it do you think was there in just one place in any one building?
I'm not too sure of the "Hollow beams and tunnels which acted as
chimneys" either. The ones I've seen are always sealed at both
ends.
> > 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.
>
> Excuse me, but you presented a conspiracy theory in this very post,
> about Larry Silverstein.
>
is no doubt except in deniers minds, that he said what he did. I
believe he made a mistake while trying to answer some of the questions
about the fall. Odd that I've shown the inside parts of that
statement and you offer NO comment or opposing view. I saw your
deniers usual idea that Silverstein meant something else than what he
said, but then I spoke of his defining 'pull' by saying they watched
it collapse. But there are also witnesses to the countdown
immediately before the collapse. It was intentionally brought down,
and the only way to do that was to lace the building with explosives/
incendiary devices, and wait for the planes to hit to set them off.
And to answer your more sarcastic comment from earlier, I doubt they
waited any length of time. This is strictly outside the area of fact
and evidence, and is for later investigation, but my personal feeling
is that the setting of the devices was within the 6 months before the
event of the collapses. Mind you, it's only a personal feeling, and
needs to be checked out later when the full investigation is
initiated.
> (Of course, alleging CD in itself is implicitly a conspiracy theory, no
> matter how you slice it.)
>
go for. Tell me how much of the original story of 19 hijackers was
'theory' and not verified by anything, or even made sense to the public?
Remember they are (in one pol at least) 76% believers that it was a
conspiracy bringing down the towers. Of course, they aren't as smart as
the deniers.
the evidence your own video shows? I can understand the urge to get
away from an unpleasant subject. There is always the danger that you
would be convinced by some fact or other, which would make life much
harder.
Here are a couple of rapid explosions used to affect many floors
before the building comes down. This is still not as fast as the ones
I was speaking of, but the flashes in the first one will give you the
idea in the first one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucivVnrctks&feature=endscreen&NR=1
pass it out to others. After 3 years they finally couldn't let it
stand so they had to come up with a reason for him saying it. The
excuse was no good, but it satisfied many deniers who needed something
for their arguments with the CTs.
>
> 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.
>
see that. Who wants to believe that the towers were brought down
intentionally? It beggars belief. But if you listen to his words,
it's very clear, unless you don't want to hear bad news. The mind can
play tricks that way, as you well know. Let me get that actual words.
Some people need the text and not the sounds to see it:
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling
me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the
fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the
smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull
and we watched the building collapse."
fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the
smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull
You can see where he says 'pull it', and later 'pull' both are old
demolition terms for bringing down a building. Right after saying
'it' and 'pull' he says 'we watched the building collapse'. Even if
the silly excuse were true, that he was saying to pull the
firefighting crew, they still knew they were going to bring the
building down when the firefighters were out of the way. That's
intentional demolition, knowing when you're going to do it. Actually
waiting for the firemen to go and then 'pulling it'. However, there
are some other loose ends:
"there were no firefighters in WTC 7:
1. No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." [Fema
Report]
2. There was no firefighting in WTC 7." [Popular Mechanics]
3. "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area,
Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from [WTC 7]
for safety reasons." [New York Times]
So if no firefighters were in the building, why would Silverstein
say pull them out? He was talking with the "fire dept. commander",
who ought to know if anyone was inside. The truth is clear, that
Silverstein made a mistake and was finally called to task about it and
they hadto make up an excuse that made no sense.
Earlier I presented the video of a witness called Barry Jennings,
who was trapped in WTC7 in the morning around after he got to work.
They experienced a big explosion in the building. At one point there
was NO ONE in the building. They had trouble getting rescued and had
to break out a window and call for help to the outside.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DuSeuxjiJQ
> > 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.
>
actively "made the DECISION" to 'pull'.
> > 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.?
>
it fall".
> > The
> > excuse you tried took them 3 years before they made it up. He defined
> > the 'pull' phrase right in front of you and you missed it because of
> > your preconceived notions fed by debunkers. Second, Silverstein had
> > bought the complex a few months before the collapse. The complex had
> > extreme asbestos problems throughout much of the buildings in the
> > complex. The cost for abatement of the asbestos would be as much or
> > more than the cost of the buildings, and the city was getting antsy
> > about having the work done. A cost so high is a possible motive, but
> > the size of the insurance payment was huge and there was a clause in
> > the contract that doubled the payoff if there were a TERRRORIST cause
> > for any damage to the buildings. Third, Silverstein was interviewed
> > about the buildings and tried 'on the spot' to cover up the collapse
> > of WTC7, but he made big errors and now we have the proof in his own
> > words. Fourth, a simple piece of luck in talking with the military
> > might have brought the possibility of a 'false flag' operation, which
> > would also benefit the military and the administration. Profiteering
> > would run rampant. The silly story presented by the 'debunkers' fails.
>
> This is just ?stuff,? as Biden said of Ryan last night.
> Stuff and nonsense.
>
> 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.
>
denialist.
> >> "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.
> > 'As YOU pointed out'? Do you actually think your statements carry
> > weight in this type of discussion?
>
> Why would yours count then?
>
unassailable logic, or facts and/or evidence, but thast's not opinion,
as would the same for you.
> > Are you knowledgeable in why NIST did
> > anything? I've presented a paper
>
> Do you know what ?presented a paper? means in academia?
> You didn?t do any such thing. You linked to a web article.
> I really don't think this was an attempt at misrepresentation though.
> You probably don?t know what ?peer-reviewed? means either.
> (No more than does, or so it would seem, Steven Jones.)
>
at it? I know full well that academics use the term for studies and
similar documents, and I use it as something I've presented for you to
look over. I'm aware also of the term 'peer recviewed' and
'journal'. As with CT or denier fables, I'm not interested, just
facts and evidence. I have no time for all the little sideplay many
are into. Why not stay with the subject? As they say in many forums,
debate the topic, not the person.
> > doing all the calculations and research
> > on temperatures, and the result of that is that temperatures from burning
> > jet fuel and office furniture wouldn't reach the temperature to weaken
> > steel. So that one is pushed aside. If you have something that
> > counteracts the paper proving fires didn't weaken the steel, now's the
> > time to put it out there.
>
> >> Check out this video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNhslGDz9lw
>
> > Now there's a good video. No story, just the scene of a few fires
> > here and there in WTC7, and some areas that burned and were out now,
> > nearby. Also you can see the fire in one area coming out grey and
> > black, meaning the fire was oxygen starved and therefore at a lower
> > temperature than what it could have been. As well, you can see the
> > smoke being held against the building and going past other windows,
> > giving the impression that many more windows were burning than really
> > were. Here's a video of the One Meridian Plaza fire in a 38 story
> > high rise. It burned for 18 hours, much longer than the WTC7. No
> > weakening of any metal supports was seen, and the building steel frame
> > stood for many years before they demolished it.
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzwxrDNxcps
>
> 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.
>
furniture (which is more combustible than office furniture) burned for
18 or more hours and had NO effect on the steel frame of the
building. The obvious point being that now we have a similar
situation where burning furniture wasn't able to weaken a steel frame
with many floors weighing the frame down.
>
> >> And this link:http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
>
> > OK. I think we've dealt with that one. A long involved narration
> > trying to show that WTC7 came down for the reasons of fires and
> > damage. First, fires have already been proven that they weren't
> > involved because of the temperatures not being reached to weaken
> > steel. See above link.
>
> That?s a bullshit link.
> (Hey, two can play that game. Only, I'm right. Ha ha)
>
I think maybe you were too quick of the mark. That link says
> >> And this link:http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
>
> > OK. I think we've dealt with that one. A long involved narration
> > trying to show that WTC7 came down for the reasons of fires and
> > damage. First, fires have already been proven that they weren't
> > involved because of the temperatures not being reached to weaken
> > steel. See above link.
>
> That?s a bullshit link.
> (Hey, two can play that game. Only, I'm right. Ha ha)
>
'debunking' so it must be yours!
> > Second, the damage didn't bring the building
> > down. It stayed up as long as they let it after the damage was done
> > by falling debris. The buildings were planned to handle large planes
> > crashing into them. An amount of debris from nearby wasn't much
> > different, though probably less concentrated. Third, it has been
> > shown that there was a countdown and an intentional CD done to bring
> > the building down. This could not have been done without weeks or
> > months of preparation.
>
> So when did this happen?
>
> Any documented, authenticated (i.e., other than anecdotal), hard
> evidence of anything like that? Or even of a window of opportunity when
> this could have been accomplished?
>
video was aware that security and power in one of the towers was shut
off for up to 36 hours, and that there had been 'maintenance' men
wandering around the building. The power down was reported by him to
the 9/11 Commission and the Port Authority and they paid no attention,
and one of them denied it had ever happened. The second video is just
a repeat of the same info.
http://world911truth.org/world-trade-center-employee-discusses-pre-911-power-downs/
> > If the preparation was done in advance for the
> > purpose of bringing down WTC7, then the other towers were probably
> > also prepared.
>
> "Probably"?!
>
almost guaranteed to be involved. Just too coincidental otherwise.
> (Psst, "preparation" is always done "in advance.")
>
time' for later execution.
> > This would have to be after a known 'terrorist' attack
> > would be made by planes crashing into the building,
>
> The preparation, which would seemingly (syntactically) be the antecedent
> of "This," would have been some time before.
