Real 9-11 Research

[ChumpDumper]

And please, if you have anything more definitive than McDermott's work - let me know what it is.

[mookie2001]

There are names for all the hijackers
thats what ive been looking for

do you have a link?

its not on the fbi site

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I think he may be alluding to M.E. reports that many of the alleged 911 hijackers were still found to be alive after the attacks...

Yeah, none of those names were common names. Who'da thunk there's more than one guy named Mohammed living in the entire Middle East?

[ChumpDumper]

thats what ive been looking for

do you have a link?

its not on the fbi siteIt's only been there for six years, and took me all of three search terms and two mouse clicks in google.

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic.htm

And that's just a couple of weeks after the attacks.

Maybe you'll click the link in six months.

[mookie2001]

It should be noted that attempts to confirm the true identities of these individuals are still under way.
thats not what ive been looking for
its been six years










and we've talked about this for so long and you just now searched three items and clicked twice?

[ChumpDumper]

Truthfully, I have no idea what you are talking about and your claim that no one has ever been identified.

There were names and dates. That is what you asked for. To my knowledge, all the names of the hijackers are known as well as all but maybe four of their birth dates. The only things I have seen that disputes these identifications are:

1) Arab apologist propaganda

2) Poorly written UK stories based on above propaganda

3) Loose Change and its ilk that were based on the above two

None has presented anything resembling an alternative explanation or theory about what happened on 9/11.

[mookie2001]

1. the press release was weeks after sep 11th and 6 years later they still cant be indentified










None has presented anything resembling an alternative explanation or theory about what happened on 9/11that doesnt mean shit

[mookie2001]

but theyve got atta and jahar, i might give you that

[ChumpDumper]

1. the press release was weeks after sep 11th and 6 years later they still cant be indentifiedWhat does that mean? All of them were identified.

that doesnt mean shitIt means everything. Given all the facts that are known, no one has even come up with any theory that fits the known facts. It leads me to believe that conspiracy nontheorist are either lazy or simply not interested in actually developing any theory at all.

[mookie2001]

one of the first lines on the 6 year old fbi page was
It should be noted that attempts to confirm the true identities of these individuals are still under way.



fits the known factswhat known facts are you talking about??the building damage, fire, melting steel and collapse that was left out of the 9/11 commission report

[ChumpDumper]

one of the first lines on the 6 year old fbi page wasAnd in your research, what evidence have you found that these are not the hijackers?



what known facts are you talking about??the building damage, fire, melting steel and collapse that was left out of the 9/11 commission reportExactly, all that.

Not one theory.

[mookie2001]

what evidence have you found that these are not the hijackers?

because ive never read anything that gives the names or dates of births of the hijackers



what known facts are you talking about??




the building damage, fire, melting steel and collapse that was left out of the 9/11 commission report

[mookie2001]

your best link has been a 6 year old press release that says they are still trying to find the true indentities of the hijackers

[ChumpDumper]

because ive never read anything that gives the names or dates of births of the hijackersYou don't read much. That's ok. You've proven it takes you six months to click a link.



the building damage, fire, melting steel and collapse that was left out of the 9/11 commission reportYes, all that.

[mookie2001]

Yes, all that. what are the known facts about
that







your best link has been a 6 year old press release that says they are still trying to find the true indentities of the hijackers

[ChumpDumper]

what are the known facts about There is plenty. And I'm only talking about known facts. Where is the theory using the known facts? Is there even one?



your best link has been a 6 year old press release that says they are still trying to find the true indentities of the hijackersThings only exist to you if they are on the internets, don't they?

Tell you what, file a FIOA request for all the information the FBI and CIA has on the hijakcers. I hope you have an extra room in your house.

[mookie2001]

1. what are the known facts about the building damage, fire, steel melting, and collapse?


2. your best link has been a 6 year old press release that says they are still trying to find the true indentities of the hijackers


3. its not my fault the fbi and cia wont release the information you somehow know they have

[Nbadan]

Hey Chumpy, this guy spanks your guy McDermott (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7EB1FxENxQ&mode=related&search=)

[Wild Cobra]

1. what are the known facts about the building damage, fire, steel melting, and collapse?


2. your best link has been a 6 year old press release that says they are still trying to find the true indentities of the hijackers


3. its not my fault the fbi and cia wont release the information you somehow know they have
Those who prefer to believe conspiracies and don't have an adequate grasp of the sciences of materials will never be convinced of the truth.

The conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 have been thoroughly put to rest in my opinion. The science showing it was as presumed, is on very solid ground. Structural damage and heat together made the buildings fail. All the damages are consistent with aircraft designs of the types stated.

Who cares what the hijackers ‘true’ identities really are. They were identified, just not to a nitpickers satisfaction.

Every time an aspect of the conspiracies surrounding this is debunked, another is substituted.

Get a clue. People are making money off of promoting these conspiracies. They will continue to make things up as long as they are making money.

[ChumpDumper]

1. what are the known facts about the building damage, fire, steel melting, and collapse?There were fires and buildings collapsed.



2. your best link has been a 6 year old press release that says they are still trying to find the true indentities of the hijackersAnd you didsn't even know that existed in all your "research."



3. its not my fault the fbi and cia wont release the information you somehow know they haveYou mean it's not your fault you can't look anywhere but the internet.

[mookie2001]

Those who prefer to believe conspiracies and don't have an adequate grasp of the sciences of materials will never be convinced of the truth.

The conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 have been thoroughly put to rest in my opinion. The science showing it was as presumed, is on very solid ground. Structural damage and heat together made the buildings fail. All the damages are consistent with aircraft designs of the types stated.

Who cares what the hijackers ‘true’ identities really are. They were identified, just not to a nitpickers satisfaction.

Every time an aspect of the conspiracies surrounding this is debunked, another is substituted.

Get a clue. People are making money off of promoting these conspiracies. They will continue to make things up as long as they are making money.what conspiracy?

[ChumpDumper]

Hey Chumpy, this guy spanks your guy McDermott (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7EB1FxENxQ&mode=related&search=)Huh? this guy uses McDermott as a source in his blog.

You have an odd definition of spanking.

[ChumpDumper]

what conspiracy?Indeed.

[mookie2001]

There were fires and buildings collapsed.left out of the 9/11 commission report



And you didsn't even know that existed in all your "research."youre right i didnt know a 6 year old webpage that proved my point existed




You mean it's not your fault you can't look anywhere but the internet.


where should i look for the information that you say the fbi and cia have?

[ChumpDumper]

left out of the 9/11 commission reportI am quite sure the collapse of the buildings is mentioned in the report.



youre right i didnt know a 6 year old webpage that proved my point existedIt didn't prove your point at all. Quite the opposite.





where should i look for the information that you say the fbi and cia have?I already told you. If this is so important to you, you will do it.

[mookie2001]

the word "collapsed" was used, the collapse was not explained


how did a 6 year old FBI webpage that says they are still trying to find the true identities of the hijackers prove your point??



If this is so important to you, you will do itthat may be the weakest shit ive ever heard on this site
and ive read mannyisgod post about heroes season 2

[ChumpDumper]

the word "collapsed" was used, the collapse was not explainedSo it's a fact. One of many that has not been connected to the rest in a single alternative theory.



how did a 6 year old FBI webpage that says they are still trying to find the true identities of the hijackers prove your point??It proves they already had names and several birth dates and that you didn't even bother to look there when you claimed you did. How does it prove yours? Are you saying they found evidence that these weren't the guys then just gave up?



that may be the weakest shit ive ever heard on this site
and ive read mannyisgod post about heroes season 2You can certainly contact your local FBI office and clear the whole issue up quickly -- or are you still on the lam?

[mookie2001]

One of many that has not been connected to the rest in a single alternative theory.thats not what we're talking about



fbi found all that information in 2 weeks, then nothing for 6 years, not a very good investigation




You can certainly contact your local FBI office so can you

[ChumpDumper]

thats not what we're talking aboutIt was before you tried to move the goalposts. There is no alternative theory.


fbi found all that information in 2 weeks, then nothing for 6 years, not a very good investigationActually they found all that in two weeks because the hijackers made no attempt to conceal their identities, and there was no reason to amend that list because nothing changed.


so can youWhy would I? I believe those are the guys.

Besides. I'm on the lam.

[ChumpDumper]

Hey Chumpy, this guy spanks your guy McDermott (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7EB1FxENxQ&mode=related&search=):lol I finally got around to listening to this. I have two observations.

1) Maybe if this guy identified himself he could be taken more seriously.

2) He gets pissed at McDermott for not mirroring his single issue agenda at every opportunity. He seems to think he is the only person in the world who figures Islamic terrorists might have a problem with US support of Israel.

There was not much of a spanking here, and certainly no disputing McDermott's research into the identities of the hijackers. And this guy's other videos debunk conspiracy nontheories. So I don't really know why you brought it up.

[RandomGuy]

the building damage, fire, melting steel and collapse that was left out of the 9/11 commission report

:rolleyes
The purpose of the report was not to improve fire or building safety, in case you missed the whole first section that explained what the purpose of the report was.

You did read it, didn't you?
(he asked, knowing the answer no)

[RandomGuy]

your best link has been a 6 year old press release that says they are still trying to find the true indentities of the hijackers

Here are some links from the original post that provide you with enough to read...

9-11 Myths.com (http://www.911myths.com/index.html)

Or since it took you 6 months to click that other link, I will save you a year's worth of effort:

Myths about the hijackers (http://www.911myths.com/html/hijackers.html)

Note that the above link actually sources all of their material.

[mookie2001]

whats the difference between marriott A's debunking site and marriott B's alternative theory site?

[Nbadan]

2) He gets pissed at McDermott for not mirroring his single issue agenda at every opportunity. He seems to think he is the only person in the world who figures Islamic terrorists might have a problem with US support of Israel.

Yeah, McDermott writing a column stressing the most significant point, that Al Queda attacked us because of our unilateral support for Israel, and this guy being cut off for stressing that very same point publicly are completely unrelated.....

:rolleyes

[ChumpDumper]

They pretty much are unrelated, and it is still completely off the topic of the hijackers identities.

[RandomGuy]

They pretty much are unrelated, and it is still completely off the topic of the hijackers identities.


Meh.

If the 9-11 truth nuts spent even 1/10th the amount of time on the debunking websites reading stuff that they do on the conspiracy sites, I *might* have some modicum or respect for them.

As it is, I have come to one inescapable conclusion.

The "truth" movement is a religion. I will start a thread on that topic as it warrants its own discussion.

[Galileo]

WTC7 - This is an Orange
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3898962504721899003&q=%22this+is+an+orange%22&total=16&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

Only a lunatic would believe an office fire can make a steel building fall down in a controlled demolition.

Wake Up!!

[Galileo]

The only thing more underreported than Tim Duncan, is Ron Paul and WTC 7.

Wake Up!!!

[Wild Cobra]

WTC7 - This is an Orange
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3898962504721899003&q=%22this+is+an+orange%22&total=16&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

Only a lunatic would believe an office fire can make a steel building fall down in a controlled demolition.

Wake Up!!
OK, I'm a lunatic then.

Some shots of WTC7 clearly show windows breaking from stress. Not heat, well before the building collapsed. Experts say this is because the structure was sagging.

The structure was severely damaged by the debris from one of the twin towers. That alone didn't bring it down.

Fired, burning as long as they did, heated the steel frame. Far from melting, the steel does get soft. As it gets soft, the strength is reduced. The building started to sag in places, and once the beams lost their squareness, the building went down like a house of cards.

Now I understand the physical sciences enough to believe that it was not an intentional demolition. If that makes me a lunatic, then I will wear that with honor. It makes those conspiracy theorists worse than imbeciles.

