Real 9-11 Research [Archive] - Page 10

ChumpDumper

05-06-2010, 07:09 PM

That's not new....the Kuwati were horizontal drilling into Iraqi oil fields for years to hide their own declining productions...

...that was one of the reasons Saddam felt justified reclaiming KuwaitSo how did it go so far back up? Did they drill all the way through the Earth to Venezuela?

http://www.theoildrum.com/uploads/12/kuwait_production.gif

..those tanks,military vehicles, military and civilian-military transportation and anti-mine vehicles use a lot of oil and gas....I wonder where that comes from?Same place we get it from -- the international oil market.

Iraq currently imports almost half of its oil products needs.

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201004290319dowjonesdjonline000 334&title=iraq-plans-to-raise-oil-output-to-45-million-b/d-in-2014-from-24-million-b/d

Nbadan

05-06-2010, 07:15 PM

So how did it go so far back up? Did they drill all the way through the Earth to Venezuela?

No they just drilled into Iraq.

Nbadan

05-06-2010, 07:16 PM

Same place we get it from -- the international oil market

Without causing supply side price pressure on the markets that rely on that oil - bull

My point is that a military requires a lot of oil...no Iraq invasion, no power for the U.S. in the region..

ChumpDumper

05-06-2010, 07:16 PM

No they just drilled into Iraq.Secretly.

Using secret contracts no one knows about but you.

Nbadan

05-06-2010, 07:18 PM

Secretly.

Using secret contracts no one knows about but you.

Do you expect them to broadcast peak oil, seriously?

ChumpDumper

05-06-2010, 07:26 PM

Do you expect them to broadcast peak oil, seriously?I expect someone other than you to know about the secret contracts.

Seriously.

Everyone already knows that production of any given oil field is not infinite. you simply grafted your latest conspiracy onto that.

Tell me dan -- what was Saddam Hussein's proof that Kuwait was stealing their oil?

ChumpDumper

05-06-2010, 07:29 PM

Without causing supply side price pressure on the markets that rely on that oil - bullTell me what that "supply side pressure on markets that rely on oil" was.

Give me some numbers.

My point is that a military requires a lot of oil...no Iraq invasion, no power for the U.S. in the region..No, your point was all the oil for the military was coming from Iraq.

You were wrong.

Nbadan

05-06-2010, 07:39 PM

...Iraq sells its oil on the world market...

...the U.S. buys its oil on the world market

...but the U.S. does not get its oil from Iraq - check.

ChumpDumper

05-06-2010, 07:43 PM

...Iraq sells its oil on the world market...

...the U.S. buys its oil on the world market

...but the U.S. does not get its oil from Iraq - check.I already explained to you how countries get oil.

Thanks for showing you understand that now.

Do you understand the US was getting Iraqi oil all along, including before the invasion?

clambake

05-06-2010, 07:55 PM

wait a minute.......are you saying that american oil is not just for america????

ChumpDumper

05-06-2010, 07:58 PM

dan doesn't realize he made an argument against invading Iraq.

Nbadan

05-06-2010, 08:04 PM

Do you understand the US was getting Iraqi oil all along, including before the invasion?

You mean the food for oil?

Nbadan

05-06-2010, 08:06 PM

dan doesn't realize he made an argument against invading Iraq.

You don't realize that I made a argument about why Iraq had to be invaded...

ChumpDumper

05-06-2010, 08:06 PM

You mean the food for oil?Yep. The US got some of that oil, just like they have always gotten some of that oil.

ChumpDumper

05-06-2010, 08:07 PM

You don't realize that I made a argument about why Iraq had to be invaded...You don't realize you made an argument against the invasion of Iraq.

The US was getting Iraqi oil all along -- it took six years for production to reach the levels attained during oil for food. What was the incentive for invading for oil when that made production go to practically zero?

Nbadan

05-06-2010, 08:08 PM

...but we didn't control the flow of the oil...if we wanted we could have taken every drop of Iraq oil for years to payback the American taxpayer, but they didn't....there was no profit in that...

ChumpDumper

05-06-2010, 08:10 PM

...but we didn't control the flow of the oil...if we wanted we could have taken every drop of Iraq oil for years to payback the American taxpayer, but they didn't....there was no profit in that...By that definition, we don't control the flow of oil now.

You are doing a terrible job of explaining yourself. What is the US profiting now?

Nbadan

05-06-2010, 08:12 PM

Everyone already knows that production of any given oil field is not infinite. you simply grafted your latest conspiracy onto that.

Not just any field here, one of the most productive in the world.....and its happening all over...a real cause for concern for those whose very growth depends on its growth in oil production....

Nbadan

05-06-2010, 08:13 PM

By that definition, we don't control the flow of oil now.

You are doing a terrible job of explaining yourself. What is the US profiting now?

Yes we do. We decide what the Iraqi people decide without them deciding..

ChumpDumper

05-06-2010, 08:14 PM

.

Not just any field here, one of the most productive in the world.....and its happening all over...a real cause for concern for those whose very growth depends on its growth in oil production....So Kuwaiti production should have gone down according to you.

Good job, dan. :tu

ChumpDumper

05-06-2010, 08:14 PM

Yes we do. We decide what the Iraqi people decide without them deciding..Walk us through it, dan. Tell us where all the profit for the US is.

Nbadan

05-06-2010, 08:15 PM

It was until the early 90s...besides this oil isn't traded on the open markets...

Nbadan

05-06-2010, 08:18 PM

Walk us through it, dan. Tell us where all the profit for the US is.

In its very currency...the strength of the dollar isn't in its debt, but in its might....I've explained many times why there is no better reserve currency...and why debtors were willing to lend billions to the U.S. despite fears of collapse...

ChumpDumper

05-06-2010, 08:18 PM

It was until the early 90s...But you said it's drying up.

besides this oil isn't traded on the open markets...Really?

Where is it traded?

What is the difference in price?

Nbadan

05-06-2010, 08:19 PM

But you said it's drying up.

it was until the technology to dig deeper, alot deeper, and horizontally came along...

ChumpDumper

05-06-2010, 08:19 PM

In its very currency...the strength of the dollar isn't in its debt, but in its might....I've explained many times why there is no better reserve currency...and why debtors were willing to lend billions to the U.S. despite fears of collapse...How does Iraqi oil being produced at the same level as during Oil-for-Food achieve that, dan?

ChumpDumper

05-06-2010, 08:20 PM

it was until the technology to dig deeper, alot deeper, and horizontally came along...You said they were already drilling horizontally.

Nbadan

05-06-2010, 08:20 PM

Where is it traded?

...blackmarket... duh!

Nbadan

05-06-2010, 08:22 PM

How does Iraqi oil being produced at the same level as during Oil-for-Food achieve that, dan?

So now you pretend to know how much oil is being pumped out of Iraq? How much?

ChumpDumper

05-06-2010, 08:24 PM

...blackmarket... duh!Kuwait sells no oil on the open market?

So you are now saying that oil production is even higher than reported.

ChumpDumper

05-06-2010, 08:29 PM

So now you pretend to know how much oil is being pumped out of Iraq? How much?Uh, dan -- it was in the article I quoted earlier.

the current 2.4 million barrels a day

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201004290319dowjonesdjonline000 334&title=iraq-plans-to-raise-oil-output-to-45-million-b/d-in-2014-from-24-million-b/d

Do you think this number is some kind of secret?

Is everything you are ignorant of part of a big secret conspiracy, dan? Because that would explain a lot.

RandomGuy

05-07-2010, 08:13 AM

Thermite is very cheap, and very efficient, so your 'how much' argument is weak..

Did you even watch the video? Thermite wasn't used to 'cut verticle columns'
it was used as a catalyst to weaken the vertical columns...your argument is that 'office equipment, fire and jet fuel did it' ..now that's very weak..

Nuh 'uh, your argument is weak.

:rolleyes

Just because you claim it is to make yourself feel better about your beliefs, doesn't make it so. Redistributing loads to loadbearing columns due to impact damage, then subjecting those columns to prolonged fires that weaken them at the same time is not some mysterious process unknown to human beings.

Weak is being unable to even partially account for how tens of tons of whateverthefuckyouthinkbroughtdownthebuildings got there, got wired, and was somehow fire and impact proofed to withstand the impact of the jetliners.

Weak is not having a single person who worked the pile find any evidence of whateverthefuckyouthinkbroughtdownthebuildings and all the copious wiring that would have been involved.

Weak is not having more accounts of scortched rubble from the floors and floors and floors of "thermite" or whateverthefuckyouthinkbroughtdownthebuildings going off.

That is weak.

RandomGuy

05-07-2010, 08:28 AM

Without causing supply side price pressure on the markets that rely on that oil - bull

My point is that a military requires a lot of oil...no Iraq invasion, no power for the U.S. in the region..

Meh, US military usage is less than about 2% of overall US consumption.

Yet another claim that rings hollow.

I know you want everything that happens in the world to be controlled by someone somewhere, because the thought that things happen occasionally through random events scares you.

I think you vastly overestimate the ability of secret powerful cabals to effect events these days.

Nbadan

05-07-2010, 06:56 PM

Just because you claim it is to make yourself feel better about your beliefs, doesn't make it so. Redistributing loads to loadbearing columns due to impact damage, then subjecting those columns to prolonged fires that weaken them at the same time is not some mysterious process unknown to human beings.

So now you know better than NIST? Where is the proof of this 'impact damage' your talking about? Why did NIST rule out this scenario?

Nbadan

05-07-2010, 06:57 PM

Weak is being unable to even partially account for how tens of tons of whateverthefuckyouthinkbroughtdownthebuildings got there, got wired, and was somehow fire and impact proofed to withstand the impact of the jetliners.

There was no wiring needed...and I've already shown how it could have been done...

Nbadan

05-07-2010, 06:59 PM

Weak is not having a single person who worked the pile find any evidence of whateverthefuckyouthinkbroughtdownthebuildings and all the copious wiring that would have been involved.

There was chemical evidence all over the place....Chumpy thinks it's red paint...

Nbadan

05-07-2010, 07:01 PM

Weak is not having more accounts of scortched rubble from the floors and floors and floors of "thermite" or whateverthefuckyouthinkbroughtdownthebuildings going off.

....what? Mouse is funny, but he has shown numerous amounts of unexplained molten metal and 'scorched' metal ..

Nbadan

05-07-2010, 07:05 PM

US military usage is less than about 2% of overall US consumption.

Armies can't move without two things, bases and oil...the U.S. got both those things in the region with Iraq...

ChumpDumper

05-07-2010, 08:14 PM

So now you know better than NIST? Where is the proof of this 'impact damage' your talking about? Why did NIST rule out this scenario?It didn't rule it out of the twin towers. Everyone needs to be spcecific about which collapse he is posting.

There was no wiring needed...and I've already shown how it could have been done...Link?

There was chemical evidence all over the place....Chumpy thinks it's red paint...The "scientists" never excluded red paint, so yeah -- Occam's Razor.

....what? Mouse is funny, but he has shown numerous amounts of unexplained molten metal and 'scorched' metal ..Did he ever tell us the exact composition of the molten metal? Occam again.

Armies can't move without two things, bases and oil...the U.S. got both those things in the region with Iraq...They already had both in the region -- and other countries are drilling for the oil. I believe Exxon-Mobil has only one of a dozen-plus contracts.

RandomGuy

05-10-2010, 09:03 AM

....what? Mouse is funny, but he has shown numerous amounts of unexplained molten metal and 'scorched' metal ..

:sleep

None of which proves anything other than the fact that there were fires in the buildings, big shocker. You posit massive amounts of thermite/explosives in almost every floor, but most of the rubble found wasn't really touched by fire.

The best support you have for this theory is that "there was some scorched metal in the rubble of that building that was on fire".

That's what you are hanging your hat on?

RandomGuy

05-10-2010, 09:06 AM

There was no wiring needed...and I've already shown how it could have been done...

So... no wiring was needed, it just took hundreds of evil conspirators to hover over piles of aluminum dust on every floor simultaneously with matches?

