William Rodriguez Vindicated by Newly Released 9/11 Commission Notes

[Galileo]

William Rodriguez Vindicated by Newly Released 9/11 Commission Notes

Submitted by Reprehensor on Sun, 02/22/2009 - 9:32am.

William Rodriguez

For several years now, self-styled "debunkers" have been claiming that William Rodriguez has been lying about the testimony he gave to the 9/11 Commission in 2004. For example, on Mark Roberts' website, Roberts mocks Rodriguez;

"January, 2009: As promised, many of the 9/11 Commission investigation records have been made public. There is a wealth of material online, with more to come. I'm sure William Rodriguez will want to get the copies of the notes made by two investigators who interviewed him, to prove his claim that his story hasn't changed from the start and that the Commission attempted to cover it up. (Don't hold your breath for Rodriguez to publish those notes.)"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v491/reprehensor/911/roberts-lies.jpg



Not only have Mr. Rodriguez's basic claims remained unchanged, the cover-up continues; his actual testimony remains "restricted". One can only imagine why that would be. The wiser JREFers who have been holding their collective breath may now exhale, as Mr. Rodriguez has supplied us with copies of the 9/11 Commission Investigator notes in PDF form, which read in part;

"Rodriguez said on September 11, 2001 he reported late to work which was unusual for him. He said he was in the B1 sublevel ABM office speaking to Anthony Saltamachia when the plane struck the North Tower (WTC 1). He immediately thought the explosion was caused by a generator. Shortly after the first explosion a second explosion rocked the building and caused the office's false ceiling to collapse. Following these explosions Felipe David, who was severely burned, ran into the office. Rodriguez said there was a third explosion and he believed then the explosions were caused by an earthquake."

Clearly, Rodriguez was indeed talking about "explosions" from the very start.

Download investigator notes here:



Typed notes.



Handwritten original.



http://www.911blogger.com/node/19439

[ChumpDumper]

So 9/11 was caused by an earthquake.

Mystery solved.

[Galileo]

So 9/11 was caused by an earthquake.

Mystery solved.

Wow!! You're an intelligent debunker! From now on, we'll all call you Chumper Debunker.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I realize that people love a good conspiracy and looking under corners is good in the long run but assuming something is true becuase it hasn't been disproven yet is stupid.

[Professor Lilloman]

All this time Chump and his head in the sand followers have been saying where is the proof of our crazy conspiracies and finally when something new pops up, they begin to mock that also?

That is further proof Chump is not about the truth but about taking the other side just for the sake of a good argument.

[doobs]

Let's see . . . a janitor with show business aspirations . . . or the entire respectable scientific community . . . hmmm

[Galileo]

The fact is, all the witnesses in the subbasement, at least 4 others, all testified that the first explosion came from below them before the second explosion from above.

If you are a crime investigator or arson investigator, that is clearly strong enough evidence to prove in court that such a thing happened.

The reality, is that the 9/11 Commission was not looking for the truth. They already decided what the "truth" was before they started the investigation.

It should also be pointed out that eyewitness testimony is not a "theory" or a "conspiracy theory". The people who heard the explosions are direct witnesses, no theory needed.

[Steve Perry]

Lets see....an alcoholic draft dodger (Bush)....or the entire UN...hmmm

[doobs]

Lets see....an alcoholic draft dodger (Bush)....or the entire UN...hmmm

Hold on to that feeling.

[wannabe Moderator]

Let's see . . . a janitor with show business aspirations . . . or the entire respectable scientific community . . . hmmm



http://www.khanya.co.za/blogs/images/head_in_sand.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

How many times must we go through this?

Explosions, and explosive sounds are not necessarily created by explosives!

[doobs]

How many times must we go through this?

Explosions, and explosive sounds are not necessarily created by explosives!

We need to get out heads out of the sand, man.

[Alex Jones]

How many times must we go through this?

Explosions, and explosive sounds are not necessarily created by explosives!


Like we want to hear what a wannabe stalker has to say.


http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117205

[Alex Jones]

We need to get out heads out of the sand, man.

In your case remove it from your ass first then we can talk sand.

[Galileo]

How many times must we go through this?

Explosions, and explosive sounds are not necessarily created by explosives!

Why was there a powerful explosion in the sub-basement, below Rodriguez and others, before the plane impacted the WTC?

[Blake]

Wow!! You're an intelligent debunker! From now on, we'll all call you Chumper Debunker.

ohhh....I see what you did there....

that gonged worse than galfaileo

[Galileo]

ohhh....I see what you did there....

that gonged worse than galfaileo

How zabout Chunker Debumper?

[Blake]

All this time Chump and his head in the sand followers have been saying where is the proof of our crazy conspiracies and finally when something new pops up, they begin to mock that also?

That is further proof Chump is not about the truth but about taking the other side just for the sake of a good argument.

it's not something new that popped up.

It's the same old truther method of using someone saying "I heard an explosion" as being proof of detonation.

[Blake]

How zabout Chunker Debumper?

ohhh......I see what you did there too.....

gong

[Galileo]

it's not something new that popped up.

It's the same old truther method of using someone saying "I heard an explosion" as being proof of detonation.

It is evidence of a detonation.

You use the old archie debunker trick, confusing proof with evidence.

[Blake]

The fact is, all the witnesses in the subbasement, at least 4 others, all testified that the first explosion came from below them before the second explosion from above.

If you are a crime investigator or arson investigator, that is clearly strong enough evidence to prove in court that such a thing happened.

In court? Not even close. Why do you think they haven't been in court?


The reality, is that the 9/11 Commission was not looking for the truth. They already decided what the "truth" was before they started the investigation.

It should also be pointed out that eyewitness testimony is not a "theory" or a "conspiracy theory". The people who heard the explosions are direct witnesses, no theory needed.

Yet there is no proof of detonation wiring or explosives.

I've got a question for you.....are all of the WTC wired to detonate or just WTC 1, (2?) and 7?

and why WTC 7?

[Blake]

It is evidence of a detonation.

You use the old archie debunker trick, confusing proof with evidence.

it is not strong evidence on it's own.

It would only be nice supporting evidence if comibined with something else such as an actual detonation device

[doobs]

It is evidence of a detonation.

You use the old archie debunker trick, confusing proof with evidence.

Go to any 9/11 thread in the Political Forum of Spurs Talk. I'm saying it's proof that you're an idiot, but there's definitely evidence of it.

[DarrinS]

For the clinically brain dead, here's what a controlled demolition looks and sounds like.


79sJ1bMR6VQ

[Galileo]

it is not strong evidence on it's own.

It would only be nice supporting evidence if comibined with something else such as an actual detonation device

what other noises do explosives make, besides explosions?

[DarrinS]

what other noises do explosives make, besides explosions?


What's the big deal if people heard explosions?


What they didn't hear, was explosives used by demolitionists.

[Blake]

what other noises do explosives make, besides explosions?

sheez.

[ChumpDumper]

Truth is Willie didn't know what he was hearing when he heard it - that's precisely what his testimony shows - so there is no way to confirm what each noise actually was.

It simply makes no logical sense to set off incendiary devices in the basement that no one can see and cause the exact same damage as vaporized jet fuel at the exact same time your alleged partners in crime slam an airplane filled with actual jet fuel into the same building 80 floors above.

Give me a narrative that makes sense -- tell me what you think really happened on 9/11.

[doobs]

Truth is Willie didn't know what he was hearing when he heard it - that's precisely what his testimony shows - so there is no way to confirm what each noise actually was.

It simply makes no logical sense to set off incendiary devices in the basement that no one can see and cause the exact same damage as vaporized jet fuel at the exact same time your alleged partners in crime slam an airplane filled with actual jet fuel into the same building 80 floors above.

Give me a narrative that makes sense -- tell me what you think really happened on 9/11.

Nice try!

http://www.khanya.co.za/blogs/images/head_in_sand.jpg

[Galileo]

What's the big deal if people heard explosions?


What they didn't hear, was explosives used by demolitionists.

What's your proof? What did cause those explosions?

[Galileo]

Truth is Willie didn't know what he was hearing when he heard it - that's precisely what his testimony shows - so there is no way to confirm what each noise actually was.

It simply makes no logical sense to set off incendiary devices in the basement that no one can see and cause the exact same damage as vaporized jet fuel at the exact same time your alleged partners in crime slam an airplane filled with actual jet fuel into the same building 80 floors above.

Give me a narrative that makes sense -- tell me what you think really happened on 9/11.

so when Willie and the others first heard the explosion below them, they were supposed to immediately determine that a demolition had gone off?

Are you aware that eyewitnesses are just supposed to tell what they heard, saw, or felt in regards to evidence?

[ChumpDumper]

so when Willie and the others first heard the explosion below them, they were supposed to immediately determine that a demolition had gone off?They are supposed to know now?


Are you aware that eyewitnesses are just supposed to tell what they heard, saw, or felt in regards to evidence?Yes, that's why Willie's saying that 9/11 is an inside job is ridiculous. He heard explosions and didn't know what they were. That's all.

[Blake]

What's your proof? What did cause those explosions?

you're the one accusing someone of demolition. What is your proof?

oh yeah.........earwitnesses.

attorney: "so let me get this straight, you heard a duck quack"

witness: "yes"

attorney: "good enough......no further questions Your Honor"

Jury: "we find there to be sufficient evidence of a duck, your honor, and rule in favor of duck conspiracists."

[Blake]

so when Willie and the others first heard the explosion below them, they were supposed to immediately determine that a demolition had gone off?

Are you aware that eyewitnesses are just supposed to tell what they heard, saw, or felt in regards to evidence?

so eyewitness reports of explosions automatically equals controlled deomlition in your book?

Are you mental?

[Galileo]

so eyewitness reports of explosions automatically equals controlled deomlition in your book?

Are you mental?

Why would an explosion go off in the basement, just before the plane hit? Why would this info be covered up? That is guilty demeanor, a well established legal principle.

[Galileo]

you're the one accusing someone of demolition. What is your proof?

oh yeah.........earwitnesses.

attorney: "so let me get this straight, you heard a duck quack"

witness: "yes"

attorney: "good enough......no further questions Your Honor"

Jury: "we find there to be sufficient evidence of a duck, your honor, and rule in favor of duck conspiracists."

are you a lawyer? How do you know that the demolition was illegal? Maybe a terrorist was hiding down there with a bomb, and it went off when a good samaritan tried to stop it.

[Galileo]

They are supposed to know now?

Yes, that's why Willie's saying that 9/11 is an inside job is ridiculous. He heard explosions and didn't know what they were. That's all.

He knows now why they were there. Back in 2004, he didn't know. He speculated that maybe bin Laden put the bombs down there.

[ChumpDumper]

Why would an explosion go off in the basement, just before the plane hit? Why would this info be covered up? That is guilty demeanor, a well established legal principle.How could it be proven that someone in the sub-basement could hear the impact explosion 80 floors up?

[ChumpDumper]

He knows now why they were there. Back in 2004, he didn't know.How does he know now? What changed? You are saying he can only go by what he witnessed. In that case, he still doesn't know.
He speculated that maybe bin Laden put the bombs down there.No, he filed a lawsuit against the Bush administration claiming they did it.

[Galileo]

How could it be proven that someone in the sub-basement could hear the impact explosion 80 floors up?

The explosion made part of the roof collapse. You are talking in circles.

[ChumpDumper]

The explosion made part of the roof collapse.What roof? The fake roof of the office? An explosion caused that. There is no way to prove it was the plane impact explosion.
You are talking in circles.No. You just don't understand logical thought.

[Galileo]

What roof? The fake roof of the office? An explosion caused that. There is no way to prove it was the plane impact explosion.No. You just don't understand logical thought.

Why would there be any explosions at all in the sub-basements, if the plane hit on the 95th floor.

There are dozens of witnesses who heard these explosions, and many who were injured by them (physical evidence).