[ChumpDumper]

Only a lunatic would believe an office fire can make a steel building fall down in a controlled demolition.Since a good chunk of the north tower ripped of the front of the building, and there were diesel fuel tanks located in several areas of WTC 7, and it was built over a ConEd substation with a system of trusses, the failure of which could indeed send the entire building down -- there is definitely more to believe than a little "office fire."

Nice condescending video though. I like the way it tells a baldfaced lie about the fires in WTC7 being extinguished. Nice touch.

[RandomGuy]

Since a good chunk of the north tower ripped of the front of the building, and there were diesel fuel tanks located in several areas of WTC 7, and it was built over a ConEd substation with a system of trusses, the failure of which could indeed send the entire building down -- there is definitely more to believe than a little "office fire."

Nice condescending video though. I like the way it tells a baldfaced lie about the fires in WTC7 being extinguished. Nice touch.

Lie, spin, repeat.

These people could work for the Bush adminstration... :lol

[RandomGuy]

Bump. Just cause this fell off he front page.

[JoeChalupa]

This thread cracks me up. :lmao

[RandomGuy]

This thread cracks me up. :lmao

I take it you've been reading the "what I learned from 9-11 conspiracy theories" bit.

[xrayzebra]

This thread cracks me up. :lmao

Well, if it makes the "conspiracy" folks any happier they
had a program on the "History Channel" last night.

Of course, some of the conspiracy folks kinda changed
their tunes over time........

[RandomGuy]

bumpski.

HA!

[Galileo]

(Begin EDIT)
FOR THOSE OF YOU READING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME, SEE PAGES 3 AND 4 for the NIST FAQ that answers the biggest "truther" questions.(end EDIT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/

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

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

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

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

http://wtc.nist.gov/

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

http://www.911myths.com/

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

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

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

Here ARE SOME REALLY PRECIOUS LINKS.

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

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

I've read through all this stuff over the past two years, let's cut to the chase:

I have two very simple questions I'd like answered;

# 1

Why does the collapse of WTC 7 look like a controlled demolition?

WTC7 - This is an Orange
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3898962504721899003

# 2

Would our president George Bush, or our vice president Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld, be capable of making a decision that would cause the death of 3000 people?

:clap

[ChumpDumper]

# 1

Why does the collapse of WTC 7 look like a controlled demolition?Because the point of failure in the structure was far below every camera angle that managed to record the collapse.


# 2

Would our president George Bush, or our vice president Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld, be capable of making a decision that would cause the death of 3000 people?Not this way. The plan was carried out far to effectively for those guys to plan it.

Since by asking that question you are implying that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld planned 9/11 -- I only have one question for you:

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

[clambake]

i think a bunch of saudi's flew planes into our buildings.

i know...........boring.

[Yonivore]

i think a bunch of saudi's flew planes into our buildings.

i know...........boring.
So, 19 (mostly) Saudi men woke up on September 11, 2001 and decided, independently of one another, to board four separate planes, hijeack them, and fly them into various economic and government landmarks in New York City and Washington, D.C.?

And, they did this with no planning, no centralized organization helping them, and no governments supporting them?

[clambake]

So, 19 (mostly) Saudi men woke up on September 11, 2001 and decided, independently of one another, to board four separate planes, hijeack them, and fly them into various economic and government landmarks in New York City and Washington, D.C.?
no no, they planned effectively and realized early on that flying into a k-mart would only help a faltering american business.

And, they did this with no planning,
is that what you think?

no centralized organization helping them,
when you say "centralized" are you refering to the Hate America Supporters?

and no governments supporting them?
Iraq? :lol completely ignoring the warning signs is lack of government support. and it doesn't change the fact that they were saudi.

[Galileo]

Because the point of failure in the structure was far below every camera angle that managed to record the collapse.

Not this way. The plan was carried out far to effectively for those guys to plan it.

Since by asking that question you are implying that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld planned 9/11 -- I only have one question for you:

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

# 1

The point of failure was in the same place as it would be in a controlled demolition.

# 2

You didn't answer the question.

Are you suggesting the attack on Iraq and Afghanistan was not decided by Bush, Cheney, and/or Rumsfeld?

Are you suggesting that they didn't know this decision would cause the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans, and many more innocent foreigners?

Are you suggesting the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq were too complicated for them to be planned and/or ordered by Bush/Cheny/Rumsfeld?

[xrayzebra]

Why is thread still alive? This subject has been wollered around
for how many times. WTC happened! Two airplanes, Saudis
were involved, AQ was involved for the "second time" and they
acknowledged they did the deed. Oh, and the first time,
Clinton was in office. Poor planning on his part. No set charges
to bring them down.......sheeeeessssh!

[Yonivore]

Why is thread still alive? This subject has been wollered around
for how many times. WTC happened! Two airplanes, Saudis
were involved, AQ was involved for the "second time" and they
acknowledged they did the deed. Oh, and the first time,
Clinton was in office. Poor planning on his part. No set charges
to bring them down.......sheeeeessssh!
Alex Jones must have released a new diatribe or DVD or something. I've noticed a resurgence of the "911 was an inside job; Impeach Bush, Arrest Cheney" bumper stickers being plastered around Austin, too.

[xrayzebra]

Youni, what can you say. Bush is such a dummy, smart guy,
he fools everyone while being the clown. Talk about having it
both ways.

[clambake]

damn saudi's. now their sticking it to us in barrels.

[xrayzebra]

damn saudi's. now their sticking it to us in barrels.

No, our wonderful tree huggers are doing that. And you
love them for it.

[clambake]

i say we nuke all the trees just to kill part of your argument.

[xrayzebra]

^^No I say we just act like normal, rational human beings and
take care of ourselves and not depend on anyone. Alternate fuels,
at this time are not feasible. Oil is and we have plenty of it, if
some folks would just get out of the way let us go get it.
In an environmental fashion, which we are capable of doing and do everyday where we are allowed to drill.

[clambake]

you can't get rid of treehuggers if there's still one tree.

[xrayzebra]

^^nor you it seems as long as their forums for you to post in.

[BradLohaus]

Alex Jones must have released a new diatribe or DVD or something. I've noticed a resurgence of the "911 was an inside job; Impeach Bush, Arrest Cheney" bumper stickers being plastered around Austin, too.

Maybe it's Willie.

[ChumpDumper]

# 1

The point of failure was in the same place as it would be in a controlled demolition.Gee, then it makes sense that the building collapsed.


# 2

You didn't answer the question.Of course I did. They would not and could not plan 9/11.


Are you suggesting the attack on Iraq and Afghanistan was not decided by Bush, Cheney, and/or Rumsfeld?I am saying they did not plan 9/11.


Are you suggesting that they didn't know this decision would cause the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans, and many more innocent foreigners?I am saying they did not plan 9/11.


Are you suggesting the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq were too complicated for them to be planned and/or ordered by Bush/Cheny/Rumsfeld?I am saying they did not plan 9/11.

Now answer my question:

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

Do you want me to bump that thread?

You would be the first to ever offer and actual theory.

[Galileo]

Meh.

If the 9-11 truth nuts spent even 1/10th the amount of time on the debunking websites reading stuff that they do on the conspiracy sites, I *might* have some modicum or respect for them.

As it is, I have come to one inescapable conclusion.

The "truth" movement is a religion. I will start a thread on that topic as it warrants its own discussion.

the debunkers resemble a religion in their fanatical opposition to the idea that a powerful person in the government might order someone killed for political gain.

Unless someone is convicted of murder, it didn't happen.

[ChumpDumper]

Unless someone is convicted of murder, it didn't happen.We know who the murderers are. At least one has been tried and convicted in the US. The actual hijackers are dead.

[Galileo]

The actual hijackers are dead.



No one has ever determined who the hijackers were, according to the experts.

[clambake]

maybe there were no hijackers.

[Extra Stout]

The 9/11 conspiracy theorists are part of the conpsiracy. The towers are still there and are being concealed by a top-secret cloaking device. When I take LSD, I am transported past the cloaking device into the WTC lobby, which has been remodeled and now has lots of bright colors to smell.

[Extra Stout]

In fact Ron Paul and I had lunch in that restaurant on the hundred-and-somethingth floor last week. He had the braised unicorn horn, and I had the dragon tenderloin.

[Galileo]

maybe there were no hijackers.

there were hijackers, but the hijackers had guns.

Phone calls from the planes to family members mentioned that the hijackers had guns.

[clambake]

there were hijackers, but the hijackers had guns.

Phone calls from the planes to family members mentioned that the hijackers had guns.
is your theory still a work in progress or are you ready share it completely?

[clambake]

there were hijackers, but the hijackers had guns.

Phone calls from the planes to family members mentioned that the hijackers had guns.
did anyone mention that they planned to storm the cockpit?

[ChumpDumper]

No one has ever determined who the hijackers were, according to the experts.Which experts?

Link.

[ChumpDumper]

And answer my question.

I answered both of yours twice.

[Extra Stout]

Which experts?

Link.
I think the voices in my head should count as experts. They seem quite knowledgeable.

[clambake]

I think the voices in my head should count as experts. They seem quite knowledgeable.
after the dragon tenderloin, did you take the floating gazebo tour piloted by tim leary?

[Galileo]

And answer my question.

I answered both of yours twice.

You never answered my questions. Let's go back to the first one; Why does the collapse of WTC 7 look like a controlled demolition? You simply say that the point of failure was below the camera view. That doesn't answer the question. We had a few office fires on floors 7 through 13. How can these fires simulate a controlled demolition? A controlled demolition takes hundreds of explosive charges strategically placed. How could a few office fires do the damage of hundreds of strategically placed explosives?

Gordon Ross, PhD, is an expert Engineer. There, I answered your question.

[ChumpDumper]

You never answered my questions. Let's go back to the first one; Why does the collapse of WTC 7 look like a controlled demolition? You simply say that the point of failure was below the camera view. That doesn't answer the question. Sure it does. Thanks for agreeing about the piont of structural failure. There may be hope for you yet.


Gordon Ross, PhD, is an expert Engineer. There, I answered your question.That's your expert on the determining the identities of the hijackers? :lol What is wrong with you?


And what do you think really happened on 9/11?

[Galileo]

Sure it does. Thanks for agreeing about the piont of structural failure. There may be hope for you yet.

That's your expert on the determining the identities of the hijackers? :lol What is wrong with you?


And what do you think really happened on 9/11?

What caused the structural failure?

WTC 7 had 81 steel columns, including 24 massive core columns. The small number of office fires would have to knock out a majority of these columns at exactly the same time. No engineer has offered a scientific explanation for how this could happen, nor is an explanation possible from natural causes.

No one knows who the hijackers were. The FBI sent out a press release. Press releases are not evidence.

[ChumpDumper]

What caused the structural failure?

WTC 7 had 81 steel columns, including 24 massive core columns. The small number of office fires would have to knock out a majority of these columns at exactly the same time.Untrue. Some combination of the truss structure over the ConEd substation and/or other sections are all that really needed to go.
No engineer has offered a scientific explanation for how this could happen, nor is an explanation possible from natural causes.They already have -- they just don't know exactly where it happened.


No one knows who the hijackers were. The FBI sent out a press release. Press releases are not evidence.Bullshit. The hijackers didn't hide their identities. They are widely and well known to anyone without his head in the sand.


Answer my question:

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

[Galileo]

Untrue. Some combination of the truss structure over the ConEd substation and/or other sections are all that really needed to go.They already have -- they just don't know exactly where it happened.

