Real 9-11 Research

[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

Who do you think planned 9/11? You are avoiding the question.

[ChumpDumper]

Aha! So you're admitting it was a controlled demolition!No. Read your own question.
Does WTC 7 look like a controlled demolition?That is not the same as asking "Was WTC 7 destroyed in a controlled demolition."

Only an idiot would think it is the same question.

[ChumpDumper]

Who do you think planned 9/11? You are avoiding the question.Al Qaeda.

[ChumpDumper]

Impeach Cheney first!Why? You claim what he did was legal and right and desirable.

Or were you lying again?

[Galileo]

No. Read your own question.That is not the same as asking "Was WTC 7 destroyed in a controlled demolition."

Only an idiot would think it is the same question.

You're just using that an excuse to cover youself.

[ChumpDumper]

You're just using that an excuse to cover youself.I'm using your idiocy to cover myself?

[Galileo]

Al Qaeda.

Never heard of them, are they a legitimate organization? Do they have a website?

Can you get me a link to the media relations department? How can I post on their blog?

[Galileo]

Why? You claim what he did was legal and right and desirable.

Or were you lying again?

If Cheney is impeached, we'd have vice-president Nancy Pelosi. What a thought!

[Galileo]

Al Qaeda.

Is that Arabic for the CIA?

[ChumpDumper]

Never heard of themBecause you are an idiot.

[Galileo]

Because you are an idiot.

You're in luck, they do exist!

I just found some of their TV commercials from their last election cycle:

Al Qaeda Attack Ad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwIK4U9a8lQ

Al Qaeda responds to political attack ads
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH1jF4OL1vc

:idiot

[Wild Cobra]

9/11 was carried out by terrorists.
No shit Sherlock.

[Wild Cobra]

Does WTC 7 look like a controlled demolition?

True or false?
False. It only does to the uninformed casual observer. Several upper story windows started breakeing well before it fell. The heat didn't rise that far, it was from the structure starting to sag. This sagging broke the widows.

[Galileo]

False. It only does to the uninformed casual observer. Several upper story windows started breakeing well before it fell. The heat didn't rise that far, it was from the structure starting to sag. This sagging broke the widows.

Ya, those demolitions charges running up the side of the building, breaking the windows, look nothing like a controlled demolition.

WTC-7 Collapse Footage Shows Unmistakable Demolition Charges
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2862427189379881466&q=demolition+charges+wtc+7&total=83&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

The building was already collapsing. Why would anyone bother to place charges on the upper corners of WTC 7 when those areas were in not critical to the structure as a whole?

Really, this is worse than making up a PhD.

[Galileo]

:lmao

Why would anyone bother to place charges on the upper corners of WTC 7 when those areas were in not critical to the structure as a whole?



Don't ask me. I not involved in mass murder. Sometimes its hard to understand the minds and actions of those involved in mass murder. Frankly, I'm more perplexed why they'd want to kill so many people.

[ChumpDumper]

Don't ask me. No, I am asking you, since you have such an extensive engineering background.

Why would anyone take the risk of being caught planting explosives along the outside of the building in noncritical areas on floors occupied by a nongovernment corporation and set them to go off after the building stared to collapse?

[Galileo]

No, I am asking you, since you have such an extensive engineering background.

Why would anyone take the risk of being caught planting explosives along the outside of the building in noncritical areas on floors occupied by a nongovernment corporation and set them to go off after the building stared to collapse?

mistimed explosions perhaps?

Rememeber, FL93 was supposed to fly into WTC 7. The demolition was supposed to be top down, just like the Twin Towers

[ChumpDumper]

mistimed explosions perhaps?

Rememeber, FL93 was supposed to fly into WTC 7. The demolition was supposed to be top down, just like the Twin Towers:lmao :lmao :lmao

So you WERE in on it!

You admit it!

[Galileo]

:lmao :lmao :lmao

So you WERE in on it!

You admit it!

You already admitted WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

[Wild Cobra]

mistimed explosions perhaps?

Rememeber, FL93 was supposed to fly into WTC 7. The demolition was supposed to be top down, just like the Twin Towers
Lunacy!

The building had a different structural design which would make it nearly impossible for it to fall top down! WTC 1 and WTC 2 had a unique design structure. Probably unlike any other building ever made.

Besides, it is thought Flight 93 was meant for the capitol. What trustworthy intelligence says otherwise?

[Wild Cobra]

You already admitted WTC was a controlled demolition.
I find this hard to believe...

Defending Chump...

He did not make any such implication. Looks like does not mean such a thing to anyone with any intelligence. It is obvious you read a persons intent wrong, twisting their words to your desired meaning. If, by chance, you really believe he admitted such a thing, then I suggest you take fifth grade English over. Your vocabulary definitely need improvement.

[Galileo]

Lunacy!

Besides, it is thought Flight 93 was meant for the capitol. What trustworthy intelligence says otherwise?



FL93 turned directly towards WTC 7 just before it went down. Giuliani mentioned that it was coming. FL93 was supposed to hit WTC 7 at around 9:20, halfway between the WTC 2 hit and the Pentagon hit.

(FL93 got stuck in the runway 40 minutes, so was unable to complete its mission)

9/11 was designed to be like a 1 hour 45 minute feature hollywood made-for-TV film, with a developing plot sequence spaced out, but not too long so that viewers would lose attention.

When FL93 was shot down, the terrorists were stuck with a big building full of explosives in WTC 7.

9/11 Plotline Sequence (planned events spaced by 15 minutes, before conmmercial breaks set in)

a) WTC 1 hit

b) WTC 2 hit

c) WTC 7 hit

d) Pentagon hit

e) WTC 1 collapse

f) WTC 2 collapse

g) WTC 7 collapse

[Galileo]

I find this hard to believe...

Defending Chump...

He did not make any such implication. Looks like does not mean such a thing to anyone with any intelligence. It is obvious you read a persons intent wrong, twisting their words to your desired meaning. If, by chance, you really believe he admitted such a thing, then I suggest you take fifth grade English over. Your vocabulary definitely need improvement.

you've already admitted 9/11 was a conspiracy. I typically do not enter into a dialogue with conspiracy nuts. How many were invloved in this conspiracy?

[Wild Cobra]

FL93 turned directly towards WTC 7 just before it went down. Giuliani mentioned that it was coming. FL93 was supposed to hit WTC 7 at around 9:20, halfway between the WTC 2 hit and the Pentagon hit.

Do you make this up as you go, or do you believe propaganda without fact checking? It was heading strait for DC until some passengers get into the cabin.

Flight path of flight 93:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/911_commission_UA93_path.png/800px-911_commission_UA93_path.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:911_commission_UA93_path.png)

[Extra Stout]

Yes, WTC 7 was a national icon, just like the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. I know every time I saw a picture of the New York skyline, I would see WTC 7, even though it was a relatively short, unremarkable building, and would think, "I'm so proud of that building and its unusual truss system to transfer loads to the original foundation." It always was a big tourist attraction. I understand why we included it in our plot to terrorize America.

[Galileo]

Do you make this up as you go, or do you believe propaganda without fact checking? It was heading strait for DC until some passengers get into the cabin.

Flight path of flight 93:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/911_commission_UA93_path.png/800px-911_commission_UA93_path.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:911_commission_UA93_path.png)

the turn towards WTC 7 occurs right at the first ridge on your map. The curl at the very end is the downward spiral as the plane is crashing and out of control.

The plane was not pointed towards Washington at the time it was shot down.

[Extra Stout]

Do you make this up as you go, or do you believe propaganda without fact checking? It was heading strait for DC until some passengers get into the cabin.

Flight path of flight 93:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/911_commission_UA93_path.png/800px-911_commission_UA93_path.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:911_commission_UA93_path.png)
Duh, we faked the flight path so that when 93 struck WTC 7 it would be a big surprise everyone would be all "o man that's a big shock we thot it wuz goin to dc" and we'd be all "pwnd pwnd ha ha you thot wrong bichzzz." Cuz Americans loved WTC 7 lotz more than the Capitol.

[Wild Cobra]

you've already admitted 9/11 was a conspiracy. I typically do not enter into a dialogue with conspiracy nuts. How many were invloved in this conspiracy?
The only ones who conspired were the terrorists. Not a US involved conspiracy. No explosives used.

Oh... on my previous post, notice how the aircraft turns again toward DC before crashing? With the timing as it is, there is no credible way to say they intended to change course to NY.

[Galileo]

Yes, WTC 7 was a national icon, just like the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. I know every time I saw a picture of the New York skyline, I would see WTC 7, even though it was a relatively short, unremarkable building, and would think, "I'm so proud of that building and its unusual truss system to transfer loads to the original foundation." It always was a big tourist attraction. I understand why we included it in our plot to terrorize America.

not only that, 7 is a lucky number.

[Galileo]

The only ones who conspired were the terrorists.



No shit Sherlock. Your bulb burns bright.

[Galileo]

Duh, we faked the flight path so that when 93 struck WTC 7 it would be a big surprise everyone would be all "o man that's a big shock we thot it wuz goin to dc" and we'd be all "pwnd pwnd ha ha you thot wrong bichzzz." Cuz Americans loved WTC 7 lotz more than the Capitol.

Why WTC 7?

1) A plane flying into it looks great on TV.

2) A controlled demolition collapse looks great on TV.

3) It eliminates to only part of the WTC not destroyed by the collapses of WTC 1 & 2.

4) Floor 23 of WTC 7 may have been the commaned center for the WTC 1 & 2 attacks.

FL11 flew right over WTC 7 before it hit WTC 1. FL175 was on a path towards WTC 7 when it struck WTC 2. WTC 7 may have beamed a homing signal.

Blowing it up conceals the evidence.

Nixt!!

[Galileo]

Duh, we faked the flight path so that when 93 struck WTC 7 it would be a big surprise everyone would be all "o man that's a big shock we thot it wuz goin to dc" and we'd be all "pwnd pwnd ha ha you thot wrong bichzzz." Cuz Americans loved WTC 7 lotz more than the Capitol.

FYI

The 9/11 attacks were carfully planned to not destroy anything of historical value.

They did not hit the Statue of Liberty, the Empire State Building, or the Washington Monument. WTC 7 had no historical value.

They also took great care to minimize the loss of life. One of the planes flew right over a nuclear power plant. Hitting that could have killed millions.

Other ways loss of life was spared by the domestic neocon terrorists:

1) Hit WTC early in morning before it was filled up.

2) Hit WTC 1 on 95th so not many were trapped. A hit on floor 50 would have trapped 50,000.

3) Waited 17 minutes before hitting WTC 2 so most people could get out.

4) Hit WTC 2 on floor 80, not lower.

5) Control demolitioned the towers straight down. If they had knocked the towers over sideways ways, there would have been untold wanton death and destruction with the towers falling on other buildings.

6) waiting until WTC 7 was evacuated before blowing it up.

7) the hijacked flights were only 30% booked, saving many lives.

8) the Pentagon was hit in an area reinforced for attack, saving lives.

9) the Pentagon was hit in an area under construction, so only a small fraction of the people who normally worked there were present.

10) FL93 shot down over an open field, saving lives oj the ground.