[Professor Lilloman]

it's not something new that popped up.

It's the same old truther method of using someone saying "I heard an explosion" as being proof of detonation.


Well I saw in the tittle "William Rodriguez Vindicated by Newly Released 9/11 Commission Notes.

[Alex Jones]

For the clinically brain dead, here's what a controlled demolition looks and sounds like.


79sJ1bMR6VQ


How can you compare a regular demolition to one that is trying to be concealed, are you really that naive or are you just acting this way for our enjoyment?

[ChumpDumper]

Why would there be any explosions at all in the sub-basements, if the plane hit on the 95th floor.For someone who claims to be Galileo, you sure don't know much about gravity.
There are dozens of witnesses who heard these explosions, and many who were injured by them (physical evidence).There is no doubt that explosions occurred, you just missed the most obvious cause of the explosions because you are completely biased towards arguing for a controlled demolition that took place over an hour after the explosions that you say caused the demolition.

[Alex Jones]

If Chump had some what of an open mind like RandomLie he would be worth the effort of a serious debate. But you could have 1 million eyewitnesses with video tapes of the basement exploding and he will say that is not enough proof.


But then again you guys have to deal with him 24/7 so I am not telling you anything you don't already know.

[ChumpDumper]

How can you compare a regular demolition to one that is trying to be concealed, are you really that naive or are you just acting this way for our enjoyment?How was it concealed?


Who planted these phantom charges?

How did they get the charges to act exactly like jet fuel and burning debris falling down elevator and service shafts at the exact same time jet fuel and burning debris was falling down elevator and service shafts?

Why go through the trouble of planting phantom charges that act exactly like jet fuel and burning debris falling down elevator and service shafts and detonate them at the exact same time jet fuel and burning debris was falling down elevator and service shafts?

Please be specific.

[ChumpDumper]

If Chump had some what of an open mind like RandomLie he would be worth the effort of a serious debate. But you could have 1 million eyewitnesses with video tapes of the basement exploding and he will say that is not enough proof.


But then again you guys have to deal with him 24/7 so I am not telling you anything you don't already know.Maybe if you actually had the balls to post what you think really happened on 9/11 using one screen name, people might respect you more.

[The Power Hour.]

When Chump can explain why sulfur residue was found on the WTC steel beams then i might chime in on this one sided debate.


http://www.piratenews.org/thermite-thermate-wtc-steel400.jpg

9J8ojEWlkrs

[Alex Jones]

Maybe if you actually had the balls to post what you think really happened on 9/11 using one screen name, people might respect you more.

What name do you recommend? Pardon me does your birth certificate say ChumpDumper? Don't lecture others on screen names that's just another spin you use to avoid the truth. I don't need respect I only seek the truth, only those who live a lie have the burden or need to seek respect from others so they may legitimize there existence on earth.

[Obstructed_View]

what other noises do explosives make, besides explosions?

What exactly constitutes an explosion? What you simple-mindedly refer to as an "explosive" is only one of many things that can cause an explosion, and many more things can create an explosive sound. If a plane hits the side of a building, that's an explosion. If the fire blows the doors off the elevators at the bottom floor of the building, that's an explosion, if load bearing members suddenly fail, that's an explosion. If tempered glass windows are stressed to the breaking point, they explode. An overloaded generator can explode, as can anything with any potential energy in it, whether it's chemical, mechanical, electrical, or gravitational.

By the way, isn't this guy's testimony about the time the building was hit by the plane and NOT when the building collapsed? Why would they be setting off demolition explosives an hour beforehand?

[Professor Lilloman]

I think I finally figured out ChumpStumper, he will ask you a barrage of questions that are hard to answer and if you get any wrong he is automatically right.

Here is an example of questions any fool can ask and may be hard to answer.


What is oxygen, why can't we see it? If there was a Jesus then how come he doesn't have a face book?

How do you know the sun is real have you ever been there?

What is so great about the great wall of china?
how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop?

[Obstructed_View]

http://www.piratenews.org/thermite-thermate-wtc-steel400.jpg

When was that picture taken? Since you guys would rather change the subject than deal with the holes in your theories, let's just keep whacking whatever mole you decide to pop up.

[ChumpDumper]

When Chump can explain why sulfur residue was found on the WTC steel beams then i might chime in on this one sided debate.


http://www.piratenews.org/thermite-thermate-wtc-steel400.jpg

9J8ojEWlkrsThose were cuts made during cleanup.

This has been explained to you many times.

In very simple terms.

[ChumpDumper]

What name do you recommend?mouse.
Pardon me does your birth certificate say ChumpDumper?No.
Don't lecture others on screen names that's just another spin you use to avoid the truth. I don't need respect I only seek the truth, only those who live a lie have the burden or need to seek respect from others so they may legitimize there existence on earth.So tell us all what you think really happened on 9/11.

We're waiting for your truth.

[ChumpDumper]

I think I finally figured out ChumpStumper, he will ask you a barrage of questions that are hard to answer and if you get any wrong he is automatically right.

Here is an example of questions any fool can ask and may be hard to answer.


What is oxygen, why can't we see it? If there was a Jesus then how come he doesn't have a face book?

How do you know the sun is real have you ever been there?

What is so great about the great wall of china?
how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop?Here is my one question to you:

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

[Galileo]

What exactly constitutes an explosion? What you simple-mindedly refer to as an "explosive" is only one of many things that can cause an explosion, and many more things can create an explosive sound. If a plane hits the side of a building, that's an explosion. If the fire blows the doors off the elevators at the bottom floor of the building, that's an explosion, if load bearing members suddenly fail, that's an explosion. If tempered glass windows are stressed to the breaking point, they explode. An overloaded generator can explode, as can anything with any potential energy in it, whether it's chemical, mechanical, electrical, or gravitational.

By the way, isn't this guy's testimony about the time the building was hit by the plane and NOT when the building collapsed? Why would they be setting off demolition explosives an hour beforehand?

so now the plane flew into the sub-basement? Pathetic.

[ChumpDumper]

When was that picture taken? Since you guys would rather change the subject than deal with the holes in your theories, let's just keep whacking whatever mole you decide to pop up.
It's odd because he keeps bringing the same picture up over and over again, hoping we have forgotten his doing it or hoping we forgot the answers we have given him over and over and over again.

The proverbial definition of insanity.

[Galileo]

What exactly constitutes an explosion? What you simple-mindedly refer to as an "explosive" is only one of many things that can cause an explosion, and many more things can create an explosive sound. If a plane hits the side of a building, that's an explosion. If the fire blows the doors off the elevators at the bottom floor of the building, that's an explosion, if load bearing members suddenly fail, that's an explosion. If tempered glass windows are stressed to the breaking point, they explode. An overloaded generator can explode, as can anything with any potential energy in it, whether it's chemical, mechanical, electrical, or gravitational.

By the way, isn't this guy's testimony about the time the building was hit by the plane and NOT when the building collapsed? Why would they be setting off demolition explosives an hour beforehand?

to prime the building and scare the shit out of people. That's why they call it terror.

[Blake]

Why would an explosion go off in the basement, just before the plane hit? Why would this info be covered up? That is guilty demeanor, a well established legal principle.

so why isn't anyone in court?

[ChumpDumper]

to prime the building and scare the shit out of people. That's why they call it terror.The jumbo jet's flying into the building and exploding did that just fine on its own, thank you very much.

No planted basement explosives necessary.

[ChumpDumper]

so why isn't anyone in court?They were.

Willie Rodriguez was, in fact, a plaintiff in a suit against the Bush administration.

He lost his case.

[Blake]

are you a lawyer? How do you know that the demolition was illegal? Maybe a terrorist was hiding down there with a bomb, and it went off when a good samaritan tried to stop it.

the demolition was neither legal or illegal because there wasn't a demolition.

Are you mental?

[mouse]

Those were cuts made during cleanup.

That is pure bullshit. until you at least admit your wrong on this one photo you don't deserve any of my precious debate time. That photo was hours after the collapes clean up was days later.
And why in the hell would someone craw through all that rubble to trim that one beam and then put all the rubble around it back? Your a joke Chump and your just upset the truth is beginning to surface and your going to look like the misguided fool you portray in this forum.






This has been explained to you many times.

In very simple terms.

Oh I get it when you present something its final, when we present something its wrong and needs to be corrected nice scam you got going on in here.

[Galileo]

The jumbo jet's flying into the building and exploding did that just fine on its own, thank you very much.

No planted basement explosives necessary.

The plane hit the 95th floor, yet the explosion was below Rodriguez, and was before the plane hit.

[mouse]

the demolition was neither legal or illegal because there wasn't a demolition.

Are you mental?

You don't know that for sure, if you did you would be on every talk show in America, so before you call someone out or use old 80s type insults at least do your homework.

[ChumpDumper]

The plane hit the 95th floor, yet the explosion was below Rodriguez, and was before the plane hit.There is no way of proving Rodriguez could tell when the plane hit, so he can't tell when an explosion happened in relation to the plane impact.

[Obstructed_View]

so now the plane flew into the sub-basement? Pathetic.

So you do exactly what you blame CD for doing? Classic.

Do you realize that there are elevator shafts that run up and down the building? When the planes hit the towers, the burning jet fuel traveled down the elevator shafts. That French camera crew that was in the tower showed that when they were in the lobby.

It's really not your fault that you have to reduce something so complex into simple slices in order to attempt to comprehend it, hence the term "simple minded. What's unforgivable is your stubborn refusal to even follow elementary logical concepts that might sway you from your hugely flawed position.

[Obstructed_View]

to prime the building and scare the shit out of people. That's why they call it terror.

So hijacking a plane full of people and flying it into a building at 550 miles per hour isn't terrifying enough for you? How exactly does packing a little bit of TNT in the basement scare anyone worse than that? The people in that building had seen that before; considering the reaction from the first plane crash in relation to the second an explosion in the basement wouldn't have phased them a bit.

[mouse]

So you do exactly what you blame CD for doing? Classic.

Do you realize that there are elevator shafts that run up and down the building? When the planes hit the towers, the burning jet fuel traveled down the elevator shafts. That French camera crew that was in the tower showed that when they were in the lobby.


And it didn't stop there is traveled down the basement through the sewers and made its way to WTC7 where it weakened the steel beams and caused another collapse.

This place is turning into romper room on mountain dew im out.............

[Blake]

Well I saw in the tittle "William Rodriguez Vindicated by Newly Released 9/11 Commission Notes.

great. So William Rodriguez is not lying in saying that he heard explosions.

How does that equal controlled demolition being an absolute certainty?

[ChumpDumper]

How exactly does packing a little bit of TNT in the basement scare anyone worse than that?It wasn't TNT -- it was an incendiary device that acted just like vaporized jet fuel. Remember, the victims Willie helped were burned -- explosives that would actually weaken the structure of the towers would have blown them all apart.

[ChumpDumper]

And it didn't stop there is traveled down the basement through the sewers and made its way to WTC7 where it weakened the steel beams and caused another collapse.

This place is turning into romper room on mountain dew im out.............Why don't you just tell us what you think really happened on 9/11?

[Blake]

How can you compare a regular demolition to one that is trying to be concealed, are you really that naive or are you just acting this way for our enjoyment?

why would they try to conceal it?

[Galileo]

So you do exactly what you blame CD for doing? Classic.

Do you realize that there are elevator shafts that run up and down the building? When the planes hit the towers, the burning jet fuel traveled down the elevator shafts. That French camera crew that was in the tower showed that when they were in the lobby.

It's really not your fault that you have to reduce something so complex into simple slices in order to attempt to comprehend it, hence the term "simple minded. What's unforgivable is your stubborn refusal to even follow elementary logical concepts that might sway you from your hugely flawed position.

What's your evidence.

[Blue Jew]

How about we stick Blake,Chump, and Obstructed (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1366)
_View in a basement full of C4 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1366) and then let them see for themselves?