>
for you. Use the head for other than picking to save time. The
preparation of explosives and incendiary chemicals would be done
inside the buildings, then someone would wait with the remote controls
that set them off. When the proper outside event occurred (Like
planes hitting the buildings), the controls were used and the inside
damage was done. This also explains about Silverstein knowing they
could demolish WTC7 when they wanted, becasue they hadn't set it odff
earlier. I agree that planes hit the buildings...:)
> > a situation
> > already known to the authorities as a possibility.
>
> Sure seems a lot of work to go to in preparation for a "possibility."
>
> > The various
> > reasons for causing the collapses have been listed above.
>
> "Listed"?
> Damn, I must have missed that! It was a hoot, I'm sure. But I don't have
> any more time now.
>
> Or was that when you were talking about "false flag" operations?
> And you don't call yourself a CT?
>
mistake.
Chris
curtjester1
Oct 13, 2012, 10:51:04 PM10/13/12
to
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.
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
http://skeptosis.blogspot.com/2007/02/fire-vs-steel-facts.html
You can pull up videos though, that have high rise strucure that burned a
lot hotter, a tremendous amount of a lot longer, and was totally engulfed
with flame, with no collapsing.
CJ
curtjester1
Oct 13, 2012, 10:51:48 PM10/13/12
to
might also try to figure out what a building would do if the steel
could melt as far as what any building would do.
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
http://skeptosis.blogspot.com/2007/02/fire-vs-steel-facts.html
CJ
curtjester1
Oct 13, 2012, 10:52:38 PM10/13/12
to
On Oct 12, 4:52 pm, "Sam McClung" <mccl...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > "mainframetech" <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote in part
are for kooks? lolololol
CJ
> > "mainframetech" <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote in part
> >http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread215616/pg1
>
> > 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
> 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%
>
> > 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
> , 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
> bugnochio, o'reilynochio, and others of that mindset
are for kooks? lolololol
CJ
Sandy McCroskey
Oct 13, 2012, 10:56:14 PM10/13/12
to
On 10/13/12 10:43 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 10/12/2012 9:52 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>> On 10/12/12 5:34 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>>> On Oct 10, 9:42 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> 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.
>
That was a bit sloppy of me. I might have said, "Why do you believe the
>> On 10/12/12 5:34 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>>> On Oct 10, 9:42 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> 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.
>
presence of thermitic substances in the dust necessarily indicates
controlled demolition?" and pointed to this source:
http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf
But when conspiracy theorists refer to thermite, they mean something
that proves a deliberately concocted explosive, such as would supposedly
be the nanothermite Steve Jones goes on about.
/sm
mainframetech
Oct 13, 2012, 11:02:28 PM10/13/12
to
organization? Are an official agent for the 'scientific consensus'?
Or are ypou simply doing waht you have right along and assuming that
you're right about everything you thought and therefore everyone else
is wrong?
> 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.
>
In the area of scientist, our society gives a PhD the belief that they
are sane and capable in their field. To get the reputation of 'mad
scientist' the indicidual has to have done something that relates to
that handle. What was it that led you to use such a term? Are you
sure it wasn't more of the denier stories attempting to trash any
information agaisnt their viewpoint?
the WTC. The CTs only picxked up the information becasue it satisfied
their beliefs. It's a case I mentioned to you where a fact is neutral
and it can be sused for one side of an argument or the other. The
fact remains neutral, yet they found thermite in the dust. It fits
though with other elements of the 'crime'. Especially the mistake by
Larry Silverstein.
a paper by A.K. Dewdney. Here it is again if you missed it before:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/temperatures_of_structural_steel.pdf
In the paper above you will see the term 'critical point of steel,
and it mewans the point of softening.
Since that paper proves the failure of the WTC7 to generate enough
heat to soften or melt the steel, we can forget that method of causing
the collapse.
> > You have provided NO backup for that
> > statement.
>
> No? Well, you seem to like videos:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2TMVDYpp2Q
>
supports in WTC7 were box beams with steel 2 inches thick. There is a
difference in time to soften the steel. The video also uses an open
area to allow full oxygenation, which was not the case in the floors
of the twin towers, where there was less oxygen and therefore less
temperature. In the case of the twin towers, the fuel from a plane
for one of them was splashed out the opposite side of the building and
perhaps 1/3 of it was left. In both buildings the fuel was splashed
out thinly over a few floors and quickly burned up and was gone,
leaving the furniture that burned with even less heat than the fuel.
I bet the deniers liked the video.
> > 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).
>
Dewdney and I looked for the words 'phone', 'hijacked', and
'highjacked' and found none of them. You're looking at the wrong
paper. Here is the proper one, which I checked:
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,
>
> 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.
>
reemmber corectly, one of the planes that hit a twin tower struck
right in the exact floors where they had renewed the fireproofing.
But either way, the jet fuel and office furniture wouldn't reach the
critical temp.
> > 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.
>
it?
\
> > 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.
>
> You cannot tell what a substance is from looking at a video. It?s not a
> spectrogram.
>
Check my wording just above. I said 'molten metal'.
> > 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.
>
> You cannot tell what a substance is from looking at a video. It?s not a
> spectrogram.
>
> > Remember, the jet fuel and
> > office furniture are exhausted long before this, and they couldn't
> > 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>
Ah me. You managed to forget altogether all the witnesses and what
>
> >> <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>
they saw. You might argue that the molten metal was other than steel,
but are you now calling the witnesses liars? The firemen too? This
is long after the jet fuel and office furniture had exhausted itself.
If there was any fuel in cars, it would be gone soon after the
collapse by leaking away or being burned off. Gasoline is even more
volatile than jet fuel and if not burned, it would evaporate. Of
course all this doesn't apply to WTC7, which wasn't hit by a plane and
survived the debris hitting it in good order. And even the diesel
fuel for a few generators wouldn't last long just like the jet fuel in
the other buildings. Some pictures of 'molten' metal weren't molten,
but heated to a yellowish-red, before the molten stage.
> >> 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.
>
> I guess you didn't read the whole page that leads to the conclusion,
> which I excerpted.
>
of them were incorrect, especially in the earlier part. Near the end
there was an error where it mentions fire caused by 'fuel from
elevator hydraulics'. Only short elevators have hydraulics as far as
I know. High rise elevators are cable driven generally. An odd
mistake. It also mentioned fire being served oxygen from 'hollow
beams and tunnels'. Evetry one that I've seen was closed at all
ends. But if I'm wrong, show me the proof. It then said that office
contents had caused temps up to 1800 degrees F. But it was only a
guess since it said 'perhaps as hot as'. Not much in the way of
facts there if they're guessing.
> > 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.
>
> Excuse me, but you presented a conspiracy theory in this very post,
> about Larry Silverstein.
>
to label it a CT. This one takes only a little common sense. Here's
the entire statement of Silverstein's so we're both looking at the
same thing:
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling
me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the
fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the
smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull
and we watched the building collapse."
me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the
fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the
smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull
Already we have a problem... there were no firefighters in WTC 7:
1. "No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." [Fema
Report]
2. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7." [Popular Mechanics]
3. "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area,
Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from [WTC 7]
for safety reasons." [New York Times]
commander', but that fellow had ordered firefighters away from the
building earlier in the day before 11:30am. So why would that guy not
correct Silverstein if the real purpose of the statement was to 'pull'
the firefighting crew? And why would they wait to 'pull it' if the
crews were out long before? But we also have the really weird
juxtaposition of the statement to 'pull', and then 'we watched the
building collapse'. 'Pull' is a known old term for demolishing a
building, back when the buildings were 5 stories or less and they
could put a cable on it and literally pull it down. There is no doubt
that Silverstein made a dreadful mistake that day, but with all the
other things going on, many people didn't think about it, and it took
3 years for it to grow to huge proportions and then they had to come
up with SOME excuse for the statement. That's when they came up with
him wanting to 'pull' the firefighting crews for their safety. If you
think carefully about what was needed at the moment of his statement,
and realize that all firefighters were out of the building many hours
ago in the morning, then it comes out making sense if the building was
CDed. And that could NOT be done in an afternoon. It needed weeks,
maybe months to prepare.
> (Of course, alleging CD in itself is implicitly a conspiracy theory, no
> matter how you slice it.)
>
evidence...witnesses and logic along with common sense. All pointing
to CD. Tons of reasons for it, but that politics and for another
time.
everything'...:) I agree, we just don't agree on the explanation.
> >> 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.)
>
firefighters in the buildsing when he said it.
> >> 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?
>
> > 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.
>
>
> 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.
>
about it. Only later when people began going through these things was
it really made into a huge problem when they realized what it meant.
They also found out later that there were no firefighters in the
building since 11:30am that day, and Silverstein was talking to the
guy that had orderd them away from the building.
> > 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.
>
> > 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.?
>
complete Silverstein discussion above. There were no firefighters in
the building to 'pull' away from it.
> > The
> > excuse you tried took them 3 years before they made it up. He defined
> > the 'pull' phrase right in front of you and you missed it because of
> > your preconceived notions fed by debunkers. Second, Silverstein had
> > bought the complex a few months before the collapse. The complex had
> > extreme asbestos problems throughout much of the buildings in the
> > complex. The cost for abatement of the asbestos would be as much or
> > more than the cost of the buildings, and the city was getting antsy
> > about having the work done. A cost so high is a possible motive, but
> > the size of the insurance payment was huge and there was a clause in
> > the contract that doubled the payoff if there were a TERRRORIST cause
> > for any damage to the buildings. Third, Silverstein was interviewed
> > about the buildings and tried 'on the spot' to cover up the collapse
> > of WTC7, but he made big errors and now we have the proof in his own
> > words. Fourth, a simple piece of luck in talking with the military
> > might have brought the possibility of a 'false flag' operation, which
> > would also benefit the military and the administration. Profiteering
> > would run rampant. The silly story presented by the 'debunkers' fails.