Bullshit. The hijackers didn't hide their identities. They are widely and well known to anyone without his head in the sand.


Answer my question:

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

The ConEd substation would only affect a few of the 81 columns. There is no evidence that the ConEd substation affected any column.

We know where the critical failure occurred, it is in the NIST report. It occurred near columns the core columns at the eastern end of the core; columns 76-81.

btw, the initial collapse of the east penthouse on the roof was 8 seconds before the rest of the building came down. How did fires below floor 13 cause the roof to collapse? This was in sight of the cameras.

[ChumpDumper]

Gordon Ross, PhD, is an expert Engineer. There, I answered your question.You know what -- Ross doesn't have a CV or list of previously published articles.

AND

on his own site, he makes no claim to having a PhD of any kind. in fact the only specific mention I have seen says he has only bachelor's degrees.

Please answer this question: What do you think really happened on 9/11?

[Galileo]

Please answer this question: What do you think really happened on 9/11?



You realize that I am one of the only people on earth who knows the truth about 9/11?

[ChumpDumper]

The ConEd substation would only affect a few of the 81 columns. There is no evidence that the ConEd substation affected any column.You are quite clearly insane. The substation affects the basic structure of the building. Only an idiot would try to argue otherwise.


We know where the critical failure occurred, it is in the NIST report. It occurred near columns the core columns at the eastern end of the core; columns 76-81.You mean the ones above the trusses that transfer the load OVER THE CON ED SUBSTATION.

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC7.h2.jpg

Thanks for agreeing with me yet again.


btw, the initial collapse of the east penthouse on the roof was 8 seconds before the rest of the building came down. How did fires below floor 13 cause the roof to collapse? This was in sight of the cameras.You just explained that by saying which group of columns failed. Those columns failed, the loads transfered to and overwhemled the other columns within a matter of second, causing a collapse.

[ChumpDumper]

You realize that I am one of the only people on earth who knows the truth about 9/11?Why are you holding back?

Do you not think it's important for everyone to know and share the knowledge you have?

[Galileo]

You are quite clearly insane. The substation affects the basic structure of the building. Only an idiot would try to argue otherwise.

You mean the ones above the trusses that transfer the load OVER THE CON ED SUBSTATION.

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC7.h2.jpg

Thanks for agreeing with me yet again.

You just explained that by saying which group of columns failed. Those columns failed, the loads transfered to and overwhemled the other columns within a matter of second, causing a collapse.

There's no evidence the ConEd station has anything to do with the collapse.

If it did blow up, it would not affect the east Penthouse on the roof. It would not collapse the columns on the west side of the building.

If Superman was hiding down in the substation, and yanked everything, it would bend the west columns towards to east.

[ChumpDumper]

There's no evidence the ConEd station has anything to do with the collapse.There is no evidence controlled demolition had anything to do with the collapse.


If it did blow up, it would not affect the east Penthouse on the roof. It would not collapse the columns on the west side of the building.Who says the substation blew up? What meds are you currently taking?

[Galileo]

Why are you holding back?

Do you not think it's important for everyone to know and share the knowledge you have?

some can't handle the truth. That even includes many of the Truthers who don't look at both sides of the evidence.

Debating 9/11 is worse than arguing politics. Its more like arguing religion. Most are irrational or ignorant, or both.

Most of the info provided by 9/11 Truthers is non-conclusive filler. There is only a small amount of evidence which proves it was an inside job.

[ChumpDumper]

some can't handle the truth. That even includes many of the Truthers who don't look at both sides of the evidence.

Debating 9/11 is worse than arguing politics. Its more like arguing religion. Most are irrational or ignorant, or both.

Most of the info provided by 9/11 Truthers is non-conclusive filler. There is only a small amount of evidence which proves it was an inside job.So your reason for keeping the truth of 9/11 a secret from the world is that people will argue with you?

That's weak.

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

[Galileo]

There is no evidence controlled demolition had anything to do with the collapse.

Who says the substation blew up? What meds are you currently taking?

a video a building that comes down in what looks exactly like a controlled demolition isn't evidence? By itself, it may not be proof, but it is evidence. To claim it is not evidence is dishonest. If people didn't know WTC 7 fell on 9/11, everyone would agree it was acontrolled demolition.

The crux of the issue is whether a building can fall in a manner exactly like a controlled demolition, if its not a controlled demolition. That is the crux of the issue.

This is about as easy as proving that unicorns exist.

[ChumpDumper]

a video a building that comes down in what looks exactly like a controlled demolition isn't evidence? By itself, it may not be proof, but it is evidence. To claim it is not evidence is dishonest. If people didn't know WTC 7 fell on 9/11, everyone would agree it was acontrolled demolition.So the fact that the columns over the substation failed is evidence that the design of the building over the substation had an influence on the collapse.


The crux of the issue is whether a building can fall in a manner exactly like a controlled demolition, if its not a controlled demolition. That is the crux of the issue.It didn't fall "exaclty" in the manner of a controlled demolition.


This is about as easy as proving that unicorns exist.
What do you think really happened on 9/11?

[Galileo]

So the fact that the columns over the substation failed is evidence that the design of the building over the substation had an influence on the collapse.

It didn't fall "exaclty" in the manner of a controlled demolition.


What do you think really happened on 9/11?

There's no evidence there was a fire in the SubStation. We don't know the exact place where the collapse started.

We do know that the east penthouse went down 8 seconds before the collapse started.

A simpler explanation is that the columns below the east penthouse were blown out along the whole length of the columns, creating the implosion that did little damage to nearby buildings. Then after 8 seconds, the rest of the demolition charges went off.

There's no way a fire on floor 13 or lower, can cause the east penthouse on floor 47 to collapse.

You should know about this as you've looked at the NIST report.

[Mavtek]

The Truthers and the debunkers have points. They both fall over in some cases. The Truthers can come up with some pretty outrageous theories and the debunkers try to explain things with insane science that just doesn't work. Before you ask the debunkers actually have a ridiculous equation that attempts to explain the molten steel by kinetic energy. Please..... Even if you do their own equation you come up with a maximum of 1376 degrees. Which at best would make the steel hot and nowhere near molten.

[ChumpDumper]

There's no evidence there was a fire in the SubStation. We don't know the exact place where the collapse started.And there's no evidence I ever said anything about a fire in the substation.


We do know that the east penthouse went down 8 seconds before the collapse started.So?


A simpler explanation is that the columns below the east penthouse were blown out along the whole length of the columns, creating the implosion that did little damage to nearby buildings. Then after 8 seconds, the rest of the demolition charges went off.The Superman pulling on columns is a simpler explanation. Your pulling the building down with the power of your thoughts is a simpler explanation.


There's no way a fire on floor 13 or lower, can cause the east penthouse on floor 47 to collapse.So you're saying there is no way an explosion on floor 13 or lower could cause the east penthouse to collapse either. Anyway there were multiple fires all over the building and extensive structural damage from the impact of the north tower that fell into the higher floors. Plenty of places where other columns could fail.


What do you think really happened on 9/11?

[Galileo]

And there's no evidence I ever said anything about a fire in the substation.

So?

The Superman pulling on columns is a simpler explanation. Your pulling the building down with the power of your thoughts is a simpler explanation.

So you're saying there is no way an explosion on floor 13 or lower could cause the east penthouse to collapse either.

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

you are spewing doubletalk.

Here is the NIST report on WTC 7:

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

All of the damage to WTC 7 is outlined starting on pages L-17.

There is debris damage and fire damage.

If you look at the debis damage, it has nothing to do with the collapse, so the scientists are focusing on the fire damage.

Most of the fire damage is from before 3 pm. Steel near a fire at 3pm would cool down by 5:20, the time of collapse.

If you look on page L-24, it tells where the fires were after 3:00 pm. There was a fire on floors 7, 8, 12, and 13 on the north face. That's it.

That doesn't explain how a gigantic steel building fell down in 6.6 seconds. It doesn't explain why the east penthouse fell down on the roof. A controlled demolition explains everything. We even have a video of it.

The other obvious problem with WTC 7, is that we are talking about reletively small office fires. Office fires, paper burning, carpeting, etc, has little effect on steel beams.

Another problem is that we are told the twin towers fell from an airplane impact, big fires, and fire-proofing loss from impact. None of this applies to WTC 7. Yet we are supposed to belive that it wasn't a controlled demoliton.

Not sure how it could be more obvious that WTC 7 was controlled demolition just from the visual data. I haven't even gotten into the eyewitnesses.

There is no point discussing anything else to do with 9/11 if you can't see WTC 7 for what it is.

If a controlled demoliton company was contracted to take down WTC 7, they couldn't do better than to take the NIST report as a guide of where to set all the thousands of explosive charges.

[ChumpDumper]

small office fires.http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7_Smoke.jpg
You are full of shit.


Another problem is that we are told the twin towers fell from an airplane impact, big fires, and fire-proofing loss from impact. None of this applies to WTC 7. Yet we are supposed to belive that it wasn't a controlled demoliton.A World Trade Center Tower fell on it and it burned uncontrolled for several hours.


Not sure how it could be more obvious that WTC 7 was controlled demolition just from the visual data. I haven't even gotten into the eyewitnesses.I haven't even gotten into all the eyewitnesses who describe the structural damage and fires and the ones who measured the deformation of the building and determined it would collapse so they evacuated the area. Why would they do that if a sudden explosion and structural failure is your only possible explanation

So please, let's get into the quotes from eyewitnesses. I am looking forward to it.


There is no point discussing anything else to do with 9/11 if you can't see WTC 7 for what it is.What do you think really happened on 9/11?

[Galileo]

[QUOTE=ChumpDumper]http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7_Smoke.jpg

You are full of shit.

[QUOTE]

That photo is from before 3 PM, not relevant to a collapse at 5;20. Also, most of the smoke is from WTC 5 and WTC 6 which were engulfed in flames. Not to mention smoke from the collapsed twin towers.

Go read the NIST report. It says where all the fires were.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

See pages L-22 to L-26.

I'm not full of shit. Neither is the NIST report. Nor does that smoke explain why WTC 7 fell down in 6.6 seconds.

In your other point, you say a World Trade Center fell on it. That's a total lie. Look on page L-19 of the NIST report. Nothing fell on the roof.

WTC 7 was 355 feet away from WTC 1, more than the length of a football field. Some debris hit the side of the building, that's it. Most hit the SW corner which has nothing to do with the collapse. The debris damage is outlined in the NIST report, starting on page L-17.

As far as the eyewitnesses, the damage and fires explained in the NISt report is based on all known photos and eyewitnesses.

[ChumpDumper]

That photo is from before 3 PM, not relevant to a collapse at 5;20.Of course it is relevant. It's not like the building repaired itself in the meantime.
Also, most of the smoke is from WTC 5 and WTC 6 which were engulfed in flames. Not to mention smoke from the collapsed twin towers.:lmao This one I love. "The smoke was generated in the fires in buildings 5 and 6, went across the street at ground level, entered building 7 perfectly without any smoke passing the building and rising on the west side of the building where there was no skyscraper to get in its way, and finally came back out of the top of the 47-floor building after waiting to travel up the elevators and staircases and coming back out the windows.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UN7AEj4szrk

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UN7AEj4szrk


In your other point, you say a World Trade Center fell on it. That's a total lie. Look on page L-19 of the NIST report. Nothing fell on the roof.

WTC 7 was 355 feet away from WTC 1, more than the length of a football field.WTC 1 was 1368 feet tall, more than the length of four football fields. WTC 7 was 610 feet tall, about the length of two football fields
.Some debris hit the side of the building, that's it. Most hit the SW corner which has nothing to do with the collapse. The debris damage is outlined in the NIST report, starting on page L-17.Yes, and you just lied about where most of the damage was -- it was in the middle.