:lmao

LnGrrrR

05-10-2010, 10:51 AM

I think if I was ever siding with Mouse on any argument I would immediately take a lengthy look at the position I was agreeing with.

RandomGuy

05-10-2010, 10:56 AM

I think if I was ever siding with Mouse on any argument I would immediately take a lengthy look at the position I was agreeing with.

Even a stopped clock is right two times a day.

(not quite as much truth to that in the post-modern analogue era, heh)

RandomGuy

06-08-2010, 02:35 PM

Monthly bump. Nothing to see here aside from the first 5 pages or so.

RandomGuy

09-11-2010, 05:25 PM

Bump.

Just in case.

Wild Cobra

09-11-2010, 05:39 PM

Have any of you truthers read this one:

latest NIST report (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf)

Also, just look at WTC 6 damage. Are you guys saying it would have been impossible for debris to damage major support columns inside WTC 6, when this happened?

http://www.stagedterror.com/images/wtc6%20damage.jpg

ChumpDumper

09-11-2010, 07:00 PM

I believe that is actually a picture of building 5, but that just helps your point because it was further from the towers than building 6. In fact that damage to the inside corner is close to the same distance from the towers as building 7.

ChumpDumper

09-11-2010, 07:05 PM

Here's building 6:

http://stagedterror.com/Pages/WTC%20Complex/full/WTC%20Complex%20%2872%29.jpg

Debris from building 7 that "fell in its own footprint" is still being removed from Vesey Street at the right of the photo.

ChumpDumper

09-11-2010, 07:14 PM

Of course, the twoofer site you got the picture from doesn't even care about getting the building right.

Gotta love it.

Galileo

09-11-2010, 08:39 PM

KSM Conspiracy Charges Analyzed and Debunked
Don’t believe the charges until you’ve read the charge sheet
http://www.truthjihad.com/ksm.htm

RandomGuy

10-19-2010, 10:39 AM

Bumpovatch.

Because the 9-11 conspiracy zombie needs another shotgun blast to the head.

Nbadan

10-19-2010, 09:30 PM

Give it up...even the 911 Commission Chairs said their report is shit....

ChumpDumper

10-19-2010, 09:35 PM

Give it up...even the 911 Commission Chairs said their report is shit....Is that the only report ever made on 9/11?

Nbadan

10-19-2010, 09:37 PM

The only one with subpoena power....that was wasted..

ChumpDumper

10-19-2010, 09:40 PM

The only one with subpoena power....that was wasted..So your answer is no.

And what specific parts of the report did they say were bs?

mookie2001

10-19-2010, 09:41 PM

ChumpDumper

10-19-2010, 10:07 PM

NBADAN taking us back in time to a more innocent era
chumpdumper you lost dude

you live in austin you have to have seen the atheist hour on channel 10, THATS YOU MAN, you might as well be a christian:lol

Please, you never read anything about 9/11, EVAH -- even in these threads.

It wasn't even a a contest. You forfeit.

Nbadan

10-19-2010, 10:14 PM

I've posted many times that this thread is just in hiatus until new information, from a new investigation with subpoena power, emerges...

Blake

10-19-2010, 10:16 PM

Give it up...even the 911 Commission Chairs said their report is shit....

what do you think the purpose of the commission was?

ChumpDumper

10-19-2010, 10:16 PM

I've posted many times that this thread is just in hiatus until new information, from a new investigation with subpoena power, emerges...I'm still waiting for an actual alternative theory.

Any takers?

Shall I bump that thread?

mookie2001

10-19-2010, 10:18 PM

thats your fallback and fatal flaw, the 9/11 commission report

thats your trump card, weaker than clock radio speakers

ChumpDumper

10-19-2010, 10:21 PM

thats your fallback and fatal flaw, the 9/11 commission report

thats your trump card, weaker than clock radio speakersYou never read it or anything else about 9/11 for that matter.

Your total ignorance is my trump card.

Nbadan

10-19-2010, 10:24 PM

what do you think the purpose of the commission was?

...the same as the Warren commission, to placate the need for a real investigation into the events prior to 911 (and the Bush administration's negligence) and ineptness during the attacks..

DMX7

10-19-2010, 10:25 PM

I totally missed (thank god) what's going on in this thread, but please don't tell me its 90 pages of conspiracy theory. Please...

Nbadan

10-19-2010, 10:25 PM

thats your fallback and fatal flaw, the 9/11 commission report

thats your trump card, weaker than clock radio speakers

exactly.....RG and Chumphumper are destined to be doomed because their whole case rests on a report by the incompetent 9.11 commission

Blake

10-19-2010, 10:27 PM

...the same as the Warren commission, to placate the need for a real investigation into the events prior to 911 (and the Bush administration's negligence) and ineptness during the attacks..

what specifically about the events prior to and on 9/11 do you feel need(s) to be really investigated?

Blake

10-19-2010, 10:28 PM

exactly.....RG and Chumphumper are destined to be doomed because their whole case rests on a report by the incompetent 9.11 commission

doomed assumption

ChumpDumper

10-19-2010, 10:29 PM

exactly.....RG and Chumphumper are destined to be doomed because their whole case rests on a report by the incompetent 9.11 commissionNot at all.

You are destined to be doomed because your whole case -- well, you have no case.

It has been proved over and over and over again.

Would you like me to prove it again?

mookie2001

10-19-2010, 10:29 PM

no you never read it! im smart youre dumb

i was watching jersey shore when it came out

ill go check it out tomorrow just tell me the parts when it mentions how and why the towers collapsed

ChumpDumper

10-19-2010, 10:30 PM

no you never read it! im smart youre dumb

i was watching jersey shore when it came out

ill go check it out tomorrow just tell me the parts when it mentions how and why the towers collapsedI have linked the Commission, NIST reports and other sources several times.

You never read them.

And you never will.

That's fine. Just don't act like you actually have anything to say. This issue has been so important to you that you have done absolutely nothing to educate yourself about it in nine years.

mookie2001

10-19-2010, 10:33 PM

why dont you just tell me which chapter is on how and why the towers collapsed?

let me right click copy that last sentence and then i can last word chumpdump you over and over and claim victory

nists not the commission, we're watching the nba finals and youre telling me to go check out the 97 final four

ChumpDumper

10-19-2010, 10:36 PM

why dont you just tell me which chapter is on how and why the towers collapsed?Because you won't read it.

let me right click copy that last sentence and then i can last word chumpdump you over and over and claim victoryLet me remind you you haven't done shit about this in nine years.

nists not the commission, we're watching the nba finals and youre telling me to go check out the 97 final fourWe're talking about 9/11 and I am talking about reports regarding 9/11.

Do you want to educate yourself about 9/11 or not?

The answer is obviously no.

Nine years.

Nbadan

10-19-2010, 10:38 PM

what specifically about the events prior to and on 9/11 do you feel need(s) to be really investigated?

.....hate to sound like Cheney, but we won't know until we know...the whole connection between Muhammad Atta, Huffman Aviation, and Rudi Dekkers deserves to be seriously looked at...

mookie2001

10-19-2010, 10:39 PM

why dont you just tell me which chapter is on how and why the towers collapsed?

im waiting, we're all waiting, still

mookie2001

10-19-2010, 10:41 PM

i may be lazy and not have the book on my desk but there is a library around here, multiple book stores

it seems like a strange request if i know i havent read it

Nbadan

10-19-2010, 10:41 PM

...Not to mention that NIST has changed its story several times, even disproving its own original theory of catastrophic collapse of WTC7...

ChumpDumper

10-19-2010, 10:44 PM

why dont you just tell me which chapter is on how and why the towers collapsed?

im waiting, we're all waiting, stillWhy are you waiting?

Pick one up or download it and read it if is that important to you. NIST report as well. All the links Random Guy posted, too.

You haven't even done that much in the past nine years.

ChumpDumper

10-19-2010, 10:46 PM

...Not to mention that NIST has changed its story several times, even disproving its own original theory of catastrophic collapse of WTC7...Why would disproving its original theory be evidence of an NIST conspiracy?

Explain.

mookie2001

10-19-2010, 10:47 PM

ChumpDumper

10-19-2010, 10:48 PM

dude 9/11 commission report; the report, the book, the official commission the biggest release since childs play 2

what chapter do they say HOW AND WHY THE TOWERS COLLAPSED

thats what im waiting for- again

/ i'll yield to your deflectionWe've already had this discussion.

Years ago.

I explained it to you.

Years ago.

You haven't done shit since.

FuzzyLumpkins

10-19-2010, 10:49 PM

mookie2001

10-19-2010, 10:49 PM

thats not good enough

why wont you answer the question?

ChumpDumper

10-19-2010, 10:51 PM

thats not good enough

why wont you answer the question?Because I already did.

Years ago.

Feel free to use the search function.

mookie2001

10-19-2010, 10:53 PM

what chapter do they say HOW AND WHY THE TOWERS COLLAPSED ?

you could have answered 3 times already if you werent wrong

pages?, chapter?

nothing...zero. youre like an aggy yelling tshirt fan while his teams getting beat

ChumpDumper

10-19-2010, 10:56 PM

you could have answered 3 times already if you werent wrong

pages?, chapter?

nothing...zero. youre like an aggy yelling tshirt fan while his teams getting beatIf knowing the answer I already gave you several years ago is so important to you, you will look it up and read it again.

You are like an idiot who never read anything, and is yelling to read something he never read before and wouldn't read if it was shoved in front of his face and his eyelids were propped open.

Your claim of victory is that the Commission Report is not a scientific engineering document.

That's incredibly stupid.

Blake

10-19-2010, 10:57 PM

mookie2001

10-19-2010, 11:11 PM

your response was/is that the commission was flawed and to go read the NIST report.

i remember that. i am right because in that report they dont say shit about how and why the towers collapsed, you know, i know it

so EVERYTHING after that fact is just some guys webpage, mouses youtubes or western michigan professor charles bloadwater III's letter to the editor weekly standard apr 05

its bullshit and you know it

mookie2001

10-19-2010, 11:12 PM

thats why mouse will always own you even though youre smart and hes mouse

ChumpDumper

10-19-2010, 11:15 PM

your response was/is that the commission was flawed and to go read the NIST report.

i remember that. i am right because in that report they dont say shit about how and why the towers collapsed, you know, i know itRight. And you apparently never got past that.

so EVERYTHING after that fact is just some guys webpage, mouses youtubes or western michigan professor charles bloadwater III's letter to the editor weekly standard apr 05

its bullshit and you know itFor you, I believe that. You never read the NIST report, and somehow think you have a point about 9/11 because you never read anything about it; just some guys web page (probably infowars) that said the 9/11 Commission Report wasn't a scientific engineering document.

It's bullshit and you know it. You wouldn't be rehashing the same useless bullshit argument otherwise.

Blake

10-19-2010, 11:16 PM

your response was/is that the commission was flawed and to go read the NIST report.

i remember that. i am right because in that report they dont say shit about how and why the towers collapsed, you know, i know it

so EVERYTHING after that fact is just some guys webpage, mouses youtubes or western michigan professor charles bloadwater III's letter to the editor weekly standard apr 05

its bullshit and you know it

your posts are barely comprehendible.

do you believe in mouse's youtubes?

ChumpDumper

10-19-2010, 11:17 PM

thats why mouse will always own you even though youre smart and hes mouseNah, he never read anything either.

He forfeits just like you do.

You pre-own yourselves.

ChumpDumper

10-19-2010, 11:19 PM

your posts are barely comprehendible.

do you believe in mouse's youtubes?He believes if he doesn't read something, it doesn't exist.

Nbadan

10-19-2010, 11:24 PM

I've read this whole thread and I'm not convinced either way, if that makes me a two-fer then so be it......I'm convinced of certain things though...