>
> This is just ?stuff,? as Biden said of Ryan last night.
> Stuff and nonsense.
>
> 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.
>
disturbing. You're unable to take on new information and adjust to
it. That may be partly why you can't get away from the deniers
classic stance.
> >> "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.
> > 'As YOU pointed out'? Do you actually think your statements carry
> > weight in this type of discussion?
>
> Why would yours count then?
>
> > Are you knowledgeable in why NIST did
> > anything? I've presented a paper
>
> Do you know what ?presented a paper? means in academia?
> You didn?t do any such thing. You linked to a web article.
> I really don't think this was an attempt at misrepresentation though.
> You probably don?t know what ?peer-reviewed? means either.
> (No more than does, or so it would seem, Steven Jones.)
>
academics use 'preset' for new papers and documents and viewpoints.
However, it fits nicely with me presenting things for you to peruse.
As well, I'm fully aware of the term 'peer reviewed' and the jounrnals
that use the capability for article for publication. I'm surprised
that you have any knowledge of them though.
> > doing all the calculations and research
> > on temperatures, and the result of that is that temperatures from burning
> > jet fuel and office furniture wouldn't reach the temperature to weaken
> > steel. So that one is pushed aside. If you have something that
> > counteracts the paper proving fires didn't weaken the steel, now's the
> > time to put it out there.
>
> >> Check out this video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNhslGDz9lw
>
> > Now there's a good video. No story, just the scene of a few fires
> > here and there in WTC7, and some areas that burned and were out now,
> > nearby. Also you can see the fire in one area coming out grey and
> > black, meaning the fire was oxygen starved and therefore at a lower
> > temperature than what it could have been. As well, you can see the
> > smoke being held against the building and going past other windows,
> > giving the impression that many more windows were burning than really
> > were. Here's a video of the One Meridian Plaza fire in a 38 story
> > high rise. It burned for 18 hours, much longer than the WTC7. No
> > weakening of any metal supports was seen, and the building steel frame
> > stood for many years before they demolished it.
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzwxrDNxcps
>
> 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.
>
residential furniture (more heat than office furn.) does not generate
enough heat in 18 or more hours to weaken the steel frame of a
building. If a building stands on its own, and has a few fires
burning in it, that won't bring it down. A countdown and an order to
blow it will do the job though.
>
>
> >> And this link:http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
>
> > OK. I think we've dealt with that one. A long involved narration
> > trying to show that WTC7 came down for the reasons of fires and
> > damage. First, fires have already been proven that they weren't
> > involved because of the temperatures not being reached to weaken
> > steel. See above link.
>
> That?s a bullshit link.
> (Hey, two can play that game. Only, I'm right. Ha ha)
>
> > Second, the damage didn't bring the building
> > down. It stayed up as long as they let it after the damage was done
> > by falling debris. The buildings were planned to handle large planes
> > crashing into them. An amount of debris from nearby wasn't much
> > different, though probably less concentrated. Third, it has been
> > shown that there was a countdown and an intentional CD done to bring
> > the building down. This could not have been done without weeks or
> > months of preparation.
>
> So when did this happen?
>
instances of maintenance coming in at odd hours and a 36 hour period
near the event where ALL power was off, including security cameras and
other equipment.
http://world911truth.org/world-trade-center-employee-discusses-pre-911-power-downs/
> Any documented, authenticated (i.e., other than anecdotal), hard
> evidence of anything like that? Or even of a window of opportunity when
> this could have been accomplished?
>
they wanted.
> > If the preparation was done in advance for the
> > purpose of bringing down WTC7, then the other towers were probably
> > also prepared.
>
> "Probably"?!
>
> (Psst, "preparation" is always done "in advance.")
>
right now to be put in place tomorrow. Or 'I'm in the middle of
preparations, leave me alone."
> > This would have to be after a known 'terrorist' attack
> > would be made by planes crashing into the building,
>
> The preparation, which would seemingly (syntactically) be the antecedent
> of "This," would have been some time before.
>
> > a situation
> > already known to the authorities as a possibility.
>
> Sure seems a lot of work to go to in preparation for a "possibility."
>
Well, it's out of my area of argument for now, so don't hold me to it,
> > already known to the authorities as a possibility.
>
> Sure seems a lot of work to go to in preparation for a "possibility."
>
but I can think of a possibility...Bin Laden had the network and contacts
with the CIA from earlier on. I'm only guessing, but I bet if he was
offered to get people to do it, he might go along with it. But finding 19
middle east looking guys to go on planes seems possible to me. That's all
for later though. The key now is waking up the people that were put to
sleep over the 'crime'.
> > The various
> > reasons for causing the collapses have been listed above.
>
> "Listed"?
> Damn, I must have missed that! It was a hoot, I'm sure. But I don't have
> any more time now.
>
asking me about why in the world would Silverstein want to go through
all this just to injure his own property. I then gave you a list,
though I wasn't intereted in arguing it out. The Silverstein
adm,ission was very important in the scheme of things, but the reasons
were a sidelight.
> Or was that when you were talking about "false flag" operations?
> And you don't call yourself a CT?
>
have said. I would never come out with that on my own because I'm not
interested, and it isn 't time yet for that argument.
Lots of luck,
See ya,
Chris
Sandy McCroskey
Oct 14, 2012, 3:02:26 PM10/14/12
to
What a coincidence, I was just teliing a French friend what the word
“gullible” means.
Yes, I did indeed use the word “tales” to imply fiction.
We have no common ground for discussion, Chris. You and I disagree about
what is truly factual, and even how to determine what is a fact and
scientifically valid. We disagree about the scientific method.
Hate to break it to you, but that one man who happens to have a PhD
writes a paper claiming something does not make that something true. (By
the way, I got the info on Downdey's theory about the phone calls from
his Wikipedia entry.) Dewdney’s PhD is in mathematics (hence the Fourier
analysis deployed in his paper; I’ve used Fourier harmonic analysis
myself for electronic music).
If a person had an "open mind" about everything, they couldn't know
anything for certain, agreed? And I could also say you have a closed
mind, as you are so utterly convinced that controlled demolition brought
down the towers.
If you thought the “odds” against the buildings falling “into their own
footprint” (which they didn’t, quite, or, for example, WTC7 would still
be standing), you should have listened to the radio program I heard a
couple days after they fell in which an architect involved in their
design described their somewhat unusual (at least at the time, as I
gather) structure. He explained that they were made so that they
wouldn’t topple over in the event of structural failure and create a
firestorm that would engulf all of Lower Manhattan. Of course the way
they fell wasn’t the result of “coincidence” (whatever that is supposed
to mean, I can’t quite make sense of your use of that word here). It
happened because of physics and and the buildings’ load-bearing inner
cores.
Your interpretation of what Silverstein says is indeed a theory, which
does not jibe with what everyone understood him to be saying at the time
he said it and what he has said he meant when he said it. It is also the
only interpretation consistent with the facts of the matter. It is
ridiculous to think that he meant what you (and, uh, “coincidentally,”
the Truthers) say he meant and that he said it for all the world to hear!
You have nothing to offer in argument but sophistry, which you don’t
yourself recognize as such. For example, I pointed out it’s redundant to
say “preparation was done in advance,” and you say, “Nope. Wrong again.
on at this time is in advance of what it is *preparation* for. Hence the
"pre-" in "preparation," see?
It’s an utter waste of time to go around and around in circles with you.
/sm
“gullible” means.
Yes, I did indeed use the word “tales” to imply fiction.
We have no common ground for discussion, Chris. You and I disagree about
what is truly factual, and even how to determine what is a fact and
scientifically valid. We disagree about the scientific method.
Hate to break it to you, but that one man who happens to have a PhD
writes a paper claiming something does not make that something true. (By
the way, I got the info on Downdey's theory about the phone calls from
his Wikipedia entry.) Dewdney’s PhD is in mathematics (hence the Fourier
analysis deployed in his paper; I’ve used Fourier harmonic analysis
myself for electronic music).
If a person had an "open mind" about everything, they couldn't know
anything for certain, agreed? And I could also say you have a closed
mind, as you are so utterly convinced that controlled demolition brought
down the towers.
If you thought the “odds” against the buildings falling “into their own
footprint” (which they didn’t, quite, or, for example, WTC7 would still
be standing), you should have listened to the radio program I heard a
couple days after they fell in which an architect involved in their
design described their somewhat unusual (at least at the time, as I
gather) structure. He explained that they were made so that they
wouldn’t topple over in the event of structural failure and create a
firestorm that would engulf all of Lower Manhattan. Of course the way
they fell wasn’t the result of “coincidence” (whatever that is supposed
to mean, I can’t quite make sense of your use of that word here). It
happened because of physics and and the buildings’ load-bearing inner
cores.
Your interpretation of what Silverstein says is indeed a theory, which
does not jibe with what everyone understood him to be saying at the time
he said it and what he has said he meant when he said it. It is also the
only interpretation consistent with the facts of the matter. It is
ridiculous to think that he meant what you (and, uh, “coincidentally,”
the Truthers) say he meant and that he said it for all the world to hear!