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC7.h2.jpg

Thanks for throwing out such bald-faced lies. This is too easy.

[ChumpDumper]

And answer my question.

[ChumpDumper]

Here's a nice article written by real people whose credentials can actually be verified -- not some guy with a PhD that doesn't exist and you lied about.

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

[Galileo]

Of course it is relevant. It's not like the building repaired itself in the meantime.:lmao This one I love. "The smoke was generated in the fires in buildings 5 and 6, went across the street at ground level, entered building 7 perfectly without any smoke passing the building and rising on the west side of the building where there was no skyscraper to get in its way, and finally came back out of the top of the 47-floor building after waiting to travel up the elevators and staircases and coming back out the windows.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UN7AEj4szrk

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UN7AEj4szrk

WTC 1 was 1368 feet tall, more than the length of four football fields. WTC 7 was 610 feet tall, about the length of two football fieldsYes, and you just lied about where most of the damage was -- it was in the middle.

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC7.h2.jpg

Thanks for throwing out such bald-faced lies. This is too easy.

You are now trying to change to subject and engaging in issue-clouding nitpicking. None of your assertions, if true, would explain why some office fires could make a giant steel building collapse in a simulated controlled demolition. And what you say isn't true.

The fires before 3PM are not relevant. Supposedly, the fires heated and weakened the steel. So if a fire is out, the steel would begin hardening over the next two hours. The NIST scientists do not assert that the pre-3PM fires have anything to do with the collapse.

In fact, even steel buildings totally engulfed in flames from office fires, like WTC 5 and WTC 6, do not collapse. That is the root of your problem, office simply fires don't make steel buildings collapse.

In reference to the smoke from WTC 5 and WTC 6, as well as the smoke from WTC 1 and WTC 2, you should know that this thick smoke blew in giant clouds four to six blocks away from the Towers before it visibly thinned at all. WTC 7 was a block and a half away from the North Tower. These clouds of smoke traveled down city streets, including the ones next to WTC 7. The SW corner of WTC 7 was damaged and had fires. Some of the smoke in your video appears to come from that area. Of course, the SW corner has nothing to do with the collapse, and is a red herring.

I've already gone over where the fires were in WTC 7, as stated in the NIST report. The bottom line is that these fires do not explain the collapse. The collapse happened 6 1/2 years ago.

As far as damage in the middle of the south face of WTC 7, did you see where it says POSSIBLE damage. It doesn't assert there was damage for sure. That's because the eyewitnesses contradict each other or is vague and there is no visual proof. Also, damage in the middle has nothing to do with an observed implosion collapse and is another red herring.

Furthermore, here is some evidence that there wasn't much, if any, damage to the middle:

Photographic Analysis of Damage to WTC7 and Critical Errors in NIST's Estimations
http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/

This footage here at the 6:16 mark shows that the glass in the middle of the south face of WTC 7 wasn't even broken. This footage was unknown when the NIST report was written:

WTC 7 Loose Change Final Cut
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8350603291379996071&q=loose+change+final+cut+wtc+7&total=22&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

You quote the height of the Twin Towers. Wow. We all know they are tall. Do you know that gravity is a force which works straight down, not sideways? The only reason anything hit WTC 7 at all, was because the explosions in WTC 1 blew objects out horizontally.

You also need to explain who started the fires in WTC 7. Are you aware that 99.9% of the mass was steel, concrete, and aluminum? This doesn't burn. Did you know the core of WTC 7 doesn't have any flammable material at all?

Did you know That WTC 7 has a water sprinkler system as well. Did you know that they have fire codes in NYC? This pertains to the office contents. The codes are written to reduce the risk of fire. How exactly is a fire going to spread in a steel concrete building that has water sprinklers and fire codes?

Did you know that someone turned off the fire alarms in WTC 7 at 6:47 AM the morning of 9/11? Bet you didn't know that. Then you've got the owner who says "pull it". Sounds like arson.

Now going back to the NIST report. It tells you where the fires and damage was. The fires and damage do not explain whay WTC 7. Controlled demolition explains everything. We even have a video of it.

[clambake]

will you pm me when you finally decide to explain what happened?

[xrayzebra]

Actually the WTC towers all still standing. They got David
Copperfield to do one his tricks in making them disappear.

[Galileo]

Here's a nice article written by real people whose credentials can actually be verified -- not some guy with a PhD that doesn't exist and you lied about.

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

This article sucks.

Do you see where column 79 is? NE corner of core. No fires or debris damage there.

It is also right where Barry Jennings and Mike Hess reported a huge explosion around 10 AM, the morning of 9/11.

Whatever idiot wrote this article is an idiot. One column out of 81 columns does not make a building collapse. If one columns fails, the rest hold it up. The horizontal beams also hold it in place.

If Superman took a giant scizzers and clipped column 79 at each of the 47 floors, what would happen to WTC 7?

Nothing.

Controlled demolition explains everything. The first demolition charges to go off were placed next to core column # 79

[Galileo]

will you pm me when you finally decide to explain what happened?

clambake;

WTC 7 is just a straight forward controlled demolition, there is really not much to explain.

[it may have used military grade explosives, rather than commercial grade. The explosives may have been placed farther than usual from the perimeter as well, to hide the charges, although the explosive charges were seen by many.]

Without getting into the rest of 9/11, here is the best, most specific explanation of the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers:

Gordon Ross analyses the destruction of the World Trade Center

Engineer Gordon Ross MEng. at the Indian YMCA, London on the 8th June 2007 analyses the destruction of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center on September 11th 2001.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4801566025292753615&q=gordon+ross&total=198&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Gordon Ross also won an award named after me, The Galileo Award!

:-)

Gordon Ross Wins Galileo Award

“Best Scientific Polemic” of the 9/11 Paradigm Shift

http://mujca.com/galileo.htm

[clambake]

how about this. when you decide you're tired of avoiding the question, them pm me. I'm definitely willing to listen.

[Galileo]

how about this. when you decide you're tired of avoiding the question, them pm me. I'm definitely willing to listen.

avoiding what question?

[ChumpDumper]

You are now trying to change to subject and engaging in issue-clouding nitpicking. None of your assertions, if true, would explain why some office fires could make a giant steel building collapse in a simulated controlled demolition. And what you say isn't true.

The fires before 3PM are not relevant. Supposedly, the fires heated and weakened the steel. So if a fire is out, the steel would begin hardening over the next two hours. The NIST scientists do not assert that the pre-3PM fires have anything to do with the collapse.So steel magically undeforms after being soften. Thanks, professor.


In fact, even steel buildings totally engulfed in flames from office fires, like WTC 5 and WTC 6, do not collapse. That is the root of your problem, office simply fires don't make steel buildings collapse.none of the buildings that burned were built the way WTC 7 was built nor did they have large portions of a larger office building fall into it.


In reference to the smoke from WTC 5 and WTC 6, as well as the smoke from WTC 1 and WTC 2, you should know that this thick smoke blew in giant clouds four to six blocks away from the Towers before it visibly thinned at all. WTC 7 was a block and a half away from the North Tower. These clouds of smoke traveled down city streets, including the ones next to WTC 7. The SW corner of WTC 7 was damaged and had fires. Some of the smoke in your video appears to come from that area.Most of the smoke is coming out of WTC 7.
Of course, the SW corner has nothing to do with the collapse, and is a red herring.You are the only one who ever said anything about the SW corner in an attempt to muddy the waters and avoid saying what you really think happened on 9/11. I made no mention of the SW corner at all -- it was only you. You have enough red herrings of your own to try to lie about my having one.


I've already gone over where the fires were in WTC 7, as stated in the NIST report. The bottom line is that these fires do not explain the collapse. The collapse happened 6 1/2 years ago.Sure they can. You just like to stick to your nontheory about Bush and Cheney that you are afraid to actually post.


As far as damage in the middle of the south face of WTC 7, did you see where it says POSSIBLE damage. It doesn't assert there was damage for sure. That's because the eyewitnesses contradict each other or is vague and there is no visual proof. Also, damage in the middle has nothing to do with an observed implosion collapse and is another red herring.You want those videos too? No big deal.


Furthermore, here is some evidence that there wasn't much, if any, damage to the middle:There is plenty of evidence that there was damage.

WTC 7 Loose Change Final Cut
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8350603291379996071&q=loose+change+final+cut+wtc+7&total=22&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

You quote the height of the Twin Towers. Wow. We all know they are tall. Do you know that gravity is a force which works straight down, not sideways? The only reason anything hit WTC 7 at all, was because the explosions in WTC 1 blew objects out horizontally.


You also need to explain who started the fires in WTC 7. Are you aware that 99.9% of the mass was steel, concrete, and aluminum? This doesn't burn. Did you know the core of WTC 7 doesn't have any flammable material at all?You have got to be fucking kidding me. Your assertion is that there is nothing in a 47-floor office building that could be flammable. You are an idiot.


Did you know That WTC 7 has a water sprinkler system as well.Did you know that the infrastructure of all of lower Manhattan was damaged on 9/11. There was no water available.
Did you know that they have fire codes in NYC? This pertains to the office contents. The codes are written to reduce the risk of fire. How exactly is a fire going to spread in a steel concrete building that has water sprinklers and fire codes?So paper and carpet and hydrocarbons found in offices magically don't burn because of fire codes?


Did you know that someone turned off the fire alarms in WTC 7 at 6:47 AM the morning of 9/11? Bet you didn't know that. Then you've got the owner who says "pull it". Sounds like arson.so it wasn't Bush and Cheney -- it was the jooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo and his insurance scam! Tell me, what do you really think happened on 9/11.


Now going back to the NIST report. It tells you where the fires and damage was. The fires and damage do not explain whay WTC 7. Controlled demolition explains everything. We even have a video of it.Nah, the working hypothesis is that fire alone did the damage to a critical column which led to the collapse. Their investigation into CD is complete and there has been no indication that hypothesis was borne out. Nice try though.

[ChumpDumper]

This article sucks.

Whatever idiot wrote this article is an idiot.Tell me, what engineering school you went to and what physical evidence you have examined and what computer models you have used to come to your conclusions.

I can find the CVs of the authors as well as many other published works from them. I can't find anything about your fake PhD other than non peer-reviewed 9/11 articles.

[ChumpDumper]

avoiding what question?What do you think really happened on 9/11?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

[Galileo]

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

I will be quoted in Dr. David Ray Griffin's next book '9/11 Contradictions' coming out next month.

Guess you'll have to buy the book....

[Galileo]

[QUOTE=ChumpDumper]

So steel magically undeforms after being soften. Thanks, professor.

QUOTE]

Office fires don't deform steel you dolt. WTC 7 was not hit by an airplane. Nothing else you yap about matters.

[Galileo]

Tell me, what engineering school you went to and what physical evidence you have examined and what computer models you have used to come to your conclusions.

I can find the CVs of the authors as well as many other published works from them. I can't find anything about your fake PhD other than non peer-reviewed 9/11 articles.

dude, there's a video of WTC 7 coming down in a controlled demolition. What else do you need?

[clambake]

griffin? did you say david ray griffin? that SOB owes me money!

[Galileo]

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

I'm sorry, I don't discuss 9/11 with idiots until the WTC 7 issue is resolved.

Let me get this straight; WTC 7 looks like a controlled demolition because the office fires magically went into the building and blew out the exact same columns that a controlled demolition company would blow out if they were contracted to do a controlled demolition?

Did I hear you right?