1. Planes and not missiles hit the towers and Pentagon

mookie2001

10-19-2010, 11:24 PM

Nbadan

10-19-2010, 11:27 PM

2. NORAD flat out lied to investigators of the 911 Commission..

ChumpDumper

10-19-2010, 11:30 PM

alright we're getting somewhere then. if one admits that most of the websites out there are "alternative" theories and most of the books are alternative theories and the movies and the documentaries. then we dont know shit and my side comes to the only logical conclusion that the official report and what americans were told about 9/11 is a joke, its a novelty of an explanation

literally a parody

Lt. Commander Data would be on my side, because TNG has about as much clout as the 9/11 commission reportI agree that ignorant, biased people like to confirm their biases and will go out of their way to remain ignorant and biased.

You never read anything except one piece of information about one report that fit your world view, so you're done. Good for you. It's easier than, you know, reading anything else.

I accept that.

I do not accept that your self-enforced ignorance makes your opinion in any way persuasive.

mookie2001

10-19-2010, 11:41 PM

ChumpDumper

10-19-2010, 11:43 PM

you on the other hand have devoted hundreds probably thousands of hours supporting a work of fiction for no other reason than you dont want those hours to be spend in vain

youre the atheist experienceNope. Spent a few hours looking at both sides, decided one was more stupid and deceitful than the other, and pretty much stopped.

Years ago.

It was interesting. Don't regret it. Unlike you, I was curious.

mookie2001

10-19-2010, 11:50 PM

as of now you have 493 posts in this 9/11 thread alone- to my 68, thats more than a couple of hours, and thats just defense

mookie2001

10-19-2010, 11:50 PM

and youre really smart so...

you can do the math

ChumpDumper

10-19-2010, 11:52 PM

and youre really smart so...

you can do the mathYes. I know much more about 9/11 than you do.

I freely admit that.

After all, you never read anything about it.

One would have to wonder why someone would post so much about something he knows nothing about.

RandomGuy

10-20-2010, 09:16 AM

The computer model they used to simulate the falls was used with incomplete data. The models that NIST used were changed several times and the last one was changed within months of them releasing the report. The data they were using for the models was not jiving with observable phenomenon.

When you do not have all the data then you have to make assumptions and guess and check. The NIST report is more or less correlative with observation but it is hardly the only theoretical solution. Keep in mind that NIST went through several iterations.

The theory they proposed is the most compelling out there and its a pretty safe bet that noone will have the access to the data, funds man power and wherewithal to undertake something similar to what NIST did. We are stuck with that theory.

We are indeed.

Not all theories are created equal, as anyone who spends time in 9-11 la-la land quickly finds out.

There is always a cost to getting information, and at some point the cost to get more perfect information exceeds the potential value.

Sure we could spend tons more money on replicating the NIST's work. But why?

Do you think that if we did, we would suddenly find out that the controlled demolition crowd was right?

RandomGuy

10-20-2010, 09:20 AM

you on the other hand have devoted hundreds probably thousands of hours supporting a work of fiction for no other reason than you dont want those hours to be spent in vain

youre the atheist experience

I kind of view conspiracy theories to be giant pits of stupid.

Threads like this are the warning signs to people who might not be paying attention to where they are going, so they don't fall in and get all covered in stupid.

If one wants to ignore the "warning stupidity ahead" and wallow in the stupid by thinking that infowars is telling the truth, and Alex Jones is a smart, insightful guy, then go ahead. But don't say you weren't warned.

Think of it as a public service.

Nbadan

10-21-2010, 12:56 AM

to get more perfect information

More "perfect information"

:lol

RG has bought into the Bush-commissioned, 9/11 commission report(yeah, they got something right :rolleyes ) and an imperfect NIST report and with his Bush-covered glasses wants us to believe that all that slight of hand by NORAD, Bush-Cheney, and the FAA and FEMA during the investigation never happened...

Nbadan

10-21-2010, 12:59 AM

Sure we could spend tons more money on replicating the NIST's work. But why?

If you seriously don't know why perhaps you should visit on of the many memorial sites set up for the victims of Sept 11, 2001 and tell those families that they don't deserve to know why...

Nbadan

10-21-2010, 01:05 AM

why? what did Dekkers gain out of 9/11?

Atta should never have been allowed to train as a pilot at Huffman aviation in the first place....he was being spooked by the FBI under Clinton and German intelligence when he visited Germany...then he some how gets into the country unnoticed under Dubya and starts to orchestrate the 911 attacks....all again supposedly unnoticed...

Blake

10-21-2010, 01:17 AM

Blake

10-21-2010, 01:20 AM

.....hate to sound like Cheney, but we won't know until we know...the whole connection between Muhammad Atta, Huffman Aviation, and Rudi Dekkers deserves to be seriously looked at...

why? what did Dekkers gain out of 9/11?

Atta should never have been allowed to train as a pilot at Huffman aviation in the first place....he was being spooked by the FBI under Clinton and German intelligence when he visited Germany...then he some how gets into the country unnoticed under Dubya and starts to orchestrate the 911 attacks....all again supposedly unnoticed...

what did Dekkers gain out of all that?

Nbadan

10-21-2010, 01:25 AM

Blake

10-21-2010, 01:41 AM

Google is your friend....Dekkers is a very shady character....remember hearing about the planes filled with coke that got busted in Mexico and then suddenly disappeared from the M$M a few years back? ....that was Dekkers........this guy is so shady no M$M corporate news will touch him...so we are left with independent investigators to work out the narrative...

yes, google has been a friend. Apparently Webster's dictionary is not yours.

do I need to define each word in my question?

"What exactly did Dekkers get out of all of this for his involvement?"

RandomGuy

10-21-2010, 09:09 AM

If you seriously don't know why perhaps you should visit on of the many memorial sites set up for the victims of Sept 11, 2001 and tell those families that they don't deserve to know why...

Not quite what I meant.

We could spend millions and millions of dollars to perfectly re-create every little matchstick's trajectory involved in the collapse of the twin towers, but what would we get?

All the data we have so far points to what was obvious to all but the most schizophrenic that day, that two large buildings collapsed from a combination of impact damage and uncontrolled fires for a sustained period.

The NIST's analysis got to the point where they could make some fairly good guesses as to what initially failed and why. That let them make some scientifically based recommendations for future fires in large buildings.

Never in any of their analysis were there any indications of controlled demolitions, although it was briefly considered. There just wasn't any evidence of it.

If you want to be butthurt over the fact that reality doesn't favor your preferred ideas, be my guest.

Nbadan

10-22-2010, 12:46 AM

"What exactly did Dekkers get out of all of this for his involvement?"

That's what needs to be investigated.....what is the Dekkers connection....the whole Huffman aviation connection was never touched by the 911 commission...why?

Nbadan

10-22-2010, 12:51 AM

The NIST's analysis got to the point where they could make some fairly good guesses as to what initially failed and why. That let them make some scientifically based recommendations for future fires in large buildings.

Never in any of their analysis were there any indications of controlled demolitions, although it was briefly considered. There just wasn't any evidence of it.

If you want to be butthurt over the fact that reality doesn't favor your preferred ideas, be my guest.

who's butt-hurt? You trying to declare premature victory in your own thread again?

....I'm just pointing out the fallacy in your logic, the NIST report is far from 'perfection', to you it maybe as close to perfect as we'll ever get but it's not perfect, and that leaves some margin that maybe their conclusions are wrong...

RandomGuy

10-22-2010, 08:34 AM

who's butt-hurt? You trying to declare premature victory in your own thread again?

....I'm just pointing out the fallacy in your logic, the NIST report is far from 'perfection', to you it maybe as close to perfect as we'll ever get but it's not perfect, and that leaves some margin that maybe their conclusions are wrong...

Unfortunately, there is no room in that margin for "controlled demolition".

There is no room in that margin for magic purple ponies, smurfs, Santa Claus, chupacabras, or the Easter Bunny either.

Some things are just not supported at all by any reasonable reading of the evidence available.

Trying to equate the "controlled demolition theory" to the "impact damage + fire theory", as if they are somehow equally probable is a bit like what creationists do when they claim "evolution is only a theory".

Not all theories are created equal Dan. Sorry.

ChumpDumper

10-22-2010, 12:43 PM

Dan has no theory.

None of them do.

RandomGuy

10-22-2010, 01:39 PM

Dan has no theory.

None of them do.

I whole-heartedly agree.

They don't try very hard to actually flesh out theories, simply because they know on some level, even the craziest ones, that their vague "they did it" beliefs won't really stand up to scrutiny.

The less those beliefs are examined, the more they can self-justify holding on to what amounts to dogma. The most any of them do is trot out tired saws, just like creationists, in the hope of keeping the faith.

Nbadan

10-22-2010, 08:59 PM

Unfortunately, there is no room in that margin for "controlled demolition".

This is wholeheartedly false.....there are too many assumptions in the NIST data that I don't know how you can prove without a doubt that there was no structured demolition...

Prove it!

ChumpDumper

10-22-2010, 09:02 PM

This is wholeheartedly false.....there are too many assumptions in the NIST data that I don't know how you can prove without a doubt that there was no structured demolition...

Prove it!:lol @ demanding someone prove a negative.

Prove there was a "structured" demolition.

Prove it!

Nbadan

10-22-2010, 09:09 PM

He stated that he can prove without a doubt that the NIST report is accurate....

Some things are just not supported at all by any reasonable reading of the evidence available.

nice qualifier....'the evidence available' what rubbish....

ChumpDumper

10-22-2010, 09:10 PM

He stated that he can prove without a doubt that the NIST report is accurate....

reading is fundamental...So you're saying you can't prove it was a structured demolition.

OK, how about you just state your theory of what you think really happened?

Nbadan

10-22-2010, 09:12 PM

So you're saying you can't prove it was a structured demolition.

OK, how about you just state your theory of what you think really happened?

I can't prove it, but I can't rule it out either...

ChumpDumper

10-22-2010, 09:13 PM

OK, how about you just state your theory of what you think really happened?

Nbadan

10-22-2010, 09:35 PM

:rolleyes

The NIST predecisional WTC7 Report part1 of 5

3Ci1OOpq27o

Nbadan

10-22-2010, 09:47 PM

We can do better than this

EC0U36QWWAA

young_prosecutor

10-22-2010, 11:07 PM

I am an assistant district attorney for bexar county and I think the government lied about 9-11.

FuzzyLumpkins

10-22-2010, 11:44 PM

We can do better than this

EC0U36QWWAA

The NIST model is crap. It just so happens to be the best out there so people like the chump can turn around and parrot, "do you have another theory?" over and over again.

They changed the model at the eleventh hour and had had to switch it several times before that.

In fairness tow things need to be considered. Engineering projects are already beholden to financiers but compounding that was all the political pressure. You can bet your ass that they were pressure towards a particular finding right wrong or indifferent. They had to come put with something and they did. Happens all the time. Thank god this time no one tried to drive the product.

Additionally, there is absolutely no way that NIST had all of the data they would need to make a reliable model. Its not like they could inspect the building beforehand and its not like they would have been able to determine what the conditions were like inside the building with a high degree of accuracy. Thats not a shortcoming on NISTs part it does not make them incompetent. Its just the nature of the beast.

At the end of the day all they did was come up with something so politicians and people like Chump can sit there and feel 'good.'

This is not to say that the general mechanism for the fall(s) they had was wrong but when you have to make that many assumptions on that many variables -hell they could not even know how many variables they needed to consider- then you have an exceedingly difficult task.

I think its very justified to want a better explanation than the one the American public has been provided. I think NIST deserved more time too.

It does not matter because there is no way that anyone is going to have both the money and access to the information that would be required to make another theory that is worth a shit.

mookie2001

10-23-2010, 01:49 AM

No joke^

Looks like you got told yet again chump, what's your third go to government report?

ChumpDumper

10-23-2010, 02:47 AM

At the end of the day all they did was come up with something so politicians and people like Chump can sit there and feel 'good.'

This is not to say that the general mechanism for the fall(s) they had was wrong but when you have to make that many assumptions on that many variables -hell they could not even know how many variables they needed to consider- then you have an exceedingly difficult task.

I think its very justified to want a better explanation than the one the American public has been provided. I think NIST deserved more time too.