11) they waited an hour before blowing up the Twin Towers, so most people could get out.

[Wild Cobra]

the turn towards WTC 7 occurs right at the first ridge on your map. The curl at the very end is the downward spiral as the plane is crashing and out of control.

The plane was not pointed towards Washington at the time it was shot down.
Yep, you're making it up as you go. Notice that that turn corresponds with a rapid change in altitude when you compare the map to the altitude time. Up. Not down. There was more likely already a struggle in the cockpit. Our heroes were likely taking control of the plane, or trying to.

Now I will not exclude the possibility it was shot down. I do find it unlikely however. The impact site is consistant with the plane being intact, heading nearly strait down, very fast.

Now assuming it was shot down, they may have been taking evasive actions. The planned change to NY theory doesn't was with me. They didn't need to climb so high to clear the mountain range. The highest peak is Blue Knob, at 3146 ft.

You know what else sucks about your theory? The planes that struck WTC 1 and WTC 2 were 767's Flt 93 was a 757, same as what hit the pentagon. A 757 wouln't do enought damage to bring WTC 7 down.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Ua93altitude.jpg/710px-Ua93altitude.jpg

[smeagol]

FYI

The 9/11 attacks were carfully planned to not destroy anything of historical value.

They did not hit the Statue of Liberty, the Empire State Building, or the Washington Monument. WTC 7 had no historical value.

They also took great care to minimize the loss of life. One of the planes flew right over a nuclear power plant. Hitting that could have killed millions.

Other ways loss of life was spared by the domestic neocon terrorists:

1) Hit WTC early in morning before it was filled up.

2) Hit WTC 1 on 95th so not many were trapped. A hit on floor 50 would have trapped 50,000.

3) Waited 17 minutes before hitting WTC 2 so most people could get out.

4) Hit WTC 2 on floor 80, not lower.

5) Control demolitioned the towers straight down. If they had knocked the towers over sideways ways, there would have been untold wanton death and destruction with the towers falling on other buildings.

6) waiting until WTC 7 was evacuated before blowing it up.

7) the hijacked flights were only 30% booked, saving many lives.

8) the Pentagon was hit in an area reinforced for attack, saving lives.

9) the Pentagon was hit in an area under construction, so only a small fraction of the people who normally worked there were present.

10) FL93 shot down over an open field, saving lives oj the ground.

11) they waited an hour before blowing up the Twin Towers, so most people could get out.

Yes, you nailed it! :rolleyes

[Wild Cobra]

FYI

The 9/11 attacks were carfully planned to not destroy anything of historical value.

They did not hit the Statue of Liberty, the Empire State Building, or the Washington Monument. WTC 7 had no historical value.

The purpose of terrorism is to cause terror. Not do historical or monetary damage.



They also took great care to minimize the loss of life. One of the planes flew right over a nuclear power plant. Hitting that could have killed millions.

An assumption, and an ignorant on at that. Hitting a nuclear power plant would not cause a nuclear explosion. The core is protected well enough that there would likely be no damage to it. Yes, radioactive steam would be released, and there would be some potential deaths outside the building. However, it took me some time to pick myself off the floor from laughter at the claim of millions.



Other ways loss of life was spared by the domestic neocon terrorists:

Why might it not be liberal elitists?



1) Hit WTC early in morning before it was filled up.

They picked the best flights. Their timing was dependant upon probable success, not maximizing casualties.



2) Hit WTC 1 on 95th so not many were trapped. A hit on floor 50 would have trapped 50,000.

OK, you expect them to fly sideways between buildings to do that?



3) Waited 17 minutes before hitting WTC 2 so most people could get out.

OMG... Ever hear of an aircraft taking off on time? Kind of hard to plan precise timing.



4) Hit WTC 2 on floor 80, not lower.

Probably the planned location of tower 2. These were not expert pilots, and this is above the tops of the other nearby buildings.



5) Control demolitioned the towers straight down. If they had knocked the towers over sideways ways, there would have been untold wanton death and destruction with the towers falling on other buildings.

Gravity takes huge structures down, not allowing for them to fall like models will.



6) waiting until WTC 7 was evacuated before blowing it up.

Funny. I remember reading a transcript of an officer who went into WTC 7. Rudy Weindler came back talking about the damage, clearing the collapse zone for fear of collapse because of the structural damage they witnessed. The transcript went on to say she heard rumbling before the tower collapsed. I have the file on my computer, but don't know the source link.

I assume they must have had a 100,000 watt speaker system to simulate that before the explosions went off, right? Then I wonder. Why wasn't there a report of such explosions?



7) the hijacked flights were only 30% booked, saving many lives.

Seems like crown management was a larger concern to me. A 100% booked flight wouldn't allow then to put everyone to the rear!



8) the Pentagon was hit in an area reinforced for attack, saving lives.

9) the Pentagon was hit in an area under construction, so only a small fraction of the people who normally worked there were present.

The Pentagon was hit on the only side that had a clear flight path.



10) FL93 shot down over an open field, saving lives oj the ground.

Maybe it was shot down. Still, heroes do exist. Maybe you're too chicken-shit to imagine such people, but I believe the incidents as reported, especially in light of the telephone conversations reported.



11) they waited an hour before blowing up the Twin Towers, so most people could get out.


It takes time for steel to heat up. The timing is correct for the damage and weight above the damage. That is why tower 2 fell first even though tower 1 was hit first.

You have no evidence to make those statements, and more logical theories exists.

I cannot believe you are so blinded by the hate. Why don't you just go join Al-Qeada yourself.

Now back to the damage by WTC-1 to WTC-7. Look at the below photo. WTC-6 has clear damage. Not only did WTC-1 put a huge hole it the roof, look at the top edge of the building (lower right of 6) with a path to WTC-7. The edge is obliterated. The debris that did this went into the side of WTC-7!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/6-wtc-photo.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:6-wtc-photo.jpg)

[Nbadan]

Why wasn't there a report of such explosions?

Your ignorant.....I'm not supporting either side in this fight, but to say that there weren't explosions on 9/11 that weren't part of a plane going through a building, or buildings collapsing is just is stupid...there are plenty of videos on youtube that prove otherwise....

[Nbadan]

7) the hijacked flights were only 30% booked, saving many lives.

Strike ball....imagine this... all the targeted transcontinental flights were not only under-booked, they were very under-booked....some would say unusally underbooked for flights taking off in the not to early morning from major hubs to major hubs...

[Wild Cobra]

Your ignorant.....I'm not supporting either side in this fight, but to say that there weren't explosions on 9/11 that weren't part of a plane going through a building, or buildings collapsing is just is stupid...there are plenty of videos on youtube that prove otherwise....
OK, so I didn't specify immediately befor the callapse. So what?

Weve been through these points. An explosion heard hoes not mean explosive. Especially when it's reported by those who are not explosive experts. Several thing explode. An egg explodes in a microwave oven. That doesn't mean I put C4 in the microwave too.

As for the videos... I have not seen a single one where a 'burst' preceeds the destruction. In all, the bursts are part of the destruction.

[Wild Cobra]

Strike ball....imagine this... all the targeted transcontinental flights were not only under-booked, they were very under-booked....some would say unusally underbooked for flights taking off in the not to early morning from major hubs to major hubs...
Is that seasonally adjusted for time of day and for the first few weeks of school? That might not matter so much, but that time of day is one of the quietest for traveling east across the Atlantic. Look at the arrival time. How many people want to travel during that time? They still have to fly one aircraft east for every one they fly west.

Have any stats that take the same weekday, time, and school week into account? Does it also take the econimic situation into account? I'lll bet if they took flights an hour later to maximize capacity in the buildings, they would have had more people than they considered safe to handle.

I used to regulary fly as a technician to various location in the USA. I saw dramatic changed in the aircrafts utilized capacity. Your's is a very ignorant statement to use without taking the effects I spoke of and more.

[Nbadan]

OK, so I didn't specify immediately befor the callapse. So what?

Weve been through these points. An explosion heard hoes not mean explosive. Especially when it's reported by those who are not explosive experts. Several thing explode. An egg explodes in a microwave oven. That doesn't mean I put C4 in the microwave too.

As for the videos... I have not seen a single one where a 'burst' preceeds the destruction. In all, the bursts are part of the destruction.

Yes, it's everyone who was there who is wrong...

:rolleyes

zuq0ANHxvlM

-rZ_K67OHWw

GGBIa4IznTU

F8XBxw7k8rk

[Galileo]

The purpose of terrorism is to cause terror. Not do historical or monetary damage.


An assumption, and an ignorant on at that. Hitting a nuclear power plant would not cause a nuclear explosion. The core is protected well enough that there would likely be no damage to it. Yes, radioactive steam would be released, and there would be some potential deaths outside the building. However, it took me some time to pick myself off the floor from laughter at the claim of millions.


Why might it not be liberal elitists?


They picked the best flights. Their timing was dependant upon probable success, not maximizing casualties.


OK, you expect them to fly sideways between buildings to do that?


OMG... Ever hear of an aircraft taking off on time? Kind of hard to plan precise timing.


Probably the planned location of tower 2. These were not expert pilots, and this is above the tops of the other nearby buildings.


Gravity takes huge structures down, not allowing for them to fall like models will.


Funny. I remember reading a transcript of an officer who went into WTC 7. Rudy Weindler came back talking about the damage, clearing the collapse zone for fear of collapse because of the structural damage they witnessed. The transcript went on to say she heard rumbling before the tower collapsed. I have the file on my computer, but don't know the source link.

I assume they must have had a 100,000 watt speaker system to simulate that before the explosions went off, right? Then I wonder. Why wasn't there a report of such explosions?


Seems like crown management was a larger concern to me. A 100% booked flight wouldn't allow then to put everyone to the rear!


The Pentagon was hit on the only side that had a clear flight path.


Maybe it was shot down. Still, heroes do exist. Maybe you're too chicken-shit to imagine such people, but I believe the incidents as reported, especially in light of the telephone conversations reported.


It takes time for steel to heat up. The timing is correct for the damage and weight above the damage. That is why tower 2 fell first even though tower 1 was hit first.

You have no evidence to make those statements, and more logical theories exists.

I cannot believe you are so blinded by the hate. Why don't you just go join Al-Qeada yourself.

Now back to the damage by WTC-1 to WTC-7. Look at the below photo. WTC-6 has clear damage. Not only did WTC-1 put a huge hole it the roof, look at the top edge of the building (lower right of 6) with a path to WTC-7. The edge is obliterated. The debris that did this went into the side of WTC-7!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/6-wtc-photo.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:6-wtc-photo.jpg)

You are blinded by hatred of Arabs which makes you a racist. You are condoning mass murder. I find you to be a disgusting individual.

[Galileo]

It is possible that Flight 23 was also supposed to take out WTC 7.

[Galileo]

OK, so I didn't specify immediately befor the callapse. So what?

Weve been through these points. An explosion heard hoes not mean explosive. Especially when it's reported by those who are not explosive experts. Several thing explode. An egg explodes in a microwave oven. That doesn't mean I put C4 in the microwave too.

As for the videos... I have not seen a single one where a 'burst' preceeds the destruction. In all, the bursts are part of the destruction.