You have nothing to offer in argument but sophistry, which you don’t
yourself recognize as such. For example, I pointed out it’s redundant to
say “preparation was done in advance,” and you say, “Nope. Wrong again.
Preparation can be going on 'at this current time' for later
execution.” That's not at all relevant to what I said. Preparation going
on at this time is in advance of what it is *preparation* for. Hence the
"pre-" in "preparation," see?
It’s an utter waste of time to go around and around in circles with you.
/sm
Sandy McCroskey
Oct 14, 2012, 3:02:34 PM10/14/12
to
On 10/13/12 11:02 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Oct 12, 9:52 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
> Do you claim to be a scientist, or in some way a part of such an
> organization? Are an official agent for the 'scientific consensus'?
> Or are ypou simply doing waht you have right along and assuming that
> you're right about everything you thought and therefore everyone else
> is wrong?
>
No, as I said, I am a layman, like you.
> On Oct 12, 9:52 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
> Do you claim to be a scientist, or in some way a part of such an
> organization? Are an official agent for the 'scientific consensus'?
> Or are ypou simply doing waht you have right along and assuming that
> you're right about everything you thought and therefore everyone else
> is wrong?
>
And I could turn your accusation right back against you for the same reason.
It's amusing that you still don't see that.
So according to you, *I* believe only what I want, but you must think
you have superior scientific knowledge (when it is all too clear you
don't) and are a paragon of objectivity!
Tell me another one!
Your favorite "experts" haven't managed to convince many of their fellow
scientists.
I pointed out that 1,700 "architects and engineers" is an
inconsequential fraction of all the architects and engineers in the
world (even if all those "engineers" were really trained in relevant
fields), and you replied, in an e-mail, that now the number is up to
*1,725*, what did I think of that?
>?!<
I was very disappointed that you didn't post that to the group. So here
it is, for everyone else's delectation.
/sandy
Anthony Marsh
Oct 14, 2012, 6:51:07 PM10/14/12
to
> difference in time to soften the steel. The video also uses an open
can sag within minutes. I doesn't take hours to weaken. Any blacksmith
knows this. I recently watched a show where a modern blacksmith recreates
a Viking sword, not made for a thousand years. It took a lot of study,
preparation and planning. Any tiny mistake could have ruined the
experiment, but it came out perfectly. The metal had to be perfect, the
temperature and oxygenation had to be perfect. The experiment worked and
the sword came out perfect.
> area to allow full oxygenation, which was not the case in the floors
> of the twin towers, where there was less oxygen and therefore less
> temperature. In the case of the twin towers, the fuel from a plane
> for one of them was splashed out the opposite side of the building and
> perhaps 1/3 of it was left. In both buildings the fuel was splashed
> out thinly over a few floors and quickly burned up and was gone,
> leaving the furniture that burned with even less heat than the fuel.
one area.
> I bet the deniers liked the video.
>
Were the floor hangers coated with fire proofing?
molten aluminum.
>
>>> 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/yellow 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>
>
> Ah me. You managed to forget altogether all the witnesses and what
> they saw. You might argue that the molten metal was other than steel,
> but are you now calling the witnesses liars? The firemen too? This
know the exact temperature or type of metal.
> is long after the jet fuel and office furniture had exhausted itself.
starts out high enough.
> If there was any fuel in cars, it would be gone soon after the
> collapse by leaking away or being burned off. Gasoline is even more
elevator?
> volatile than jet fuel and if not burned, it would evaporate. Of
> course all this doesn't apply to WTC7, which wasn't hit by a plane and
> survived the debris hitting it in good order. And even the diesel
Building survived the impact of a B-25. Luckily it was low on gasoline.
> fuel for a few generators wouldn't last long just like the jet fuel in
> the other buildings. Some pictures of 'molten' metal weren't molten,
> but heated to a yellowish-red, before the molten stage.
>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> I guess you didn't read the whole page that leads to the conclusion,
>> which I excerpted.
>>
> Yes, I read most of the comments they inserted in the video and many
> of them were incorrect, especially in the earlier part. Near the end
> there was an error where it mentions fire caused by 'fuel from
> elevator hydraulics'. Only short elevators have hydraulics as far as
> I know. High rise elevators are cable driven generally. An odd
> mistake. It also mentioned fire being served oxygen from 'hollow
> beams and tunnels'. Evetry one that I've seen was closed at all
> ends. But if I'm wrong, show me the proof. It then said that office
> contents had caused temps up to 1800 degrees F. But it was only a
> guess since it said 'perhaps as hot as'. Not much in the way of
> facts there if they're guessing.
>
office fires. Maybe hotel fires have gotten that hot.
what they do.
> that Silverstein made a dreadful mistake that day, but with all the
> other things going on, many people didn't think about it, and it took
> 3 years for it to grow to huge proportions and then they had to come
> up with SOME excuse for the statement. That's when they came up with
> him wanting to 'pull' the firefighting crews for their safety. If you
> think carefully about what was needed at the moment of his statement,
> and realize that all firefighters were out of the building many hours
> ago in the morning, then it comes out making sense if the building was
> CDed. And that could NOT be done in an afternoon. It needed weeks,
> maybe months to prepare.
>
its own.
started the collapse, not the I-beams.
>>
>>
>>>> And this link:http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
>>
>>> OK. I think we've dealt with that one. A long involved narration
>>> trying to show that WTC7 came down for the reasons of fires and
>>> damage. First, fires have already been proven that they weren't
>>> involved because of the temperatures not being reached to weaken
>>> steel. See above link.
>>
>> That?s a bullshit link.
>> (Hey, two can play that game. Only, I'm right. Ha ha)
>>
> Yes, looking at it I see 'debunking' so it must be yours.
>
>>> Second, the damage didn't bring the building
>>> down. It stayed up as long as they let it after the damage was done
>>> by falling debris. The buildings were planned to handle large planes
>>> crashing into them. An amount of debris from nearby wasn't much
>>> different, though probably less concentrated. Third, it has been
>>> shown that there was a countdown and an intentional CD done to bring
>>> the building down. This could not have been done without weeks or
>>> months of preparation.
>>
>> So when did this happen?
>>
> Previous to the planes striking, of course. There were many
> instances of maintenance coming in at odd hours and a 36 hour period
> near the event where ALL power was off, including security cameras and
> other equipment.
> http://world911truth.org/world-trade-center-employee-discusses-pre-911-power-downs/
>
Who got the insurance money for the attack on the Pentagon or the
planned attacks on the Capitol building and White House?
Must be the Jews, eh?
In the 70s we had a rash of landlords burning down their buildings near
Symphony Hall. I moved out just in time.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 14, 2012, 7:07:28 PM10/14/12
to
is produced only at one Top Secret DoD facility.
Any teenage punk can make thermite in his backyard. Watch some YouTube
videos.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 14, 2012, 7:09:36 PM10/14/12
to
John, no one said the steel melted. Just drop the nutty talk.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 14, 2012, 7:10:00 PM10/14/12
to
On 10/13/2012 10:51 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> CJ
>
mainframetech
Oct 14, 2012, 8:09:07 PM10/14/12
to
On Oct 14, 3:02 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> What a coincidence, I was just teliing a French friend what the word
> gullible means.
>
LOL! Zing! Another debare point lost in debating the person...:)
> What a coincidence, I was just teliing a French friend what the word
> gullible means.
>
> Yes, I did indeed use the word tales to imply fiction.
>
their head into the sand.
> We have no common ground for discussion, Chris. You and I disagree about
> what is truly factual, and even how to determine what is a fact and
> scientifically valid. We disagree about the scientific method.
>
and run away from it going on to some other thing for safety.
> Hate to break it to you, but that one man who happens to have a PhD
> writes a paper claiming something does not make that something true. (By
> the way, I got the info on Downdey's theory about the phone calls from
> his Wikipedia entry.) Dewdney s PhD is in mathematics (hence the Fourier
> analysis deployed in his paper; I ve used Fourier harmonic analysis
> myself for electronic music).
>
anyone. Because you can speak of math methods, does that somehow make
a paper by someone invalid? If you understood the paper (did you?)
perhaps you would argue against the points made there and I can pass
them on to him for his comments? You seem rarely to actually debate a
point mad, you just go on to something else.
> If a person had an "open mind" about everything, they couldn't know
> anything for certain, agreed? And I could also say you have a closed
> mind, as you are so utterly convinced that controlled demolition brought
> down the towers.
>
to new ideas and changing ideas as well. An open mind doesn't mean
you accept anything that comes down the pike, only that you are
intelligent to accept new information and givew an objective look,
then decide whether tio make the information your own. All very
obvious. My being convinced about the data and the witnesses doe not
mean that I will not lok at new information. How do you think I was
convinced that the fall of the towers was not a simply natural
occurrence from burning furniture as some foolish prople do? While it
didn't look right to me, I din't accept the obviuos untilI hadlooked
through the information available to everyone.
> If you thought the odds against the buildings falling into their own
> footprint (which they didn't, quite, or, for example, WTC7 would still
> be standing), you should have listened to the radio program I heard a
> couple days after they fell in which an architect involved in their
> design described their somewhat unusual (at least at the time, as I
> gather) structure. He explained that they were made so that they
> wouldn t topple over in the event of structural failure and create a
> firestorm that would engulf all of Lower Manhattan. Of course the way
> they fell wasn t the result of coincidence (whatever that is supposed
> to mean, I can t quite make sense of your use of that word here). It
> happened because of physics and and the buildings load-bearing inner
> cores.