[ChumpDumper]

What's your evidence.The existence of gravity.

[ChumpDumper]

How about we stick Blake,Chump, and Obstructed (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1366)
_View in a basement full of C4 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1366) and then let them see for themselves?How about you tell us what you think really happened on 9/11?

[The Power Hour.]

why would they try to conceal it?

Why would the 9/11 commission not talk about WTC7 collapsing?

we can do these little word games all day long, at the end you guys will come out looking like fools.

[Blake]

What is oxygen, why can't we see it?

you can't see it because you don't have the physical capability.


If there was a Jesus then how come he doesn't have a face book?

so he won't have to read through 100 different mouse aliases asking Him to be a friend. Since He's omniscient, He knows better.


How do you know the sun is real have you ever been there?

It's not real. What you see in the sky is a conspiracy.


What is so great about the great wall of china?

How do you know the great wall is real have you even been there?


how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop?

Now that's a hard one to answer. I always thought they were crappy and threw them away after I got home from trick or treating.

[Blake]

They were.

Willie Rodriguez was, in fact, a plaintiff in a suit against the Bush administration.

He lost his case.

and there you go.

[ChumpDumper]

Why would the 9/11 commission not talk about WTC7 collapsing?Because it wasn't an engineering report.


we can do these little word games all day long, at the end you guys will come out looking like fools.What do you think really happened on 9/11?

[Galileo]

There is no way of proving Rodriguez could tell when the plane hit, so he can't tell when an explosion happened in relation to the plane impact.

eyewitness testimony is used to prove thimgs in court all the time, frequently with only one witness.

Rodriguez is a national hero and deemed credible and he is corrobarated by several othr eyewitnesses.

[pickle girl]

you can't see it because you don't have the physical capability.



so he won't have to read through 100 different mouse aliases asking Him to be a friend. Since He's omniscient, He knows better.



It's not real. What you see in the sky is a conspiracy.



How do you know the great wall is real have you even been there?



Now that's a hard one to answer. I always thought they were crappy and threw them away after I got home from trick or treating.


:lmao

[Blake]

That is pure bullshit. until you at least admit your wrong on this one photo you don't deserve any of my precious debate time. That photo was hours after the collapes clean up was days later.
And why in the hell would someone craw through all that rubble to trim that one beam and then put all the rubble around it back? Your a joke Chump and your just upset the truth is beginning to surface and your going to look like the misguided fool you portray in this forum.

:lol

[Galileo]

Because it wasn't an engineering report.

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

why mention the collapse of tower 2 then, if it's not an engineering report?

[ChumpDumper]

eyewitness testimony is used to prove thimgs in court all the time, frequently with only one witness.

Rodriguez is a national hero and deemed credible and he is corrobarated by several othr eyewitnesses.Yes, several people witnessed explosions in the basement. None can say with any certainty which one was the plane impact 100 floors up.

[ChumpDumper]

why mention the collapse of tower 2 then, if it's not an engineering report?Because it was deliberately hit with a plane and people died inside.

Why would anyone want to destroy building 7?

[doobs]

eyewitness testimony is used to prove thimgs in court all the time, frequently with only one witness.

Did he see the explosions? Did he see people putting explosives in the building, setting it up for a controlled demolition?


Rodriguez is a national hero and deemed credible and he is corrobarated by several othr eyewitnesses.

This is the kind of bulling "logic" that I hate about Truthers. Rodriguez is also an attention whore, a failed magician, a "national hero" who toots his own horn and files ridiculous lawsuits.

[Blake]

You don't know that for sure, if you did you would be on every talk show in America, so before you call someone out or use old 80s type insults at least do your homework.

I'm not trying to disprove a conspiracy.

You all are the ones posting daily 9/11 updates. It's on you to prove the conspiracy is real and you all are not doing a very groovy job of it.

[doobs]

Why would anyone want to destroy building 7?

Oh, you didn't know? It was Bush trying to save his friend, Ken Lay.

[Alex Jones]

Why 9/11 debates go in circles in this forum....................


Truth seeker: How come WTC7 collapsed?

Chump and his inbred crew: Gravity


Chump and his inbred crew:what really happened on 9/11?


Truth seeker: long examples, many links, and youtube videos

Chump and his inbred crew: your wrong.

Chump and his inbred crew: that picture is fake.

Chump and his inbred crew: that man is lying.

Chump and his inbred crew: what really happened on 9/11?


Truth seeker: long post, more links, more pictures, more videos

Chump and his inbred crew: your wrong!

Chump and his inbred crew:what really happened on 9/11?


Repeat all of the above and you get the picture.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh, you didn't know? It was Bush trying to save his friend, Ken Lay.Yeah, I love that conspiracy. If it was so easy to plant a few hundred pounds of explosives without being detected, why didn't they just use those same abilities to just break into the offices and just take the documents they needed?

[Blake]

How about we stick Blake,Chump, and Obstructed (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1366)
_View in a basement full of C4 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1366) and then let them see for themselves?

I have no doubt I will die in that scenario. I probably won't get out alive like Willie did.

[ChumpDumper]

Why 9/11 debates go in circles in this forum....................


Truth seeker: How come WTC7 collapsed?

Chump and his inbred crew: Gravity


Chump and his inbred crew:what really happened on 9/11?


Truth seeker: long examples, many links, and youtube videos

Chump and his inbred crew: your wrong.

Chump and his inbred crew: that picture is fake.

Chump and his inbred crew: that man is lying.

Chump and his inbred crew: what really happened on 9/11?


Truth seeker: long post, more links, more pictures, more videos

Chump and his inbred crew: your wrong!

Chump and his inbred crew:what really happened on 9/11?


Repeat all of the above and you get the picture.Me: What do you think really happened on 9/11?

mouse, galileo, dan, et.al.:

[Obstructed_View]

And it didn't stop there is traveled down the basement through the sewers and made its way to WTC7 where it weakened the steel beams and caused another collapse.

This place is turning into romper room on mountain dew im out.............

You've spent such a huge percentage of your sad life on this board talking out of your ass, and I shouldn't even bother knocking down what you keep setting up, but you're in rare form today.

Are really so stupid that you can't comprehend that big hollow tubes running from the top of a building to the bottom will a)carry oxygen up to feed a giant explosion or b) act as a release valve to carry the rapidly expanding gasses out? You know as much about physics as you do about guitars, which is basically zero.

You're a fool. You've always been a fool, and you've certainly never been man enough to admit when you're wrong, though I'm sure you recognize that you often are.

[Blake]

Why would the 9/11 commission not talk about WTC7 collapsing?

we can do these little word games all day long, at the end you guys will come out looking like fools.

huh? What word games?

How many times has WTC7 been explained?

Why would anyone want/need WTC7 to come down?

[Obstructed_View]

How about we stick Blake,Chump, and Obstructed (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1366)
_View in a basement full of C4 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1366) and then let them see for themselves?

How about you look up the '93 WTC bombing and get a little info, Mouse? You don't actually think you're clever, do you? Nobody else does.

[Blake]

Why 9/11 debates go in circles in this forum....................


Truth seeker: How come WTC7 collapsed?

Chump and his inbred crew: Gravity


Chump and his inbred crew:what really happened on 9/11?


Truth seeker: long examples, many links, and youtube videos

Chump and his inbred crew: your wrong.

Chump and his inbred crew: that picture is fake.

Chump and his inbred crew: that man is lying.

Chump and his inbred crew: what really happened on 9/11?


Truth seeker: long post, more links, more pictures, more videos

Chump and his inbred crew: your wrong!

Chump and his inbred crew:what really happened on 9/11?


Repeat all of the above and you get the picture.

I must have missed the long post with the summarization of what really happened and who was behind it.

Please repost. Thanks.

[Galileo]

Because it was deliberately hit with a plane and people died inside.

Why would anyone want to destroy building 7?

why would evil people need a reason?

[Galileo]

Did he see the explosions? Did he see people putting explosives in the building, setting it up for a controlled demolition?



This is the kind of bulling "logic" that I hate about Truthers. Rodriguez is also an attention whore, a failed magician, a "national hero" who toots his own horn and files ridiculous lawsuits.

You're scum. You hate America.

[ChumpDumper]

why would evil people need a reason?Because it's a lot of trouble to go through, and evil people have budgets and payrolls too.

[Galileo]

Did he see the explosions? Did he see people putting explosives in the building, setting it up for a controlled demolition?



This is the kind of bulling "logic" that I hate about Truthers. Rodriguez is also an attention whore, a failed magician, a "national hero" who toots his own horn and files ridiculous lawsuits.

did you see anyone putting bombs in the Seattle Kingdome?

[Obstructed_View]

did you see anyone putting bombs in the Seattle Kingdome?

That's it! You've found the smoking gun! Success at last. Congratulations on crackin' the case. :tu

[Galileo]

huh? What word games?

How many times has WTC7 been explained?

Why would anyone want/need WTC7 to come down?

WTC 7 was loaded with explosives. FL93 was supposed to ram into it, but never made it.

Why would you leave a giant building sittting there loaded with explosives? Wouldn't someone find them eventually?

[doobs]

did you see anyone putting bombs in the Seattle Kingdome?

Who's saying that wasn't a controlled demolition?

Try again.

[ChumpDumper]

did you see anyone putting bombs in the Seattle Kingdome?That is very well documented. we actually have people who admit to planting those charges as well as hundreds of witnesses.

[Blake]

why would evil people need a reason?

that's an awful lot of trouble to go through just to do it for the hell of it....

and saying "evil people" suggests they did it for a an "evil motive."

Is Silverstein behind it when he says "pull it"? Is he just crazy or evil?

If he's evil, what's his motive?

[Stacie]

huh? What word games?

How many times has WTC7 been explained?

Why would anyone want/need WTC7 to come down?

Why don't you and your brain dead pals stop asking so many questions and start answering a few?

[Galileo]

Who's saying that wasn't a controlled demolition?

Try again.

You are saying it. You claim that if no one sees someone planting the bombs, then it's not a controlled demolition.

[Galileo]

That is very well documented. we actually have people who admit to planting those charges as well as hundreds of witnesses.

9/11 is also well documented.

[Blake]

WTC 7 was loaded with explosives. FL93 was supposed to ram into it, but never made it.

Proof?


Why would you leave a giant building sittting there loaded with explosives? Wouldn't someone find them eventually?

Wouldn't someone find evidence of detonation eventually?

Who put the explosives there? How did they get there unnoticed?

What crazy person would go after WTC 7?

[The Power Hour.]

After all we know jet fuel can melt steel and stay burning weeks later.......


vmMLDG87Sak

[Blake]

9/11 is also well documented.

:lol

"prisonplanet is a great internet site for all of your conspiracy needs.

Need a quick quote from some obscure worker about the explosions he heard? No problem.

Looking for shady video testimony from Silverstein? We have it here.

Researching the Bush family involvement in the towers coming down? It is all right here."

[Blake]

You are saying it. You claim that if no one sees someone planting the bombs, then it's not a controlled demolition.

You are dense.

[Blake]

Why don't you and your brain dead pals stop asking so many questions and start answering a few?

Well "stacie",

the few that have been answered, you and your "pals" don't seem to like the answers.

Why are you so afraid to give your summarization as to what exactly happened......who did it, how did they do it, and why did they do it.

Names would be fine for who did it. 1-2 sentences for how they did it and 1-2 sentences for why.

It's not like you are being asked to explain oxygen molecules even though you are acting like it.

[Blake]

After all we know jet fuel can melt steel and stay burning weeks later.......



This has been answered but you don't like the answer.

Now how about you tell us what happened?

[Galileo]

The magic jet fuel.

Creates a giant fireball outside.

Starts a massive fire at the top.

Goes 1000 feet down to start explosions in the basement.

Takes down WTC 7.