You are making the same argument the people who planted the bombs made.

They said; "We'll set bombs in the WTC and if anyone claims to hear them, we'll just say that they aren't experts in sound indentification."

[ChumpDumper]

It is possible that Flight 23 was also supposed to take out WTC 7.
Yes, WTC 7 was a national icon, just like the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. I know every time I saw a picture of the New York skyline, I would see WTC 7, even though it was a relatively short, unremarkable building, and would think, "I'm so proud of that building and its unusual truss system to transfer loads to the original foundation." It always was a big tourist attraction. I understand why we included it in our plot to terrorize America.

[Holt's Cat]

You are making the same argument the people who planted the bombs made.

They said; "We'll set bombs in the WTC and if anyone claims to hear them, we'll just say that they aren't experts in sound indentification."


From whence came that quote?

[Holt's Cat]

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


He was probably taking a shit.

[Spurminator]

Loose Change rev. 27

[ChumpDumper]

Why plant bombs that would go off at times other than the actual collapse?


In places completely uncritical to the total structure?


And occupied by busy financial corporations?

[Holt's Cat]

Why plant bombs that would go off at times other than the actual collapse?


In places completely uncritical to the total structure?


And occupied by busy financial corporations?


Because clearly Bush and friends are closet Marxists.

[Galileo]

Why plant bombs that would go off at times other than the actual collapse?


In places completely uncritical to the total structure?


And occupied by busy financial corporations?

You hit the nail on the head. By placing bombs in non-essential places, and setting them off well before the collapse, you throw investigators totally off the track.

The investigatiors will think; "Gee whiz, they must not be bombs, they wouldn't set the bombs to go off one hour before collapse."

[ChumpDumper]

You hit the nail on the head. By placing bombs in non-essential places, and setting them off well before the collapse, you through investigators totally off the track.And planted them in plain sight in working offices.

After getting the explosives past the bomb-sniffing dogs in the parking garage.


The investigatiors will think; "Gee whiz, they must not be bombs, they wouldn't set the bombs to go off one hour before collapse."then what would they think they are?

[Galileo]

And planted them in plain sight in working offices.

After getting the explosives past the bomb-sniffing dogs in the parking garage.

then what would they think they are?

the bombs were planted on the core columns next to the elevator shafts. There are no offices there, nor do bomb-sniffing dogs go into elevator shafts. The bomb sniffing dogs were removed the weekend before 9/11 anyway.

If you look at the collapsing towers, you can see that rows 7 and 8 of the core standing longer than rows 5, 6, 9, and 10.

Rows 5, 6, 9, and 10 were next to the elevator shafts, 7 and 8 weren't. Rows 7 and 8 were smaller than the others as well.

These bombs scared the bejesus out of people, increasing terror, which is why many bombs went off well before the collapse.

[ChumpDumper]

the bombs were planted on the core columns next to the elevator shafts. There are no offices there, nor do bomb-sniffing dogs go into elevator shafts. The bomb sniffing dogs were removed the weekend before 9/11 anyway.That's a lie. One of the dogs was killed in the collapse.


If you look at the collapsing towers, you can see that rows 7 and 8 of the core standing longer than rows 5, 6, 9, and 10.

Rows 5, 6, 9, and 10 were next to the elevator shafts, 7 and 8 weren't. Rows 7 and 8 were smaller than the others as well.

These bombs scared the bejesus out of people, increasing terror, which is why many bombs went off well before the collapse.None of that windy exchange answered my question.

What would the investigators think caused those non-collapse explosions?

[Galileo]

That's a lie. One of the dogs was killed in the collapse.

None of that windy exchange answered my question.

What would the investigators think caused those non-collapse explosions?

"However, on September 6, bomb-sniffing dogs are abruptly removed."

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a090601scaledback#a090601scaledba ck

Some of the reported explosions were no doubt, merely the other tower collapsing. That does not explain the explosions in the sub-basements, in the South Tower, or before the towers collapsed.

The debunkers basically just make stuff up when it comes to the bombs.

[ChumpDumper]

"However, on September 6, bomb-sniffing dogs are abruptly removed."

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a090601scaledback#a090601scaledba ck

Against the backdrop of Lower Manhattan's altered skyline and the sounds of yelping K-9 unit dogs from around the nation, Port Authority Police yesterday remembered Sirius, a bomb-sniffing dog killed in the World Trade Center attack....

Sirius, whose primary duty was checking trucks and unattended bags for bombs at the World Trade Center, died along with 37 members of the Port Authority Police Department when the towers collapsed on the morning of Sept. 11.

http://www.portauthoritypolicememorial.org/Sirius%20press_clipping.htm


The other dogs were extra security due to called-in bomb threats, but thanks for letting us know security was heightened less than a week before 9/11.


Some of the reported explosions were no doubt, merely the other tower collapsing. That does not explain the explosions in the sub-basements, in the South Tower, or before the towers collapsed.

The debunkers basically just make stuff up when it comes to the bombs.Again, that was not my question.

What do THE INVESTIGATORS think caused the explosions that occurred long before the collapse?

But in response, you have made up more stuff than anyone in this thread,

[ChumpDumper]

Here's what it took to bring down a 33-floor steel framed building -- the largest ever brought down in a controlled implosion.

CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807


Please tell me how this was accomplished in three separate buildings, all of them much taller than the Husdon building. Since you have an extensive engineering background, I expect you to give details.

[Extra Stout]

CDI only had 12 people. This conspiracy involves 100 milllion people. Even if only one-quarter of them were involved in installing the explosives, it would take a mere one second to complete.

Duh!

[Galileo]

Against the backdrop of Lower Manhattan's altered skyline and the sounds of yelping K-9 unit dogs from around the nation, Port Authority Police yesterday remembered Sirius, a bomb-sniffing dog killed in the World Trade Center attack....

Sirius, whose primary duty was checking trucks and unattended bags for bombs at the World Trade Center, died along with 37 members of the Port Authority Police Department when the towers collapsed on the morning of Sept. 11.

http://www.portauthoritypolicememorial.org/Sirius%20press_clipping.htm


The other dogs were extra security due to called-in bomb threats, but thanks for letting us know security was heightened less than a week before 9/11.

Again, that was not my question.

What do THE INVESTIGATORS think caused the explosions that occurred long before the collapse?

But in response, you have made up more stuff than anyone in this thread,

I already answered your question.

They claim that when the South tower fell, debris flew into the North tower, which some thought was an explosion. No doubt, this is true.

They also claim that the jet fuel fell down the elevator shafts, causing explosions.

Debunking the WTC1 Main Freight Fireball Myth
http://www.studyof911.com/articles/BsB100106/

[Galileo]

Here's what it took to bring down a 33-floor steel framed building -- the largest ever brought down in a controlled implosion.

CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807


Please tell me how this was accomplished in three separate buildings, all of them much taller than the Husdon building. Since you have an extensive engineering background, I expect you to give details.

If blowing a building up is so difficult, how did WTC 7 fall by itself?

How do retreating armies blow shit up?

[Holt's Cat]

I already answered your question.

They claim that when the South tower fell, debris flew into the North tower, which some thought was an explosion. No doubt, this is true.

They also claim that the jet fuel fell down the elevator shafts, causing explosions.

Debunking the WTC1 Main Freight Fireball Myth
http://www.studyof911.com/articles/BsB100106/


http://www.lifeinthefreshlane.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/ha-ha-im-using-the-internet.jpg

[Galileo]

CDI only had 12 people. This conspiracy involves 100 milllion people. Even if only one-quarter of them were involved in installing the explosives, it would take a mere one second to complete.

Duh!

9/11 wasn't a conspiracy.

John Woo wrote a legal memo declaring it legal.

[Yonivore]

If blowing a building up is so difficult, how did WTC 7 fall by itself?

How do retreating armies blow shit up?
Well, there's an informed response.

Okay, the answer to your first question -- even though it's been answered in this forum, ad naseum -- is that WTC 7 fell because it became structurally compromised, fatally so, after being struck with debris from a very big, and I mean really big, building.

Now, question number 2. With explosive ordnance.

[smeagol]

If blowing a building up is so difficult, how did WTC 7 fall by itself?

How do retreating armies blow shit up?

So you have basically given up?

Weak . . . !

[Galileo]

Well, there's an informed response.

Okay, the answer to your first question -- even though it's been answered in this forum, ad naseum -- is that WTC 7 fell because it became structurally compromised, fatally so, after being struck with debris from a very big, and I mean really big, building.

Now, question number 2. With explosive ordnance.

not much debris hit WTC 7. It was 355 feet away, and had WTC 6 in between, blocking most of the particles.

WTC 7 was blown up.

Controlled demolition companies do not throw shit at buildings and hope they fall down 7 hours later.

[smeagol]

not much debris hit WTC 7. It was 355 feet away, and had WTC 6 in between, blocking most of the particles.

WTC 7 was blown up.

Controlled demolition companies do not throw shit at buildings and hope they fall down 7 hours later.

Why would WTC 7 be demolished by Bush?

How did the the collapse of WTC 7 fit in the grand plan of Bush and Cheney?

Who else is part of the conspiracy?

[Galileo]

Why would WTC 7 be demolished by Bush?

How did the the collapse of WTC 7 fit in the grand plan of Bush and Cheney?

Who else is part of the conspiracy?

Cheney and Rumsfeld planned 9/11, not Bush

FL93 or FL23 were supposed to fly into WTC 7. So WTC 7 sitting there full of bombs and had to be eliminated.

9/11 is not a conspiracy as you allege.

[ChumpDumper]

I already answered your question.You didn't answer the question at all.


They claim that when the South tower fell, debris flew into the North tower, which some thought was an explosion. No doubt, this is true.This sentence makes no sense at all.


They also claim that the jet fuel fell down the elevator shafts, causing explosions.So that's possible.

[ChumpDumper]

If blowing a building up is so difficult, how did WTC 7 fall by itself?Twice-compromised design and uncontrolled fire.


How do retreating armies blow shit up?There was no retreating army here. Please explain your theory about the setup of explosives in all three towers in detail, using your extensive engineering knowledge.

[Galileo]

This sentence makes no sense at all.

So that's possible.

Some people in the North tower, when it was struck by debris from the South tower collapsing, thought the impact was an explosion. If you have read p on 9/11, you'd know that many people in the North tower were totally unaware the South tower had collapsed.

There was only one elevator shoft that went from the top third of the towers down to the bottom third. This does not explain many of the reported explosions. Some reported explosions in the subbasements before the airplanes hit. Also, the lobby had blast damage in areas far away from the elevator that went to the top, and there were no fires in the lobby.

[Galileo]

Twice-compromised design and uncontrolled fire.

There was no retreating army here. Please explain your theory about the setup of explosives in all three towers in detail, using your extensive engineering knowledge.

WTC 7 was a standard controlled demolition, except that the charges were focused more on the core columns and military grade explosives were probably used.

Controlled demolition companies try to minimize costs by placing explosives in the most strategic way possible so the fewest amount of explosives are
used that will bring the building straight down.

On 9/11, we can assume that cost was not an object. Therefore, the long careful prep work normally used by controlled demolition companies was not as nescessay. Military units in battle can rig controlled demolitions in just a couple hours if they have military grade explosives.