>
you can make those guesses? Or support an unknown architect on the
radio? Nothing there as backup. No way to check it out, just talk.
Again no discussion or proof of anything, only your unsupported
conversation, no weight, remember?
> Your interpretation of what Silverstein says is indeed a theory, which
> does not jibe with what everyone understood him to be saying at the time
> he said it and what he has said he meant when he said it. It is also the
> only interpretation consistent with the facts of the matter. It is
> ridiculous to think that he meant what you (and, uh, coincidentally,
> the Truthers) say he meant and that he said it for all the world to hear!
>
him saying it. Second, you have NOT proved or even supported a fact
that says "everyone understood him to be saying" what you would like
to think he meant. Third, you have been shown why he could not be
saying what you and other deniers would like him to have said, and you
seem to have ignored (as usual) the fact that there was no firemen in
the building to be 'pulled' meaning that wans't why he used the term
for demolishing a building at that point.
> You have nothing to offer in argument but sophistry, which you don t
> yourself recognize as such.
However, I'm sure many would find it to be condescending, which is a
method you often use to try and make your point somehow valid. It
doesn't work. You might try intelligent disagreement where you
actually present an argument making sense in the context of our chat
at this point, but no, that hasn't happened.
> For example, I pointed out it s redundant to
> say preparation was done in advance, and you say, Nope. Wrong again.
> Preparation can be going on 'at this current time' for later
> execution. That's not at all relevant to what I said. Preparation going
> on at this time is in advance of what it is *preparation* for. Hence the
> "pre-" in "preparation," see?
>
> It s an utter waste of time to go around and around in circles with you.
>
arguing a point instead of running away from it with a load of old
fish left in your place. I offer points concerning what Silverstein
said, including that there were no firemen in the building to 'pull',
meaning that Silverstein was not meaning them by using the term, and
you go into a story about how I made circles for you. Naah. You had
no support for the meaning of Silverstein's words and you don't have
any support for the denier contention that he meant puling 'fire crew'
rather than pulling the building, which is the way his sentence was
constructed. If he had meant 'fire crew' (or which there were none)
the sentences would have been constructed differently, as you can
probably guess, since you appear to speak English. Silverstein ca
also speak English, and obviouly he has spoken it for some time.
Anthony Marsh
Oct 14, 2012, 8:10:39 PM10/14/12
to
But few have the same places of birth on the same day at the same time.
> 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.
just because they had the same name as a terrorist?
My doctor should be put in Gitmo just because his name is Osama?
What form of racism are you proposing?
> 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.
>
al Qeada. They wanted those oil profits.
>>
>> 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.
>
Buildings fall into their own footprints all the time.
>>>> 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.
>
aluminum.
> scientist, he is, and he is 'noted'. You have probably forgotten by now
> of his paper that was put here for you. Jet fuel was proven to not be
> what weakened the steel. Here's the rundown on Dewdney:
>
that or not?
> http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~akd/PERSONAL/hp.html
>
>
> As a sidepoint, which is important for all deniers, much of their
> information was from NIST, and here's what NIST has to say about their
> work:
mainframetech
Oct 14, 2012, 8:11:57 PM10/14/12
to
On Oct 14, 3:02 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 10/13/12 11:02 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Oct 12, 9:52 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> > Do you claim to be a scientist, or in some way a part of such an
> > organization? Are an official agent for the 'scientific consensus'?
> > Or are ypou simply doing waht you have right along and assuming that
> > you're right about everything you thought and therefore everyone else
> > is wrong?
>
> No, as I said, I am a layman, like you.
> And I could turn your accusation right back against you for the same reason.
> It's amusing that you still don't see that.
Ah, if only I were wise and intelligent like you, then I could play
> On 10/13/12 11:02 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > On Oct 12, 9:52 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> > Do you claim to be a scientist, or in some way a part of such an
> > organization? Are an official agent for the 'scientific consensus'?
> > Or are ypou simply doing waht you have right along and assuming that
> > you're right about everything you thought and therefore everyone else
> > is wrong?
>
> No, as I said, I am a layman, like you.
> And I could turn your accusation right back against you for the same reason.
> It's amusing that you still don't see that.
condescending too, to run away from the facts and direct argument that
are so difficult to manage...:)
> So according to you, *I* believe only what I want, but you must think
> you have superior scientific knowledge (when it is all too clear you
> don't) and are a paragon of objectivity!
> Tell me another one!
myself a paragon of anything, as some people seem to think they are. I
make my mistakes as I se you do and I try to make things better in the
future whern I realize them. Your perhaps trying to put a mantle on me
that doesn't fit nad is not of my own making, and it isn'r working out too
well.
> Your favorite "experts" haven't managed to convince many of their fellow
> scientists.
that you could share with us? Or is this more of the usual bluff to
run away from what is being argued? Did you consider that many A&E
professions might not want to chance beng honest about their feelings
on the subject and sign up becasue of deniers like yourself?
> I pointed out that 1,700 "architects and engineers" is an
> inconsequential fraction of all the architects and engineers in the
> world (even if all those "engineers" were really trained in relevant
> fields), and you replied, in an e-mail, that now the number is up to
> *1,725*, what did I think of that?
>
hide from the factual side of the case? And BTW, the number is up to
1,732 now. It moves continually.
> I was very disappointed that you didn't post that to the group. So here
> it is, for everyone else's delectation.
available to the group. If they had an interest, they would comment.
See ya...:)
Chris
Anthony Marsh
Oct 14, 2012, 10:47:24 PM10/14/12
to
On 10/14/2012 3:02 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> What a coincidence, I was just teliing a French friend what the word
> ?gullible? means.
> What a coincidence, I was just teliing a French friend what the word
>
> Yes, I did indeed use the word ?tales? to imply fiction.
>
> We have no common ground for discussion, Chris. You and I disagree about
> what is truly factual, and even how to determine what is a fact and
> scientifically valid. We disagree about the scientific method.
>
> Hate to break it to you, but that one man who happens to have a PhD
> writes a paper claiming something does not make that something true. (By
> the way, I got the info on Downdey's theory about the phone calls from
> his Wikipedia entry.) Dewdney?s PhD is in mathematics (hence the Fourier
> We have no common ground for discussion, Chris. You and I disagree about
> what is truly factual, and even how to determine what is a fact and
> scientifically valid. We disagree about the scientific method.
>
> Hate to break it to you, but that one man who happens to have a PhD
> writes a paper claiming something does not make that something true. (By
> the way, I got the info on Downdey's theory about the phone calls from
> analysis deployed in his paper; I?ve used Fourier harmonic analysis
> myself for electronic music).
>
> If a person had an "open mind" about everything, they couldn't know
> anything for certain, agreed? And I could also say you have a closed
> mind, as you are so utterly convinced that controlled demolition brought
> down the towers.
>
> If you thought the ?odds? against the buildings falling ?into their own
>
> If a person had an "open mind" about everything, they couldn't know
> anything for certain, agreed? And I could also say you have a closed
> mind, as you are so utterly convinced that controlled demolition brought
> down the towers.
>
> footprint? (which they didn?t, quite, or, for example, WTC7 would still
> be standing), you should have listened to the radio program I heard a
> couple days after they fell in which an architect involved in their
> design described their somewhat unusual (at least at the time, as I
> gather) structure. He explained that they were made so that they
> wouldn?t topple over in the event of structural failure and create a
> couple days after they fell in which an architect involved in their
> design described their somewhat unusual (at least at the time, as I
> gather) structure. He explained that they were made so that they
> firestorm that would engulf all of Lower Manhattan. Of course the way
> they fell wasn?t the result of ?coincidence? (whatever that is supposed
> to mean, I can?t quite make sense of your use of that word here). It
> happened because of physics and and the buildings? load-bearing inner
> cores.
>
> Your interpretation of what Silverstein says is indeed a theory, which
> does not jibe with what everyone understood him to be saying at the time
> he said it and what he has said he meant when he said it. It is also the
> only interpretation consistent with the facts of the matter. It is
> ridiculous to think that he meant what you (and, uh, ?coincidentally,?
>
> Your interpretation of what Silverstein says is indeed a theory, which
> does not jibe with what everyone understood him to be saying at the time
> he said it and what he has said he meant when he said it. It is also the
> only interpretation consistent with the facts of the matter. It is
> the Truthers) say he meant and that he said it for all the world to hear!
>
It is not a theory. It is a fact that Controlled Demolitions used the
>
term 'pull" to mean bring down a buiding. Silverstein did not say "pull
THEM" as in pull out all the firefighters (who BTW were not in the
building then anyway), but rather "pull IT" which is third person
singular which refers immediately back to the thing being discussed, the
building.
> You have nothing to offer in argument but sophistry, which you don?t
> yourself recognize as such. For example, I pointed out it?s redundant to
> say ?preparation was done in advance,? and you say, ?Nope. Wrong again.
> Preparation can be going on 'at this current time' for later
> execution.? That's not at all relevant to what I said. Preparation going
> on at this time is in advance of what it is *preparation* for. Hence the
> "pre-" in "preparation," see?
>
> It?s an utter waste of time to go around and around in circles with you.
> "pre-" in "preparation," see?
