# Stuff and Things > Sights and Sounds >  9/11 a Hoax from two different perspectives

## Network

Which one is correct, because the official story is obviously full of holes and a fairy tale?  I started out with option B, but have concluded that option A is correct.


No Planes and fakery all around






There really were planes, but members of the US (and other) governments were involved.

----------


## The XL

Gonna have to watch these two videos when I get the time.

Always thought it was an inside job or blowback.

----------


## Roadmaster

Why did two women say there were no windows in one of the planes before one hit the towers? With all the technology we have, we only got pictures from one side of the house.

----------


## Network

Wait, let me show you why the official story was a myth right from the closest horses' mouths.



9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that* people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue*


9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .” He also says that it might take “a _permanent_ 9/11 commission” to end the remaining mysteries of September 11
Indeed, 9/11 Commissioners and other officials say that the true facts were hidden from them, or covered up (you don’t have to get bogged down in reading this section – you can skip ahead to the next, if you like; this is just documenting that the 9/11 Commission report is in no way the last word on 9/11):


The 9/11 Commission’s co-chairs said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials _misrepresented the facts_ to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such_ false statements_ (free subscription required)



9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”


9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”;“This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/...s-to-hear.html

----------



----------


## DDave

YAWN . . . 

It's been 11 years yet some folks are still parroting the same old debunked crap and taking quotes out of context.

In case anyone is interested in facts and logic there are links to lots of good info here.

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/

From the website. . . .

_February, 2009. Hi there. I've only spent a few hours updating this site since early 2008, and won't be updating it in the future unless big news arises. I have several hundred links that I could add to the several thousand here, but enough is enough. The 9/11 "truth" movement has dried up and blown away, having achieved none of its stated objectives or even bothering to get a single significant claim correct. See the "What's New" section below to get an idea of the type of people who still cling to kooky 9/11 delusions. 
_
_However, let's remember that 9/11 won't be the last major internet-age event about which people with agendas  whether they be government spokesmen or basement-dwelling crackpots  aggressively spread falsehoods. Unfortunately, falsehoods about the 9/11 attacks have their strongest foothold in Muslim countries (see poll results below), where this website has no effect. 
_
_-Mark Roberts
_And here . . .
http://www.populartechnology.net/200...-theories.html

And here is a good list that humorously summarizes the crazier truther claims.
http://www.sawyerhome.net/whatilearned.html

Truthers are an odd lot.  They are not certain about who did it.  They are not certain about how it was done.  They are not certain about why it was done.  The ONLY thing they know for certain is that it didn't happen the way the "gubmint" said it did.

I used to get involved in these discussions but it just became so tiresome having to debunk the same tired old crap time and time again that I rarely bother anymore.  Instead I just point people to other sites and encourage them to read as much as they can from BOTH perspectives and decide for themselves which version seems the most plausible.

----------

usfan (04-07-2013)

----------


## Guest

I've yet to see anyone debunk anything using criminal and open-ended methodology.  It is always from the isogesic approach of knowing the official story then making the pieces fit.

It's the: We know the government doesn't lie and that it is next to impossible that people would have purposefully blown up all three buildings, so...what possible far out solution can we come up to the building 7 collapse?

Both sides play the game and the truth is obscured.  Using a true scientific, non-emotional approach leaving all possibilities on the table is impossible in spite of what people on both sides of the debate say.

----------

Gemini (04-08-2013)

----------


## The XL

The fact that they've done false flags before gives credibility to the "truthers."  The official story is shit, and government has a history of false flag operations and other nefarious things.

----------

Gemini (04-08-2013)

----------


## garyo

Do you have a web site?

----------


## DDave

> I've yet to see anyone debunk anything using criminal and open-ended methodology.  It is always from the isogesic approach of knowing the official story then making the pieces fit.
> 
> It's the: We know the government doesn't lie and that it is next to impossible that people would have purposefully blown up all three buildings, so...what possible far out solution can we come up to the building 7 collapse?


Yes, I'm sure all of the authors of the below listed peer reviewed papers, not to mention Purdue and other universities that studied it, ignored the scientific method and set out to back the "official" story because they were "in the tank" for the government.

Peer-Reviewed Papers
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation (PDF)
(JOM Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, Volume 53, Number 12, pp. 8-11, December 2001)
- Thomas W. Eagar, Christopher Musso


Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis (PDF)
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 128, Number 1, pp 2-6, January 2002)
- Zdenek P. Bazant, Yong Zhou


- Addendum to "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?Simple Analysis"
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 128, Number 3, pp. 369-370, March 2002)
- Zdenek P. Bazant, Yong Zhou


- Closure of "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?Simple Analysis"
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 129, Number 7, pp. 839-840, July 2003)
- Zdenek P. Bazant, Yong Zhou


How did the WTC towers collapse: a new theory (PDF)
(Fire Safety Journal, Volume 38, Issue 6, pp. 501-533, October 2003)
- A. S. Usmani, Y. C. Chung, J. L. Torero


Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 131, Number 6, pp. 654-657, June 2005)
- A. S. Usmani


Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions (PDF)
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 133, Number 3, pp. 308-319, March 2007)
- Zdene P. Bazant, Mathieu Verdure


- Closure of "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions"
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 134, Number 10, pp. 917-923, October 2008)
- Zdene P. Bazant, Mathieu Verdure


Media Use, Social Structure, and Belief in 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (PDF)
(Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Volume 84, Number 2, pp. 353-372, Summer 2007)
- Carl Stempel, Thomas Hargrove, Guido H. Stempel III


Engineering Perspective of the Collapse of WTC-I (PDF)
(Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp. 62-67, February 2008)
- Ayhan Irfanoglu, Christoph M. Hoffmann


Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple Analysis (PDF)
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 134, Number 2, February 2008)
- K.A. Seffen


What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York? (PDF)
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 134, Number 10, pp. 892-906, October 2008)
- Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening, David B. Benson


- Closure of "What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York?"
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 136, Number 7, pp. 934-935, July 2010)
- Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening, David B. Benson


Failure Analysis of the World Trade Center 5 Building (PDF)
(Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, Volume 19, Number 4, pp. 261-274, November 2009)
- Kevin J. LaMalva, Jonathan R. Barnett, Donald O. Dusenberry

Links to the above referenced papers can be found at http://www.populartechnology.net/200...-theories.html

For someone who purports to have a legal background and should arrive at conclusions after examining the evidence, you sure seem to accept the conspiracy theory conclusions quite frequently and ignore the evidence or lack thereof.

----------

countryboy (04-07-2013)

----------


## countryboy

> I've yet to see anyone debunk anything using criminal and open-ended methodology.  It is always from the isogesic approach of knowing the official story then making the pieces fit.


Then you are not looking hard enough, or only seeing what you want to see. I suspect a little of both.




> It's the: We know the government doesn't lie and that it is next to impossible that people would have purposefully blown up all three buildings, so...what possible far out solution can we come up to the building 7 collapse?


There's no far out solutions. The building was heavily damaged, and fires were allowed to burn for hours on end. How is that far out?




> Both sides play the game and the truth is obscured.  Using a true scientific, non-emotional approach leaving all possibilities on the table is impossible in spite of what people on both sides of the debate say.


Says the person who posted a video of an uninformed foreign demo contractor as evidence of the controlled explosive demolition of wtc7. How scientific is that?

----------


## countryboy

> Yes, I'm sure all of the authors of the below listed peer reviewed papers, not to mention Purdue and other universities that studied it, ignored the scientific method and set out to back the "official" story because they were "in the tank" for the government.
> 
> Peer-Reviewed Papers
> Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation (PDF)
> (JOM Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, Volume 53, Number 12, pp. 8-11, December 2001)
> - Thomas W. Eagar, Christopher Musso
> 
> 
> Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis (PDF)
> ...


Wait a sec, I thought there weren't any experts willing to come forward and refute the ridiculous claims of the truthers? WTF?

----------


## DDave

> Wait a sec, I thought there weren't any experts willing to come forward and refute the ridiculous claims of the truthers? WTF?


Oh, don't worry.  All those guys have been bought and paid for by the government so they can't be trusted.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## countryboy

> Oh, don't worry.  All those guys have been bought and paid for by the government so they can't be trusted.


Oh, okay. Whew.....that was a close one!

But what about the claim by truthers that scientific methodology wasn't used by these bought-and-paid-for "experts"? If that's the claim, their methodology should be easily refuted, right?

----------


## DDave

> Oh, okay. Whew.....that was a close one!
> 
> But what about the claim by truthers that scientific methodology wasn't used by these bought-and-paid-for "experts"? If that's the claim, their methodology should be easily refuted, right?


Refutation is not necessary in a world where opinion and speculation = evidence.

----------


## Gemini

@DDave




> Refutation is not necessary in a world where opinion and speculation = evidence.


Only because I am curious do I ask, do you really trust that the government has your best interests in mind?  Do you believe what they tell you?  If so, how much?

----------



----------


## The XL

I don't know what happened for sure, but I see no reason to trust lying psycopaths that were behind things like Gulf of Tonkin, operation Northwoods, MK Ultra, etc.

----------



----------


## Gemini

> There's no far out solutions. The building was heavily damaged, and fires were allowed to burn for hours on end. How is that far out?


You ever taken a strength of materials class in college?  Thermodynamics?

Ever seen a professional demolition of a building on camera?

The whole thing looks wrong.  _Widen your gaze Mr. Holmes_.

----------



----------


## countryboy

> You ever taken a strength of materials class in college?  Thermodynamics?
> 
> Ever seen a professional demolition of a building on camera?
> 
> The whole thing looks wrong.  _Widen your gaze Mr. Holmes_.


College doesn't teach common sense. 

Yes, I have viewed a number of professional demos on camera. Where are the loud explosions normally heard during an explosive demolition?

It only looks wrong if you view it from a single angle, and fail to consider the mountain of eyewitnesses. Perhaps it is *you* who needs to take the blinders off.

----------


## Network

Such a shit-stirrer @Network

I guess that their guess is as good as your guess, or the 911 Hoax Commission's guess since they've stated that they don't know what the hell really happened and were cock-blocked.  