As far as the twin towers, the explosives were placed next to the core columns next to the elevator shafts every third floor (columns 5, 6, 9, and 10). These were the powerful explosions that blew the heavy debris up to 500 feet horizontally.

Cutter charges were placed every 15 to 20 floors on the corners of the perimeter columns (you can see the dripping metal in one corner of the south tower just before it falls).

Cutter charges were also placed near the base as well. You can see white smoke rising from the base about 90 seconds before collapse.

[Galileo]

Chumper;

FYI

Here is a 64 floor building being demolished. The talles is not 33 floors as you claim.

Controlled Demolition
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8378726085939575248&q=controlled+demolition+-WTC+-9%2F11+-conspiracy+-truth&total=330&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

The twin towers were demolished in non-standard fashion, as they started the collapse from near, but not exactly, where the planes hit, in an attempt to disguise the controlled demolition.

[ChumpDumper]

Here is a 64 floor building being demolished.What says it's 64 floors?

There are only 9 floors visible on the building next to it.

[ChumpDumper]

WTC 7 was a standard controlled demolition, except that the charges were focused more on the core columns and military grade explosives were probably used.

Controlled demolition companies try to minimize costs by placing explosives in the most strategic way possible so the fewest amount of explosives are
used that will bring the building straight down.

On 9/11, we can assume that cost was not an object. Therefore, the long careful prep work normally used by controlled demolition companies was not as nescessay. Military units in battle can rig controlled demolitions in just a couple hours if they have military grade explosives.

As far as the twin towers, the explosives were placed next to the core columns next to the elevator shafts every third floor (columns 5, 6, 9, and 10). These were the powerful explosions that blew the heavy debris up to 500 feet horizontally.

Cutter charges were placed every 15 to 20 floors on the corners of the perimeter columns (you can see the dripping metal in one corner of the south tower just before it falls).

Cutter charges were also placed near the base as well. You can see white smoke rising from the base about 90 seconds before collapse.So how did they get the several tons of explosives in each of the three buildings with full time explosive sniffing dogs in the garage and even more throughout the buildings less than a week before 9/11?

[ChumpDumper]

Chumper;

FYI

Here is a 64 floor building being demolished. The talles is not 33 floors as you claim.

Controlled Demolition
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8378726085939575248&q=controlled+demolition+-WTC+-9%2F11+-conspiracy+-truth&total=330&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

The twin towers were demolished in non-standard fashion, as they started the collapse from near, but not exactly, where the planes hit, in an attempt to disguise the controlled demolition.I knew that looked familiar. Funny you showed a video with absolutely no information about the building.

I found one that did have the information:

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/second-tallest-building-ever-imploded/2019281281

Incredible footage of the second tallest building ever imploded! LANDMARK TOW...ER (formerly Continental National Bank & The Texas Building) - 200 W. 7th St. - 1952; 1956/57 - Imploded March 18, 2006. At the time of demolition, it was the Second Tallest Building in the World to be Imploded by Controlled Demolition, Tallest Building in the State of Texas to Be Imploded, and the Tallest Building in the State of Texas to be Demolished. It was also the first time in Fort Worth's History that a former tallest building in the city was torn down. The Landmark Tower was 30 stories and 380 feet tall. At one time, it had the World Largest Digital Clock, Revolving Clock, and 4 Sided Sign. It also had one of the longest straight run fire escapes at 31 floors from the main roof to the ground. Thanks Simon.



So, another lie from you. How many does that make in this past week alone?

[Galileo]

So how did they get the several tons of explosives in each of the three buildings with full time explosive sniffing dogs in the garage and even more throughout the buildings less than a week before 9/11?

The bomb-sniffing dogs were removed on September 6th, as reported in People magazine, and dogs don't sniff in elevator shafts. You can also enclose bombs in air tight containers. The dog that died that you are referring to was brought into the building after the planes hit, as in the '93 bombing there had been bombs. The military also has bombs not detectable by standard bomb-sniffing dogs.

There was also a power down in the towers the weekend before 9/11, reported by WTC employee Scott Forbes.

Scott Forbes
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3596495808791715394&q=power+down+scott+forbes&total=29&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Securam, in charge of WTC security, was a well-connected security firm, with Marvin Bush as a former CEO, and Wirt Walker (Bush's cousin) as a current CEO.

Securam was also in charge of security at Dulles airport in Washington DC, where FL77 took off from.

Also, in WTC 7, the alarm system was turned off at 6:47 AM, giving time for explosives to be planted at that time.

[ChumpDumper]

The bomb-sniffing dogs were removed on September 6th, as reported in People magazine, and dogs don't sniff in elevator shafts. You can also enclose bombs in air tight containers. The dog that died that you are referring to was brought into the building after the planes hit, as in the '93 bombing there had been bombs.:lmao Just make up more shit as you go along.


The military also has bombs not detectable by standard bomb-sniffing dogs.That you somehow know about.


There was also a power down in the towers the weekend before 9/11, reported by WTC employee Scott Forbes.only a few floors in one tower.


Securam, in charge of WTC security, was a well-connected security firm, with Marvin Bush as a former CEO, and Wirt Walker (Bush's cousin) as a current CEO.Except they weren't in charge at hat time.


Securam was also in charge of security at Dulles airport in Washington DC, where FL77 took off from.The hijackers didn't take anything illegal on the planes.


Also, in WTC 7, the alarm system was turned off at 6:47 AM, giving time for explosives to be planted at that time.There is an explosive-planting alarm? Give me a link to that company.

[Galileo]

I knew that looked familiar. Funny you showed a video with absolutely no information about the building.

I found one that did have the information:

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/second-tallest-building-ever-imploded/2019281281

Incredible footage of the second tallest building ever imploded! LANDMARK TOW...ER (formerly Continental National Bank & The Texas Building) - 200 W. 7th St. - 1952; 1956/57 - Imploded March 18, 2006. At the time of demolition, it was the Second Tallest Building in the World to be Imploded by Controlled Demolition, Tallest Building in the State of Texas to Be Imploded, and the Tallest Building in the State of Texas to be Demolished. It was also the first time in Fort Worth's History that a former tallest building in the city was torn down. The Landmark Tower was 30 stories and 380 feet tall. At one time, it had the World Largest Digital Clock, Revolving Clock, and 4 Sided Sign. It also had one of the longest straight run fire escapes at 31 floors from the main roof to the ground. Thanks Simon.



So, another lie from you. How many does that make in this past week alone?

I counted 64 floors. I don't think 33 floors is correct. You can' believe everything you read on the Internet.

This one is also taller than 33 floors, so you lied again:

Massive Building Implosion
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7644091725564296221&q=Tallest+Building+ever+imploded&total=14&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

This is all irrelevant. The WTC was 110 and was imploded. WTC 7 was 47 stories tall, and was imploded.

[Galileo]

:lmao Just make up more shit as you go along.

That you somehow know about.

only a few floors in one tower.

Except they weren't in charge at hat time.

The hijackers didn't take anything illegal on the planes.

There is an explosive-planting alarm? Give me a link to that company.

Securacom's for the WTC contract ended on the day of 9/11. They were in charge of the bomb sniffing dogs. We are talking about an inside job here. If bin Laden tried to sneak the bombs in, he'd have been caught.

Not just a few floors as Scott Forbes testifies.

The hijackers ahd guns, not legal.

The alarms detect unauthorized or suspicious people walking arounf inside a building at odd hours, like 6:47 AM in the morning.

The idea that bombs can't be brought into a building when its an inside job is lame.

We have videos of the implosions, you know.

[ChumpDumper]

I counted 64 floors. I don't think 33 floors is correct. You can' believe everything you read on the Internet.

This one is also taller than 33 floors, so you lied again:

Massive Building Implosion
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7644091725564296221&q=Tallest+Building+ever+imploded&total=14&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1The store was built in 12 separate stages, the first in 1911 and the last in 1946. The complex had two retail basements and 23 above grade retail floors, including mezzanines. Two additional basements and six upper stories in a tower, provided storage and mechanical support for the 2.2 million square foot building. In all there were 33 levels in the structure.

This is all irrelevant. The WTC was 110 and was imploded. WTC 7 was 47 stories tall, and was imploded.It's completely relevant. You haven't explained anything and you have done nothing but lie.

[Galileo]

The store was built in 12 separate stages, the first in 1911 and the last in 1946. The complex had two retail basements and 23 above grade retail floors, including mezzanines. Two additional basements and six upper stories in a tower, provided storage and mechanical support for the 2.2 million square foot building. In all there were 33 levels in the structure.
It's completely relevant. You haven't explained anything and you have done nothing but lie.

Wow! it had 33 floors. What's your point?

[ChumpDumper]

The idea that bombs can't be brought into a building when its an inside job is lame.The idea that it was an inside job is lame.

[ChumpDumper]

Wow! it had 33 floors. What's your point?That it had 33 floors.

[Yonivore]

I counted 64 floors. I don't think 33 floors is correct. You can' believe everything you read on the Internet.

This one is also taller than 33 floors, so you lied again:

Massive Building Implosion
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7644091725564296221&q=Tallest+Building+ever+imploded&total=14&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

This is all irrelevant. The WTC was 110 and was imploded. WTC 7 was 47 stories tall, and was imploded.

Landmark Tower
200 W. 7th - 1952; 1956-57; Demolished March 18, 2006
This 30 story building was designed by Preston M. Geren & Associates in Fort Worth and built at two different times. The tower was the home of the Continental National Bank. Construction was halted when the economy down turned in the early 1950's. It was originally designed as a 28 story brick tower with a red granite base. When it opened in 1952, it was only four stories tall and had one floor of the brick facade above the granite base. Shortly after it opened, the economy picked back up and the owner desired to finish the remaining floors. However, two floors were added to the design and a digital clock was added on top. When the tower was finally completed in 1956, it was the tallest building in Fort Worth and it was the first building to use an aluminum curtain wall. Its great height was crowned by a four-sided, 32 foot tall revolving digital clock, which was installed in late 1957. The building had to be redesigned to support the timepiece, which included cladding the building with an aluminum curtain wall instead of brick. This lightened the load from the original design, but because the extra two floors and the clock were added, the existing structure within the building also had to be strengthened. The clock had the letters "CNB" (Continental National Bank) in green neon on two sides and the time in white flood lights on the other two sides. The sign at one time was the world's largest revolving clock (even though it quit revolving in 1978), the world's largest digital clock (it quit keeping time in 1991), and the world's largest four-sided sign as once listed in the Guinness Book of World Records. The distance from the finish floor at the entrance to the top of the clock was 420 feet. The building was hit by the March 28, 2000 tornado and suffered significant damage. The clock was removed from April 15 through 21 of 2000 by orders of the City of Fort Worth. The building structure itself was 380 feet tall. The building has gone through several owners through the years, and plans at one time were to convert the skyscraper to 140 luxury apartments, and 35 condominiums. This project fell into bankruptcy and the building was purchased in January 2004 by XTO Energy. The company explored all options to restore, reclad, and build around the building, but finally determined the best course of action was to tear it down. In October 2005, demolition permits were quietly acquired, and work began to demolish the building. The structure was imploded on March 18, 2006.
So, are you this good at discerning what is and what isn't a controlled demolition? 30 ain't 60.