>
curtjester1
Oct 14, 2012, 10:49:29 PM10/14/12
to
On Oct 14, 7:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 10/13/2012 10:51 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> > On Oct 13, 12:12 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 10/12/2012 5:34 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
>
> >> It did not come down when commanded. It came down on its own.
>
> > Buildings don't come down by fires.
>
> Of course they do. Remember when Nero fiddled while Rome burned?
>
Those were typical fires, mostly homes, and nothing to do with steel-
> On 10/13/2012 10:51 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> > On Oct 13, 12:12 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 10/12/2012 5:34 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
>
> >> It did not come down when commanded. It came down on its own.
>
> > Buildings don't come down by fires.
>
> Of course they do. Remember when Nero fiddled while Rome burned?
>
beamed structures, that would have remained.
> > 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.
>
> Lots of other buildings have collapses on their own.
>
>
crumpling.
>
> >http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
>
> >http://skeptosis.blogspot.com/2007/02/fire-vs-steel-facts.html
>
No comment?
>
> >> Watch the video where a pit of burning jet fuel weakens a steel beam
> >> until it sags.>> Check out this video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNhslGDz9lw
>
> > Huh???
>
> > You can pull up videos though, that have high rise strucure that burned a
> > lot hotter, a tremendous amount of a lot longer, and was totally engulfed
> > with flame, with no collapsing.
>
> Of course, but not built the same and without jet fuel burning.
tell by the black smoke that it's not even hot, and they don't even burn
that long. The office stuff was burning. And the one in China (2009)
lasted six hours of huge flame, and nothing in the steel was compromised.
Here is the account of the B-25 going into the Empire State Building in
1945. Very similar. The amount of floors, jet fuel spilling and fires
behaving in a similar matter. Only problem is the fires were put out, the
plane was removed, and the building repaired.
http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm
CJ
Sandy McCroskey
Oct 14, 2012, 10:54:49 PM10/14/12
to
On 10/14/12 8:11 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>> >I pointed out that 1,700 "architects and engineers" is an
>> >inconsequential fraction of all the architects and engineers in the
>> >world (even if all those "engineers" were really trained in relevant
>> >fields), and you replied, in an e-mail, that now the number is up to
>> >*1,725*, what did I think of that?
>> >
> I don't remember asking you that question.
That was a paraphrase, which is why I didn't put quotemarks around it,
>> >I pointed out that 1,700 "architects and engineers" is an
>> >inconsequential fraction of all the architects and engineers in the
>> >world (even if all those "engineers" were really trained in relevant
>> >fields), and you replied, in an e-mail, that now the number is up to
>> >*1,725*, what did I think of that?
>> >
> I don't remember asking you that question.
which would indicate a direct quote.
I have not seen this exchange posted on the group alt.assassination.jfk.
Perhaps it was sent to the nuthouse, but I don't hang out there:
<quote on>
From: mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: 9/11 Required Reading: "500 Days"
Date: October 7, 2012 6:55:59 PM EDT
To: Sandy McCroskey <gwmcc...@earthlink.net>
[...]
[Sandy:] 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.
[Chris:] I doubt that many professionals are willing to be honest about
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.
their feelings where they might lose business from phony patriots that
think that 'controlled Demolition couldn't do it. By the way, the
number is now up to 1,725. It grows steadily.
</quote off>
And now you say:
> And BTW, the number is up to
> 1,732 now. It moves continually.
>
That proves it, I guess.
The jig's up.
You're really just in this for laughs, aren't you?
Here I was earnestly trying to convince you to look at the other side of
the issue, but you were just putting us all on.
/sm
Anthony Marsh
Oct 15, 2012, 1:49:56 PM10/15/12
to
On 10/14/2012 10:49 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> On Oct 14, 7:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/13/2012 10:51 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 13, 12:12 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2012 5:34 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>
>>
>>>> It did not come down when commanded. It came down on its own.
>>
>>> Buildings don't come down by fires.
>>
>> Of course they do. Remember when Nero fiddled while Rome burned?
>>
> Those were typical fires, mostly homes, and nothing to do with steel-
> beamed structures, that would have remained.
>
You didn't make any qualifications in your statement. You just flatly
> On Oct 14, 7:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/13/2012 10:51 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 13, 12:12 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2012 5:34 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>
>>
>>>> It did not come down when commanded. It came down on its own.
>>
>>> Buildings don't come down by fires.
>>
>> Of course they do. Remember when Nero fiddled while Rome burned?
>>
> Those were typical fires, mostly homes, and nothing to do with steel-
> beamed structures, that would have remained.
>
stated that building never collapse due to fire.
Now you are changing the conditions because I caught you mouthing off.
Next month after I show you more examples you will change it to
buildings with more than 70 floors.
>>> 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.
>>
>> Lots of other buildings have collapses on their own.
>>
>>
>
> But not by fire, when there are steel beams, and of course no
> crumpling.
>
and type of beams. Try to narrow the conditions down until they can only
apply to the twin towers and WTC7. Don't mention the Madrid Fire.
And who said anything about crumpling?
>>
>>> http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
>>
>>> http://skeptosis.blogspot.com/2007/02/fire-vs-steel-facts.html
>>
>
> No comment?
>
>
>>
>>>> Watch the video where a pit of burning jet fuel weakens a steel beam
>>>> until it sags.>> Check out this video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNhslGDz9lw
>>
>>> Huh???
>>
>>> You can pull up videos though, that have high rise strucure that burned a
>>> lot hotter, a tremendous amount of a lot longer, and was totally engulfed
>>> with flame, with no collapsing.
>>
>> Of course, but not built the same and without jet fuel burning.
>
> But jet fuel doesn't make it hotter than a oxygen-induced fire. They can
Oxygen induced WHAT? Alcohol? Gasoline?
> tell by the black smoke that it's not even hot, and they don't even burn
> that long. The office stuff was burning. And the one in China (2009)
> lasted six hours of huge flame, and nothing in the steel was compromised.
>
> Here is the account of the B-25 going into the Empire State Building in
> 1945. Very similar. The amount of floors, jet fuel spilling and fires
> behaving in a similar matter. Only problem is the fires were put out, the
> plane was removed, and the building repaired.
>
> http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm
>
and it didn't use jet fuel. Gasoline burns at a lower temperature and
burns off more quickly. Plus their tanks were almost empty. That's why
they didn't want to fly the long way AROUND NYC.
And someone fixed the sprinklers and got them working.
The difference I was pointing out was about IMPACT not burning.
> CJ
>
Sandy McCroskey
Oct 15, 2012, 1:50:44 PM10/15/12
to
On 10/14/12 10:47 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 10/14/2012 3:02 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>
>snip<
> On 10/14/2012 3:02 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>
>>
>> Your interpretation of what Silverstein says is indeed a theory, which
>> does not jibe with what everyone understood him to be saying at the time
>> he said it and what he has said he meant when he said it. It is also the
>> only interpretation consistent with the facts of the matter. It is
>> ridiculous to think that he meant what you (and, uh, ?coincidentally,?
>> the Truthers) say he meant and that he said it for all the world to hear!
>>
>
> It is not a theory. It is a fact that Controlled Demolitions used the
> term 'pull" to mean bring down a buiding. Silverstein did not say "pull
> THEM" as in pull out all the firefighters (who BTW were not in the
> building then anyway), but rather "pull IT" which is third person
> singular which refers immediately back to the thing being discussed, the
> building.
>
preceding sentence, it was clear what he meant.
They used to talk about "pulling down" a building in reference to
controlled demo of four or five story buildings. It's a coincidence that
he used a word that would play into the Truthers' fantasies.
/sm
curtjester1
Oct 15, 2012, 1:52:53 PM10/15/12
to
because of faulty programming. By earthquake? Usually go the way of
where the building gets compromised first, and topple to that
direction. I am going to hazard a guess that the only way buildings
fall straight down or nearly so, is that main structure points are
compromised at nearly all the same time. So, in the case of the
WTC's, can you say that a fire would burn evenly, effectively at all
the right spots at all the right temperatures for this allowance of
mass falling all together? And of course what about the upper
verticle and horizontal beams? There is no fire to melt them, so why
would they 'disintegrate'?
http://videosift.com/video/Building-Topples-Onto-Another?loadcomm=1
CJ
>
> read more »
Sandy McCroskey
Oct 15, 2012, 1:53:51 PM10/15/12
to
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 9:38 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> snip! <
>> Well now wait a minute. I know the main intent of that is to dispute the
>> official explanation. However, it also suggests the possibility of an
>> alternate explanation, if not for why WTC 7 collapsed, then at least for
>> the order to evacuate. They had had such terrible loss of life already.
>> The two large towers had already collapsed many hours earlier. The
>> earliest estimates were that thousands of people had been killed, and
>> indeed though the early estimates which much higher than the reality, the
>> final death toll still remained in the thousands, plural. Nothing even
>> remotely like this had ever happened in a single day in any American city
>> in the entire history of this country. And more than 100 firefighters
>> alone had already been lost on this single day. Why does the evacuation
>> order necessarily need to be motivated by an advance knowledge of the
>> time
>> the building would collapse? This does at least confirm that there was
>> indeed a raging fire in the building, and given the horrific death toll
>> that had already happened that morning, I'm not sure I blame them for
>> finally deciding to cut their losses and evacuate the building due to the
>> fire alone, and not necessarily due to any suspicion at that time that
>> this building might also collapse.