WTC 7: The Smoking Gun of 9/11
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3676235736822575337&q=wtc+7+smoking+gun&total=66&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

:smokin

[Galileo]

griffin? did you say david ray griffin? that SOB owes me money!

buy his book. if sales are up, he may be able to pay you back!

[clambake]

ok, ok. i'm with ya. wtc7 was a controlled demolision. now, what happened on 9/11?

[Galileo]

ok, ok. i'm with ya. wtc7 was a controlled demolision. now, what happened on 9/11?

It was an inside job.

I don't have time to write it out, but here is a close approximation:

Attack Scenario 404 *
How the Attack Might Have Been Engineered
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/scenario404.html

[Galileo]

Hey Chump;

Who turned off the fire alarms in WTC 7 at 6:47 AM on the morning of 9/11?

"6:47 a.m. September 11, 2001: WTC Building 7 Alarm Not Operating According to later reports, the alarm system in WTC 7 is placed on “TEST” status for a period due to last eight hours. This ordinarily happens during maintenance or other testing, and any alarms received from the building are generally ignored. [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 6/2004, pp. 28 ]"

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a647alarmnoton#a647alarmnoton

Explain to me how this is not evidence of an inside job? Was not the person who turned off the alarms INSIDE the building? Don't you need a security clearance to do this?

Let's see, someone turns off the fire alarms at 6:47, and a fire breaks out at 10:30. Hmmm??

I'd like to see anyone that owns a building anywhere in the world turn off the fire alarms, then watch the building fall down a few hours later, then go on national TV and say "Pull it", and not be investigated for arson.

PULL IT!!

WTC 7 - Pull It By Larry Silverstein
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1340351950774479027&q=pull+it&total=20339&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[Galileo]

Here's another one for ya, Chumper....

Barry Jennings and Mike Hess were inside WTC 7 at 9 AM on the morning of 9/11. They reported a huge explosion. Here is some of their testimony:

What really happened at WTC 7? Barry Jennings
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5894705637180916210&q=barry+jennings+wtc+7+explosions&total=3&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Guess where they were?

They were in the EAST stairwell. Know where that is? Right in between the 76th and 79th columns.

That's right, near the 79th column, the same column your idiotic psuedo-science professor says "failed" from an office fire.

Well, there aren't office fires in the core, there are no offices there. But there was an explosion.

Out that in your pipe and smoke it!!

[Galileo]

Not done yet.

This eyewitness says there was a COUNTDOWN just before WTC 7 collapsed:

The Elephant In The Room:Kevin McPadden, 9/11-1st Responder
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5275619472475044378&q=wtc+7+countdown+mcpadden&total=5&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Eyewitness testimony is evidence.

[Galileo]

Here's another eyewitness; Craig Bartmer.

He was also near WTC 7 when it fell:

9/11 First Responder - Interview with Craig Bartmer p2/3
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5965648483126513732&q=wtc+7+craig+bartmer&total=9&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8

Listen and weep!

And please stop defending mass murder!!!

[Yonivore]

Not done yet.

This eyewitness says there was a COUNTDOWN just before WTC 7 collapsed:

The Elephant In The Room:Kevin McPadden, 9/11-1st Responder
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5275619472475044378&q=wtc+7+countdown+mcpadden&total=5&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Eyewitness testimony is evidence.
But, not always reliable...particularly in such chaotic circumstances. Why the fuck would they countdown?

[Galileo]

But, not always reliable...particularly in such chaotic circumstances. Why the fuck would they countdown?

Are you sane?

The testimony is reliable when it has a video of a controlled demolition to go with it.

Get your shit together.

The video proves the controlled demolition, and the countdown witness reinforces it.

[Galileo]

New Video!

FOX-5 Reports 9/11/01: WTC-7 Collapsed Before Actual Event
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1946973360847290530&q=wtc+7+fox&total=125&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

BBC - WTC 7 - Prior Knowledge
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5661808404862296083&q=wtc+7+bbc&total=313&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

911: CNN Foreknowledge of WTC 7 Demolition
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4270752815022013680&q=wtc+7+cnn&total=192&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4

So lets get this straight.

FOX, the BBC, and CNN, all knew WTC 7 would fall.

Yet 6 1/2 years later, the NIST scientists have no idea why the observed damage and fires would cause it to fall.

Controlled demolition, boys and girls. Someone told 'em!

[Galileo]

more evidence for the archie debunkers:

9/11 Truth: The Collapse of WTC 7 - Who Knew in Advance?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2027899691054717192&q=wtc+7+eyewitness&total=72&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

These are some of the best technical videos:

Part 1- WTC 7 Improbable Collapse?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6779546780164877629&q=Part+2-+WTC+7+Improbable+Collapse+%3F&total=2&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Part 2- WTC 7 Improbable Collapse?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6779546780164877629&q=Part+2-+WTC+7+Improbable+Collapse+%3F&total=2&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Part 3- WTC 7 Improbable Collapse ?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7749136411301138173&q=wtc+7+improbable+collapse&total=17&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

www.WTC7.net

Go ahead, archie debunkers. Tell us how the damage outlined in the NIST report explains the collapse of WTC 7.

[Galileo]

Want some more evidence? Here goes:

[Building 7 starts at 3:15]

The Painful Deception of 9/11 (4of12)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8541385223612314530&q=building+7+painful+deceptions&total=17&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

[continued]

The Painful Deception of 9/11 (5of12)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8541385223612314530&q=building+7+painful+deceptions&total=17&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

[Galileo]

still more evidence on WTC 7:

[WTC 7 starts at 4:10]

911 the british broadcasting conspiracy 4/9
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3837652744661611046&q=british+broadcasting+conspiracy&total=58&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5

[continued]

911 the british broadcasting conspiracy 5/9
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3837652744661611046&q=british+broadcasting+conspiracy&total=58&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5

[smeagol]

Galileo

The WTC was pulled of by Bush?

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe this thread should be titled "The Moore-onic beliefs of 9/11."

I have seen to my satisfaction, evidence to show there was no conspiracy. I understand the sciences enough to have no unanswered questions. I have never seen a valid conspiracy theory. Maybe if the way things went down didn't keep changing by the conspiracy crowd, they would have at least enough credibility to listen to.

These people see things they don't understand, and make up things. My God man. A theory is one thing, but every time the theory is busted, you guys just making up another one. Anything but the theory the buildings fell by physical damage and the insufficient structural support left under heat.

Sure, statistically, the way it happened would be very rare to see again. However, statistics do include the rare events. Statistics do not say that a rare event is impossible. Just improbable.

[ChumpDumper]

So lets get this straight.

FOX, the BBC, and CNN, all knew WTC 7 would fall.Yeah, the firemen said it was going to fall. Repeatedly. For hours. After they measured the deformation of the building. That's why it was evacuated.

A controlled demolition collapse would have happened right after the explosion reported that morning.


That's what happened.

No controlled demolition.

[Galileo]

Galileo

The WTC was pulled of by Bush?

Are you pulling my leg?

I want to know who pulled the fire alarms.

[Galileo]

I have seen to my satisfaction, evidence to show there was no conspiracy.



why does the collapse of WTC 7 look like a controlled demolition? Have you ever heard of WTC 7?

[Galileo]

Yeah, the firemen said it was going to fall. Repeatedly. For hours. After they measured the deformation of the building. That's why it was evacuated.

A controlled demolition collapse would have happened right after the explosion reported that morning.


That's what happened.

No controlled demolition.

According to the NIST report, that's not what happened. You'd better give 'em a call so they won't waste another 6 1/2 years. It's nice that such smart people like you are around to figure stuff out for us.

Who turned off the fire alarms?

[Yonivore]

why does the collapse of WTC 7 look like a controlled demolition?
Why do some clouds look like Flinstone characters?


Have you ever heard of WTC 7?
Ever heard of coincidence?

[Extra Stout]

Yeah, the firemen said it was going to fall. Repeatedly. For hours. After they measured the deformation of the building. That's why it was evacuated.

A controlled demolition collapse would have happened right after the explosion reported that morning.


That's what happened.

No controlled demolition.
Enough's enough. I'm tired of 6 1/2 years of lying. CD, WC, smeagol, Yoni, clambake, let's just admit it. We're all part of the conspiracy. The conspiracy is vast and overreaching. We are part of the Spurstalk division of Internet Forum Action Response Team (I-FART for short). We are responsible for upholding the "official" story for 9/11 by "debunking" the conspiracy theories which of course are all true. Misha Goldsilberstein oversees our group. His office is on the 97th floor of the cloaked South Tower.

The firemen are part of the conspiracy too. They were briefed prior to the attacks on what the script would be for the demolition of WTC 7. Shlomo Ben-Rabin is in charge of mind control for New York emergency responders.

So there you go, Galileo. Full disclosure. I even keep a plaque in my office provided to me by Dick Cheney. The plaque contains my very own bone fragment from an exploded Iraqi child. It's one of my most cherished possessions.

[Yonivore]

Enough's enough. I'm tired of 6 1/2 years of lying. CD, WC, smeagol, Yoni, clambake, let's just admit it. We're all part of the conspiracy. The conspiracy is vast and overreaching. We are part of the Spurstalk division of Internet Forum Action Response Team (I-FART for short). We are responsible for upholding the "official" story for 9/11 by "debunking" the conspiracy theories which of course are all true. Misha Goldsilberstein oversees our group. His office is on the 97th floor of the cloaked South Tower.

The firemen are part of the conspiracy too. They were briefed prior to the attacks on what the script would be for the demolition of WTC 7. Shlomo Ben-Rabin is in charge of mind control for New York emergency responders.

So there you go, Galileo. Full disclosure. I even keep a plaque in my office provided to me by Dick Cheney. The plaque contains my very own bone fragment from an exploded Iraqi child. It's one of my most cherished possessions.
Shut the fuck up or I'll have you iced.

[Galileo]

Why do some clouds look like Flinstone characters?


Ever heard of coincidence?

Its a cooincidence that WTC 7 just happened to get blown up the same day that planes flew into the Twin Towers.

Ever heard of cooincidence?

[Galileo]

Enough's enough. I'm tired of 6 1/2 years of lying. CD, WC, smeagol, Yoni, clambake, let's just admit it. We're all part of the conspiracy. The conspiracy is vast and overreaching. We are part of the Spurstalk division of Internet Forum Action Response Team (I-FART for short). We are responsible for upholding the "official" story for 9/11 by "debunking" the conspiracy theories which of course are all true. Misha Goldsilberstein oversees our group. His office is on the 97th floor of the cloaked South Tower.

The firemen are part of the conspiracy too. They were briefed prior to the attacks on what the script would be for the demolition of WTC 7. Shlomo Ben-Rabin is in charge of mind control for New York emergency responders.

So there you go, Galileo. Full disclosure. I even keep a plaque in my office provided to me by Dick Cheney. The plaque contains my very own bone fragment from an exploded Iraqi child. It's one of my most cherished possessions.

I'm on the record saying that 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy.

[Yonivore]

Its a cooincidence that WTC 7 just happened to get blown up the same day that planes flew into the Twin Towers.
No, it's a coincidence that the structural failure experienced by WTC 7, after being struck by debris from a 110 story tower, looked (to you) like a controlled demolition.


Ever heard of cooincidence?
No, and that's not a word.

[Galileo]

No, it's a coincidence that the structural failure experienced by WTC 7, after being struck by debris from a 110 story tower, looked (to you) like a controlled demolition.


No, and that's not a word.

It's not a coincidence. Do you have any proof that this was a coincidence? Or are you just saying it?

How did the debirs get to WTC 7, 355 feet away? I thought WTC 1 fell from the force of gravity?