Right here:

*9/11 Commission Admits It Never Got The Facts ... But No One Wants to Hear From the People Who Know What Happened*

9/11 Commissioners admit that they never got to the bottom of 9/11. For example:

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that* people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue*




9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ." He also says that it might take "a_permanent_ 9/11 commission" to end the remaining mysteries of September 11


The 9/11 Commission’s co-chairs said that *the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements*



9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”


9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland *resigned from the Commission*, stating:* “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”*


The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – recently said “*At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened*“. He also said “I was *shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described* …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.” And he said: “It’s almost a culture of concealment, for lack of a better word. There were interviews made at the FAA’s New York center the night of 9/11 and those tapes were destroyed. The CIA tapes of the interrogations were destroyed. *The story of 9/11 itself, to put it mildly, was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened*”

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed...-one-washingto

----------

Gemini (04-08-2013),The XL (04-08-2013)

----------


## Guest

@Network is a shit stirrer and I still don't know why countryboy doesn't think there were sounds akin to controlled demolitions.

----------


## countryboy

> Such a shit-stirrer @Network
> 
> I guess that their guess is as good as your guess, or the 911 Hoax Commission's guess since they've stated that they don't know what the hell really happened and were cock-blocked.  
> 
> Right here:
> 
> *9/11 Commission Admits It Never Got The Facts ... But No One Wants to Hear From the People Who Know What Happened*
> 
> 9/11 Commissioners admit that they never got to the bottom of 9/11. For example:
> ...


 So the government is inept. Shall I alert the media?  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Network

> So the government is inept. Shall I alert the media?



Someone better alert the media that most people are taking the word of known and proven liars, especially around this time in history with the cartoon drawings of mobile weapons of mass destruction.

Might also want to let them know that they didn't make a big deal or even a wimper about the fact that the commissioners had such doubts about their own investigation.   

Actually, they were alerted and very well aware from the start.  But they are Soviet media.

----------



----------


## countryboy

> @Network is a shit stirrer and I still don't know why countryboy doesn't think there were sounds akin to controlled demolitions.


There are no loud explosions heard prior to wtc7 coming down. Unlike every other explosive demolition video I've watched.

Can you produce even a single video to refute this?

----------


## Guest

> There are no loud explosions heard prior to wtc7 coming down. Unlike every other explosive demolition video I've watched.
> 
> Can you produce even a single video to refute this?


Can you produce a video where you heard the building coming down as opposed to watching it come down with the news anchor talking?

----------


## countryboy

> Can you produce a video where you heard the building coming down as opposed to watching it come down with the news anchor talking?


Yeah.....that's what I thought.  :Wink:

----------


## Gemini

@countryboy




> College doesn't teach common sense.


Believe me, on campus I am _surrounded_ by idiots...taught by a few as well.




> Yes, I have viewed a number of professional demos on camera. Where are the loud explosions normally heard during an explosive demolition?


Me thinks that you don't understand explosives very well.  Certainly they would make noise.  But what you aren't understanding is where the steel curders lie.  People don't really like the look of steel beams in the office.  So they put junk around it, walls, plaster, sheetrock/insulation...you get the idea.  All of these things do a great job of *muffling sound*.  And say it was even heard, who is to say it might not have been claimed that it is a gas explosion?  Pipes did break after all, and the building was on fire.

It doesn't take much c-4 to rend a steel beam if you know how to put your shape charge down properly.  Hell the steel curders they did find were sheared perfectly at 45 degree angles...a lot like a professional demo job.  And the molten *iron* slag they found after wards?  Come on...




> It only looks wrong if you view it from a single angle, and fail to consider the mountain of eyewitnesses. Perhaps it is *you* who needs to take the blinders off.


Dude, if you want to believe the official story, be my guest.  But everything I know about demolitions, and metal, says this is simple wrong.  

IF a plane did bring a building down, and that is a big IF, it should have fallen to once side - the side it was struck from because of the weakened steel beams.  Too precise, too convenient for them BOTH to magically collapse on themselves and not crush other buildings by falling over.

Wake up dude.

----------


## Guest

> Yeah.....that's what I thought.


You thought what?  YOU haven't produced ANY explanation at all.  You keep asking for stuff without giving.  When you show me the video, then I will post a video.  Then you will post a video, then I will.

It's got to be quid pro quo.

----------


## countryboy

> @countryboy
> 
> 
> 
> Believe me, on campus I am _surrounded_ by idiots...taught by a few as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Me thinks that you don't understand explosives very well.  Certainly they would make noise.  But what you aren't understanding is where the steel curders lie.  People don't really like the look of steel beams in the office.  So they put junk around it, walls, plaster, sheetrock/insulation...you get the idea.  All of these things do a great job of *muffling sound*.  And say it was even heard, who is to say it might not have been claimed that it is a gas explosion?  Pipes did break after all, and the building was on fire.
> ...


With all due respect, you have no idea what you are talking about. Show me a video of a controlled explosive demolition where very loud explosions cannot be heard.

Are you a demolitions expert Gemini?

----------


## Gemini

> With all due respect, you have no idea what you are talking about. Show me a video of a controlled explosive demolition where very loud explosions cannot be heard.
> 
> Are you a demolitions expert Gemini?


Expert?  No, but I am far from ignorant on the topic.

Are you?

Are you supposing that the government or interested third parties could not have found a way to muffle an explosion during mass panic after planes were flown into building?  Think about it, steel beams are on the inside of the building,  I bet you they were place on the floors beneath the site of impact - the place where everybody with a quarter brain cell was running away from.  Nobody would be around to hear it.  Sound muffles with distance as obstruction.

Silencing an explosion works on the exact same principles of silencing a firearm.  Many layers of lightweight material do a great job of muffling sound.  I could set a pound of c-4 off in a clothing store and you wouldn't hear it after a little preparation.  You'd feel the shockwave and tremors in the ground, but you'd hear a muffle at best.

Want an exercise in sound muffling?  Scream into a pillow in one room, and ask somebody else if they heard you in another.  It isn't voodoo man, basic thinking really.

----------

Network (04-08-2013)

----------


## Guest

> With all due respect, you have no idea what you are talking about. Show me a video of a controlled explosive demolition where very loud explosions cannot be heard.
> 
> Are you a demolitions expert Gemini?


I'm waiting on your video of it coming down where there is sound on the tape.  You've yet to really supply your evidence OR explain what happened that day for all of us. 

Until then here is a guy who was a first responder and there on the scene and said he heard explosives going off.

----------


## Network

There's a demolitions expert in this video saying that WTC7 collapse (reported before it collapsed) was obviously a controlled demolition, but it doesn't really matter since the foreign policy objectives in the aftermath of 911 can easily be demolished at face value, even if one hasn't realized that it was a lie.  Quagmire in Afghan for what?  He got bin Laden finally?  No evidence for that either.  

We're supporting radicals with ties to the same terrorists in Libya and Syria?  Well done!  It's impossible to argue with people who haven't seen what I've seen after 11 years and base their beliefs on faith.  Therefore, I ultimately don't care what you think..  

Let's see, we created Al Qaeda and have supported them with weapons and your money before and after 911.  In a brief hiatus as our puppets, they pulled off the impossible with boxcutters.

----------


## Gemini

Really though, all one really needs to see is the 45 degree angles on the steel gurders - textbook demo for a building of that size.

----------


## countryboy

> Expert?  No, but I am far from ignorant on the topic.
> 
> Are you?
> 
> Are you supposing that the government or interested third parties could not have found a way to muffle an explosion during mass panic after planes were flown into building?  Think about it, steel beams are on the inside of the building,  I bet you they were place on the floors beneath the site of impact - the place where everybody with a quarter brain cell was running away from.  Nobody would be around to hear it.  Sound muffles with distance as obstruction.
> 
> Silencing an explosion works on the exact same principles of silencing a firearm.  Many layers of lightweight material do a great job of muffling sound.  I could set a pound of c-4 off in a clothing store and you wouldn't hear it after a little preparation.  You'd feel the shockwave and tremors in the ground, but you'd hear a muffle at best.
> 
> Want an exercise in sound muffling?  Scream into a pillow in one room, and ask somebody else if they heard you in another.  It isn't voodoo man, basic thinking really.


Screaming into a pillow is analogous to the explosions from a controlled demolition? Are you seriously making that analogy? Lol.....

----------


## countryboy

> I'm waiting on your video of it coming down where there is sound on the tape.  You've yet to really supply your evidence OR explain what happened that day for all of us. 
> 
> Until then here is a guy who was a first responder and there on the scene and said he heard explosives going off.


You are the one making the ridiculous allegation that wtc7 was brought down by a controlled explosive demolition. And yet, you can produce nothing to bolster your claim. You have either bought into silly truther propaganda or you are purposefully obfuscating. If you had really done any research into the subject, you would know the absence of explosions is a major bone of contention. You would also know there is more than one video, with sound, of wtc7 coming down.

----------


## countryboy

> Really though, all one really needs to see is the 45 degree angles on the steel gurders - textbook demo for a building of that size.


What's a "gurder"? Let's see these "gurders".

----------


## DDave

> Only because I am curious do I ask, do you really trust that the government has your best interests in mind?  Do you believe what they tell you?  If so, how much?


Your questions are irrelevant and point to the real problem with you and the truthers point of view.  The government is guilty until proven innocent.  Your bias makes it IMPOSSIBLE for you to examine the evidence and sources from BOTH sides objectively and decide which one seems more probable.

You are convinced that it was a false flag operation because false flag operations have been perpetrated before.




> Hell the steel curders they did find were sheared perfectly at 45 degree angles...a lot like a professional demo job.


Those were cut as part of the cleanup operation.  (sigh)  I really don't know why I bother anymore.  Having to answer the same questions that have been answered countless times before gets really tiring.




> There's a demolitions expert in this video saying that WTC7 collapse (reported before it collapsed) was obviously a controlled demolition,


That's nice.  And there are lots of other demolitions experts (Brett Blanchard is one of them) who says is wasn't controlled demolition.  But I'm sure you knew that already.