>>
>
> The building had already been evacuated several hours earlier. The final
> decision was to pull down the building in a controlled way so that it
> would not damage any surrounding buildings.
>
Ha ha. You don't "pull down" a 47-story building. It wouldn't even enter
your mind. That's not the appropriate term in such a case.
Check out the use of your precious word "pull" in the quote from Chief
Daniel Nigro of the FDNY below, and especially (a more serious matter,
the "pull the building" argument is just as silly as harping on the fact
that Oswald, caught nearly red-handed, claimed to be a "patsy") check
out the timeline below, from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7437516.stm (but
the page is quoting NIST, so you'll no doubt say it's just the dadgummed
gummint...!). Let's pick it up at 3pm:
<quote on>
Around 1500 Chief Daniel Nigro of FDNY takes the decision to make an
evacuation zone around Tower 7 in case of collapse.
Everybody is pulled away and rescue efforts in this zone are stopped,
Nigro later says: "The biggest decision was to make an evacuation zone
around building seven, to pull everyone away to stop the rescue efforts
that were going on which was very difficult to do because there were
people trapped still and to step back, to step back and wait."
According to Nist: "Around 3pm fires were observed on floors 7 and 12
along the north face. The fire on floor 12 appeared to bypass the
northeast corner and was first observed at a point approximately one
third of the width of the building from the northeast corner, and then
spread both east and west across the north face." (Nist interim report
on WTC 7, Chapter 1. Page 18 )
After 1500 "Sometime later [than 3pm], fires were observed on floors 8
and 13 with the fire on floor 8 moving from west to east and the fire on
floor 13 moving from east to west. At this time, the fire on floor 7
appeared to have stopped progressing near the middle of the north face.
"The fire on floor 8 continued to move east on the north face,
eventually reaching the northeast corner and moving to the east face."
(NIST interim report on WTC 7, Chapter 1. Page 18)
Around 1645 "Around 4.45pm a photograph showed fires on floors 7, 8, 9,
and 11 near the middle; floor 12 was burned out by this time. Interview
responses indicate that there was no water in the standpipe system
supplying the sprinklers in WTC 7." (Nist interim report on WTC 7,
Chapter 1. Page 18 )
1721 World Trade Centre 7 collapses. (Nist L - 17) Nist interim report
on WTC 7. Appendix L.1.7)
</quote>
Two and a half hours after the evacuation order (which would be before
everyone was evacuated) was given. I don't call that "several" hours
(although it is two and a *half*).
The order was "to pull everyone away to stop the rescue efforts,"
meaning a crew of firemen was still engaged when the order was given.
/sm
> On 10/10/2012 9:38 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> snip! <
>> Well now wait a minute. I know the main intent of that is to dispute the
>> official explanation. However, it also suggests the possibility of an
>> alternate explanation, if not for why WTC 7 collapsed, then at least for
>> the order to evacuate. They had had such terrible loss of life already.
>> The two large towers had already collapsed many hours earlier. The
>> earliest estimates were that thousands of people had been killed, and
>> indeed though the early estimates which much higher than the reality, the
>> final death toll still remained in the thousands, plural. Nothing even
>> remotely like this had ever happened in a single day in any American city
>> in the entire history of this country. And more than 100 firefighters
>> alone had already been lost on this single day. Why does the evacuation
>> order necessarily need to be motivated by an advance knowledge of the
>> time
>> the building would collapse? This does at least confirm that there was
>> indeed a raging fire in the building, and given the horrific death toll
>> that had already happened that morning, I'm not sure I blame them for
>> finally deciding to cut their losses and evacuate the building due to the
>> fire alone, and not necessarily due to any suspicion at that time that
>> this building might also collapse.
>>
>
> The building had already been evacuated several hours earlier. The final
> decision was to pull down the building in a controlled way so that it
> would not damage any surrounding buildings.
>
Ha ha. You don't "pull down" a 47-story building. It wouldn't even enter
your mind. That's not the appropriate term in such a case.
Check out the use of your precious word "pull" in the quote from Chief
Daniel Nigro of the FDNY below, and especially (a more serious matter,
the "pull the building" argument is just as silly as harping on the fact
that Oswald, caught nearly red-handed, claimed to be a "patsy") check
out the timeline below, from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7437516.stm (but
the page is quoting NIST, so you'll no doubt say it's just the dadgummed
gummint...!). Let's pick it up at 3pm:
<quote on>
Around 1500 Chief Daniel Nigro of FDNY takes the decision to make an
evacuation zone around Tower 7 in case of collapse.
Everybody is pulled away and rescue efforts in this zone are stopped,
Nigro later says: "The biggest decision was to make an evacuation zone
around building seven, to pull everyone away to stop the rescue efforts
that were going on which was very difficult to do because there were
people trapped still and to step back, to step back and wait."
According to Nist: "Around 3pm fires were observed on floors 7 and 12
along the north face. The fire on floor 12 appeared to bypass the
northeast corner and was first observed at a point approximately one
third of the width of the building from the northeast corner, and then
spread both east and west across the north face." (Nist interim report
on WTC 7, Chapter 1. Page 18 )
After 1500 "Sometime later [than 3pm], fires were observed on floors 8
and 13 with the fire on floor 8 moving from west to east and the fire on
floor 13 moving from east to west. At this time, the fire on floor 7
appeared to have stopped progressing near the middle of the north face.
"The fire on floor 8 continued to move east on the north face,
eventually reaching the northeast corner and moving to the east face."
(NIST interim report on WTC 7, Chapter 1. Page 18)
Around 1645 "Around 4.45pm a photograph showed fires on floors 7, 8, 9,
and 11 near the middle; floor 12 was burned out by this time. Interview
responses indicate that there was no water in the standpipe system
supplying the sprinklers in WTC 7." (Nist interim report on WTC 7,
Chapter 1. Page 18 )
1721 World Trade Centre 7 collapses. (Nist L - 17) Nist interim report
on WTC 7. Appendix L.1.7)
</quote>
Two and a half hours after the evacuation order (which would be before
everyone was evacuated) was given. I don't call that "several" hours
(although it is two and a *half*).
The order was "to pull everyone away to stop the rescue efforts,"
meaning a crew of firemen was still engaged when the order was given.
/sm
mainframetech
Oct 15, 2012, 3:35:15 PM10/15/12
to
On Oct 14, 10:54 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
and limited in what you can post.
> <quote on>
> From: mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com>
nuthouse? I'm happily surprised to see you taking my part in this
discussion, and hope that soon you will rethink your views on Silverstein,
who had no reason to 'pull' fire crew, since there were none in the
building since the morning.
The videos you showed were almost word for word similar to many I have
viewed over the years. I wasn't able to learn much from them past
previous viewings. Most of them have the same problems, proclaiming
things not proved, a condescending attitude that it would be impossible
for anyone in this day and age to cause such a development as the
collapses, hunting around for the tiniest litle thing to pick at, in hopes
it will convince some one, and an unabiding anger at anyone that would
dare to suggest that the buildings could be brought down by CD. Usually
people who do not seem to be mentally able to handle spatial orientation
or concepts. It's not their fault always, they just don't have the tools
for it.
Chris
wrote:
> On 10/14/12 8:11 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> >> >I pointed out that 1,700 "architects and engineers" is an
> >> >inconsequential fraction of all the architects and engineers in the
> >> >world (even if all those "engineers" were really trained in relevant
> >> >fields), and you replied, in an e-mail, that now the number is up to
> >> >*1,725*, what did I think of that?
>
> > I don't remember asking you that question.
>
> That was a paraphrase, which is why I didn't put quotemarks around it,
> which would indicate a direct quote.
> I have not seen this exchange posted on the group alt.assassination.jfk.
> Perhaps it was sent to the nuthouse, but I don't hang out there:
I don't think it would last long in that forum, it's a hosted forum
>
> >> >I pointed out that 1,700 "architects and engineers" is an
> >> >inconsequential fraction of all the architects and engineers in the
> >> >world (even if all those "engineers" were really trained in relevant
> >> >fields), and you replied, in an e-mail, that now the number is up to
> >> >*1,725*, what did I think of that?
>
> > I don't remember asking you that question.
>
> That was a paraphrase, which is why I didn't put quotemarks around it,
> which would indicate a direct quote.
> I have not seen this exchange posted on the group alt.assassination.jfk.
> Perhaps it was sent to the nuthouse, but I don't hang out there:
and limited in what you can post.
> <quote on>
> From: mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: 9/11 Required Reading: "500 Days"
> Date: October 7, 2012 6:55:59 PM EDT
> To: Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net>
> Date: October 7, 2012 6:55:59 PM EDT
>
> [...]
>
> [Sandy:] 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.
>
> [Chris:] I doubt that many professionals are willing to be honest about
> their feelings where they might lose business from phony patriots that
> think that 'controlled Demolition couldn't do it. By the way, the
> number is now up to 1,725. It grows steadily.
>
> </quote off>
>
> And now you say:
>
> > And BTW, the number is up to
> > 1,732 now. It moves continually.
>
> HA HA HA
>
> That proves it, I guess.
> The jig's up.
>
> You're really just in this for laughs, aren't you?
>
> Here I was earnestly trying to convince you to look at the other side of
> the issue, but you were just putting us all on.
>
I wonder if the laughter is showing that you are indeed off to the
> [...]
>
> [Sandy:] 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.