It does not matter because there is no way that anyone is going to have both the money and access to the information that would be required to make another theory that is worth a shit.
No joke^

Looks like you got told yet again chump, what's your third go to government report?So both of you are saying you will never come up with any theory that better explains what happened than the NIST report.

Thank you.

Finally.

You guys done told yourselves.

DMX7

10-23-2010, 10:54 AM

I like to object to government reports because there is a hole in my life and it makes me feel important. Plus, I like sticking it to the man.

:shakes fist angerly:

mookie2001

10-23-2010, 10:58 AM

damn yall trust the federals, when theyve fucked UP EVERYTHING

everything, make a list of all the shit the federals have gotten wrong, fucked up, lied to us about and totally bloadded the american people over but not 9/11, because all you have to do is read the commission report, errrr. the NIST, wait... trust chumpdumper

RandomGuy

10-23-2010, 11:58 AM

This is wholeheartedly false.....there are too many assumptions in the NIST data that I don't know how you can prove without a doubt that there was no structured demolition...

Prove it!

I will prove it is not a controlled demolition when you prove it is NOT magic purple ponies.

Prove it!

RandomGuy

10-23-2010, 12:04 PM

Additionally, there is absolutely no way that NIST had all of the data they would need to make a reliable model.

Thousands of pictures and hours of close up video footage.

Actual data on stress, heat tolerance, and other physical aspects of the steel and structure.

Blueprints

Access to people who built it, both construction, engineers, and the architects themselves.

They went so far as to simulate the fires in a lab, and gathered data on that.

With all this, you assert that there is "absolutely no way" they had enough data to make a reliable model?

How much data do you think they were missing in order to make a "reliable model" to your satisfaction?

RandomGuy

10-23-2010, 12:06 PM

FuzzyLumpkins

10-23-2010, 12:10 PM

So both of you are saying you will never come up with any theory that better explains what happened than the NIST report.

Thank you.

Finally.

You guys done told yourselves.

I guess you missed the part where I said the NIST model is shit. The models do not match observations. Thats just you taking shit out of context.

is it somewhat compelling? Sure but so are climate models and they only somewhat mimic observation and clearly need to be improved.

Whats funny is how butthurt petulant you get in all of this. I am not saying anything one way or another in terms of what did happen but what I am saying is that the NIST report is hardly exclusionary.

And do you really have to talk like an inbred?

RandomGuy

10-23-2010, 12:12 PM

I guess you missed the part where I said the NIST model is shit. The models do not match observations. Thats just you taking shit out of context.

is it somewhat compelling? Sure but so are climate models and they only somewhat mimic observation and clearly need to be improved.

Whats funny is how butthurt petulant you get in all of this. I am not saying anything one way or another in terms of what did happen but what I am saying is that the NIST report is hardly exclusionary.

And do you really have to talk like an inbred?

You say this as if you have the expertise and first hand knowledge of the evidence to be able to determine the validity of the model.

Have you examined all of the raw data that the NIST group looked at?

What is your particular expertise in fire and collapse simulation?

FuzzyLumpkins

10-23-2010, 12:19 PM

Thousands of pictures and hours of close up video footage.

Actual data on stress, heat tolerance, and other physical aspects of the steel and structure.

Blueprints

Access to people who built it, both construction, engineers, and the architects themselves.

They went so far as to simulate the fires in a lab, and gathered data on that.

With all this, you assert that there is "absolutely no way" they had enough data to make a reliable model?

How much data do you think they were missing in order to make a "reliable model" to your satisfaction?

And in all of that the model does not match observation.

They do not know fuel distribution. They do not know about air flow in the interior of the building. They have no specific information on the damage done by the falling debris etc.

I am not syaing that they did not do the best with what they had. I am not saying that they were not going down the right path. What I am saying is the the NIST report was a rush job due to immense political pressure.

FuzzyLumpkins

10-23-2010, 12:22 PM

You say this as if you have the expertise and first hand knowledge of the evidence to be able to determine the validity of the model.

Have you examined all of the raw data that the NIST group looked at?

What is your particular expertise in fire and collapse simulation?

Where is you r expertise and first hand knowledge? That works both ways.

This is ad hominem and I am not getting into my personal life.

RandomGuy

10-23-2010, 12:23 PM

And in all of that the model does not match observation.

They do not know fuel distribution. They do not know about air flow in the interior of the building. They have no specific information on the damage done by the falling debris etc.

I am not syaing that they did not do the best with what they had. I am not saying that they were not going down the right path. What I am saying is the the NIST report was a rush job due to immense political pressure.

My reading of the report is that they modeled fuel, air flow, and debris.

I won't ask you to prove a negative, but your understanding does not match mine.

I will for the 99th time go back into the report and supporting data, and my memory of such things is generally good, so I think I will be able to find that information.

I have no doubt they were rushed. But, I take them at their word when they said, essentially, "we are fairly sure it happened like this".

ChumpDumper

10-23-2010, 12:26 PM

ChumpDumper

10-23-2010, 12:28 PM

I guess you missed the part where I said the NIST model is shit. The models do not match observations. Thats just you taking shit out of context.

is it somewhat compelling? Sure but so are climate models and they only somewhat mimic observation and clearly need to be improved.

Whats funny is how butthurt petulant you get in all of this. I am not saying anything one way or another in terms of what did happen but what I am saying is that the NIST report is hardly exclusionary.

And do you really have to talk like an inbred?

I am not syaing that they did not do the best with what they had. I am not saying that they were not going down the right path. What I am saying is the the NIST report was a rush job due to immense political pressure.So you are saying no one will never come up with any theory that better explains what happened than the NIST report.

Thank you.

And thanks also for the ad hominem, hypocrite.

FuzzyLumpkins

10-23-2010, 12:36 PM

So you are saying no one will never come up with any theory that better explains what happened than the NIST report.

Thank you.

And thanks also for the ad hominem, hypocrite.

Uh-oh. Chump's butthurt. I do not base my argument on saying you were butthurt. I just said it was funny because it is. No argument, no fallacy.

Do you think that the NIST models are accurate representations of observed facts?

RandomGuy

10-23-2010, 12:36 PM

Where is you r expertise and first hand knowledge? That works both ways.

This is ad hominem and I am not getting into my personal life.

You did not answer my questions. I will get to precisely why they are not ad hominem in a second.

I have no expertise in fires or building collapses.

I have no first hand knowledge of the raw data they used, other than my reading of the NIST report and the supporting addenda.

Ad hominem would be to claim that you are wrong because of something, in this case you are not an expert, and you have not examined the raw data.

In most cases that is an ad hominem logical fallacy.

However, in the case where one has to make a judgment call as to who to believe when we are presented with conflicting assertions, we MUST consider circumstances and expertise WHEN THAT EXPERTISE DIRECTLY APPLIES TO THE CLAIM.

In this case, we have a group of hundreds of people, many with PhD's directly appropriate to the question and who did study the data firsthand, who assert:

Their model is sufficient.

Their data is sufficient.
On the other hand, I have you, who probably does not have an applicable PhD or specific access to data, claiming:

Thier model "is shit".

Their data is insufficient.

Who, then, should I, the non-expert, believe is more likely to be correct?

ChumpDumper

10-23-2010, 12:43 PM

Uh-oh. Chump's butthurt. I do not base my argument on saying you were butthurt. I just said it was funny because it is. No argument, no fallacy.Sure, you are using insults to try to undermine my position.

Ad hominem.

Do you think that the NIST models are accurate representations of observed facts?I think they are good faith efforts made with the best information available at the time. There probably isn't and won't be any new information available, so unless truthers give me something else to believe using the same information, I'll believe their explanation.

Do you have another theory that you believe given all the known information?

Let's hear it now.

Don't get upset and start hurling more insults if you don't have an alternate theory. No one else has one.

RandomGuy

10-23-2010, 12:43 PM

However, in the case where one has to make a judgment call as to who to believe when we are presented with conflicting assertions, we MUST consider circumstances and expertise WHEN THAT EXPERTISE DIRECTLY APPLIES TO THE CLAIM.

This does cut the other way as well.

I have no doubt, and fully agree, they were rushed.

They also have motive to assert that their conclusions were better than they actually were.

This would tend to undermine their assertions, and increase the likelihood you are correct, Fuzzy.

If they really wanted to lie about how good their data/model was, I would be ill-equipped to detect that.

That said, we logically have to assume people are telling the truth. I will have to take them at their word, especially when I have no evidence to the contrary.

FuzzyLumpkins

10-23-2010, 12:51 PM

My reading of the report is that they modeled fuel, air flow, and debris.

I won't ask you to prove a negative, but your understanding does not match mine.

I will for the 99th time go back into the report and supporting data, and my memory of such things is generally good, so I think I will be able to find that information.

I have no doubt they were rushed. But, I take them at their word when they said, essentially, "we are fairly sure it happened like this".

I understand they modelled it. They had to. What I am saying is that you could not have done a full spectrum analysis off the video footage. What I am saying is that those huge chunks of steel, concrete, aluminum etc hit the building and the complete nature and extent of the damage could not be known with precision. You cannot see through walls.

You have to make assumptions at that point. I have seen the stuff where they postulate for example how the planes momentum would have pushed fuel to the central columns and the like but they are postulations not observations.

There models were getting better. Of course they should feel good about the directions they were going but fairly certain is a long way from definitive. They were cut short and that was wrong.

I just think the American public was done a major disservice. The

RandomGuy

10-23-2010, 01:00 PM

fairly certain is a long way from definitive

Fairly certain is close to definitive, especially when you get that much brainpower and expertise on a subject together.

That was easy. :)

ba5GW9DjHxE

FuzzyLumpkins

10-23-2010, 01:01 PM

Sure, you are using insults to try to undermine my position.

Ad hominem.

I think they are good faith efforts made with the best information available at the time. There probably isn't and won't be any new information available, so unless truthers give me something else to believe using the same information, I'll believe their explanation.

Do you have another theory that you believe given all the known information?

Let's hear it now.

Don't get upset and start hurling more insults if you don't have an alternate theory. No one else has one.

You did not answer the question. Do you think it was accurate representation of observed facts. Telling us something else you think it is does not answer the question. Yes or no I believe is the proper answer. Qualifications of course are expected.

An alternate theory has no bearing on what I am saying. I do not have to come up with an alternate theory to say that the NIST report is inadequate.

Say you say you are not butthurt. You do not have to claim that you are happy or any other particular to prove that you are not butthurt.

I realize you think your question is somehow thoroughgoing in terms of the discussion as much as you parrot it but you suck at the socratic method. That last one IS an ad hominem.

Oh and look up ad hominem. You have to link the personal observation to an argument. Me saying that is funny is nothing like an actual ad hominem where for example I say you are going to argue a particular way because you are butthurt.

It is funny. If I thought you actually knew anyone who died that day I might care but I just think its funny.

RandomGuy

10-23-2010, 01:03 PM

At the risk of getting all ADD:

I love youtube. Found that bit at random, and it seems the guy and his relatives seem to have some talent.

Qg8pWQMwU28

... and now back to your regularly scheduled pissing contest about 9-11. :lol

RandomGuy

10-23-2010, 01:06 PM

On a further related note:

_XC2mqcMMGQ

Discovered this local Austin band by surfing at random on youtube. Fascinating group.

If you liked that, I would highly recommend one of their other songs:

9wHl9qRsMzw

Sorry. just riffing on a saturday with too much coffee. whoot.

ChumpDumper

10-23-2010, 01:06 PM

You did not answer the question. Do you think it was accurate representation of observed facts. Telling us something else you think it is does not answer the question. Yes or no I believe is the proper answer. Qualifications of course are expected.Based on all the qualifications, it was as accurate as it was really going to get.

An alternate theory has no bearing on what I am saying. I do not have to come up with an alternate theory to say that the NIST report is inadequate.Just admit you don't have one. You're avoiding the question.

Say you say you are not butthurt. You do not have to claim that you are happy or any other particular to prove that you are not butthurt.Now you're butthurt.