[Galileo]

Proof?



Wouldn't someone find evidence of detonation eventually?

Who put the explosives there? How did they get there unnoticed?

What crazy person would go after WTC 7?

Wouldn't someone find at least one piece of steel from WTC 7 eventually?

[Obstructed_View]

WTC 7 was loaded with explosives. FL93 was supposed to ram into it, but never made it.

Why would you leave a giant building sittting there loaded with explosives? Wouldn't someone find them eventually?

If it was loaded with explosives, why did they bring down the building via controlled demolition? Wouldn't it be enough to just let the explosives go off?

[Galileo]

If it was loaded with explosives, why did they bring down the building via controlled demolition? Wouldn't it be enough to just let the explosives go off?

No. The federal Post office was next door, they did not want to damage it.

[DarrinS]

How much pot does your average twoofer smoke?

By the posts in this thead, I'd say quite a bit.

[Obstructed_View]

No. The federal Post office was next door, they did not want to damage it.

So Bush wanted to kill three thousand American civilians, destroy several billion dollars of property, cripple the economy and the airline industry, but wanted to make sure the post office was safe? You actually have an easier time believing that than that building 7 was damaged by debris from the collapsing buildings across the street from it? :lol

[Galileo]

So Bush wanted to kill three thousand American civilians, destroy several billion dollars of property, cripple the economy and the airline industry, but wanted to make sure the post office was safe? You actually have an easier time believing that than that building 7 was damaged by debris from the collapsing buildings across the street from it? :lol

That's the priorities of an evil person. I find it hard to understand, too.

[DarrinS]

I know these "black ops" guys are super smart and everything, but, if I were to stage a fake terrorist attack, why would I bother with hijacked planes?


Wasn't the WTC actually BOMBED in 1993? Why not just plant bombs all over the place in towers 1 and 2? And why bother with rinky-dink WTC7 when you've just destroyed WTC1 and 2?


Why weren't other small buildings in the area also "pulled"?


It just doesn't make any sense. But then again, all of this shit is so far fetched it makes the OJ frame job seem plausible by comparison.

[Galileo]

The 9/11 attacks were also set up, as to not harm any historical sites.

[mouse]

How much pot does your average twoofer smoke?

By the posts in this thead, I'd say quite a bit.

So people who smoke pot can never amount to anything?


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZZ-CqtHjAnk/SKwa6Tuo5RI/AAAAAAABLRE/BrY8PZvjA1k/s400/MICHAEL+PHELPS.jpg

Funny your avatar is one of the biggest weed smokers around.

[Obstructed_View]

It just doesn't make any sense. But then again, all of this shit is so far fetched it makes the OJ frame job seem plausible by comparison.

OJ's easy to explain: The cops tried to frame a guilty guy and contaminated all the evidence. The two sides of the argument are not mutually exclusive, but that's not the only difference. Neither side of the OJ argument is completely insane.

[ChumpDumper]

9/11 is also well documented.Quite right -- and there is no evidence of planted explosives or controlled demolition whatsoever.

[Obstructed_View]

The 9/11 attacks were also set up, as to not harm any historical sites.

Then they fucked up, because the Pentagon got hit.

[Galileo]

I know these "black ops" guys are super smart and everything, but, if I were to stage a fake terrorist attack, why would I bother with hijacked planes?


Wasn't the WTC actually BOMBED in 1993? Why not just plant bombs all over the place in towers 1 and 2? And why bother with rinky-dink WTC7 when you've just destroyed WTC1 and 2?


Why weren't other small buildings in the area also "pulled"?


It just doesn't make any sense. But then again, all of this shit is so far fetched it makes the OJ frame job seem plausible by comparison.

The 9/11 attacks were set up to mimick a feature length thriller film.

Each significant event was spaced out by about 15 to 20 minutes, the length of time between TV commercials and to permit bathroom breaks.

This gripping thriller lasted about as long a typical motion picture, building suspense:

1st tower hit

2nd tower hit

Pentagon hit

2nd tower comes down

1st tower comes down.

WTC 7 was also supposed to be hit, too, to fill the gap after the between the South tower and the Pentagon.

WTC 7 was supposed to come down after the North tower came down.

Due to FL93 getting stuck in the runway for 43 minutes, this part had to be scrapped and they shot it down.

They blew up WTC 7 just before dusk, so you could not see the charges very well.

All the world's a stage.

[ChumpDumper]

Wouldn't someone find at least one piece of steel from WTC 7 eventually?They did.


No. The federal Post office was next door, they did not want to damage it.Why not?


That's the priorities of an evil person. I find it hard to understand, too.You made the claim, now back it up.


The 9/11 attacks were also set up, as to not harm any historical sites.The Pentagon is a pretty historical site. You could say it was also set up not to harm you personally, so therefore you are behind the 9/11 plot.

[DarrinS]

The 9/11 attacks were set up to mimick a feature length thriller film.

Each significant event was spaced out by about 15 to 20 minutes, the length of time between TV commercials and to permit bathroom breaks.




STOP. STOP. MY RIBS. :lmao


If it was supposed to mimic a "thriller", then WTC7 was quite the dud.

[ChumpDumper]

The 9/11 attacks were set up to mimick a feature length thriller film.

Each significant event was spaced out by about 15 to 20 minutes, the length of time between TV commercials and to permit bathroom breaks.

This gripping thriller lasted about as long a typical motion picture, building suspense:

1st tower hit

2nd tower hit

Pentagon hit

2nd tower comes down

1st tower comes down.

WTC 7 was also supposed to be hit, too, to fill the gap after the between the South tower and the Pentagon.

WTC 7 was supposed to come down after the North tower came down.

Due to FL93 getting stuck in the runway for 43 minutes, this part had to be scrapped and they shot it down.

They blew up WTC 7 just before dusk, so you could not see the charges very well.

All the world's a stage.Who is they and why would they do this?

Why would they do anything to WTC7?

No one knew anything about that building before 9/11.

[Galileo]

OJ's easy to explain: The cops tried to frame a guilty guy and contaminated all the evidence. The two sides of the argument are not mutually exclusive, but that's not the only difference. Neither side of the OJ argument is completely insane.

OJ Simpson was innocent as the jury determined. You are a conspiracy theorist. The real killer was Jason Simpson.

[DarrinS]

10:05 a.m. WTC south tower collapses
10:28 a.m. WTC north tower collapses


<7 hours later>

5:20 p.m. Insignificant WTC7 collapses


Doesn't this go against your theory of "thriller" movie, Galileo?

[Blake]

The magic jet fuel.

Creates a giant fireball outside.

Starts a massive fire at the top.

Goes 1000 feet down to start explosions in the basement.

Takes down WTC 7.

Jet fuel didn't take down WTC 7. Debris from the north tower that caught on fire did.

[ChumpDumper]

10:05 a.m. WTC south tower collapses
10:28 a.m. WTC north tower collapses


<7 hours later>

5:20 p.m. Insignificant WTC7 collapses


Doesn't this go against your theory of "thriller" movie, Galileo?Yeah, that's more like Berlin Alexanderplatz.

[Galileo]

OJ's easy to explain: The cops tried to frame a guilty guy and contaminated all the evidence. The two sides of the argument are not mutually exclusive, but that's not the only difference. Neither side of the OJ argument is completely insane.

OJ didn't do it. He had no motive, as the jury told the press in post-trial interviews. Just because someone got into a squabble with their ex-wife 6 years ago is not a real motive. OJ had plenty of women.

The timeline didn't make rational sense, ruling out OJ as the killer. During the first two days of the trial, F. Lee Baily destroyed the testimony of Tom Lange and van Atter, showing the government theory to be false.

Ron Goldman was a drug snitch in the witness protection program, and was a big time drug dealer. Jason Simpson was a small time dealer and Nicole was a coke slut. Jason went to kill Goldman and Nicole got caught in the crossfire.

That's why they never found the murder weapon, Jason got it from the kitchen where he worked, and was never questioned by police.

On the day after the murders, OJ hired a lawyer for Jason, but not for himself.

If OJ did it, he would have had blood all over him.

www.theoverlookedsuspect.com

Do not question the jury verdict until you have examined all the evidence that the jury has already analyzed.

[Galileo]

Jet fuel didn't take down WTC 7. Debris from the north tower that caught on fire did.

why would WTC 7 catch on fire without jet fuel?

[Blake]

That's the priorities of an evil person. I find it hard to understand, too.

so throwing out crap and hoping some of it sticks must be the priority of a Galileo. I find him hard to understand, too.

[ChumpDumper]

why would WTC 7 catch on fire without jet fuel?A burning building fell on it.

[doobs]

The 9/11 attacks were set up to mimick a feature length thriller film.

Each significant event was spaced out by about 15 to 20 minutes, the length of time between TV commercials and to permit bathroom breaks.

This gripping thriller lasted about as long a typical motion picture, building suspense:

1st tower hit

2nd tower hit

Pentagon hit

2nd tower comes down

1st tower comes down.

WTC 7 was also supposed to be hit, too, to fill the gap after the between the South tower and the Pentagon.

WTC 7 was supposed to come down after the North tower came down.

Due to FL93 getting stuck in the runway for 43 minutes, this part had to be scrapped and they shot it down.

They blew up WTC 7 just before dusk, so you could not see the charges very well.

All the world's a stage.

Flight 93 was going to DC, not New York. Do you really think WTC 7 was a more important--more "thrilling"---target than the Capitol or the White House? I want to know. Please answer.

By the way, I love your use of the passive voice and the sinister "they."

[Galileo]

Then they fucked up, because the Pentagon got hit.

They caused no damage that threatened the historical value of the Pentagon. They hit a part that was already under renovation and had reinforced walls to further reduce the damage.

The Pentagon isn't very old either. It takes 100 years to make an antique.

[Blake]

The 9/11 attacks were also set up, as to not harm any historical sites.

Who set them up?

[ChumpDumper]

They caused no damage that threatened the historical value of the Pentagon. They hit a part that was already under renovation and had reinforced walls to further reduce the damage.

The Pentagon isn't very old either. It takes 100 years to make an antique.The historical landmark St. Nicholas Church was 169 years old when it was destroyed by the collapse of the south tower on 9/11.

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/nich.184.jpg

Another theory fails.

[Galileo]

A burning building fell on it.

You really believe that, don't you? So it wasn't the thermal expansion?

[Galileo]

The historical landmark St. Nicholas Church was 169 years old when it was destroyed by the collapse of the south tower on 9/11.

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/nich.184.jpg

Another theory fails.

Most people have never heard of that. I'm talking about well-known landmarks like the Statue of Liberty, the Empire State Building, the Washington Monument, or the Whitehouse.

People would get vwery upset if those national reasure were damaged, not some old church.

[Blake]

OJ didn't do it. He had no motive, as the jury told the press in post-trial interviews. Just because someone got into a squabble with their ex-wife 6 years ago is not a real motive. OJ had plenty of women.

The timeline didn't make rational sense, ruling out OJ as the killer. During the first two days of the trial, F. Lee Baily destroyed the testimony of Tom Lange and van Atter, showing the government theory to be false.

Ron Goldman was a drug snitch in the witness protection program, and was a big time drug dealer. Jason Simpson was a small time dealer and Nicole was a coke slut. Jason went to kill Goldman and Nicole got caught in the crossfire.

That's why they never found the murder weapon, Jason got it from the kitchen where he worked, and was never questioned by police.

On the day after the murders, OJ hired a lawyer for Jason, but not for himself.

If OJ did it, he would have had blood all over him.

www.theoverlookedsuspect.com

Do not question the jury verdict until you have examined all the evidence that the jury has already analyzed.

right. which is exactly why OJ went on the bizarre ride in the Bronco.

Please save this for another thread and say who was behind the controlled demolition.