God, you're a fucking idiot.

By the way, your "taller" building the J. L. Hudson Department Store in Detroit was 33 stories -- 4 of which were underground.

So, if a 30 story building looked like 60-something to you (after you counted, no less) can we assert your visual-based judgements on say, everything -- including what controlled demolitions might look like -- could be all fucked up?

I say, YES! WE! CAN!

[ChumpDumper]

A math major counted 64 floors....

http://www.arcane-astronomers.com/ricky/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2006/03/LandmarkTower.jpg

[Galileo]

So, are you this good at discerning what is and what isn't a controlled demolition? 30 ain't 60.

God, you're a fucking idiot.

By the way, your "taller" building the J. L. Hudson Department Store in Detroit was 33 stories -- 4 of which were underground.

So, if a 30 story building looked like 60-something to you (after you counted, no less) can we assert your visual-based judgements on say, everything -- including what controlled demolitions might look like -- could be all fucked up?

I say, YES! WE! CAN!

That proves it. No building taller than 33 floors can be demolished.

Therefore, the WTC was not a controlled demolition.

You've solved the case!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please get this info to the NIST scientists PRONTO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Yonivore]

That proves it. No building taller than 33 floors can be demolished.

Therefore, the WTC was not a controlled demolition.

You've solved the case!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please get this info to the NIST scientists PRONTO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:lmao

[smeagol]

Galileo getting badly owned.

Mouse and Dan . . . to the rescue!

(unless Galileo is indeed mouse).

[Galileo]

Galileo getting badly owned.

Mouse and Dan . . . to the rescue!

(unless Galileo is indeed mouse).

Galileo is INVINCIBLE!!!

:ban:

[Galileo]

Chumper;

Why are there no qualified experts who claim WTC 7 was brought down by fire?

[Yonivore]

Galileo is CLUELESS!!!

:ban:
There, fixed.

[Galileo]

Chumper;

Why are there no qualified experts who claim WTC 7 was brought down by fire?

AE 9/11 Truth Has Reached 300 Architects and Engineers
http://www.911blogger.com/node/14425

www.ae911truth.org

[DarrinS]

Anyone who really believes the WTC was a controlled demolition is incredibly naive.


Read Brent Blanchard's analysis

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

[DarrinS]

AE 9/11 Truth Has Reached 300 Architects and Engineers
http://www.911blogger.com/node/14425

www.ae911truth.org


Here's a video for you, "Galileo".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I

[smeagol]

Anyone who really believes the WTC was a controlled demolition is incredibly naive.


Read Brent Blanchard's analysis

That guy knows shit.

Only the experts sited by Galileo are credible in the matter of The Truthers vs Bush and Co, WTC: The Inside Job

[DarrinS]

That guy knows shit.

Only the experts sited by Galileo are credible in the matter of The Truthers vs Bush and Co, WTC: The Inside Job


A short film by Galileo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RukhnSSUmeI&watch_response

[Galileo]

Anyone who really believes the WTC was a controlled demolition is incredibly naive.


Read Brent Blanchard's analysis

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

I already read that. It has been debunked here:

Reply to Protec's
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT
by Jim Hoffman
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html

Blanchard's handling of the demolition of WTC 7 is totally lame, where he says; "This scenerio is extremely unlikely".

That's his opinion, the facts say otherwise.

Notice that he doesn't say it wasn't a demolition. Since we have a video of WTC 7 coming down in a controlled demolition, not only is a demolition of WTC 7 likely. It happened.

Here is the text of Hoffman's commentary on Blanchard regarding WTC 7:

[Blanchard]

ASSERTION #7
“WTC 7 was intentionally ‘pulled down’ with explosives. No airplane hit it, and the building owner himself was quoted as saying he made a decision to ‘pull it’.”
PROTEC COMMENT: This scenario is extremely unlikely for many reasons.

[Hoffman]

Blanchard uses a red-herring claim to bracket his only discussion of claims of the controlled demolition of WTC 7. Silverstein's supposed admission that the building was demolished functions here as elsewhere to distract from the physical features of the building's collapse that indicate controlled demolition:
Sudden onset
Near free-fall speed of descent
Streamers of dust emerging from the facade
Totality, leaving no large assemblies intact
Symmetry, falling in a precisely vertical fashion
Since none of these features has ever been observed in the natural collapse of a steel-framed building, and each is a signature characteristic of controlled demolition, each individually indicates controlled demolition. Taken together, they constitute an overwhelming inductive argument for controlled demolition.

[Blanchard]

The above assertion has taken several forms over the past few years and has developed into a major point of discussion amongst conspiracy theorists. Most recently, it was used as a cornerstone allegation on C-SPAN’S national broadcast of a 9/11 symposium hosted by Mr. Alex Jones, an author and radio personality who is highly critical of the government’s handling of 9/11.

However, from a demolition standpoint, several aspects of this claim are problematic.

A building owner would never be in a position to dictate to fire personnel or emergency workers whether his building should be “pulled” or demolished. We know of no case where command and control of a disaster scene has ever been transferred to a private third party, much less a disaster of such scope. This action would violate a number of ethical canons regarding the safety of emergency responders and the general public, not to mention exposing those who transferred and assumed such authority to substantial liability risks. Therefore, even if such a statement was made on 9/11, it is highly doubtful that the comment would have affected decisions at the scene.

We have never once heard the term “pull it” being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we’ve spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to “pull” the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six-story remains of WTC-6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC 7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway.

Any detonation of explosives within WTC 7 would have been detected by multiple seismographs monitoring ground vibration in the general area (see Assertion #4). No such telltale “spike” or vibratory anomaly was recorded by any monitoring instrument.

Saying, “No airplane hit it” implies the structure suffered minimal effects from the planes crashing into the adjacent towers. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Video and photographs of the north tower collapse clearly depict substantial upper sections of the building falling outward and impacting WTC buildings 6 and 7. This was not a glancing blow from extraneous material, rather thousands of tons of steel girders falling directly into the building from hundreds of feet above. WTC 7 sustained significant impact damage to its southwest corner up to the 18-20th floor, or a little less than halfway up the building. There was also significant damage to the building’s south face, although dense smoke present in most photos hinders an exact assessment. Other photos depict several lower floors fully involved in a large fire that either began upon impact or shortly thereafter, and most experts point to the large stockpile of diesel fuel stored in the basement as the likely catalyst. Regardless of the fire’s origin, these flames are clearly visible from all four sides of the structure. With most local firefighting equipment destroyed and the search for survivors being of primary concern, these intense fires were left to burn uncontrolled for more than six hours, further compromising the already badly damaged structure. Given these facts, any implication that WTC 7 was not substantially affected by the original plane crashes is not accurate.

Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event. We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported hearing or seeing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse. As one eyewitness told us, “We were all standing around helpless…we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn’t know if another plane was coming…but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to that building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went.”

Finally, we have not discovered or been presented with any physical evidence indicating explosives were used to fell the structure.

[Hoffman]

Here as elsewhere, Blanchard implies that only physical artifacts qualify as physical evidence. To the contrary, photographs and videos of the event are physical evidence, and they indicate demolition.

[Blanchard]

We do not know exactly how or why WTC 7 fell when it did, and we decline to hypothesize here. All we can offer is that, from a demolition and structural failure standpoint, available data does not rule out the possibility of the building collapsing as a direct result of the structural conditions detailed above.

[Galileo]

That guy knows shit.

Only the experts sited by Galileo are credible in the matter of The Truthers vs Bush and Co, WTC: The Inside Job

What happened on 9/11 can be determined from examining the evidence. Experts can be consulted as guides or for clues, but the informed individual must look for himself at the evidence.

[DarrinS]

I already read that. It has been debunked here:

Reply to Protec's
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT
by Jim Hoffman
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html



Debunked by the guy who runs a conspiracy site? :spin

[Galileo]

Here's a video for you, "Galileo".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I

One more comment on Blanchard.

Blanchard does not even address the main evidence that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, namely the physical evidence, which includes videos showing the scientific characteristics of controlled demolition.

Blanchard indeed has strong credentials. So I look to him to refute the scientific characteristics of controlled demolition shown in WTC 7.

When he does not do this, my knowledge that I am correct, becomes stronger.

[Galileo]

Debunked by the guy who runs a conspiracy site? :spin

Debunked by the facts.

Blanchard is a conspiracy theorist as well.

[DarrinS]

What happened on 9/11 can be determined from examining the evidence. Experts can be consulted as guides or for clues, but the informed individual must look for himself at the evidence.


Well, as a licensed mechanical engineer in the state of Texas, I can make an informed decision. There is no evidence.

[DarrinS]

Debunked by the facts.

Blanchard is a conspiracy theorist as well.


What conspiracy does he believe in? Newtonian physics?

[Galileo]

Well, as a licensed mechanical engineer in the state of Texas, I can make an informed decision. There is no evidence.

Wow! Want a medal? Why did WTC 7 fall down in 6.6 seconds?

[Galileo]

What conspiracy does he believe in? Newtonian physics?

How many people do you think were in on 9/11, eh? Are you stupid? I'm talking about the 9/11 conspiracy.

[DarrinS]

How many people do you think were in on 9/11, eh? Are you stupid? I'm talking about the 9/11 conspiracy.


Well, if you think Blanchard was "in on it", then he would be a CONSPIRATOR -- not a conspiracy THEORIST. Are you stupid?

[Galileo]

Well, if you think Blanchard was "in on it", then he would be a CONSPIRATOR -- not a conspiracy THEORIST. Are you stupid?

You think Blanchard was in on it? Are you stupid? Can either you or Blanchard explain why WTC 7 fell in 6.6 seconds?

[DarrinS]

You think Blanchard was in on it? Are you stupid? Can either you or Blanchard explain why WTC 7 fell in 6.6 seconds?


Well, the building is 741 feet tall.

The building can't fall the entire 741 feet, because as the floors collapse, a debris pile would form. So, lets say the thing fell about 700 feet.


t = square root of (2 * distance / gravity)

t = square root of (2 * 700 feet / 32.2 feet/sec^2) = 6.59 sec.

[Galileo]

Well, the building is 741 feet tall.

The building can't fall the entire 741 feet, because as the floors collapse, a debris pile would form. So, lets say the thing fell about 700 feet.


t = square root of (2 * distance / gravity)

t = square root of (2 * 700 feet / 32.2 feet/sec^2) = 6.59 sec.

The debris pile of WTC 7 was only about half the 41 feet you claim, thanks to controlled demolition.

But you did well otherwise. WTC 7 fell at free fall speed, which only explosives can explain.

[DarrinS]

The debris pile of WTC 7 was only about half the 41 feet you claim, thanks to controlled demolition.

But you did well otherwise. WTC 7 fell at free fall speed, which only explosives can explain.


It sounds like you have made up your mind to believe in the "inside job" theory no matter what. Good luck with that. :dizzy


I've always wanted to ask one of you fruitcakes: Assuming there was a "controlled demolition", why bother with hijackers, planes, and all of that nonsense? I mean, in 1993, Ramzi Yousef et. al. used bombs. Why not just go with the bombs again?