I realize you think your question is somehow thoroughgoing in terms of the discussion as much as you parrot it but you suck at the socratic method. That last one IS an ad hominem.I don't really think it is thoroughgoing. I just like to get down to what I think are brass tacks.

Oh and look up ad hominem. You have to link the personal observation to an argument. Me saying that is funny is nothing like an actual ad hominem where for example I say you are going to argue a particular way because you are butthurt.I looked it up.

It fits.

It is funny. If I thought you actually knew anyone who died that day I might care but I just think its funny.I think it's funny you basically agree with me and all you can say is I'm butthurt that you agree with me so much.

Give me something else to believe and I'll consider it.

That is the bottom line with me.

You can throw all the ad hominems and insults at me you want, but in the end you have nothing else, so don't get butthurt about that.

Thanks.

ChumpDumper

10-23-2010, 01:08 PM

Gone for the day. I'll come back to see if anyone has the balls to come up with an alternate theory.

Confidence is low.

FuzzyLumpkins

10-23-2010, 01:25 PM

Based on all the qualifications, it was as accurate as it was really going to get.

Just admit you don't have one. You're avoiding the question.

Now you're butthurt.

I don't really think it is thoroughgoing. I just like to get down to what I think are brass tacks.

I looked it up.

It fits.

I think it's funny you basically agree with me and all you can say is I'm butthurt that you agree with me so much.

Give me something else to believe and I'll consider it.

That is the bottom line with me.

You can throw all the ad hominems and insults at me you want, but in the end you have nothing else, so don't get butthurt about that.

Thanks.

Ahh yes the Chump world famous socratic method you really agree with me defense. Look at the silly monkey.

:rolleyes

Look it up again:

argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.

I linked it to my thinking its funny not the discussion at hand.

You did not look up shit.

You still did not answer my question. I did not ask whether or not it could be more accurate.

I did not avoid your question. I said that your question is immaterial. Its a red herring.

And fine there is no alternate model being presented so you do not care. Why are you still acting so butthurt?

FuzzyLumpkins

10-23-2010, 01:40 PM

Fairly certain is close to definitive, especially when you get that much brainpower and expertise on a subject together.

That was easy. :)

ba5GW9DjHxE

Not so much in my opinion. Hey if you're satisfied with what they did then thats cool.

I do have background in thermodynamics, materials science, spectrum analysis, digital signal processing and computer modeling.

I think they would have done a better job given more time. Thats okay too.

I want to repeat that I do not think that NIST acted in bad faith.

I understand how the model would predict a major deformation of the exterior face at the top of WTC7 given the damage to the exterior of the building. I just do not think it meets observed fact.

Does that mean that it was a controlled demolition? Of course not. What it does mean is that there were variables not considered or incorrectly considered in the model.

I have just seen too many rushed projects.

RandomGuy

10-23-2010, 02:17 PM

Not so much in my opinion. Hey if you're satisfied with what they did then thats cool.

I do have background in thermodynamics, materials science, spectrum analysis, digital signal processing and computer modeling.

I think they would have done a better job given more time. Thats okay too.

I want to repeat that I do not think that NIST acted in bad faith.

I understand how the model would predict a major deformation of the exterior face at the top of WTC7 given the damage to the exterior of the building. I just do not think it meets observed fact.

Does that mean that it was a controlled demolition? Of course not. What it does mean is that there were variables not considered or incorrectly considered in the model.

I have just seen too many rushed projects.

There we go. You are talking about, specifically, Blg 7. I was not.

That might color the conversation a bit differently.

I don't think that they got nearly as close to figuring out that collapse as they did for 1 + 2. They had a lot less budget, mostly because it wasn't quite as important (except to conspiracy theorists, of course).

FuzzyLumpkins

10-23-2010, 03:33 PM

There we go. You are talking about, specifically, Blg 7. I was not.

That might color the conversation a bit differently.

I don't think that they got nearly as close to figuring out that collapse as they did for 1 + 2. They had a lot less budget, mostly because it wasn't quite as important (except to conspiracy theorists, of course).

See this is where I strongly disgree. In 1 and 2 huge firestarting objects were propelled at very high speeds into the central columns. The mechanism is fairly straightforward.

WTC7 is clearly not as obvious because it was thought that a a fire induced fall was not possible. Thats what all the conspiracy people point to. Ithas not happened elsewhere ever. NIST contends they came up with a way that it could happen. The only problem is their model did not work.

The conclusions of the NIST report were not as much how it happened but instead of how buildings can be built in the future to prevent shit like this happening again. They made recommendations on future building codes.

Well those recommendations are based on bad models and did not address the actual cause of the collapse because they never figured out what it was.

So not only do you have the greatest tragedy in American history in 60 years not getting the full and complete attention that it deserved but the safety ramifications of these falls were discarded for political expediency.

Its a disgrace.

ChumpDumper

10-24-2010, 03:05 AM

See this is where I strongly disgree. In 1 and 2 huge firestarting objects were propelled at very high speeds into the central columns. The mechanism is fairly straightforward.

WTC7 is clearly not as obvious because it was thought that a a fire induced fall was not possible. Thats what all the conspiracy people point to. Ithas not happened elsewhere ever. NIST contends they came up with a way that it could happen. The only problem is their model did not work.

The conclusions of the NIST report were not as much how it happened but instead of how buildings can be built in the future to prevent shit like this happening again. They made recommendations on future building codes.

Well those recommendations are based on bad models and did not address the actual cause of the collapse because they never figured out what it was.

So not only do you have the greatest tragedy in American history in 60 years not getting the full and complete attention that it deserved but the safety ramifications of these falls were discarded for political expediency.

Its a disgrace.No one died in WTC7.

It clearly wasn't as important.

Why are you so butthurt about it?

Winehole23

10-24-2010, 05:01 AM

Observation does not match theory, allegedly.

The theory (I take it) is that no steel skyscraper ever fell down before because of a fire. I see no reason why new outcomes need be prohibited in theory, but there it is...

...but perhaps this take was always meant to be a more subterfuge of rhetoric rather than a description of reality, but perhaps Fuzzy thinks it's a description of reality, when in essence and effect it is merely a description of the past.

ChumpDumper

10-24-2010, 01:13 PM

Look it up again:

I linked it to my thinking its funny not the discussion at hand.

You did not look up shit.Of course I did. Now you're butthurt that I did.

You still did not answer my question. I did not ask whether or not it could be more accurate.I know of no new information regarding the factors you were butthurt about, so I can only conclude you want NIST to keep guessing and spending money until they get something that looks more like the one or two angles of video that exist of the collapse of a building in which no one died.

I did not avoid your question. I said that your question is immaterial. Its a red herring.Ah, the old "I'm afraid to answer so I'll say it doesn't matter."

And fine there is no alternate model being presented so you do not care. Why are you still acting so butthurt?Why isn't there? All the data is there. All the great minds of the movement for truth should be able to pool their resources and vast intellects to some up with some models of their own.

So far, this is the closest I have seen:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rLV-ZuNPwJ4/SG-exAPo-1I/AAAAAAAABz0/edWgNWJOiTs/s400/GageWithBoxes.jpg

WTC7 was hit by one of the tallest buildings in the world and was burned by unfought fires for several hours. No attempt was made to fight the fires when some meager resources became available because the FDNY measured the deformation of the building and concluded there was a good chance it would collapse.

And it collapsed.

No one died and no one really cared about the exact initiation and mechanism of collapse, with good reason. The building was obviously severely fucked up and looked like it was going to collapse for hours.

The WTC7 investigation did not start until the investigation into the twin towers was complete, and it lasted about three years.

I don't understand why a model necessarily based on so many assumptions should be criticized so heavily for not looking exactly like two videos of the north facing top floors of the building during the collapse. You claim to want more accuracy but concede there is no actual known information that would make it more accurate.

You just want more guessing. Or just a chance to be butthurt that they decided to stop guessing. Since you know there will be no more guessing, one can only conclude you enjoy being butthurt about it.

mookie2001

10-24-2010, 01:50 PM

oh building 7 really gets chumpdumper lost in a sea on confusion, rofl

hey chumpdumper i was wondering how a building (7) could collapse in the manner that we all watched on video? this thread is called real 9/11 research right?

now first of all we ALL KNOW its not in the 9/11 commission report, that would be foolish to expect that. these are things we know. building 7 being left out of the 9/11 commission report is something we know. Like Hubie Brown would say

ChumpDumper

10-24-2010, 01:56 PM

oh building 7 really gets chumpdumper lost in a sea on confusion, rofl

hey chumpdumper i was wondering how a building (7) could collapse in the manner that we all watched on video? this thread is called real 9/11 research right?You already know where the explanations can be found. You have been told several times. You choose not to read them.

Ever.

now first of all we ALL KNOW its not in the 9/11 commission report, that would be foolish to expect that. these are things we know. building 7 being left out of the 9/11 commission report is something we know. Like Hubie Brown would sayThe St. Nicolas Church isn't in the 9/11 Commission Report either.

You are a fool to expect the 9/11 Commission to produce a scientific engineering report. Repeating your expectation and ignoring actual scientific engineering reports makes you a bigger fool.

These are things we know.

ChumpDumper

10-24-2010, 02:05 PM

There is no report regarding the complete collapse mechanisms of WTC buildings 3, 4, 5 or 6 anywhere.

It must be a conspiracy!

FuzzyLumpkins

10-25-2010, 12:00 AM

Of course I did. Now you're butthurt that I did.

I know of no new information regarding the factors you were butthurt about, so I can only conclude you want NIST to keep guessing and spending money until they get something that looks more like the one or two angles of video that exist of the collapse of a building in which no one died.

Ah, the old "I'm afraid to answer so I'll say it doesn't matter."

Why isn't there? All the data is there. All the great minds of the movement for truth should be able to pool their resources and vast intellects to some up with some models of their own.

So far, this is the closest I have seen:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rLV-ZuNPwJ4/SG-exAPo-1I/AAAAAAAABz0/edWgNWJOiTs/s400/GageWithBoxes.jpg

WTC7 was hit by one of the tallest buildings in the world and was burned by unfought fires for several hours. No attempt was made to fight the fires when some meager resources became available because the FDNY measured the deformation of the building and concluded there was a good chance it would collapse.

And it collapsed.

No one died and no one really cared about the exact initiation and mechanism of collapse, with good reason. The building was obviously severely fucked up and looked like it was going to collapse for hours.

The WTC7 investigation did not start until the investigation into the twin towers was complete, and it lasted about three years.

I don't understand why a model necessarily based on so many assumptions should be criticized so heavily for not looking exactly like two videos of the north facing top floors of the building during the collapse. You claim to want more accuracy but concede there is no actual known information that would make it more accurate.

You just want more guessing. Or just a chance to be butthurt that they decided to stop guessing. Since you know there will be no more guessing, one can only conclude you enjoy being butthurt about it.

So your argument is basically that while it does not accurately reflect what actually happened I should just not care. Thats nice. People clearly did care about the mechanism as they gave recommendations on building codes.

Nice reverse face on all of your arguments up to this point though.

You also clearly do not know shit about modelling. You might as well say the climate modelers should stop and we should be fine with their inaccurate climate models too.

The only thing here is that YOU do not care. It does not preclude you rolling out the tin foil hat youtubes so you can measure your epeen. To me, however, it is very important that they make recommendations on future buildings be made with the best possible information.

You are so hung up on arguing the tin hat crew on this subject, all you do is regurgitate your same old bullshit.

ChumpDumper

10-25-2010, 12:23 AM

So your argument is basically that while it does not accurately reflect what actually happened I should just not care. Thats nice. People clearly did care about the mechanism as they gave recommendations on building codes.

Nice reverse face on all of your arguments up to this point though.

You also clearly do not know shit about modelling. You might as well say the climate modelers should stop and we should be fine with their inaccurate climate models too.

The only thing here is that YOU do not care. It does not preclude you rolling out the tin foil hat youtubes so you can measure your epeen. To me, however, it is very important that they make recommendations on future buildings be made with the best possible information.

You are so hung up on arguing the tin hat crew on this subject, all you do is regurgitate your same old bullshit.Tell me why I should care more.