----------


## countryboy

> There's a demolitions expert in this video saying that WTC7 collapse (reported before it collapsed) was obviously a controlled demolition.....


Big deal. You want I should post a video of a demolitions expert who says there's no way it was a controlled demo?

Actually, you could just look at the vid Rina posted of a demo expert saying it was obviously a controlled demo, but has no explanation how it could have been rigged for demo.

----------


## DDave

> Too precise, too convenient for them BOTH to magically collapse on themselves and not crush other buildings by falling over.


Where ya been for the last 12 years?  They DID damage other buildings by falling over.  They did not "fall into their own footprint" as truthers like to claim.

----------


## countryboy

> I really don't know why I bother anymore


Because it's very difficult to listen to truthers purposefully spread disinformation?

----------


## DDave

> Can you produce a video where you heard the building coming down as opposed to watching it come down with the news anchor talking?


Do you think a news anchor talking into a microphone is going to cover up sounds of explosions??

Come on.  You can admit it wasn't controlled demo and STILL be distrustful of everything the government does or says if it makes you feel better.

----------


## countryboy

> Where ya been for the last 12 years?  They DID damage other buildings by falling over.  They did not "fall into their own footprint" as truthers like to claim.


Not even wtc7.  :Wink:

----------


## countryboy

> Do you think a news anchor talking into a microphone is going to cover up sounds of explosions??
> 
> Come on.  You can admit it wasn't controlled demo and STILL be distrustful of everything the government does or says if it makes you feel better.


Besides, there are such videos.

----------


## DDave

> Actually, you could just look at the vid Rina posted of a demo expert saying it was obviously a controlled demo, *but has no explanation how it could have been rigged for demo*.


Funny how they always leave that part out.  

Or come up with some ridiculous bullshit about how the government has some super wazoo explosives and tecniques tnat no one in the demo industry apparently knows anything about.

I've heard everything from det cord in Cat 5 network cabling to explosive ceiling tiles in the T bar ceiling.

No evidence mind you, just speculation and opinion.

But then that's how the truthers roll.

----------


## DDave

> @Network is a shit stirrer.


He's very polite about it though. I've never seen (read) him going off on folks like the crazy batshit lunatics at Let's Roll.

I don't agree with or believe much of what he says but I do admire the respectul way he relays the information.  :Thumbsup20:

----------

countryboy (04-08-2013)

----------


## DDave

> Until then here is a guy who was a first responder and there on the scene and said he heard explosives going off.


Um, you may want to watch that clip again. At NO TIME does he say "he heard explosives going off". Just past the 3 minute mark he says "I think I know an explosion when I hear it".

But he heard the sounds he is describing as explostions AFTER the building starts to collapse, not before.

At the 2 minute mark he says "I didn't hear any creaking, I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden, the (transit) radios exploded and everyone started screaming get away, get away. get away from it, and, I was like a deer in the headlights."

So the building started collapsing BEFORE he heard any noises that he called explosions.

How many controlled demos have anyone seen where the building starts to collapse BEFORE explosives go off?

----------


## Gemini

> Screaming into a pillow is analogous to the explosions from a controlled demolition? Are you seriously making that analogy? Lol.....


Re-read the post you responded to.  It might help.  @countryboy

----------


## Gemini

@DDave




> Your questions are irrelevant and point to the real problem with you and the truthers point of view.  The government is guilty until proven innocent.  Your bias makes it IMPOSSIBLE for you to examine the evidence and sources from BOTH sides objectively and decide which one seems more probable.


Looked at from both sides, objectively.  One side is full of shit and the other isn't.  What makes you think the government is magically honest about this?  People who lie tend to lie about a lot of things - not just one.  And as I look at it, the government lies about a lot of things, why should this be any different?




> You are convinced that it was a false flag operation because false flag operations have been perpetrated before.


Not correct, I arrived at this because of deductive reasoning based on available information.  But the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior.  So it wouldn't be a bad assumption if that was the sole reason, the government has a good track record of being evil.




> Those were cut as part of the cleanup operation.  (sigh)  I really don't know why I bother anymore.  Having to answer the same questions that have been answered countless times before gets really tiring.


Cut at a 45 degree angle which is typical of a profession demo job?  They couldn't have possibly cut them at a different angle?  I suppose you'll have an explanation for the molten slag they found during clean up too....did Gandalf melt it?

Fun fact - jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel beams.  Not does the impact of the fall.  So how did they wind up melting then?

----------


## countryboy

> Re-read the post you responded to.  It might help.  @countryboy


Unnecessary, twoofers cannot be swayed by common sense.

----------


## Gemini

> Unnecessary, twoofers cannot be swayed by common sense.


I'm quite receptive to common sense - very little else actually, but I've yet to see any come out of you or DDave thus far.  If you can't refute it, just say you don't want to respond, it's okay.  Nobody is going to beat you with a stick if you lose an argument or can't address the point.  You've dodged a couple times now.  

I'm detecting a pattern with you.

----------

The XL (04-10-2013)

----------


## countryboy

> I'm quite receptive to common sense - very little else actually, but I've yet to see any come out of you or DDave thus far.  If you can't refute it, just say you don't want to respond, it's okay.  Nobody is going to beat you with a stick if you lose an argument or can't address the point.  You've dodged a couple times now.  
> 
> I'm detecting a pattern with you.


I could say the same of you. As I said, you are the one putting forth a highly unlikely scenario, laughable really to even a casual observer.

When I challenged your assertion that the explosions produced by a controlled EXPLOSIVE demo could have somehow been muffled. You actually compared them to yelling into a pillow. Where is your evidence of such a laughable claim? And you have the unmitigated gall to claim you have yet to see any common sense come out of me? Bullshit sir.

----------


## Gemini

@countryboy




> I could say the same of you. As I said, you are the one putting forth a highly unlikely scenario, laughable really to even a *casual observer*.


You're absolutely right.  The casual observer would find it laughable.  I am not a casual observer though.  

The typical casual observer is a fantastically ignorant drone who believes that voting for president actually matters, the casual observer also probably believes if you shoot a gas can it will explode too.  A casual observer doesn't understand the mach effect, or why a shaped charge is better for cutting steel, or a concept of why warheads are shaped like cones for piercing armor.  Hell I bet the average observer doesn't know how to make an improved blasting cap with det cord.  I bet the same casual observer doesn't know why you shouldn't knead and shape c-4 too much before using it to do demolitions with either.  Same jackwagon probably doesn't know to handle it with only gloved hands for a very good reason - the stuff is toxic.

So yes, what I say might seem a little odd to the casual observer, that is because the casual observer is an idiot by and large - thanks for pointing out the obvious.  Surely I'd be lost without you... :Lame: 




> When I challenged your assertion that the explosions produced by a controlled EXPLOSIVE demo could have somehow been muffled. You actually compared them to yelling into a pillow. Where is your evidence of such a laughable claim?


I did so because the concept is the same, albeit on vastly different  scales.  Like I said, it is basic science.  Contrary to what you may  believe it is possible to muffle both a gunshot and an explosion, the  latter requiring much more effort. 




> And you have the unmitigated gall to claim you have yet to see any common sense come out of me? Bullshit sir.


Fact, I have yet to see any common sense come out of you.  At this rate, I'm not very hopeful either.

----------


## countryboy

> @countryboy
> 
> 
> 
> You're absolutely right.  The casual observer would find it laughable.  I am not a casual observer though.  
> 
> The typical casual observer is a fantastically ignorant drone who believes that voting for president actually matters, the casual observer also probably believes if you shoot a gas can it will explode too.  A casual observer doesn't understand the mach effect, or why a shaped charge is better for cutting steel, or a concept of why warheads are shaped like cones for piercing armor.  Hell I bet the average observer doesn't know how to make an improved blasting cap with det cord.  I bet the same casual observer doesn't know why you shouldn't knead and shape c-4 too much before using it to do demolitions with either.  Same jackwagon probably doesn't know to handle it with only gloved hands for a very good reason - the stuff is toxic.
> 
> So yes, what I say might seem a little odd to the casual observer, that is because the casual observer is an idiot by and large - thanks for pointing out the obvious.  Surely I'd be lost without you...
> ...


What I said was, EVEN a casual observer. Let alone someone who claims to have looked at this scenario objectively. I'm not at all surprised you missed my point though.  :Wink:

----------


## Gemini

@countryboy




> What I said was, EVEN a casual observer. Let alone someone who claims to have looked at this scenario objectively. I'm not at all surprised you missed my point though.


I address that which I think is worth my time to address.  Emphasizing one word in effort to back pedal on the sly doesn't win you points here Stevo.  And to top it off you try to claim intellectual superiority while backing away.

I think I'll let you be as this is getting boring for me, I am sure that pile of shit you've buried your head in is quite warm and pleasant; I'd hate to disturb your comforts further.  

But it doesn't change the fact that you've placed your head in the highest mound of shit you could find.  Just don't be surprised when flies and maggots don't discern the difference between your flesh and the shit that cleaves to it.

----------


## countryboy

> @countryboy
> 
> 
> 
> I address that which I think is worth my time to address.  Emphasizing one word in effort to back pedal on the sly doesn't win you points here Stevo.  And to top it off you try to claim intellectual superiority while backing away.
> 
> I think I'll let you be as this is getting boring for me, I am sure that pile of shit you've buried your head in is quite warm and pleasant; I'd hate to disturb your comforts further.  
> 
> But it doesn't change the fact that you've placed your head in the highest mound of shit you could find.  Just don't be surprised when flies and maggots don't discern the difference between your flesh and the shit that cleaves to it.


Fuck off asshole. Have a nice day.  :Smile: 

So, Mr. "race realist", who did 911? Lemme guess, the Jews?  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## DDave

> What makes you think the government is magically honest about this?  People who lie tend to lie about a lot of things - not just one.  And as I look at it, the government lies about a lot of things, why should this be any different?


Who is talking about the government?  What about all the folks that wrote these papers?