[Galileo]

It sounds like you have made up your mind to believe in the "inside job" theory no matter what. Good luck with that. :dizzy


I've always wanted to ask one of you fruitcakes: Assuming there was a "controlled demolition", why bother with hijackers, planes, and all of that nonsense? I mean, in 1993, Ramzi Yousef et. al. used bombs. Why not just go with the bombs again?

Sounds like you've made up your mind based on emotions. I base what I think on evidence.

9/11 created more terror than the '93 bombings, that's the point of terrorism.

[DarrinS]

Sounds like you've made up your mind based on emotions. I base what I think on evidence.



No. I based my opinions on scientific principles. Even if I absolutely hate Bush, I can't believe in fairy tales.




9/11 created more terror than the '93 bombings, that's the point of terrorism.

So, you never really answered my question. Why the planes and how did Bush/Rumsfeld pursuade the Al Qaeda hijackers to conduct a suicide mission on their behalf?

[Galileo]

No. I based my opinions on scientific principles. Even if I absolutely hate Bush, I can't believe in fairy tales.




So, you never really answered my question. Why the planes and how did Bush/Rumsfeld pursuade the Al Qaeda hijackers to conduct a suicide mission on their behalf?

Do you think the military operation in Iraq is a fairy tale? After all, Bush would never allow a military operation that killed thousands of people.

In answer to your second question, there were no Al Qaeda hijackers on 9/11. You have been reading fairy tales again. Real terrorists claim responsibilty for their actions right away.

The plane crashes made for great TV and lots of terror.

[DarrinS]

In answer to your second question, there were no Al Qaeda hijackers on 9/11. You have been reading fairy tales again. Real terrorists claim responsibilty for their actions right away.


So, who were those dudes taking flight lessons? Why didn't they care about landing? Oh, maybe the independently-owned flight schools were "in on it" too?

Why crash into a short building like the Pentagon?

Why crash one of the planes into the ground?


Doesn't really make a lot of sense? Does it?

[Galileo]

So, who were those dudes taking flight lessons? Why didn't they care about landing? Oh, maybe the independently-owned flight schools were "in on it" too?

Why crash into a short building like the Pentagon?

Why crash one of the planes into the ground?


Doesn't really make a lot of sense? Does it?

Just because someone takes flight lessons doesn't make them a suicide terrorist, did you ever think of that?

Atta already knew how to fly planes, he didn't need any flight lessons.

Hanjour definetely needed flight lessons, he never even passed any of them.

The person who didn't care about landing was Moussari, he has nothing to do with 9/11. The part that he didn't care about landing is probably made up anyway. Why would someone take flight lessons and not want to learn how to take off and land? Do you really believe all the shit you read? Why would Atta kill himself? He was partying in Las Vegas, snorting coke, and had a hot blonde stripper 24 year old girlfriend. Yea, he really hated America.

Ziad Jarra was supposed to get married on September 25, 2001. How the hell was he supposed to get married if he was going to kill himself? Ever think that through?

FL77 was crashed into the Pentagon to instill terror in the Amercian people, so Bush could pass the Patriot Act, send tropps to the Middle East, and get a bigger military budget.

FL93 was not crashed into the ground, it was shot down.

[Ignignokt]

Just because someone takes flight lessons doesn't make them a suicide terrorist, did you ever think of that?

Atta already knew how to fly planes, he didn't need any flight lessons.

Hanjour definetely needed flight lessons, he never even passed any of them.

The person who didn't care about landing was Moussari, he has nothing to do with 9/11. The part that he didn't care about landing is probably made up anyway. Why would someone take flight lessons and not want to learn how to take off and land? Do you really believe all the shit you read? Why would Atta kill himself? He was partying in Las Vegas, snorting coke, and had a hot blonde stripper 24 year old girlfriend. Yea, he really hated America.

Ziad Jarra was supposed to get married on September 25, 2001. How the hell was he supposed to get married if he was going to kill himself? Ever think that through?

FL77 was crashed into the Pentagon to instill terror in the Amercian people, so Bush could pass the Patriot Act, send tropps to the Middle East, and get a bigger military budget.

FL93 was not crashed into the ground, it was shot down.


We just don't know, all we know is we had phone calls from the planes saying that the planes were being hijacked by terrorist. Maybe all these arab terrorist linked to alqueda just all happened to boad a flight together and not cause harm.

Maybe ALqueda and Islamic jihad is just a CIA cover group.

Maybe we're all retards.

[Galileo]

We just don't know, all we know is we had phone calls from the planes saying that the planes were being hijacked by terrorist. Maybe all these arab terrorist linked to alqueda just all happened to boad a flight together and not cause harm.



Most of the phone calls reported in the media were reported as cell phone calls. But the FBI exhibits at the Moussari trial say there were only 2 cell phones calls on 9/11, both from FL93.

FL77 did not have air phones.

None of the reported phone calls gave the "right" number of hijackers. Some calls said 6 hijackers. Some said 3 hijackers. How does anyone claim they know better than the passengers how many hijackers were on board?

Some reported calls said the hijackers had guns.

None of the calls identify the hijackers as Arabs or Muslims.

The reality is, we don't what happened on the planes, not do we know who the hijackers were.

We do know that there were 18 war games, with 18 hijacked planes, planned by Dick Cheney and the US military at the exact same time as 9/11. That's a total of 22 hijacked planes at one time, not counting Flight 23. Some of the drills involved hijackers flying planes into the WTC and the Pentagon.

We also know that some of the hijackers had ID cards that listed US military bases as their address.

You need to go and look at all the evidence befoe jumping to conclusions.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, the video's I saw have it taking longer than the 6.6 seconds stated. In fact, it's more like 8 or 9 seconds. WTC 1 and 2 took more like 15 when you consider the audio, the clear sounds of the upper floors falling that cannot be seen, before any of the sides are seen falling.

[Wild Cobra]

You are blinded by hatred of Arabs which makes you a racist. You are condoning mass murder. I find you to be a disgusting individual.
I have no hatred of anyone by religeon, ethnicity, or skin color. How can you possible extrapolate that from any of my postings without adding your own bias of others?


It is possible that Flight 23 was also supposed to take out WTC 7.
Possible but very unlikely. The only thing that supports that concept is the change in course that coincides with when the plane was trying to be taken back by the heroes on board. Fighting in the cockpit would easily cause the change in direction and altitude.


If blowing a building up is so difficult, how did WTC 7 fall by itself?

Blowing up a building isn't that difficult, and actually, it wouldn't require the care for such a conspiracy as is taken in a controlled demolition. Controlled demolitions are carefully planed as not to have the buildings nearby being destroyed.

Now for the sequence of events to occur like they did, it would be a very controlled demolition and obvious traces of explosives would be found. Have you seen this:

link (http://www.911myths.com/html/squib_timing.html)


not much debris hit WTC 7. It was 355 feet away, and had WTC 6 in between, blocking most of the particles.

Are you blind? Look back at the photo I included. Look again at the roof damage of WTC 6. The path from WTC 1 to WTC 7 has very clear evidence of massive amounts of debris slicing off the top floors, on a direct path to WTC 7.

Please, explain these two photos:

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7Hit1.jpg

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7Corner.jpg



WTC 7 was blown up.

There is no undisputable evidence of that. There were no explosive traces found. If there were any thermite traces, other factors easily account for that. I explained that before.

Fire + steel = rust.

rust + aluminum + heat = thermitic reaction. The heat itself wasn't hot enough until you include impact of the building as it collapses. This is easily reproduced in experiments. The other components of commercial thermite were mot present in any where near the proper ratios.



Controlled demolition companies do not throw shit at buildings and hope they fall down 7 hours later.

There still is no evidence it was a demolition.

Where are the explosive traces?

Thermite would not be use. Shaped charges are used for cutting in a demolition, not thermite. Thermite is too slow to control.



WTC 7 was a standard controlled demolition, except that the charges were focused more on the core columns and military grade explosives were probably used.

Why couldn't pieces of WTC 1 have cut the core columns?

Look back at a past thread on this issue. I included a photo of the damage from WTC-1 before WTC 7 fell. Pieces of WTC 1 are clearly visible.



As far as the twin towers, the explosives were placed next to the core columns next to the elevator shafts every third floor (columns 5, 6, 9, and 10). These were the powerful explosions that blew the heavy debris up to 500 feet horizontally.

There is no evidence of this.



Cutter charges were placed every 15 to 20 floors on the corners of the perimeter columns (you can see the dripping metal in one corner of the south tower just before it falls).

Really? Ever see molten steel? It glows. Photo evidence please.

It could have been molten aluminum as so many things in the building were made of aluminum, and it melts at a low enough temperature, and doesn't glow until well past melting. Steel doesn't melt until it is well past glowing!

It could have even been mercury from all the fluorescent tubes breaking.

Again, photo please. I never saw that one.

Now if it's this you are talking about, it is no more than here-say:

WTC Molten Steel (http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html)

I think you must be talking about something else since this is from a single eye-witness, and to my knowledge, was unconfirmed second-hand information.

Does Peter Tully maintain that story?



Cutter charges were also placed near the base as well. You can see white smoke rising from the base about 90 seconds before collapse.
There could easily be smoke coming from the base of WTC 7 well before the collapse. It started from the lower floors. The fire was there, and how many power transformers were in the building? Ever see one on fire, and what the built-in cooling oil does?

If you are talking about WTC 1 and 2, I say bullshit.

[Galileo]

Well, the video's I saw have it taking longer than the 6.6 seconds stated. In fact, it's more like 8 or 9 seconds. WTC 1 and 2 took more like 15 when you consider the audio, the clear sounds of the upper floors falling that cannot be seen, before any of the sides are seen falling.

Wild One;

You may have videos doctored on the Internet, possibly a ruthless conspiracy is behind it.

If your video is legit, please forward it to NIST pronto so they can figure out why the videos they have show a 6.6 second drop, compared to your 8 or 9 second drop.

btw

Which is it; 8 or 9 seconds?

Why do you post this stuff, do you really believe the crap you type?

Do you have a brain impediment?

[Yonivore]

Wild One;

You may have videos doctored on the Internet, possibly a ruthless conspiracy is behind it.

If your video is legit, please forward it to NIST pronto so they can figure out why the videos they have show a 6.6 second drop, compared to your 8 or 9 second drop.

btw

Which is it; 8 or 9 seconds?

Why do you post this stuff, do you really believe the crap you type?

Do you have a brain impediment?
You're one to talk.

[DarrinS]

I still don't understand the planes + bombs (controlled demolition or whatever).

The planes alone wouldn't cause enough terror? I'm sure the people who were forced to jump to their deaths were pretty terrified (as were the thousands of witnesses).

And why was the body of a flight attendant found near the debris of the fallen towers with bound hands? http://www.snopes.com/rumors/hands.asp
Wow, these conspirators really went to a lot of trouble to make this thing look legitimate.

And what about the cell phone calls from the people onboard these flights that called their families? Where they "in on it" too?