[ChumpDumper]

You really believe that, don't you?There is extensive video and eyewitness testimony to confirm this. Please explain how a burning building did not fall on WTC7.
So it wasn't the thermal expansion?The thermal expansion was caused by the fires which were caused by the burning building that fell on WTC7.

What part is difficult for you to comprehend?

[ChumpDumper]

Most people have never heard of that.Most people had never heard of building 7 either. Most people still haven't.


I'm talking about well-known landmarks like the Statue of Liberty, the Empire State Building, the Washington Monument, or the Whitehouse.The World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 were very well-known landmarks.


People would get vwery upset if those national reasure were damaged, not some old church.People got very upset on 9/11.

[Blake]

They caused no damage that threatened the historical value of the Pentagon. They hit a part that was already under renovation and had reinforced walls to further reduce the damage.

The Pentagon isn't very old either. It takes 100 years to make an antique.

So why did they even bother hitting the Pentagon? What if they missed and hit the nice side of the Pentagon?

[Blake]

Most people have never heard of that. I'm talking about well-known landmarks like the Statue of Liberty, the Empire State Building, the Washington Monument, or the Whitehouse.

People would get vwery upset if those national reasure were damaged, not some old church.

so why the Pentagon?

[Galileo]

Flight 93 was going to DC, not New York. Do you really think WTC 7 was a more important--more "thrilling"---target than the Capitol or the White House? I want to know. Please answer.

By the way, I love your use of the passive voice and the sinister "they."

FL93 was never going to DC. You just made that up. The flight path shows that it turned directly towards NYC just before it was shot down.

[Galileo]

Jet fuel didn't take down WTC 7. Debris from the north tower that caught on fire did.

WTC 7 had a water sprinkler system, and was made of steel and concrete. Steel and concrete do not burn you fool. And the building was built to fire code. Not likely much of a fire could get going there.

[Blake]

FL93 was never going to DC. You just made that up. The flight path shows that it turned directly towards NYC just before it was shot down.

You have got a nice story going.

How about you put it all together in one nice summation, including who did it, why and how.

[doobs]

FL93 was never going to DC. You just made that up. The flight path shows that it turned directly towards NYC just before it was shot down.

OK, then. I have two requests:

(1) Show me where flight 93 was headed. Don't just tell me it was going to NYC. Show me the path. I think you'll see it was heading for DC.

(2) Answer my previous question. Why WTC7? Why was that a more "thrilling" target than the Capitol or the White House?

[Winehole23]

eh, who cares?

you want to spend the rest of your life arguing about this?

[Blake]

WTC 7 had a water sprinkler system, and was made of steel and concrete. Steel and concrete do not burn you fool. And the building was built to fire code. Not likely much of a fire could get going there.

2nd time: burning debris from WTC 1 is what fell onto WTC 7.

and when you say "Steel and concrete do not burn you fool", do you mean that steel and concrete do not burn or that steel and concrete do not burn me fool?

[Galileo]

OK, then. I have two requests:

(1) Show me where flight 93 was headed. Don't just tell me it was going to NYC. Show me the path. I think you'll see it was heading for DC.

(2) Answer my previous question. Why WTC7? Why was that a more "thrilling" target than the Capitol or the White House?

Dude. How many times do I have to repeat myself. FL93 was supposed to fly into the WTC along with FL11 and FL175. But FL93 got stuck in the runway for 43 minutes, so it did not take off until much later than the other hijacked flights. By the time FL93 was hijacked, about 9:25, it was too late for it to get back to WTC 7, and make the story believable that it was not intercepted. The fact that FL77 was not intercepted by 9:38 is a stretch in itself, considering that people were calling from the planes reporting the hijackings by 8:20.

Think about it.

A plane flies into the WTC at 8:46. CNN can get a live camera there in two minutes, at 8:48, and all the other networks there by 8:51, but the military can't get plane to NYC until after 10 PM?

On top of that, CNN did not have advance warning that the planes were intercepted, they only knew anything after the plane hit the tower, while the authorities knew of the hijacking by 8:20.

So anyways, WTC 7 is sitting there loaded with explosives, so they blew it up before anyone found the explosives.

[doobs]

Dude. How many times do I have to repeat myself. FL93 was supposed to fly into the WTC along with FL11 and FL175. But FL93 got stuck in the runway for 43 minutes, so it did not take off until much later than the other hijacked flights. By the time FL93 was hijacked, about 9:25, it was too late for it to get back to WTC 7, and make the story believable that it was not intercepted. The fact that FL77 was not intercepted by 9:38 is a stretch in itself, considering that people were calling from the planes reporting the hijackings by 8:20.

Think about it.

A plane flies into the WTC at 8:46. CNN can get a live camera there in two minutes, at 8:48, and all the other networks there by 8:51, by the military can't get plane to NYC until after 10 PM?

On top of that, CNN did not have advance warning that the planes were intercepted, they only knew anything after the plane hit the tower, while the authorities knew of the hijacking by 8:20.

So anyways, WTC 7 is sitting there loaded with explosives, so they blew it up before anyone found the explosives.

Please. Stay on topic.


OK, then. I have two requests:

(1) Show me where flight 93 was headed. Don't just tell me it was going to NYC. Show me the path. I think you'll see it was heading for DC.

(2) Answer my previous question. Why WTC7? Why was that a more "thrilling" target than the Capitol or the White House?

[Obstructed_View]

OJ Simpson was innocent as the jury determined.

You're displaying the same knowledge of the criminal justice system as you have of most other issues. The tainted evidence against him as well as the motives of investigating officers created reasonable doubt. I know damn good and well he did it, and if I'd been on that jury I'd have voted to acquit because the state failed to meet their burden of proof. Being found not guilty is not the same thing as actually being innocent.



You are a conspiracy theorist. The real killer was Jason Simpson.
If you ever want to be taken seriously, you should read the above two sentences and find out where your mistake is.

[Galileo]

Please. Stay on topic.

flight 93 flight path
http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&q=flight+93+flight+path&btnG=Search+Images

[Obstructed_View]

So anyways, WTC 7 is sitting there loaded with explosives, so they blew it up before anyone found the explosives.

Why would that stupid little building be loaded with explosives again? If you think someone was going to be able to hit it with a plane then you've clearly never been to that area of Manhattan.

[Galileo]

http://www.isomerset.com/pics/flight93route.png

FL93 turns towards New York City, shot down, spirals out of control into the ground.

FL93 was shot in the air at 9:58, per the phone records.

[Obstructed_View]

flight 93 flight path
http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&q=flight+93+flight+path&btnG=Search+Images

It's clearly headed toward Washington DC. Isn't that the definition of self-ownership?

[Blue Jew]

eh, who cares?

you want to spend the rest of your life arguing about this?


You sound like a Nazi!

[Galileo]

It's clearly headed toward Washington DC. Isn't that the definition of self-ownership?

No, it turned towards NYC. It is right on the map.

[Winehole23]

You sound like a Nazi!:sleep

[Obstructed_View]

No, it turned towards NYC. It is right on the map.

No, it's headed directly toward Washington DC; put a ruler on the straight line. If you and all your discussion of time lines don't understand the reason for the change in the path at the end, then I'll use your own logic to tell you that the plane was intended to crash into a field in Stony Creek, Pennsylvania to add to the "Thriller Movie" effect.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That is pure bullshit. until you at least admit your wrong on this one photo you don't deserve any of my precious debate time. That photo was hours after the collapes clean up was days later.
And why in the hell would someone craw through all that rubble to trim that one beam and then put all the rubble around it back? Your a joke Chump and your just upset the truth is beginning to surface and your going to look like the misguided fool you portray in this forum.


Have you ever seen what an explosion does to a girder? It certainly doesn't remain vertical and it definitely doesn't have a straight cut. That cut was made by a torch. A torch will make a straight cut like that not a shaped charge that expands out from a point in all directions.

[ChumpDumper]

WTC 7 had a water sprinkler system, and was made of steel and concrete.WTC7 actually had two sprinkler systems. One on the upper floors had its own supply and may well have worked on 9/11. The system for the lower floors was supplied by the public water mains in lower Manhattan, which were most assuredly not working after the collapses of the twin towers.
Steel and concrete do not burn you fool. And the building was built to fire code. Not likely much of a fire could get going there.So why would any building made of concrete and steel ever have a sprinkler system? According to you, they would all be completely fireproof.

[Galileo]

WTC7 actually had two sprinkler systems. One on the upper floors had its own supply and may well have worked on 9/11. The system for the lower floors was supplied by the public water mains in lower Manhattan, which were most assuredly not working after the collapses of the twin towers.So why would any building made of concrete and steel ever have a sprinkler system? According to you, they would all be completely fireproof.

Why were the fire alarms turned off in WTC 7 at 6:47 A.M.?

Nice timing.

[ChumpDumper]

Why were the fire alarms turned off in WTC 7 at 6:47 A.M.?

Nice timing.They were not turned off.

Nice lying.

[mouse]

Have you ever seen what an explosion does to a girder? It certainly doesn't remain vertical and it definitely doesn't have a straight cut. That cut was made by a torch. A torch will make a straight cut like that not a shaped charge that expands out from a point in all directions.


Open mouth insert foot.


http://media.portland.indymedia.org/images/2006/07/343155.jpg


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/sss-1.jpg

9J8ojEWlkrs

tIx2CVRxRXg

[mouse]

They were not turned off.

Nice lying.



WTC 7 CIA Field Office Records Exempt From Disclosure
Submitted by Aidan Monaghan on Fri, 11/21/2008 - 6:26am.

The following is a Freedom of Information Act response from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) regarding a request for records pertaining to a description of the functions of the CIA field office once located on the 25th floor of World Trade Center Building 7.



The CIA will neither confirm or deny the existence of such records per Executive Order 12958.






FEMA WTC 7 report reference to WTC 7 CIA field office:




http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf


Dear Mr. Monaghan:



This is a final response to your 22 September 2008 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, received 1 October 2008 in the office ofthe Information and Privacy Coordinator, for "records that describe the functions ofthe CIA field office once located in World Trade Center Building 7 in New York City, New York or any other CIA records regarding this field office."



In accordance with section 3.6(a) of Executive Order 12958, as amended, the CIA can neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence ofrecords responsive to your request. The fact of the existence or nonexistence ofrequested records is currently and properly classified and is intelligence sources and methods information that is protected from disclosure by section 6 of the CIA Act of 1949, as amended. Therefore, the Agency has denied your request pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(1) and (b)(3). I have enclosed an explanation of these exemptions for your reference and retention.



CIA Information and Privaey Coordinator Delores M. Nelson made this decision, which you may appeal to the Agency Release Panel, in my care, within 45 days from the date of this letter. Please include the basis of your appeal.



Sincerely,



Delores M. Nelson



Information and Privacy Coordinator



» Aidan Monaghan's blog

http://www.911blogger.com/node/18596

[ChumpDumper]

Gee CIA records aren't available through the FOIA?

Wow!

[Galileo]

They were not turned off.

Nice lying.

Yes they were.

You are a liar.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes they were.

You are a liar.They were not turned off.

You are a liar.

[Galileo]

They were not turned off.

You are a liar.

Your pants are on fire and you have a long nose growth.

[mouse]

They were not turned off.

Nice lying.

Open mouth insert foot.

http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/nist-exploring-911-blast-events-for-wtc-7-new-witness-confirms-scholars-previous-findings/693/

[mouse]

They were not turned off.

You are a liar.


Fetzer said. “Remarkably, the fire alarm system in WTC-7 was turned off at 6:47 AM/ET and placed on ‘TEST’ status for a period of eight hours

[Galileo]

Open mouth insert foot.

http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/nist-exploring-911-blast-events-for-wtc-7-new-witness-confirms-scholars-previous-findings/693/

Good post.

I actually wrote the first draft of that press release.

[ChumpDumper]

Your pants are on fire and you have a long nose growth.