[ChumpDumper]

I'm on the record saying that 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy.You aren't on the record for saying anything -- but here's your chance:

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

[RandomGuy]

the debunkers resemble a religion in their fanatical opposition to the idea that a powerful person in the government might order someone killed for political gain.

Unless someone is convicted of murder, it didn't happen.

Ok, let's see how many people are involved in this conspiracy.

Give me a rough guess so we can start to get an idea as to the ultimate scope.

That is the first step in any investigation.

[RandomGuy]

there were hijackers, but the hijackers had guns.

Phone calls from the planes to family members mentioned that the hijackers had guns.

Source?

Link?

Say prison planet or loosechange.com, and I will smack you.

[RandomGuy]

I've read through all this stuff over the past two years, let's cut to the chase:

I have two very simple questions I'd like answered;

# 1

Why does the collapse of WTC 7 look like a controlled demolition?

WTC7 - This is an Orange
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3898962504721899003

# 2

Would our president George Bush, or our vice president Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld, be capable of making a decision that would cause the death of 3000 people?

:clap

#1
Because building collapses always "look like" controlled demolitions.

How many building collapses that weren't controlled demolitions have YOU seen?

#2
Yes. The invasion of Iraq is a good example.

Better question for #2:

Who would George Bush, or our vice president Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld find that would be willing to murder 20,000 Americans by demolishing the twin towers?

[Galileo]

Ok, let's see how many people are involved in this conspiracy.

Give me a rough guess so we can start to get an idea as to the ultimate scope.

That is the first step in any investigation.

There was zero people involved in this conspiracy. It wasn't a conspiracy.

I think you're on the record saying there were 22 people in on the conspiracy.

[Yonivore]

It's not a coincidence. Do you have any proof that this was a coincidence? Or are you just saying it?

How did the debirs get to WTC 7, 355 feet away? I thought WTC 1 fell from the force of gravity?
Since you're relying on NIST so much, how come your explanation doesn't jibe with their "working hypothesis" on the collapse of WTC 7?


The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, as the large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7, that were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

[Galileo]

#1
Because building collapses always "look like" controlled demolitions.

How many building collapses that weren't controlled demolitions have YOU seen?

#2
Yes. The invasion of Iraq is a good example.

Better question for #2:

Who would George Bush, or our vice president Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld find that would be willing to murder 20,000 Americans by demolishing the twin towers?

# 1

source?

# 2

so what's your problem with a false-flag military operation for the benefit of the American people?

[Galileo]

Since you're relying on NIST so much, how come your explanation doesn't jibe with their "working hypothesis" on the collapse of WTC 7?

I'm using the NIST report for evidence whenever possible, as it is less controversial. That's why. I'm surprised a bright fellow like you had to have this explained to you.

[Galileo]

Source?

Link?

Say prison planet or loosechange.com, and I will smack you.

You'll have to dig through these articles to find the analysis and sources:

andrewkornkven's blog
http://www.911blogger.com/blog/253

This blogger is an air traffic controller who was, suspiciously, NOT scheduled to work on the day of 9/11. Hmmm??

[RandomGuy]

# 1

source?

# 2

so what's your problem with a false-flag military operation for the benefit of the American people?

I asked you two questions.

#1 How many building collapses that weren't controlled demolitions have you seen?

and

#2 Who would Bush etc, find that would be willing to wire the twin towers, knowing they would likely be killing thousands of Americans?

You did not answer either.

[Yonivore]

I'm using the NIST report for evidence whenever possible, as it is less controversial. That's why. I'm surprised a bright fellow like you had to have this explained to you.
That's called cherry-picking.

NIST has stated there is no evidence explosives were used to bring down WTC 7. None. Zilch.

Where is your evidence that they did?

[Yonivore]

You'll have to dig through these articles to find the analysis and sources:

andrewkornkven's blog
http://www.911blogger.com/blog/253

This blogger is an air traffic controller who was, suspiciously, NOT scheduled to work on the day of 9/11. Hmmm??
You're serious? OMG!!! How many others had that day off???

[Galileo]

I asked you two questions.

#1 How many building collapses that weren't controlled demolitions have you seen?

and

#2 Who would Bush etc, find that would be willing to wire the twin towers, knowing they would likely be killing thousands of Americans?

You did not answer either.

# 1

Hundreds of them in WWII documentries, where dive bombers try to blow up buildings.

Also seen some fall over during earthquakes and wooden buildings fall from fires.

# 2

You already admitted that killing lots of people is no big deal. If its part of a miltary operation for the benefit of the Amercian people, then its legal.

[RandomGuy]

# 1

source?

# 2

so what's your problem with a false-flag military operation for the benefit of the American people?

Cheeky.

My source for saying that building collapses always "look like" controlled demolitions is:

my ass.

I have never seen a building collapse that wasn't due to controlled demololition.

"AHA" you say to yourself, "I have him now..."

Now answer the following question:

What source do you have that says the collapses of the towers "looked like" a controlled demolition?
(remember, this is your statement, the burden of proof is on you)

[Yonivore]

You already admitted that killing lots of people is no big deal. If its part of a miltary operation for the benefit of the Amercian people, then its legal.
That doesn't answer the question. Who did it? Did President Bush, himself, go in to WTC 7 and rig the explosives?

I don't think any politician gets away with the atrocity you're describing. Too many people would have to know and you don't have one person claiming to have been involved in the demolition of WTC 7.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.sawyerhome.net/whatilearned.html

What I Learned from
9-11 Conspiracy Theories.
Somehow orchestrating the hijacking of multiple airliners to have them crash at explosive-rigged sites was more effective than just setting off the explosives by themselves in the first place.

[Yonivore]

You'll have to dig through these articles to find the analysis and sources:

andrewkornkven's blog
http://www.911blogger.com/blog/253
From the FAQ:


Where does 911blogger.com get its news?
About 90% of our news comes from submissions from users like you.
That's right Galileo, like YOU. 90%

[RandomGuy]

http://www.sawyerhome.net/whatilearned.html

What I Learned from
9-11 Conspiracy Theories.
Several of the hijackers are still alive, and apparently are living well.
The government planted explosives at the exact aircraft impact sites of the Pentagon and both WTC towers, the explosives and activity surrounding their placement went completely unnoticed, the rigging of the explosives was unharmed by the aircraft impacts, and they went off exactly when planned.

[Galileo]

What source do you have that says the collapses of the towers "looked like" a controlled demolition?
(remember, this is your statement, the burden of proof is on you)

I can see that it looks like a controlled demolition.

[Galileo]

That's called cherry-picking.

NIST has stated there is no evidence explosives were used to bring down WTC 7. None. Zilch.

Where is your evidence that they did?

That's from a press release written by political managers, not from the scientists.

Press releases are not evidence and irrelevant to science.

[Galileo]

You're serious? OMG!!! How many others had that day off???

sorry, that's an inside joke (no pun intended). The ATC is a friend of mine. He always has Tuesdays off. Just tryin' ta rile ya up.

[Galileo]

what does this have to do with WTC 7?

WTC 7 was not hit by an aiplane.

Do you subscribe to the "5th plane theory"?

[Galileo]

From the FAQ:


That's right Galileo, like YOU. 90%

I'm not a 911blogger user. They are talking about news links mostly among that 90%, duh!

What's your point, smarty pants?

[Yonivore]

I can see that it looks like a controlled demolition.
Well NIST saw the same videos as you did and they actually based their theory on a scientific analysis of the evidence and not on what the collapse "looked like."

[Yonivore]

That's from a press release written by political managers, not from the scientists.

Press releases are not evidence and irrelevant to science.
So, where are the NIST scientists saying their political managers misrepresented the data they were analyzing? Better yet, where are the NIST findings to the contrary?

[ChumpDumper]

That's from a press release written by political managers, not from the scientists.

Press releases are not evidence and irrelevant to science.The Structure article I posted was written by engineers who performed research and analysis on physical evidence and computer modeling for WTC 7.

[Galileo]

Well NIST saw the same videos as you did and they actually based their theory on a scientific analysis of the evidence and not on what the collapse "looked like."

The press release says they found no evidence of controlled demolition, not the NIST report.

It doesn't really matter what they say, I can see the controlled demolition anyways.

Do you need an authority figure to reaffrim what you can see with your own two eyes. Have low self esteem?

from a recent NIST progress report:

"NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse."

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html

As you may be aware, hypothetical blast events do not cause buildings to fall down. Only actual events can.

So NIST is contradicting itself.

[ChumpDumper]

It doesn't really matter what they say, I can see the controlled demolition anyways.What to you think really happened on 9/11?

[Extra Stout]

I saw a guy at the store the other day who I thought looked like Elvis. Therefore, he is Elvis. Anybody denying that he is Elvis is hiding something.

[Galileo]

The Structure article I posted was written by engineers who performed research and analysis on physical evidence and computer modeling for WTC 7.

Wow! You have great respect for authority. I just heard an NBA expert on TV say that either the Boston Celtics or the Los Angeles Lakers will win the NBA title this year. That means the Spurs won't win it.

Please keep us posted when your friends explain how taking out column # 79 makes WTC 7 fall like a house of cards.

[Extra Stout]

These people who say the earth is round... how do they know? My experience and my own two eyes tell me the earth is flat. I don't need some authority figure to tell me otherwise. I have high self-esteem.

[Galileo]

I saw a guy at the store the other day who I thought looked like Elvis. Therefore, he is Elvis. Anybody denying that he is Elvis is hiding something.

The collapse of WTC 7 not only looks like a controlled demolition, it also has the scientific characteristics of a controlled demolition.

www.ae911truth.org

[Extra Stout]

The collapse of WTC 7 not only looks like a controlled demolition, it also has the scientific characteristics of a controlled demolition.

www.ae911truth.org
I remember one time how Bill Frist diagnosed Terri Schiavo's condition by watching her on a video. Since he is a doctor, we should believe him.

[Yonivore]

The press release says they found no evidence of controlled demolition, not the NIST report.

It doesn't really matter what they say, I can see the controlled demolition anyways.
Ah, so you're an engineer and a demolitions expert. Cool! I had no idea.


Do you need an authority figure to reaffrim what you can see with your own two eyes. Have low self esteem?
No, but in the presence of competing and plausible theories, it's nice to base my conclusions on scientific evidence...particularly when I have no expertise in the area being debated.


from a recent NIST progress report:

"NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse."

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html

As you may be aware, hypothetical blast events do not cause buildings to fall down. Only actual events can.

So NIST is contradicting itself.
This immediately stood out in your post becuase, I'll be "God damned America" if it wasn't contained in my post quoting NIST earlier today.


This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.
Maybe you should have a) read my post and b) not made the mistake of cherry-picking your quote and calling it a "NIST progress report" after just denegrating the same remarks as merely being a "NIST Press Release.

Additionally, taking the quote out of context -- and particularly leaving off the last portion, bolded above, is the type of selective fact-finding that has led you idiots off the bridge on this issue.

Nice play, Einstein.

[Galileo]

These people who say the earth is round... how do they know? My experience and my own two eyes tell me the earth is flat. I don't need some authority figure to tell me otherwise. I have high self-esteem.

The burden of proof was on the people to prove that the earth was round, since it appears flat to the common man. The ancient Greeks supplied that proof.

Likewise, WTC 7 looks like a controlled demolition. But in this case, no evidence has been presented contradicting what people can see with their own eyes.

[ChumpDumper]

Wow! You have great respect for authority.You faked a PhD for one of your sources. You have a great respect for fantasy authority about whose credentials you lied.
Please keep us posted when your friends explain how taking out column # 79 makes WTC 7 fall like a house of cards.Please email those people and tell them how wrong they are with the research and analysis you personally did using physical evidence and computer modeling. I'm sure you have a PhD in engineering like the one you made up for your cited authority.