Tell me why there is so much more I should know about modeling.

I really don't give a shit about non-binding building code recommendations.

Quit being so butthurt about your epeen and tell us all why you care so much.

FuzzyLumpkins

10-25-2010, 12:58 AM

Tell me why I should care more.

Tell me why there is so much more I should know about modeling.

I really don't give a shit about non-binding building code recommendations.

Quit being so butthurt about your epeen and tell us all why you care so much.

More socratic bullshit?

This may be a revelation to you but the discussion does not center around you and what you care about.

You gave up trying to argue the point to now saying you do not care. Whatevs.

Fine you do not care so I am not going to continue to bother.

ChumpDumper

10-25-2010, 01:06 AM

More socratic bullshit?

This may be a revelation to you but the discussion does not center around you and what you care about.Now it revolves around what you care about:

Non-binding building code recommendations.

You gave up trying to argue the point to now saying you do not care. Whatevs.The point to me is not non-binding building code recommendations.

Fine you do not care so I am not going to continue to bother.You gave up trying to argue the point to now saying you are not going to continue to bother. Whatevs.

FuzzyLumpkins

10-25-2010, 01:11 AM

Now it revolves around what you care about:

Non-binding building code recommendations.

The point to me is not non-binding building code recommendations.

You gave up trying to argue the point to now saying you are not going to continue to bother. Whatevs.

:rolleyes

What do you think the point of the studies was? Do you think that it was to answer the tinfoil hat squad?

FuzzyLumpkins

10-25-2010, 01:38 AM

I want to expand on this a little bit.

Chump spent this entire thread parroting 'give a better theory' ad nauseum.

He now has gone from that to saying that it does not matter that the model is shit because the recommendations they made off of them were just that: recommendations.

I just want to point out that because the model is shit ANY theory is just as valid. But hey at least its not legally binding.

You can say that you shot blue elephants out of your ass the day before weakening supports on all sides and it has just as much proof as the mechanism NIST put out.

ChumpDumper

10-25-2010, 01:42 AM

:rolleyes

What do you think the point of the studies was? Do you think that it was to answer the tinfoil hat squad?In part, it most definitely was.

Anyone who read the report would know that.

Maybe you just skipped right to the non-binding building code recommendations. Sure, they seem to make sense, but to me the combination of factors that brought down WTC 7 were rare enough that I simply wouldn't worry if I entered a building that was constructed exactly the same way.

If I were designing or building or insuring a building now, it would be of greater interest to me. I'm not, so it isn't.

ChumpDumper

10-25-2010, 01:43 AM

FuzzyLumpkins

10-25-2010, 01:47 AM

No one gave me a better theory.

Do you have a better theory?

Any mechanism is at least as valid as the one put forth by NIST. The NIST model is clearly not what happened.

You sure are trying to have it both ways.

ChumpDumper

10-25-2010, 01:50 AM

Any mechanism is at least as valid as the one put forth by NIST. The NIST model is clearly not what happened.

You sure are trying to have it both ways.Nah, my way is wanting a theory.

NIST gave me one.

You failed to.

FuzzyLumpkins

10-25-2010, 01:55 AM

Straight from NIST:

Goals:

To investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that contributed to the outcome of the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster.
To serve as the basis for:
Improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used;
Improved tools, guidance for industry and safety officials;
Revisions to codes, standards, and practices; and
Improved public safety.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTCplan_new.htm

ChumpDumper

10-25-2010, 02:06 AM

Straight from NIST:

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTCplan_new.htmCould you tell us what Chapter 3.3 of the report had to do with?

Straight from the NIST, please.

FuzzyLumpkins

10-25-2010, 02:10 AM

Could you tell us what Chapter 3.3 of the report had to do with?

Straight from the NIST, please.

How many sections are there in the report please?

Responding to everything with a question is fun!!! WEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!

:downspin:

ChumpDumper

10-25-2010, 02:11 AM

You are not answering the question.
Could you tell us what Chapter 3.3 of the report had to do with?

Straight from the NIST, please.

FuzzyLumpkins

10-25-2010, 02:12 AM

You are not answering the question.

Neither are you....

ChumpDumper

10-25-2010, 02:12 AM

There are five chapters.
Could you tell us what Chapter 3.3 of the report had to do with?

Straight from the NIST, please.

FuzzyLumpkins

10-25-2010, 02:19 AM

I will.

After you.

Definition

A goal or objective is a projected computation of affairs that a person or a system plans or intends to achieve—a personal or organizational desired end-point in some sort of assumed development. Many people endeavor to reach goals within a finite time by setting deadlines.

Definition of point:

15. An objective or purpose to be reached or achieved, or one that is worth reaching or achieving:

Is it possible to respond to something that is not your overall point or goal in a report?

:downspin:

FuzzyLumpkins

10-25-2010, 02:20 AM

There are five chapters.

I did not ask how many chapters.

ChumpDumper

10-25-2010, 02:22 AM

I did not ask how many chapters.Each chapter has several sections. You may count them all if you like.

One of them is section three of chapter 3 (provided I have the nomenclature correct).

What is the title of the section?

ChumpDumper

10-25-2010, 02:26 AM

ChumpDumper

10-25-2010, 02:31 AM

To me, however, it is very important that they make recommendations on future buildings be made with the best possible information.Why is it so important to you?

What other information (not speculation) is available that the NIST did not use?

FuzzyLumpkins

10-25-2010, 02:33 AM

I'll answer for you since you are being so butthurt about it.

It's called Hypothetical Blast Scenarios.

It's only a couple of pages in the 83 page report, but it is in the report.

Straight from NIST.

Sure it is and it was clearly not the point of the investigation. 97% of the report had nothing to do with it.

They clearly outlined what the goal was:

Goals:

To investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that contributed to the outcome of the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster.
To serve as the basis for:
Improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used;
Improved tools, guidance for industry and safety officials;
Revisions to codes, standards, and practices; and
Improved public safety.

You do not care that they failed at their goal because you are not an insurer or builder, remember?

I am not butthurt. i refuse to play your game. I just know your methodology.

I do like how you are claiming that I am butthurt ever since I said it in reference to you yesterday. Get your own material, chump.

FuzzyLumpkins

10-25-2010, 02:36 AM

Why is it so important to you?

What other information (not speculation) is available that the NIST did not use?

Like I said you do not know how modeling works. Heres a hint: unknown variables(read: speculation) had to be accounted for in their models.

Their assumptions (read:speculations) were wrong thus the model did not reflect what happened.

ChumpDumper

10-25-2010, 02:39 AM

Sure it is and it was clearly not the point of the investigation. 97% of the report had nothing to do with it.Nor should it have.

You'll notice I said "in part."

3% is a part.

You do not care that they failed at their goal because you are not an insurer or builder, remember?

I am not butthurt. i refuse to play your game. I just know your methodology.

I do like how you are claiming that I am butthurt ever since I said it in reference to you yesterday. Get your own material, chump.Stop being so butthurt and I will stop saying you are butthurt.

These are very simple question I am asking of you:

Why is it so important to you?

What other information (not speculation) is available that the NIST did not use?

You say it's important to you. Tell us why.

You imply they didn't use all the best information available. Tell us what they should have used.

Well, you were too butthurt to simply quote a section title "straight from the NIST" when you had no problem doing so before. I won't expect you to answer the simple questions above.

Because you are butthurt.

FuzzyLumpkins

10-25-2010, 02:47 AM

Nor should it have.

You'll notice I said "in part."

3% is a part.

Stop being so butthurt and I will stop saying you are butthurt.

These are very simple question I am asking of you:

Why is it so important to you?

What other information (not speculation) is available that the NIST did not use?

Well, you were too butthurt to simply quote a section title "straight from the NIST" when you had no problem doing so before. I won't expect you to answer the simple questions above.

Because you are butthurt.

Who said that there needed to be additional variables? I never did. It very well could have been wrong measurements on the variables they did use.

Thats immaterial because either way its still wrong.

What difference does the import I put on something make? Is it suddenly going to make their model work. Is it somehow going to change their stated goals or make less than 98% of the report have nothing to do with conspiracy theories?

I did not not answer the question because I was upset. I did not answer it because it was a red herring designed to try and misrepresent the truth. Like I said, I know your methodology.

Should only builders and insurers be concerned about the validity of the NIST 1A report?

ChumpDumper

10-25-2010, 02:51 AM

Who said that there needed to be additional variables? I never did. It very well could have been wrong measurements on the variables they did use.

Thats immaterial because either way its still wrong.

What difference does the import I put on something make? Is it suddenly going to make their model work. Is it somehow going to change their stated goals or make less than 98% of the report have nothing to do with conspiracy theories?

I did not not answer the question because I was upset. I did not answer it because it was a red herring designed to try and misrepresent the truth. Like I said, I know your methodology.

Should only builders and insurers be concerned about the validity of the NIST 1A report?You didn't answer the questions:

Why is it so important to you?

What other information (not speculation) is available that the NIST did not use?

And I'll add another since you brought it up:

Which measurements used by the NIST were wrong?

Quit being so butthurt and answer the questions.

FuzzyLumpkins

10-25-2010, 03:03 AM

You didn't answer the questions:

Why is it so important to you?

What other information (not speculation) is available that the NIST did not use?

And I'll add another since you brought it up:

Which measurements used by the NIST were wrong?

Quit being so butthurt and answer the questions.

Wow, you do get upset when people do not answer your questions. This is funny.

I responded to your questions. Address the responses.

Heres another response to your latest red herring argument presented as a question:

I never said any particular variables were wrong. I do not need to know the specific variable to know that the model was bad. We can get into a discussion of holisitc and reductionist analysis if you want but its going to have to wait until tomorrow. Or later today rather.

Pose a question worth answering in the context of the discussion and I will answer it. I am not your pet monkey.

ChumpDumper

10-25-2010, 03:19 AM

Wow, you do get upset when people do not answer your questions. This is funny.

I responded to your questions. Address the responses.Your responses were butthurt and evasive. Consider them addressed.

Heres another response to your latest red herring argument presented as a question:

I never said any particular variables were wrong. I do not need to know the specific variable to know that the model was bad. We can get into a discussion of holisitc and reductionist analysis if you want but its going to have to wait until tomorrow. Or later today rather.So you basically have nothing.

That's cool.

Pose a question worth answering in the context of the discussion and I will answer it. I am not your pet monkey.These questions are completely in the context of this discussion. The thread is about 9/11 research and what we think of it. If you don't want to discuss it, don't post in the thread.

Quit being butthurt and upset and just answer them.

Why is it so important to you?

What other information (not speculation) is available that the NIST did not use?

Which measurements used by the NIST were wrong? (I'm not talking about anything they had to guess about).

The non-binding building code recommendations aren't important to me for the reasons I stated.

I know of no information available to the NIST that they did not use. You implied there is. It's up to you to tell us what it is.

I know of no actual measurements that they got wrong. Of course they had to speculate about many variables, but that just sends us back to the first question you are too upset and butthurt to answer.

Blake

10-25-2010, 10:23 AM

I just want to point out that because the model is shit ANY theory is just as valid.

Any mechanism is at least as valid as the one put forth by NIST. The NIST model is clearly not what happened.

I do not need to know the specific variable to know that the model was bad. We can get into a discussion of holisitc and reductionist analysis if you want but its going to have to wait until tomorrow. Or later today rather.

I'd like to discuss holistic and reductionist analysis(es).

What is the best theory/model you have seen? or are they all equally shitty to you because ANY theory is now valid?

RandomGuy

10-25-2010, 02:41 PM

[The NIST models were shit and]...

Well those recommendations are based on bad models and did not address the actual cause of the collapse because they never figured out what it was.

“Nevertheless, NIST was able to gather sufficient evidence and documentation to conduct a full investigation upon which to reach firm findings and recommendations.”

And in all of that the model does not match observation.

They do not know fuel distribution. They do not know about air flow in the interior of the building. They have no specific information on the damage done by the falling debris etc.