Peer-Reviewed Papers
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation (PDF)
(JOM Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, Volume 53, Number 12, pp. 8-11, December 2001)
- Thomas W. Eagar, Christopher Musso


Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis (PDF)
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 128, Number 1, pp 2-6, January 2002)
- Zdenek P. Bazant, Yong Zhou


- Addendum to "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?Simple Analysis"
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 128, Number 3, pp. 369-370, March 2002)
- Zdenek P. Bazant, Yong Zhou


- Closure of "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?Simple Analysis"
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 129, Number 7, pp. 839-840, July 2003)
- Zdenek P. Bazant, Yong Zhou


How did the WTC towers collapse: a new theory (PDF)
(Fire Safety Journal, Volume 38, Issue 6, pp. 501-533, October 2003)
- A. S. Usmani, Y. C. Chung, J. L. Torero


Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 131, Number 6, pp. 654-657, June 2005)
- A. S. Usmani


Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions (PDF)
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 133, Number 3, pp. 308-319, March 2007)
- Zdene P. Bazant, Mathieu Verdure


- Closure of "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions"
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 134, Number 10, pp. 917-923, October 2008)
- Zdene P. Bazant, Mathieu Verdure


Media Use, Social Structure, and Belief in 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (PDF)
(Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Volume 84, Number 2, pp. 353-372, Summer 2007)
- Carl Stempel, Thomas Hargrove, Guido H. Stempel III


Engineering Perspective of the Collapse of WTC-I (PDF)
(Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp. 62-67, February 2008)
- Ayhan Irfanoglu, Christoph M. Hoffmann


Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple Analysis (PDF)
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 134, Number 2, February 2008)
- K.A. Seffen


What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York? (PDF)
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 134, Number 10, pp. 892-906, October 2008)
- Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening, David B. Benson


- Closure of "What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York?"
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 136, Number 7, pp. 934-935, July 2010)
- Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening, David B. Benson


Failure Analysis of the World Trade Center 5 Building (PDF)
(Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, Volume 19, Number 4, pp. 261-274, November 2009)
- Kevin J. LaMalva, Jonathan R. Barnett, Donald O. Dusenberry

Were they ALL paid or threatened by the government to tow the line?  What about Purdue and other universities?  Are they all "in on it".




> Fun fact - jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel beams.  Not does the impact of the fall.  So how did they wind up melting then?


Fun fact . . . the steel beams weren't melted, they were weakened.  And by the way, was jet fuel the only thing flammable in the towers that day?  Was there nothing else that can burn?

As evidenced by your little tirade at countryboy, it appears you can't engage in a mature conversation about this.  You should take a cue from Network.  At least he can express his views without resorting to childish insults and name calling.

----------


## Roadmaster

After the planes hit a thumbs down was issued by the owner of the buildings. That about says it all.

----------


## countryboy

> Who is talking about the government?  What about all the folks that wrote these papers?
> 
> Peer-Reviewed Papers
> Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation (PDF)
> (JOM Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, Volume 53, Number 12, pp. 8-11, December 2001)
> - Thomas W. Eagar, Christopher Musso
> 
> 
> Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis (PDF)
> ...


And you'll notice that even after all that, he still hasn't presented a single shred of evidence. Only wild speculation and conjecture. 

Well, on second thought, he did make the brilliant analogy that muffling the explosions detonated during a controlled EXPLOSIVE demolition is akin to shouting into a pillow.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  Easy, peezy, japoneezy.

----------


## Gemini

> Fuck off asshole. Have a nice day. 
> 
> So, Mr. "race realist", who did 911? Lemme guess, the Jews?


Relax Bulbasaur-

 

Calm down and have a donut or something.  Or get a massage.  

But really what does race realism have anything to do with this?  Or the jews?
 @countryboy

----------


## Gemini

@DDave




> Were they ALL paid or threatened by the government to tow the line?  What about Purdue and other universities?  Are they all "in on it".


Haven't the foggiest.  But it is well within their capabilities.  Curious though, how many of these people are public employees of some sort?




> Fun fact . . . the steel beams weren't melted, they were weakened.  And by the way, was jet fuel the only thing flammable in the towers that day?  Was there nothing else that can burn?


Heard this argument before too.  The entire building wouldn't have come down if that were the case.  Unless all beams were uniformly weakened with the exact same amount of energy by an out of control fire.  The top part of the building would have toppled over onto other buildings.  This argument would be more believable had they been struck lower in the towers where there is a great deal more stress on the steel beams.  Heat does weaken metal, and weight bearing doesn't help.  But the amount of weight on the part of the building where it was struck I highly doubt was sufficient to destabilize the entire structure.

You gotta think about this, it wasn't a couple of abrams tanks flung into the side of a building(weighing 65+ tons each) and starting on fire, it was the equivilent of two molotov cocktails being thrown.  Slight structural damage at best - these weren't armored jet fighters, commercial airliners are designed to be lightweight for fuel efficiency.  The burning heat may weaken it some, but I highly doubt it was enough to do what was done.  And even if it was, it would have fallen in a very asymmetrical fashion, not conveniently collapsing on itself.

And then to top it off, explain the pools of melted steel.  I'd love to hear that one.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...ltensteel.html

Perhaps the zeal to recycle the steel is a red flag too?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/destroyed.html




> As evidenced by your little tirade at countryboy, it appears you can't engage in a mature conversation about this.  You should take a cue from Network.  At least he can express his views without resorting to childish insults and name calling.


Tirade?  Bah, hardly.  His head may have exploded, but I can perfectly engage with you - you've not resorted to infantile retorts quite yet.  But I suspect that neither of us will yield to the other no matter how convincing our arguments are, which is why I suspect @Rina_Dragonborn has withdrawn from the topic - she knows neither side is likely to yield and probably doesn't want to waster her time.  I am having similar sentiments right about now.  

The fact that there are people high and low that can't seem to agree on the official story should be a little red flag for you.

But since I am on an explosives rant, chew on this nugget for a while -

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/

Look at the science, the details of the reports.  Nothing adds up to the official story except that there were in fact planes involved.

----------


## Guest

No, @Gemini

they refuse to post videos of building 7 falling.  The explanations they post are about the twin towers.  I have asked them repeatedly to explain in their own words why building 7 fell, and nothing but asking me to post more and more.

There is no real exchange back and forth so why bother?

----------


## The XL

I still want someone to explain to me why I should trust a government behind the Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods, MK Ultra, etc.

I'm all ears.

----------


## Guest

> I still want someone to explain to me why I should trust a government behind the Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods, MK Ultra, etc.
> 
> I'm all ears.


Or Fast and Furious...or Yellowcake...or selling WMDs to Iraq in the 80s...or Iran Contra...

----------

The XL (04-10-2013)

----------


## DDave

> Haven't the foggiest.  But it is well within their capabilities.  Curious though, how many of these people are public employees of some sort?


So you have no evidence that they were paid yet you implicate that they were and handwave away their conclusions.  Very convenient




> You gotta think about this, it wasn't a couple of abrams tanks flung into the side of a building(weighing 65+ tons each) and starting on fire,it was the equivilent of two molotov cocktails being thrown.  Slight structural damage at best - these weren't armored jet fighters, commercial airliners are designed to be lightweight for fuel efficiency.


What in the world are you talking about?

Empty weight of a Boeing 767-200 which was the model of the plane that struck the WTC is 176,650 pounds.  Divided by 2,000 equals 88 tons and change.  Their fuel capacity is over 16,000 gallons.

So they weighed CONSIDERABLY MORE than the Abrams tank in your analogy.  And a 16,000 gallon molotov cocktail?  C'mon.




> There is no real exchange back and forth so why bother?


You posted a video and made claims that weren't true.  I addressed those false claims and you have yet to respond.

Still waiting for the exchange . . . 




> Or Fast and Furious...or Yellowcake...or selling WMDs to Iraq in the 80s...or Iran Contra...


It always comes back to the government lied before so they are lying again.  Regardless of how many independent scientific sources come up with essentially the same conclusion as the government.  I get that you don't trust the government.  Guess what . . . neither do I.  But are all of these other sources that come to a similar conclusion "in on" the giant conspiracy?




> But I suspect that neither of us will yield to the other no matter how convincing our arguments are,


I suspect that you are indeed correct.

----------


## Gemini

@DDave


> So you have no evidence that they were paid yet you implicate that they were and handwave away their conclusions.  Very convenient


Have no idea either way, this isn't something that keeps me up at night.  And even if it was, I would be hard pressed for the resources to prove it.




> What in the world are you talking about?
> 
> Empty weight of a Boeing 767-200 which was the model of the plane that struck the WTC is 176,650 pounds.  Divided by 2,000 equals 88 tons and change.  Their fuel capacity is over 16,000 gallons.
> 
> So they weighed CONSIDERABLY MORE than the Abrams tank in your analogy.  And a 16,000 gallon molotov cocktail?  C'mon.


Fair enough, but you're missing something crucial, although they may have weighed more, the density is nowhere near enough to do enough structural damage to those beams.  The fire isn't going to melt the beams, or weaken them enough at that level of the building to cause it all to tumble on down.




> I suspect that you are indeed correct.


So since we're in the mood to fling sources at each other, I put mine forth.  Refute it.  Because I noticed you hadn't addressed a single one of them in the response.

----------


## Gemini

@Rina_Dragonborn




> No, @Gemini
> 
> they refuse to post videos of building 7 falling.  The explanations they post are about the twin towers.  I have asked them repeatedly to explain in their own words why building 7 fell, and nothing but asking me to post more and more.
> 
> There is no real exchange back and forth *so why bother*?


Vain hopes of true dialogue to occur perhaps.  Sometimes I wonder why I even bother.

I'd also like to know how they managed to get human DNA material from the 'plane' at the pentagon when they claim the plane some how disintegrated.  I mean how on earth did the engines go *poof* and yet some flimsy DNA material survives?  Kind of a head scratcher to me.

----------


## Guest

> @Rina_Dragonborn
> 
> 
> 
> Vain hopes of true dialogue to occur perhaps.  Sometimes I wonder why I even bother.
> 
> I'd also like to know how they managed to get human DNA material from the 'plane' at the pentagon when they claim the plane some how disintegrated.  I mean how on earth did the engines go *poof* and yet some flimsy DNA material survives?  Kind of a head scratcher to me.


Yes, well, what I find interesting--even in those papers they all submitted--is the eisogesis used.  They look at the official story, then they come up with some freak of nature reasoning that is "possible", but usually never happens in a million years or has happened anywhere else.

Its like abiogenesis and certain aspects of evolution.  The same people saying they aren't too sure about evolution and are willing to throw out the scientific consensus on that, will argue tooth and nail for the reasoning provided by some structural people who will willingly use words like "extraordinary event" to describe 911.

It's all emotions.  People can't believe our government let this happen or else things would be really scary.

----------


## DDave

> So since we're in the mood to fling sources at each other, I put mine forth.  Refute it.  Because I noticed you hadn't addressed a single one of them in the response.


(sigh)  Seen 'em all before.  Gets tiring going over the same stuff again and again.  I suspect you feel the same way.

And what with the @ stuff?  I can tell you're responding to my post since you quoted it. 




> Yes, well, what I find interesting--even in those papers they all submitted--is the eisogesis used.  They look at the official story, then they come up with some freak of nature reasoning that is "possible", *but usually never happens in a million years or has happened anywhere else.*


Please tell me what other times someone flew passenger airliners into 110 story buildings or the Pentagon?




> Its like abiogenesis and certain aspects of evolution.  The same people saying they aren't too sure about evolution and are willing to throw out the scientific consensus on that, will argue tooth and nail for the reasoning provided by some structural people *who will willingly use words like "extraordinary event" to describe 911.*


Was 9/11 not an extraordinary event?

But aside from all of that . . . clearly I am not going to change your minds . . . but for me, it's gotten to the point where I am more interested in why you believe what you do that what you actually believe.

Rina, why do you believe the "official" version of Sandy Hook and not the version that Network puts forth?

And to both of you, do you find it more believable that the government would prep and CD the WTC towers than Al Qaeda could put together a plot to hijack planes and fly them into buildings?

----------


## Gemini

@DDave




> (sigh)  Seen 'em all before.  Gets tiring going over the same stuff again and again.  I suspect you feel the same way.


Rather quaint to at least not refute it.  And no, I haven't gone over this several times.  I don't really delve into things outside my control too often.  I'd love to hear the refutations though because I haven't heard that many on it, or any that make any kind of sense.  By all means try to convince me, I've got a fairly open mind regarding most things and if what you put forth is legitimate I'll gleefully entertain the possibility of the government not being in on this.

But I can think of many defense contractors who wouldn't mind a war being started.  And may even take steps to ensure their stock goes up too.




> And what with the @ stuff?  I can tell you're responding to my post since you quoted it.


The @ stuff?  It sends a ping to your account and gives you a mention, so you know somebody responded to you in a thread, most useful if you have unsubscribed to a thread.  So if I don't respond to you, that is probably why.  I don't remain subscribed indefinitely to all threads.

----------


## Network

Should've shot that 2nd plane down.  

MSM helicopters are quite pathetic.  They all missed the approach of the 2nd plane, zoomed in right on time to dodge the approach, and were on the same side of the buildings, capturing a glimpse of the "plane".  By the way, it's suspicious that a large batch of 'amateur' footage was released in 2010, only took 9 years huh?  

Every direct approach into tower 2 was an amateur video released at a much later date...with disappearing parts of the plane before impact and the engine attempting to veer away from the plane before impact.

Oh, and the impossibility of aluminum shell and wings disappearing into steel beams.

----------


## Network

I'm excusing the government from actually murdering 2,100, 2599, or 2999, depending on which fake victim memorial you check out, btw.

The top of the towers were already empty, after the 90s WTC bombing.  Most of the victims never existed.

----------


## DDave

> By all means try to convince me, I've got a fairly open mind regarding most things and if what you put forth is legitimate I'll gleefully entertain the possibility of the government not being in on this.


Yeah, I can tell you have an open mind on the subject. Did you forget that you wrote this?


> Looked at from both sides, objectively. One side is full of shit and the other isn't. What makes you think the government is magically honest about this? People who lie tend to lie about a lot of things - not just one. And as I look at it, the government lies about a lot of things, why should this be any different?


I'm sure if you were really interested in objectivity, you'd have no problem finding sources in addition to those I listed. Just hand waving away several peer reviewed papers without attempting to refute them is, as you say, rather quaint.


> The @ stuff? It sends a ping to your account and gives you a mention, so you know somebody responded to you in a thread, most useful if you have unsubscribed to a thread. So if I don't respond to you, that is probably why. I don't remain subscribed indefinitely to all threads.


I don't subscribe to any threads. I just go back and check for new posts.

----------


## Network

DDave, back from the darkness.

You love conspiracy theories, but don't contribute much else to the forum. 

Ignoring you is probably a good tactic.

----------



----------


## Guest

> DDave, back from the darkness.
> 
> You love conspiracy theories, but don't contribute much else to the forum. 
> 
> Ignoring you is probably a good tactic.


He doesn't love conspiracies.  He loves the government.  He trusts it even though it had plans to stage terror attacks to make Cubans look evil.  He trusts it though it experimented on a St. Louis housing project with radioactive materials.  He trusts it in spite of MK Ultra.  He trusts it in spite of Iran Contra.  He trusts it in spite of Fast and Furious or Yellowcake.

He just lubs the gubbermint.

----------

Network (04-10-2013)

----------


## Network

> He doesn't love conspiracies.  He loves the government.  He trusts it even though it had plans to stage terror attacks to make Cubans look evil.  He trusts it though it experimented on a St. Louis housing project with radioactive materials.  He trusts it in spite of MK Ultra.  He trusts it in spite of Iran Contra.  He trusts it in spite of Fast and Furious or Yellowcake.
> 
> He just lubs the gubbermint.


I don't see it elsewhere on this forum.

I think he's Dave Sunstein or some other "ein"

----------


## DDave

> DDave, back from the darkness.
> 
> You love conspiracy theories, but don't contribute much else to the forum. 
> 
> Ignoring you is probably a good tactic.


I have 19 posts here dealing with conspiracies out of 126 and I "love conspiracy theories, but don't contribute much else to the forum"?

And after I made this nice comment about you in response to Rina calling you a shit stirrer?




> He's very polite about it though. I've never seen (read) him going off on folks like the crazy batshit lunatics at Let's Roll.
> 
> I don't agree with or believe much of what he says but I do admire the respectul way he relays the information.


What have I done that offends you so much?

----------

Network (04-10-2013)

----------


## Guest

> I don't see it elsewhere on this forum.
> 
> I think he's Dave Sunstein or some other "ein"


He only posts on conspiracies and he never offers to evaluate what you say.  He stands on the shoulders of others and pumps out their opinion, never his own.

That's my problem with a lot of people.  Invest something of you or else why should I respond?

----------


## DDave

> He doesn't love conspiracies. He loves the government. He trusts it even though it had plans to stage terror attacks to make Cubans look evil. He trusts it though it experimented on a St. Louis housing project with radioactive materials. He trusts it in spite of MK Ultra. He trusts it in spite of Iran Contra. He trusts it in spite of Fast and Furious or Yellowcake.
> 
> He just lubs the gubbermint.


There you go making more unsubstantiated claims.

Not very objective now, are you. And you claim to have a legal background. Are folks guilty until proven innocent in your eyes or do you look at the evidence first? Or do you just look at the evidence that supports your preconceived notions?

And you still haven't answered my questions regarding the false statements you made regarding the video you posted OR my question about why you believe the goverrnment's version of Sandy Hook but not 9/11.

Network says Sandy Hook was faked.  You disagree.  Why is that?

----------


## Network

> I have 19 posts here dealing with conspiracies out of 126 and I "love conspiracy theories, but don't contribute much else to the forum"?
> 
> And after I made this nice comment about you in response to Rina calling you a shit stirrer?
> 
> 
> 
> What have I done that offends you so much?



Nothing much then, I've just never seen you in another thread.  And I've encountered one topic posters who seem to be disingenuous throughout my history on the internets.

Carry on my wayward son.

----------


## DDave

> He only posts on conspiracies


You might want to check your facts. The link below is a good place to start.

http://thepoliticsforums.com/search.php?searchid=81937




> and he never offers to evaluate what you say. He stands on the shoulders of others and pumps out their opinion, never his own.


Yes, here is me not evaluating what you said about the video you posted but STILL have not addressed even though I have pointed out your false statements TWICE now.




> Um, you may want to watch that clip again. At NO TIME does he say "he heard explosives going off". Just past the 3 minute mark he says "I think I know an explosion when I hear it".
> 
> But he heard the sounds he is describing as explostions AFTER the building starts to collapse, not before.
> 
> At the 2 minute mark he says "I didn't hear any creaking, I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden, the (transit) radios exploded and everyone started screaming get away, get away. get away from it, and, I was like a deer in the headlights."
> 
> So the building started collapsing BEFORE he heard any noises that he called explosions.
> 
> How many controlled demos have anyone seen where the building starts to collapse BEFORE explosives go off?





> That's my problem with a lot of people. Invest something of you or else why should I respond?


So are you going to respond or just bitch about people not contributing?

----------


## DDave

> I've just never seen you in another thread.


Well, look around.
http://thepoliticsforums.com/search.php?searchid=81937




> And I've encountered one topic posters who seem to be disingenuous throughout my history on the internets.


As have I.




> Carry on my wayward son.


Sorry, I'll try not to post so much on a single topic if it causes you distress.

----------


## Network

> Well, look around.
> http://thepoliticsforums.com/search.php?searchid=81937
> 
> 
> 
> As have I.
> 
> Sorry, I'll try not to post so much on a single topic if it causes you distress.



Don't sweat it.  I actually do stir some shit, depending on my mood.  It ultimately does not matter what you believe about something that happened over a decade ago.  

I shouldn't have made this thread actually.  The outcome of our strategy to deal with this event has already played out and we are still there and still dealing with the repercussions of attacking a nation that had nothing to do with it, in any interpretation.

----------


## DDave

> Don't sweat it. I actually do stir some shit, depending on my mood.


Depends on perspective I guess. To some people encouraging debate is construed as stirring shit.




> It ultimately does not matter what you believe about something that happened over a decade ago.


True. I imagine most folks are pretty much convinced one way or another by now. But for me, what I still find interesting is _why_ they believe the way they do. Most of the time, it seems anyway, it boils down to distrust of the government -- not which version of the event is more probable. 

What I find amusing and have never really run into before until this thread is being accused of "lubbing the gubmint". What I believe about 9/11 has nothing to do with blind faith or trust in the government. I tried to read as much info as I could get ahold of from both perspectives and decided for myself which sounded more logical.

I would have not expected to be attacked the way I was by Rina who seems very well read, logical and objective in other threads. CLEARLY she has not read my other posts in this thread or anywhere else on the forum. 

I have noticed that when pretty much any conspiracy comes along, she jumps on the anti-gevernment version and just disregards any other views with the exception of Sandy Hook. Why does she agree with you on 9/11 but not Sandy Hook? Seems kind of inconsistent to me.

----------


## Guest

@DDave,

I believe that the government let 911 happen because it would be beneficial to them.  I think a bunch of Saudis flew jets into the towers.  I believe that the towers were all demolished because of insurance reasons.  So my "conspiracy" only goes as far as what makes sense in light of the data and our government's past history with Northwoods, Tonkin, MK Ultra, Iran Contra, and Fast and Furious, etc.

The owner of the towers slipped up and said (I'm sure it is on here somewhere) that 7 was taken down on purpose.  All of those buildings were due to come down due to asbestos or be renovated for billions, so I think the government just let it happen.  Everyone benefited--the federal government finally was able to pass the Patriot Act, its powers expanded, CFR aims were accomplished, the owner of those buildings received more in insurance than he would have had to pay to renovate them.  To the government this is a win-win.

As for the Pentagon, anyone living and working in DC knows that building is using overflowing and yet that area was not that day.  Why?

Sandy Hook, the Sikh Temple shooting, Aurora...all of them had people either associated with the military or DARPA or associated with Libor.  It is also beneficial to the government's gun control aims, and quite frankly if you do decide to read all of those FOIA documents that I linked to for MK Ultra this was the stuff they planned on and the purpose of the project.

As far as answering what questions...I just stopped when none of mine were answered.  I don't bother after that.  I asked countryboy to explain to me why building 7 came down and he didn't.  He just asked me to say what I thought and then proceeded to try and discredit the source that I threw up and/or asked about explosions.  When I asked him to provide a video of the tower coming down to see if there was ANY sound aside from the reporter talking...no video.  When I asked him to explain how they broadcast it coming down 20 minutes earlier, I got rhetoric.

I want to know in your own words what made building 7 come down, explain the physics.  YOUR words because I want to know how you processed the information in your mind and why you think that makes sense--I can read tons of "skeptics" versions, but when the NIST report said "extraordinary event" on 3--not 1--3 buildings...that feels like magic.

So explain it.  Don't attack me, don't attack conspiracy theorists, explain why you think this is all logical in your words or why bother?

----------


## DDave

> So explain it. Don't attack me, don't attack conspiracy theorists, explain why you think this is all logical in your words or why bother?


Thank you for your response. I will respond to you as well but am heading out right now so it will have to be later.

And for the record . . . you attacked me first, but enough of that.  :Smiley20:

----------


## Gemini

@DDave




> Yeah, I can tell you have an open mind on the subject. Did you forget that you wrote this?


Present your case then, I'll listen.  But I would like a refutation of my sources since I opted to provide them.  Like I said, I am willing to entertain the possibility of the government not being in on it - even if they have a rancid reputation for such things.




> I'm sure if you were really interested in objectivity, you'd have no problem finding sources in addition to those I listed. Just hand waving away several peer reviewed papers without attempting to refute them is, as you say, rather quaint.


There was no link provided, I'm not prowling for your information and sifting through the myriad of google's garbage.  Link it to me and I'll view the contents.

But thus far, both you and @countryboy and not exactly doing your part here.  But I do appreciate your civility on the topic.

----------


## Guest

> But thus far, both you and @countryboy and not exactly doing your part here.  But I do appreciate your civility on the topic.


That's just it.  It is easier to attack a position then present your own.  I know this from my job.  I can produce reasonable doubt from anything or tear down any position.

But this isn't a trial.  It's supposed to be people talking and having a dialogue which means that I expect them to explain what they believe in their word or present videos if they ask for videos.

I haven't seen that reciprocity.

----------


## Gemini

> But this isn't a trial.  It's supposed to be people talking and having a dialogue which means that I expect them to explain what they believe in their word or present videos if they ask for videos.
> 
> I haven't seen that reciprocity.


I am close to abandoning the thread because of the lack of it.  No sense in talking to a cinder block after all now is there?

----------


## Guest

> I am close to abandoning the thread because of the lack of it.  No sense in talking to a cinder block after all now is there?


Here is the lease owner, Larry Silverstein, saying that the fire department recommended pulling the building, so he agreed to pull it, and then they all watched it come down.




Here is someone who was in the building leaving it saying he heard explosions




Here is a man from the top demolitions company in the world




Testimony of firefighters saying they heard explosions from the building and having been in that building they also say on video they saw no fire (but they're probably lying, right?)





Now, I cannot find ANY video of the building where you can even hear it crash, so I would appreciate @countryboy or @DDave showing the building crash without voice over and I'd also like to hear them describe how the building just fell from fire that happened because....?

Also, this was a taller building where a fire raged for two days until it was put out.  http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/03/world/...-building-fire

No collapse into its footprint.
What caused the fire?  Why did that fire take down building 7 when allegedly the ONLY reason why the twin towers collapsed was that the fire contained jet fuel?  Also,

----------

Gemini (04-11-2013)

----------


## Guest

Here he is debunking the debunkers







My point is that maybe a bunch of jihadists attempted to do all of this, but I believe they had help so that the type of trauma that would change public mood from one of caution to trust would happen, and so a new age of surveillance and control could be ushered in.

I believe people justified "helping" because a) the towers would have to come down anyway, b) they were a health hazard, c) the jihadists really were going to attack, and d) it's for the "greater good" that the government controls us.

----------

Gemini (04-11-2013)

----------


## countryboy

> That's just it.  It is easier to attack a position then present your own.  I know this from my job.  I can produce reasonable doubt from anything or tear down any position.
> 
> But this isn't a trial.  It's supposed to be people talking and having a dialogue which means that I expect them to explain what they believe in their word or present videos if they ask for videos.
> 
> I haven't seen that reciprocity.


If you are seriously contending that I have presented nothing, I don't know what to tell ya sweetheart. 

You made some assertions, I asked you to substantiate them, you wouldn't, or couldn't. If you had wanted to have a meaningful dialogue, I would have been game, but after you played the,"I'm clearly smarter than you" card (summa cum laude blah blah blah), I pretty much gave up on any meaningful discussion. 

As far as @Gemini @Gemini @Gemini @Gemini @Gemini is concerned, complete waste of my valuable time.

----------


## Gemini

Good luck refuting that.

----------


## Gemini

> If you are seriously contending that I have presented nothing, I don't know what to tell ya sweetheart. 
> 
> You made some assertions, I asked you to substantiate them, you wouldn't, or couldn't. If you had wanted to have a meaningful dialogue, I would have been game, but after you played the,"I'm clearly smarter than you" card (summa cum laude blah blah blah), I pretty much gave up on any meaningful discussion. 
> 
> As far as @Gemini @Gemini @Gemini @Gemini @Gemini is concerned, complete waste of my valuable time.


 :Smiley ROFLMAO:   Apparently I occupy some special place in your mind.   But really you shouldn't just give up because things get difficult when your point is challenged.  Grow a little here.  I'll even cut out the condescension as an added bonus. @countryboy.

----------


## Guest

> If you are seriously contending that I have presented nothing, I don't know what to tell ya sweetheart.


Well, show me the post where you explained in your words what happened to building 7 and the video I asked for.  I must have missed it and I apologize.

----------


## countryboy

> Well, show me the post where you explained in your words what happened to building 7 and the video I asked for.  I must have missed it and I apologize.


You post a video of Silverstein which has been debunked ad naseum, and yet you want me to explain it in my own words. Not to mention the firefighters saying they saw no fires, when there is plenty of photographic evidence to easily refute this?

----------


## Gemini

> You post a video of Silverstein which has been debunked ad naseum, and yet you want me to explain it in my own words. Not to mention the firefighters saying they saw no fires, when there is plenty of photographic evidence to easily refute this?


 @countryboy

Where has it been debunked?

Source please.  For both the firefighters and Silverstein.  Present the evidence that refutes this.

----------


## Guest

> You post a video of Silverstein which has been debunked ad naseum, and yet you want me to explain it in my own words. Not to mention the firefighters saying they saw no fires, when there is plenty of photographic evidence to easily refute this?


No, I want YOU to explain in YOUR words why building 7 came down.  You could also say in YOUR WORDS why you feel the demolitions experts were wrong.

Also, how do you debunk a video of the man talking?  Are YOU saying that you think someone dubbed it?  Are you saying that he said to "pull it" and it just fell down?  Why did it fall down?  And if he said that the building was rigged so they could pull it...why is that not important?

Lastly, where is the video I asked you for of building 7 coming down?  Why won't you provide it and yet feel comfortable to continue to ask me for things?

----------


## DDave

@Rina_Dragonborn
Sorry for the delay. Busy day . . . work, appointments, son's tennis match, daughter's dance performance . . . you get the idea.

As promised, here is my response. It may answer a couple of gemini's questions as well as far as the "pull it" comment and "no fires" being debunked.




> I believe that the government let 911 happen because it would be beneficial to them. I think a bunch of Saudis flew jets into the towers. I believe that the towers were all demolished because of insurance reasons.