[Galileo]

I remember one time how Bill Frist diagnosed Terri Schiavo's condition by watching her on a video. Since he is a doctor, we should believe him.

I'm all for looking for other explanations for WTC 7. But no evidence contradicting controlled demolition has been produced.

[Extra Stout]

The burden of proof was on the people to prove that the earth was round, since it appears flat to the common man. The ancient Greeks supplied that proof.

Likewise, WTC 7 looks like a controlled demolition. But in this case, no evidence has been presented contradicting what people can see with their own eyes.
The ancient Greek writings have been corrupted by the powers that be. The Flat Earth Society has the straight scoop. They have lots of obvious reasons why the world can't be round.

[Galileo]

You faked a PhD for one of your sources. You have a great respect for fantasy authority about whose credentials you lied.Please email those people and tell them how wrong they are with the research and analysis you personally did using physical evidence and computer modeling. I'm sure you have a PhD in engineering like the one you made up for your cited authority.

I have a 4-year college degree in mathematics, which included significant physics and engineering credits.

I already told you, the press release is making the assertions about no evidence for controlled demolition. The press releases are written by political and media people, not scientists.

Press releases are not evidence.

If a press release claims there is no evidence for something, that is irrelevant. Anything can be claimed in a press release.

[Galileo]

The ancient Greek writings have been corrupted by the powers that be. The Flat Earth Society has the straight scoop. They have lots of obvious reasons why the world can't be round.

Galileo also proved the Flat Earthers were wrong. I am the re-incarnation of Galileo Galilei, speaking to you through a time warp.

[ChumpDumper]

I have a 4-year college degree in mathematics, which included significant physics and engineering credits.So you have no engineering experience whatsoever.


I already told you, the press release is making the assertions about no evidence for controlled demolition. The press releases are written by political and media people, not scientistsThe article was not a press release. I understand you are easily confused. You think a bachelors degree is a PhD after all.

[ChumpDumper]

Galileo also proved the Flat Earthers were wrong. I am the re-incarnation of Galileo Galilei, speaking to you through a time warp.You're a math major who has no theory about what really happened on 9/11.

[Galileo]

Ah, so you're an engineer and a demolitions expert. Cool! I had no idea.


No, but in the presence of competing and plausible theories, it's nice to base my conclusions on scientific evidence...particularly when I have no expertise in the area being debated.


This immediately stood out in your post becuase, I'll be "God damned America" if it wasn't contained in my post quoting NIST earlier today.


Maybe you should have a) read my post and b) not made the mistake of cherry-picking your quote and calling it a "NIST progress report" after just denegrating the same remarks as merely being a "NIST Press Release.

Additionally, taking the quote out of context -- and particularly leaving off the last portion, bolded above, is the type of selective fact-finding that has led you idiots off the bridge on this issue.

Nice play, Einstein.

The NIST press release makes no sense, no matter how much context you include.

"NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."

Again, hypothetical blast events don't have a magnitute that can lead to structural failure, only actual events do.

[Yonivore]

The NIST press release makes no sense, no matter how much context you include.

"NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."

Again, hypothetical blast events don't have a magnitute that can lead to structural failure, only actual events do.
It makes a lot of sense if you're going to try and explain to nutjobs like you how science proves a controlled demolition didn't occur.

If they want to make that determination, they're going to have to hypothesize about what kind of blast it would have taken. No?

But, alas, I'm not surprised it makes no sense to you.

[Galileo]

So you have no engineering experience whatsoever.

The article was not a press release. I understand you are easily confused. You think a bachelors degree is a PhD after all.

Your article was total bullshit. If you take out column # 79 out of WTC 7, it won't make the building fall. And an office fire can't take out column # 79.

Nor does your article explain why WTC 7 fell suddenly, straight down, at free fall speed, just like a controlled demolition.

Your article doesn't explain why demolition charges are seen going up the side of the building.

Your article doesn't explain why there was a countdown over the radio just before it fell.

Your article doesn't explain why there was a huge explosion inside WTC 7 at about 9:45 in the morning.

Your article doesn't explain why the fire alarms were truned off shortly before some fires broke out.

Your article doesn't expalin anything. Get your goddam politics out of science.

[Yonivore]

I'm all for looking for other explanations for WTC 7. But no evidence contradicting controlled demolition has been produced.
What are you talking about? A huge chunk of a big fucking building hit it, weakening the structure and leading to its eventual collapse.

There's an alternative explanation you're not acknowledging.

[Galileo]

It makes a lot of sense if you're going to try and explain to nutjobs like you how science proves a controlled demolition didn't occur.

If they want to make that determination, they're going to have to hypothesize about what kind of blast it would have taken. No?

But, alas, I'm not surprised it makes no sense to you.

Why did all 81 columns of WTC 7 fail at exactly the same time?

[Galileo]

What are you talking about? A huge chunk of a big fucking building hit it, weakening the structure and leading to its eventual collapse.

There's an alternative explanation you're not acknowledging.

How can gravity throw a huge chunk over 355 feet horizontally?

Are you not aware that gravity works up and down?

[ChumpDumper]

Your article was total bullshit. If you take out column # 79 out of WTC 7, it won't make the building fall. And an office fire can't take out column # 79.And which physical evidence and computer models did you analyze to reach this conclusion?


Nor does your article explain why WTC 7 fell suddenly, straight down, at free fall speed, just like a controlled demolition.It didn't fall at free fall speed.


Your article doesn't explain why demolition charges are seen going up the side of the building.Why would there be demo charges on the side of the building near the very top? Why would those even be necessary?


Your article doesn't explain why there was a countdown over the radio just before it fell.There wasn't.


Your article doesn't explain why there was a huge explosion inside WTC 7 at about 9:45 in the morning.Right, the huge explosion that was timed to bring down the building at 5:20 PM when the small charges designed to look just like glass breaking were set off on the upper floors. -- just like every controlled demolition you have ever seen.


Your article doesn't explain why the fire alarms were truned off shortly before some fires broke out.There was no water pressure since a large amount of the infrastructure of lower Manhattan was destroyed.


Your article doesn't expalin anything.It explains quite a lot actually. A failure of this one column in the lower floors could have caused the entire collapse that you saw on 9/11.
Get your goddam politics out of science.You first.

[ChumpDumper]

Why did all 81 columns of WTC 7 fail at exactly the same time?They didn't. One failed first, then the load redistributed over the other columns and overwhelmed them causing multiple failures and global collapse.

[ChumpDumper]

How can gravity throw a huge chunk over 355 feet horizontally?There was quite a but of mass under the chunk that the chunk struck as it fell, deflecting it.


Are you not aware that gravity works up and down?Willful ignorance is the hallmark of the twoofer.

[Galileo]

They didn't. One failed first, then the load redistributed over the other columns and overwhelmed them causing multiple failures and global collapse.

The 80 columns were overwhelmed without the help of their friend, Column # 79?

God forsake!

WTC 7 has no redundancy!!!

[Galileo]

There was quite a but of mass under the chunk that the chunk struck as it fell, deflecting it.

Willful ignorance is the hallmark of the twoofer.

Really? Most scientists who have studied the issue say the explosions in WTC 1 threw out the chunks.

:pctoss

[Galileo]

So, where are the NIST scientists saying their political managers misrepresented the data they were analyzing? Better yet, where are the NIST findings to the contrary?

Politicians misrepresent what scientists say all the time.

Have you never read a press release & government report on Global Warming or Second-hand Smoke?

Same goes with economic data.

[ChumpDumper]

The 80 columns were overwhelmed without the help of their friend, Column # 79?I'm beginning to think you don't even understand the article.


WTC 7 has no redundancy!!!In this case, probably not.

Still waiting to hear about your personal analysis of the physical evidence and the computer models you used in conjunction with your advanced engineering degree.

[ChumpDumper]

Really? Most scientists who have studied the issue say the explosions in WTC 1 threw out the chunks.Are these more of your fake PhDs?

Please provide a link.

[ChumpDumper]

Politicians misrepresent what scientists say all the time.So the NIST scientists can't actually say anything to anyone ever. They are being repressed?

[Yonivore]

I have a 4-year college degree in mathematics, which included significant physics and engineering credits.
So, you're neither an engineer or a demo expert. Got it.


I already told you, the press release is making the assertions about no evidence for controlled demolition. The press releases are written by political and media people, not scientists.

Press releases are not evidence.

If a press release claims there is no evidence for something, that is irrelevant. Anything can be claimed in a press release.
Much more can be claimed in a political forum.

[Extra Stout]

How can gravity throw a huge chunk over 355 feet horizontally?

Are you not aware that gravity works up and down?
How can the earth be round and rotate as they say? If it were so, I should be able to fly up in a balloon, and just wait in the air until my destination rotates under me!

[Yonivore]

Really? Most scientists who have studied the issue say the explosions in WTC 1 threw out the chunks.

:pctoss
Debris was ejected by the force of expelled gases as the floors pancaked down with increasing speed and kinetic energy. Have you ever squeezed a bellows?

And, where are all these scientific reports by all these scientists who have studied the issue and say explosions in WTC 1 threw out the chunks?

[Galileo]

Debris was ejected by the force of expelled gases as the floors pancaked down with increasing speed and kinetic energy.



You're making this up, right?

The pancake theory has been abandoned a long time ago.

[Galileo]

So, you're neither an engineer or a demo expert. Got it.


Much more can be claimed in a political forum.

What does that have to do with seeing a controlled demolition video of WTC 7? Anyone can see it.

[Galileo]

So the NIST scientists can't actually say anything to anyone ever. They are being repressed?

They wrote a progress report that is edited by managers, just like all government reports.

[Extra Stout]

You're making this up, right?

The pancake theory has been abandoned a long time ago.
Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics!

[ChumpDumper]

They wrote a progress report that is edited by managers, just like all government reports.You didn't answer the question.

Are the NIST scientists being repressed?

[Galileo]

Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics!

The Second Law of Thermodynamics violates evolution!

[Galileo]

You didn't answer the question.

Are the NIST scientists being repressed?

What's your definition of repressed?

[ChumpDumper]

What's your definition of repressed?Not being allowed to speak to anyone, imprisoned, prevented from releasing their final findings.

[Galileo]

Not being allowed to speak to anyone, imprisoned, prevented from releasing their final findings.

They aren't done yet. They are trying to concoct something plausible.

[ChumpDumper]

They aren't done yet. They are trying to concoct something plausible.So they are in on the conspiracy. All of them.

[Galileo]

So they are in on the conspiracy. All of them.

I already told you there wasn't a conspiracy.

[Galileo]

So they are in on the conspiracy. All of them.

You're a conspiracy nut!

[ChumpDumper]

I already told you there wasn't a conspiracy.Conspiracy, cover up, whatever.

If you told me there was no conspiracy, then tell me what really happened on 9/11?

[Galileo]

Conspiracy, cover up, whatever.

If you told me there was no conspiracy, then tell me what really happened on 9/11?

it was a clean, low-casualty, false-flag military operation.

They fucked up on WTC 7, though.

[Wild Cobra]

it was a clean, low-casualty, false-flag military operation.

They fucked up on WTC 7, though.
Galileo...

You've lost it.

I think you need a psychiatrist.

[ChumpDumper]

it was a clean, low-casualty, false-flag military operation.Conducted by whom?


They fucked up on WTC 7, though.
How? Who is "they"?

[ChumpDumper]

And false-flag operations are conspiracies.