>
> [Chris:] I doubt that many professionals are willing to be honest about
> their feelings where they might lose business from phony patriots that
> think that 'controlled Demolition couldn't do it. By the way, the
> number is now up to 1,725. It grows steadily.
>
> </quote off>
>
> And now you say:
>
> > And BTW, the number is up to
> > 1,732 now. It moves continually.
>
> HA HA HA
>
> That proves it, I guess.
> The jig's up.
>
> You're really just in this for laughs, aren't you?
>
> Here I was earnestly trying to convince you to look at the other side of
> the issue, but you were just putting us all on.
>
nuthouse? I'm happily surprised to see you taking my part in this
discussion, and hope that soon you will rethink your views on Silverstein,
who had no reason to 'pull' fire crew, since there were none in the
building since the morning.
The videos you showed were almost word for word similar to many I have
viewed over the years. I wasn't able to learn much from them past
previous viewings. Most of them have the same problems, proclaiming
things not proved, a condescending attitude that it would be impossible
for anyone in this day and age to cause such a development as the
collapses, hunting around for the tiniest litle thing to pick at, in hopes
it will convince some one, and an unabiding anger at anyone that would
dare to suggest that the buildings could be brought down by CD. Usually
people who do not seem to be mentally able to handle spatial orientation
or concepts. It's not their fault always, they just don't have the tools
for it.
Chris
Sandy McCroskey
Oct 15, 2012, 3:35:59 PM10/15/12
to
Sandy McCroskey
Oct 15, 2012, 3:49:25 PM10/15/12
to
Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> Two and a half hours after the evacuation order (which would be before
> everyone was evacuated) was given. I don't call that "several" hours
> (although it is
*almost*
> Two and a half hours after the evacuation order (which would be before
> everyone was evacuated) was given. I don't call that "several" hours
> (although it is
>two and a *half*).
>
Anthony Marsh
Oct 15, 2012, 7:15:58 PM10/15/12
to
On 10/15/2012 1:50 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> On 10/14/12 10:47 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 10/14/2012 3:02 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>
>
> >snip<
>
>>>
>>> Your interpretation of what Silverstein says is indeed a theory, which
>>> does not jibe with what everyone understood him to be saying at the time
>>> he said it and what he has said he meant when he said it. It is also the
>>> only interpretation consistent with the facts of the matter. It is
>>> ridiculous to think that he meant what you (and, uh, ?coincidentally,?
>>> the Truthers) say he meant and that he said it for all the world to
>>> hear!
>>>
>>
>> It is not a theory. It is a fact that Controlled Demolitions used the
>> term 'pull" to mean bring down a buiding. Silverstein did not say "pull
>> THEM" as in pull out all the firefighters (who BTW were not in the
>> building then anyway), but rather "pull IT" which is third person
>> singular which refers immediately back to the thing being discussed, the
>> building.
>>
>
> It was the team, a singular noun, that was pulled out. In context of the
> preceding sentence, it was clear what he meant.
>
No, Silverstein had no authority over firefighter teams. His only
> On 10/14/12 10:47 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 10/14/2012 3:02 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>
>
> >snip<
>
>>>
>>> Your interpretation of what Silverstein says is indeed a theory, which
>>> does not jibe with what everyone understood him to be saying at the time
>>> he said it and what he has said he meant when he said it. It is also the
>>> only interpretation consistent with the facts of the matter. It is
>>> ridiculous to think that he meant what you (and, uh, ?coincidentally,?
>>> the Truthers) say he meant and that he said it for all the world to
>>> hear!
>>>
>>
>> It is not a theory. It is a fact that Controlled Demolitions used the
>> term 'pull" to mean bring down a buiding. Silverstein did not say "pull
>> THEM" as in pull out all the firefighters (who BTW were not in the
>> building then anyway), but rather "pull IT" which is third person
>> singular which refers immediately back to the thing being discussed, the
>> building.
>>
>
> It was the team, a singular noun, that was pulled out. In context of the
> preceding sentence, it was clear what he meant.
>
authority was over the World Trade Center buildings.
> They used to talk about "pulling down" a building in reference to
> controlled demo of four or five story buildings. It's a coincidence that
> he used a word that would play into the Truthers' fantasies.
>
Demolitions specialists.
Sandy McCroskey
Oct 15, 2012, 9:23:18 PM10/15/12
to
Who told you that?
And you believed them?
There were still rescue efforts underway at 3pm when the order was given
to evacuate at 3pm.
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7437516.stm
> The videos you showed were almost word for word similar to many I have
> viewed over the years. I wasn't able to learn much from them past
> previous viewings. Most of them have the same problems, proclaiming
> things not proved, a condescending attitude
as you are very prone to take such an attitude yourself... although you
have no superior position or knowledge from which to condescend to
anyone. Yet you constantly utter blather like the rest of this paragraph.
that it would be impossible
> for anyone in this day and age to cause such a development as the
> collapses, hunting around for the tiniest litle thing to pick at, in hopes
> it will convince some one, and an unabiding anger at anyone that would
> dare to suggest that the buildings could be brought down by CD. Usually
> people who do not seem to be mentally able to handle spatial orientation
> or concepts. It's not their fault always, they just don't have the tools
> for it.
>
concepts such as "free fall," for example.
By the way, such buildings *could* be taken down by CD, and I don't know
anyone who has ever said they couldn't. Yet that's what you claim.
Fact is, though, that these particular these buildings were not taken
down by CD, and they could not have been, because there was never any
preparation for it.
/sm
Anthony Marsh
Oct 15, 2012, 9:23:52 PM10/15/12
to
"pull down." I' not sure what your trick is called in Latin, but I know
that I am not allowed to say what it is called in English.
Sandy McCroskey
Oct 15, 2012, 9:24:33 PM10/15/12
to
mainframetech wrote:
> On Oct 14, 10:54 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> On 10/14/12 8:11 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>>>>> I pointed out that 1,700 "architects and engineers" is an
>>>>> inconsequential fraction of all the architects and engineers in the
>>>>> world (even if all those "engineers" were really trained in relevant
>>>>> fields), and you replied, in an e-mail, that now the number is up to
>>>>> *1,725*, what did I think of that?
>>> I don't remember asking you that question.
>> That was a paraphrase, which is why I didn't put quotemarks around it,
>> which would indicate a direct quote.
>> I have not seen this exchange posted on the group alt.assassination.jfk.
>> Perhaps it was sent to the nuthouse, but I don't hang out there:
>
> I don't think it would last long in that forum, it's a hosted forum
> and limited in what you can post.
>
There wasn't anything in that post that would not have been acceptable
> On Oct 14, 10:54 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> On 10/14/12 8:11 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>>>>> I pointed out that 1,700 "architects and engineers" is an
>>>>> inconsequential fraction of all the architects and engineers in the
>>>>> world (even if all those "engineers" were really trained in relevant
>>>>> fields), and you replied, in an e-mail, that now the number is up to
>>>>> *1,725*, what did I think of that?
>>> I don't remember asking you that question.
>> That was a paraphrase, which is why I didn't put quotemarks around it,
>> which would indicate a direct quote.
>> I have not seen this exchange posted on the group alt.assassination.jfk.
>> Perhaps it was sent to the nuthouse, but I don't hang out there:
>
> I don't think it would last long in that forum, it's a hosted forum
> and limited in what you can post.
>
on the moderated forum.
> and hope that soon you will rethink your views on Silverstein,
> who had no reason to 'pull' fire crew, since there were none in the
> building since the morning.
Wrong!
Who told you that?
And you believed them?
There were still rescue efforts underway at 3pm when the order was given
to evacuate at 3pm.
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7437516.stm
>
Who told you that?
And you believed them?
There were still rescue efforts underway at 3pm when the order was given
to evacuate at 3pm.
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7437516.stm
>
> The videos you showed were almost word for word similar to many I have
> viewed over the years. I wasn't able to learn much from them past
> previous viewings. Most of them have the same problems, proclaiming
> things not proved, a condescending attitude
> viewed over the years. I wasn't able to learn much from them past
> previous viewings. Most of them have the same problems, proclaiming
> things not proved, a condescending attitude
You have no ground to stand on in calling anyone else "condescending,"
as you are very prone to take such an attitude yourself... although you
have no superior position or knowledge from which to condescend to
anyone. Yet you constantly utter blather like the rest of this paragraph.
as you are very prone to take such an attitude yourself... although you
have no superior position or knowledge from which to condescend to
anyone. Yet you constantly utter blather like the rest of this paragraph.
> that it would be impossible
> for anyone in this day and age to cause such a development as the
> collapses, hunting around for the tiniest litle thing to pick at, in hopes
> it will convince some one, and an unabiding anger at anyone that would
> dare to suggest that the buildings could be brought down by CD. Usually
> people who do not seem to be mentally able to handle spatial orientation
> or concepts. It's not their fault always, they just don't have the tools
> for it.
>
Now, that's funny, coming from someone who doesn't understand the
> for anyone in this day and age to cause such a development as the
> collapses, hunting around for the tiniest litle thing to pick at, in hopes
> it will convince some one, and an unabiding anger at anyone that would
> dare to suggest that the buildings could be brought down by CD. Usually
> people who do not seem to be mentally able to handle spatial orientation
> or concepts. It's not their fault always, they just don't have the tools
> for it.
>
simplest concepts, such as "free fall," for example.
By the way, such buildings *could* be taken down by CD, and I don't know
least the way your words came out.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages