A Cynic’s Guide To 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

604 Responses to “A Cynic’s Guide To 9/11 Conspiracy Theories”

1. 3 year old Kid Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 10:28 pm

   Rather than calling it the Cynic’s Guide, it should be called the CRETINS GUIDE. Perhaps Nick Pole can explain why Building 007 was totally omitted from even one single mention in the Commission Report he found to be so good and comprehensive? Do you suppose they accidentally forgot to mention 3 and not 2 buildings were disintegrated to dust and little rubble on the day of 911? How do these characters explain the NIST claim that the two tall towers were annihilated in less than 10 seconds each? All this stuff about jet crashes and burning building is totally irrelevant - How can the 80+ UNDAMAGED, Strongest & Heaviest Bottom floors (under the jet crash floors), be crushed to dust sand rubble within, (according to NIST; the video evidence and seismic data) 10 seconds, when if it were a 417 metres of empty vacuum the top bit fell through - it would take 9.22 seconds Precisely. How can a building offer next to no resistance yet 1 second prior to the initiation of destruction sequence the very fact the building was upright states it had a minimum of 1 times working load? Yet if you observe the blueprint the building were designed with 3 times working load in mind as they always have more than 100% redundancy as are the building codes. So, seeing as for example the UNDAMAGED 50th floor was designed to carry 3 times the 60 floors above it, and we are guaranteed it had to carry at least 1 times the 60 floors above it, and the lower the floors the tougher and heavier they were - It is just not physically possible to collapse a body through the path of most resistance at near free speed – it defies all common sense and at least three laws of physics. So, if Gravity could not destroy the 110 buildings within 10 seconds each - what did if not demolition explosives and cutter charges? And if it is physically not even possible for Gravity to destroy the burning buildings within 10 seconds as is Physics fact - then it was not the fire or the jet crash nor the terrorist who brought the buildings down on 911. Even additional bombs in the basement and elsewhere would not destroy the buildings in 10 seconds; it would require precision set, precision timed demolition on at least every third if not every second floor. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

2. 3 year old Kid Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 10:53 pm

   Its like this, over 400 Architects and Engineers, myself included - prove the 911 destruction was controlled demolition. Here is all the absolute proof http://www.ae911truth.org/ Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

3. Sul Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 11:36 pm

   Conspiraloon Alert! Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

4. Longman Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 11:44 pm

   No really. How many architects, engineers, physics etc have said there’s a problem with the “official” story? Not bleedin many. And most of those who have are doing so to further their own agenda. Wise up. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

5. paul w Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 11:46 pm

   3 year old Kid Posted: Jun 14th, 2008 at 10:28 pm The question is how can you be so totally ignorant? Go and read the following websites: 9-11 Myths Screwloosechange.blog Internet Detectives. All your questions will be answered. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

6. paul w Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 12:26 am

   “Perhaps Nick Pole can explain why Building 007 was totally omitted from even one single mention in the Commission Report he found to be so good and comprehensive?” It wasn’t their job. A report on WTC7 is currently underway and is expected to be released soon (and before you say ‘why has it taken so long?’ you must remember that, unlike 9-11 truther rubbish, these reports have to be accurate, scientific and professional.) “Do you suppose they accidentally forgot to mention 3 and not 2 buildings were disintegrated to dust and little rubble on the day of 911?” That’s because the buildings didn’t ‘disintegrate into dust’ and I wouldn’t call the remnants of the two Towers ‘little piles of rubbish’. You do, but then, you’re a truther. What has reality got to do with anything? “How do these characters explain the NIST claim that the two tall towers were annihilated in less than 10 seconds each?” Have you actually READ the NIST report? Please do. “All this stuff about jet crashes and burning building is totally irrelevant” ??????? “How can the 80+ UNDAMAGED, Strongest & Heaviest Bottom floors (under the jet crash floors), be crushed to dust sand rubble within” Er, have you READ the NIST report? Please do. (the towers were ‘cylinders’ that used the inner core columns and outer skin for strength, the floors within suspended between the two, hence the open-plan design of the floors.) “according to NIST; the video evidence and seismic data) 10 seconds, when if it were a 417 metres of empty vacuum the top bit fell through - it would take 9.22 seconds Precisely.” Er, have you READ the NIST report? Please do. “How can a building offer next to no resistance yet 1 second prior to the initiation of destruction sequence the very fact the building was upright states it had a minimum of 1 times working load? Yet if you observe the blueprint the building were designed with 3 times working load in mind as they always have more than 100% redundancy as are the building codes.” ???????? (no, really, have you READ the NIST report?) “So, seeing as for example the UNDAMAGED 50th floor was designed to carry 3 times the 60 floors above it, and we are guaranteed it had to carry at least 1 times the 60 floors above it, and the lower the floors the tougher and heavier they were..” No, the FLOORS were NOT designed to carry the 60 flo0rs above (read the comments above about the tower design and read the NIST report). “It is just not physically possible to collapse a body through the path of most resistance at near free speed – it defies all common sense and at least three laws of physics.” And what, precisely, are there three laws of physics? (the Nobel prize for anyone who can answer this correctly) So, if Gravity could not destroy the 110 buildings within 10 seconds each - what did if not demolition explosives and cutter charges?” Er, gravity without a capital ‘g’? “And if it is physically not even possible for Gravity to destroy the burning buildings within 10 seconds as is Physics fact - then it was not the fire or the jet crash nor the terrorist who brought the buildings down on 911. A ‘Physics fact’ Really? “Even additional bombs in the basement and elsewhere would not destroy the buildings in 10 seconds; it would require precision set, precision timed demolition on at least every third if not every second floor.” Phew, glad you cleared that up! Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

7. Dave D Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 1:57 am

   911 conspiracies = DEBUNKED Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

8. Sail Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 2:14 am

   Great show! How about a part 2? Now we have more people speaking AGAINST the truth movement than actually belong to the movement. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

9. john Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:33 am

   to all the counter intelligence people that are posting lies please be aware that the truth will out and you will be punished. Notice that the guy who tried to counter 3 year old kids claims, gave no facts himself, told you to look at a report that he does not quote anything from, etc. Look at all the debunking sites and interviews all of them are obviously bogus as they never tackle the facts just attack the personalities. http://www.netctr.com Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

10. Neil Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 10:25 am

    I was responsible for this documentary, so it’s nice to see it’s provoking a reaction. 3 Year Old Kid - Nick Pole didn’t mention anything about building 7 because we didn’t speak to him (whoever he might be). Nick Pope probably didn’t mention it because, to be honest, we only had about 15 minutes to speak to him (we spent most of the time we had with him talking about UFOs, his area of expertise.) Neither he nor I are experts when it comes to that sort of thing. His was a good contribution because he talked about looking at Truth Movement evidence alongside evidence put forward that explains the generally accepted narrative. His experience of getting hate mail from Truthers was very interesting, I found. I’d be very interested in seeing the evidence you have for precision timed demolition on every third or second floor. Witnesses to these demolitions being set, maybe one of the people who set the demolitions and has since been racked with guilt at the consequences of his actions. If you - or anyone else for that matter - has anything like this, please get in touch and we’ll dedicate a whole three hour show to it. “Do you suppose they accidentally forgot to mention 3 and not 2 buildings were disintegrated to dust and little rubble on the day of 911?” We didn’t mention it because the documentary was only 17 minutes - it’s hard to cover a subject as big as 9/11 conspiracy theories in such a short time. Also, we were working on the assumption that the vast majority of listeners weren’t really aware of the conspiracy theories, so we had to do it from a standing start, so to speak. Given more time, I’m sure we would have covered things in more detail. Also, if you think only three buildings were destroyed at the World Trade Center site that day, you need to do more research. Paul W - What was it one of the people in the debate talked about? “Confirmation bias”? He’s depressingly right when it comes to the truthers, I’ve found. Sail - we’re going to do Cynic’s Guides to more things (UFOs, as I mentioned, will be one) but I hope to maybe return to the Truth Movement, or perhaps one on conspiracy theories in general. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

11. Matthew Revell Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 12:08 pm

    I’m Neil’s co-host on the Wolverhampton Radiophonic Institute (i.e. the other cretin). Just like to note that our website is http://www.radiophonic.org.uk, where you’ll also shortly be able to subscribe to a podcast of the show. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

12. c0intelpr0 Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 2:14 pm

    WTC 7 - The Truth Exposed Debunking the lies and misrepresentations of the so-called 9/11 ‘Truth’ movement regarding World Trade Center Building 7. http://youtube.com/watch?v=GdpEtOcEmtU Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

13. Reptor Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 7:33 pm

    You guys have hit the nail on the head. Kudos to you both for having the balls to produce this, I’m sure many truthers will be calling for blood now. Any report on the kind of feedback you’ve had since the show? Please keep us all informed of what you’re doing, and thank you to all who had the guts to take part and promote this show. The cult is slowly being exposed thanks to brave efforts like this. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

14. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 7:51 pm

    I stand by what I say, it was the Cretins guide to 911. A guide By cretins - For Cretins. Forget who was flying the jets and lost their passports and bandannas, etc, that is totally irrelevant re the destruction sequence. It is not physically possible to have a falling body fall through the path of most resistance. EVER NEVER!!!!! And to fall through the path of most resistance at near to freefall speed is even more impossible than impossible. Just, a minute I am falling over with laughter, hold on. Sorry about that, I could not type and laugh at the same time. Why are qualified people unwilling to come forward? The Physics of 911 is so simple that most people who values their career will NOT touch it - because it is SO Obviously a Controlled Demolition. I now need to go and watch cartoons. However, for those who want the professional opinion of 400 Architects and Engineers regarding the Controlled Demolitions on 911 go Here:- http://www.ae911truth.org/ Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

15. Ashley Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:35 pm

    Yeah these troofers I don’t know, I’m sure there are logical explainations for the collapse of 3 steel framed buildings in to their own footprint (the only 3 steel framed syscrapers to collapse due to fire damage in history). I’m no scientist so I can’t give answers as to how these buildings didn’t topple (as logic would expect as they were hit on one side), I also cannot give you an explaination as to how jet fuel that burns at a maximum of 1500F could melt steel that had been certified to 2750F. I’m sure the BBC (and IIRC CNN) have an explaination of how they predicted the collapse of WTC7 some 25 minutes before its collapse (I just can’t seem to find explainations for this despite hunting for them). If I predicted someones murder I’m sure it would be investigated thoroughly but this kind of examination of our BBC is not required (an examination would be a bit of a problem as the BBC have said they have lost all of their footage from Sept 11th 2001, quite amazing if true). Of course the PNAC report that said that the desires of America to spread their democracy would not have enough support without some kind of ‘new Pearl Harbour’ is not a prediction of any sort (published one year prior to 911) The strange lack of fighter jets over the most protected piece of airspace in the world (the Pentagon) is again understandable (albeit not to me) and the 2 released CCTV images are the only footage of the plane despite the amount of cameras focussed on this building. Funny how Rumsfeld gave 3 different accounts of his actions on the morning of 9-11 to the commission and they, rather than querying this they combine 2 of the accounts and completely ignore the other. Of course the fact that good old Dick Cheney says he arrived in the Whitehouse bunker at 10am despite witnesses putting him there some 35 minutes earlier (i.e. before the plane hit the Pentagon). Cheney was also reportedly told about the plane heading towards the Pentagon at 40, 30, 20 and 10 miles out and was asked ‘if the orders still stand’ and he said that they did (these obviously weren’t the scramble orders to jets to intercept this plane as is standard operationg procedure as these orders were never given). Your freind and mine George Dubya says that he saw the first jet hit the tower before going in to his meeting with his intellectual superiors in the pre-school classroom (this was of course impossible as the only footage of this wasn’t shown until the following day). When he was told of the second plane hitting he sat there for another 20 minutes reading a book about goats rather than responding to the obvious problem. Then of course Dubya spent endless hours to try and connect Iraq with Osama and the attack (despite the well known fact that Osama hated Saddam nearly as much as Dubya). I’m completely with George when he says ‘Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th’ it’s just I don’t think that he is looking at the same conspiracy theory as me. Hey-ho it’ll be Iraq next, they are currently being told to stop their weapons program despite the fact that the IAEA have said that they don’t have one. There’ll be some poxy Powerpoint presentation on their nuclear prowess (that or a false flag of some description). The endless war on terror really will be endless if we carry on chasing weapons that don’t exist. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

16. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:36 pm

    So hands up, who thinks it is even physically possible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance? Secondly, who thinks it is even physically possible to fall through the path of most resistance at near to freefall speed? That is - in the absence of controlled demolition. Here is my favorite Web sight:- Architects and Engineers for 911 truth. http://www.ae911truth.org/ There are 400 professionals for you to ask, just email them for details Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

17. Reptor Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 9:01 pm

    400 professionals? Around the whole world you manage to find 400? Is that it? If there was any fact in these claims then ALL engineers etc would be crying out. In fact from the 400 professionals how many are experts in the fields relevant to the science of these claims? Every theory presented by the truth movement has been debunked. You might not like it. It might not sit with your opinion but that’s the facts. Deal with it. You got it wrong. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

18. Ashley Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 9:53 pm

    Reptor what are you on about? Every theory presented by the truth movement has been debunked? Where’s this? In Wonderland? A lot of the debunking has since been debunked but you fail to mention that in any way, shape or form. There are so many unanswered questions it is positively farcical, I guess that’s why there are so many people calling for a ‘proper’ investigation (inside and outside America). Do you dispute the idea that western governments have proposed and even carried out false flag operations to further their own agendas? Have a look in to Operation Gladio in Europe and Operation Northwoods in the US. It is absolutely amazing that a former Prime Minister of Italy can comment along the lines of ‘all the intelligence community knows CIA and Mossad carried out 9-11′ and it is all but ignored. If you have a look at the video where Osama claims responsibility for the 9-11 attacks watch to see which hand this ‘Osama’ uses to write with, then visit http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm and notice that it says ‘Bin Laden is left-handed’. Strange but true, I guess your retort would be that Osama did it on purpose to test our super special agents or some such cobblers. If you really think a bloke in a cave with a load of his mates armed with boxcutters can carry out these attacks then I think you need to re-evaluate the evidence. I noticed recently that there are proposals to install equipment in planes to allow the use of mobile phones, surely this tech is useless as this was already possible on United 93 nearly 7 years ago. so what gives? Like I said the amount of inconsistencies, half-truths and obvious untruths are there for anyone with a willingness to look and a mind open enough to think that governments don’t always tell the truth to their citizens. For me the one which clinches it is seeing 3 steel framed buildings collapsing in to their own footprints. I am no expert but I do know that even demolitions teams can’t guarantee this to happen when they place charges and do it on purpose. 2 of the 3 buildings were hit by planes, if they had weakened the structure sufficently it would have been on one side of the building along with the fires being concentrated on that side also thus I would expect them to fall over rather than in to themselves (imagine a Jenga tower, flick out a block on one side, start a fire in that space and what would you expect to happen? I bet the last thing you’re thinking is a nice neat pile, it would go over to one side). Then there’s WTC7 (although looking at the Commission’s report you’d do well to notice it). The explainaition of this collapse is that it caught on fire from one of the other buildings that collapsed, some diesel tanks caught on fire and alakazzam another nice neat pile. Now as far as I’m concerned steel hardened to withstand 2750F fires for 2 hours collapsing due to avaiation fule fires with a max of 1500F in an hour and a bit is one thing (the majority of the fuel burned off in the fireball when the plane hit the building anyway and there are also pictures of people standing looking out of where the plane hit surely they would have quite literally melted if we are to believe the steel in the towers did), but to believe that diesel which is significantly less combustible could do the same is akin to something from a fairy tale. You can believe what you want at the end of the day, everyone has the right to make up their own mind. If you want to swallow what I see as BS then that’s up to you and I have no concern for trying to convince you otherwise but please stop trying to fit your blinkers on to everyone else, if the conspiracy theories are so far fetched then people will work it out for themselves without your particular brand of troofiness. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

19. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 10:22 pm

    Thank you Reptor, you are really making my day. Well, go on then just don’t talk about it - let us see the maths and actual Physics. Debunk the Physics, now is your chance old chap. Give us one single experiment or example were a falling body takes the path of most resistance due to gravity alone. Secondly, give us one single experiment or example were a falling body takes the path of most resistance and falls at nearly freefall speed using gravity alone. And then just for extra points to prove we qualified folk don’t know what we are talking about and how super brainy you are - show the world the maths to back up the claim. Please show the Physics and the Maths. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

20. Reptor Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 11:24 pm

    I don’t have to prove squat. You’re the ones making ridiculous claims, it’s up to you to prove yourselves. You tried. You failed. Move on. If 911 was an inside job why haven’t the media reported on it? Why haven’t insurance companies refused to pay up? Why hasn’t any one of the THOUSANDS of people who need to be in on it come forward? Please troofers, try to think logically. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

21. Ashley Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 12:33 am

    Hahaaaa Reptor your entire response to my problems with the official story consists of ‘they couldn’t possibly do that’. Well I bow to your superior knowledge and reasoning, I can see from your responses that you are totally close minded on this issue. All of the stuff I’ve put in my responses to you are freely available online, have a look in to it. We aren’t making stuff up, the no planers and space weapons and hologram BS is not where we’re coming from (these theories are at best put forward by idiots or at worst a deliberate attempt to paint all people who don’t fall for the official story as nutcases). My specific problems as listed above (at the risk of repeating myself) are: - Only 3 steel framed modern skyscrapers have suffered a collapse due to fire damage. All 3 of those happened on 9-11 and all 3 collapsed into their own footprint. Now as I see it, the damage would have been asymetrical as the planes impact and main focus of the fire would have been on one side of each of the buildings. If this impact and subsequent fire had melted the steel (impossible due to the hardened steel and the burning temperature of kerosene as mentioned above, but even if we ignore that fact) then the buildings would have toppled over due to the second law of thermodynamics (the law of entropy). Now there is always an exception to the rule, so even though it contravenes the laws of physics I could probably write off one of the buildings exhibiting this behaviour as a freak occurence, but 3 freak occurences on the same day? Puhrlease! The fact that all 3 buildings collapsed at near freefall speed (i.e as if there was no resistance), if you look at the dust clouds created from the crushing/exploding? of the cement those clouds would have taken a lot of energy to create (i.e. made a lot of resistance). If these clouds had been created by the natural collapse of the buildings each floor would have taken an amount of time to collapse and create the dust clouds and this ‘resistance’ would have slowed the collapse substantially (it didn’t). The fact that WTC7 had no impact from a plane, there were what appeared to be some minor fires looking at the footage but the only propellant they can put in this building is diesel which burns substantially cooler than kerosene, but this building collapsed due to this fire when even kerosene from the planes doesn’t burn hot enough to melt the steel! The many eye witness accounts that describe explosions at WTC7 as it was collapsing, to quote on NYFD employee ‘there was a pop, pop, pop as each floor went, like a demolition’ Now you mentioned the insurance companies and this is one that intrigues me, when I see video of the recent purchaser and insured party that owned WTC7 a Larry Silverstein on video saying how he agreed with the fire department to ‘pull’ WTC7 (’pull’ is a term used by demolitions teams for the implosion of buildings using detonations), I wonder how on earth they agreed to pay out. I’m sure my house insurance wouldn’t pay out if my house burned down and I was on record as saying that I threw a molitov cocktail at it. Just out of interest I’d like to know where you come up with the idea that it would take ‘THOUSANDS’ of people to do something like this, just think about the staff member in the Whitehouse bunker asking Cheney ‘if the order still stood’, if this order was not to scramble fighter jets to protect the Pentagon then would the staffer have had to have been in on it or would he just have been obeying the commands of his superior? Would he now like to stand up and inform on Dick Cheney, how far would he think that would get him, other than the dole queue and loss of pension etc? What could each person on their own know? It’s exactly how terrorist organisations work, in cells. Ever heard the term ‘plausible deniability’? The whole conspiracy could not be uncovered unless every person in every part decided to blow the whistle, now what each person has knowledge of would be a little part of the big picture and they would see their knowledge as inconsequential. I mean the evidence for the US and UK going to war was clearly fabricated, the 45 minutes claim, the nuclear and biological arsenal, the mobile chemical labs (something a student dreamed up that was then put forward as fact), how many people must have been involved in that? How many of them are likely to have signed the official secrets act or the American equivalent? How many of them would be willing to risk a spell in jail to blow the whistle on something that on its own doesn’t really carry much weight. Some other random ones: - How did the BBC and CNN predict the collapse of WTC7 some 25 minutes before it collapsed? Why is Osama seen writing with his right hand in the video where he claims responsibility when the FBI website clearly says he is left handed? Did Osama forget which hand he writes with or are the FBI misinformed? Just because they say you’re paranoid it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you ;) Question everything and look for yourself, don’t believe me or believe someone else, make your own mind up (what I would say is that a commission report that cost 1/80th of the amount of money spent on finding out what Bill Clinton was doing with his cigars is not the best place to start, also NIST couldn’t get real world models of the towers to fall over so they did a computer simulation so they could alter the parameters. Hey it’s no wonder people are asking for another investigation eh?) Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

22. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 12:38 am

    Thank you for that failure to Debunk the 911 Controlled Demolition Physics Reptor. No one is forcing you to do anything old chap. We are not your enemy or a hostile or some sort of weird cult, we are 400 + Architects and Engineers including many people who actually design and build steel framed skyscrapers. But, if you claim some 400 professional Architects and Engineers at http://www.ae911truth.org/ are incorrect, and you can not even give one example of a falling body taking the path of most resistance then you really do not represent any credibility if you can not back up what you are claiming. All those questions you mention about why haven’t the media reported on it? Why haven’t insurance companies refused to pay up? Why hasn’t any one of the THOUSANDS of people who need to be in on it come forward? Are nothing to do with Architects and Engineers for 911 truth. To answer any of those questions would be pure speculation and engaging in conjecture and conspiracy theories. We at AE911truth.org only deal with Science and Engineering facts. And the important indisputable 911 facts are these:- It is physically impossible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance. It is even more physically impossible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance at almost freefall speed. Forget about if bandannas and passports were unburned whilst flying out of a suitcase that itself was totally incinerated. Forget that jet fighters failed to defend the pentagon despite being on guard 24/7. All that sort of stuff is bum fluff. Now I will ask you again to either back up what you claim or stop trying to impress about stuff you clearly know very little about. As I have said before and I will say again, this particular media diatribe was A 911 guide By cretins - For Cretins. And the fact you cannot back up your ridiculous claims does somewhat prove my point. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

23. Strug Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 1:43 am

    What many of you people are overlooking about this broadcast is that it is not looking at the evidence it is mainly looking at how troofers conduct themselves. Troofers are often rude and behave in a cult like manner attacking those who do not support their theories. This has been proven on this very page. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

24. Fawk Off Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 1:45 am

    Look at this site http://www.debunking911.com Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

25. paul w Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 7:28 am

    Ashley Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:35 pm | Link to this “I’m sure there are logical explainations for the collapse of 3 steel framed buildings in to their own footprint (the only 3 steel framed syscrapers to collapse due to fire damage in history).” Yes, the logical explanations can be found in the NIST report. Have you read the NIST report? “I’m no scientist so I can’t give answers as to how these buildings didn’t topple (as logic would expect as they were hit on one side” You don’t need to be a scientist - for the building to ‘topple over’ it would require a force pushing from the side. There was none. The only force on the towers was the greatest; gravity. The towers had no-where else to go but straight down. What were they going to do, tap-dance around New York for a while? PS. Have you read the NIST report? “I also cannot give you an explaination as to how jet fuel that burns at a maximum of 1500F could melt steel that had been certified to 2750F.” That’s because it’s impossible. The steel didn’t melt, it was heated and LOST STRENGTH, as neatly explained in the NIST report. Have you read the NIST report? “I’m sure the BBC (and IIRC CNN) have an explaination of how they predicted the collapse of WTC7 some 25 minutes before its collapse (I just can’t seem to find explainations for this despite hunting for them).” Hunt some more (hint: try 9-11 Myths, Screwloosechange or Internet Detectives.) Everyone involved knew WTC7 was coming down, that’s why they cleared the area and no-one was killed. the building was gutted by savage, multi-floor fires, one side had massive structural damage from debris from the collapsing towers, and the fucking thing was starting to lean over at an alarming angle…so, they figured it was probably gonna fall. Funny that… Also, it fell down because gravity was the greatest force, or do you believe it should have joined the towers in a pirouette around New York? have you read the NIST report? “If I predicted someones murder I’m sure it would be investigated thoroughly….” It was. The 9-11 investigation was the largest in US history (and the world?) “Of course the PNAC report that said that the desires of America to spread their democracy would not have enough support without some kind of ‘new Pearl Harbour’ is not a prediction of any sort (published one year prior to 911)” Sigh. The reference to a ‘new Pearl Harbour’ was taken completely out of context bu the 9-11 truthers. The comment came during a debate about military prowess. The speaker suggested that history showed military improvements often came after some sort of dramatic event which spurred R&D within the military. He suggested this would occur if there was another dramatic events like a ‘new Pearl Harbour’. “The strange lack of fighter jets over the most protected piece of airspace in the world (the Pentagon) is again understandable (albeit not to me)” One of the major findings of the investigation was a shocking lack of communication between the different services…between NORAD, the civilian flight controllers, pilots, etc. In short, a level of incompetence. There were THOUSANDS of planes in the sky that day…jeez, go do some bleeding research (hint: read the NIST report). “the 2 released CCTV images are the only footage of the plane despite the amount of cameras focussed on this building.” Actually, no. There were bugger all cameras ‘focused’ on the building…they were focused on the car entry, the service station forecourt, etc., as most cameras are. “Dick Cheney… ‘if the orders still stand’” I’m getting tired, so get off your lazy backside and go find out. “Then of course Dubya spent endless hours to try and connect Iraq with Osama and the attack” You mean Bush was being a politician and trying to use 9-11 to push through his own agenda! Unbelievable! Enough. You are a moron. Next…. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:36 pm | Link to this “So hands up, who thinks it is even physically possible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance?” Me! (and a few hundred thousand engineers and physics professors) Gravity dictated where the thing was gonna go, and it dictated straight down. Where else was it going to go? Up? Sideways? Tell me, what is it about gravity you don’t understand? “Secondly, who thinks it is even physically possible to fall through the path of most resistance at near to freefall speed?” Me! (and ditto). The issue here is that word NEAR…it was NEAR free-fall speed, NOT free-fall speed. Tell me, genius, what speed should it have been? A second longer? Two seconds? have ANY of your morons read the NIST report? “Here is my favorite Web sight:- Architects and Engineers for 911 truth. http://www.ae911truth.org/ There are 400 professionals for you to ask, just email them for details” Er, more to the point, how many have NOT joined? (hint: tens of thousands) Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

26. Edward Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 8:52 am

    When just Dr Steven Jones was speaking out it was “just one expert - that means nothing”. Then when there were 20 experts speaking out it was “just 20 experts - that means nothing”. Now there are over 400 experts speaking out and it’s “just 400 experts - that means nothing”… What’s your threshhold for reality denial? How long until you wake up? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

27. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 9:40 am

    Edward, don’t expect these failed Communist and failed Socialists (NOW claiming to be CULT WATCHERS) to wake up EVER. The fact is, they are science savvy poor - they are literally unable to grasp and logically process the important scientific 911 facts. They are so weak minded and so perversely politically driven they allow 911 dust to cloud & choke their judgments; unburned bandannas to blind their vision and this so called “Cult Watch” Characters are the perfect example of were because they were not the centre of attention at somebody else’s public meeting, and because someone just happened to give them a heckle, they now are prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater and are equivalent to becoming holocaust type deniers. And all this stuff peddled by the likes of Strug. Quote:- “What many of you people are overlooking about this broadcast is that it is not looking at the evidence it is mainly looking at how troofers conduct themselves. Troofers are often rude and behave in a cult like manner attacking those who do not support their theories. This has been proven on this very page.” Well pardon me for holding a professional scientific opinion about the most important aspect of 911, that being it is physically impossible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance at near freefall speed - it now turns out these characters don’t actually want to focus on what http://www.ae911truth.org/ is actually saying (the HARD scientific FACTS) but how some supporters address & behave at public meetings. Well what can one say. How is this for scientific method:- They wheel in a left wing disgruntled socialists from “Cult Watch” who is obviously not scientifically trained in Architecture, Physics or Engineering & a fruitcake UFO expert who just happens to have next to Zero credibility in anything he has ever done and get him to claim he is a pearl of 911 wisdom just because he really read the official pack of lies and believed it - when neither of these Cretins has even the savvy to question if the CIA actually officially even wanted Osmar Binladen for the official 911 Conspiracy plot. I mean how sort of low can these Cretins Go? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

28. Booger Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 1:15 pm

    When has your ‘professional scientific opinion’ undergone peer review? Nuff said. Btw describing those who do not share your views as ‘cretins’ is cult logic in action. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

29. Ashley Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 2:42 pm

    Paul W Thank you for your erudite reply and for the assertion that I am a moron, unfortunately this is the same kind of personal attack that tries to discredit an argument by resorting to insults as is commonly used by believers of the offical conspiracy theory (if you can’t discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger with an ad-hominem attack - nice). Your insistence on repeating your ‘have you read the NIST report’ question does not make our arguments go away. NIST initially tried to use real world models to explain the collapse of the 3 buildings, they were completely unable to do this so then changed tack and used a computer simulation to prove their theories (where they could alter the input parameters to their hearts content). Now call me a cynical troofer conspiraloon but if they can’t get real world models to exhibit the behaviour they claim was responsible for the collapse and have to resort to doing it in theory then I have little faith in their findings. When you tell me to read the NIST report to find out about how the lack of communication between the different services was one of the major contributing factors I’m guessing you mean the 9-11 commission report rather than the NIST report as the NIST report has no such information in it (of course you know this as you keep asking us if we’ve read it, you wouldn’t ask that question unless you had read it yourself eh ;) You are clearly out of your depth regarding the idea that these buildings would topple over, if the plane impact and resultant fire was one one side of the building then the stresses on the building would be asymetrical. If the stresses on the building were asymetrical you would expect the top of the building to topple over to one side (as explained earlier think Jenga or if you are feeling up to it google for ‘the law of entropy’). If as you claim that the steel lost strength then that would give even more credence to the idea that the top of the building would have toppled to one side or the other, a weakened piece of steel would not concertina down on itself rather it would go towards the path of least resistance (it would bend before breaking). How you can claim that the 9-11 investigation was the largest in the world when the sum total of money spent on the 9-11 Commission report came to approximately $500,000 (just to put this in perspective over $40 million dollars was spent on the Clinton/Lewinsky investigation). All your sighing and huffing and puffing does absolutely nothing to water down my arguments it just makes you look like you are in the playground rather than having an adult conversation. With regards your assertion that there were only 2 cameras focussed on the area of impact at the Pentagon is absolutely hilarious, this is the most protected building in the world, if you are really of the mind that the images they’ve shown are the best they can offer then seriously I ask you to reconsider. In all likelihood it would be impossible to walk up to that building without a camera being able to get a good look at your face (this would be to deter terrorists from walking up and putting bombs up against the walls, DOH). I would dearly love to know what you meant by the following: - “Dick Cheney… ‘if the orders still stand’” I’m getting tired, so get off your lazy backside and go find out. Are you in receipt of knowledge that explains this away because you should let people know as no-one else is! As for WTC7 being ‘gutted from savage multi floor fires’ that is clearly preposterous, go look at some archive footage and come back and say it again. WTC7 was not leaning in any direction whatsoever, there are loads of different angles the collapse was filmed from, please point me in the direction of one which shows this ‘leaning’ (also if it was leaning then the law of entropy would cause us to expect it topple over rather than down and in on itself but the laws of physics don’t seem to be able to convince you of anything). With regards your question on how long it should have taken WTC7 to collapse, Stephen Jones calculated that just from the resistance of the concrete (ignoring any resistance the steel columns may have had) that the building should have taken just over 10 seconds to collapse rather than the 6.6 it did take (freefall speed with no resistance and in a vacuum would have taken 6 seconds). As for the PNAC comment being taken out of context, I have read the report myself (it’s freely available online) and I fail to see where you are coming from with this. The gist of it is that America will not be able to spread it’s Pax Americana around the world unless a Pearl Harbour type incident occurs so as to make it a populist move. With regards the BBC premonition of the collapse of WTC7, I’m sorry your explaination holds no water. This is only the 3rd modern steel framed skyscraper to collapse due to fire damage, no-one could have predicted its collapse some 25 minutes prior. Please don’t resort to name calling again Paul it only serves to show an element of desperation on your part and that is not a good way to win an argument. Oh btw I loved how you called me lazy and then went on to answer half of my points by calling me a moron, is this not laziness epitomised ;) Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

30. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 4:48 pm

    Thank you for that Booger, I am quite happy for people to have differing views, and even be wrong , right or indifferent. Indeed the whole of science is built on modifying hypotheses and testing them against the available evidence in an iterative process. But to claim a group of 400 professional Architects and Engineers are plain wrong, and then not offer any proof to back up the ludicrous claim “IT WAS GRAVITY WOT DONE IT GOVE” – is just not on. I ask, IS that the actions of CRETINS or of serious investigation, learning & discovery? Is there anything to learn from such pig headed stupidity? Apart from the fact some people are born CRETINS. Speaking of which - here is a quote from one chap paul W Quote:- “Enough. You are a moron. Next…. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 15th, 2008 at 8:36 pm | Link to this “So hands up, who thinks it is even physically possible for a falling body to pass through the path of most resistance?” Me! (and a few hundred thousand engineers and physics professors) Gravity dictated where the thing was gonna go, and it dictated straight down. Where else was it going to go? Up? Sideways? Tell me, what is it about gravity you don’t understand? “Secondly, who thinks it is even physically possible to fall through the path of most resistance at near to freefall speed?” Me! (and ditto). The issue here is that word NEAR…it was NEAR free-fall speed, NOT free-fall speed. Tell me, genius, what speed should it have been? A second longer? Two seconds? have ANY of your morons read the NIST report? “Here is my favorite Web sight:- Architects and Engineers for 911 truth. http://www.ae911truth.org/ There are 400 professionals for you to ask, just email them for details” Er, more to the point, how many have NOT joined? (hint: tens of thousands)” End quote. This individual proves the point perfectly, not even a GCSE Architecture, Physics or Engineering qualification to his name, has never contacted any of the tens of thousands of qualified individuals he claims so speak for – but guess what - he is right and the outspoken 400 + Architects and Engineering professionals at http://www.ae911truth.org/ ARE WRONG? Now I ask - does anybody see a problem with this chap’s logic? So here we have yet another opportunity, another volunteer to show us the Physics and the maths which proves it is even physically possible for a body to take the path of most resistance and indeed at near freefall speed too – so Go on Mr paul W - let us have it sir. We can take your TRUTH. Show us the Physics and Maths, which proves your hypothesis sir. Show us this Physics and Maths supported by your alleged: tens of thousands professionals. And if you are unable to do that for whatever reason – just tell us all about one experiment we can do which proves it is physically possible for a body to pass through the path of most resistance due to gravity alone. EVER! Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

31. Peer Review Please Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 6:00 pm

    Why are troofers ignoring the PEER REVIEW issue? GET A PEER REVIEW PEER REVIEW!! PEER REVIEW!! PEER REVIEW!! Without that your science ain’t worth shit. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

32. Ashley Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 6:08 pm

    PEER REVIEW PEER REVIEW blah blah blah. Which academic journal is going to print it for your required peer review? Lecturers are losing their jobs for daring to question the official story, which particular journal do you suggest they look to? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

33. OMG!! Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 6:56 pm

    You dismiss a peer review? OMG. Maybe those who lost their jobs have done so because they have shown themselves to be incapable. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

34. Ashley Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 9:21 pm

    No I am not dismissing a peer review, what I am asking is what journal is likely to agree to print something that questions the official story when academics are losing their positions for daring to even question it. I’m sure a lot of people would love the opportunity to have their thesis reviewed by their peers, unfortunately they have to find someone to print it (or do you think that they write their thesis and post a copy to all their peers for a ‘peer review’?) At the moment it’s like the ‘Emporers New Clothes’, there are a few brave souls pointing out the naked facts but they are few and far between. I think a lot of academics question the official story but after seeing what has happened to their peers when they stood up to be counted they have preferred to voice their concerns off the record. I mean I am no scientist and I can see the hallmarks of controlled demolition all over the 3 collapses on 9-11, demolition experts could not have collapsed those buildings in to neater piles if they had tried. I am supposed to believe that 2 towers with asymetrical damage and one that just had a fire in it collapsed in to their own footprints which is something even demolition teams would have struggled to do. Sorry but I’m not buying it, you can if you like but I’m not. I also think that on a wider level the problem with most people who look at the evidence and refuse to entertain the idea that the administration either made it happen or let it happen is the ‘what if it’s true’ factor. If the US administration is complicit in any part of this then that would pretty much blow the notion of democracy in America out of the water. I think some people don’t want to see what the evidence points to because it is so horrible and the implications are so wide ranging that peoples psyches are protecting them from recognising it. Don’t think for a minute that Dubya would have any compunction about putting civilians in harms way, he has no scruples and sent an army to war based on false pretexts against someone who was an ally up until he invaded Kuwait (and tried to kill his daddy - oh the humanity). If you have a scout round the web you might even find a picture of Rummy Rumsfeld out in Iraq shaking the hand of the leader of Iraq (and at the time he was using chemical warfare against the Kurds, it’s funny how we can point this out as a justification for war now, when it wasn’t even enough to stop Rummy cow-towing to him at the time it happened! Oh and the US supplied the raw materials that Saddam used to make his chemical weapons and gas the Kurds! Funny how a lot of this extraneous information gets filtered out isn’t it?). The world is a very strange and dangerous place and it doesn’t really work like they taught you in school. The idea that America and the UK can spread democracy with bullets and cluster bombs and try and force our culture on to other countries which for the most part have a different belief system is dangerous in the extreme. I mean the Disney style fun park planned for the green area in Bahgdad, I feel like I’ve followed Alice down the rabbit hole. Anyway, I digress, I think that the there should be a new inquiry in to 9-11. I mean the 9-11 Commission report started with a belief in the official story and anything that didn’t fit with that wasn’t disproved, it was simply ignored. I think the US owes it to the 3,000 odd people who died that day and also to the dead soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the countless Afghani and Iraqi civilians killed by a force in its ‘War on Terror’ that if you believe the official story was as a direct response to the acts of that day (despite the fact that the neo-cons have had their eye on Iraq since before dubya rose to infamy). My personal opinion is that it is an affront to the memory of the dead that the US can spend 80 times more money investigating the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal than it did on the 9-11 Commission Report! But hey that’s just my opinion, you don’t have to believe me just have a look at the facts for yourself and make your own mind up (like I did). Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

35. Rom Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 10:41 pm

    I used to be like you. I used to believe 911 was an inside job. Then I looked at the counter evidence and discovered it wasn’t. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

36. RINFer Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 10:50 pm

    Incase you missed it … http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm Structure Magazine, a well respected magazine for structural engineers, has come out with a probable collapse hypothesis. “Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7″ points out that the failure of column 79 in the lower levels will create the very effect we see in videos. http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf Yet another peer reviewed paper from a respected Journal finds the towers were doomed to collapse. 9/11 demolition theory challenged An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks. The study by a Cambridge University, UK, engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total. One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a “controlled demolition”. The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell. Resistance to collapse Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localized failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures. In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts. “The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse,” Dr Seffen told the BBC News website. Dr Seffen was able to calculate the “residual capacity” of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse. His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down. This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground. He added that his calculations showed this was a “very ordinary thing to happen” and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behavior of the buildings. The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronized rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center. This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers. Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive “squibs” can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble. Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm Dr. Keith A. Seffen http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~kas14/ Below is the list of people who have staked their reputations on the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy… For those who may think that no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is… “Walter P. Murphy Professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science Northwestern University The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows… http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News: Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?”, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001). That means it’s not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It’s had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors. I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove its hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no “theory of intelligent design” except on Christian web sites, there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books.” http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/ The paper… http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html Editor: Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder corotis@colorado.edu http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?corotis Editorial Board: Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego http://kudu.ucsd.edu/ Henri Gavin, Duke University http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/ Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/ Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/ Nicos Makris, University of Patras http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5 Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/who/stafflists/academicAlpha.htm Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592 George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiadjis_George/Voyiadjis_Gbio.htm Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/ James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/ Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact Journal of Engineering Mechanics More links to civil engineering papers and other information concerning the WTC collapse… Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y. “Addendum to ‘Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis” (pdf) Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370. Brannigan, F.L. “WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings” Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150. Clifton, Charles G. Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001. “Construction and Collapse Factors” Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108. Corbett, G.P. “Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster” Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135. “Dissecting the Collapses” Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46. Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C. “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation” JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor. World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations (also available on-line) Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A. “Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center” The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48. “Collapse Lessons” Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103 Marechaux, T.G. “TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering” JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17. Monahan, B. “World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations” Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135. Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D. “Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?” Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800. National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs “Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center” Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002. Pinsker, Lisa, M. “Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site” Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001). The print copy has 3-D images. Public Broadcasting Station (PBS) Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary. NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online) Post, N.M. “No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report” ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14. Post, N.M. “Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing” ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14. The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects A resource site. “WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives” ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

37. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 12:09 am

    Dr Seffen should be commended for at least trying. Even NIST did not do the 10-second destruction sequence. (I wonder Why?) Dr Seffen is a very capable person and his mathematics skills are very good indeed. However despite being rather imaginative and having a jolly good attempt at modeling the impossible - his analysis has several key glaring flaws some of which I have listed here:- He has assumed there was no cross bracing. (The WTCs were all heavily cross-braced). He assumes the towers collapsed uniformly – yet damage and fires were more prevalent on one side and we have a video of the top portion toppling. He assumes there was no reinforced concrete when in fact there were 300,000 tonnes in each 110 floor WTC building. His paper defies conservation of energy – there was less than 10% of the necessary energy in the entire upright structure needed to do what Dr Seffen claims happened. His paper defies conservation of momentum. He claims the top smaller section crushed the heavier lower section whilst the top lighter section stayed in a perfect intact condition until after it had finished destroying the much larger and heavier lower 80+ floors. These are the less technical problems with the paper of which can be proved easily almost none mathematically via freely available evidence. Regarding peer review, whilst it is very important, it has one or two very deep flaws. In the case of this particular Seffen paper the referees are anonymous. So how can this paper be effectively peer reviewed if the referees can not be contacted to make comments and back up their approval by providing actual EVIDENCE. In relation to all my works, I never have it peer reviewed via journals. I keep it secret because of commercial reasons. So shipmates and Cult watch pirates - Hands up all those who think burning jet fuel in air can weaken steel? DUH!!!! Is there anybody else apart from Dr Keith Seffen that believes in Free Energy machines? If so, does anyone want to buy a safe seafront villa in Baghdad? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

38. Ashley Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 12:09 am

    RINFer As mentioned previously NIST started their investigations using real world models, they could not get these models to collapse and had to resort to computer simulations in order to prove their theory. Now I KNOW that I could get a team of demolition experts to effect a collapse like that on a real world model, I wouldn’t have to resort to theory to prove that the buildings could collapse in an identical manner. Now what I am being asked to believe is that chaotic asymetrical damage to the buildings had a uniform effect in dropping these buildings in a fashion that demolition teams would be proud of. Demolition teams to this day cannot guarantee to drop buildings neatly, some of them don’t even fall when the charges are blown and cost a fortune to bring down. It would probably be flippant of me to suggest that we could do away with all of these specialised demolitions companies and just start fires in the buildings we want to demolish as 3 out of 3 had uniform collapses on 9-11. I maintain that a lot of academics in the conspiracy camp would like to get their thesis reviewed by peers but are unable to get them published. Why should this be? I’m sure that if their theories are so easy to shoot down, if the gaping inconsistencies can easily be explained away then journals would jump at the chance to be the one to disprove the conspiracy theorists. I could go off to a site that holds the conspiracy POV as you have for the non-conspiracy POV and copy and paste a page of their site to debunk your debunking but what would that serve, you’d just find one to debunk my debunking of your debunking ad infinitum. The only way to bring clarity to this situation is for a full and exhaustive new inquiry that has both the funds and powers required to get to the truth. If there is nothing that has been hidden then this shouldn’t be a problem (please don’t quote cost as a deciding factor as it certainly isn’t in other facets of the so called ‘War on Terror’) At the end of the day I admit that I haven’t gone in to much of the detail, but what I have done is use my own eyes, my own thought processes and drawn my own conclusions based on what I can see and my experiences in the real world (rather than one of abstraction). I am using my own critical faculties, I mean if I saw a car crash and someone came out of the windscreen I would guess that they weren’t wearing their seatbelt and their momentum carried them through the glass. You could provide me with a peer reviewed document that suggested a James Bond style ejector seat could have caused it or that they could have jumped but that wouldn’t necessarily make it so, I’m a simple soul and would call it as I saw it. When I see 3 buildings collapse in exactly the manner of controlled demolition, when I see a Polish demolition expert stating that WTC7 was definitely controlled demolition, when I see Larry Silverstein say he gave the command to ‘pull’ WTC7 (have a look what demolitions experts mean by pull), when I see symetrical collapses from asymetrical damage, when I see pictures of people standing at the edge of the entry hole of the planes when it was supposed to be hot enough to melt steel, when I see thick black smoke coming from the buildings (a sign of an oxygen starved low temperature fire), when I see molten metal coming from the buildings (consistent with thermite or thermate), when sulfur residue is found on the steel after the collapse (consistent with thermate) then is it any wonder I ‘leap’ to the deduction that it was controlled demolition, is it any wonder that I think a new inquiry is not just called for but vital in getting the answers to these questions. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

39. paul w Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 1:04 am

    RINFer Posted: Jun 16th, 2008 at 10:50 pm Good effort, but you’ll get no-where: truthers are insane. Just read the ravings of 3 year old Kid, Ashely and Co…it ‘aint gonna t work, they’re too far gone. Too many bongs, too much paranoia, too many out-of-whack brain cells, too many insecurities. Is this attacking the person? Damn right it is - if the NIST /Commission reports and the vast amount of online material from various experts and eyewitness doesn’t change their mind, nothing will. I post here so anyone new to the 9-11 ‘truth’ garbage has an opportunity to listen to the other side. This is a very poorly represented faction of the ‘truth’ movement; don’t expect them to offer debunking sites to newbies so they can compare things. “I just want to talk facts and not attack the person”…. Pah. It’s all troofer bunk. I posted an answer to their idiotic comments, and said ‘moron’ once, and their reply? They answered NONE of the issues I raised but whined on about name-calling. Pathetic. All they ever do is run and hide when caught in the headlights of reality. Have to say though, their later posts on how the buildings should have fallen is a riot. What a bunch of fruit-cakes. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

40. paul w Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 1:37 am

    “When I see 3 buildings collapse in exactly the manner of controlled demolition, when I see a Polish demolition expert stating that WTC7 was definitely controlled demolition, when I see Larry Silverstein say he gave the command to ‘pull’ WTC7 (have a look what demolitions experts mean by pull), when I see symetrical collapses from asymetrical damage, when I see pictures of people standing at the edge of the entry hole of the planes when it was supposed to be hot enough to melt steel, when I see thick black smoke coming from the buildings (a sign of an oxygen starved low temperature fire), when I see molten metal coming from the buildings (consistent with thermite or thermate), when sulfur residue is found on the steel after the collapse (consistent with thermate) then is it any wonder I ‘leap’ to the deduction that it was controlled demolition, is it any wonder that I think a new inquiry is not just called for but vital in getting the answers to these questions.” Ashley Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 12:09 am When I see raving like this, I know Ashley is an idiot. Am example: “when I see thick black smoke coming from the buildings (a sign of an oxygen starved low temperature fire)” That’s a WOOD fire, you idiot, a WOOD fire! These people are hilarious! Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

41. paul w Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 8:19 am

    More info on black smoke from 911myths: “While it is true that flammable liquids produce black smoke, so does any petroleum-based product. The color of the initial flame and smoke might have been important in the 1940s and 1950s when our furniture was made of cotton and wood, but most furniture today is made of nylon, polyester, and polyurethane. Even wood fires, deprived of oxygen, will produce black smoke. According to NFPA 921, Paragraph 3.6: “Smoke color is not necessarily an indicator of what is burning. While wood smoke from a well ventilated or fuel controlled wood fire is light colored or gray, the same fuel under low-oxygen conditions, or ventilation-controlled conditions in a post-flashover fire can be quite dark or black. Black smoke can also be produced by the burning of other materials including most plastics or ignitable liquids.” Light smoke may indicate that there are no petroleum products burning. Black smoke indicates nothing meaningful.” http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/IndicatorsOfTrouble.pdf The whole article is: http://www.911myths.com/html/black_smoke.html Countdown to idiot troofers ignoring the debunking and screaming about other ‘anomalies’ 5, 4, 3, 2…. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

42. paul w Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 10:00 am

    “When I see 3 buildings collapse in exactly the manner of controlled demolition, No, not ‘exact’ but similar, the way I play football ’similar’ to David Beckham. Go read the NIST report. “when I see a Polish demolition expert stating that WTC7 was definitely controlled demolition” And what of the demolition experts who disagree? ONE person, is that it? Come on, Ashley. Is that all you have? “when I see Larry Silverstein say he gave the command to ‘pull’ WTC7 (have a look what demolitions experts mean by pull)” Yes, do have a look at what demolition experts mean by pull - it means pull a building down using cables (as was done to the damaged buildings around the towers). “Pull” is never used to indicate a demoliton. Never. “when I see symetrical collapses from asymetrical damage” Explained by the NIST report (and to be explained by the upcoming WC7 report) “when I see pictures of people standing at the edge of the entry hole of the planes when it was supposed to be hot enough to melt steel” The photo taken of the poor woman was well after the impact and the fires had moved on - the fires moved all over the place. Read the NIST report. As for ‘melting steel’, no-one other than troofers talk of melting steel. Read the NIST report. It wasn’t hot enough for steel to melt. As for aluminum… Ah, that’s enough. Look, Ashley, go and study the 9-11 myths and Internet Detectives sites. You sound like a newbie to 9-11, it will help you understand what occurred on 9-11. Check out screwloosechangeblogspot as well. The top section has excellent reports about 9-11. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

43. MaxPane Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 2:59 pm

    Can we please talk about a major problem of the troofer movement, antisemitism. The programme raised this in a tacful and respectful way but it’s something the troofers don’t like to talk about. The troofer movement gives antisemites room to spread their ridiculous theories. They must be stopped. Lets have it. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

44. Ashley Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 3:09 pm

    Paul W 4 posts on the trot and I am raving lol. Look Paul you are entitled to your opinion as is everyone else. As for calling me a moron you didn’t just do that you ignored half of my post. You have not, as you claim, answered my idiotic comments (which is in itself another personal attack). Why are you getting yourself worked up in to such a frenzy that you have to insult people. I’m not insulting you so why do you feel the need? Anyway myself and 3yo kid aren’t alone, 36% of people questioned in a national poll in the US believe that the US administration was complicit in some way. There are former members of the intelligence community that believe it was an inside job, a former prime minister of a western country, physics professors, architects, first responders, employees that were there on the day, firemen, policemen, civil engineers, soldiers and countless millions of other people from all walks of life (but of course you know more than all of these put together). It is not an open and shut case as you would like the rest of the world to believe and do you know what would appease many of these people? A new well funded and powerful inquiry that covers all the bases, rather than starting with a conclusion and looking only for facts which prove them right. Some of your responses are clearly wrong, ‘pull’ is an industry term for controlled demolition, anyway what did Larry Silverstein mean when he said it? The only answer he has managed to give is to pull the firefighters out of the building, this is a clear lie as no firefighting took place inside WTC7 according to a member of NIST and according to the FEMA report. Now such a clear inconsistency should be investigated, expecially when you consider more than 3,000 people died on that day and countless others are ill from the dust clouds that they were told were safe (let alone the illegal invasion of a sovereign country that ensued as a direct result). A new investigation is required and all and sundry should be able to put their POV in to that (even the loopy space weapons and holograms ideas etc) so that every avenue can be explored. Looking at the evidence, the most obvious cause for those buildings to fall were demolition charges, now believers of the official story are coming up with stuff like ‘the molten metal seen coming out of the building is a UPS that was on the 81st floor’ and all sorts of other explainations to anomolies and you are eating them up like a spoon fed baby (btw Aluminum doesn’t glow bright yellow when molten, go find it out for yourself). Now I am sure you are aware that in the archive footage of the collapse there is a clear shot of yellow glowing metal coming out of the building just before collapse, this is consistent with the use of thermate or thermite. Also there are countless interviews with clean up crews and footage that says and shows in no uncertain terms that there were pools of molten metal in the clean up site. Now if the temperatures weren’t hot enough to melt the steel (which is a conclusion of the NIST report), then where did the molten metal come from? Please don’t patronise me Paul and tell me how much more you know than me, because at best you look bigheaded but to 36% of Amricans you look like something a lot less generous. Now I gave you the benefit of the doubt earlier when you confused the NIST Report with the Kean Report (9-11 commission report) I am less inclined to do so really but I would stop short of calling you names out of politeness. Stop telling people to go and read the NIST report, you clearly haven’t read it but you seem to place a lot of faith in it. You say that the buldings didn’t collapse in exactly the manner of controlled demolition but in a similar manner. For the benefit of everyone reading this please can you outline the main differences as you see them? (oh and I’m not on about what NIST says, I’m on about what it looked like) You say that the woman seen looking out of the entry hole is there after the fires have moved on elsewhere, I’m interested to know how the steel supports were weakened due to fire as the only place where the Kerosene was is where the plane was (or is there some special non-conspiracy kerosene that climbs up stairwells and ignites itself on higher floors?). The reason I ask this is that a standard office fire without the accellerant kerosene would burn at a substantially lower temperature. If, as you claim, the fire had moved elsewhere that would imply that the kerosene had all burnt off and that the temperature in that area had dropped low enough for people to walk about in it. How on earth are we to believe that with temperatures low enbough for people to survive, steel certified to 2750F for 2 hours weakened enough for collapse? (at a substantially lower temperature for a substantially shorter period of time). You say that the symtyrical collapses due to asymetrical damage is explained in NIST (not to the satisfaction of a good deal of people), but then you go on to say it will be explained in the upcoming WTC7 report. Now are you clairvoyant, so important you have been given a sneak preview or just plain guessing? You just appear to be going off to any site you can find in google and quoting their debunking, now I’d like to know have all of these sources been peer reviewed Paul or are you just taking their word for it? I don’t believe every 9-11 conspiracy out there as I have stated before, but you appear to hold as gospel any piece of information that gives you a chance to debunk. I have used my own critical faculties to come to my own conclusions from looking at the evidence (archive footage etc), a rudimentary understanding of physics, common sense and real world knowledge. You appear to just be putting all your eggs in the debunking websites basket. To be honest Paul I hope you are right, because if you aren’t then there are bigger problems in the world than the non-existent nuclear weapons program of Iran and the US hegemonic ambitions in the Middle East. Do you think it is reasonable that $40M is spent on the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal but only $500,000 on the Kean Report? Don’t you think that it is an insult to those who died on the day and since due to the events of that day? If I was a relative of one of the victims I would be absolutely outraged that the philandering of one man is seen to be 80 times more important that the deaths of 3,000 odd people and the subsequent deaths from the effects. Wouldn’t you like to see a new inquiry? All of your debunking could be made official instead of guesswork. Then you wouldn’t have to put up with idiotic morons like me. Anyway toodle-pip for now :) Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

45. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 3:52 pm

    No, go and take your filthy lies, hate crimes & Delphi mind tactics elsewhere MaxPane. What we should be doing is Exposing this Hit Piece Diatribe radio broadcast LIES for what it is – subtle HATE MEDIA. It is promoting the HATE and distrust of Professionals such as 400+ Professional Architects and Engineers at http://www.ae911truth.org/ from EXPOSING the 911 building destruction FACTS - whilst trying to silence educated and informed debate about the real issues associated with the 911 Physics. The NAZIS used EXACTLY the same type of tactics with the Reichstag fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire Let us Examine the scientific method used for this HIT PIECE Cretins Guide to 911 and TAKE THEM TO PIECES, DUST AND RUBBLE:- They wheel in a left wing disgruntled socialists/Commey who set up “Cult Watch” who is obviously not scientifically trained in Architecture, Physics or Engineering [who has spent time in jail ] & a fruitcake UFO expert who just happens to have next to Zero credibility in anything he has ever done and get him to claim he is a pearl of 911 wisdom just because he really read the official pack of lies and believed it – when neither of these Cretins has even the savvy to question if the CIA actually officially ever wanted Osmar Binladen for the official outrageous 911 Conspiracy plot. I mean how low can these HATE Cretins Go? So shipmates and “Cult Watch” “HATE CRETS” – Is Osmar Bin-whatever wanted by the CIA for 911 - or NOT? AND IF NOT – Why NOT? And do you still think burning jet fuel can weaken steel? DUH!!!! Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

46. Ashley Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 4:05 pm

    MaxPane Could you define antisemitism for us before we talk about it, as sometimes anything remotely critical of Israel is called antisemitism. What do you mean by it? As far as I’m concerned it doesn’t matter that Israel is a Jewish state, it is a sovereign state first and foremost and is responsible for its actions, the racial or religious make up of its population is neither here nor there. If it was, then surely we are being hateful when we talk disparagingly about Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan. For instance is the idea that the CIA and Mossad could be in some way related to the 9-11 attacks in order to promote the idea of war with Iraq antisemitic? I like what Robert Fisk says he feels like when he talks about Israel, ‘it’s like trying to ride two bikes at the same time’. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

47. Toby Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 4:11 pm

    The “9/11 was an inside job” theory relies in part upon evidence of molten metal found at ground zero. Deutsch Bank hired a firm, RJ Lee Group, to conduct tests on the WTC dust as part of a study of how to clean up their area. Their report concludes: “Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension. Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel).” http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphology.Final.pdf Similar spherical particles were found by Professor Stephen Jones. The melting point of steel and iron is known. Therefore this is direct and irrefutable evidence of temperatures exceeding those which are possible by hydrocarbon (jet fuel) fires. The existance of molten metal on the scene is backed up by eyewitnesses testimony, while these extreme temperatures were also recorded by NASA thermal satellite images. NIST denies this evidence exists, although they have admitted that they themselves did not look for such evidence, their reasoning being “there’s no point looking for something that isn’t there.” Can we agree that since there is evidence of temperatures beyond those which are possible by hyrdocarbon fires, then there should be a new investigation? Could such molten and evaporated metal affect the building collapse? Or is it insignificant? If you think these high temperatures contributed to the collapse, then wouldn’t it be sensible to find out what caused such temperatures? It would help us to more fully understand the mechanism of the collapse and prevent such disasters in the future. The NIST report theorises on the conditions and events that lead up to the collapse of the towers, but stops at the actual moment of collapse. NIST ignores evidence of molten iron (or steel), because it states that hydrocarbon fires cannot burn hot enough to melt steel or iron. Therefore, according to NIST, these spherical particles cannot exist. This shouldn’t be about “who is right.” This is an important issue concerning the safety of steel structures, especially for those who live or work inside them. There are still questions that need to be answered. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

48. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 5:44 pm

    It is irrelevant if people believe the Holocaust or not, So WHAT? Who cares about what happened 60+ years ago? That was then – this is now! What we should be doing is Exposing this Hit Piece radio broadcast for what it is – It is promoting the distrust of Professionals such as 400+ Professional Architects and Engineers at http://www.ae911truth.org/ from EXPOSING the 911 building destruction FACTS - whilst trying to silence educated and informed debate about the real issues associated with the 911 Physics by peddling nonsense about Holocaust denial. Let us Examine the scientific method used for this “Cretins Guide to 911” and utterly debunk them :- I repeat myself:- They wheel in this disgruntled socialists/ Commey from “Cult Watch” who was told to clear off by “the Troofers” , is obviously not scientifically trained in Architecture, Physics or Engineering & a fruitcake self confessed UFO NUT who just happens to have next to Zero credibility in anything he has ever done and get him to claim he is a pearl of 911 wisdom just because he really read the official pack of lies and believed it – when neither of these brainy Chaps has even the savvy to question if the CIA actually officially even wanted Osmar Binladen for the official outrageous 911 Conspiracy plot. I mean - what is going on? So – Is Osmar Bin-whatever wanted by the CIA for 911 or NOT? AND IF NOT – Why NOT? Does anyone else see a big problem here? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

49. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 6:13 pm

    It is irrelevant if people believe the Holocaust or not, So WHAT? Who cares about what happened 60+ years ago? That was then – this is now! What we should be doing is Exposing this Hit Piece radio broadcast for what it is – It is promoting the distrust of Professionals such as 400+ Professional Architects and Engineers from EXPOSING the 911 building destruction FACTS - whilst trying to silence educated and informed debate about the real issues associated with the 911 Physics by peddling nonsense about Holocaust denial. Let us Examine the scientific method used for this “Cretins Guide to 911” and utterly debunk them :- I repeat myself:- They wheel in this disgruntled socialists/ Commey from “Cult Watch” who was told to clear off by “the Troofers” , is obviously not scientifically trained in Architecture, Physics or Engineering & a fruitcake self confessed UFO NUT who just happens to have next to Zero credibility in anything he has ever done and get him to claim he is a pearl of 911 wisdom just because he really read the official pack of lies and believed it – when neither of these brainy Chaps has even the savvy to question if the CIA actually officially even wanted Osmar Binladen for the official outrageous 911 Conspiracy plot. I mean - what is going on? So – Is Osmar Bin-whatever wanted by the CIA for 911 or NOT? AND IF NOT – Why NOT? Does anyone else see a big problem here? Does anyone else understand that If the truth is not exposed many more lives will continue to be lost. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

50. Tina Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 9:01 pm

    3 year old kid “It is irrelevant if people believe the Holocaust or not, So WHAT? Who cares about what happened 60+ years ago?” WOAH!!! Ok, who mentioned the ‘relevance’ of the Holocaust anyway?? And I think you’ll find there is a fairly sizeable group who still do care what happened 60+ years ago. Just ask any Holocaust survivor or families that were affected by it. You’re claim there is not only offensive but shocking! Anyway, I came here to comment not about that, but felt that needed addressing! The interesting thing is that this original article is about a radio programme that aired which discuss the movement….I think we have some more ‘evidence’ about this group here! (If evidence is the right word here?!) Firstly, I thought the radio programme was a fair balance and was very interesting to listen to. Of course ‘truthers’ are not going to agree with the sentiments of the progamme, after all there is a clue in the name of the documentary! Why is it that when people do not agree with this movement, they seem to immediately label people (e.g. ‘cretins’ on this comment thread) and shoot people down? Why not just discuss it rather than getting all ranty. Reminds me of the more extreme Christian preachers shouting fire and brimstone from the pulpits! Also, would be interesting to know if ‘3 year old kid’ and ‘Ashley’ have read the Commission Report FULLY? Along with any other truthers out there. I’ve heard truthers argue that physicists and other professionals have declared their work on what they felt happened on 9/11, but the thing is,if you are not a physicist, how can verify their findings? Surely this would have to be on a ‘trust’ foundation. Interesting that a leading figure in the truth movement is Prof. David Ray Giffin - a Theology professor. But he then doesn’t seem to talk in regards to his field of expertise. Anyway, going back to the original point of all these discussions….. Comments made in the radio programme about the conduct of truthers seem to be accurate based on comments made here by a few! Interesting to note that although their comments may be long, they are fewer in numbers. I think more of an issue is this issue of conduct of truthers. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

51. Ashley Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 9:45 pm

    Tina Ummm no I haven’t read the Commission report, I don’t read fiction. In all seriousness I have no appetite for something quite so dry and I do know for a fact that a lot of the things I mention are not included in the report so reading it is not going to appease me anyway (there aren’t answers in it for most of the questions 3yo kid, Toby and myself pose above for instance). As for branding all truthers as antagonistic I think you’ll find I’ve been called an idiot and a moron but have managed to refrain from name calling myself (have a read if you disbelieve me). I think you’ll find that I am trying to discuss it, I am avoiding getting ‘all ranty’ and am letting the insults slide. Why when 3yo kid calls someone a cretin you jump all over it but when I’m called an idiot and a moron you ignore it? Do you have a bias? Are you being selective with the ‘evidence’? Some of the things I’ve mentioned I don’t need to be a physicist to understand, like asymetrical damage to something should produce an asymetrical effect (I even used Jenga to illustrate my point, that’s how little it needs physics). I also don’t need to be a physicist to ask where molten metal came from when the fires weren’t hot enough to cause it. I also don’t need to be a physicist to know that if a fire is raging with enough intensity to ‘weaken’ steel hardened to withstand temperatures of 2750F that it would not be possible for human beings to be wandering around in it. I don’t need to be a physicist in order to ask why no jets were scrambled around the Pentagon, I don’t need to be a physicist in order to ask if Osama is left handed according to the FBI then how come he is seen writing with his right hand in the video where he supposedly claims responsiblity (it’s beside the point that in the video he looks more like my dad made up to look like Osama than Osama ;) I can carry on but I don’t really want to. If these questions are ever going to go away then a new inquiry is not necessary but vital in the intersts of all concerned. I fully expect you not to agree as you have shown your bias in your posting, probably without even noticing it, it’s funny how this subject polarizes people isn’t it. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

52. Juice Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 11:17 pm

    How do you know the Commission report is a work of fiction if you’ve never read it? See this is the point of a lot of people are making on this article. You jump to conclusions without seeing the whole picture. What makes you think the Commission report is a work of fiction in the first place? Surely it’s just repeating what somebody else said, which is what most of the truth movement does. It repeats what it heard from second hand or third hand sources to form an uneducated opinion. There’s a fringe group of scientists who claim it was an inside job but in any industry you have fringe groups who make absurd claims that the majority reject. This is no different. The actual science cannot even pass peer review. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

53. Ashley Posted: Jun 17th, 2008 at 11:47 pm

    Juice The work of fiction comment was a joke (I thought that would have been fairly obvious by the next sentence starting ‘In all seriousness……’) In all seriousness the 9-11 Commission Report started with a conclusion (that 19 Arabs attacked America and the reasons they got away with it is because of incompetence and various other coincedences) and only looked for facts to prove this, there was no other possibilities entertained and so many questions remain unanswered. The idea of controlled demolition was not entertained so not investigated. If I told you that the collapses of those buildings could definitely have occured due to controlled demolition, would you dispute this? If I asked you where the molten metal came from would you be able to furnish me with an answer from the report? Can you explain why Osama doesn’t look like Osama in the responsibility video, how come he writes with his right hand when the FBI tell us he is left handed? Would you get those answers from the 9-11 Commission Report? At the end of the day I’m not going through the questions again as I have put them up plenty of times in this thread. For crying out loud look at the questions that remain unanswered, don’t just slag people off as troofers (you are doing what is often claimed of truthers). These questions need answering. Do you have answers to every question I’ve posed? Did you get those answers from the 9-11 commission report or did you get them from websites? The actual science has never been peer reviewed, that is very different from not being able to pass peer review. I’m not after the moon on a stick, I just think that there are so many unanswered question that it demands a fresh look. Not one of the official story proponents on here have been able to answer my questions. Paul w seems to take one question out of 20, debunk it (using whatever site he can find) and then pour scorn on the questioner in order to try and discredit the other 19 questions. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

54. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 18th, 2008 at 2:16 am

    Thanks for the good points people. There was not a Holocaust in World War 2 - Holocaust is not a strong enough word for the total barbaric insidious way fellow human beings were mistreated by hideously criminal NAZI tyrants. How can a word which when translated means “Burnt Offerings” accurately depict the sheer evil brutal nature of the NAZI actions? Now I know I am getting a little technical. But there - I’m a Holocaust denier because I think the term totally sucks and is utterly inappropriate. Its like calling the first world war – THE GREAT WAR – what was so great about it? Or, There has been a bit of an accident I’m afraid – your family have just been crushed to death by a 10 tonne truck. How would that be a bit of an accident? Let us say it how it is - It was a failed attempted DECIMATION of Israelis! Is it relevant now? Well for many people yes. But remember the Communists murdered 10 million people after the attempted Israeli Decimation. So why do we never mention the 10 million murdered by Stalin? Because he was our war buddy and the Nazis were not? Its like war crimes, we the allies committed as many if not more war crimes than the Germans did – but you never here of this. Indeed the Allies committed the worst war crimes if you sit down and really think about it. What do you suppose deliberately dropping the Atomic bombs on Civilian cities was? The Commission report or “Omission report” is unworthy of any of my time. EVER. Although I did spend 1 hour flicking through parts of it online. Are there any other comic books you want me to read? Would anyone like me to explain in easy steps as to why 911 was a controlled Demolition? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

55. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 18th, 2008 at 3:14 am

    Thanks for that Juice. You do make some valid points, even if the report was total TITS UP - one should read it. That is, unless you know prior to reading it - its an absolute pile of crock. Here is an analogy you will grasp easily:- Suppose you have a corner shop, which is precisely 1/4 of a mile from your front door. Suppose you phone the shop and put in an order for groceries, and when you ask the assistant how long they will be they say - “less than 10 seconds”. Now you put the phone down and sure enough, less than 10 seconds later the doorbell rings and there is the delivery you ordered. Now let us analyze this rather odd scenario. The delivery van appears to be just an ordinary Escort van. So, how is it even physically possible for the van to get from the shop to your house in less than 10 seconds? But hold on a minute – how long would it have taken to pick & pack the order? So, then you have to get your thinking cap on. The only possible way the order could have got there within 10 seconds of the phone being put down is if the order had already been picked and packed and the delivery van was nearly outside the house when the phone call was made. If it was a regular order this is not unexceptional and the Physics makes perfect sense. However, if the order was not a regular order and no order has ever been put before because you have just moved in from Australia, and the van turns up within 10 seconds of your call à you have 100% proof the guy must have broken the speed limit and that to do so his van would have had to have at least several hundred brake horsepower under the hood. Now seeing as it is an ordinary escort van, and seeing how the order would have to have been picked and packed prior to transport - you know such a fiction is totally Physically IMPOSSIBLE. Regarding 911 And so, because one knows the times, heights and the acceleration due to gravity, a simple equation H=1/2gt^2 absolutely proves 911 could be nothing but Controlled Demolition. And we can know this with 100% accuracy – that is why NIST did not cover the fall sequence and neither did the Omission Commission. So why read a full report you know is totally wrong? just read & ignore the conclusions. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

56. Tina Posted: Jun 18th, 2008 at 4:00 pm

    Hi Ashley and 3 year old kid, thank you for your responses. I’d just like to respond to some of the things that you have both said. I said “Why is it that when people do not agree with this movement, they seem to immediately label people (e.g. ‘cretins’ on this comment thread) and shoot people down?”….Ashley, you then mentioned that you were called an idiot and a moron but I didn’t address that…let me address this now then… What I was meaning was that the first comment on here by 3 yr old kid labelled the article the ‘cretins’ guide. This was the first comment here, hence “they seem to immediately label people (e.g. ‘cretins’ on this comment thread) and shoot people down?” (note the word immediately). I didn’t mean to imply that ALL truthers are like this, but the first comment from a truther showed what some peoples mentality is like. Ashley, you have not called others names when they have called you names, and I’m not saying that this is acceptable. I guess it was just unfortunate that the first person to reply used the word “cretin” several times in their first comment and subsequent ones. The Commission Report - Thanks to both Ashley and 3 yr old kid for saying they haven’t read it. However, Ashely you make 2 references to the Report. How can you refer to something you haven’t read or haven’t read in it’s entirety? Sorry if I’m assuming to something incorrectly here, but if you are refering to the report without reading it, aren’t you picking and choosing potentially parts that fit with your beliefs and choosing to ignore other parts? Furthermore, The Commisson Report is the governments response into 9/11. If you are opposing the views of the government, isn’t is wise to at least read in full what they are saying…whether or not you agree with it? Surely you have to take on board ALL evidence before you agree or disagree with it? Along with other reports from NIST and FEMA. Again, I want to make it clear that I’m not saying “read it and believe it”, I’m saying read it and be informed! If you disagree with the reports, fine! But how can you disagree with something you haven’t even read?! As 3 year old kid seems to like analogies, heres one of mine! It’s like a person who says “I don’t like cabbage” but they have never eaten it! If they eat it, they will then know if they do or don’t like it. Talking about analogies….3 year old kid, you talk about the shopping arriving in less than 10 seconds being physically impossible and then compare this to the WTC buildings coming down. Your analogy of the shopping is PURELY impossible…physically and logically…it could simply NEVER happen with any technology that we have today. Therefore, if you are comparing this to the WTC, what are you saying? That the towers NEVER came down? That there must have been something supernatural or the like that brought them down? I can’t see how the argument of controlled demolition or the like would fit with your anaolgy as we know that controlled demolition exists and IS possible, but your anaolgy is simply impossible in every way. Maybe not the best anaolgy?? Now going on to the science part….two words…peer review. Yes scientists can argue a lot of things. How many scientists do you think are out there? How many scientists have debunked the theories about 9/11? How can we trust a scientists judgement if some us simply do not understand physics to that scale? Peer review! To be quite honest, I’m not going to discredit the work of some of these physicists (I can’t, I don’t understand it myself!) and I’m sure that these physicists believe 100% in their conclusions. But, for their theories to be shown as there is something in it, where are the peer reviews? 9/11 happened almost 7 years ago now, where are the papers that appeared in most reputable journals? Surely, with something as big as 9/11, if science can or has proved these theories, they would be headline news! We’d all know about it by now!? Oh, I’m sure that there are some very scientific people reading this, but saying “a simple equation H=1/2gt^2″ is no help to me, I’m not a scientist and all I see in the equation is some letters, numbers and symbols! Sorry! I have my doubts about 9/11. I’m still not sure what happened on that day, but I do like to look at both sides of the argument. If I looked at only one angle, would that be a biased point of view? There will always be people who think one thing and someone else who thinks another. That’s fine. But I still think that the conduct of many truthers is something worth noting…I’m not saying ALL truthers here. One last question…if what the truthers are saying is true, what next? What do the truthers want to achieve from this? Of course one answer would be the ‘truth’, I understand and support that! But what else? 9/11 has been and gone. There are major issues going on in the world right now that need to be stopped! I almost worry that some of these people continue to spend their lives questoning, without any real answers (as in “what did happen on 9/11?”) and for what? What outcome do you want to see? Ok, I asked more than one question there!! Anyway, I’ve gone on for more than I wanted to. Again, thanks to Ashley and 3 year old kid for responding previously :) Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

57. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 18th, 2008 at 5:12 pm

    Thanks Tina & others. The powers that be, know most of the population are not science savvy, they also know that of those who are science savvy they can control them from blabbing without even having to lift a finger. Imagine this, you work 10 years just to become a Qualified Physicist or Engineer or Architect. To even start that you had to work your butt off at school and college. Now imagine you now have your PhD and a position which is paying you a living or good wage. You have a wife and children to support, mortgage to pay and Kids to get through college etc. You have the car payments, the bill payments and you have holiday money to find. Along comes 911. 3,000 people die. The governments of the world say it was 19 Muslim hijackers what done it etc etc. What do you do? You have all these personal responsibilities, marriage, children, dog ,cat etc – they all need feeding and clothing etc. Let’s suppose you know 100% in your own mind the official government story sucks. What do you do? Well, I will tell you what the smart people do - the smart people say and do NOTHING. They keep their head down, they say nothing to anyone which can rock the boat. Departments need funding; they get that funding ultimately from taxpayers via the controlling Government funding bodies. If a professor starts blabbing off they are told they are putting the funding at risk, which is putting all of their jobs and reputations at risk. So the pressure to “act responsibly” is very powerful. The same applies with the military, you will notice only officers who have retires ever speak out. Well, in academia a scientist never retires really until they die. Imagine if the scientist has retired, do you suppose they are willing to risk the credibility of their life’s work and speak out? And not only be attacked by the Government side, but by the likes the “HATE CRETS” from “Cult watch”. Tina, what would you do if you knew? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

58. Ashley Posted: Jun 18th, 2008 at 6:49 pm

    Tina, You did imply that all truthers are like this on 2 occassions, firstly when you used ‘they’ in your sentence “they seem to immediately label people (e.g. ‘cretins’ on this comment thread) and shoot people down?” and secondly your sentence ‘I think we have some more ‘evidence’ about this group here!’ tars all truthers with the same brush. I admitted truthfully that I haven’t read the Commission report but I am not wholly unfamiliar with it. I have read parts of it but for me to claim that I had read it in its entirity would have been a lie. I know enough about the report to know that it doesn’t answer the questions I have posed in this thread, I also know that controlled demolition was definitely not investigated. When you say that the Commission Report is the governments response in to 9-11 I think you have hit the nail on the head there. It is supposed to be an independent inquiry is it not? As for what outcome truthers would like to see, I think many of us would like to be proven wrong because if the government is complicit in 9-11 then the question ‘what now?’ has some very serious implications not just for ‘democracy’ in the US but worldwide. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are all war criminals as far as I’m concerned, they have attacked a sovereign state based on fallacious evidence and thus made a war of aggression contrary to the Geneva convention (before you ask I haven’t read all of that either!). Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

59. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 18th, 2008 at 7:35 pm

    Dear All, This is a Physics proof 911 was a Controlled demolition for peer review by you and the whole wide world. Start of world peer review à First we must identify what we already know as absolute FACT: - FACT 001: Twin towers 1 & 2 were 1,368 ft and 1362 ft respectively. (without TV mast) Let us pick the tallest one to be conservative and convert the feet units into SI units (Metres) The tallest tower was 417 m to the nearest metre. Fact 002: We know near the surface of the earth at sea level we can use g = 9.81 m/s2 (metres per second per second), which is a scientifically accepted approximation of gravity at sea level. Fact 003: according to the NIST report & video evidence we know the towers fell in just under 10 Seconds each. Fact 004: Any body falling in a vacuum will always fall faster than if air is present due to the elimination of air resistance. So now we look in every physics advanced level or degree level text book on the planet, even in Chinese, and look up the equation for a falling body at sea level in a vacuum. Which is H = 1/2g(t^2) Were (H) is hight of fall , (g) is the acceleration due to gravity & (t) is the time taken for the fall straight down. Let us first run a factual mathematical simulation by excluding all of the air. 417 = ½ * 9.81 * (t^2) when we rotate the equation to put ( t ) as the subject we get [Square root (2(417))/9.81) ] = ( t ) = 9.22 seconds So in a perfect vacumme at sea level if we dropped any mass from the top of the tallest WTC it would take 9.22 seconds to hit the ground. Now we look at FACT 004 again Fact 004: Any body falling in a vacuum will always fall faster than if air is present due to the elimination of air resistance. So in other words, it is physically not possible for anything to fall faster than 9.22 seconds from 417 metres at sea level in air. Now on 911 the jet slammed in to one tower and then slammed into the other tower. Let us take the worst case scenario, let us take the case were there are just over 80+ undamaged lower floors below the damage point. This means there is the largest pile driver or (Top Bit) to fall through the bottom bit. NIST publish and video evidence state both towers fell in under 10 seconds. 10.00 – 9.22 = 0.78 seconds So what the BUSH Government is trying to claim is the top bit some 20 odd floors, fell and crashed through the bottom 80+ undamaged bottom floors at almost freefall speed of decent. Were 9.22 seconds would have been the time of freefall speed in a perfect vacuum. Now let us hypothetically remove the bottom undamaged 80+ floors for one moment. The falling top bit would have had air resistance as it fell the near ¼ mile to earth, its footprint was exactly 1 square acre. But let us ignore any slowing air resistance just to be ultra conservative in our calculations. So, after ignoring slowing air resistance we now find that the bottom strongest, heaviest lower 80+ floors were crashed through by the top 20 so floors, and the time taken for this was almost identical to if the 80+ floors had not even been there at all. It simply defies almost every known law of physics, conservation of energy and conservation of momentum etc, and the bottom strongest and heaviest 80+ floors Physically can not offer next to ZERO resistance. This is not physically possible for a near 1/4 mile of building matter to offer near zero resistance. This is because less than one second prior to the building starting to disintegrate, the very fact the building held itself upright proves it had at minimum 1 times working load resistance. Suddenly the same 1/4 mile building structure offered almost Zero working resistance. HOW? The only possible way this can happen is Controlled Demolition. PROVED! 911 was Controlled Demolition and NOT a Gravity collapse. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

60. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 18th, 2008 at 7:43 pm

    Is it any wonder Osmar Binladen is not wanted by the CIA for 911? Now you know why. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

61. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 18th, 2008 at 8:59 pm

    The Japan times Lawmaker takes 9/11 doubts global http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20080617zg.html Now he has the evidence to prove the CD in any court in the world. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

62. Ashley Posted: Jun 18th, 2008 at 9:50 pm

    3yo kid Very interesting article, did you complete the survey question at the bottom? (’Do you believe the official story of the 9/11 attacks’), after I completed it I checked out the results, it appears that of the people who have taken the survey (which is in no way scientific), 1.5% haven’t thought about it, 4% voted yes and the remaining 94.5% voted no. It seems readers of the Japan Times could be more cynical than the readers of infowars.com lol. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

63. Tina Posted: Jun 18th, 2008 at 10:51 pm

    Hello again Ashley, 3 year old kid and other readers, I’m back with a few more comments and questions! Again, I’d like to thank both Ashley and 3 year old kid for their comments and their time. Ok, firstly to address points raised by 3 year old kid. You mention the fact that scientists who work hard for their qualifications, earn the wage for their homes and family wouldn’t want to risk it all. I understand that. But as you said, 3,000 people died that day, that may (I would put that in italics and bold if I could) encourage me to speak out, but may not. However, not all scientists would have the responsibilities listed and may well speak out. So, let’s see who I can think of who has spoken out (please add more people as I’m sure this isn’t the complete list)…Dr Judy Wood (mechanical engineering), Dr Morgan Reynolds (economics), Dr James Fetzer (history and philosophy of science), Dr Steven Jones (physics). Then there are a few others who haven’t got an academic background (from what I can tell) in science….Jim Hoffman (software engineer) and Dr David Ray Griffin (philosophy of religion and theology). I could go on with a few more, but these are the people who often get quoted and cited when it comes to issues surrounding 9/11. Why is it then that the work of Dr Wood, Dr Reynolds, Dr Fetzer and Dr Jones re 9/11 hasn’t been peer reviewed and doesn’t appear in reputable scientific journals? 3 year old kid, you ask what I would do? Well, like I said, it does depend on circumstances and situations. Let’s say for argument sake, I’m a doctor in physics and can prove these things, I have no family (as in no spouse, no children) just have my own mortgage/rent and bills to pay….not a hugely unlikely scenario. What would I do? Share the work I’ve done with others, aim to get it peer reviewed. At the end of the day, I’d be fighting for the memory and tragic loss of the people and families on that day, and for truth. That would be a risk worth taking. On the flip side, if I had a spouse, children, maybe the answer would be different. But, there are scientists out there sharing their work. I won’t repeat myself at this point. You later talk about a ‘world peer review’. Nice idea, but again, we (the population at hand) are not the correct peers, we are not the experts. Ashley – I apologise if I implied the ‘they’ meant the whole truth movement. I obviously did not word this correctly. Again, I know that you have not conducted yourself in a manner which has resulted in name calling and that you have been called name yourself here. It was the case that the first person to respond was from the truth movement calling names and getting (what I consider) a bit ranty. Again, I apologise to taint all truthers with this. Commission Report – I know that the report was meant to be independent, but surely we know that the government had a hand in it. I’m not saying (and haven’t said) that the report is true or accurate. What I AM saying is that you need to look at both sides of an argument to make a complete conclusion. You can discredit any information you choose when making your judgement, but you still need to look at the evidence presented. It is a concern of mine that people ‘pick and choose’ the evidence that best fits, rather than looking at opposing arguments. Ashley – I agree with you on the war criminals but I’d include a few others in there too, like Blair. Back to the physics, again 3 year old kid loses me with the science. I’m not scientific, I was no good at it at school! If you’re aiming the equation explanation at me, I’d need it in proper layman’s terms. Oh, and I don’t see how Yukihisa Fujita “has the evidence to prove the CD in any court in the world.” It is also a shame that some of my other points weren’t addressed. Ok, now that I’ve addressed some points….took a while, sorry! I’d like to ask some other questions/issues concerning controlled demolition. Controlled demolition (CD) – I’ve read that during a CD, explosives are placed at the bottom of the building and it is the explosives purpose to destroy the structure of the building. During this CD, it is the force of gravity which is used to bring down the building, not the explosives. So, with this in mind, regardless the towers were subject to CD, they would have been brought down by gravity anyway. People seem to judge the way that the towers fell, fell at free-fall speed. But if you look at footage, debris from the building falls faster than the structure. The debris also falls faster than the dust cloud…the cloud falling faster than the structure. So, did the structure fall at free-fall if debris was falling faster? When the towers fell, didn’t they fall from the middle? Around the 80/90th floor? So if explosives were put at the bottom, why didn’t it fall from the bottom? However, if the argument is to go that the towers were fitted with explosives throughout, wouldn’t this be a massive job? And why would explosives be needed to fit throughout, surely it only needed one lot at the bottom? This then poses other questions like, how did they manage to set off the explosives whilst it fell and how did they manage to fit the explosives with no one knowing. The Hudson Building (over 100ft shorter than WTC1 and 2) was brought down by CD. It took 12 people 24 days to put in the 4,118 charges into the building. So, if WTC1 and 2 are both taller than the Hudson Building, is it really possible that they managed to sneak all those explosives in over such a long period? I’m going to leave it there for now. I’d appreciate some thoughts on the matter and I’m not saying I have answers or have made my mind up on what happened. These are questions that I’d like some clear answers to. Thanks :) Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

64. Ashley Posted: Jun 18th, 2008 at 11:01 pm

    Tina Ta 4 the comments and agree re Blair. To quickly address one point in your post, will try and answer some more later. Regarding controlled demolition, (please bear in mind that I’m no expert on this) you are correct that there would be explosives at the bottom of the building but there would likely be explosive charges on every 2nd or 3rd floor, there would also probably be cutter charges on the columns. What they definitely wouldn’t do (which you appear to be suggesting, apologies if you aren’t) is just blow the bottom of the building and expect it to collapse just through gravity. HTH Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

65. Tina Posted: Jun 18th, 2008 at 11:31 pm

    “The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It’s gravity that brings the building down. ” http://www.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

66. paul w Posted: Jun 19th, 2008 at 1:14 am

    Ashely and 3 Year old Kid Wrong on all counts. You two idiots know nothing, aren’t interested in finding out so I’m not interested in either of you imbeciles any more. Antisemitism? It’s alive and kicking in the ‘truth’ movement. Along with total and utter ignorance. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

67. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 19th, 2008 at 7:25 am

    Ahhhhh its Mr paul W who knows all about the Holocaust or should we say “burnt offerings”. Good morning Sir, did you sleep well? Have you just got up and thought of that? Well, here is some more ignorance for you to learn, the term SEMITE as in “ANTI SEMITISM” actually refers not to just Israelis but Arabs who occupy the surrounding Israeli areas too. What the “TRRRRRRROOOOOOOFFFFFFEEERS” dislike and are against is the murder and mistreatment of ARAB SEMITES by ISREALI SEMITES. ZIONISTS today ARE equivalent to NATZIS in 1930s Germany. It is Zionists (Israeli NAZIS) “TRRRROOOOOOFFFFFFERS” would like to stop from doing EVIL - good Jewish people are indeed victims of these Israeli NAZIS (Zionists) just as much as the Arab Palestinians are. So to educate Mr PW with yet more “TRRROOOOOFFFEEER” ignorance See here a real nice group of Jewish chaps trying to tell the world how it really is and being attacked by some crazy ZIONIST NAZI type. http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=anti+zionist+jewish+protester&sitesearch=# Basically Jewry has been hijacked by Atheist Nationalist types (Zionist NAZIS) after many good Jews were murdered in the 1930s by Hitler’s Nazis. Anti Zionist is not Anti Semitism. Only a political opportunist would try & confuse the two. For Example, I personally seriously dislike NAZIS, but I like most Germans? So it is with Israelis, I strongly dislike Israeli Nationalist (Zionists NAZIS) but I like Israeli people in general. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

68. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 19th, 2008 at 8:17 am

    Look Mr paul W and all the other naysayers - it is as simple and as clear minded as this:- It is not even physically possible to have any falling body fall through the path of most resistance. NEVER EVER!!!!! And to fall through the path of most resistance at near to freefall speed is even more impossible than impossible. As a clear experiment you can do at home - get a jug of water and try and pour the water through and down the path of most resistance using only gravity. Go and do it now - then tell us all how you got on. Now, on 911 the argument the “Gravity WOT done it” guys use is the system became fluid like. But they ignore the 300,000 tonnes of reinforced concrete to do this. Also - they ignore how the towers were actually constructed. Well, if I were to ignore enough physical characteristics and twist the maths enough I could model the WTC building floating off into outer space. - but that would have nothing to do with REALITY would it? Not a single one of these so-called Experts has been able to physically model what they are claiming including NIST – And cannot because it defies almost every known law of physics. And if the Seffen and other papers were actually correct – would we not see a stack of floors some 10 stories high for each tower at the trade centre prior to cleanup – the fact this was not so proves their thesis is incorrect and requires correction. To see the WTC construction go here:- http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=building+the+world+trade+towers&sitesearch=# http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=building+the+world+trade+towers&sitesearch=# Does anyone still FINK Jet fuel burning in air can ever weaken steel? Did heat not conduct up and down the columns on 911? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

69. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 19th, 2008 at 8:24 am

    Hi Tina, You are correct, Gravity is what brings a Controlled Demolition and a Gravity Collapse down. The way we can prove the difference between a Gravity Collapse and a Controlled Demolition is by seeing if the material underneath the damaged 80+ floors offered any resistance to the material falling through. As the peer review physics clearly proves for the world to see – the bottom strongest and heaviest 80+ floors offered near Zero resistance hence proving Controlled Demolition. Sorry if this Science upsets you but I have a duty to inform. The difference being of course Controlled Demolition on 911 would mean most of those 3,000 victims were murdered by Terrorists, but not the 19 Muslim hijackers, because remember they were supposedly on the plains. I am sorry to say this but the official US Government jet fuel gravity Collapse story is not even Physically possible for it defies just about every law of physics. What the governments are doing is rewarding with promotions such as Dr Keith Seffen those who help support the Gravity Collapse theory, but those who offer conflicting proof are victimized and vilified, indeed some whistle blowers have been sacked. Not only that but then the likes of “HATE CREEPS” like “Cult Watch” also go around trying to discredit these whistle blower professionals too. Well I say now is your opportunity to try and learn some Physics Tina, copy and past the proof I have posted and put it past an Engineer of Physicist or Mathematician you know and trust. I really do wish I was wrong, but I am not. I would like nothing better than for someone to prove this physics wrong. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

70. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 19th, 2008 at 12:34 pm

    Dear paul W, this is here for you to read and understand too you know, so come on then PW, give peer review this:- This is a Physics proof 911 was a Controlled demolition for peer review by you and the whole wide world. Start of world peer review - First we must identify what we already know as absolute FACT: - FACT 001: Twin towers 1 & 2 were 1,368 ft and 1362 ft respectively. (without TV mast) Let us pick the tallest one to be conservative and convert the feet units into SI units (Metres) The tallest tower was 417 m to the nearest metre. Fact 002: We know near the surface of the earth at sea level we can use g = 9.81 m/s2 (metres per second per second), which is a scientifically accepted approximation of gravity at sea level. Fact 003: according to the NIST report & video evidence we know the towers fell in just under 10 Seconds each. Fact 004: Any body falling in a vacuum will always fall faster than if air is present due to the elimination of air resistance. So now we look in every physics advanced level or degree level text book on the planet, even in Chinese, and look up the equation for a falling body at sea level in a vacuum. Which is H = (1/2)*g*(t^2) Were (H) is hight of fall , (g) is the acceleration due to gravity & (t) is the time taken for the fall straight down. Let us first run a factual mathematical simulation by excluding all of the air. 417 = ½ * 9.81 * (t^2) when we rotate the equation to put ( t ) as the subject we get [Square root ((2*(417))/9.81) ] = ( t ) = 9.22 seconds So in a perfect vacumme at sea level if we dropped any mass from the top of the tallest WTC it would take 9.22 seconds to hit the ground. Now we look at FACT 004 again Fact 004: Any body falling in a vacuum will always fall faster than if air is present due to the elimination of air resistance. So in other words, it is physically not possible for anything to fall faster than 9.22 seconds from 417 metres at sea level in air. Now on 911 the jet slammed in to one tower and then slammed into the other tower. Let us take the worst case scenario, let us take the case were there are just over 80+ undamaged lower floors below the damage point. This means there is the largest pile driver or (Top Bit) to fall through the bottom bit. NIST publish and video evidence state both towers fell in under 10 seconds. 10.00 – 9.22 = 0.78 seconds So what the BUSH Government is trying to claim is the top bit some 20 odd floors, fell and crashed through the bottom 80+ undamaged bottom floors at almost freefall speed of decent. Were 9.22 seconds would have been the time of freefall speed in a perfect vacuum. Now let us hypothetically remove the bottom undamaged 80+ floors for one moment. The falling top bit would have had air resistance as it fell the near ¼ mile to earth, its footprint was exactly 1 square acre. But let us ignore any slowing air resistance just to be ultra conservative in our calculations. So, after ignoring slowing air resistance we now find that the bottom strongest, heaviest lower 80+ floors were crashed through by the top 20 so floors, and the time taken for this was almost identical to if the 80+ floors had not even been there at all. It simply defies almost every known law of physics, conservation of energy and conservation of momentum etc, and the bottom strongest and heaviest 80+ floors Physically can not offer next to ZERO resistance. This is not physically possible for a near 1/4 mile of building matter to offer near zero resistance. This is because less than one second prior to the building starting to disintegrate, the very fact the building held itself upright proves it had at minimum 1 times working load resistance. Suddenly the same 1/4 mile building structure offered almost Zero working resistance. HOW? The only possible way this can happen is Controlled Demolition. PROVED! 911 was Controlled Demolition and NOT a Gravity collapse. Peer Review Peer Review Peer Review Come on were is the Peer Revewers?/?/ Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

71. Tina Posted: Jun 19th, 2008 at 3:23 pm

    3 year old kid, thanks for the response, but I’d be grateful if you could also address the other points that I have made. I don’t mean to be rude here, but you seem to be repeating yourself in the last few coments you have made. Science doesn’t ‘upset’ me, I just don’t understand it. I’ve explained this already. I am guessing that you disagree with the link I gave about CD in an above comment? Also, it may be worth you looking into the history of the term ‘anti-semitism’ and the dictionary definition. Oh, and as far as ‘peer review’, have you published a paper and submitted it to the relevant bodies for peer review? Or if you haven’t publihsed a paper, why don’t you do it? See, I’ve responded to your comments, could you please address the comments I’ve made in this and previously. Thank you. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

72. Ashley Posted: Jun 19th, 2008 at 4:32 pm

    Tina, Thanks for the link, it makes interesting reading, I do have a few points to make if that is OK. The article gives the impression that all implosions are carried out in the same way (blow the support away at the bottom-middle, then the bottom-outside and then one floor towards the top). I think this is very misleading. In the article itself the consultant from the demolitions company says the following: - ‘virtually every building in the world is unique. And for any given building, there are any number of ways a blasting crew might bring it down’. - I take it that this means that there is not a ‘be all and end all’ procedure like it says earlier in the article (I would also hazard a guess that 110 storey buildings are probably a little more unique than most of the buildings they are used to bringing down). It also says: - ‘The first step in preparation, which often begins before the blasters have actually surveyed the site, is to clear any debris out of the building. Next, construction crews, or, more accurately, destruction crews, begin taking out non-load-bearing walls within the building. This makes for a cleaner break at each floor: If these walls were left intact, they would stiffen the building, hindering its collapse. Destruction crews may also weaken the supporting columns with sledge hammers or steel-cutters, so that they give way more easily’ - This was not done to the buildings that collapsed on 9-11 to the best of anyones knowledge. If it was not feasible to weaken the supporting structure then more explosives and/or cutter charges would likely be used. I would guess that they don’t usually put charges on every couple of floors due to the cost of the explosives, why would you use explosives if you can get in there and weaken the structure manually, thus allowing you to just blow the bottom and a couple of floors at the top? Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition Inc says on their website that when they collapsed the 32 story Mendes Caldeira Building that they put 777 charges on 11 floors (this is just over one in every 3 floors if evenly spaced, it may have been the bottom floor and every other floor towards the top, it doesn’t say). The reason he puts forward for doing this is ‘We put 777 charges on 11 floors, many more floors than is usual, to ensure that the building would come down safely’. - Now I would hazard a guess that with money being no object and the safety of the surrounding buildings being of high importance that this strategy would likely have been used on the towers if they were indeed demolished on purpose. If you look at the details of the implosion of Orlando City Hall on their website (footage of which was used in Lethal Weapon 3) you will see that they state that this 8 storey building took just less than six seconds to come down. I would dearly love to know how when a purposeful demolition of an 8 stroey building took almost 6 seconds, how a 47 storey building can completely collapse due to fire damage in less than one second more. Did the first 8 storeys of WTC7 collapse in almost 6 seconds and the remaining 39 take less than a second? Mark Loizeaux 2 days after 9-11 - ‘Observing the collapses on television news, Loizeaux says the 1,362-ft-tall south tower, which was hit at about the 60th floor, failed much as one wouldlike [sic] fell a tree. That is what was expected, says Loizeaux. But the 1,368-ft-tall north tower, similarly hit but at about the 90th floor, “telescoped,” says Loizeaux. It failed vertically, he adds, rather than falling over. “I don’t have a clue,” says Loizeaux, regarding the cause of the telescoping.’ He later retracted this with a piece in the New Scientist where he claimed that this is exactly as was expected. CDI were a key company in the ground zero clean up operation. It would be disingenous of me to say that the multi million dollar contracts could have had some bearing on this about face, so I won’t. An explosives expert Van Romero was quoted on the day of the attack saying ‘the collapses were “too methodical” to be the result of the aircraft collisions and ensuing fires. - He too retracted this statement. One of the authors of the FEMA report, a ‘Ronald Hamburger’ is purported to have said “It appeared to me that charges had been placed in the building,” said Mr. Hamburger, chief structural engineer for ABS Consulting in Oakland, Calif. Upon learning that no bombs had been detonated, “I was very surprised,” said Mr. Hamburger. The buildings “certainly did not do as well as I would have hoped.” HTH Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

73. Tina Posted: Jun 19th, 2008 at 5:18 pm

    Thanks Ashley for your response. As you mention, it would take a long time to put all those explosives and charges into such a large building. Again, I’ll post in what I said before about the Hudson Building… The Hudson Building (over 100ft shorter than WTC1 and 2) was brought down by CD. It took 12 people 24 days to put in the 4,118 charges into the building. So, if WTC1 and 2 are both taller than the Hudson Building, is it really possible that they managed to sneak all those explosives in over such a long period? Again, so if it were CD how much time do you think they had to fit all those explosives and charges without anyone noticing or becoming suspicious? I can’t find a quote at the moment, so I may be wrong about this. But I’m sure I’ve read that security and sniffer dogs were apparently removed from WTC1 and 2 for around 5 days. But 5 days surely isn’t enough time to fit the explosives and charges? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

74. Ashley Posted: Jun 19th, 2008 at 6:25 pm

    Paul W Welcome back and thank you for your comments. I would like to retort to your arguments but since it largely claims that myself and 3yo kid know nothing, I am afraid that I will not lower myself to resort to a playground squabble. If we were doing this in person I’m sure you’d have threatened to knock my head off by now ;) In this post you have called me an idiot and an imbecile, who knows nothing, is totally and utterly ignorant and tried to use the widely misused term of antisemite in my direction. I must congratulate you on cramming so much vitriol in to such a short post. As I said earlier to Max Pane can we define our terms prior to engaging in a conversation about antisemitism? What is antisemitism? The way I see it is if a Jewish person or organisation does something that is wrong, it is not more OR less wrong because they are Jewish. That they are Jewish has nothing to do with it (in either a positive or negative way). Now if I am antisemitic for thinking this then I would like you to explain how. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

75. Ashley Posted: Jun 19th, 2008 at 8:38 pm

    Tina I’m no expert in CD so I am guessing a lot of stuff. Logistically I admit it does seem difficult but then on the CDI website in the details of the CD of the Sheikh A. Alakl Residential & Commercial Center they say ‘At the request of Bechtel, Controlled Demolition Incorporated’s team mobilized to the site in less than 24 hours, prepared the central-core, flat slab, reinforced concrete structure in another 27 hours and put the balance of the building on the ground with absolute safety just 96 hours after the start of demolition preparations. - Now this is only a 17 storey building but I don’t think the idea of 9-11 collapses being controlled demolition can be written off from a purely logistical perspective. I guess that a lot of the time fitting out a building for implosion is the wiring of it all, if as some suggest the charges were set off by radio then these could have been made and readied prior to install (thus making the time to ready shorter than with conventional wiring). btw this is complete supposition. I don’t have blueprints of the towers but as I understand it the central core (the area within the central columns) is given over to lifts, stairwells, services etc. These would certainly be the easier areas to get to. As for the columns on the periphery of the building your guess is as good as mine. There was a power down for 36 hours in one of the buildings on the weekend prior but that is only one tower so I don’t know. Like I said I don’t have all the answers, but I do have a lot of questions. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

76. Tina Posted: Jun 19th, 2008 at 9:01 pm

    Thanks Ashley for your response. At least we both seem to agree that there are a lot of questions to be asked! Concerning the building in Jeddah that you refer to, are you aware that half of the 17 storey building had already collapsed PRIOR to CD? CDInc came in to carry out an emergency CD as the building posed a safety issue. Therefore, CDInc carried out a CD on a half destroyed 17 storey building. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

77. Ashley Posted: Jun 19th, 2008 at 9:25 pm

    Tina Yes I am aware of that, looking at the pictures there appears to have been quite a lot of it left. My logic says to me that as this had partially collapsed, that it would have been a more difficult environment to work in and a lot more care would have been taken whilst wiring the building hence more time (supposition again I’m afraid as we don’t know how stable\unstable the building was). As mentioned in their info, they had to be careful about how the building fell so as not to effect the excavation of bodies in the already collapsed portion, so it wasn’t a case of chuck a load of dynamite at it and see what happens. One thing I’m pretty sure of is that they wouldn’t have seen this as an easier job than a still standing, complete and structurally sound building. I doubt they would have viewed a partial collapse as a helping hand or a head start. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

78. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 19th, 2008 at 9:28 pm

    Greetings Fellow Earthlings, The wiring is not wiring now its RF devices, the CDs are done by computer & remote control. So for all we know, if it was mostly plastic high explosives it could have been there for a very long time. (Up to 30 –40 years) (Perhaps that is why some went off at the wrong time and we see Squibs 20 floors below the detonation wave?) Was there not some lift repair work done weeks prior to 911 and sniffer dogs were removed from the building just after that? However, I as a professional am not concerned with aspects of the explosives got there, that is for the new investigation, these facts are all we need to know they were there:- 0.78 seconds worth of resistance for ¼ mile of steel framed and reinforced concrete building. To fall through the 1 square acre footprint at near freefall speed means one thing – near Zero residual resistance from the bottom 80+ floors. Near Zero Residual resistance means only one thing – Timed Controlled Demolition. The two twin towers were top down demolitions and building 007 was conventional bottom up demolition. And Osmar Binladen is not wanted by the US law enforcement for 911 at all. And I thank Tina for giving me the quality questions. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

79. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 19th, 2008 at 9:57 pm

    What did you people think of this vid? http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=anti+zionist+jewish+protester&sitesearch=# Basically it states Jewry has been hijacked by Atheist Nationalist types (Zionist NAZIS) after many good Jews were murdered in the 1930s by Hitler’s Nazis. Does this video prove Anti Zionist is not Anti Semitism? Or do we need more evidence? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

80. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 19th, 2008 at 10:01 pm

    How about this evidence? http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=anti+zionist+jewish+protester&sitesearch=# Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

81. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 19th, 2008 at 10:03 pm

    Watch as Zionist Nazi thugs beat up a real peaceful jewish chap and stab him in the back. Should I be against Zionists NAZI People or not? http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=anti+zionist+jewish+protester&sitesearch=# Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

82. Mick Meaney Posted: Jun 19th, 2008 at 10:07 pm

    John can you knock off the spamming please mate, one link is enough cheers. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

83. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 19th, 2008 at 10:22 pm

    I am sorry about sending the same link several times I meant to send links to different videos as evidence for discussion, here are the links as they should have been. ————————————————————————————————— A real nice group Jewish chap tells about the Evil Nationalist (NAZI) Zionists part 001 http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=anti+zionist+jewish+protester&sitesearch=#q=anti%20zionist%20protesters&sitesearch= ——————————————————————————————————- A real nice group of Jewish chap tells about the Evil Nationalist (NAZI) Zionists part 002 http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=anti+zionist+jewish+protester&sitesearch=#q=Jewish%20protest%20-%20part%202&sitesearch= ——————————————————————————————————- Zionist Nazi thugs beat up and stab a nice Jewish holy man in the back. http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=anti+zionist+jewish+protester&sitesearch=#q=Zionist%20Thugs%20Beating%20Up%20Jewish%20 So am I a bad person if I don’t like these Zionist thugs? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

84. Tina Posted: Jun 19th, 2008 at 10:25 pm

    Thanks again for responses. 3 year old kid - you thank me for quality questions (thanks!) but you still haven’t addressed previous questions - you seem to be doing a lot of repeating and spamming of the same video link. Re the video link, I’ve seen it before? Do you know anything about the group of Jews who were talking? It’s like pointing someone towards Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church for support! You say you are a professional, maybe I have missed this, but a professional in what? Does calling people ‘cretins’ and using terms such as ‘Zionist Nazi’ part of your professionalism? Again, I’d be grateful if you could respond to some previous points I’ve made. I’ll post them again if you can’t find them. After all, I think I’m pretty accurate when I say that I respond to the points you make. As you have previously mentioned, I will pass on your theory on CD to Professors in the relevant fields. Ashley - Thanks again for your response (at least you acknowledge and respond to my questions and thoughts!) I do know exactly what you are saying and both us admit that we are no experts in this area. We are both speculating and questioning things. I’m sure that the fact that the building was half collapsed did not help the CD specialists out and would cause a more hazardous environment to work in. But I stll feel that comparing a half demolished 17 storey building is not a fair comparison of TWO 110 storey buildings fully formed. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

85. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 19th, 2008 at 10:27 pm

    The blinking links are not doing what they are supposed to do, to get the different videos go to the links on the left hand side and you will see the videos there. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

86. Ashley Posted: Jun 19th, 2008 at 10:58 pm

    Tina I am not comparing a half demolished 17 storey building with 2 fully formed 110 storey buildings. I merely showed that a demolitions firm was able to survey a damaged building, come up with a strategy for demolishing it, wire it up and implode it within 96 hours of the first contact. This says to me that with enough manpower, if the strategy had been worked out, the charges ready to put in place, radio used instead of wires that it might be possible to get the buildings ready for CD. They might have been wiring the building up for a year, smugglers find ways of concealing drugs from sniffer dogs, do you think it would be impossible to do the same with an explosive given enough time and resources. Here’s a scenario for you completely off the top of my head (forgive me if it goes off on a tangent but I’m making it up as I go along ;). A group of people decide to bring down the 3 buildings on 9-11 for the insurance money and to get the American people in such a frenzy they’ll allow their constitution to be shredded and allow their government to start an illegal agressors war against 2 Middle Eastern countries. Said group create radio triggered bombs where the explosive material is hermetically sealed, these bombs have an ID (like the MAC address of a network card) and are placed in known positions. As the explosive is hermetically sealed sniffer dogs cannot smell it either when it is brought in to the building or when it is in place. These pre-assembled bombs are placed according to the pre-designated points over the course of a period of time (a week, a month, a year, your choice as this is just a hypotheses) by people posing as lift engineers, network cabling engineers, cleaners (whatever). When all of the bombs are in place an ‘arm’ code is sent to them and when the time comes they are triggered in the correct sequence. Admittedly you won’t find a company on the internet that specialises in hermetically enclosing explosives, all of the legal uses of explosives that I can think of would never need it. That doesn’t mean it can’t be done though does it? Now this is all pure conjecture, but none of it involves technology that doesn’t exist, none of it relies on shape shifting lizards or little green men from Mars. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

87. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 19th, 2008 at 11:17 pm

    Ms T If I am able to answer I will be delighted, please send me your question again and excuse me for missing you out the first time around. I did not claim to be politically correct Ms T. The fact I do not like Bully thug Zionist Nazis proves that. I stand by what I said about this particular program as it failed to even ask or answer the most simplest question – why is Osmar Binladen not want ed by US law enforcement for 911? Re the CD I suspect the Explosives were already set prior to the jet crashes. From what I recall there were reports of secondary explosions prior to the collapse sequence initiation. However I can only prove for certain it was a Controlled Demolition any other information will have to come from in-depth investigation. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

88. Tina Posted: Jun 19th, 2008 at 11:40 pm

    Thanks Ashley, I want to read what you have posted again later as I’m fairly tired at the moment and can’t take it all in! I’ll read again later and respond :) I did come back here with something for 3 year old kid to get their teeth into… “d = 1/2at^2 so t = (2d/a)^1/2 a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth’s surface, according to Wikipedia), d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source) so t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough, v = at v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That’s almost a quarter of the height it already fell! And we haven’t even made it to ELEVEN seconds yet; my goodness, it could have fallen MORE THAN TWICE ITS HEIGHT in that additional four seconds! Well, what do you know. So sure, you betcha, the time for it to fall three and a half times its own height is REALLY, REALLY CLOSE to the free-fall time, right? My goodness, it’s so close I can barely see the difference! Only THREE AND A HALF TIMES ITS HEIGHT, what do you know. KE = 1/2mv^2 Now, the mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to this. Four sources, he has. I think that’s pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we’ll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they’re comparable, then we’re good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We’ll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be 208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft 50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be 450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor so the total mass would be 4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was 90.4m/s so our KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J So, divide by 2 and we get 10,362,544,260J OK, now let’s try a floor halfway up: t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J Hey, look at that! They’re almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let’s see now, that’s 110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I’m being conservative, took the lower value) = 1,139,879,868,600J OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let’s see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J? 1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t Now, that’s 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less! Hey, that’s over a QUARTER KILOTON! We’re talking about as much energy as a SMALL NUCLEAR WEAPON- and we’ve only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building! We haven’t added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris- and guess what, that’s ANOTHER small nuclear weapon-equivalent right there) and we’ve got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing! My goodness. Now what do you suppose made that pyroclastic flow? Taken from PhysOrg Forum. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

89. Tina Posted: Jun 19th, 2008 at 11:56 pm

    The following is in response to 3 year old kid, but of course, anyone is free to answer. Questions I have previously asked: if what the truthers are saying is true, what next? What do the truthers want to achieve from this? Of course one answer would be the ‘truth’, I understand and support that! But what else? 9/11 has been and gone. There are major issues going on in the world right now that need to be stopped! I almost worry that some of these people continue to spend their lives questioning, without any real answers (as in “what did happen on 9/11?”) and for what? What outcome do you want to see? Why is it then that the work of Dr Wood, Dr Reynolds, Dr Fetzer and Dr Jones re 9/11 hasn’t been peer reviewed and doesn’t appear in reputable scientific journals? People seem to judge the way that the towers fell, fell at free-fall speed. But if you look at footage, debris from the building falls faster than the structure. The debris also falls faster than the dust cloud…the cloud falling faster than the structure. So, did the structure fall at free-fall if debris was falling faster? Why would explosives be needed to fit throughout, surely it only needed one lot at the bottom? Also, it may be worth you looking into the history of the term ‘anti-Semitism’ and the dictionary definition. I wonder if you have done this? Oh, and as far as ‘peer review’, have you published a paper and submitted it to the relevant bodies for peer review? Or if you haven’t published a paper, why don’t you do it? Re the video link, I’ve seen it before. Do you know anything about the group of Jews who were talking? You say you are a professional, maybe I have missed this, but a professional in what? Does calling people ‘cretins’ and using terms such as ‘Zionist Nazi’ part of your professionalism? (If your reference “I do not claim to be politically correct” is your answer, our definitions of ‘political correctness’ and ‘abusive terms/name calling’ differ). Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

90. joe ebeyer Posted: Jun 20th, 2008 at 12:05 am

    The reason the truth has not been reported is the same reason the U.S.S. Liberty incident was not reported! All news agency’s in the U.S. are controled by the same people who benifited from 9/11 and the Liberty incident, the same folks run our government anyone who has not read “One Nation Under Israel” needs to, why so many dual citizenships running our country and embassay’s worldwide wake up and smell the scams, scams like the N.I.S.T “report” on 9/11 does anyone deny their were Army Psyops Agents working for CNN on 9/11? Why were they there, thats a fact now debunk that, popular mechanics? was bought out and reorganised before 9/11 check out http://www.pilotsfor911truth.com Thank God for Arizona’s Senator coming forward, we will win this in the end and it will prove our media is 100% bunk, even RINF has changed hands recently……..DAAA Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

91. Mick Meaney Posted: Jun 20th, 2008 at 12:08 am

    joe ebeyer said “even RINF has changed hands recently”. Uh no it hasn’t, it’s always been owned and controlled by me. There’s nobody else involved, apart from a couple of forum moderators who do a fantastic job and can basically run the forum as they see fit - but anti-semitism, TV fakery, DEW etc will be binned. The newswire is solely my responsibility and I aim to post the most credible information possible. There’s no censorship on article comments (apart from racist and abusive comments) so people are free to say whatever they like, whether I agree with it or not. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

92. Tina Posted: Jun 20th, 2008 at 12:28 am

    Joe Ebeyer said “does anyone deny their were Army Psyops Agents working for CNN on 9/11?” Do you have any evidence to support this? All I can find is that they had worked for CNN PRE 9/11. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

93. Ashley Posted: Jun 20th, 2008 at 1:26 am

    Tina, I’ve answered a few of those questions already for you, namely: - if what the truthers are saying is true, what next? What do the truthers want to achieve from this? Of course one answer would be the ‘truth’, I understand and support that! But what else? 9/11 has been and gone. There are major issues going on in the world right now that need to be stopped! I almost worry that some of these people continue to spend their lives questioning, without any real answers (as in “what did happen on 9/11?”) and for what? What outcome do you want to see? (see my comment ‘to be proven wrong’) Why is it then that the work of Dr Wood, Dr Reynolds, Dr Fetzer and Dr Jones re 9/11 hasn’t been peer reviewed and doesn’t appear in reputable scientific journals? (see my comment ‘which academic journal is likely to print it when academics are losing their posts for questioning 9-11′) Why would explosives be needed to fit throughout, surely it only needed one lot at the bottom? (see my comment ‘Controlled Demolition Inc’s demolition of the 32 storey building with charges on 11 floors to make sure it fell safely’, I suggested that the safety of surrounding buildings on 9-11 may have been a factor) I’ll attempt to answer a couple of your other questions for you if that’s OK People seem to judge the way that the towers fell, fell at free-fall speed. But if you look at footage, debris from the building falls faster than the structure. The debris also falls faster than the dust cloud…the cloud falling faster than the structure. So, did the structure fall at free-fall if debris was falling faster? Please can you point me in the direction of a video showing this, this one -> http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=wtc+collapse&sitesearch=# clearly shows the molten metal that doesn’t exist according to NIST and then goes on to show the collapse, the collapsing floors outpace the debris as far as I can see. It may be that lower down there were no explosives (and it was relying on gravity to do the work so the debris may very well have overtaken it if that was the case. It certainly wasn’t the case for the floors shown in this video), like we have agreed we don’t know enough about controlled demolition to offer a definitive answer. Also, it may be worth you looking into the history of the term ‘anti-Semitism’ and the dictionary definition. I wonder if you have done this? The Online Etymology Dictionary definition of a Semite is: - 1847, “Jew, Arab, Assyrian, Aramæan,” from Mod.L. Semita, from L.L. Sem “Shem,” one of the three sons of Noah (Gen. x:21-30), regarded as the ancestor of the Semites (in the days when anthropology was still bound by the Bible), from Heb. Shem. Semitic (1813 of languages, 1826 of persons) is probably from Ger. semitisch (first used by Ger. historian August Schlözer, 1781), denoting the language group that includes Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Assyrian, etc. In recent use often with the specific sense “Jewish,” but not historically so limited. Re the video link, I’ve seen it before. Do you know anything about the group of Jews who were talking? They would be Neturei Karta I’m guessing, a very anti-Zionist group of orthodox Jews. They believe that Israel should not exist according to the Torah and the Talmud. Any discussion regarding Israel is a challenge (’Like riding two bikes at the same time’ - Robert Fisk), but more moderate anti-zionists such as Gilad Atzmon and Tony Judt are called ’self hating Jews’ for their opinions and the term anti-semite is regularly used for those who disagree with the way Israel conducts itself. This name calling does nothing to further understanding on either side of what is imo a very difficult subject to discuss critically. I mean does this help? -> http://masada2000.org/list-A.html HTH Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

94. Tina Posted: Jun 20th, 2008 at 3:30 am

    Hi Ashley, I just wrote a response to you then lost it! So excuse me for being a little brief here! I obviously didn’t make myself clear, sorry. I know that you have addressed the points I’ve made, the questions were posted in response to 3 year old kid - but thanks for responding! I am aware of the definition and history behind the term anti-semitism. I’m afraid that you looked up ’semite’ which in this instance is slightly different. I also know the background to the video showing the Jewish people talking about Zionism. For both questions here, I’m wanting to know if 3 year old kid understands the background and context. Concerning free fall - have a look at this video http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DoOp40E6UZg Thanks again for your response Ashley. I hope that 3 year old kid also adds their comments to my questions :) Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

95. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 20th, 2008 at 5:56 pm

    Greetings Fellow Earthlings Re Ms Ts post: Jun 19th, 2008 at 11:40 pm Go to http://www.ae911truth.org/ if anyone wished to learn more about the 911 Controlled Demolitions or indeed the members impeccable credentials. At impact the chap means as the tower hit the ground at 202 mph in 9.23 seconds. To hit the ground at anything like 202 mph the bottom 80+ floors offered almost no resistance at all. This proves my point exactly. So the structure hit the ground at about 202 mph, but clearly parts of the structure hit faster. This again is yet more evidence of Demolition Explosives, as some parts are blown up and out and some are blown out and down. If it had been a gravity collapse would you not have expected to see 110 squashed pancaked floors stacked up at the bottom like all the other gravity collapses? Regarding what I do when I let my hair down in my own time, sure, its ok to call Zionist NAZI thugs who stab a defenseless Jewish chap in the back – Zionist NAZI thugs. And what term should be given to groups who appear on radio attacking qualified professionals regarding 911 and do not even bother to find out if Osmar Binladen is even wanted by CIA for the official 911 plot - if not CRETINS? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

96. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 20th, 2008 at 5:59 pm

    How about if I call the “Cretins” - Factually challenged”? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

97. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 20th, 2008 at 6:07 pm

    Or how about “Logically challenged” or “brainwashed delusional” Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

98. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 20th, 2008 at 6:10 pm

    Or instead of “Cretins”, what about “Science Credential Poor”? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

99. Tina Posted: Jun 20th, 2008 at 6:14 pm

    Hi 3 year old kid thanks for the response. Again, you haven’t addressed all the points I re-pasted in (unless you are doing this as I type). Re the equation thingie that I posted in - as I’m not a physics expert, I didn’t understand all the equation part but as I found it, I thought I’d post it to see what you response was. Thanks for your reply. I’m wary about asking you (3 year old kid) questions now (as I don’t always get a response)but…what about the part where it says if it was CD, it would require 272 tons of TNT? Call people what you want, I can’t stop that. I personally wouldn’t use such abusive terms, but there again, thats me. Each to their own I guess. Whilst I look at the url you gave me to check out these “impeccable credentials” I hope that not only that you are well, but that you have the time at some point to address the points I have now made twice :) Update - (I like this new edit function! Very handy! ta!) Ok, looked at ae911 site. Yes, impressive list of many architects and engineers. Although it is my understanding that engineering is a pretty big field, so those most relevant would be in civil engineering? Anyway, although the list is impressive boasting around 500-600 architects and engineers (including ‘degreed’, licensed and retired) this is only a very small amount compared to the amount of architects and engineers worldwide? So where are the others? And dare I mention those two words? I’ll give you a clue..first word begins with ‘p’, the second begins with ‘r’. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

100. Ashley Posted: Jun 20th, 2008 at 6:38 pm

     Tina Apologies for the misunderstanding. I just thought the repeating of the questions you had previously asked along with throwing it open by saying anyone was welcome to comment, gave the impression that no-one had tried to furnish you with an answer. Anti-semite is a compound word made of two seperate and distinct words. Anti is defined as - a person who is opposed to a particular practice, party, policy, action, etc. Semite is defined as above but basically - “Jew, Arab, Assyrian, Aramæan,”. Anti-semite in recent times has been used to describe someone opposed to Jews whereas the true meaning of the word semite gives a broader meaning if it is used in its historical sense. Surely the use of the term to describe only anti-Jewish feelings goes some way to distort the true meaning of the word semite, by removing the Arabs, Assyrians and Aramæans from the equation. Given the historical meaning of semite, do you think that this site is anti-semitic? -> http://masada2000.org/ it is certainly hateful to Palestinian Arabs as far as I’m concerned (Caterpillar - “Crushing One Terrorist or Terrorist-Supporter at a Time.” - nice, Palestine doesn’t exist, there’s no such thing as a Palestinian.). Thanks for the link to the video, it does appear that the debris on the one tower does overtake the collapse, would this be consistent with the higher storeys being wired with explosives and the lower floors relying on gravity to do the work? (as per the link you put earlier, this could explain how it was ‘almost’ free fall speed rather than exactly free fall speed). I notice you haven’t commented on the idea of hermetically sealed explosives. You didn’t appear to have any any thoughts about how an 8 storey building can take slightly less than 6 seconds to drop using controlled demolition and a 47 storey steel framed building that collapsed due to fire damage could take only one second more. I find this intruiging to say the very least. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

101. Tina Posted: Jun 20th, 2008 at 7:41 pm

     Hi Ashley, Thanks again for your response and I’m sorry about the misunderstanding of the questions! When I refer to the historical origins of the term anti-semitism, I’m referring to Wilhelm Marr. I guess (again possible apology from me as I may not have been so clear) is the origin of the term rather than the words. I’m wary of the masada2000 site, seems a bit too hateful and extreme for my liking. It has been brought down a few times and I’m not suprised! Nasty site! Ok, without getting too rude here, one thing we both most realise about each other. You believe that CD were used on 9/11, I do not. (I hope I have your opinion correct there). So when you ask me about explosives in the towers, I just don’t see it. That’s why I do not automatically address the matter. Also, I have already said (I think!) that I do not pretend to have the answers! Not to be picky here, but there is a difference in almost free fall speed and free fall speed, isn’t there? You mention that I haven’t commented on hermetically sealed explosives. Well, thats because I don’t believe any explosives were used! Where do you think these hermetically sealed explosives were? Throughout the buildings? I also don’t believe that WTC towers came down in under 10 seconds. See this video http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ow0y5q7MHw Take care. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

102. Ashley Posted: Jun 20th, 2008 at 9:44 pm

     Tina When you said:- ‘I have my doubts about 9/11. I’m still not sure what happened on that day, but I do like to look at both sides of the argument. If I looked at only one angle, would that be a biased point of view?’ and:- ‘I do know exactly what you are saying and both us admit that we are no experts in this area. We are both speculating and questioning things. ‘ I stupidly took that to mean that you were undecided, it now appears that you have made your mind up (at least as far as controlled demolition is concerned). I hope that this is not because of my arguments, I thought I had provided you with quite plausible answers to your queries. You certainly didn’t counter many of my points. With regards free fall speed and near free fall speed, I don’t think you understood my last post, so I respectfully ask you to try reading it again. Do you have any theory whatsoever as to how an 8 storey building can take slightly less than 6 seconds to drop using controlled demolition and a 47 storey steel framed building that collapsed due to fire damage could take only one second more? Not only is this counter intuative, it questions the validity of the existence of firms specialising in controlled demolition. I mean if there are only a handful of demolition companies in the world that will even try to demolish a building in to its own footprint (from your ‘howstuffworks’ link), perhaps we ought to go in to the demolition business. We could say we’ll do it quicker and cheaper, I mean all we’d have to do is light a couple of fires and the buildings would collapse in to their own footprints, and all this quicker than if we’d blown them up with explosives. We’d make a fortune and go down in history as the people who ended this obvious multi-million dollar scam, are you in? ;) Also I wonder if you would do me the favour of telling me whether you think the idea of pre-prepared, hermetically sealed, radio detonated bombs has ‘any legs’? Obviously if you think it implausible I would love to hear why. As far as the meaning of anti-semite goes, I would like to ask you a couple of questions. I am Welsh, if I coined the term anti-celt and unilaterally decided that it meant anti-welsh, do you think the Bretons, Cornish, Irish, Manx and Scots would have something to say? If these other groups were seen in an unfavourable light by the Welsh could this behaviour be seen as devisive? At the end of the day, Arabs, Assyrians and Aramæans are semitic peoples, sticking ‘anti’ in front of the word does not change the meaning of the word does it? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

103. Tina Posted: Jun 20th, 2008 at 10:36 pm

     Ashley, I have said several times that I am no physics expert, no CD expert, that I haven’t got all the answers and that I am still questioning things. I’ve been looking into 9/11 for a few years now and heard arguments from CD to beam weapons to no planes and the like. Up until a few months ago I was more or less convinced that CD was the only explanation, but then I realised something…I was only looking at one side of the argument (surrounding what happened on 9/11…official version vs conspiracy in the simplist terms). I then started to look at the other side of the coin, just out of interest to see what they said. As compelling as I thought the CD theory was, I began to see flaws in the theory, and thats where I am at now. I’ve been “it was CD and thats that” from me a while back, I’ve been there. But now I have serious doubts and its this that I’m sharing with yourself and anyone else who is reading. I’ve not made my mind up and to be honest, I don’t think I ever will. Although I put time and effort into debating on this article thread, I have thought “well, 9/11 has been and gone. Whatever happened on that day, happened, regardless of how, if, why, what…There are far more important things going on in the world RIGHT NOW that we should be focusing our engergies on imo….civil liberties, illegal wars, formation of the EU, etc” Yes, some (maybe all) can be argued that this happened or was pushed forward by the events of 9/11, but we can’t turn back the clock and stop 9/11. We can stop (or at least attempt to stop) an illegal war, people unfairly imprisoned, the destruction of Iraq and the Iraqi people, etc. People who research and investigate 9/11 don’t bother me, of course I still look into it. It’s just difference of opinion and different priorities. You mention that I didn’t reply to your points, I’m sorry if I over-looked something you said as I did think I’d addressed what you said. You see, when it comes to CD, I simply don’t buy it (in the same way that you can’t see how it is anything else but CD).So when you ask me about explosives (be it hermetically sealed or not) I can’t see how it can be proved. I’ve looked at evidence before and I’ve looked at counter-evidence. The latter has convinced me more at this time. Again, the issue also relies on advanced knowledge and understanding of engineering, mathematics and physics (and I’m sure a few more areas)…something that I can not begin to admit that I have. So I have to rely on experts in that field, regardless of what they say, they are experts, not me. If you could point me to (or explain in more detail) how heretically sealed explosves work, how they are fitted, where they would be fitted, pros and cons, etc, then I’m more than willing to look at it. How can I pass judgement on something that I have little knowledge of? Quote: I mean if there are only a handful of demolition companies in the world that will even try to demolish a building in to its own footprint (from your ‘howstuffworks’ link), perhaps we ought to go in to the demolition business. So, if only a few companies can do it, how long do you think they spent planning and rigging both towers? I don’t want to sound rude here, but do you believe that planes went into the towers? It wasn’t like there were a few small fires that happened in those towers. A jet plane with an awful lot of fuel went into the building. The impact and the fuel caused huge explosions! When the buildings fell, not everything (the building) went straight down. There was huge damage all around. The towers were hit towards the top, buckled from explosions and continued to pancake down. Part of the building went into its own footprint (due to gravity I would of guessed) but the building also destroyed several buildings around it. Light a fire in the top of high rised building. Fly a jet plane with a lot of fuel into the same building. Do you think the results would be the same? Look at the building in Madrid that burned and burned (often quoted in support for CD), but was there a plane that flew into it? Would this be considered a fair scientific comparison? The only way to truly know is to repeat the same again, which is not what I want to see and God forbid, anyone would do! Last point of yours, anti-semitism. I’m asking to look into the TERM anti-semitism, the way it is used in modern day as a term coined by Wilhelm Marr, not the single words ‘anti’ and ’semite’. If you look at the history and meaning of the TERM anti-semitism, you’d notice a big difference. There is also a big difference between terminology and etymology. I believe that it is understanding the difference between the two when using as people do today. I’m sorry that this is long but I hope you understand where I’m coming from. By the way, did you watch the vid I gave the link for? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

104. Ashley Posted: Jun 20th, 2008 at 10:50 pm

     Tina I neglected to respond to the collapse time query. According to The Kean Report (p305) ‘At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds’ I think you have stumbled on yet more reasons why a new inquiry should be launched! Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

105. Ashley Posted: Jun 20th, 2008 at 11:53 pm

     Tina Quote: I began to see flaws in the theory, and thats where I am at now. I thought that was what we were doing here, you were telling me what you saw as flaws and I was looking at them and trying to provide reasons (as I see it) that your flaws do not necessarily rule out CD. If any of my suggestions have been implausible please could you point them out to me so that I can either defend them or retract them? If you have any flaws that you’ve not mentioned up until this point, well now’s your chance (not that I can guarantee to be able to explain them away, but I’ll try) Quote: I’ve not made my mind up and to be honest, I don’t think I ever will. whereas in your previous post you said:- Quote: You believe that CD were used on 9/11, I do not. (I hope I have your opinion correct there). OK it’s decision time, are you taking the money or opening the box? Quote: I have thought “well, 9/11 has been and gone. Whatever happened on that day, happened, regardless of how, if, why, what…There are far more important things going on in the world RIGHT NOW that we should be focusing our engergies on imo….civil liberties, illegal wars, formation of the EU, etc” Yes, some (maybe all) can be argued that this happened or was pushed forward by the events of 9/11, but we can’t turn back the clock and stop 9/11. We can stop (or at least attempt to stop) an illegal war, people unfairly imprisoned, the destruction of Iraq and the Iraqi people, etc. I can kind of see where you are coming from with this, but if the US government was complicit in this and the fact they have used it to erode civil liberties protected by the constitution and wage 2 illegal wars, then they should be held to account (the murder of 3,000 people, plus victims of the dust plus the victims of 2 illegal wars, puts lying about WMD in to a very distant second place!) Quote: If you could point me to (or explain in more detail) how heretically sealed explosves work, how they are fitted, where they would be fitted, pros and cons, etc, then I’m more than willing to look at it. How can I pass judgement on something that I have little knowledge of? As I said this idea came from the top of my head, hermetically sealed basically means airtight. I’m no expert but if you seal something airtight and clean the outside well enough then a sniffer dog isn’t going to smell it (if you had access to a sniffer dog you could even check each one prior to trying to get them in to the building). Other than that they’d be the same as the packages that CDI and their like use I guess. They would probably need a radio device of some sort and whatever else would be required (I’ve never worked for a CD company so sorry if this sounds a bit vague ;) As for how they are mounted I don’t know, pros and cons - none I’d guess (other than being able to walk them past sniffer dogs) as the only difference is that the explosive is in an airtight container of some sort. Which brings us on to: - So, if only a few companies can do it, how long do you think they spent planning and rigging both towers? As long as they liked to plan it, I’m guessing they’d do a lot of that off plans/blueprints. As far as rigging the building, if the charges couldn’t be found by sniffer dogs, as long as they liked. We have seen from the CDI website that they can rig a building very quickly (they could probably do it even quicker if they were pre-packaged charges that just needed to be attached in the right places). Quote: I don’t want to sound rude here, but do you believe that planes went into the towers? It wasn’t like there were a few small fires that happened in those towers. A jet plane with an awful lot of fuel went into the building. The impact and the fuel caused huge explosions! Are you trying to imply that I’m a no-planer? Yes planes did go in to the buildings. IIRC I’m sure I read somewhere that the buildings were designed to withstand a direct hit from a 707 (a very similar sized and specification aircraft to the 767). You can go on about ‘huge explosions’ and ‘awful lots of fuel’ as much as you like, the buildings were still designed to withstand it. Edit - Actually I’d like to reconsider my last comment, I am a no-planer (at least when it comes to WTC7) With regards questions of mine that you haven’t answered: - Quote: I am Welsh, if I coined the term anti-celt and unilaterally decided that it meant anti-welsh, do you think the Bretons, Cornish, Irish, Manx and Scots would have something to say? Quote: If these other groups were seen in an unfavourable light by the Welsh could this behaviour be seen as devisive? Quote: Arabs, Assyrians and Aramæans are semitic peoples, sticking ‘anti’ in front of the word does not change the meaning of the word does it? Quote: Do you have any theory whatsoever as to how an 8 storey building can take slightly less than 6 seconds to drop using controlled demolition and a 47 storey steel framed building that collapsed due to fire damage could take only one second more? Quote: Thanks for the link to the video, it does appear that the debris on the one tower does overtake the collapse, would this be consistent with the higher storeys being wired with explosives and the lower floors relying on gravity to do the work? (as per the link you put earlier, this could explain how it was ‘almost’ free fall speed rather than exactly free fall speed). Sorry this is so long too ;) Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

106. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 20th, 2008 at 11:53 pm

     Greetings Fellow Genetically modified earthlings, I have got it; I now know what to call the makers of this particular radio diatribe - 911 MU PITS! No seriously, what do you call someone who wheels out a UFO NUT to confess he believed all of the official “Omission” report but failed to realize Osmar Binladen is not even wanted by the CIA for the very same 911 crimes the US Government claimed Osmar controlled from his cave in Afghanistan? DUH !! HELLO!!! Is anybody Home?/?/? NANOOO NANOOO Beam me up Scotty! I mean this is the same guy who claims the public don’t believe the Diana story because its just far too simple, yet to believe the official Diana story one would have to believe in perhaps 101 improbable Coincidences. (No don’t ask me to go there) It is as simple and as clear minded as this. The fact all the scientific investigations agree with the unaltered video evidence (and I’m not talking about films which have been slowed down then republished on the net) which shows each tall 110 floor WTC falling in about 10 seconds or just under: proves the bottom quarter mile of 1 square acre footprint reinforced concrete and steel framed building, offered almost zero resistance, to a much smaller and lighter piece, falling straight through the building footprint. (goodness knows how many laws of physics are broken here) Near Free fall speed, means near Zero residual resistance, which means Controlled Demolition, which means a new inquiry to investigates this Controlled Demolition hypothesis is required without delay. And I along with other truth campaigners at Architects and Engineers for 911 truth and elsewhere will be lobbying authorities and doing what we can to try and bring about that independent investigation. And at the same time we will be tackling head on anybody who gets in the way of that Justice. What I would say is anyone who genuinely values Justice for those who were murdered on 911 & their families (and since due to illnesses), should not try and block another truly independent inquiry by trying to undermine the credentials of qualified professionals in the truth movement with ½ backed gobblygook as peddled by some (not all) detractors. We all need to ensure we see real justice and the official public disclosure of the unadulterated 911 FACTS? Our children deserve nothing less. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

107. Tina Posted: Jun 21st, 2008 at 1:32 am

     Ok, back again. Firstly, 3 year old kid - it is sad to say that I do not think I can communicate or respond to you any longer. My reasons for this are simply that you do not respond to me. Your talk, I answer you…I talk, you ignore it. I’m sure that most people will see how this is frustrating to me. How can you talk to someone when they don’t listen in the first place? IF 3 year old kid is willing to listen and respond, fair enough, but if not, well, all the best to you. Ashley - Quote: I thought that was what we were doing here, you were telling me what you saw as flaws and I was looking at them and trying to provide reasons (as I see it) that your flaws do not necessarily rule out CD. If any of my suggestions have been implausible please could you point them out to me so that I can either defend them or retract them? If you have any flaws that you’ve not mentioned up until this point, well now’s your chance (not that I can guarantee to be able to explain them away, but I’ll try) I think you’ve touched on something here. Like I said, I used to agree with the CD theory, it makes a very compelling argument. I don’t claim to know everything, but I do know the CD argument, I know the theories, the ‘evidence’ to support it and so on. But over the last 6 months or so, I’ve had a change of heart. I’m afraid that after knowing what I already know and heard about (which is what you suggest Ashley - with explosives, free fall, etc) I can’t see anything new that is going to change my mind in the near future. I can never say never, but everything so far that has been said here, I already know about and the simple answer is, I just don’t buy it anymore! Carry on doing your own research if you want. Carry on telling people about. What is important to one person may not be important to another, but does that mean we can’t say what we feel and think to be true? No. The crucial element is HOW we do it, and this is what I believe the radio programme which started this debate here implies and focuses on. Quote: I can kind of see where you are coming from with this, but if the US government was complicit in this and the fact they have used it to erode civil liberties protected by the constitution and wage 2 illegal wars, then they should be held to account (the murder of 3,000 people, plus victims of the dust plus the victims of 2 illegal wars, puts lying about WMD in to a very distant second place!) I agree with what you are saying, they should and MUST be held accountable for any wrong doing. My issue is people who just let the outcomes (war, civil liberties, etc) carry on! Now, I’m not saying that Ashley, 3 year old kid or anyone else reading this does this….but I know an awful lot of people from the truth community who sit around and question all day about something that has been and gone, where all the crap is going outside their window! Do you understand my frustration? Ashley, no I wasn’t implying that you are a no-planer. Thats why I asked that you DO believe planes went into the towers. You posted a series questions for me address, but I’ve addressed these twice already. I’ll do it again but this time I won’t group my answers, I’ll divide them up like you did with the questions. Firstly, lets put the questions into context. You asked me a series of questions when discussing the term ‘anti-semitism’. Ok, lets go through this again and then I will answer your question. I orginally asked if people knew the history of the TERM anti-semitism. The TERM not the word. There is a difference between something in terminology and the origin of the word. The WORD ‘Semite’ means as Ashley has previously stated. So by putting the prefix ‘anti’ before it gives the meaning ‘against’ something. So, anti- anything means against. I’ll come to this again in a few minutes when looking at the questions. On to the TERM ‘anti-Semitism’ which, as I have said before, was coined by Wilhelm Marr in 1880. You can look this up. This TERM is to mean (as defined by Marr) as “prejudice and hostility toward Jews”. PLEASE note there is a difference between the WORD and TERM. Do some research into if you really don’t get it. So, if you can remember that I refer the meaning of the TERM anti-Semitism….this has a different defintion to the words. This will now allow be to go on to questions…. Quote: I am Welsh, if I coined the term anti-celt and unilaterally decided that it meant anti-welsh, do you think the Bretons, Cornish, Irish, Manx and Scots would have something to say? Sure, but isn’t interesting that the person who coined the term anti-Semitism wasn’t Jewish and he himself hated the Jews! Again, I don’t think you did go and look at the historical background of the term. It is not a term originally coined by Jewish people. Quote: If these other groups were seen in an unfavourable light by the Welsh could this behaviour be seen as devisive? Did you mean divisive or derisive? Again, this is all based on the issue if a Welsh person coined a phrase for their ‘people’ - this is not the case for the term I refer to. If we follow your argument here, then the answer is yes, but this differs from what I am saying. Quote: Arabs, Assyrians and Aramæans are semitic peoples, sticking ‘anti’ in front of the word does not change the meaning of the word does it? Not if you look at the meaning of the WORD. But I am talking about the TERM. Again, theres a difference. Quote: Do you have any theory whatsoever as to how an 8 storey building can take slightly less than 6 seconds to drop using controlled demolition and a 47 storey steel framed building that collapsed due to fire damage could take only one second more? You are talking about WTC7 here. For this, I could go on for a while. I know that you would of seen video footage and photos of the north side of the building, but have you seen video footage and photos of the south side? The firefighters have already been quoted as saying that the building was already insecure, there were big fires inside, they had no water to put out the fires. The damage on the south side was intense. When the building fell, the north side ended up almost on top of the rubble as it was the south side that had given way. No theory, just using the facts from firefighters and footage from the day. Quote: Thanks for the link to the video, it does appear that the debris on the one tower does overtake the collapse, would this be consistent with the higher storeys being wired with explosives and the lower floors relying on gravity to do the work? (as per the link you put earlier, this could explain how it was ‘almost’ free fall speed rather than exactly free fall speed). I thought I had already explained about the fact that fuelled planes went into the towers. I know the argument for CD but I still do not believe that was the cause. How can I argue in support of explosives being used when I simply didn’t think it happened that way. Plane hits tower with a lot fuel towards top of tower. Big explosion. Weakens structure. Begins to fall around area of impact. Force of gravity on other floors - pancake effect. Ok…I feel like I’m going around in circles here. I don’t mean to sound rude Ashley, you will not convince me about CD with arguments I’ve already heard, once believed in and now believe to be false. I mean this with sincerity, please, just at least look at counter-evidence….even if you find flaws in it, even if it doesn’t sit right with you. It is so important to see both sides of a picture before coming to a conclusion. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

108. Darning Posted: Jun 21st, 2008 at 1:34 am

     Quote: What I would say is anyone who genuinely values Justice for those who were murdered on 911 & their families (and since due to illnesses), should not try and block another truly independent inquiry by trying to undermine the credentials of qualified professionals in the truth movement with ½ backed gobblygook as peddled by some (not all) detractors. What about those who are dying right now, today, this second? There’s a 911 EVERY SINGLE DAY - what are you doing about that? How are you trying to get JUSTICE for those people? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

109. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 21st, 2008 at 2:37 am

     Best of luck to you Tina too. I think Ashley is more on your wavelength and should be able to bounce ideas and stuff more readily, I have to keep my powder dry and keep to a script(political reasons). There are things I could tell you about 911 that would really have you questioning my sanity, but as I know most people are not science savvy I am not even going to go there except to say E = MC^2 confirms that E/C^2 = M, in other words Mass is but condensed Energy. If you all think solid things are really solid, I can advise you this is not correct, most of mass is empty space. Mass or Condensed Energy is in fact waves confined in potential wells. So what happens if those confined waves are given enough energy to escape those potential wells? In 30 or 40 years from now you will know, but for now I can not go there because I must keep to the script for political reasons. So who or which conflict is of most concern to you Darning? What are you doing about it? Why do you expect me to do everything? Look, there is only 24 hours in a day and I have a living to make you know. What I would like to see is some Government honesty but it would appear they are all crooks at the moment. 911 was just the start of an 80% world population kill off plan. So don’t say I didn’t warn you all. Stock up with food, fresh water and water purification. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

110. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 21st, 2008 at 3:05 am

     Check this out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ntz7SWm-xWo Is there any wonder we have so many problems to solve with crud like this peddling HATE against women & children? Instead of attacking tree huggers like the truth movement “CULT WATCHERS” should spend at least some of their time keeping an eye on these characters. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

111. Ashley Posted: Jun 21st, 2008 at 3:30 am

     Tina Thanks for the reply You have gone from: - Quote: You believe that CD were used on 9/11, I do not. (I hope I have your opinion correct there). to: - Quote: I’ve not made my mind up and to be honest, I don’t think I ever will. to: - Quote: I think you’ve touched on something here. Like I said, I used to agree with the CD theory, it makes a very compelling argument. I don’t claim to know everything, but I do know the CD argument, I know the theories, the ‘evidence’ to support it and so on. But over the last 6 months or so, I’ve had a change of heart. I’m afraid that after knowing what I already know and heard about (which is what you suggest Ashley - with explosives, free fall, etc) I can’t see anything new that is going to change my mind in the near future. I can never say never, but everything so far that has been said here, I already know about and the simple answer is, I just don’t buy it anymore! That’s more flip flopping than the Bush administration ;) For arguments sake we’ll take your majority decision and go with you not believing the CD theory. ‘A change of heart?’ - sorry if this sounds rude but that makes it sound like you are basing this on a gut feeling or intuition. I have heard your arguments against CD and I have proposed counter arguments that I believe to be plausible. As I asked before, if any are’t then please could you point them out to me? If you believed in CD up until 6 months ago, what vital evidence did you garner that made you jump to the diametrically opposite POV? (please let me know what it is, you never know you may get a new convert ;) If you ‘just don’t buy it anymore’, what precisely changed your purchasing preference? I thank you for taking the time to answer my questions, we’ll get to those in a minute. You have not said if you think the idea of ’sniffer dog proofing’ the charges prior to taking them in to the building could be a possible solution to your ‘lack of time argument’. Now being that none of this theory relies on anything that is remotely unbelievable can we assume that you have no problem with this suggestion? (I mean it’s only the equivalent of what drug smugglers have been doing for years’ Quote: Carry on doing your own research if you want. Carry on telling people about. What is important to one person may not be important to another, but does that mean we can’t say what we feel and think to be true? No. The crucial element is HOW we do it, and this is what I believe the radio programme which started this debate here implies and focuses on. I completely agree, how we do this is vital, but rather than it being based on ‘what we feel and think’, imo it should be based on logical deductions based on the available evidence. You haven’t made a comment about the towers being designed to withstand the impact of a plane that is, to all intents and purposes, the same as the one that did hit it (after comments of huge explosions and awful lots of fuel). I think this arguing about the word anti-semite is immaterial, if you look at the etymology of the word it quickly becomes obvious that the usage of the compound word is misleading. At the very least it could mean two different things to two different people, I’m sure I’m not the only person who thinks that the Semitic peoples doesn’t just mean the Jewish people. I’m probably not the only one who sees the adding of a prefix to a word as not altering the meaning of said word. Perhaps judeophobia might be a better word to use so as to avoid any confusion. I understand the common usage of the word but my logic says that as it was clearly created and used in error by someone ignorant of the facts then why carry on using an erroneous term? Aren’t we continuing the ignorance? (wiki claims - The word antisemitic (antisemitisch in German) was probably first used in 1860 by the Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider in the phrase “antisemitic prejudices”.) I asked you the following question: - Quote: Do you have any theory whatsoever as to how an 8 storey building can take slightly less than 6 seconds to drop using controlled demolition and a 47 storey steel framed building that collapsed due to fire damage could take only one second more? You didn’t really address the issue, it is probably because I didn’t make myself clear. My question isn’t why WTC7 collapsed it was about how long it took in comparison to a CD. Let me put it another way, if an 8 storey building took 6 seconds with explosives (1.3 storeys per second), how on earth could a 47 storey building collapse in under 7 seconds due to fire damage(over 6.5 storeys per second)? This is less of a ‘physics question’ than a ‘how on earth do you explain that question’ ;) Quote: Ok…I feel like I’m going around in circles here. I don’t mean to sound rude Ashley, you will not convince me about CD with arguments I’ve already heard, once believed in and now believe to be false. As I asked earlier what was the vital piece of evidence that clinched it for you? Quote: I mean this with sincerity, please, just at least look at counter-evidence….even if you find flaws in it, even if it doesn’t sit right with you. It is so important to see both sides of a picture before coming to a conclusion. With due respect I know the official story, planes hit, fires weakened steel, buildings collapse (that’s the short and tall of it). I know 12 year olds who can blow that out of the water. I don’t care what you believe, it’s fairly obvious that if two non-scientific people like you and me can argue for this long, it makes it even clearer to me that a new inquiry is warranted. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

112. Tina Posted: Jun 21st, 2008 at 3:38 am

     Quote: In 30 or 40 years from now you will know, but for now I can not go there because I must keep to the script for political reasons. Hmmm….a script? Does it change? One day you say you’d address my questions. You don’t. Next you ask for them to be pasted in. I do that, no answer. Now, a “script” is your answer. Ponders *Maybe the answers to my questions aren’t in your script?* Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

113. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 21st, 2008 at 4:14 am

     Go and ask Ashley. I simply cannot help you understand that steel girders can do some things and not others, and going through other steel girder structures without encountering stiff resistance is something steel girders cannot do. Now if you cant grasp that concept there is no hope in trying to tell you gravity, which is a warp in the fabric of space-time can not be exceeded unless there is another source of input energy. The drop was in 10 seconds, the top of the top bit hit the ground in that 10 seconds. So how can a body fall through another heavier body as though it was just falling through air? Timed Controlled Demolition to blow out any support so that it is only falling through air. Even videos show squibs 20 floors below the demolition wave. How can debris fall faster than gravity permits if not explosives? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

114. paul w Posted: Jun 21st, 2008 at 10:19 am

     Tina Great effort, but notice they rarely answer the relevant questions. And really, after everything you’ve talked about, 3 year old kid is talking about squibs….squibs!!! You’re wasting your time, I’ve tried debating them, it simply doesn’t work. They believe, and that’s that. Squibs!!! Hilarious. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

115. Ashley Posted: Jun 21st, 2008 at 12:28 pm

     Paul w Can you let me know which of your questions I have not tried to answer? btw don’t feel compelled to apologise for being so rude earlier in this thread. As I see it this rudeness when disagreed with is exactly what truthers are accused of. Just because I disagree with you, do you think that gives you the right to be insulting? As far as I’m concerned you are living proof that this problem occurs on both sides ;) Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

116. malcks Posted: Jun 21st, 2008 at 1:01 pm

     Hotel in spain,steel framed on fire for around 20hrs did’nt fall down! whats that all about? The(good old!!!)BBC News managed to report the collapse of building 7 20min before the actual event!whats that all about? Then there’s Fox News,they manage to report it having “just collapsed” and what do you know,it comes straight down during the report, WHATS THAT ALL ABOUT?I dont have the answers(although some people seem to think they do)but what i do know is that WE WERE LIED TO ON 9/11 AND 7/7, BE AWARE,BE READY BECAUSE THEY WILL TRY AGAIN Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

117. Tom Posted: Jun 21st, 2008 at 2:46 pm

     It seems that a few people have read the 9/11 conspiracy books written by David Ray Griffin, but apparently not anyone in the establishment news media or the government. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

118. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 21st, 2008 at 5:14 pm

     Greetings Paul W & others Ashley is much better at explaining concepts to simpletons than I am, probably because I have had my brains scrambled learning high level Physics, Mathematics & Engineering Concepts and applications. However, I am also a qualified welder too, and when younger did work to PULL buildings. We were one of the first to really start recycling everything that could be recycled from a building, and our little 2 tonne trucks were running on LPG homemade gas kits. (Had 1.8 petrol engines in with low ratio gearboxes) We were constantly being harassed by the police claiming we had potential bombs on the side of out trucks. How times have now changed, and it did so because the likes of us proved the systems much safer than conventional petrol systems. Now Paul W, did you try that experiment you were advised to try by pouring water down objects or not? And if not is it any wonder you still do not have a blinking clue? Not got a clue, Just like the BBC, or should we say Big Brother Criminals Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

119. Tina Posted: Jun 21st, 2008 at 5:33 pm

     This is going to be shorter than others as I feel that what I’ve been saying has not really been understood. Let me make something clear. I did not start off talking on this thread wanting to dicuss theories nor have I expressed my own belief in CD. Far from it. I thought I had explained my background that once I did and now I don’t. When entering into this ‘debate’ I did not ask for someone to convince me about CD….I’ve been there in the past. Isn’t it simple to understand? I used to believe CD. Now I don’t. But I still have some doubts about 9/11, not about theories and ‘how it happened’, but how there was intelligence that at the least, seems to be ignored. There are many questions about 9/11 that many people have and I can’t pretend to have the answers. It feels like Ashley is trying to twist my words. Ashley, if your intention is to convince me about CD, you might as well stop. Thats not what I came here for, although it seems like Ashley and 3 year old kid have made it into this. Read my first comments on here - nothing about CD. It is interesting that Ashley uses the word “convert”. I am not here to “convert”. Ashley, may reasoning for changing my thoughts on 9/11 comes from reading the counter-evidence. I thought I had made this clear. There isn’t one piece, there are so many! Thats the point. So much other evidence out there that I had ignored. Again, I suggest repectfully that you look at some counter-evidence. Ashley mentions WTC7 and says I didn’t properly address it. Did you read the part when I said I don’t believe it fell with 7 seconds? Then to finish it all off, I invertedly get told that my reasonings can be disputed by a 12 year old. Nice. Comparing my intellect to a 12 year old? I’m going around in circles here. Some are not reading everything and avoiding points. Whats the point? Is it just me when I think some people have their head buried in the sand? As far as 3 year old kid goes, you simply don’t get what I am talking about and referring to. Maybe if you enter into a debate, you should be prepared to listen to others and respond. If not, you are simply talking to yourself. “Ashley is much better at explaining concepts to simpletons than I am, probably because I have had my brains scrambled learning high level Physics, Mathematics & Engineering Concepts and applications.” Ahhhh, I see! We are simpletons! So because we aren’t obviously at your superior level we just wouldn’t be able to understand. I guess you class Ashley as a simpleton too? I hope I have taken this the wrong way, otherwise you are rude and arrogant. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

120. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 21st, 2008 at 6:54 pm

     Greetings Tina & others, Its not a matter of believing this that or the other like some sort of religion. Experimentation has developed laws of Physics over hundreds of years. The acceleration due to gravity is one of the best physical phenomenon understood by science and has been understood since Newton. It would help if you stopped reading physics which was fundamentally flawed for a start, like the stuff you posted up. (no I don’t want to go there) Assumptions are key here, don’t assume anything. Only use hard known facts. The proof I gave you assumes nothing and only uses hard provable facts, and when you do that it proves the towers did not come down due to Gravity alone. Period. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

121. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 21st, 2008 at 7:06 pm

     OK, this is real easy. Why do the CIA not want and have never wanted Osmar Binladen for 911? The answer is because he had absolutely NOTHING to do with 911. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

122. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 21st, 2008 at 7:10 pm

     If the CIA have never wanted Osmar Binladen for 911, yet we were all told by the US & UK government “it was him wot dun it”. Then we have been lied to big time. Can anyone else see a problem here? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

123. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 21st, 2008 at 7:14 pm

     Does anyone still “fink” BUSH & Blair were telling the truth when they sent us to war in Iraq because of WMDs? Or were they lying? and if they lies about that aspect, do you suppose the rest is truthful? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

124. Ashley Posted: Jun 21st, 2008 at 7:32 pm

     Tina You say: - Quote: Let me make something clear. I did not start off talking on this thread wanting to dicuss theories nor have I expressed my own belief in CD. Far from it. I thought I had explained my background that once I did and now I don’t. When entering into this ‘debate’ I did not ask for someone to convince me about CD….I’ve been there in the past. With due respect, part of your first post on this thread was: - Quote: Also, would be interesting to know if ‘3 year old kid’ and ‘Ashley’ have read the Commission Report FULLY? Along with any other truthers out there. I’ve heard truthers argue that physicists and other professionals have declared their work on what they felt happened on 9/11, but the thing is,if you are not a physicist, how can verify their findings? Surely this would have to be on a ‘trust’ foundation. Interesting that a leading figure in the truth movement is Prof. David Ray Giffin - a Theology professor. But he then doesn’t seem to talk in regards to his field of expertise. This is quite clearly trying to discredit both myself and 3yo kid and to a certain extent debunk 9-11 conspiracy theories as far as I’m concerned. Myself and 3yo kid did not hijack you and try and drum CD in to your head. We disagreed with your statement and both believe the collapse of WTC7 to be ‘the smoking gun’ that in order to believe in the official conspiracy theory you would also have to believe in the tooth fairy. You say: - Quote: It feels like Ashley is trying to twist my words. but later say to 3yo kid: - Quote: Maybe if you enter into a debate, you should be prepared to listen to others and respond. If not, you are simply talking to yourself. You can’t have it both ways, I am not twisting your words I am responding to your arguments (which is what you are begging 3yo kid to try and do!). Now you have proposed reasons that it couldn’t be CD and I have tried to provide you with possible counter reasons (to the best of my ability). Now I have endeavoured to answer any question you have had with a plausible answer, I think you’d find it difficult to claim anything other. Now you’ve been ready to chuck your debunking theories at me, but it seems now I’ve answered pretty much all of them with a reason I believe you are wrong, you appear not to want to play anymore AND take your ball home ;) Now you say: - Quote: Ashley, may reasoning for changing my thoughts on 9/11 comes from reading the counter-evidence. I thought I had made this clear. There isn’t one piece, there are so many! And I am more than willing to entertain that there is evidence that you have that proves categorically that it wasn’t CD, I’m just asking if it is the evidence you have put forward here (if it is I think pretty much all of it has been answered), or is it evidence that you haven’t provided as of yet (if this is the case put it up and we’ll have a look at it). I can’t think of a single point you’ve put forward that can’t be explained away or debunked. It appears the difference is that when you try and explain away my theories I try and defend them. When I provide counter evidence or counter arguments that you don’t appear to be able to answer, you just ignore it and try another line of attack (not a very good tactic in the reasoned debate that you are asking 3yo kid to join in ;) You said: - Quote: Ashley mentions WTC7 and says I didn’t properly address it. Did you read the part when I said I don’t believe it fell with 7 seconds? OK you don’t believe that it fell in less than 7 seconds. Don’t believe or can prove? You provided a link to some ‘evidence’ that the south tower took over 15 seconds to collapse, despite the fact that the official 9-11 report admits it took 10 seconds. btw check out 911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html and look at tower 7 collapse videos for yourself. It’s 7 seconds until you can provide anything better than those videos (that I am afraid is the way reasoned debate works) You don’t comment on the fact that the buildings were designed to withstand a direct impact by planes almost identical to the ones that hit them. You were very quick to point out the huge explosions and awful lots of fuel, but not so quick to admit my point. You claim to be calling for reasoned debate but in the next sentence say, I am swayed by evidence against CD but I’m not telling you what it is that makes me believe this. This is not reasoned debate, this could even be seen to be arrogance. Not a debating strategy that I am aware of Tina. You say: - Quote: Again, I suggest repectfully that you look at some counter-evidence. Might I respectfully inform you that I know enough about the NIST, FEMA and Kean reports to be sure that at the very least they haven’t done their job. Here is a quote from one of my earlier posts: - Quote: When I see 3 buildings collapse in exactly the manner of controlled demolition, when I see a Polish demolition expert stating that WTC7 was definitely controlled demolition, when I see Larry Silverstein say he gave the command to ‘pull’ WTC7 (have a look what demolitions experts mean by pull), when I see symetrical collapses from asymetrical damage, when I see pictures of people standing at the edge of the entry hole of the planes when it was supposed to be hot enough to melt steel, when I see thick black smoke coming from the buildings (a sign of an oxygen starved low temperature fire), when I see molten metal coming from the buildings (consistent with thermite or thermate), when sulfur residue is found on the steel after the collapse (consistent with thermate) then is it any wonder I ‘leap’ to the deduction that it was controlled demolition, is it any wonder that I think a new inquiry is not just called for but vital in getting the answers to these questions. None of this is dealt with by any of the 3 official reports. To be honest Tina, the gaping holes, inconsistencies and questions are there whether you choose to acknowledge them or not. As far as comparing your intellect to a 12 year old, I’m unsure I did this. Do you believe the official story, planes hit, fires weakened steel, buildings collapse? If not then I didn’t and if you do then I do know 12 year olds who can provide you with reasons why this isn’t the case (my wife is a teacher and they are looking at 9-11 conspiracies in her school, so I wasn’t being rude I was stating a fact ;) Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

125. Tina Posted: Jun 21st, 2008 at 8:59 pm

     As far as I’m concerned, we’ve gone as far as we can. Ashley - You say that I apparently won’t tell you about my counter-evidence. I’ve mentioned a fair amount in previous threads. I’ve said that it isn’t one single piece but many. Too many to list. In the same way, would you like to offer all your arguments for CD? I’m sure you have a lot and I’m sure it would take you a while. Same here. There isn’t one thing but several, a fair amount that I have already discussed here. If you want to find out more, look it up as I feel that if I post it here 1 - this debate would go on for weeks (literally) and 2 - you wouldn’t properly look at it (’m suggesting this as you have already said that you have no interest in reading things like the Commission Report). I’ve answered your questions, sorry if I haven’t provided the answers you are looking for or wanting to hear from me. As far as 3 year old kid goes…they say that they’d respond and then don’t. Then they suggest that they are reading from a ’script’, or that we are ’simpletons’ so wouldn’t get it anywhere, or simply that they ‘don’t want to go there’…I mean, if they can’t answer some simple questions or answer half and miss out my key point, whats the point? Wouldn’t you feel the same vice versa? I’m interested in your wife teaching 9/11 conspiracies in school. I’m aware of teachers being fired or issued severe warnings about doing this. I hope she isn’t teaching this as fact. If I have the following wrong, I apologise. You seem to suggest that 12 year old kids (who are hugely influential) can disprove my arguments IS an insult. It is basically saying “come on, even a kid knows the arguments/evidence better than you”. This coming from someone who was quick to point out to me that they had been insulted and never retalliated. Anyway, like I said, I can’t see this going anywhere. I’m finding the comments on here getting towards more of a condescending attitude. I’m not interested in that. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

126. Ashley Posted: Jun 21st, 2008 at 10:25 pm

     Tina Again you’ve ignored a lot of my post (which is pretty much what you are having a go at 3yo kid for). You say: - Quote: I’ve answered your questions, sorry if I haven’t provided the answers you are looking for or wanting to hear from me. Well I don’t believe that you have, have a scout through a couple of my posts and check yourself. I am positive that you have been dropping arguments to the wayside that I have successfully countered without any acknowledgement that I may be right. I certainly haven’t been doing the same with your points. I also think it is disingenuous of you when you say that one of the reasons you won’t post your arguments against CD is that you don’t think I’ll read them. Have I failed to address even one point in any of your posts so far? Quote: I’m interested in your wife teaching 9/11 conspiracies in school. I’m aware of teachers being fired or issued severe warnings about doing this. I hope she isn’t teaching this as fact. Quite the crusader aren’t we? ;) Don’t worry she has introduced the fact that there are a lot of 9-11 conspiracy theories and has suggested the children do their own research in to it, she is not offering her opinion on the matter (either pro or con). She is not ‘teaching’ 9-11 conspiracies, they are ‘looking’ at 9-11 conspiracies like I said in my post (the children are debating them rather than the teacher teaching them, they are making up their own minds and educating themselves, something I personally think is commendable). You sound of the mind that you would like to stifle this debate, I think it is excellent. I would have loved it if I’d got to do something so engaging, contemporary and interesting in my days at school ;) I love the way you say you are all up for reasonable debate and when you get it you don’t seem to be interested. That’s what I’m doing here Tina, debating the arguments with you. As far as the 12yo kid comments being an insult, do you believe the official story of how those buildings collapsed? I’ve given you a shedload of reasons that this is at best stretching the imagination and at worst a complete fallacy. If you do believe the official story I do know of children who can give you evidence to question your beliefs. If you want to take this as an insult that’s your perogative but rest assured it was merely an example to show that there are comprehensive school children that can see holes in the official theory (if you can’t see these holes is that their problem, my problem or your problem?). I am not being condesending Tina, we are having a debate. If you don’t agree with the things that I say then debate them, don’t cry off. If you don’t want to debate any more that’s fine too. Thanks for your time and comments, it’s been a pleasure talking with you. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

127. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 21st, 2008 at 11:32 pm

     Can anyone confirm as fact one way or the other please, is or has Osmar Binladen ever been wanted by the CIA for 911? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

128. Xior Posted: Jun 22nd, 2008 at 3:13 am

     Quote: Can anyone confirm as fact one way or the other please, is or has Osmar Binladen ever been wanted by the CIA for 911? He is wanted by the FBI http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

129. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 22nd, 2008 at 1:30 pm

     Thanks for that EVIDENCE Xior. So, THE EVIDENCE is clear, Osmar Binladen is NOT wanted by FBI or the CIA FOR 911. He is wanted for other crimes but NOT 911 of which he is only a suspect, of which is because there is next to ZERO Evidence and even that is dodgy video footage with dubbed over speaking. Here are the key points of the official CIA notices:- MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH CAUTION USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. also MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH USAMA BIN LADEN CAUTION Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world. “a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world” So here we have a SUSPECT being peddled by Governments as ACTUAL Attacker. There is NO MENTION OF 911. HENCE we have been deceived by those media and Governments who state as fact Binladen did it. In fact two of the FBI/CIA 19 Muslim Hijackers still fly for Saudi airlines and are suing the US government. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

130. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 22nd, 2008 at 1:44 pm

     If the US Government will lie about who did 911, do you suppose they are telling us the truth about how it was done? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

131. Ashley Posted: Jun 22nd, 2008 at 9:13 pm

     Xior There are some problems with the links you put up. As 3yo kid says, it does not say that he is wanted for 9-11. In fact if you look at this link -> http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html you’ll see that the FBI admit they have ‘no hard evidence’ linking Bin Laden to 9-11. They don’t have enough evidence to accuse him of 9-11 but they had enough evidence linking him with it to bomb the cr*p out of Afghanistan. Hmmmm The links you put up state that Bin Laden is left handed, the tape where Bin Laden claims responsibility shows the ‘Osamalike’ writing a note with his right hand, see -> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2065744174333803429 The ‘Osamalike’ does not look very much like any picture of Bin Laden that I’ve ever seen (this is also mentioned on the video above, it’s from Loose Change which a lot of people slag off but the video evidence is there for you to see). In this video -> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=164176004192496179 You can clearly see Bin Laden wearing a gold ring and a gold or gold plated watch, this is not something the real Bin Laden would be likely to do as it is forbidden by his faith (for evidence of this see -> http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503547966). How can all of this be I ask myself? These problems defy rational explaination, other than ‘it wasn’t Bin Laden’. If it wasn’t Bin Laden either the intelligence agencies don’t have as much intelligence as we thought, or we were knowingly deceived as to the veracity of this claim of responsibility. The former (whilst pretty unbelievable) is the less worrying of the two options. If the US government lied about this then what else have they lied about? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

132. SuperNova Posted: Jun 23rd, 2008 at 12:29 am

     Quote: According to The Kean Report (p305) ‘At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds’ The figures are taken for the FIRST panel to hit the ground, not the total collapse. “NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2… …Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.” http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

133. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 23rd, 2008 at 8:01 am

     Thanks for that SuperNova, but before I take their lies to pieces for you do you want to admit now that you simply would not know if they were telling you the truth or not? Come clean now please, would you know for example that number 04 is total none sense? Would you even know why number 04 is none sence? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

134. SteveH Posted: Jun 23rd, 2008 at 5:11 pm

     The “Incompetence” Theory has a Flaw. If 30,000,000 Americans are all too incompetent, then how were 19 foreigners competent? The “Got Luck” Theory has a Flaw. If 19 foreigners got lucky, then why couldn’t any of the 30,000,000 Americans get lucky? Neither seems to be an argument for excluding anyone, but it does expose the unfounded wishful thinking mentality that they accuse others of. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

135. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 23rd, 2008 at 10:51 pm

     Greetings fellow GM Earthlings, Absolutely SteveH, to swallow the official 911 Balderdash and Piffle one must believe in an absolutely ridiculously improbable coincidence theory. Take a peek at the construction of WTC001, everything about these buildings was massive. Check out the 300,000 tonnes of reinforced concrete, particularly the flooring. Also check out the multi directional cross bracing too. http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=building+the+wtc&sitesearch=# Does anyone seriously think burning jet fuel could weaken any of those massive core columns evenly so they would all fail simultaneously - what do you suppose the probability of that happening without Controlled Demolition? Just about infinitely impossible that what. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

136. Volume Posted: Jun 24th, 2008 at 1:07 am

     If going along with the controlled demolition theory, how much explosives (in quantity) do you think (or know) they had to use? Furthermore, anyone have any idea what type of explosives would of been used? Thanks. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

137. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 24th, 2008 at 2:09 pm

     Hi everybody, This should explain things for Supernova and others who have not yet realized the US BUSH Government are crooks. What we already know as provable facts: We are almost certain that jet crashes followed by structural damage & fire damaged,weakened both twin towers, and falling debris damaged building 007 more on one side than the other. In each case there was more damage on one side of every building on 911 i.e asymmetrical damage.. Let us first take the situation were we have at least 80 lower undamaged floors. What is the probability of the initial floor collapse being symmetrical and almost instantaneous on all 47 massive core columns and the hundreds of outer columns despite the damage being far more prevalent on one side and considering the massive cross bracing supporting those columns laterally? Structures always, without exception, gives at the weakest point first. So this probability is almost infinitely improbable. It is almost infinitely improbable that all cross-braced columns gave instantaneously and symmetrically due to asymmetrical damage.. Then we have to consider the next floor collapse due to gravity alone. What is the probability that all of those core and outer columns will give simultaneously and symmetrically despite the initial damage being far more prevalent on one side? Again this is almost infinitely improbable. And so the scenario continues down to ground level. So the probability that gravity alone could NOT bring down All 3 WTC buildings on 911 symmetrically. 3 * (almost infinity) *80 *(almost infinity) *80 * (almost infinity) *47 = more than almost infinity cubed. So what is the probability that gravity alone could bring down the 3 buildings on 911 = near ZERO And all because we know that structures break first at their weakest point ALWAYS. Example, a chain always breaks at its weakest link every single time. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

138. Volume Posted: Jun 24th, 2008 at 7:20 pm

     3 year old child, can you answer the questions I posted? Quote: If going along with the controlled demolition theory, how much explosives (in quantity) do you think (or know) they had to use? Furthermore, anyone have any idea what type of explosives would of been used? Thank you. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

139. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 24th, 2008 at 9:04 pm

     Hi Vilume, Firstly its not theory, its Hypothesis, secondly who said anything about Explosives? And I for one do not do hearsay, I only do Physics. And the Physics shows the towers were not gravity collapse therefore another investigation is needed as to find out the details you seek. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

140. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 24th, 2008 at 10:01 pm

     Is there anyone who disagrees that a chain always breaks at its weakest link every single time? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

141. Volume Posted: Jun 24th, 2008 at 10:05 pm

     A few quotes from 3 year old kid: Quote: because it is SO Obviously a Controlled Demolition….. Would anyone like me to explain in easy steps as to why 911 was a controlled Demolition?….. a simple equation H=1/2gt^2 absolutely proves 911 could be nothing but Controlled Demolition…… the 911 destruction was controlled demolition. So, with you recently saying: Quote: secondly who said anything about Explosives? Was it not you who said: Quote: Re the CD I suspect the Explosives were already set prior to the jet crashes….. This again is yet more evidence of Demolition Explosives, as some parts are blown up and out and some are blown out and down…… So, if Gravity could not destroy the 110 buildings within 10 seconds each - what did if not demolition explosives and cutter charges? I am now confused. Are you saying it is controlled demolition or not? If not controlled demolition, what do you think happened? If you believe it was controlled demolition, I thought they would have to use explosives. Am I wrong? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

142. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 24th, 2008 at 11:24 pm

     Dear Volume and others, Controlled Demolition is the only way asymmetrical damage can be made to look like symmetrical gravity collapse. But why speculate about what type of explosives if any were used? To speculate is to incur errors, who needs errors? What the Physics proves is that on 911 the buildings were not gravity collapse alone. Period. It’s now time to force an independent inquiry to answer all the questions you and others may have. Why would you expect me to speculate and know the detailed answers without first detailed scientific investigation? Should the investigation not first investigate the evidence now we have proved a symmetrical gravity collapse from asymmetrical damage is almost infinitely improbable if not almost impossible? Just so we do not lose anybody here and we all understand this: Is there anyone who disagrees that a chain always breaks at its weakest link every single time without exception? do you agree with this Mr Volume? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

143. paul w Posted: Jun 25th, 2008 at 7:16 am

     Tina Don’t bother; they are not interested. I just re-read my first replies to Ashley and 3 Year old kid. I debunked quite a few of their comments (all?) yet neither of them made any real effort to debate the points I made. This is how they operate. They ignore the comments you make and simply ask more (ignorant) questions. For example, Ashley (I think) moaned that steel could not be melted by jet fuel. This was never suggested by NIST, or any other official report, and no-one else for that matter because it’s nonsense, and everyone knows it. Even the NIST said it was nonsense. Yet the troofers still mention it, and you can bet they’ll repeat the same line to the next unknowing person they meet…”and jet fuel cannot melt steel…” This is another method; they ignore reality and just continue to spout their theories (they also often start by inferring things that didn’t happen, did, such as jet fuel melting steel). A prime example of their ignoring reality is the Windsor (or was it Madrid?) fire. They say the building didn’t collapse after a huge, lengthy fire. That’s quite true, but what they DON’T say is that, unlike the towers, the building was a reinforced concrete structure, which is basically fire-proof. Nor will they tell you that part of it WAS a steel-framed section and this DID collapse! Oops, best not mention that! Tina, they aren’t interested in anything but their own twisted sense of what happened, and that means they have to bend reality to suit their version, and that’s tough, so they use a few sure-fire tactics. The first, and their greatest reality escape, is to disregard anything from the government, especially evidence. Regardless of how solid the evidence is, they will say that anything from the government is at best propaganda or worse, an outright lie. So all the reports, including (and especially) the NIST and 9-11 Commission reports, are suspect and should not be believed. Gee, that’s a quick and easy way to discount and ignore the majority of evidence! Wouldn’t you love to have that suspension of belief! You could believe anything! Not only that, but they also say anyone INVOLVED in ANY way with the government should be ignored. Think about that. Even witnesses to the Pentagon crash, including those who were nearly killed by the plane itself, are considered unreliable and probably suspect, if not even ‘in’ on the whole thing. In other words, liars. Think about that, too. For example, most troofers believe a missile (not a plane) hit the Pentagon, so to do that they have to not believe the hundreds of independent witnesses who saw a large jet plane crash. So, they make them ‘unreliable’ because they were in some way involved in government work, even if it was the business the worked for had connections to the government. But it’s not used on everyone. How many of the witnesses saw ‘something’ like a small jet plane, that ‘could have been a missile’? Answer, one. One, yet the troofers, who have to find ‘evidence’ to their insane theories, used this view and ignored the rest! So, Tina, that’s who you are dealing with in Ashley, 3 Year Old Kid and all the other troofers. Some of them may not personally believe in the missile at the Pentagon theory, but it doesn’t really matter as they think in an equally-preposterous idea of controlled demolition and the whole thing being an inside job. And check out some of their comments…. “All this stuff about jet crashes and burning building is totally irrelevant” “imagine a Jenga tower, flick out a block on one side, start a fire in that space and what would you expect to happen?” Unbelievable. Having sad that, in many ways it’s as funny as fuck. I particularly liked the maths and physics lesson you gave. My, didn’t he quickly lose the enthusiasm for that argument! Yes, I know this is a horribly serious issue, but it’s been fun watching you paste these drongos (Aussie slang for fuckwits). I do now have to let you down though: it’s not that difficult. Re: SuperNova “Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.” This is the opinion of some of the best engineers in the world, and after months of hard, painstaking work. But Ashley and 3 Year Old Kid know better! Hilarious. “Hey, Ashley, let’s get that Jenga tower out from the cupboard and let’s work out what happened…” “Sure, 3 Year old Kid, but let’s have another toke first!” Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

144. paul w Posted: Jun 25th, 2008 at 7:19 am

     PS Volume “Why would you expect me to speculate and know the detailed answers without first detailed scientific investigation?” 3 year old kid You’re dealing with an idiot. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

145. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 25th, 2008 at 12:56 pm

     Ahh its Mr paul W - hope you are well. Did you have a good sleep? So, Is there anyone who disagrees that a chain always breaks at its weakest link every single time? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

146. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 25th, 2008 at 12:58 pm

     NO! GOOD! Now we may be getting somewhere with these Sheeple. Baa Baaa you sure do make good slaves. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

147. Ashley Posted: Jun 25th, 2008 at 3:37 pm

     Hello Paul Lovely to see you are still in top form when it comes to insulting people. I would dearly love to know where I can learn debating skills like yours. Now we are f*ckwits - tremendous, you are a shining wit aren’t you ;) Just as an aside is this insulting behaviour exactly what troofers are accussed of when people don’t believe them? You say: - Quote: For example, Ashley (I think) moaned that steel could not be melted by jet fuel. This was never suggested by NIST, or any other official report, and no-one else for that matter because it’s nonsense, and everyone knows it. Even the NIST said it was nonsense. First off I would like to point out that I did not ‘moan’ about this, I pointed it out. You are using loaded terms in order to try and discredit me and give yourself a headstart on trying to convince others. Please don’t use emotive language like that Paul, it’s almost cheating ;) If the steel did not melt then where did the pools of molten steel in the clean up site come from? Don’t skirt around this, don’t ignore it, don’t hide from it, just try and debunk it. As per the link that Toby put up -> Quote: http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphology.Final.pdf and as per the reports of many of the people involved in the clean up, the thermal images of the clean up site and the video of it. Also would you be good enough to tell me what the bright orange molten metal in this video -> http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=wtc+collapse&sitesearch=# comes from? Please do not reply that it is molten aluminium as that would vapourise before reaching that colour (one debunking theory says it is a UPS situated on the 81st floor - and you say we clutch at straws lol). So the statement ‘jet fuel cannot melt steel’ is true and in this case a reasonable statement to put forward (due to the fact there were pools of molten metal!). Your blind faith in the official documents is hilarious Paul, do you believe everything you read? You say that troofers discount anything official - not true, I have quoted from the Kean report in this thread. Earlier in this thread you were under the impression that the NIST report had details of: - Quote: the shocking lack of communication between the different services…between NORAD, the civilian flight controllers, pilots, etc. Now to the best of my knowledge the NIST report had no such information in it, these areas would have been covered by the Kean report (the 9/11 Commission report). Either, you made a mistake or you are trying to use evidence that you have no knowledge of, which is it Paul? (to quote you ‘Have you even read the NIST report?’) You say: - Quote: A prime example of their ignoring reality is the Windsor (or was it Madrid?) fire. They say the building didn’t collapse after a huge, lengthy fire. It’s actually both Paul, it is the Windsor building in Madrid. Yes this is often cited by SOME troofers, but if you look on this thread you’ll find the only people to have mentioned it are you and Tina (both arguing against us). I would thank you to try and stick to debunking things that the people on this thread have mentioned, otherwise you might as well debunk holograms and space weapons which no-one on here has mentioned either (mind you, you’ve debunked the no-plane theory at the Pentagon and no-one proposed that particular theory either, so I suppose there is precedent for this illogical and irrational behaviour on your part). There are several steel framed skyscrapers that have burnt for a long time without collapsing, namely: - The One Meridian Plaza Fire (Philadelphia) - Burnt for 18 hours over 8 floors, did not collapse The First Interstate Bank Fire (Los Angeles) - Burnt for 3.5 hours over 4 floors, did not collapse The 1 New York Plaza Fire (New York) - Burnt for 6 hours, did not collapse Caracas Tower Fire (Caracas Venezuela) - Burnt for 17 hours over 40 floors, did not collapse. If I was to argue this point (which I don’t believe I have) I would use one of these examples instead :) You say: - Quote: most troofers believe a missile (not a plane) hit the Pentagon Do you know this as a fact? Have you done some kind of scientific survey? Or is it true because Paul says? Do me a favour Paul, don’t try and tell us what we believe. I personally do think a plane hit the Pentagon and the no plane theories are a straw man argument that can be used at some point in the future to persuade people that all 9-11 conspiracy theories are not worthy of consideration. Yes Paul I did mention Jenga, basically this was just in case some people didn’t understand the theory of entropy (something you failed to mention that I brought up - obviously this was omitted by accident rather than purposefully to try and discredit me). You say: - Quote: I just re-read my first replies to Ashley and 3 Year old kid. I debunked quite a few of their comments (all?) yet neither of them made any real effort to debate the points I made. This is how they operate. They ignore the comments you make and simply ask more (ignorant) questions. IIRC you resorted to calling me a moron rather than answering half of one of my posts, I think what you are describing it the way YOU operate. I think any impartial observer of this thread can see that you have been more interested in ad-hominem attacks rather than debating what happened that day. It is absolutely obvious that you fail to be able to entertain that the US government could in any way shape or form have had a hand in this (and then you have the bare faced cheeck to say that we are close minded!). I have another question that I would dearly love you to answer. Do you believe that Western Governments have ever planned and carried out ‘false flag’ events to further their own agendas? Before answering you might like to google ‘Operation Northwoods’ and ‘Operation Gladio’. You say: - Quote: “Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.” This is the opinion of some of the best engineers in the world, and after months of hard, painstaking work. But Ashley and 3 Year Old Kid know better! Hilarious. If this took ‘months of hard painstaking work’ then it’s hardly any wonder they didn’t find time to answer any of the questions that are still outstanding. Paul, I do believe I asked you this before, would you have any objections to a new inquiry? I let the first one slide, but please don’t insinuate that I smoke drugs Paul, as I don’t. Whilst I see what you are trying to do with this comment I would remind you that it is in fact libellous and there is no need for it. Toodle-pip :) Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

148. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 25th, 2008 at 3:56 pm

     Mr Volume come in Mr Volume are you reading me over: Repeat: What we already know as provable facts: We are almost certain that jet crashes followed by structural damage & fire damaged, weakened both twin towers, and falling debris damaged building 007 more on one side than the other. In each case there was more damage on one side of every building on 911 i.e asymmetrical damage.. Let us first take the situation were we have at least 80 lower undamaged floors. What is the probability of the initial floor collapse being symmetrical and almost instantaneous on all 47 massive core columns and the hundreds of outer columns despite the damage being far more prevalent on one side and considering the massive cross bracing supporting those columns laterally? Structures always, without exception, gives at the weakest point first. So this probability is almost infinitely improbable. It is almost infinitely improbable that all cross-braced columns gave instantaneously and symmetrically due to asymmetrical damage.. Does a chain ever break at any point other than its weakest link? NEVER! Then we have to consider the next floor collapse due to gravity alone. What is the probability that all of those core and outer columns will give simultaneously and symmetrically despite the initial damage being far more prevalent on one side? (asymmetrical damage) Again this is almost infinitely improbable. And so the scenario continues down to ground level. So the probability that gravity alone could NOT bring down All 3 WTC buildings on 911 symmetrically. 3 * (almost infinity) *80 *(almost infinity) *80 * (almost infinity) *47 = more than (almost infinity) cubed. So what is the probability that gravity alone could bring down the 3 buildings on 911 = near ZERO And all because we know that structures always, without exception, break first at their weakest point. ALWAYS!!! Good easy Example even Paul W can understand, a chain always breaks at its weakest link first, every single time without exception - and will do this for ever. What the Physics proves is that on 911 the buildings were not gravity collapse alone. Period. It’s now time to force an independent inquiry to answer all the questions you and others may have. Why would you expect me to speculate and know the detailed answers without first detailed scientific investigation? Should the investigation not first investigate the evidence now we have proved a symmetrical gravity collapse from asymmetrical damage is almost infinitely improbable if not almost impossible? Just so we do not lose anybody here and we all understand this including you Mr paul W: Is there anyone who disagrees that a chain always breaks first at its weakest link every single time without exception? Is there anyone who disagrees that every structure breaks first at its weakest point every single time without exception? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

149. paul w Posted: Jun 26th, 2008 at 2:11 am

     Oh dear. Have I been unkind? Poor things, calling you horrible names! I’ll try and stop, okay? Ashley “If the steel did not melt then where did the pools of molten steel in the clean up site come from?” You really are a fuckwit, aren’t you? This one idiotic comment proves you have done NO research other than checking out the moronic troofer sites. Now, some time ago one you morons moaned about me ‘just posting links’ and not evidence…so, ignoring the idiocy of that comment (er, the link IS the evidence), here is a link: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html This is 9-11 Myths last word on the ‘molten steel’: “To finish, none of these stories prove there was molten (as in liquid) steel at the WTC. There’s no evidence temperatures were hot enough to produce that (whatever the energy source), and some of the stories claiming “molten steel” have built-in implausibilities. There was certainly glowing metal, but this only indicates temperatures within the range of a fire.” Okay, now I know opening a link is hard work for you cretins, so here is the full comment from another debunking site, Internet Detectives; “(Dylan) Avery quotes the aforementioned American Free Press article again, highlighting these sections of it in a way that makes it appear to be actual newsprint: In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of “literally molten steel” were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, in an oxygen starved environment, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed. These incredibly hot areas were found “at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels,” Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon. First, Mark Loizeaux never saw the molten steel: Mr. Bryan: I didn’t personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being “dipped” out by the buckets of excavators. I’m not sure where you can get a copy. Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation. Regards, Mark Loizeaux, President CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC. 2737 Merryman’s Mill Road Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131 Tel: 1-410-667-6610 Fax: 1-410-667-6624 http://www.controlled-demolition.com Second, there is no evidence that the molten metal was actually steel, or that any tests were performed on it to determine its composition. It could have easily been another metal with a lower melting point, such as aluminum, which was used on the WTC’s facade. Furthermore, are explosives used in demolition supposed to leave molten metal that smolders for weeks? Avery continues quoting the AFP article, and states that highest temperature was in the east corner of the South Tower, where a temperature of 1377 °F was recorded, and that the molten steel in the basement was more than double that temperature. However, no indication is given that the temperature of the molten metal was ever actually measured. Additionally, the highest recorded temperature exceeds the melting point of aluminum, 1220 °F, making molten aluminum a distinct possibility.” Any comments on this, gentlemen? Come on, I’m sure you have some foolish thing to say, sure you have! Re: The One Meridian Plaza Fire (Philadelphia) - Burnt for 18 hours over 8 floors, did not collapse The First Interstate Bank Fire (Los Angeles) - Burnt for 3.5 hours over 4 floors, did not collapse The 1 New York Plaza Fire (New York) - Burnt for 6 hours, did not collapse Caracas Tower Fire (Caracas Venezuela) - Burnt for 17 hours over 40 floors, did not collapse. Sigh. You utter, utter moron. Go and research these fires (and NOT by using troofer sites you lazy imbecile) and you will find these relevant facts: firefighters fought fire/fire proofing intact/no plane impact damage/fire went out/etc. And by the way, I remember when researching these that for two of the buildings the firefighters feared a collapse and so cleared the area and removed all fire-fighting operations. And 3 year old kid, you really don’t get it, do you? Riiiiiiiiiiiight…okay then, just for you…the fires did not stay in one area but covered the WHOLE floors, moving around as more fuel was available (office furnishings, etc), as fires do. So, the WHOLE area was weakened. Also, did you note how each of the top towers tilted slightly before they fell, one quite noticeable? Yes? Good. And did you note the initial tilt was over the areas damaged by the plane impacts? Yes? Good. Okay, as are we both clear on that…now I suggest you read this very, very slowly so you understand the point I’m trying to make…and re-read it if you have to…as the fires were quite savage and gutted most of the floor area and weakened the core supports, the first section to fail was still that area damaged by the plane…got that? Okay, as this area went down the remainder of the structure, having been weakened by fire, followed suit. Do you understand? You’re sure? Are you you’re re sure? No? okay, go back and read it a few more times. get out some Jenga blocks if need be… So, to continue, as the engineers of the NIST report made quite clear, because the building was designed the way it was, i.e. the floors did not support the building, the core and outer skin did, once that top section came down, there was no stopping it. From the moment the top section slipped those few floors down, gravity took hold and the only direction was straight down. Not sideways. Not up. No a step to the left then a step to the right…but straight down. As for the rest of the inane garbage you two fuckwits, morons, cretins, tosspots and dicks-for-brains spout and moan about…sorry, but its paranoid, ignorant rubbish. There. Was that better? Did I keep the insults to a minimum? PS. Yes, a chain does break at its weakest link… PPS. om my god, INSIDE JOB!!!! By the way boys, go and debate at screwloosechange.blogspot If you dare…no? Thought not. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

150. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 26th, 2008 at 12:16 pm

     Dear Mr paul W, welcome to my Elephant trap. Quote paul W “And 3 year old kid, you really don’t get it, do you? Riiiiiiiiiiiight…okay then, just for you…the fires did not stay in one area but covered the WHOLE floors, moving around as more fuel was available (office furnishings, etc), as fires do. So, the WHOLE area was weakened. Also, did you note how each of the top towers tilted slightly before they fell, one quite noticeable? Yes? Good. And did you note the initial tilt was over the areas damaged by the plane impacts? Yes? Good.” End Quote Thank you indeed for that information Paul W. And I hardly call nearly 45 degrees slight tilting old chap. Can you now write to Dr Keith Seffen of Cambridge University and ask them to correct his ludicrous paper as they claim there was symmetrical instantaneous collapse. Yes, despite there being images to the contrary. Is this not the very same paper you were peddling as being correct only a few posts ago, but now have contradicted? So why was it good then and not now? Did it not suit your purpose to be truthful back then? OR, Are you confused Paul W? So, How can there be symmetrical collapse at nearly freefall speed through the path of most resistance, despite both the tops toppling over at initial collapse due to asymmetrical damage and asymmetrical collapse initiation? Physics states the toppled tops should have fallen off and followed the path of least resistance had there been no Controlled Demolition. Your statement has now proved the Controlled Demolition hypothesis is valid old chap. WELL DONE!!! Jolly Good show!!!! Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

151. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 26th, 2008 at 12:25 pm

     Mayday Mayday , rescue required, MU PIT Alert MU PIT Alert!!! Mayday Mayday!!! EIIKK EIKKK EIKKK!!!! SLOBBER SLOBBER SLOBBER!!!! DUH!!! IT WAS TILTING, DUH !!! But it did not have any angular momentum DUHHH!!!! Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

152. Ashley Posted: Jun 26th, 2008 at 2:46 pm

     Paul It’s quite simple, do not be so insulting. All it does is speak volumes about you rather than us. If you are confident of your position you shouldn’t feel the need to resort to insults. Conversely if you are a bit out of your depth then you may be hoping they’ll help your cause :) You say you’ll try and stop the name calling and 2 lines later describe me as a f*ckwit. Are you unable to have an adult conversation without calling people names? Is it a medical condition, do you have some online form of Tourettes? You do make me chuckle, I mean you quote from the 911myths website like it is some kind of authority, and in the blinking of an eye you slag me of for using ‘troofer’ websites to get information. Don’t you see you are doing the exact same thing but trying to disprove the hypothesis? Do you have any more ways you’d like to try and hamstring my argument? Would you like me to type one handed? Would you prefer to give me a list of sites you find acceptable and ask me to prove it using them? Stop being daft. You have categorically ignored my direct questions to you, so before I enter in to further debate with you I will re-ask them: - Quote: If the steel did not melt then where did the pools of molten steel in the clean up site come from? Don’t skirt around this, don’t ignore it, don’t hide from it, just try and debunk it. As per the link that Toby put up -> Quote: http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphology.Final.pdf Now let me see if I can make this plain enough for you to understand (as by your insults you seem to be displaying a fairly low level of intelligence). This independent report says that there were spherical pieces of iron found in the dust. These spherical pieces of iron are as a result of very high temperatures which melted steel/iron in order to create them. Explain it if you can, or just admit you can’t, but please don’t ignore it again (I’ve got a get-out for you on it, mad conspiraloon troofers sprinkled New York with tiny spherical pieces of iron, so they could later use it to claim the steel melted, yeah that’d do it). I categorically said to you ‘don’t claim it was molten aluminium as this would vapourise before exhibiting this colour’ and what do you do?: - Quote: Additionally, the highest recorded temperature exceeds the melting point of aluminum, 1220 °F, making molten aluminum a distinct possibility.” Are you even reading this stuff before you paste it? I wish I had a debunking website, I’d put a sentence in each article saying ‘The person using this is clearly an idiot as they haven’t read this disclaimer in order to remove it’, it would be great fun catching people cutting and pasting without reading it. Regarding the building fires that you claim make me an utter, utter moron. I’ll concentrate on just one (to make it easier for you to hold the information in RAM), now if you can remember this fact ‘The WTC South Tower had a fire for just over one hour on 6 floors and it then collapsed’, the Caracas Tower Fire (Caracas Venezuela) - Burnt for *17 hours* over *40 floors* and did not collapse. Just to simplify it for you further: - 1 hour fire on 6 floors = collapse 17 hour fire on 40 floors = no collapse Now you mention the plane hitting the building, the plane which hit is almost identical to the one the towers were designed to survive. Now you can harp on about the fuel and the damage and the blah blah blah, but that does not detract from the fact the towers were designed to withstand the direct impact of these planes. You also say there was firefighting in these other buildings (Caracas etc). Are you claiming no firefighting was attempted in either WTC1 or WTC2? Another direct question that I asked you and you failed to furnish an answer was: - Quote: Have you even read the NIST report? The reason I ask this is you keep asking us and from your line of questioning you make out that you’ve read it (in it’s entirity). Is this the case? I also asked you if you had any objections to a new inquiry? Now at the end of the day you are pouring scorn on my use of Jenga to try and show you how it fell. This is an original idea that came from inside my head in order to try and help people understand the law of entropy. I think this pretty much proves that I am not ‘just using troofer websites’ to argue my case. Now on the other hand you are going off to whatever debunking site you can find and pasting pages of their information in the vain hope that it makes you look clever. It doesn’t, it makes you look hilarious because you are doing exactly what you’re slagging me off for (and I just proved that I’m not guilty of it). Feel stupid yet? I’ve got to say Paul, that you are looking a bit childish with all the name calling. I thought it was us troofers who were supposed to be calling names not you highly intelligent debunkers. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

153. paul w Posted: Jun 27th, 2008 at 3:29 am

     Ashely and 3 Year old kid I’ve just read your latest posts and realize I’m wasting my time. It’s obvious neither of you two clowns have a clue. I could pick any number of idiotic comments, but I’ll pick this (it’s as good as any): “Now you mention the plane hitting the building, the plane which hit is almost identical to the one the towers were designed to survive. Now you can harp on about the fuel and the damage and the blah blah blah, but that does not detract from the fact the towers were designed to withstand the direct impact of these planes.” Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who can post such drivel simply has not done any research other than scouring the troofer sites. This has been debunked so many times, but I’ll mention it for those who are reading this. I’ll put this simply…the buildings DID survive the impact. What caused them to collapse was the damage combined with the fires combined with the loss of insulation from some of the core structure combined with the design of the building. And by the way, it’s debatable they were even deigned with an aircraft impact in mind. There was an informal study done during the design/building that considered a plane landing at the nearby airport, getting lost in fog and hitting one of the towers - low speed, not much fuel. The report cannot be found (although some of the official 9-11 reports thought it did exist), but one of the building’s designers said it was done, and he said the report suggested (note that word) the building should (note that word) survive an impact from a low speed jet liner. He also said the report DID NOT consider fire damage, so therefore we can only conclude the report was only interested in the integrity of the structural design and a plane impact. As I said, the towers DID survive the initial massive impact, thanks to the great work by the designers, resulting in many thousands of people escaping. Naturally, the troofers twist and distort this so it can support their own inane concepts that it should not have fallen as it ‘was designed to withstand plane impacts’. Don’t believe me? Then get off your lazy backsides and go do some work. For anyone reading this, Ashley and 3 year old kid are pretty typical of the mentality of troofers I’ve wasted my time trying to debate. I became interested many years ago when I first heard the questions of the troofers: The pilots were not skilled enough to fly the planes? (they were); the fighter planes were stood down (they weren’t); there were unusually few people aboard thew planes (the numbers were low but abou average); government people were told not to fly (they weren’t); the pilots should have been able to fight off the hijackers (while strapped to a seat and trying to fly the plane?); no plane hit the Pentagon (hundreds saw the thing and one ‘thought’ they saw a small jet - guess which view the troofers took?); no wreckage etc at the Pentagon (tons of it, and including the bodies and the black box - all photographed and collected); the damage to the Pentagon didn’t ‘fit’ a plane impact (it did); 85 videos of the Pentagon (the inquiry viewed all but only two were of the Pentagon and this, unsurprisingly, was aimed more at the car entry than the building - and its low frame rate meant the chance of capturing the plane was very low); the pilot had to do a skilled turn and skilfully fly the plane to impact the building (he didn’t do a ’skilled turn’ it was a big, lazy turn and he nearly missed the fucking thing and smacked into the lawn); the towers were brought down by explosives (completely demolished by numerous debunking sites and, not the least, by the hundreds of experts in the official reports); explosions were heard (quite normal in big fires, especially in buildings - firefighters are quite aware of the danger from things going bang); ’squibs’ (none present in any of the videos); it was a ‘typical’ controlled demolition collapse (no it wasn’t); Thermitre found (Thermite is never used in CD and none was found, other than in the mind of Stephen Jones, idiot troofer - whose paper, incidentally, has not been peer-reviewed by any independent experts or authority); melted steel found (no it wasn’t. Pools of molten ‘metal’ were found in the debris days later, which the NIST report and others consider not unusual considering the massive amount of debris, the fires and mix if combustible materials); WTC7 was CD (no, it wasn’t, the report is out soon); Silverstein said ‘pull it’ (he was talking about the firefighters operation to ’save’ WTC7 and ‘pull it’ is not an industry term in CD); BBC knew the building was going to fall beforehand (yes, along with everyone else…it had massive fire and structural damage from the tower debris, and was starting to tilt)…what else, oh yes, the other air defense excerises made sure no planes were in the sky that day (the air force did this all the time, it wasn’t unusual and is called training)…what else…oh, fuck it. Ladies and gentlemen, you will find heaps of ‘anomalies’ in that. Such is the nature of any disaster. The difference between normal people and toss-pots like Ashely and 3 year old kid, is they do not have the cognitive skills to separate fact from fiction. That, or they’re just dickwads… As I said earlier, if you have any question, go to 9-11 Myths, Internet detectives, Screwloosechange.blogspot, the NIST report and all manner of other sites. The truth is out there. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

154. paul w Posted: Jun 27th, 2008 at 3:31 am

     Countdown to Ashley and 3 year old kid moaning ‘you haven’t answered our questions’, ‘you’re being rude…” 5.4.3.2… Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

155. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 27th, 2008 at 5:31 am

     Thank you for that paul W, or should one say Mr Mu Pit. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

156. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 27th, 2008 at 5:32 am

     DUH!!! IT WAS TILTING, DUH !!! But it did not have any angular momentum DUHHH!!!! Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

157. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 27th, 2008 at 5:35 am

     Controlled Demolition Hypothesis Confirmed! Confirmed! Confirmed! Confirmed! Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

158. paul w Posted: Jun 27th, 2008 at 7:45 am

     3 year old kid What the living fuck are you on? “DUH!!! IT WAS TILTING, DUH !!! But it did not have any angular momentum DUHHH!!!! Controlled Demolition Hypothesis Confirmed!” Do you realize this is exactly the reason you are a fuckwit? I repeat, what he living fuck are you on? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

159. paul w Posted: Jun 27th, 2008 at 9:16 am

     For anyone reading this, and interested in the reality behind the question from Ashley about other high-rise fires did not cause collapse, check this out from Internet Detectives, ‘Skyscraper Fires’ “…a 38-story skyscraper in Philadelphia burned for over 19 hours with the fire spreading to 8 floors, and did not collapse. The building was One Meridian Plaza, and structural damage indicated the possibility of a collapse: Prior to deciding to evacuate the building, firefighters noticed significant structural displacement occurring in the stair enclosures. A command officer indicated that cracks large enough to place a man’s fist through developed at one point. One of the granite exterior wall panels on the east stair enclosure was dislodged by the thermal expansion of the steel framing behind it. After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted — some as much as three feet –under severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places. Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors. …a 56-story skyscraper in Venezuela burned for over 17 hours with the fire spreading to 26 floors and reaching the roof, but did not collapse. This was the east tower of the Parque Central Complex in Caracas, and firefighters in the building were evacuated after fears it would collapse: At 7 a.m., some of the booster pumps started to malfunction, and the fire regained intensity, spreading vertically at a rate of about one floor per hour until approximately 10 a.m. Around 11 a.m., the fire breeched the fifth macroslab, below the 39th floor, and around noon, the stairwells’ fire enclosure started to fail. Concerned that the building might collapse, the fire chief immediately ordered that interior firefighting operations be abandoned. …Madrid’s Windsor Building, a steel-reinforced concrete building which burned for nearly 24 hours, destroying its upper 10 floors without causing the building itself to collapse. …the Windsor Building had a concrete core with a concrete frame supporting the first 16 stories and steel perimeter columns for the upper floors, which collapsed while leaving the concrete core standing. Further collapse was prevented by the 17th floor, a concrete “technical floor” used to strengthen the building. This is from 9-11 Myths: “The Madrid Windsor fire is sometimes cited as being relevant to the WTC collapse, but in reality there are major differences between the two situations. No plane flew into the Madrid Windsor Tower, for instance. It didn’t sustain any structural damage prior to the fire beginning. The Madrid Windsor Tower was much smaller than the WTC, too, at 32 storeys. More significantly, the design of the Madrid Windsor Tower was entirely different to that of the WTC. The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two ‘technical floors’ - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor. No reliance on steel frames here, the core was mostly concrete. And what happened to the steel that it did include? The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor. Yes, it failed. Other photos reveal how the concrete was all that was left on the upper floors. The same story suggests it’s only the key design differences from the WTC that kept the Madrid Windsor Tower standing. An investigation is underway between Spanish technical agency Intemac and UK authorities including Arup Fire, the University of Edinburgh and the concrete industry including Cembureau, BCA and The Concrete Centre. Preliminary findings suggest that a combination of the upper technical floor and the excellent passive fire resistance of the tower’s concrete columns and core prevented total building collapse The fire is significant in terms of its potential similarities between the collapse of the building’s steel frame above the 17th floor and the experience seen at the World Trade Center. Notably, one of the recommendations of NIST’s interim report on the World Trade Center disaster is for tall building design to incorporate ’strong points’ within the frame. Others confirm the advantages offered by the Windsor Tower design. Dr. Pal Chana of the British Cement Association demonstrated the relative likelihood of floor collapse in a steel versus concrete framed building, using the vivid example of the Madrid Windsor Tower fire which raged over 26 hours on 14-15 February 2005. This former landmark office block of 30 storeys featured a concrete core throughout, but with concrete columns up to the 21st floor and steel columns between the 22nd and 30th floors. Remarkably, despite the intensity and duration of the fire, the concrete floors and columns remained intact however, the steel supported floors above the 21st floor collapsed, leaving the concrete core in-situ and exposed. So what does the Madrid Windsor Tower fire show? That steel columns will collapse in a fire, that concrete is more fire-resistant, and, uh, that’s about it. It’s hard to see how any of this, especially in such a different building design, can have much meaning for the WTC case.” Hope you all enjoyed reading that. Now, on a personal note, I first thought Ashely was more of an idiot that 3 year old kid…but then changed my mind….then changed it again…but got so confused between the two that from now on I’m calling them Bill and Ben. Interesting the way it was presented. Just name the buildings and use this as ‘proof’ that steel-framed buildings don’t (cannot?) fall down due to fire. Like much of the troofers, it’s all smoke and mirrors; once you look at the details, and it isn’t difficult, it all falls apart. Also, much of it is supposition; other buildings didn’t collapse, so why the towers, etc. This is another troofer method and works really well with the likes of Bill and Ben, for those who do not have a reasonable questioning ability or are easy led to ue anything to support their own fantasy. After reading the above, check this out from Ashley in an earlier post: “Regarding the building fires that you claim make me an utter, utter moron. I’ll concentrate on just one (to make it easier for you to hold the information in RAM), now if you can remember this fact ‘The WTC South Tower had a fire for just over one hour on 6 floors and it then collapsed’, the Caracas Tower Fire (Caracas Venezuela) - Burnt for *17 hours* over *40 floors* and did not collapse. Just to simplify it for you further: 1 hour fire on 6 floors = collapse 17 hour fire on 40 floors = no collapse” It all sounds so plausible, eh? And so simple. Yet look behind a little and it all changes. This is how troofers like Bill and Ben operate and why it’s impossible to hold any form of reasonable debate as there just ‘aint much backing them up. Sad, really. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

160. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 27th, 2008 at 2:27 pm

     Many of your “TROOOOOOOOOFFFFFFEEEEERRRSSSSS” are in fact qualified Architects, Engineers and indeed Physicists some of whom actually have built skyscraper steel framed buildings for a living. And I can confirm none of these buildings have ever come down inadvertantly. There are people who actually have constructed aircraft for a living, who have actually “PULLED” buildings for a living and who are former Jet fighter interceptor pilots too along with 757, 767, Jumbo Jet pilots too. Indeed what expertise do you have Mr Paul W? Except the very fact you openly and correctly contradict the ludicrous Keith Seffen paper, openly confirm the tower tops were toppling due to asymmetric damage and hence asymmetric collapse initiation, then confirmed the tops had to have angular momentum to do the tilting, so – hence by your own admission confirm the TROOOFERS are correct old bean. Only controlled demolition could destroy a building symmetrically despite an asymmetrical collapse initiation at the top. Then you try and backtrack, lie and basically make yourself look like a right nini. Just confess, just confess you know absolutely nothing of science or Engineering – it is not a crime to be science ignorant as you obviously are Paul W. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

161. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 27th, 2008 at 2:37 pm

     For access to the 911 Controlled Demolition Evidence and open source video lectures from a veteran high rise steel frame architect go here:- http://www.ae911truth.org/ Also be aware we now have the blueprints which were denied us by the US Government, which clearly show there were in fact 47 massive steel core columns with 300,000 tonnes of reinforced concrete in the core and on top of every floor pan. The core was described as “indestructible” at the time of construction. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

162. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 27th, 2008 at 2:40 pm

     See here the WTC and its “indestructible” core being built. http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=building+the+wtc&sitesearch=# http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=building+the+wtc&sitesearch=# http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=building+the+wtc&sitesearch=# Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

163. Neil Posted: Jun 27th, 2008 at 4:07 pm

     Paul W, some unsolicited advice: Never argue with an idiot, as passers by won’t be able to tell the difference. What you need to know about 3 Year Old Kid, and many other truthers is that, for them, 9/11 was an inside job because they WANT it to be an inside job. Nothing you or anyone else says will persuade them otherwise. Ever 3 Year Old Kid - I’d be interested to see how many of the “architects, engineers and physicists” you hold dear in the truth movement have looked, objectively, at evidence from both sides, and aren’t just getting their information from YouTube videos. Just because you have a degree doesn’t mean you’re not allowed to be a nutcase. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

164. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 27th, 2008 at 4:40 pm

     Don’t argue with a Qualified Engineer, who has actually done Demolitions for a living and can see 3 CDs on 911 Have any of you people ever done a demolition or even any welding or even any steel framed construction? If not then shut up, you are not qualified to even have a valid opinion. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

165. Neil Posted: Jun 27th, 2008 at 4:43 pm

     Quote: can see 3 CDs on 911 Don’t believe everything you see. Quote: shut up Translation = “LALALALA can’t hear you. 9/11 was an inside job LALALALALA. Muslims in caves couldn’t do this.” Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

166. 3 yearold kid Posted: Jun 27th, 2008 at 5:11 pm

     Go on then Neil, Prove with Physics and Maths 911 was a Gravity only collapse. Were is you Factual Evidence? Were is your Physics proof? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

167. 3 yearold kid Posted: Jun 27th, 2008 at 5:14 pm

     Were are your Qualifications to make the claims you do? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

168. 3 yearold kid Posted: Jun 27th, 2008 at 5:19 pm

     Go on Neil and Paul W, Just confess, just confess you know absolutely nothing of science or Engineering – it is not a crime to be science ignorant. But it is a crime to try and cover up a crime. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

169. Louise Posted: Jun 27th, 2008 at 6:35 pm

     I’m finding this “debate” very insensitive to those who lost their lives on 9/11 or from the effects of 9/11, including family members and friends who have lost loved ones. Please remember that thousands of people lost their lives that day, regardless of what you think happened. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

170. Ashley Posted: Jun 27th, 2008 at 9:33 pm

     Paul You are absolutely impossible to debate with. Your idea of reasoned debate is pasting pages and pages of information from debunking sites, that half the time I don’t think you’ve even read. You take the mickey out of me an 3yo kid, saying we’re complaining that you aren’t answering our questions and then you complain we don’t answer your questions (which we do!) Paul have you read the NIST report in its entirity? (as I’ve asked you 3 times prior) Paul can you find an explaination for the spherical particles of iron? (as I’ve asked you two times prior) Paul do you have a problem with a new inquiry? (as I’ve asked you two times prior) Paul do you believe that Western governments have planned and carried out ‘false flag’ events in the past? (as I’ve asked you two times prior) Good job on debunking the Madrid Building fire, just a damn shame that the only people to mention it are you and Tina (both fighting the same corner). What you have done is debunk a theory that no-one had put forward, that is not relevant (the building was constructed in a completely different fashion from the WTC buildings) and then tried to use this debunking to discredit the Caracas building argument (which is valid and relevant and similar in construction to the WTC buildings). You aren’t comparing apples with apples Paul, I very much hope this was a mistake on your part rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead people. You look very arrogant when you post your material from 911myths and screwloosechange and internetdetectives as these are just the other side of the coin from wtc7.net, ae911truth.org and 911review.com (they are no more or less valid). Are people supposed to believe your anti-troofer websites because they are anti-troofer or because you posted them and you are so highly intelligent you can answer all of the arguments (like you have failed on numerous occassions with the questions I have asked you). You are boring the life out of me Paul, I’m losing the will to live talking to you. There is no logic, there is no reasoned debate. All you are doing is calling people names, pasting large chunks of the internet and ignoring direct questions. This big paragraph that you posted and then just dismissed everything in it without any evidence is just typical of you. FFS Paul get a grip, I’ll answer a couple of these for you (the ones I ignore are not ones I believe, like I said I don’t believe every conspiracy story about 9-11): - Quote: I became interested many years ago when I first heard the questions of the troofers: The pilots were not skilled enough to fly the planes? (they were); the fighter planes were stood down (they weren’t); there were unusually few people aboard thew planes (the numbers were low but abou average); government people were told not to fly (they weren’t); the pilots should have been able to fight off the hijackers (while strapped to a seat and trying to fly the plane?); no plane hit the Pentagon (hundreds saw the thing and one ‘thought’ they saw a small jet - guess which view the troofers took?); no wreckage etc at the Pentagon (tons of it, and including the bodies and the black box - all photographed and collected); the damage to the Pentagon didn’t ‘fit’ a plane impact (it did); 85 videos of the Pentagon (the inquiry viewed all but only two were of the Pentagon and this, unsurprisingly, was aimed more at the car entry than the building - and its low frame rate meant the chance of capturing the plane was very low); the pilot had to do a skilled turn and skilfully fly the plane to impact the building (he didn’t do a ’skilled turn’ it was a big, lazy turn and he nearly missed the fucking thing and smacked into the lawn); the towers were brought down by explosives (completely demolished by numerous debunking sites and, not the least, by the hundreds of experts in the official reports); explosions were heard (quite normal in big fires, especially in buildings - firefighters are quite aware of the danger from things going bang); ’squibs’ (none present in any of the videos); it was a ‘typical’ controlled demolition collapse (no it wasn’t); Thermitre found (Thermite is never used in CD and none was found, other than in the mind of Stephen Jones, idiot troofer - whose paper, incidentally, has not been peer-reviewed by any independent experts or authority); melted steel found (no it wasn’t. Pools of molten ‘metal’ were found in the debris days later, which the NIST report and others consider not unusual considering the massive amount of debris, the fires and mix if combustible materials); WTC7 was CD (no, it wasn’t, the report is out soon); Silverstein said ‘pull it’ (he was talking about the firefighters operation to ’save’ WTC7 and ‘pull it’ is not an industry term in CD); BBC knew the building was going to fall beforehand (yes, along with everyone else…it had massive fire and structural damage from the tower debris, and was starting to tilt)…what else, oh yes, the other air defense excerises made sure no planes were in the sky that day (the air force did this all the time, it wasn’t unusual and is called training)…what else…oh, fuck it. The first sentence about how you became interested many years ago is a deliberate attempt to try an assert some authority due to you being an old hand. This doesn’t work as I could look at brain surgery for many years, it wouldn’t make me a brain surgeon. You seem to have probably just enough intelligence to tie your own shoelaces, you seem unable to grasp the theory of entropy with regards the collapse of these buildings, this in itself makes me dubious as to whether I should listen to you at all. You say the pilots were skilled enough to fly the planes, we’ll take the pilot of the Pentagon plane as a ‘for instance’. The Washington Post had this to say about him: - Hani Hanjour, the Saudi pilot who flew American Airlines flight 77 into the Pentagon, “had lived in the United States off and on throughout the 1990s, mostly in Arizona, intermittently taking flying lessons at several different flying schools.” He was, in the view of one of his flight instructors, “intelligent, friendly, and ‘very courteous, very formal,’ a nice enough fellow but a terrible pilot.” He finally got a commercial license from the FAA but was unable to find work here or in the Middle East. He was also refused when he tried to rent a Cessna 172 in Florida as they said he wasn’t good enough to meet the standards for insurance. With regards the CCTV at the Pentagon, only 2 pieces have been released. This is most likely the most surveilled building in the world, there are without doubt other angles and views. My personal theory is that these are being withheld in order to attract interest in the no-plane theory which can later be disproven and then used to dismiss all 9-11 theories. The deliberate attempt to garner interest in to what hit the Pentagon is also, I believe, an attempt to distract from the real smoking gun, WTC7. The big lazy turn you speak of was described by air controllers as follows: - ‘”The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane,” says O’Brien. “You don’t fly a 757 in that manner. It’s unsafe.”‘. Now unless you are an air traffic controller in your spare time (while you’re not out debunking laws of physics), I’ll take their opinion over yours. A good site I’d recommend to you is http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org and specifically http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html for this particular big lazy turn. These people are pilots, they fly planes, do you? You say that there was no evidence of Thermite/Thermate but failed to answer my question, what was that orange molten metal seen pouring from the tower? Remember I said it couldn’t be aluminium as it would vapourise before it reached that colour and you said ‘it could have been aluminium’ (DOH). I would be very interested to know where the Sulfur that was found at ground zero came from (as mentioned in the FEMA report). You say that no squibs were visible in any of the videos, I’m guessing that you are claiming that the things that resemble squibs are debris being forced out from the collapsing building (up to 15 floors below? Yeah right :) You claim that WTC7 was starting to tilt, give me your source for this claim. As far as I can see from every video available it wasn’t leaning in any direction. If it was leaning the 2nd law of thermodynamics (the law of entropy) would mean it would have fallen over rather than in to itself. You are again purposefully muddying the waters with regards the BBC and WTC7. You act as if this premonition was reasonable. I have given you 4 or 5 examples of massive fires in steel framed buildings that burned for longer and on more floors than any of WTC1, 2 and 7 and didn’t collapse. You have given me precisely zero other steel framed skyscrapers that have fallen due to fire damage (the reason you’ve given zero is the fact that the only 3 steel framed buildings that have collapsed due to fire damage are the 3 that fell on 9-11). Give me another steel framed building that has collapsed due to fire damage, just one, go on, please ;) You can’t because 9-11 is the only day in history it has ever happened. They didn’t just ‘know’ the building was going to collapse, they reported it as having fallen due to structural damage some 20 minutes prior to it happening. This is not reasonable Paul (also CNN reported it as having fallen whilst it was still standing, WOW both news networks made exactly the same ‘mistake’ within minutes of each other, I mean what are the chances). You claim the pools of molten metal were usual, but earlier in this thread you were telling me there weren’t any. I like the way you try to think on your feet and your google skills seem OK but your debating skills leave a lot to be desired. This is what NIST said: - Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.” That sounds like bullshit, how the f*ck can steel melt after the buildings have collapsed. That is counter intuative. The fires would likely be oxygen starved, the kerosene would have all burnt off. They say under certain circumstances it is conceivable, but they don’t go in to any details of what these circumstances would be (perhaps it is little green men installing a foundry under the debris, f*ck knows what else it could be). The air defence excersises are not a problem as far as I’m concerned. My problem is why weren’t jets scrambled to the Pentagon flight? This is standard operating procedure for planes that are off course and not responding to ATC (logic would say this would be much more to the forefront of everyones mind considering the 2 earlier planes in NY!). You say that the 3 buildings that collapsed were not ‘typical’ controlled demolitions. Please can you outline the differences as you see them between the WTC7 collapse and a controlled demolition (I’ve asked you this before so I don’t hold much hope of an answer). You say that Thermite (and I’m guessing you include Thermate in this statement) is never used in controlled demolition. Can you tell me if any patents have been taken out for cutter charges made from Thermate? (I’ll give you a clue, they have). Do the American military use Thermate (I’ll give you another clue, they do). I think the question of whether it is Thermite/Thermate is a bit of a red herring. What we are talking about is cutter charges, these do exist and are used in CD. What cocktail of explosives/chemicals were in them is immaterial is it not? You say that the controlled demolition of towers 1 & 2 have been thouroughly debunked, not least by the hundreds of experts in the official reports. Now I admit I haven’t read all the reports in their entirity (have you?) but I KNOW that the theory of controlled demolition was not entertained in any of the official reports (to quote you - have you even read the NIST report?). You say the damage to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a plane, the main problem I have is the round punture hole in the inner wall, this would not be consistent with a soft-metal (by soft metal I mean the aluminium nose cone of a plane) object after going through the newly ‘plane-proofed’ outer wall. What to make of it I don’t know but it just doesn’t ’seem’ right. You say explosions would be consistent with the fires, but the description by one NYFD first responder the pop, pop, pop, like a controlled demolition sounds far too regular to be written off as random explosions. Sorry Paul you are painting yourself in to a corner the more you open your mouth. When at the bottom of a hole, stop digging ;) Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

171. Victor E Posted: Jun 27th, 2008 at 10:22 pm

     WTC 001 and WTC 002 were top down demolitions and building 007 was bottom down conventional demolition. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

172. paul w Posted: Jun 28th, 2008 at 5:16 am

     “The core was described as “indestructible” at the time of construction.” 3 year old kid And the Titanic was described as “unsinkable”. You are an idiot. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

173. paul w Posted: Jun 28th, 2008 at 5:35 am

     “You are absolutely impossible to debate with. Your idea of reasoned debate is pasting pages and pages of information from debunking sites, that half the time I don’t think you’ve even read.” Ashley (Ben) Geez, this is like shooting fish in a barrel… Ashley, you ask simple questions then whine if the answers aren’t simple and quick. Life’s not like that, son. For example, the question ‘what is love’ can sometimes take a lifetime to answer. You don’t understand that, do you? You want a quick, witty reply like the quick, idiotic comments you troofers so love…’the buildings were designed for a plane impact’, ‘WTC7 was not hit by a plane’, etc. All easy to say, and completely inaccurate, yet to reply ACCURATELY (note that word) it takes more than a ‘no, it’s not’. But I’m not really doing it for you, Ben. Just like the other tosspot, Bill, neither of you want to slog through the NIST report, and all the other reports. You much prefer the troofer nonsense that sounds great and requires nothing more than repetition. Maybe it’s the TV generation thing; you want jingles and logos. It’s amazing that one of you morons complained that I just put in links to my evidence, now you’re moaning there’s too much! Sigh. READ the stuff I posted, and go to the links and READ them. But that’s not gonna happen, is it? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

174. paul w Posted: Jun 28th, 2008 at 5:40 am

     “You look very arrogant when you post your material from 911myths and screwloosechange and internetdetectives as these are just the other side of the coin from wtc7.net, ae911truth.org and 911review.com (they are no more or less valid). Are people supposed to believe your anti-troofer websites because they are anti-troofer or because you posted them and you are so highly intelligent you can answer all of the arguments (like you have failed on numerous occassions with the questions I have asked you).” No, the troofer sites are not ‘just as valid’ as the ones I use. Troofer sites are full of innuendo, and highly inaccurate, full of misquoting and worse, falsification of evidence. That’s why I use, and name, those debunking sites. For answers to your questions. Ashley, out of interest, how old are you? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

175. Neil Posted: Jun 28th, 2008 at 10:46 am

     3 Year Old Kid, I have no science or engineering background, I’ll admit that. However, I do know that everything that the “truth” movement offers has either been debunked or is based on a false premise. Where are the people who planted the demolitions? Who are they? Why has nobody involved come forward? Louise - One of the reasons the “truth” movement annoys me so much is because they spend their lives sitting in front of their computer screens playing parlour games with the deaths of 3000 people, all the time talking about how much they “respect” them, before, in the next breath, sneering at them or their loved ones. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

176. Ashley Posted: Jun 28th, 2008 at 12:01 pm

     Paul The ‘troofer’ sites I put forward are not space weapon/hologram sites. The sites are reputable and are written by professionals (architects, pilots, civil engineers etc etc). You STILL haven’t answered my questions, are you being deliberately evasive or are you just stupid? As for my age (what that has to do with it I do not know), I am 40 in 3 weeks, as far as my qualifications are concerned I hold a Bachelor of Science with Honours (2:1), although not in a related field. If I was young (which I unfortunately am no longer), I’m guessing you were planning on being condescending (I guess now you will do the ‘you’re old enough to know better’). I have taken the liberty of quoting my qualifications before you start down that road. Paul I’ll quote my main questions again that you seem either unable or unwilling to answer, please add one to the number of times you have been asked: - Quote: Paul have you read the NIST report in its entirity? (as I’ve asked you 3 times prior) Paul can you find an explaination for the spherical particles of iron? (as I’ve asked you two times prior) Paul do you have a problem with a new inquiry? (as I’ve asked you two times prior) Paul do you believe that Western governments have planned and carried out ‘false flag’ events in the past? (as I’ve asked you two times prior) Here’s an interesting link: - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/fisk/robert-fisk-even-i-question-the-truth-about-911-462904.html this is authored by Robert Fisk, a very well respected reporter for the independent, this guy checks his facts and his sources impeccably. The headline for the story is ‘Even I question the ‘truth’ about 9/11′. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

177. Ashley Posted: Jun 28th, 2008 at 12:19 pm

     Neil If you don’t mind I’d like to comment on your points. You say: - Quote: However, I do know that everything that the “truth” movement offers has either been debunked or is based on a false premise. Ummmm nope, you’re wrong. Blinkered anti-troofers claim this but there are many holes in the official story and a lot of the so called debunking has been debunked itself. People like you and Paul w don’t provide a reason why 36% of people in the US don’t believe the 9-11 story, why over 60% of people in the US and UK don’t trust their governments. Is this 1/3 of the population all insane? Have they all contracted some sort of virus? The theory over the Kennedy second shooter was debunked and remained that way for over 40 years, but what do you know a former FBI mettalurgist now claims that the evidence points to a second shooter (http://news.softpedia.com/news/New-FBI-Analysis-of-Kennedy-Bullet-Points-to-a-Second-Shooter-55014.shtml). Quote: Where are the people who planted the demolitions? Who are they? Why has nobody involved come forward? What you mean like the people who helped overthrow Mossadeq in Iran, like Ollie North did in the Iran Contra scandal, like the Watergate scandal. This might shock you, it might even make you a little worried but intelligence agencies and black ops departments of Western countries sometimes do very unethical things. Do you remember the story of the 2 SAS men caught in Iraq dressed as arabs in a car full of RPGs, explosives and guns (just what do you think they were doing?). They were arrested by the Iraqi security services and then we stormed the jail and broke them out. Some people think differently, some people do things that us normal people would describe as monstrous. Please don’t be naive. Quote: One of the reasons the “truth” movement annoys me so much is because they spend their lives sitting in front of their computer screens playing parlour games with the deaths of 3000 people, all the time talking about how much they “respect” them, before, in the next breath, sneering at them or their loved ones. I don’t believe I have sneered at any of the victims and/or relatives of 9-11. If I have I am very sorry as this was in no way meant. I think that because of the holes in the official story, a new inquiry is necessary. It is an insult to the people who died, their families they leave behind, the first responders who’ve died or are ill due to the dust (that they were told was safe), the soldiers who’ve died in the 2 illegal wars that were launched with this as a springboard and the countless civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, that 80 times as much money could be spent on the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal as was spent on the 9-11 Commission Report. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

178. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 28th, 2008 at 1:39 pm

     Thank you for your insight Mr Paul W, and your honesty in relation to your lack of formal qualifications or relevant industrial experience and for that you should be commended. There are over 400 Qualified Architects & Engineers, who, in their opinion, request a new independent investigation of 911 because they, all of them, believe, based upon the destruction sequence facts, that it could only be a Controlled Demolition. Here are some of the reasons why a new investigation is requested: Asymmetrical damage always causes asymmetrical collapse initiation of which would have toppled the tower tops, so why did all the 3 towers come down symmetrically despite asymmetrical damage? Angular momentum of the tilting tops - the moments of inertia would have forced the tops over the side – what stopped this massive inertia seeing as surrounding air alone could not do this? Falling bodies always fall through the path of least resistance, on 911 the top portions of 3 tall towers fell through the path of most resistance – 3 times. Falling bodies cannot normally fall through solids, semi solids or more viscous fluids as though falling through low-viscous fluids, yet on 911 the top fell through a steel framed & reinforced concrete lower structure at nearly freefall speed. It would have taken about 20 seconds in salt water, yet took only about 10 seconds through the buildings heaviest components. If the top had fallen in a vacuum it would have taken 9.22 seconds, in air around 10 - 11 seconds. How can a lower much heavier and much stronger support structure only offer about the same resistance as air resistance? The answerer is obvious - Controlled Demolition. There are several types of demolition; top down, bottom down, side in & side out etc. A new investigation is needed to identify what really happened during the collapse sequence on 911 and to bring justice to those victims murdered by profiting criminals. Criminal Terrorists did 911; however they could not have been the 19 Muslim Hijackers as claimed by the FBI. And seeing as we know for a fact two of the alleged Muslim suicide Hijackers still flies for Saudi Airlines – should we not have a new investigation to find out who really did do 911 seeing as Osmar Binladen is still only a SUSPECT with no court worthy evidence for conviction? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

179. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 28th, 2008 at 1:44 pm

     Thanks for your post Neil. Thanks for confessing you are not Science or Engineering literate. How would you know if in fact it was debunked if you are not qualified to judge so? Do you even know what moments of inertia are? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

180. Ashley Posted: Jun 28th, 2008 at 2:19 pm

     Paul Just a quick comment, you said in an earlier post: - Quote: You don’t understand that, do you? You want a quick, witty reply like the quick, idiotic comments you troofers so love…’the buildings were designed for a plane impact’, ‘WTC7 was not hit by a plane’, etc. All easy to say, and completely inaccurate, yet to reply ACCURATELY (note that word) it takes more than a ‘no, it’s not’. Are you saying that WTC7 WAS hit by a plane? You say ‘WTC7 was not hit by a plane’ closely followed by ‘All easy to say, and completely inaccurate’. Please could you give me the details of the plane that hit WTC7, you might like to get in touch with FEMA, NIST and the Kean Commission as I’m pretty sure they don’t know about this particular nugget of your ‘troof’. I’m so dying to call you a dimbulb, but that would lower me to your level and that is not where I want to be. You may want to pull your foot out of your mouth at some point. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

181. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 28th, 2008 at 3:17 pm

     Go here to see what all the fuss is about, put the link together in your browser: http://www. ae911truth.net/omnitv_interview.htm Learn what questions still need answers. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

182. toeg Posted: Jun 28th, 2008 at 3:26 pm

     Paul W, I HAVE read the NIST report. You should, too. It would save you from embarassing statements not included inside the report. They DO NOT give a reason for the WTC7 collapse. Your statement about “the report is coming out soon,” is a nice Walt Disney thought, but as with Disney, it is pure fantasy. There is no report coming out seven full years after the event. If you like the laws of physics then you could explain to a wondering world why all three building collapses to the PATH OF GREATEST RESISTENCE. There is no other event in known history where objects took the path of greatest resistence. Perhaps you care to explain this abnormality. The towers fell at almost free-fall speed while taking the path of greatest resistence. This, again, is the only time in recorded history that such an event has occurred. I can’t wait for your explanation on this. Near free-fall speed + path of greatest resistence = normal event. It’s obvious that you are not aware that the northeastern air corridor of the United States is THE MOST HEAVILY GUARDED air space in the entire world, yet nineteen clowns with almost no piloting experience zoomed about with impunity for almost two hours. Never before, nor since, has ANY PLANE, let along FOUR JETS have been allowed to sight see famous American landmarks for almost two hours. ‘Splain, Lucy Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

183. toeg Posted: Jun 28th, 2008 at 3:40 pm

     Neil, You said this: “However, I do know that everything that the “truth” movement offers has either been debunked or is based on a false premise.” I’m impressed. Where is this “debunking” information you claim to know about. Popular Mechanics, perhaps?? No, that can’t be. They’ve been shown to be complete idiots on the subject. The 9/11 Commission’s Report?? Nope, not there either. They give no logical explanation for WTC7 nor many other anomalies of the day. Perhaps Walt Disney’s movie, Fantasia. Yes, you might be right there. You wrote this: Where are the people who planted the demolitions? Who are they? Why has nobody involved come forward? You sound like a lot of Americans in the 60s and 70s. “Commumism can’t exist. I have never seen a Communist therefore they can’t exist.” That type of illogical thinking is not only nonscientific, it’s irrational. Do you really believe that Oswald was the lone gunman who killed Kennedy?? No one else has come forward claiming to be the actual hitman so we have no choice but to believe the Warren Report and not our own eyes. Such logic is good for appeasing the masses, but it fails in any scientific study of 9/11. Ahhh, now we come to the crux of the issue. The real reason you spent hours, days, weeks, months creating your special little project: Louise - One of the reasons the “truth” movement annoys me so much is because they spend their lives sitting in front of their computer screens playing parlour games with the deaths of 3000 people, all the time talking about how much they “respect” them, before, in the next breath, sneering at them or their loved ones. The above is a rather blatant racist remark which shows what your real motives are. You state that 100% of ALL those who question the events of 9/11 “sneer at [the deaths of 3,000 people].” You should look in the mirror and ask yourself why you hate people going after the truth. Such racist remarks are better left for radicals to spew forth, not someone who “supposedly” is looking to solve the mystery of 9/11. I completely resent the fact that you say I “sneer at them.” I am looking for the truth, not slander. I think it’s become obvious which path you took. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

184. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 28th, 2008 at 4:16 pm

     No one is perfect, the truth movement is far from perfect and never will be, but to claim anyone in the Truth movement is sneering at the unfortunate victims of 911 just because they seek a new truly independent inquiry is most malicious and baseless. Were those who warned of Hitler in 1930s idiots? We are warning of potentially a much greater threat than Hitler ever posed to humanity. If all people do not wake up soon, then many will never wake up, it is as simple as that. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

185. 3 year old kid Posted: Jun 28th, 2008 at 4:19 pm

     A 20 year Architect tells it how it is, here are some of the questions which require answers re 911: http://www.ae911truth.net/omnitv_interview.htm Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

186. paul w Posted: Jun 29th, 2008 at 6:20 am

     “Were those who warned of Hitler in 1930s idiots? We are warning of potentially a much greater threat than Hitler ever posed to humanity. If all people do not wake up soon, then many will never wake up, it is as simple as that.” 3 year old kid The above comment should give eyeryone a very clear idea of the paranoia, ignorance and delusional qualities of the troofers. One fascinating aspect I’ve noted from troofer ravings like 3 year old kid, is the way they see themselves as the ones saving the world. Hmm. Add ‘massive insecurity complex’ to the list. Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

187. paul w Posted: Jun 29th, 2008 at 7:11 am

     “If you like the laws of physics then you could explain to a wondering world why all three building collapses to the PATH OF GREATEST RESISTENCE. There is no other event in known history where objects took the path of greatest resistence. Perhaps you care to explain this abnormality.” Toeg Here, dear reader, is an example of why it is impossible to debate a troofer - they have no idea. None. Zero. Zilch. “No other event in known history where objects took the path of greatest resistance.” Sigh. How many times does it have to be explained? Let me try, one more time, but with a question none of you morons have, or will, answer: where else, in god’s name, were the buildings going to go? Maybe a shuffle to the left? Maybe a shimmy to the right? Maybe up and little, hover for a moment, then settle back down? Try and grasp, if that is remotely possible, the concept of gravity, but before we go there, let’s make clear what you mean by the ‘path of greatest resistance’…you mean the lower section of the towers? Are we all agreed on that? Good. Now, here’s the bit you fuckwits don’t understand - the top section had enough mass and force to overcome the resistance of the lower section. In other words, the top section went straight down (as gravity dictated), and because the lower section of the towers were unable to resist (as explained in the NIST report), it ALL went down. Had the top section fell onto a granite outcrop the same size of the lower section, then things would be different. But, it didn’t. It fell on the lower section, which was unable to resist. What, in the name of all things sane and normal, do you dickheads not understand about that? And for all this garbage about me not answering questions, I asked the following at the very beginning, right at the start, which neither Bill and Ben, nor any other troofer posting here has ever answered, and which I will repeat again: where else was the building going to go? And your answer is…? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

188. paul w Posted: Jun 29th, 2008 at 7:17 am

     Oh, and another question to either Bill or Ben. Of the ‘over 400 Qualified Architects & Engineers’ who have joined the ‘truth’ movement: 1. How many are actually ‘qualified’? 2. Is it true that it is less than 10%? 3. How many qualified architects and engineers have NOT joined? And your answer is…? Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

189. paul w Posted: Jun 29th, 2008 at 7:52 am

     For those who have questions about 9-11, here’s another site answering (and debunking) most questions posed by the troofers: http://www.debunking911.com Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

190. Neil Posted: Jun 29th, 2008 at 11:37 am

     Nice to be accused of racism - can’t see how, but there you go. The “truth” movement are not searching for the truth. They’re searching for evidence that fits their hypothesis (which, it must be said, often boils down to the racist idea that “Muslims in caves couldn’t do this”). After making this documentary, I’ve been accused of being a cretin, a racist and a “bitch” of the British security services (despite the fact that one of the contributors to the thing is a vocal critic of the “secret state”). For the record, I didn’t spend “hours, days, weeks, months creating your special little project” The interviews took place over a week or so (total time two hours) and the editing took a couple of afternoons. You guys have spent longer wallowing in the esctasy of sanctimony about it than I spent making it. I only came back to add comments the other day because I amused me you were still working yourself into a frenzy about something that was only meant for a not for profit community radio station in the UK. As Paul Stott says, quoting Jon Ronson, arguing with you guys sucks the soul out of you. Another thing that I hate about truthers: You think you’re smart when you’re stupid. I’m out of here, I’ll leave you to your echo chamber. Maybe I’ll return when we do the Cynic’s Guide to 7/7 Conspiracy Theories (though I wonder if you guys care about that - it wasn’t in America so it’s not important, is it?) Paul W - Leave these fuckers to their circle jerk; if y