There are much simpler things the govt could've done to fake a terrorist attack that would involve much fewer co-conspirators. They could've used a chemical or biological weapon that could've killed many more people and would only involve a few conspirators.

This whole 911 conspiracy just doesn't pass the smell test.

[Galileo]

You're one to talk.

You really think WTC 7 collapsed in 8 to 9 seconds, eh?

That's all ya got. WTC 7 wasn't a controlled demolition because you now claim it took 8 to 9 seconds to fall, instead of 6.6 seconds?

This is basic information.

You've a bright bulb in your socket.

WTC 7: A Short Computation
Author(s): Kenneth Kuttler (Ph.D. Mathematician, Scholars for 9/11 Truth)
http://www.studyof911.com/articles/

Rate of Building 7's Fall
WTC 7's Facade Plunged at a Nearly Free-Fall Rate
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/speed.html

Go ahead.

Keep arguing that WTC 7 fell from an office fire. Did you know that NIST just delayed their final WTC 7 report to AUGUST 2008???

What the hell is taking so long?

Ever wonder how Bush could allow mass murder?

Well, think of it this way. You keep defending mass murder. If you'll defend mass murder, why wouldn't George Bush?

[Galileo]

I still don't understand the planes + bombs (controlled demolition or whatever).

The planes alone wouldn't cause enough terror? I'm sure the people who were forced to jump to their deaths were pretty terrified (as were the thousands of witnesses).

And why was the body of a flight attendant found near the debris of the fallen towers with bound hands? http://www.snopes.com/rumors/hands.asp
Wow, these conspirators really went to a lot of trouble to make this thing look legitimate.

And what about the cell phone calls from the people onboard these flights that called their families? Where they "in on it" too?

There are much simpler things the govt could've done to fake a terrorist attack that would involve much fewer co-conspirators. They could've used a chemical or biological weapon that could've killed many more people and would only involve a few conspirators.

This whole 911 conspiracy just doesn't pass the smell test.

Are you purposely arguing stupid or have you been brainwashed?

9/11 was a staged TV documdrama, with events spaced out like segments between TV commercials. Plane crashes followed by building collapses. The more terror, the more power gained by the executive branch of the federal government.

The flight attendant was found. Great. I've never argued there weren't hijackers. Nor have I argued there weren't phone calls to family members.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Giuliani were in on it, not the family members. Only an idiot would think they were in on it.

A chemical or biological agent does not make a great TV docudrama. The anthrax attacks that ensued have been almost forgotten, by the way.

Not sure where you get you info that a large number of people were in on it.

We are talking about an inside job, not an outside job. Inside jobs always require fewer people in on it than outside jobs.

General Meyers wasn't in on it. Get a grip.

[clambake]

you said earlier that hijackers had guns aboard the planes, correct?

[Wild Cobra]

If your video is legit, please forward it to NIST pronto so they can figure out why the videos they have show a 6.6 second drop, compared to your 8 or 9 second drop.
Do they say 6.6 seconds? Not that I recall. I haven't seen the video in a while, but as I recall, the 6.6 second figure is when WTC 7 disappears behind the other buildings.


Which is it; 8 or 9 seconds?

I don't remember. This was settled long ago as far as I care. It was about that timeframe.

[DarrinS]

Are you purposely arguing stupid or have you been brainwashed?

9/11 was a staged TV documdrama, with events spaced out like segments between TV commercials. Plane crashes followed by building collapses. The more terror, the more power gained by the executive branch of the federal government.

The flight attendant was found. Great. I've never argued there weren't hijackers. Nor have I argued there weren't phone calls to family members.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Giuliani were in on it, not the family members. Only an idiot would think they were in on it.

A chemical or biological agent does not make a great TV docudrama. The anthrax attacks that ensued have been almost forgotten, by the way.

Not sure where you get you info that a large number of people were in on it.

We are talking about an inside job, not an outside job. Inside jobs always require fewer people in on it than outside jobs.

General Meyers wasn't in on it. Get a grip.


This is the most retarded drivel ever written.

Why would they target the Pentagon and not another civilian target?

And the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania -- why would they shoot it down (if it was their own plane)?

This retarded conspiracy theory is about 1000 times LESS BELIEVABLE than the conspiracy against OJ Simpson.

And, if this whole thing was staged to somehow justify the invasion in Iraq, then why go into Afghanistan first?

[DarrinS]

The flight attendant was found. Great. I've never argued there weren't hijackers. Nor have I argued there weren't phone calls to family members.


LIAR



In answer to your second question, there were no Al Qaeda hijackers on 9/11. You have been reading fairy tales again. Real terrorists claim responsibilty for their actions right away.



End of thread.

[Wild Cobra]

Go ahead.

Keep arguing that WTC 7 fell from an office fire.
I never said it fell from an office fire. To my knowledge, no building ever has. There was also clear structural damage.



Did you know that NIST just delayed their final WTC 7 report to AUGUST 2008???

I can only guess, but that doesn't mean you are right.

I demand an answer to you saying the WTC 1 debris couldn't harm WTC 7, but I showed two clear photos.

Just how did that damage happen?

[Galileo]

I have no hatred of anyone by religeon, ethnicity, or skin color. How can you possible extrapolate that from any of my postings without adding your own bias of others?


Possible but very unlikely. The only thing that supports that concept is the change in course that coincides with when the plane was trying to be taken back by the heroes on board. Fighting in the cockpit would easily cause the change in direction and altitude.


Blowing up a building isn't that difficult, and actually, it wouldn't require the care for such a conspiracy as is taken in a controlled demolition. Controlled demolitions are carefully planed as not to have the buildings nearby being destroyed.

Now for the sequence of events to occur like they did, it would be a very controlled demolition and obvious traces of explosives would be found. Have you seen this:

link (http://www.911myths.com/html/squib_timing.html)


Are you blind? Look back at the photo I included. Look again at the roof damage of WTC 6. The path from WTC 1 to WTC 7 has very clear evidence of massive amounts of debris slicing off the top floors, on a direct path to WTC 7.

Please, explain these two photos:

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7Hit1.jpg

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7Corner.jpg


There is no undisputable evidence of that. There were no explosive traces found. If there were any thermite traces, other factors easily account for that. I explained that before.

Fire + steel = rust.

rust + aluminum + heat = thermitic reaction. The heat itself wasn't hot enough until you include impact of the building as it collapses. This is easily reproduced in experiments. The other components of commercial thermite were mot present in any where near the proper ratios.


There still is no evidence it was a demolition.

Where are the explosive traces?

Thermite would not be use. Shaped charges are used for cutting in a demolition, not thermite. Thermite is too slow to control.


Why couldn't pieces of WTC 1 have cut the core columns?

Look back at a past thread on this issue. I included a photo of the damage from WTC-1 before WTC 7 fell. Pieces of WTC 1 are clearly visible.


There is no evidence of this.


Really? Ever see molten steel? It glows. Photo evidence please.

It could have been molten aluminum as so many things in the building were made of aluminum, and it melts at a low enough temperature, and doesn't glow until well past melting. Steel doesn't melt until it is well past glowing!

It could have even been mercury from all the fluorescent tubes breaking.

Again, photo please. I never saw that one.

Now if it's this you are talking about, it is no more than here-say:

WTC Molten Steel (http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html)

I think you must be talking about something else since this is from a single eye-witness, and to my knowledge, was unconfirmed second-hand information.

Does Peter Tully maintain that story?


There could easily be smoke coming from the base of WTC 7 well before the collapse. It started from the lower floors. The fire was there, and how many power transformers were in the building? Ever see one on fire, and what the built-in cooling oil does?

If you are talking about WTC 1 and 2, I say bullshit.

You don't hate Arabs, you just blame them for mass murder.

The Twin towers were blown from the top down, not a standard controlled demolition. The debris blow outward damaged the nearby buildings. The demolition was controlled to make it look like it started from where the fire was.

WTC 7 was a standard bottom up demolition, and nearby buildings suffered little damage.

The 9/11 Commission quietly admitted that the passengers never got into the cockpit of FL93. The cockpit struggle is fiction just like the Pat Tillman story and Jessica Lynch.

The photo you post where you boast about the material flying towards WTC 7, shows an upward trajectory of the debris. That's because the towers were blown up. It wasn't gravity.

As far as finding explosiver residue, first of all, expert investigators never got to the crime scene until a month after 9/11. They first got there just as we started bombing Afghanistan and the top layer of material was already shipped to Asia.

There is plenty of evidence of molton metal, many witnesses talked about it on site. There also the NASA thermal images showing hot spots from the explosives. The fires in the WTC did not go out until mid December, three months later.

I never brought up thermite, you did.

NIST will confirm that this was a controlled demolition some day, after Obama becomes president. Then they will shift the story and say the demolition of WTC 7 was engineered for safety reasons. Trail balloons have already been floated on this.

[Galileo]

I never said it fell from an office fire. To my knowledge, no building ever has. There was also clear structural damage.


I can only guess, but that doesn't mean you are right.

I demand an answer to you saying the WTC 1 debris couldn't harm WTC 7, but I showed two clear photos.

Just how did that damage happen?

The only documented damage of any substance to WTC 7 was the SW corner. This had nothing to do with the collapse.

The possible damage to the middle of the south face is not documented, nor does it have anything to do with the collapse either. The collapse originated near the NE corner of the core, away from any debris damage.

The east Penthouse on the roof also fell 8 seconds before the rest of the building. This location has nothing to do with any fires or structural damage or fires at all.

The simplest scientific explanation, and the only explanation, is controlled demolition.

The building was blown up. Its that simple.

Do you deny that explosives explain the collapse of WTC 7?

[Galileo]

LIAR



Show me where I said there weren't hijackers, dumbass.

[DarrinS]

Rumsfeld: You know what Cheney?

Cheney: What?

Rumsfeld: Blowing up two 110 story buildings just isn't terrifying enough?

Cheney: What should we do?

Rumsfeld: Well, it would be 10 times more terrifying if we also blew up that 49 story building next to it.

Cheney: Oh, WTC 7?

Rumsfeld: Yes.

Cheney: Ok. I'll change the plans. And I'll throw in a Pentagon attack and we'll shoot down one of our own planes.

Rumsfeld: Sounds like a plan.

[Galileo]

This is the most retarded drivel ever written.

Why would they target the Pentagon and not another civilian target?

And the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania -- why would they shoot it down (if it was their own plane)?

This retarded conspiracy theory is about 1000 times LESS BELIEVABLE than the conspiracy against OJ Simpson.

And, if this whole thing was staged to somehow justify the invasion in Iraq, then why go into Afghanistan first?

Have you read the thread. I've never claimed that 9/11 was a conspiracy.

They shot the plane down in PA because it got delayed in the runway for 40 minutes and did not have time to complete its mission. They were already pushing it at the Pentagon, trying to get peopel to believe our military couldn't intercept the planes.

The invasion of Afghanistan was already planned before 9/11. They wanted to establish a strong military presence in the region and set up oil piplines. teh Taliban would not ccoperate with the US. In April of 2001, we sent the taliban $43 million, voted on by congress. But they didn't do what Bush wanted.

What other civilian target is better than the Pentagon, smarty pants?