Open mouth insert foot.

http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/nist-exploring-911-blast-events-for-wtc-7-new-witness-confirms-scholars-previous-findings/693/Test status means it still sent the alarm signal when there was a fire.

It's not like they could fight the fire anyway if the alarm told them where the fire was in the building -- and it was pretty clear where the fire was anyway, as the many eyewitness accounts attest.

[ChumpDumper]

Fetzer said. “Remarkably, the fire alarm system in WTC-7 was turned off at 6:47 AM/ET and placed on ‘TEST’ status for a period of eight hoursRemarkably, the setting to test status was routine and the alarm still worked when the fire started.

[Galileo]

Test status means it still sent the alarm signal when there was a fire.

It's not like they could fight the fire anyway if the alarm told them where the fire was in the building -- and it was pretty clear where the fire was anyway, as the many eyewitness accounts attest.

Test status means the signals are stored in memory, and no signals went to the fire department.

Of course, since WTC 7 was blown up, these alarm records have been lost, including the records of the explosions that almost killed Barry Jennings and Michael hess.

You are a liar.

[ChumpDumper]

Test status means the signals are stored in memory, and no signals went to the fire department.Wrong. The signal still goes to the fire department, there are just no specifics about the location of the fire in the building.


Of course, since WTC 7 was blown up, these alarm records have been lost, including the records of the explosions that almost killed Barry Jennings and Michael hess.Who makes explosion alarms? You said no buildings made of steel and concrete can burn anyway.


You are a liar.Nope. It's all true.

[mouse]

I have to go to HEB I am all out of tin foil. I hope to see some of you thick headed Bush lovers when I get back. :tu

[ChumpDumper]

I have to go to HEB I am all out of tin foil. I hope to see some of you thick headed Bush lovers when I get back. :tuHope you post what you really think happened on 9/11 when you get back :tu

[Galileo]

Wrong. The signal still goes to the fire department, there are just no specifics about the location of the fire in the building.

Who makes explosion alarms? You said no buildings made of steel and concrete can burn anyway.

Nope. It's all true.

Wrong. If the alarm messages went to the fire department, they'd have a record of all the explosions and fires in WTC 7.

Remember that massive fire in WTC 7 you used to talk about?

You have a short memory. The messages have been lost, becasue the alarms were off. Of course, with the absence of these records, NIST can easier peddle their stupid thermal expansion theory, as the records of which columns expanded and when are lost.

They truned off the alarms so there would be no record of the explosions on paper.

btw - who turned off the alarms? In a high security building, that's not easy to do, unless it's an inside job.

[ChumpDumper]

Wrong. If the alarm messages went to the fire department, they'd have a record of all the explosions and fires in WTC 7.they do have a record of the fire in WTC7.


Remember that massive fire in WTC 7 you used to talk about?Yes, there is a record of that.


You have a short memory. The messages have been lost, becasue the alarms were off.It's pretty clear when the fire started.
Of course, with the absence of these records, NIST can easier peddle their stupid thermal expansion theory, as the records of which columns expanded and when are lost.There are no column expansion alarms. You have a really poor concept about what alarms do.


They truned off the alarms so there would be no record of the explosions on paper.Again, there are no explosion alarms. There was fire before there were explosions in WTC7, and that fire was reported by the alarm system.


btw - who turned off the alarms? In a high security building, that's not easy to do, unless it's an inside job.It was done routinely every few weeks. Had you bothered to read the NIST report, you would know this.

[Galileo]

they do have a record of the fire in WTC7.

Yes, there is a record of that.

It's pretty clear when the fire started.There are no column expansion alarms. You have a really poor concept about what alarms do.

Again, there are no explosion alarms. There was fire before there were explosions in WTC7, and that fire was reported by the alarm system.

It was done routinely every few weeks. Had you bothered to read the NIST report, you would know this.

show me the records. They should have dozens of alarms triggered as the fire moved around slowly in the building.

You ought to pass those records on to NIST as well.

[ChumpDumper]

show me the records. They should have dozens of alarms triggered as the fire moved around slowly in the building.

You ought to pass those records on to NIST as well.The NIST is where you will find the records.

Thanks for admitting you never read the report and for continuing to demonstrate your complete ignorance of alarm systems of any sort.

[Galileo]

they do have a record of the fire in WTC7.

Yes, there is a record of that.

It's pretty clear when the fire started.There are no column expansion alarms. You have a really poor concept about what alarms do.

Again, there are no explosion alarms. There was fire before there were explosions in WTC7, and that fire was reported by the alarm system.

It was done routinely every few weeks. Had you bothered to read the NIST report, you would know this.

show me in the records where this explosion shows up:

WTC 7 Explosion on Audio (heard by firemen)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw

[ChumpDumper]

show me in the records where this explosion shows up:

WTC 7 Explosion on Audio (heard by firemen)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdwThere are no explosion alarms made for buildings that you claim could never catch fire.

[Galileo]

There are no explosion alarms made for buildings that you claim could never catch fire.

so you are telling us that the alarm system wouldn't alert the fire department if a large explosion went off?

I'm saying the alarms were not ON, they were on TEST status, which effectively means the alarms were OFF.

Convenient, if you wanted to make last minute planning for a demolition later that day.

Oh, by the way, did you ever figure out who turned the alarm off and under whose authority.

You'd think in an arson case, ya might want ot know that.

[ChumpDumper]

so you are telling us that the alarm system wouldn't alert the fire department if a large explosion went off?I am telling you that the alarm had already gone off and firefighters were alreay on the scene and unable to fight the fires.


I'm saying the alarms were not ON, they were on TEST status, which effectively means the alarms were OFF.You can say that, but it isn't true.


Convenient, if you wanted to make last minute planning for a demolition later that day.There was no reason to bring down WTC7 in any manner.


Oh, by the way, did you ever figure out who turned the alarm off and under whose authority.It's all in the report you didn't read.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/techbeat/tbx2008_1120_wtc7.htm


You'd think in an arson case, ya might want ot know that.It wasn't arson.

[Galileo]

they do have a record of the fire in WTC7.

Yes, there is a record of that.

It's pretty clear when the fire started.There are no column expansion alarms. You have a really poor concept about what alarms do.

Again, there are no explosion alarms. There was fire before there were explosions in WTC7, and that fire was reported by the alarm system.

It was done routinely every few weeks. Had you bothered to read the NIST report, you would know this.

NIST did not use any alarm data to determine the time and place of the fires.

Remember the diesel tank theory from the 5th floor? If the alarm data were there, they'd know if a fire was really roaring down there on the 5th floor.

Now we have the thermal expansion theory, where core column # 79 snapped off from girder # 44.

You have not read through the reports, you just regurgitate bullshit. NIST doesn't have any alarm data to determine where and when the fires were. They determined the fire locations by eyewitness testimony and visual evidence.

[Galileo]

Remarkably, the setting to test status was routine and the alarm still worked when the fire started.

Yes, but after WTC 7 went down, all the alarm data was lost.

[ChumpDumper]

NIST did not use any alarm data to determine the time and place of the fires.Why did you answer a question you didn't ask?


Remember the diesel tank theory from the 5th floor? If the alarm data were there, they'd know if a fire was really roaring down there on the 5th floor.They could see where the fire was by looking at the building.


Now we have the thermal expansion theory, where core column # 79 snapped off from girder # 44.There were no thermal expansion alarms.


You have not read through the reports, you just regurgitate bullshit. NIST doesn't have any alarm data to determine where and when the fires were. They determined the fire locations by eyewitness testimony and visual evidence.That's exactly what I have been saying. Thanks for finally catching up to me and good to know you fully support the eyewitness testimony and visual evidence.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, but after WTC 7 went down, all the alarm data was lost.No shit. Thanks again for catching up to the conversation.

[Re-Animator]

Wow this is better than Duran vs Sugar Ray Leonard! :tu

[Professor Lilloman]

I wonder if the Rush Limbaugh clones in this topic know what caused this explosion.



EeZAN5wn-eA

[Nbadan]

....gotta give this round to Galileo! :toast

[Wild Cobra]

After all we know jet fuel can melt steel and stay burning weeks later.......


vmMLDG87Sak
Any one who knows basic sciences knows how lame such things are.

The force by weight and the kinetic energies involve would superheat the interior of the debris. Simple physics. Conservation of mass and energy stuff.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.piratenews.org/thermite-thermate-wtc-steel400.jpgWhen was that picture taken? Since you guys would rather change the subject than deal with the holes in your theories, let's just keep whacking whatever mole you decide to pop up.
If people were smart enough to look over the NIST summaries and graphics, you would see there were dozens of trusses cut and built into the building at angles. That is simply one of them that fell just right into the debris, or one that was cut when the building was previously modified. That is, if that was part of WTC 7. The beams look too close together to be a photo from that.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/WTC7truss.jpg

[Blake]

....gotta give this round to Galileo! :toast

I agree. He did an outstanding job of owning himself

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If people were smart enough to look over the NIST summaries and graphics, you would see there were dozens of trusses cut and built into the building at angles. That is simply one of them that fell just right into the debris, or one that was cut when the building was previously modified. That is, if that was part of WTC 7. The beams look too close together to be a photo from that.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/WTC7truss.jpg

A truss that is mounted at an acute angle drops perfectly vertical? That also doesn't account for the melting and carbon scoring only right at the location of the cission.

[DarrinS]

I'm glad there are so many gullible dipshits in America to make me a wealthy man.


Sincerely,

Dylan Avery
Sci-Fi "movie" producer

[DarrinS]

The historical landmark St. Nicholas Church was 169 years old when it was destroyed by the collapse of the south tower on 9/11.

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/nich.184.jpg

Another theory fails.


That one was obviously a controlled demolition.


Sincerely,

Galileo, Nbadan, & Gerbil

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Any one who knows basic sciences knows how lame such things are.

The force by weight and the kinetic energies involve would superheat the interior of the debris. Simple physics. Conservation of mass and energy stuff.

I know quite a bit of 'basic' science and quite a bit more than just that. When you have a fire that is burning at 550 degrees and the kerosene compounds in there quite easily had the highest burning temperature you need several conditions to increase the temperature.

In order for the temperature in there to go higher than that you have to take special care that there is no avenue for the majority of the heat to escape. A blast furnace for example has a very large crucible shaped like a weeble with a very small opening at the top.

Essentially what you had in the WTC was just a big open flame. All that smoke coming out from all those orifices is just heat escaping. That is also only the particles you see and not the radiant heat and hot gas.

Even that is not enough, you have to continuously have an active air pump into the firing chamber. Convection air flow will not get the temperature that hot. A blast furnace which is optimal in terms of a firing chamber STILL requires the active pumping of air.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm glad there are so many gullible dipshits in America to make me a wealthy man.


Sincerely,

Dylan Avery
Sci-Fi "movie" producer

I do not accept any theory as fact but the only gullibility is blind faith in one or another theory.

Now is it impossible that the conditions in the towers was such that it could get the temperatures over 2000 degrees for a long enough time to melt the trusses in a fashion uniform enough to cause a completely vertical collapse not once but twice?

Its not impossible but at the same time I do find it to be the less probable event.

[DarrinS]

I do not accept any theory as fact but the only gullibility is blind faith in one or another theory.

Now is it impossible that the conditions in the towers was such that it could get the temperatures over 2000 degrees for a long enough time to melt the trusses in a fashion uniform enough to cause a completely vertical collapse not once but twice?

Its not impossible but at the same time I do find it to be the less probable event.


Fire can't melt steel! Fire can't melt steel! :bang

As a mechanical engineer, I can tell you with certainty that steel structures become weakened when they are HEATED.


http://www.m4040.com/AssholeFiles/SteelTemp-vs-Yield.gif

[RandomGuy]

I do not accept any theory as fact but the only gullibility is blind faith in one or another theory.