Well if that's the case, it was the stupidest case of insurance fraud in history since Silverstein would have lost about $4 billion in the process of paying off the remaining mortgage plus paying the costs to rebuild new towers. 




> So my "conspiracy" only goes as far as what makes sense in light of the data and our government's past history with Northwoods, Tonkin, MK Ultra, Iran Contra, and Fast and Furious, etc.


Guilt by association. I believe you need evidence to prove someone guilty of something. I have not read your links yet but will do so.




> The owner of the towers slipped up and said (I'm sure it is on here somewhere) that 7 was taken down on purpose.


Actually, no he didn't. This is exactly what he said:

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

Truthers jump on that statement and say that "pull" is a demo term which proves he had the building rigged. Bull. "Pull" in the demo sense refers to pulling a building over with cables. PLUS, neither Silverstien nor the fire departmant are in the business of demoing buildings so why would they be using demo slang anyway? AND if you believe what the truthers are implying, then the NYFD must have been in on the conspiracy since they made the decision to "pull" if you're referring to demolishing the building.

And finally, if Silverstien used "pull" to refer to demolishing the building, let's look at his quote again but substitute the word "pull" with the phrase "demolish the building".

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just demolish the building.' And they made that decision to demolish the building and then we watched the building collapse."

Does the fire department making the decision to demolish the building make any sense to you? Does demolishing a building to prevent further loss of life make any sense to you?




> All of those buildings were due to come down due to asbestos or be renovated for billions, so I think the government just let it happen


Actually the cost of the asbestos removal was estimated at about $200 million. And as I already pointed out, he would lose money on the insurance proceeds less the remaining mortgage plus the rebuilding costs.




> Everyone benefited--the federal government finally was able to pass the Patriot Act, its powers expanded, CFR aims were accomplished, the owner of those buildings received more in insurance than he would have had to pay to renovate them. To the government this is a win-win.


No insurance company is going to issue a policy for more than it would cost to rebuild a building. Again, Silverstien would have lost money in the deal. I suppose you could say the government benefitted if passing the Patriot Act, etc, etc was a goal. Doesn't prove they had anything to do with 9/11. 

Construction companies benefitted from Hurricane Katrina. Does that prove that they caused it?




> Sandy Hook, the Sikh Temple shooting, Aurora...all of them had people either associated with the military or DARPA or associated with Libor. It is also beneficial to the government's gun control aims


More guilt by association. Doesn't prove involvement. I'll certainly agree that it was beneficial to the gun control agenda and used as such. "Don't let a tragedy go to waste" as Rahmbo would say.




> and quite frankly if you do decide to read all of those FOIA documents that I linked to for MK Ultra this was the stuff they planned on and the purpose of the project.


Haven't read them yet but thanks for providing them. I will read them.




> When I asked him to explain how they broadcast it coming down 20 minutes earlier, I got rhetoric.


Here you go. Not in my own words but much more informative this way. I could retype it and say it was my own words but it's accurate just the same and I sourced it.
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

"While investigating and updating information on the collapse of the towers, someone at the BBC was given a report/press release that building 7 was going to collapse. [Edit: we now know they were monitoring the news from different outlets and that's where they learned of building 7.] According to the fire department, by 2:00PM they knew the building would soon collapse. Reporters KNEW this well before the collapse because there are videos of reporters talking about it before it happened. So we KNOW reporters were given information on WTC 7's imminent demise. We can conclude from this evidence that the fire department relayed information to reporters that the building was going to collapse. By the time the report reached the reporter at the BBC, it may have simply been miscommunicated from "About to collapse" to "Has collapsed". She even starts out by saying "Details are very, very sketchy". That alone should put this to rest. She didn't say 'Sketchy'. She didn't say 'very sketchy'. She said "very, very sketchy"."




> I want to know in your own words what made building 7 come down, explain the physics. YOUR words because I want to know how you processed the information in your mind and why you think that makes sense


I'm not a physicist, nor, I'm guessing are you. I did take a college physics course. Got an A in lecture and lab, thank you very much.

I will explain how I processed the information and came to my conclusion though. I read as much as I could possibly find from both perspectives and decided for myself which sounded more logical. A good summary of that information is provided here if you are so inclined to read it.
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

After reading through ALL of the info, I find that supporting the "official" version more plausible for the following reasons:

No one has offered any believable explanation of who, how, or when the buildiing was prepped for demo without anyone noticing.

If there WAS a huge conspiracy that all these people (whoever they are) were involved in, SOMEONE would have talked by now. The government is really bad at keeping secrets.
And, yes, it seems logical that a building that suffered major damage from another building collapsing into it which had an unusual base which straddled a power station and had fires burning in it for hours unfought would collapse. Especially given the statements from several firefighters that said the building didn't look right.




> I can read tons of "skeptics" versions, but when the NIST report said "extraordinary event" on 3--not 1--3 buildings...that feels like magic.


Did you look at the reports and find the data lacking or did you just dismiss it based on how it "feels".

You say you have a legal background and I believe you. But how do you reconcile the fact that in the criminal justice realm guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt but when it comes to these types of events you pronounce guilt without gathering or examining evidence. You repeat what you hear without trying to verify it for yourself as evidenced by the insurance claim, the asbestos cost, and the video you posted claiming the firemen said explosives were used?

I'm not attacking you just asking if you feel you are being inconsistent.

Speaking of what people say they "heard", much of that has been taken out of context . Here is a good summary of that.
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/whattheyheard

----------


## countryboy

> No, I want YOU to explain in YOUR words why building 7 came down.  You could also say in YOUR WORDS why you feel the demolitions experts were wrong.
> 
> Also, how do you debunk a video of the man talking?  Are YOU saying that you think someone dubbed it?  Are you saying that he said to "pull it" and it just fell down?  Why did it fall down?  And if he said that the building was rigged so they could pull it...why is that not important?
> 
> Lastly, where is the video I asked you for of building 7 coming down?  Why won't you provide it and yet feel comfortable to continue to ask me for things?


You missed my point. Why are you requiring me to explain the physics of how WTC 7 came down in my own words, when you yourself are using the words of others to postulate your opinion? 

I don't know how we get into these pissing matches, and yes I'm guilty of it too, but I think we need to hit the reset button and try and have a civil discussion. K?

As for the "pull it" comment by Silverstein, I think DDave has pretty much explained why the truther's position on that matter is so silly. Why would he be using demo slang in a discussion with the fire officials? Has he been involved in so many building demos with NYFD that he is in the habit of using demo slang? Why would he use the demo slang referring to pulling a building down with cables if this was a controlled explosive demo? Why, why, why, why, why, why??????

And why are you asking me for the vid of wtc7 coming down? Are you incapable of using a search engine? Are you implying these videos do not exist? If you are as learned on the subject as you claim, you know there is video and photographic evidence, as well as eyewitness testimony as to the extent of the damage to wtc7 and the fires. One firefighter testified about the multi story gaping hole at the base of wtc7 he and others observed from high up in the Verizon building. Truthers like to show pics of the other side of the building which appears to be undamaged. You guys also like to show pics of what looks like the minimally damaged parapet wall, without showing how that wall is inset from the outside of the building. 

Here is one very plausible explanation about the series of events that led to the collapse of wtc7. Please explain to me, in your own words, why this possible scenario is not plausible. http://www.structuremag.org/Archives...sanz-Nov07.pdf

----------


## Gemini

Whenever somebody wants to address post 59 I'll be thankful.

----------


## countryboy

> Whenever somebody wants to address post 59 I'll be thankful.


Address what, the alleged "pools of molten metal"? I would first need to source this allegation. Even so, how would that be the result of a controlled explosive demo any more than a structural failure? Please explain in detail, and with specificity.

----------


## Gemini

> Address what, the alleged "pools of molten metal"? I would first need to source this allegation. Even so, how would that be the result of a controlled explosive demo any more than a structural failure? Please explain in detail, and with specificity.


The sources are in the post...Thermite melting the steel to weaken - producing the melted steel.  This is a common precursor to a detonation for demolition.  Apparently you can't just blast the building, you have to weaken it first.  The 'orange spout' in some of the videos is a pretty big tip off.

----------


## countryboy

> The sources are in the post...Thermite melting the steel to weaken - producing the melted steel.  This is a common precursor to a detonation for demolition.  Apparently you can't just blast the building, you have to weaken it first.  The 'orange spout' in some of the videos is a pretty big tip off.


Really? Common? Linky or two? Preferably not to twoofer sites.

How would that be a tip off? That looks nothing like a thermite reaction. Have you ever even seen a thermite reaction? 

How much thermite would be required to weaken one of those giant beams? What mechanism would they use exactly to hold the thermite in place? Additionally, how would they plant the explosive charges as well? All without being detected?

----------


## Gemini

@countryboy




> How would that be a tip off? That looks nothing like a thermite reaction. Have you ever even seen a thermite reaction?


Okay, I'll play for just a moment.

Thermite reaction-




But  yes, I have seen them first hand in the military with incendiary  grenades.  Great for making short work of armor of all sorts.  They melt through the metal which ease.  Just don't look directly at it - might be the last thing you ever recognize.




> How much thermite would be required to weaken one of those giant beams?


Hell if I know, a lot I'm guessing.  I'm not a professional blaster - ask one.




> What mechanism would they use exactly to hold the thermite in place?


As noticed from the video, ceramics work fairly good.  How they would set it up though is beyond me, again - ask a professional blaster.




> Additionally, how would they plant the explosive charges as well? All without being detected?


How do people rob casinos and banks?

Lies, threats, and bribes.  I'm not a psychic.  But if a woman can get a .380 past the TSA *on accident* than I'm sure this could be pulled off.  An inside man, or midnight "building maintenance crews" could do this.  Use your imagination man.  Get outside of this box of thought you've locked yourself into.

Review post 59, and address the posted material.  Otherwise you are just wasting my time, and yours.  The links are in there.  Hell the whole site is loaded with good info.

----------


## countryboy

> @countryboy
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I'll play for just a moment.
> 
> Thermite reaction-
> 
> 
> ...