I am not syaing that they did not do the best with what they had. I am not saying that they were not going down the right path. What I am saying is the the NIST report was a rush job due to immense political pressure.

I went back in and read the report.

They did know about the airflow within the building, but that was not central to knowing how/why it collapsed to my understanding.

They did know about the fuel distribution, and provided several diagrams both of the deisel fuel, and several reasonable guesses about the amount of combustible material per square unit area of office material.

Your assertions contradict that of the NIST, if one actually reads the report.

Since I have no reason to think that you have topical expertise on the subject, I am forced to take the people at the NIST at their word.

They appear to have considered the things you claimed they didn’t know, and reached some reasonable assuptions to fill in the holes.

They admitted that they didn’t have all the data, but, IN THEIR PROFESSIONAL OPINION, they were "able to gather sufficient evidence and documentation to conduct a full investigation upon which to reach firm findings and recommendations."

I think the only logical conclusion would be to discard your assertions as meritless, unless you can provide some solid evidence to support them, that would cause me to assign your claims more weight than theirs.

Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence.

(edit)

I realize that might sound harsh, but I say it with no acrimony whatsoever.

I simply think you are wrong. I am willing to give your viewpoint the benefit of the doubt, but you have given me nothing to really hang my hat on.

RandomGuy

11-02-2010, 09:55 AM

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I ask you to discard all the expert testimony, physical evidence, and simply convict, because YOU KNOW THEY DID IT.

Ashy Larry

11-02-2010, 11:19 AM

RandomGuy

01-04-2011, 10:09 AM

I wouldn't doubt it ....... they put out some 9/11 Commission Report and leave a bunch of shit out. Why? To save ink? To save paper? You need a reason to go to war and people profit from war. I don't trust the government. We all know they're shady as shit.

"shady" doesn't really encompass the willingness to actively kill tens of thousands of your own citizens, and the ability to keep the secret, something our government is really bad at.

Nbadan

01-05-2011, 11:30 PM

"shady" doesn't really encompass the willingness to actively kill tens of thousands of your own citizens, and the ability to keep the secret, something our government is really bad at.

What a crock....the American government has become very skilled at keeping secrets and poor people have been dying so rich people could control people and resources since man created fire...

Nbadan

01-08-2011, 07:25 PM

Documenting another incredible 911 Terrorist / Pentagon link...

Dining with the enemy: Al Qaeda leader linked to 9/11 hijackers 'was invited to the Pentagon for lunch after attacks'

An Al Qaeda leader who is one of the most wanted men in the world was invited for lunch at the Pentagon in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, a new report has claimed.

New documents have been obtained which apparently detail how Anwar Al-Awlaki, the first American on the CIA's kill or capture list, rubbed shoulders with high-ranking military personnel just months after the atrocities.

Fox News claim to have acquired documents that state that Awlaki was taken to the U.S. Department of Defense's headquarters as part of the military's outreach program to the Muslim community in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322397/Al-Qaedas-Anwar-Al-Awlaki-invited-Pentagon-lunch-9-11-attacks.html#ixzz1AUdIQg15

Another incredible coincidink?

Nbadan

01-08-2011, 07:27 PM

From Wiki:

FBI agents have identified Anwar al-Awlaki as a known, important "senior recruiter for al Qaeda", and a spiritual motivator.[1][2] Al-Awlaki's name came up in a dozen terrorism plots in the U.S., UK, and Canada. The cases included suicide bombers in the 2005 London bombings, radical Islamic terrorists in the 2006 Toronto terrorism case, radical Islamic terrorists in the 2007 Fort Dix attack plot, and Faisal Shahzad, charged in the 2010 Times Square attempted bombing. In each case the suspects were devoted to al-Awlaki's message, which they listened to on laptops, audio clips, and CDs.[3][4][5][6]

Al-Awlaki’s recorded lectures were also an inspiration to Islamist fundamentalists who comprised at least six terror cells in the UK through 2009.[7] Michael Finton (Talib Islam), who attempted in September 2009, to bomb the Federal Building and the adjacent offices of Congressman Aaron Schock in Springfield, Illinois, admired al-Awlaki and quoted him on his Myspace page.[8] In addition to his website, al-Awlaki had a Facebook fan page[9] with a substantial percentage of "fans" from the U.S., many of whom were high school students.[10]

In October 2008, Charles Allen, U.S. Undersecretary of Homeland Security for Intelligence and Analysis, warned that al-Awlaki "targets U.S. Muslims with radical online lectures encouraging terrorist attacks from his new home in Yemen."[11][12] Responding to Allen, Al-Awlaki wrote on his website in December 2008: "I would challenge him to come up with just one such lecture where I encourage 'terrorist attacks'".[13]

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_linked_to_Anwar_al-Awlaki)

Blake

01-08-2011, 09:59 PM

Documenting another incredible 911 Terrorist / Pentagon link...

Dining with the enemy: Al Qaeda leader linked to 9/11 hijackers 'was invited to the Pentagon for lunch after attacks'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322397/Al-Qaedas-Anwar-Al-Awlaki-invited-Pentagon-lunch-9-11-attacks.html#ixzz1AUdIQg15

Another incredible coincidink?

he wasn't #1 on the list at the time.

what exactly is the coincidink?

Nbadan

01-08-2011, 10:34 PM

he wasn't #1 on the list at the time.

what exactly is the coincidink?

One of many coincidinks (that's a metaphor for weird 9/11 relationships) that the anti-truth crowd likes to disown...

Blake

01-08-2011, 11:33 PM

One of many coincidinks (that's a metaphor for weird 9/11 relationships) that the anti-truth crowd likes to disown...

in the article you posted, this was a natural born American that was was interviewed 4 times by the FBI. Apparently there was no evidence of any involvement of anything on his part at that time.

Again, what exactly is the coincidink? What do you think the ulterior motive was for his being invited to the Pentagon for lunch after the attacks?

Nbadan

01-08-2011, 11:40 PM

...You need to google Anwar al-Awlaki's connections...even if he was just a suspect at the time, what would a guy like this be doing at the Pentagon?

Blake

01-09-2011, 12:34 AM

...You need to google Anwar al-Awlaki's connections...even if he was just a suspect at the time, what would a guy like this be doing at the Pentagon?

I read the article you posted; it stated why he was there.

did you thoroughly read it?

Nbadan

01-09-2011, 12:41 AM

Did you read the article...did you really read the article?

The Pentagon has yet to offer an explanation as to how one of the world's most wanted men with clear connections to other terrorists could have ended up at a lunch for Muslim reconciliation soon after the attacks.

Army spokesman Thomas Collins said: 'The Army has found no evidence that the Army either sponsored or participated in the event described in this report'.

A former high-ranking FBI agent told Fox News that nine years ago when Alwaki went to the Pentagon lunch, there was tremendous 'arrogance' about the screening process and who they allowed in the building.

'They vetted people politically and showed indifference toward security and intelligence advice of other', the former agent claimed.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322397/Al-Qaedas-Anwar-Al-Awlaki-invited-Pentagon-lunch-9-11-attacks.html#ixzz1AVv6kqRG

Blake

01-09-2011, 10:59 AM

Did you read the article...did you really read the article?

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322397/Al-Qaedas-Anwar-Al-Awlaki-invited-Pentagon-lunch-9-11-attacks.html#ixzz1AVv6kqRG

In an FBI interview conducted after the Fort Hood shooting in November last year, a Defense Department employee told investigators that she helped to arrange the meeting with Awlaki after seeing him speak in Alexandria, Virgina.
One of the documents read that the employee had 'attended this talk and while she arrived late she recalls being impressed by this imam. He condemned Al Qaeda and the terrorists attacks'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322397/Al-Qaedas-Anwar-Al-Awlaki-invited-Pentagon-lunch-9-11-attacks.html#ixzz1AYQNHX6D

If he actually did go, then it was set up by a DoD employee according the report you apparently didn't thoroughly read.

Why do you think Awlaki was there right after the 9/11 attacks?

mouse

01-09-2011, 02:18 PM

I went back in and read the report.
I realize that might sound harsh, but I say it with no acrimony whatsoever.
I simply think you are wrong. I am willing to give your viewpoint the benefit of the doubt, but you have given me nothing to really hang my hat on.

You really can't ask for more form a person online these days! :toast

mouse

01-09-2011, 02:25 PM

Wow, you do get upset when people do not answer your questions.

Face it we all do at one time or another.

Take it from me you should at least address most of Chump's replies and make an attempt to respond to his questions. It's good for the debate and it helps others see if you have any legitimate points of view.

But don't get delusional in thinking your going to shut him up or win the argument. (my advise)

I am not your pet monkey.

Oh yes your are!
Trust me, I got news for you... you may not realize this until its too late but the truth is your just here doing his dirty work.

http://thebsreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/organgrinder.jpg

RandomGuy

02-12-2011, 05:15 PM

Bump. Cause it seems about the right time to do so.

Nbadan

02-12-2011, 06:04 PM

why?

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

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

:lol at RG still pushing the pancake theory even NIST gave up on...

RandomGuy

02-12-2011, 06:08 PM

why?

:lol at RG still pushing the pancake theory even NIST gave up on...

:lol

Actually they said just that: the floors started pancaking.

If you had read the NIST report, you might know that.

If you want to re-hash the whole controlled demolition thing feel free. You will, once again, be called on to actually read the NIST report. Once again, you won't/haven't. Once again, you will simply have to fall back on bad logic, magic physics, and innuendo.

Nbadan

02-12-2011, 06:35 PM

Nbadan

02-12-2011, 07:02 PM

How will you know what to investigate if you don't at least have some hypothesis to use as a starting point to be proven, disproven, or modified?

Oh, there is plenty to investigate...

How did the govt completely screw the pooch and let a guy like Atta back into the U.S. in 2001 without the FBI knowing...

What's with the Atta connections to Huffman Aviation? Or is Hopsicker just blowing our skirts up to sell a book?

The mainstream media spend more time telling us about Palin than they did researching the team of 19 "lone gunmen" who killed 3,000 of our fellow citizens. Hopsicker reminds us of things that float just below our consciousness. I remember reading that the Bush Administration ordered the FBI to shift focus from 9/11 to the anthrax investigation. What Hopsicker does is remind us that they never returned to that assignment. How come?

Soon after the attacks, the FBI raided the local police department, seized all the files on the "owner" of the flight school where several of the terrorists trained, and put them directly onto a military plane to Washington, accompanied by Florida Governor Jeb Bush. Where are these files?

A person named Mohamed Atta was accused of a bus bombing in Israel in the mid-1980s. Even if they were not the same person, wouldn't that have put the name "Mohamed Atta" on some terrorist watch list? A Mohamed Atta is also listed as a graduate of the US International Officers School at Maxwell AFB. The researchers offered to clear up the question for the Pentagon, free of charge, but they were not interested. Assertions from the Pentagon that they were not the same person were not convincing. As many as 7 of the hijackers received training at secure military installations.

Nbadan

02-12-2011, 07:19 PM

other things which need to be investigated...

1. the well documented spike in put options on airline stocks before September 11,
2001

2. Fact check: "Muslim fundamentalists" do not eat pork, drink vodka, snort cocaine
and shag infidel strippers

3. Did you know that the fellow who owned the flight school had a plane of his seized
by the DEA within a month of Atta starting school?

let the investigation begin,,,....

eh..maybe in Obamas second term...

ChumpDumper

02-12-2011, 07:31 PM

Or is Hopsicker just blowing our skirts up to sell a book?Yes, you fool.

Yes.

Even the stripper said the stripper was full of shit.

Wild Cobra

02-13-2011, 09:16 AM

ChumpDumper

02-13-2011, 02:26 PM

Why does dan think that pancaking wouldn't produce pulverized concrete?

mouse

02-13-2011, 04:37 PM

I would ask where the evidence of oxidized aluminum is?

Well we know for sure its not here vvv

http://www.dhs.gov/journal/theblog/uploaded_images/911report-640x480-777416.jpg

Wild Cobra

02-13-2011, 04:44 PM

Well we know for sure its not here vvv

http://www.dhs.gov/journal/theblog/uploaded_images/911report-640x480-777416.jpg
Thing is, nobody found any oxidized compounds of aluminum that would be left over from a thermitic reaction.