Now is it impossible that the conditions in the towers was such that it could get the temperatures over 2000 degrees for a long enough time to melt the trusses in a fashion uniform enough to cause a completely vertical collapse not once but twice?

Its not impossible but at the same time I do find it to be the less probable event.

Except that no one is claiming 2000 degrees except the conspiracy nuts who claim that all pools of molten metal are molten steel.

The NIST based its report on temperatures of a few hundred degrees at which the supporting columns started gaining plasticity.

Their models showed spikes of high temperatures as the fire moved around to fresh sources of fuel, as fires are wont to do.

The parts of the building that were losing their load bearing capacity as the fire progressed were also supporting greater loads due to the impact damage.

For some reason, common sense thinking about this is impossible for those who want to believe in evil govermment conspiracies.

[RandomGuy]

I realize that people love a good conspiracy and looking under corners is good in the long run but assuming something is true becuase it hasn't been disproven yet is stupid.

The conspiracy theories have been disproven, pretty conclusively. Observed phenomena are ALL adequately explained by collapse theories other than thermite or explosives.

The theories that the buildings were brought down by explosives/thermite all have observed phenomena that dirctly contradict what one would expect if explosives or thermite were used to bring down the structures.

This, by anybody's reasonable definition, disproves the explosive/thermite theories about the building collapses.

[RandomGuy]

Seven major factors led to the collapse of WTC 1:
• Structural damage from the aircraft impact;
• Large amount of jet fuel sprayed into the building interior, that ignited widespread fires over
several floors;
• Dislodging of SFRM from structural members due to the aircraft impact, that enabled rapid
heating of the unprotected structural steel;
• Open paths for fire spread resulting from the open plan of the impact floors and the breaking
of partition walls by the impact debris;
• Weakened core columns that increased the load on the perimeter walls;
• Sagging of the south floors, that led to pull-in forces on the perimeter columns; and
• Bowed south perimeter columns that had a reduced capacity to carry loads.

[RandomGuy]

The use of an “average” gas temperature was not a satisfactory means of assessing the thermal
environment on floors this large and would also have led to large errors in the subsequent thermal and
structural analyses. The heat transferred to the structural components was largely by means of thermal
radiation, whose intensity is proportional to the fourth power of the gas temperature. At any given
location, the duration of temperatures near 1,000 °C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the
calculated temperatures were near 500 °C or below. To put this in perspective, the radiative intensity onto
a truss surrounded by smoke-laden gases at 1,000 °C was approximately 7 times the value for gases at
500 °C.

[RandomGuy]

the core:


* Was far from any source of fresh air



The results of the visual analysis included:
• The locations of the broken windows, providing information on the source of air to feed the
fires within.
• Observations of the spread of fires.
• Documentation of the location of exterior damage from the aircraft impact and subsequent
structural changes in the buildings.
• Identification of the presence or absence of significant floor deterioration at the building
perimeter.
• Observations of certain actions by building occupants, such as breaking windows.

[RandomGuy]

As for the OP:



[Example video transcript:]

Government Train Wreck: How government covers up freight train accidents…

"The noise sounded like two freight trains going over a trestle right over your head; it was an ugly roar. My wife said the noise when the house went was like a giant pencil sharpener working.”

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dtx/1953beecher/storiesFJ.php

[Did a fright train pass over their head? Was there a giant pencil sharpener really over there heads?]

“While I was in my kitchen I heard this terrible roar coming," she said. "It sounded like a freight train coming right down my road here”

"It looks like it's been bombed. There's just a lot of destruction, a lot of debris," said Michael Bartz, a state emergency official. "

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WEATHER/09/02...nado/index.html

[Was it a bomb? Did a real freight train go down her road?]

"It indeed sounded like a freight train roaring past us, and when it was gone, we came out to find things a mess."

http://www.offenburger.com/farmarchive.asp?link=20040906

It came with "the roar of forty freight trains."

http://www.tornadochaser.com/UDALL/reports.htm

“It sounded like a freight train”.

http://www.disasternews.net/news/news.php?articleid=2954

“Before I reached the bottom of the stairs, I heard the sound of a roaring freight train”

[enter image of NOAA weather map an hour before the tornado touches down.]

As you can see, there was no tornado on that day, according to NOAA.

So why is the government covering up train derailments?

[enter sinister music]

In 2003 Amtrak was going bankrupt. They couldn't afford to rebuild the homes of Americans after a derailment.

ETC.. ETC..

[RandomGuy]

Since the 9-11 CTers like to copy and paste ad inifinitum, let's see if we can get some good stuff here.

It might surprise you CTers but there is a whole cottage industry built up around your bullshit.

They don't sell T-shirts, mugs, or crappy videos.

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6243624912447824934

http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Here is a gem: The 9-11 "truthers" in their own "like, words". Icky.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7216643725166640147&hl=en

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

http://wtc.nist.gov/

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

http://www.911myths.com/

Best one out of all the lot so far:
http://www.debunking911.com/

Mike Walter talking about the plane hitting the pentagon, and how irritated he is with the 9-11 "truth" movement for lying about what he said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPUDktZpCU

Link to a TON of debunking links:
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm

Here ARE SOME REALLY PRECIOUS LINKS.

9-11 "truth" scholars turning on each other. You thought they were unstable and kooky when they talk about the government, wait until they start talking about each other.

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


Shabby, Self-Serving Internet Reports by Pseudo Journalists and Activists Cause Webb Family Grief - It's Time for Real Journalists and Activists to Shun Demagogues, Hysterics and Profiteers

by

Michael C. Ruppert
A whole page of youtube debunking videos (http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=RKOwens4&p=r)

A whole page of decent debunking links and one of the best ones so far. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home)

[RandomGuy]

By the by, here is how the official report plays out the initial collapse, essentially the same for both buildings based on my reading of the NIST report. Feel free to read the thing and correct this with a better understanding if you so choose.

Airliner impacts building. Collision injects fire and initial fuel into an office environment filled with other fuel, such as plastic, paper, and furniture, in addition to literally knocking the thin coating of spray on insulation from the structural steel. Simultaineous fires start in multiple floors of the building in wide sections of those floors, in addition to weakening the structure.

In the damaged sections, you have the remaining load bearing structure taking up the extra load from the portions that were destroyed from the collision.

Add to this extra load stress per column (both inner and outer), additional lateral (sideways) stresses are placed from expanding trusses exposed to heat. With the additional load, and weakened by fire, the hottest columns start exhibiting "plasticity" and begin to sag, pulling on the connecting floor, and pulling the face of the building inwards at the floor/wall joints.

Eventually, some part of the buildng gives way, and this instantly places more stress on the remaining structure, itself nearing limits of load/stress capacity. This results in a rather rapid collapse of nearby sections and simple physics do the rest.

Did the structural steel melt? No. You don't have to even get close to melting point to get loss of strength. Medieval blacksmiths didn't have near the ability to melt iron or steel, but could get it hot enough to work with hammer and anvil into swords, armor, horseshoes, and all manner of things.
Steel loses about 20% of its load bearing capacity at 300C, and some portions of the fires were hotter than that.

[RandomGuy]

One would almost think that this shit has been done to death before. (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65131&page=3)

[Wild Cobra]

A truss that is mounted at an acute angle drops perfectly vertical? That also doesn't account for the melting and carbon scoring only right at the location of the cission.
I know, but like I said. It could be when they modified the building. It could have been an existing beam cut to make room for an angled truss. I don't have the answers. Only speculation. Speculation is all the conspiracy theroists have too, and nearly all of it is so easily debunked. there will be some examples that are hard to answer, especially with certainty.

Bottom line, there is not a single item of direct evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_evidence) to call for a conspiracy. It is only very weak circumstantial evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence).

Anyone have any direct evidence?

[DarrinS]

Besides the mountains of physical evidence that disprove these crackpot theories, WTC7 just doesn't make any sense as a target.


Let me see if I understand the logic...


Having the north and south towers collapse and the Pentagon struck wasn't enough to justify a war on terror, but WTC7 was somehow the final straw?


Doesn't add up.

[Wild Cobra]

I know quite a bit of 'basic' science and quite a bit more than just that. When you have a fire that is burning at 550 degrees and the kerosene compounds in there quite easily had the highest burning temperature you need several conditions to increase the temperature.

In order for the temperature in there to go higher than that you have to take special care that there is no avenue for the majority of the heat to escape. A blast furnace for example has a very large crucible shaped like a weeble with a very small opening at the top.

Essentially what you had in the WTC was just a big open flame. All that smoke coming out from all those orifices is just heat escaping. That is also only the particles you see and not the radiant heat and hot gas.

Even that is not enough, you have to continuously have an active air pump into the firing chamber. Convection air flow will not get the temperature that hot. A blast furnace which is optimal in terms of a firing chamber STILL requires the active pumping of air.
You are missing what happens to a moving object when it suddenly stops. All that kinetic energy through gravitation acceleration has to go somewhere. What isn't turned into other forms of energy is turned to heat when it comes to rest. This part of physics has nothing whatsoever to do with the fires. It's kinetic rather than chemical energy.

[Wild Cobra]

The theories that the buildings were brought down by explosives/thermite all have observed phenomena that dirctly contradict what one would expect if explosives or thermite were used to bring down the structures.

My understanding here is the claim of thermite comes from the reside that is consistent with iron oxide (rust) and aluminum burning together. It lacked the fingerprint of thermite however, the added chemicals to accelerate the ignition process.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fire can't melt steel! Fire can't melt steel! :bang

As a mechanical engineer, I can tell you with certainty that steel structures become weakened when they are HEATED.


http://www.m4040.com/AssholeFiles/SteelTemp-vs-Yield.gif

Depends on what conditions are present. Fire generates heat. If the heat is contained in an insulatory environment then the temperature will continue to rise and at a certain point the temp will get high enough such that it will melt steel. You took thermo and I know its a big part of your FE exam. They use fire from burning coal in a blast furnace bucko. How do you think they form those girders in the first place?

As for the rest that makes complete sense. If the temperature estimates are correct and I by no means have enough information to generate my own model then reducing the material strength of the supports in half would make is so they could not take the load. I still find it interesting that both fell in a near identical manner because as you know from simple dynamics that forces applied above the center of gravity generate torque. Considering that the majority of the fire was on a particular side of the building it stands to reason that side would collapse first causing a force at least partially horizontal to the vertical axis.

Then again it possible that the frame was built just for such a thing to happen. Again I do not have enough information to know that either.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

My understanding here is the claim of thermite comes from the reside that is consistent with iron oxide (rust) and aluminum burning together. It lacked the fingerprint of thermite however, the added chemicals to accelerate the ignition process.

your confusing thermite and thermate. thermite is just powdered aluminum and iron rust. thermate is thermite plus barium and some other shit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are missing what happens to a moving object when it suddenly stops. All that kinetic energy through gravitation acceleration has to go somewhere. What isn't turned into other forms of energy is turned to heat when it comes to rest. This part of physics has nothing whatsoever to do with the fires. It's kinetic rather than chemical energy.

I am aware of that. Im sure that the force with which the plane hitting distorted the frame. Given the distortion to the frame and the load I know they can detrmine what the load properties of the frame are and from there you can determine what temperature is necessary for the structure to lose stability.

What I really would be interested to see is how they figure that the radiant heat essentially doubled for a period of time. To be honest that seems a bit specious.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

By the by, here is how the official report plays out the initial collapse, essentially the same for both buildings based on my reading of the NIST report. Feel free to read the thing and correct this with a better understanding if you so choose.

Airliner impacts building. Collision injects fire and initial fuel into an office environment filled with other fuel, such as plastic, paper, and furniture, in addition to literally knocking the thin coating of spray on insulation from the structural steel. Simultaineous fires start in multiple floors of the building in wide sections of those floors, in addition to weakening the structure.

In the damaged sections, you have the remaining load bearing structure taking up the extra load from the portions that were destroyed from the collision.