Typical truther fall back position when asked for specifics. Wild speculation. 


http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=0nQco...%3D0nQco2D6uY8
This is the video twoofers always point to as evidence of thermite being utilized to demo the towers. And while at first glance it looks somewhat compelling ( especially to a person with preconceived notions), it falls way short of proving anything. 

First of all, it doesn't look nearly as bright white as the very small amount of thermite used in your video, let alone the huge amount of thermite that would be required to weaken the huge beams used in the WTC (which you admit you have no idea how much). Secondly, why is there only one of these "thermite fountains"? Wouldn't the perps need to initiate a reaction simultaneously at key positions all the way around the structure to bring the building(s) down in a controlled demo? There were many, many cameras trained on the building. Why is this the only alleged reaction captured on film? Also, if a targeted beam was exposed enough to show the alleged thermite reaction, wouldn't it stand to reason that the explosive charge necessary to finish the job would also be plainly visible? This would be prior to the collapse, not the air being forced out *after* the building is already collapsing. Which twoofers always point to as evidence of a controlled demo.

----------


## Gemini

> Typical truther fall back position when asked for specifics. Wild speculation. 
> 
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=0nQco...%3D0nQco2D6uY8
> This is the video twoofers always point to as evidence of thermite being utilized to demo the towers. And while at first glance it looks somewhat compelling ( especially to a person with preconceived notions), it falls way short of proving anything.


Actually it proves that there was molten metal, and they know that the fire couldn't burn hot enough to produce that kind of effect.  *awkward*




> First of all, it doesn't look nearly as bright white as the very small amount of thermite used in your video, let alone the huge amount of thermite that would be required to weaken the huge beams used in the WTC (which you admit you have no idea how much).






Don't know why I bother at this point, but knock yourself out.  Apparently there are varying grades of thermite.  But it really depends on the resolution of the video in question.  All that being said, where did the pools of iron come from then if not from melting the steel?




> Secondly, why is there only one of these "thermite fountains"? Wouldn't the perps need to initiate a reaction simultaneously at key positions all the way around the structure to bring the building(s) down in a controlled demo?


Given that the steel beams are located towards the center of the building I am surprised that we even saw the molten iron pouring out at all.  But I guess when a plane is flown into the building a pathway could have been created for the iron to flow.  Who knows man?  I think it was an operational "woops" that has been casually glossed over.




> There were many, many cameras trained on the building. Why is this the only alleged reaction captured on film?


You need to look around a little more then.




> Also, if a targeted beam was exposed enough to show the alleged thermite reaction, wouldn't it stand to reason that the explosive charge necessary to finish the job would also be plainly visible?


No, and for obvious reasons.  We didn't see the thermite reaction take place now did we?  We did see molten iron though.  Molten iron is liquid, it moves around obviously.  An explosive plastic charge wouldn't being traveling anywhere.  And with all the smoke I think you'd be hard pressed to see what happened.  Also, most explosives don't produce fantastic fireballs, and demo explosives are usually very small and precisely placed charges.  Scaling accordingly to the size of the building and the materials it is made out of.

Now address post 59.

----------


## countryboy

I did address your post. You realize molten steel cools rather quickly, right?

I thought we had a new civil tone going on here, but if it's killing you to carry on a dialogue, then don't trouble yourself on my account.

----------


## Gemini

> I did address your post. You realize molten steel cools rather quickly, right?


No, you didn't actually.  But I'm not surprised at this point either.  Small amounts yes, big amounts?  Not at all.  The rubble was hot for weeks.




> I thought we had a new civil tone going on here, but if it's killing you to carry on a dialogue, then don't trouble yourself on my account.


You have yet to see me be hostile.  But your belligerence is getting old.  As is your lack of thoughtful responses to posts.

----------


## DDave

I guess we can fling some sources back and forth for awhile.




> And then to top it off, explain the pools of melted steel.  I'd love to hear that one.


Here you go.
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm




> Perhaps the zeal to recycle the steel is a red flag too?


http://www.911myths.com/html/recycled_steel.html




> Cut at a 45 degree angle which is typical of a profession demo job?





> Thermite melting the steel to weaken - producing the melted steel.  This is a common precursor to a detonation for demolition.  Apparently you can't just blast the building, you have to weaken it first.


Well . . . which is it?  First it was cutting.  Now it's thermite.  Which is the method of choice to weaken the beams for demo?  (Cue Final Jeapardy music here)

Actually it's neither.  Thermite doesn't burn horizontally so it is pretty pointless to claim it was used to weaken vertical beams.

What they do is drill holes in the beams and insert nitroglycerine, TNT or C4.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demolition#Preparation

----------


## Gemini

> I guess we can fling some sources back and forth for awhile.
> 
> Here you go.
> http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm


Still reading it.  Will get back to you.  The aluminum argument I don't really buy that much though only because I have worked with aluminum with plenty of contaminants in it - still looks quite silvery.




> http://www.911myths.com/html/recycled_steel.html


Read it, nothing but link rot on the sources they link to.  Sorry man, you got a busted ship here.  I can't accurately fact check it.  Nothing but the infamous "404 not found".




> Well . . . which is it?  First it was cutting.  Now it's thermite.  Which is the method of choice to weaken the beams for demo?  (Cue Final Jeapardy music here)


Personally?  I think it was both.  Cutting weakened steel makes gobs more sense.




> Actually it's neither.  Thermite doesn't burn horizontally so it is pretty pointless to claim it was used to weaken vertical beams.


Thought about that, but really I think it would be easy enough to build a ceramic dam of sorts to just stop it from flowing down - but I am not an expert, don't know if that is realistic or not.




> What they do is drill holes in the beams and insert nitroglycerine, TNT or C4.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demolition#Preparation


Would it be impossible to put thermite in those holes?  But if they were drilled, it would likely produce some noise which workers would gripe about, unless it was done after hours for a while.  But we're reaching pretty deep in the 'what if' bucket right now.

----------


## Guest

I actually appreciate @DDave making  stab in his own words, and I think @countryboy needs to either not complain about @The XL and his "insults" or stop with the "twoother"/"truther" stuff.

I'd also like to hear him explain it in his own words because I think if you're going to snark someone then that should be required.  @Gemini has spent a lot of time speaking in his own words and it's time for others to do the same or else quit snarking his ass.

As I've said, I know from experience that it is easy to pick apart what other people say, harder to make a statement.  I could take someone telling the truth as they know it and within ten minutes they'd be stammering and unsure of themselves because that is the vulnerability of exposure and the ease of asking simple questions with a bit of snark.

----------


## countryboy

> I actually appreciate @DDave making  stab in his own words, and I think @countryboy needs to either not complain about @The XL and his "insults" or stop with the "twoother"/"truther" stuff.
> 
> I'd also like to hear him explain it in his own words because I think if you're going to snark someone then that should be required.  @Gemini has spent a lot of time speaking in his own words and it's time for others to do the same or else quit snarking his ass.
> 
> As I've said, I know from experience that it is easy to pick apart what other people say, harder to make a statement.  I could take someone telling the truth as they know it and within ten minutes they'd be stammering and unsure of themselves because that is the vulnerability of exposure and the ease of asking simple questions with a bit of snark.


I have posted plenty of my own words. What do you want from me? And yes, my snarkiness has been epic of late. Sorry 'bout that.

You guy's are lucky I wasn't posting last night, drank five Sierra Nevada's and about a bottle of red wine. hic......

Rina, serious question. While you are prolly right to chastise me for _my_ snarkiness, why am I the only one who is the target of your chastising? How did I earn such a special place in your heart?

----------

DDave (04-13-2013)

----------


## DDave

> Still reading it.  Will get back to you.


I appreciate you taking the time, @Gemini




> Read it, nothing but link rot on the sources they link to.  Sorry man, you got a busted ship here.  I can't accurately fact check it.  Nothing but the infamous "404 not found".


Hmm . . . right you are.  I'll see if I can find another.




> Thought about that, but really I think it would be easy enough to build a ceramic dam of sorts to just stop it from flowing down - but I am not an expert, don't know if that is realistic or not.


On two 110 story office buildings?? I'm no expert either but I feel pretty safe saying, no, that is NOT realistic.




> Would it be impossible to put thermite in those holes?  But if they were drilled, it would likely produce some noise which workers would gripe about, unless it was done after hours for a while.  But we're reaching pretty deep in the 'what if' bucket right now.


Yes I suppose it would be possible to put thermite in those holes.  Trouble is, there is no evidence to support that it was done that way.  

Would it be impossible that the buildings collapsed because of the reasons NIST and other laid out?  That seems to be considered impossible but a conspiracy invloving THOUSANDS seems perfectly believable.
http://www.debunking911.com/massivect.htm

Actually, @Rina_Dragonborn should read the info at that link as well, since she and you are doing what she has criticized others of doiing.




> You make a judgement first, and then see everything through that lens.





> I actually appreciate @DDavemaking stab in his own words,


Well, thank you.  But I couldn't help but notice that you have not responded to any of the refutations of your points that I raised.




> _I'd also like to hear him explain it in his own words because I think if you're going to snark someone then that should be required. @_Gemini_has spent a lot of time speaking in his own words and it's time for others to do the same or else quit snarking his ass._  As I've said, I know from experience that it is easy to pick apart what other people say, harder to make a statement.


Why is it necessary to rewrite in one's own words what has already been stated in a much more factual and detailed manner elsewhere?  I can understand it for summary purposes and I don't like it when people just spam links, But even at that, folks should provide links and sources to back up any claims they make in their own words and not just make stuff up like Gemini did about the weight comparison of the 767 to an Abrams tank.

----------


## Oskar

How did WTC 7 collapse without being hit?

----------


## Oskar

> Do you have a web site?


I wrote a blog.

----------


## NuYawka

> After the planes hit a thumbs down was issued by the owner of the buildings. That about says it all.


Siskel and Ebert did not own the Twin Towers.

----------


## Oskar

I think that the American people deserve to know the truth about 9/11.

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> I think that the American people deserve to know the truth about 9/11.


So fill me in. I will listen.

----------