Main Entry:
con·spire
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
con·spired; con·spir·ing
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French conspirer, from Latin conspirare to be in harmony, conspire, from com- + spirare to breathe
Date:
14th century

transitive verb: plot, contrive
intransitive verb
1 a: to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement <accused of conspiring to overthrow the government> b: scheme

[Galileo]

Galileo...

You've lost it.

I think you need a psychiatrist.

You're a conspiracy nut. Not even a psychiatrist would help.

[Wild Cobra]

And false-flag operations are conspiracies.


Main Entry:
con·spire
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
con·spired; con·spir·ing
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French conspirer, from Latin conspirare to be in harmony, conspire, from com- + spirare to breathe
Date:
14th century

transitive verb: plot, contrive
intransitive verb
1 a: to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement <accused of conspiring to overthrow the government> b: scheme
And he says it's not a conspiracy he believes in?

Is there a psychiatrist in the house?

[Extra Stout]

Conducted by whom?
Oh, stop. We were briefed on the plan when we joined the plot back in the 1990's, when PNAC recruited us. By the United States military, silly! And it's not a conspiracy, because the whole government was in on it. Fully 100 million Americans, roughly the entire hawkish right wing, are in on it. I'm the first one to come clean. I am wondering how I've gone several hours without being shot yet, since the government has been able to neutralize every single other person who's thought about blabbing.



How?
Stop playing dumb. WTC 7 was the command center for the military operation. After the second tower was hit, the officers evacuated. WTC 7 was supposed to collapse when debris from the adjacent tower fell on it.
Remember when it didn't because there was a loose wire from the detonator, and we were all "o crap, those smart libertarians are gonna figure this out lol" ? So the media had to get spinning fast, and they came up with the "there are creaking noises it's gonna fall soon." But then they screwed it up, and reported that it fell already. Finally Tom got the wires fixed, but we were all "there's no way anyone will buy it it'll look just like a planned demolition." And sure enough the libertarians figured it out, and now we've had to spend 6 1/2 years fighting them on the internets.

[Wild Cobra]

You're a conspiracy nut. Not even a psychiatrist would help.
What conspiracy do I believe in?

Wow... I must be in denial too... Oh wait... I am a global warning denier, does that count?

[Galileo]

And false-flag operations are conspiracies.


Main Entry:
con·spire
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
con·spired; con·spir·ing
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French conspirer, from Latin conspirare to be in harmony, conspire, from com- + spirare to breathe
Date:
14th century

transitive verb: plot, contrive
intransitive verb
1 a: to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement <accused of conspiring to overthrow the government> b: scheme

This one was perfectly legal. Military operations are legal, if ordered by the proper authorities.

False flag

False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy's strategy of tension.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

[ChumpDumper]

This one was perfectly legal. Military operations are legal, if ordered by the proper authorities.
"or wrongful"

Thanks for playing.

[Galileo]

What conspiracy do I believe in?

Wow... I must be in denial too... Oh wait... I am a global warning denier, does that count?

Don't you believe in the vast worldwide conspiracy that's out to get us?

Ya know, Al Qaida.

[Wild Cobra]

Don't you believe in the vast worldwide conspiracy that's out to get us?

Ya know, Al Qaida.
That's well known facts. Not an unproven conspiracy.

[Yonivore]

You're making this up, right?

The pancake theory has been abandoned a long time ago.
Abandoned by whom?

[Yonivore]

Oh, stop. We were briefed on the plan when we joined the plot back in the 1990's, when PNAC recruited us. By the United States military, silly! And it's not a conspiracy, because the whole government was in on it. Fully 100 million Americans, roughly the entire hawkish right wing, are in on it. I'm the first one to come clean. I am wondering how I've gone several hours without being shot yet, since the government has been able to neutralize every single other person who's thought about blabbing.



Stop playing dumb. WTC 7 was the command center for the military operation. After the second tower was hit, the officers evacuated. WTC 7 was supposed to collapse when debris from the adjacent tower fell on it.
Remember when it didn't because there was a loose wire from the detonator, and we were all "o crap, those smart libertarians are gonna figure this out lol" ? So the media had to get spinning fast, and they came up with the "there are creaking noises it's gonna fall soon." But then they screwed it up, and reported that it fell already. Finally Tom got the wires fixed, but we were all "there's no way anyone will buy it it'll look just like a planned demolition." And sure enough the libertarians figured it out, and now we've had to spend 6 1/2 years fighting them on the internets.
You're on thin ice ES...Dick won't be happy when he gets back.

[Galileo]

Abandoned by whom?

Abandoned by NIST.

[Wild Cobra]

How can gravity throw a huge chunk over 355 feet horizontally?

Are you not aware that gravity works up and down?
Are you aware that the huge sections that broke off had a great deal of surface area and relatively flat? It is very easy within known physics for them to have caught the air, and glided at an angle.

Oh wait...

Some of the video footage even shows this happening!

I'll bet those clips are on the cut floor of the producers of things like "loose change."

Besides, other buildings besides 7 were hit by debris. Thing is, one or more of those huge slabs took out some ob 7's structural support.

[Extra Stout]

Besides, other buildings besides 7 were hit by debris.
And the detonation charges in all of them went off as planned. But not 7. Even so, we would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling libertarians!

[Galileo]

"or wrongful"

Thanks for playing.

who says 9/11 was wrongful? That's your opinion. I think the sacrifice of 3000 lives is a small price to pay for us to secure our oil for the next generation. Presidents are elected to make big decisions and you can't always please everyone. You must act for the collective good.

[ChumpDumper]

who says 9/11 was wrongful? That's your opinion. I think the sacrifice of 3000 lives is a small price to pay for us to secure our oil for the next generation. Presidents are elected to make big decisions and you can't always please everyone. You must act for the collective good.So your opinion is the claimed 9/11 false flag operation was a good and desirable thing.

Then why are you even posting about it?

[Wild Cobra]

who says 9/11 was wrongful? That's your opinion. I think the sacrifice of 3000 lives is a small price to pay for us to secure our oil for the next generation. Presidents are elected to make big decisions and you can't always please everyone. You must act for the collective good.
OMG man...

That would be a very idiotic reason. It has not secured any oil for us. Even as dumb as you guys like to make president Bush out to be, he isn't that dumb.

Oil is a world commodity. The only way such a thing would matter is if we could control a significant share of it. Not just add control over a small region. We would need control over far more than our own consumption to make a difference.

[Galileo]

So your opinion is the claimed 9/11 false flag operation was a good and desirable thing.

Then why are you even posting about it?

Of course 9/11 was good. If not for 9/11, we would not have a giant embassy in Bagdad, protecting our oil.

We would not have 14 military bases in the region of the Caspian Sea, protecting more of our oil, and outflanking the Chinese.

We would not have a puppet government in Afghanistan, protecting our oil piplines.

We would not have a puppet governemt in Iraq, protecting our oil for the next generation.

We would not have the Patriot Act which protects us from criminals.

We would not have the Military Commissions Act, which allows us to get tough and suspend Habeas Corpus.

We would not have popular support for torturing criminals so we can get info from them.

Why are you so reluctant to credit Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld for a job well done? They've taken a lot of flack, you know. 9/11 could have killed 50,000 people or more. But thanks to the great mercy of ours leaders, the first plane hit way up on the 95th floor, not down lower. A hit on the 50th floor would have trapped 50,000 people.

[Galileo]

OMG man...

That would be a very idiotic reason. It has not secured any oil for us. Even as dumb as you guys like to make president Bush out to be, he isn't that dumb.

Oil is a world commodity. The only way such a thing would matter is if we could control a significant share of it. Not just add control over a small region. We would need control over far more than our own consumption to make a difference.

are you a liberal or a crazy Ron Paul supporter?

We get a much better price for oil, when we have military bases near by. The big guns and tanks help us in our bargaining power.

[ChumpDumper]

Of course 9/11 was good. If not for 9/11, we would not have a giant embassy in Bagdad, protecting our oil.

We would not have 14 military bases in the region of the Caspian Sea, protecting more of our oil, and outflanking the Chinese.

We would not have a puppet government in Afghanistan, protecting our oil piplines.

We would not have a puppet governemt in Iraq, protecting our oil for the next generation.

We would not have the Patriot Act which protects us from criminals.

We would not have the Military Commissions Act, which allows us to get tough and suspend Habeas Corpus.

We would not have popular support for torturing criminals so we can get info from them.

Why are you so reluctant to credit Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld for a job well done? They've taken a lot of flack, you know. 9/11 could have killed 50,000 people or more. But thanks to the great mercy of ours leaders, the first plane hit way up on the 95th floor, not down lower. A hit on the 50th floor would have trapped 50,000 people.So you are saying Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld planned 9/11.

[Galileo]

So you are saying Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld planned 9/11.

are you talking about at the tactical, operational, or strategic level?

[ChumpDumper]

are you talking about at the tactical, operational, or strategic level?Any level.

You claim Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld planned 9/11.

[Wild Cobra]

are you a liberal or a crazy Ron Paul supporter?
LOL... Isn't it people who fall into that catagory those who are more likely to believe in conspiracies?

I like many of Paul's views, but I do not support him. I never did. Liberal... No fucking way. I am for small government, reducing regulations, and increasing freedom. That places me as a conservative libertarian.... or a constitutionalist!


We get a much better price for oil, when we have military bases near by. The big guns and tanks help us in our bargaining power.
Sure, I can agree that maybe it helps to a small percentage. I see no results, do you? It is still a commodity traded world wide. To make any worthwhile difference, we would have to stop it from being a world traded commodity!

[Galileo]

Any level.

You claim Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld planned 9/11.

Do you really believe that Mohamed Atta brought his last will and testament with him, and loaded it into his luggage?

That's asinine.

[email protected]
http://www.911blogger.com/node/9654

[Galileo]

LOL... Isn't it people who fall into that catagory those who are more likely to believe in conspiracies?

I like many of Paul's views, but I do not support him. I never did. Liberal... No fucking way. I am for small government, reducing regulations, and freedom. That places me as a conservative libertarian.... or a constitutionalist!


Sure, I can agree that maybe it helps to a small percentage. I see no results, do you? It is still a commodity traded world wide. To make any worthwhile difference, we would have to stop it from being a world traded commodity!

9/11 was carried out by terrorists.

[ChumpDumper]

Blah, blah, blah.You claim Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld planned 9/11.

True or false?

[Galileo]

You claim Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld planned 9/11.

True or false?

Bush is too stupid to plan anything.

This should answer your question:

Just What Was Cheney Doing on the Morning of 9/11?
http://www.911blogger.com/node/8771

[Galileo]

You claim Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld planned 9/11.

True or false?

Does WTC 7 look like a controlled demolition?

True or false?

[Yonivore]

And the detonation charges in all of them went off as planned. But not 7. Even so, we would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling libertarians!
That's it, you can expect a wet ops team to be closing on your position any time now. Say hi to Chuck for me; right before he hits your kill switch...'kay?

[ChumpDumper]

Bush is too stupid to plan anything.

This should answer your question:

Just What Was Cheney Doing on the Morning of 9/11?
http://www.911blogger.com/node/8771That doesn't answer my question.

My question is to you and need only be answered with a "yes" or "no."

Do you claim that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld planned 9/11?


Yes

or

No

[ChumpDumper]

Does WTC 7 look like a controlled demolition?

True or false?True.

This has never been in question in this thread.

[Galileo]

True.

This has never been in question in this thread.

Aha! So you're admitting it was a controlled demolition!

[Galileo]

That doesn't answer my question.

My question is to you and need only be answered with a "yes" or "no."

Do you claim that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld planned 9/11?


Yes

or

No

Impeach Cheney first!