Add to this extra load stress per column (both inner and outer), additional lateral (sideways) stresses are placed from expanding trusses exposed to heat. With the additional load, and weakened by fire, the hottest columns start exhibiting "plasticity" and begin to sag, pulling on the connecting floor, and pulling the face of the building inwards at the floor/wall joints.

Eventually, some part of the buildng gives way, and this instantly places more stress on the remaining structure, itself nearing limits of load/stress capacity. This results in a rather rapid collapse of nearby sections and simple physics do the rest.

Did the structural steel melt? No. You don't have to even get close to melting point to get loss of strength. Medieval blacksmiths didn't have near the ability to melt iron or steel, but could get it hot enough to work with hammer and anvil into swords, armor, horseshoes, and all manner of things.
Steel loses about 20% of its load bearing capacity at 300C, and some portions of the fires were hotter than that.

Actually, medieval blacksmiths did have the tech to melt iron. How do you think they made the metal in the first place? They have been able to melt iron since about the 5th century.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The conspiracy theories have been disproven, pretty conclusively. Observed phenomena are ALL adequately explained by collapse theories other than thermite or explosives.

The theories that the buildings were brought down by explosives/thermite all have observed phenomena that dirctly contradict what one would expect if explosives or thermite were used to bring down the structures.

This, by anybody's reasonable definition, disproves the explosive/thermite theories about the building collapses.

What phenomenon was inconsistent with thermite? I've seen photos of molten metal around an incision at a 45 degree angle. That would be consistent and quite frankly the models you are suggesting do not explain the existent of what is obviously molten metal.

[Galileo]

....gotta give this round to Galileo! :toast

Thanks Nbaden.

But I must say, whipping third rate competiton won't help my Power Ratings that much!

:lmao

[Blake]

Thanks Nbaden.

But I must say, whipping third rate competiton won't help my Power Ratings that much!

:lmao

Congratulations!

Now who are the bad guys and why did they want WTC 7 to come down again?

[DarrinS]

You know what's funny is that Loose Change started out as a fictional film, but when Avery found out there were so many dopes, er, customers out there, he decided to make a very bad documentary in the style of Michael Moore.

[RandomGuy]

What phenomenon was inconsistent with thermite? I've seen photos of molten metal around an incision at a 45 degree angle. That would be consistent and quite frankly the models you are suggesting do not explain the existent of what is obviously molten metal.

The photographs you saw were of cuts made by steelworkers during the clean up. Of course they look like deliberate, melted metal at an angle, because that is exactly what they were.

That is part of how 9-11 websites mistakenly present evidence, i.e cherry picking data out of context and misrepresenting what that evidence is/says.

The experts on cutting steel, i.e. the local steelworkers union, NEVER reported seeing ANY beams cut in such a fashion before they started working.

The firefighters on the scene, experts in cleaning up after fires, NEVER reported any remnants of any devices that could be used in such an endeavor. Wiring 110 stories for demolition WOULD have left some evidence of the devices used. None were found, and they looked for that rather specifically.

You therefore cannot consider those photographs as evidence of "thermite".

If you do, then you have to explain why both firefighters and the professional steelworkers who cleaned up the site were in on the conspircacy or not smart/experienced enough to notice things that they should have.

[Galileo]

The photographs you saw were of cuts made by steelworkers during the clean up. Of course they look like deliberate, melted metal at an angle, because that is exactly what they were.

That is part of how 9-11 websites mistakenly present evidence, i.e cherry picking data out of context and misrepresenting what that evidence is/says.

The experts on cutting steel, i.e. the local steelworkers union, NEVER reported seeing ANY beams cut in such a fashion before they started working.

The firefighters on the scene, experts in cleaning up after fires, NEVER reported any remnants of any devices that could be used in such an endeavor.

You therefore cannot consider those photographs as evidence of "thermite".

If you do, then you have to explain why both firefighters and the professional steelworkers who cleaned up the site were in on the conspircacy or not smart/experienced enough to notice things that they should have.

I agree with Random guy on this. Those steel cuts were clearly made during cleanup.

[RandomGuy]

I agree with Random guy on this. Those steel cuts were clearly made during cleanup.

[picks jaw off floor]

The apocolypse is upon us, I have seen the first sign... :wow

[Wild Cobra]

I still find it interesting that both fell in a near identical manner because as you know from simple dynamics that forces applied above the center of gravity generate torque. Considering that the majority of the fire was on a particular side of the building it stands to reason that side would collapse first causing a force at least partially horizontal to the vertical axis.

Then again it possible that the frame was built just for such a thing to happen. Again I do not have enough information to know that either.
This has been thoroughly explained in the past, and they fell like they did because of how they were made. If you study the videos carefully, you see evidence of the inner core falling several seconds before the outside frame starts to come apart. These building had a huge footprint, and gravity pulls objects strait down. The joints between trusses was an insignificant length compared to the footprint to twist or bend the building any significant distance.

your confusing thermite and thermate. thermite is just powdered aluminum and iron rust. thermate is thermite plus barium and some other shit.
No I'm not. Sulfer residue was found? Is that why the thermate claim? Before it was thermite. The conspiracy theorists keep changing the story. With thermite, magnesium or and/or other elements would have been fused in the residue. With thermate, other elements yet. The residue was not consistant with either.

Buildings have steel and you can bet there was allot of aluminum there too. Enough rust from the burning fire, contact with aluminum, and the force of collapse was plenty to start a thermitic reaction. Not enough to cause any more damage because it would be trace amounts, but enough trace to register for someone looking for signs of thermite or thermate. They just didn't complete the analysis to see the other elements were missing.

[Wild Cobra]

I agree with Random guy on this. Those steel cuts were clearly made during cleanup.
Yep, a shaped charge would have not been as clean. Not only that, any slag would have been blown away. Not sitting like a prime example of torch cut steel.

[Galileo]

The thermite/thermate type cutting material was not applied at the ground floors.

It was applied to the upper 3/4 of the WTC every 15 to 20 floors in the corners, NOT to the core columns. You can see the cutting material on one corner of the South tower at about the 80th floor, in some videos.

The core columns next to the elevator shafts were loaded with military grade explosives every other floor. These explosives blew material outward at right angles from the core.

The core explosives were timed, starting near the point of impact and proceeding down.

Two rows of core columns (out of the 6 rows) remain standing for about 30 seconds after the rest of the building has come down. These are the core columns not next to the elevator shafts.

That's how the WTC came down.

[ChumpDumper]

The thermite/thermate type cutting material was not applied at the ground floors.

It was applied to the upper 3/4 of the WTC every 15 to 20 floors in the corners, NOT to the core columns. You can see the cutting material on one corner of the South tower at about the 80th floor, in some videos.You can see what appears to be aluminum from the plane or lead from battery backups that became molten at much lower temperatures than is necessary to melt steel.

The core columns next to the elevator shafts were loaded with military grade explosives every other floor. These explosives blew material outward at right angles from the core.

The core explosives were timed, starting near the point of impact and proceeding down.

Two rows of core columns (out of the 6 rows) remain standing for about 30 seconds after the rest of the building has come down. These are the core columns not next to the elevator shafts.

That's how the WTC came down.:lol

If the explosives blew away the core, there would not have been 60+ floors worth of core still standing after the collapse.

Once you get 20 to 30 acres of office building moving, nothing short of the earth itself is going to stop it -- which is exactly what happened.

Twoofers have no concept of scale.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The photographs you saw were of cuts made by steelworkers during the clean up. Of course they look like deliberate, melted metal at an angle, because that is exactly what they were.

That is part of how 9-11 websites mistakenly present evidence, i.e cherry picking data out of context and misrepresenting what that evidence is/says.

The experts on cutting steel, i.e. the local steelworkers union, NEVER reported seeing ANY beams cut in such a fashion before they started working.

The firefighters on the scene, experts in cleaning up after fires, NEVER reported any remnants of any devices that could be used in such an endeavor. Wiring 110 stories for demolition WOULD have left some evidence of the devices used. None were found, and they looked for that rather specifically.

You therefore cannot consider those photographs as evidence of "thermite".

If you do, then you have to explain why both firefighters and the professional steelworkers who cleaned up the site were in on the conspircacy or not smart/experienced enough to notice things that they should have.

Quit being a douche. I am trying to approach this with an open mind not just accept whatever someone tells me. I have no definitive opinion on the matter and I definitely do not come with some preconceived notion or agenda. TBH I see this as a good thought exercise.

As for the dating on the photos, where is your evidence to the time frame. At this point the entire issue sounds as a he said-she said scenario. Also usually you cut metal at 90 degree angles because its a shorter distance. It really comes down to when those pictures were taken.

And nice strawman. Noone claimed that it was 110 stories or any particular amount.

As for the firefighters I do not know what they were directed to look for and quite frankly neither do you. You are hardly an authority on the matter nor do you have personal knowledge of the situation. Quit acting like you are or you do.

[Galileo]

If the explosives blew away the core, there would not have been 60+ floors worth of core still standing after the collapse.

Once you get 20 to 30 acres of office building moving, nothing short of the earth itself is going to stop it -- which is exactly what happened.

Twoofers have no concept of scale.

The only part of the core that stood for a while was rows 7 and 8 of the core. These rows were not next to the elevator shafts.

Rows 5, 6, 9, and 10 went down right away from the explosives.

The explosives were not set all the way to the bottom of the WTC, but went down as far at least as you can see in most videos.

[ChumpDumper]

The only part of the core that stood for a while was rows 7 and 8 of the core. These rows were not next to the elevator shafts.

Rows 5, 6, 9, and 10 went down right away from the explosives.

The explosives were not set all the way to the bottom of the WTC, but went down as far at least as you can see in most videos.You still don't understand.

Explosives were not needed once the top of the building started falling.

There were no explosives.

There is no evidence of explosives whatsoever.

20 acres of office building can do it all by itself. Really. Go stand under 20 acres of office building, drop it and try to stop it. Let me know how it works out for you.

[Galileo]

you still don't understand.

Explosives were not needed once the top of the building started falling.

There were no explosives.

There is no evidence of explosives whatsoever.

You don't understand. The top 15 floors of the WTC will not crush the bottom 95 floors to smitherines.

The bottom 95 floors were undamaged by the plane or fire.

When the military of commercial demolitions are done, they do not just put explosives near the top of the building. In fact, they put most near the bottom, like they did with WTC 7.

[DarrinS]

Look, it's evidence of thermite use:


http://www.debunking911.com/cut2.jpg

[DarrinS]

Oh, crap, nevermind.

http://www.debunking911.com/cut.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

You don't understand. The top 15 floors of the WTC will not crush the bottom 95 floors to smitherines.Once it starts moving, it certainly will and did.


The bottom 95 floors were undamaged by the plane or fire.There were fires all over the building -- but those floors were destroyed by 20-30 acres of building falling on top of it.


When the military of commercial demolitions are done, they do not just put explosives near the top of the building. In fact, they put most near the bottom, like they did with WTC 7.Except no explosives were used in any of the WTC buildings.

I implore you to test the experiment out yourself. stand under 20 acres of office building and drop it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Look, it's evidence of thermite use:


http://www.debunking911.com/cut2.jpg

See now that is compelling counter evidence.

[mouse]

I agree with Random guy on this. Those steel cuts were clearly made during cleanup.


Your a sell out!

You believe anything they tell you. That picture was not even 24 hours old clean up didn't take place till weeks later. Like some fool is going to cut a steel beam at a 45 degree angle with a sharp re bar sticking in his ass?

You all can argue amongst yourselves from now on. I told you many times if your going to Bullshit me with a lie about this photo you lost all debate creds.

In a way I am Glad Chump and his salad tossing pals think this cut was done during a clean up? it really shows how desperate you all are.

http://www.piratenews.org/thermite-thermate-wtc-steel400.jpg