Blake

02-13-2011, 07:33 PM

Wild Cobra

02-14-2011, 11:29 AM

other things which need to be investigated...

1. the well documented spike in put options on airline stocks before September 11,
2001
Really?

Snopes: Put Paid (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp)

2. Fact check: "Muslim fundamentalists" do not eat pork, drink vodka, snort cocaine
and shag infidel strippers
LOL...

Religion is an excuse for them to hate. They do plenty of things, like Baptists.

You've heard the joke about never inviting one Baptist over, right? He will drink all your alcohol. Have to invite two, so they won't drink in front of each other.

3. Did you know that the fellow who owned the flight school had a plane of his seized
by the DEA within a month of Atta starting school?

let the investigation begin,,,....

eh..maybe in Obamas second term...
You mean this plane, which he rented out, had no control over what it was used for:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/7/0/9/0569907.jpg (http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=N351WB)

Oh...

He was also a Mormon. Does that also mean something in your world?

Bender

02-14-2011, 01:25 PM

so snopes says the put options thing is "false" because the 9/11 Commission says so...

RandomGuy

02-14-2011, 03:21 PM

where did all the pulverized concrete come from RG? when they cleaned up the towers there was far less evidence of pancaking than had been theorized...so the mass, velocity and kinetic energy was far less than your assumptions earlier in this thread.......

The pulverized concrete came from crushing action in the collapse.

If you are trying to assume that the entire volume of dust was "pulverized concrete", then you have to tell me why you think that none of that dust was pulverized drywall, a material made out of, essentially, dust between layers of fibre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drywall).

You also have to make a lot of other assumptions that turn out to be spurious. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97584)

The "dust" thing has been done to death, here and elsewhere.

Nbadan

02-14-2011, 09:07 PM

You mean this plane, which he rented out, had no control over what it was used for:

:lol

Why don't drug-kings think of that? Rent the vehicles your using to import your stash in to peons and no one is the wiser...

Nbadan

02-14-2011, 09:09 PM

Religion is an excuse for them to hate. They do plenty of things, like Baptists.

:lmao

Wild Cobra

02-15-2011, 05:48 AM

:lmao
So I'm not good at telling jokes. I didn't mean that seriously, but jokes are often based on a factual experience.

Nbadan

03-18-2011, 04:19 AM

Excellent Juan Cole video destroys National Geographic and proves that thermite can be used to cut steel beams

jpPNRrylH00

ChumpDumper

03-18-2011, 12:02 PM

So you're saying you think thermite was used to bring down the WTC buildings?

RandomGuy

03-18-2011, 12:27 PM

Excellent Juan Cole video destroys National Geographic and proves that thermite can be used to cut steel beams

jpPNRrylH00

Thermite is regularly used to cut steel beams. Horizontal steel beams.

ChumpDumper

03-18-2011, 12:38 PM

lol melted steel

lol iron rich spheres

lol explosive paint chips

lol super nano explosive thermite/mate placed exactly at the impact floors on each building

lol controlling the collapse of the north tower to fall into wtc7 and bring it down for no apparent reason

Nbadan

03-18-2011, 02:59 PM

So you're saying you think thermite was used to bring down the WTC buildings?

I'm not saying I've bought into whether thermite was used or not, especially in the case of WTC7....I'm just saying that the possibility is certainly there and mercury fuses certainly explain some of the bright white fires seen by witnesses and explosions inside the buildings.....

What you got? Still think that was melted aluminum from the plane running down the buildings before they collapsed?

:lol

RandomGuy

03-18-2011, 03:12 PM

I'm not saying I've bought into whether thermite was used or not, especially in the case of WTC7....I'm just saying that the possibility is certainly there and mercury fuses certainly explain some of the bright white fires seen by witnesses and explosions inside the buildings.....

What you got? Still think that was melted aluminum from the plane running down the buildings before they collapsed?

:lol

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html
Melting temperatures.
Aluminum: 1220F
Carbon Steel: 2600F - 2800F

You do realize there was far more aluminum in that building than just in the planes, right?

Nothing you say and no amount of youtube videos will change the fact that aluminum melts at far lower temperatures than steel.

If you are raising the temperature of a mixture of rubble/structure, the material with the lowest melting point is the material you will see first.

If the ONLY thing you see is one stream of molten material in a fire, you are probably safe in assuming that it is the material with the lowest melting point.

QED

Which material has a lower melting point Dan?

RandomGuy

03-18-2011, 03:18 PM

mercury fuses certainly explain some of the bright white fires seen by witnesses and explosions inside the buildings...

The utlimate problem with your statement is that it has the same following form of:

Dancing fairies and pixies certainly explain some of the bright white fires seen by witnesses and explosions inside the buildings...

Do you actually have any evidence of this rather specific claim?

I can't back up my theory that dancing fairies and pixies did it. Maybe you can do better?

mouse

03-18-2011, 04:47 PM

The pulverized concrete came from crushing action in the collapse..

So what crushed the top floor? There are many photos of collapsed buildings none of them turn into powder most of them have complete floors still intact.

Between this topic and your lack of radiation knowledge you might be better off getting that PlayStation II out of the pawnshop to occupy your time.

RandomGuy

03-18-2011, 05:07 PM

So what crushed the top floor?

There are many photos of collapsed buildings none of them turn into powder most of them have complete floors still intact.

Between this topic and your lack of radiation knowledge you might be better off getting that PlayStation II out of the pawnshop to occupy your time.

A fall of some 1,000 feet crushed the top floor into fairly small chunks. Not powder, but small chunks. A good deal of material, including concrete was made into powder, but certainly not all of it.

To my knowledge these were, and still are, the tallest buildings to ever collapse due to any cause. Kind of makes comparisons to smaller buildings a tad less relevant. Ca va?

Sorry, my tin foil hat wearing friend, you are revisiting things long ago debunked by people more knowledgeable than I.

If you want to re-hash the whole controlled demolition thing feel free. You will, once again, be called on to actually read the NIST report. Once again, you won't/haven't. Once again, you will simply have to fall back on bad logic, magic physics, and innuendo.

ChumpDumper

03-18-2011, 05:20 PM

mouse

03-18-2011, 05:38 PM

A fall of some 1,000 feet crushed the top floor into fairly small chunks. Not powder, but small chunks. A good deal of material, including concrete was made into powder, but certainly not all of it.

To my knowledge these were, and still are, the tallest buildings to ever collapse due to any cause. Kind of makes comparisons to smaller buildings a tad less relevant. Ca va?

Sorry, my tin foil hat wearing friend, you are revisiting things long ago debunked by people more knowledgeable than I.

If you want to re-hash the whole controlled demolition thing feel free. You will, once again, be called on to actually read the NIST report. Once again, you won't/haven't. Once again, you will simply have to fall back on bad logic, magic physics, and innuendo.

Sorry I had no idea you lost the pawn ticket, (my bad) you can have my play station 1 pm me for address.

RandomGuy

03-18-2011, 05:39 PM

Maybe some of that, probably more likely lead from a bank of backup batteries known to be on the 81st floor, over reinforced corner trusses.

http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2008/03/nist-confirms-ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html

But you already knew about this didn't you?

Melting point of Lead: 621F
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html

That would make it even more likely to have been lead from a large battery unit than aluminum.

I didn't know that bit. Interesting, even after all this time, I learn something new.

Thanks.

RandomGuy

03-18-2011, 05:44 PM

P_jiCyMkrRM

Why is all this important? Because if there was an uninterruptible power supply on the 80th or 81st floor, in the northeast corner, the impact of the aircraft and the collapse of the floors above, with their conducting metal parts, would have caused countless short-circuits of the batteries, providing currents of tens of thousands of amps (as calculated in this article), which can produce unimaginable thermal effects. In addition to this, abundant hydrogen, which is highly flammable, is generated during the shorting of a UPS system (it is also generated during normal operation, hence the need for special ventilation, firefighting equipment, and restricted access), and it is well-known that batteries are prone to explode in case of fire (hence the warning printed even on small AA batteries).

This inferno would have easily melted the lead of the batteries, whose melting point is even lower than aluminum's and is well within the temperature range of a building fire and far lower than the melting point of steel. This would have allowed the molten metal to flow without damaging the steel columns, which is what the visual evidence shows.

In other words, the catastrophic shorting and meltdown of a UPS system would provide a very plausible and simple explanation for the glowing fountain.

http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2008/03/nist-confirms-ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html

That accounts for the white hot fires and explosions heard as well. Neat.

ChumpDumper

03-18-2011, 05:48 PM

Melting point of Lead: 621F
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html

That would make it even more likely to have been lead from a large battery unit than aluminum.

I didn't know that bit. Interesting, even after all this time, I learn something new.

Thanks.One would think that the producer of the above YouTube would have included that as a possible cause of the "fountain" since he so thoroughly "researched" the earlier NIST hypothesis.

One might conclude that he left it out on purpose, if one were suspicious of such actions by people who make conspiracy videos -- especially if one has seen such omissions before.

RandomGuy

03-18-2011, 05:55 PM

One would think that the producer of the above YouTube would have included that as a possible cause of the "fountain" since he so thoroughly "researched" the earlier NIST hypothesis.

One might conclude that he left it out on purpose, if one were suspicious of such actions by people who make conspiracy videos -- especially if one has seen such omissions before.

The phrase "the Truther thoroughly researched" is an oxymoron, with an emphasis on the last two syllables of that word.

Blake

03-18-2011, 06:40 PM

The phrase "the Truther thoroughly researched" is an oxymoron, with an emphasis on the last two syllables of that word.

:lol

so twoo

mouse

03-18-2011, 08:07 PM

.

One might conclude

When Chump or his cronies post about 9/11.

.

Another lie!

When anyone else post about 9/11

Nbadan

03-19-2011, 02:50 AM

The utlimate problem with your statement is that it has the same following form of:

Dancing fairies and pixies certainly explain some of the bright white fires seen by witnesses and explosions inside the buildings...

Do you actually have any evidence of this rather specific claim?

I can't back up my theory that dancing fairies and pixies did it. Maybe you can do better?

Why so offended? I was just pointing out that the 'prevailing opinion' that thermite could not be used effectively to cut steel beams is no longer a given...your pixies and dancing fairies example would be sooooo,,.... original and mildly amusing if we weren't talking about the death of 2000+ Americans

....thermite needs to be thrown back into the mix.....

...Mouse is right....

Nbadan

03-19-2011, 02:57 AM

Nbadan

03-19-2011, 03:08 AM

When Chump or his cronies post about 9/11.

When anyone else post about 9/11

They have no dignity....just watch...

Once the 'stretches in truth' in the 9/11 Commission report are exposed, because lies always eventually are (think Able Danger), watch how quick Randomlie and Chumpy, the report largest cheerleaders, run away from it...

:tongue

ChumpDumper

03-19-2011, 03:34 AM

So no comment from the resident conspiracy non-theorists about the UPS batteries.

Just attempts to change the subject.

:tu

ChumpDumper

03-19-2011, 03:36 AM

lol speculating

RandomGuy

03-19-2011, 11:55 AM

Excellent Juan Cole video destroys National Geographic and proves that thermite can be used to cut steel beams

jpPNRrylH00

Here we have a truther attempting to prove the thermite theory.

With a good bit of effort, he does manage to prove it is possible to use thermite and shaped "cutters" to cut vertical columns using thermate.

Unfortunately, he doesn't really solve the rest of the problems for the theory:

1) The requirement to have access to all the columns, including the requirement to cut through office walls to access the appropriate columns.

2) The sheer amount of labor it would take.

3) The massive amount of heat and smoke produced.

4) How to proof his cutters against the shock of impact and fire.

This sets aside the circular logic of his theory, and the misleading half-truths presented as complete facts.

Not altogether convincing, although I do give him credit for succeeding where NG failed.

I am still left with the impression that the guy was lying to me by omission.