[Ignignokt]

Show me where I said there weren't hijackers, dumbass.


So there were real hijackers but the alqueda ones weren't the ones being hijacked. So the US, hijacked a plane crash it into their own buildings killing their own people so that they could show osama bin laden they got to it first right, and that they beat the alqueda terrorist to it?

[Galileo]

Rumsfeld: You know what Cheney?

Cheney: What?

Rumsfeld: Blowing up two 110 story buildings just isn't terrifying enough?

Cheney: What should we do?

Rumsfeld: Well, it would be 10 times more terrifying if we also blew up that 49 story building next to it.

Cheney: Oh, WTC 7?

Rumsfeld: Yes.

Cheney: Ok. I'll change the plans. And I'll throw in a Pentagon attack and we'll shoot down one of our own planes.

Rumsfeld: Sounds like a plan.

FL93 was supposed to fly into WTC 7, dumbshit. They fucked up. They had to blow up WTC 7 because it was loaded with explosives.

[Galileo]

So there were real hijackers but the alqueda ones weren't the ones being hijacked. So the US, hijacked a plane crash it into their own buildings killing their own people so that they could show osama bin laden they got to it first right, and that they beat the alqueda terrorist to it?

There is no such organization as "Al Quada".

[Ignignokt]

FL93 was supposed to fly into WTC 7, dumbshit. They fucked up. They had to blow up WTC 7 because it was loaded with explosives.

:lmao.... oh my gawd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


hahahahahahhahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How the hell would have that worked?

You are dumbfuck numero uno!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ignignokt]

There is no such organization as "Al Quada".


existentialist forum.

[Ignignokt]

so if there were explosives in building seven to bring down the other two, why did the other two collapse before builidng seven.


According to your logic then the collapse of the original wtc buildings were legit. Building seven was supposed to have enough explosives to bring down the twin towers but it couldn't bring down Luigis pizzeria next door.

Oh wow, your insane.

[Yonivore]

FL93 was supposed to fly into WTC 7, dumbshit. They fucked up. They had to blow up WTC 7 because it was loaded with explosives.
Why? Why did they "have" to blow up WTC 7? Surely, if they could plant the explosives under the noses of thousands of employees they could remove them while everyone was distracted with the two piles of rubble a half block away.

So, where's your proof that 93 was headed to New York instead of Washington, as has been asserted?

You're quite a piece of work there Gal.

[Wild Cobra]

The only documented damage of any substance to WTC 7 was the SW corner.
Not true.


This had nothing to do with the collapse.

Agreed. That's because it was not the only damage.

Do you deny it is impossible for debris to go through the third floor facing WTC-1, considering it sliced off parts of WTC-7 starting at the 18th floor?

Only two photo's to my knowledge exist showing this damage. I did link one in the past.

Just because you don't have any clear shots of that area doesn't mean it didn't happen.



The possible damage to the middle of the south face is not documented, nor does it have anything to do with the collapse either. The collapse originated near the NE corner of the core, away from any debris damage.

I have seen a photo from before WTC 7 went down. There was clear WTC 1 debris in the photo, and a large hole in that face of WTC 7. I think I posted it in the thread about this long ago.

Search is disabled...



The east Penthouse on the roof also fell 8 seconds before the rest of the building. This location has nothing to do with any fires or structural damage or fires at all.

So you say. Others say with more logic that the internal supports were already collapsing.



The simplest scientific explanation, and the only explanation, is controlled demolition.

Simple to the simple minded. Not the only explanation. To make such a statement is pure stupidity.



The building was blown up. Its that simple.

Where is the forensic evidence?



Do you deny that explosives explain the collapse of WTC 7?

Explosives could be used to simulate such a collapse. However, if they were to do that, why not blame the Arabs for that too, saying they planted the explosions at some past timeframe?

Simple... There is no evidence that matches explosive charges. It is only the nuts who claim such a thing.

[Wild Cobra]

not much debris hit WTC 7. It was 355 feet away, and had WTC 6 in between, blocking most of the particles.

Not much hit WTC 7, yet it did clear damage to that corner from the 18th floor on down.

WTC 6 was not a tall building. In fact, you can find photo's with a WTC-7 search that shows WTC 1's reflection off the lower floors of WTC 1 from ground level at WTC 6.

Isn't it at least plausable that the lower floors of WTC 7 were hit by debris, with an extra 15 floors of distance to gain momentum?

Go ahead. Say it couldn't have happened. That will only prove you to be a fool.

[Galileo]

so if there were explosives in building seven to bring down the other two, why did the other two collapse before builidng seven.


According to your logic then the collapse of the original wtc buildings were legit. Building seven was supposed to have enough explosives to bring down the twin towers but it couldn't bring down Luigis pizzeria next door.

Oh wow, your insane.

all three towers had bombs in them. After the planes flew into them and started a fire hoping people would think the fire and damage caused the collapse. That worked for the twin towers. But WTC 7 wasn't hit by an airplane and had only small fires.

[Galileo]

Not much hit WTC 7, yet it did clear damage to that corner from the 18th floor on down.

WTC 6 was not a tall building. In fact, you can find photo's with a WTC-7 search that shows WTC 1's reflection off the lower floors of WTC 1 from ground level at WTC 6.

Isn't it at least plausable that the lower floors of WTC 7 were hit by debris, with an extra 15 floors of distance to gain momentum?

Go ahead. Say it couldn't have happened. That will only prove you to be a fool.

why do you keep talking about the damage to the SW corner?

It has nothing to do with the collapse.

Do you have a problem? Keep repeating your nonsense.

[Wild Cobra]

all three towers had bombs in them. After the planes flew into them and started a fire hoping people would think the fire and damage caused the collapse. That worked for the twin towers. But WTC 7 wasn't hit by an airplane and had only small fires.
So how did they plan to have the debris from WTC 1 appear to cause the damage.

That is real skillful explosives work. I suppose those who planted the explosives were killed so they wouldn't brag about their good work too. Where are the leaks? We always hear about government leaks. How can this large of a job remain so secret?

They wouldn't set it off after flight 93 didn't hit it if that was the plan, would they?

[Galileo]

Not true.


Agreed. That's because it was not the only damage.

Do you deny it is impossible for debris to go through the third floor facing WTC-1, considering it sliced off parts of WTC-7 starting at the 18th floor?

Only two photo's to my knowledge exist showing this damage. I did link one in the past.

Just because you don't have any clear shots of that area doesn't mean it didn't happen.


I have seen a photo from before WTC 7 went down. There was clear WTC 1 debris in the photo, and a large hole in that face of WTC 7. I think I posted it in the thread about this long ago.

Search is disabled...


So you say. Others say with more logic that the internal supports were already collapsing.


Simple to the simple minded. Not the only explanation. To make such a statement is pure stupidity.


Where is the forensic evidence?


Explosives could be used to simulate such a collapse. However, if they were to do that, why not blame the Arabs for that too, saying they planted the explosions at some past timeframe?

Simple... There is no evidence that matches explosive charges. It is only the nuts who claim such a thing.

All this damage means nothing. the NIST report i already posted shows that structural damage has been ruled out and does not explain the collapse. the NIST scientists are trying to devise a fire theory. but there were only 4 small fires in WTC 7 after 3PM, and they do not expalin the collapse either.

The highest floor of any fire after 3PM was floor 13, yet the east penthouse on the roof collapsed. far away from any fire of debris damage.

Yopur bullshit doesn't cut it.

[Ignignokt]

all three towers had bombs in them. After the planes flew into them and started a fire hoping people would think the fire and damage caused the collapse. That worked for the twin towers. But WTC 7 wasn't hit by an airplane and had only small fires.


what's so significant about blowing up wtc 7?

[Wild Cobra]

why do you keep talking about the damage to the SW corner?

It has nothing to do with the collapse.

Do you have a problem? Keep repeating your nonsense.
Simple. You claim 355 ft. was too far away. That damage shows otherwise. Where the damage is known to be that did the destruction, you claim didn't happen, You say it couldn't, it was too far away, yet the corner was damaged.

Explain please.

[Galileo]

So how did they plan to have the debris from WTC 1 appear to cause the damage.

That is real skillful explosives work. I suppose those who planted the explosives were killed so they wouldn't brag about their good work too. Where are the leaks? We always hear about government leaks. How can this large of a job remain so secret?

They wouldn't set it off after flight 93 didn't hit it if that was the plan, would they?

dude, there were shitloads of explosives going off long before any tower collapsed. the plane crashes no doubt did cause some to go off early.

What's your point?

[DarrinS]

Here's a video of Galileo, explaining his theory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RukhnSSUmeI&watch_response

[Galileo]

Here's a video of Galileo, explaining his theory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RukhnSSUmeI&watch_response

Galileo Galilei vs. Isaac Newton Freestyle Battle
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1103297387737886506&q=galileo+newton&total=97&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[Extra Stout]

what's so significant about blowing up wtc 7?
The studio where they faked the moon landing was in WTC 7.

[Nbadan]

hmmm...very interesting that some of the flight attendants were found with bound hands because some attendants were making air-phone calls from the hijacked planes.....

...nice thread everyone.....

[RandomGuy]

Did you know that NIST just delayed their final WTC 7 report to AUGUST 2008???

What the hell is taking so long?

Ever wonder how Bush could allow mass murder?


1) The NIST said they didn't have a budget to look into it, but eventually got it done after they go the first report finished, and with much fewer resources. It is in their FAQ.

2) No human being died from the collapse of WTC 7.

[Galileo]

The studio where they faked the moon landing was in WTC 7.

Why would they fake a moon landing, if they haven't faked a Mars landing?

:downspin:

[Extra Stout]

Why would they fake a moon landing, if they haven't faked a Mars landing?

:downspin:
The Mars studio is part of the new WTC plan. Please keep up.

[Galileo]

1) The NIST said they didn't have a budget to look into it, but eventually got it done after they go the first report finished, and with much fewer resources. It is in their FAQ.

2) No human being died from the collapse of WTC 7.

The NIST report on WTC 7 has been delayed several times, and they have not cited financial reasons for the delay.

I'm aware that no one died in WTC 7, although there are reports which I have not confirmed that John O'Neil died there. Barry Jennings also reported dead bodies in the WTC 7 lobby. These people would have died from the morning explosions in WTC 7, not its collapse later.

Bush should be tried for mass murder, along with Rumsfeld and Cheney.

[RandomGuy]

Some people in the North tower, when it was struck by debris from the South tower collapsing, thought the impact was an explosion. If you have read p on 9/11, you'd know that many people in the North tower were totally unaware the South tower had collapsed.

There was only one elevator shoft that went from the top third of the towers down to the bottom third. This does not explain many of the reported explosions. Some reported explosions in the subbasements before the airplanes hit. Also, the lobby had blast damage in areas far away from the elevator that went to the top, and there were no fires in the lobby.

Funny.

I watched a very basic, 4 floor structure get demolished from about a block away.

The explosions were deafening.

If enough explosives went off to demolish a 110 story building, how could people less than a block away not hear it?

For that matter, why did the explosions not carry sharp sounds for miles?

For that matter, since explosives impart debris velocities of thousands of feet per second, why was the debris field not miles across?

Assume it takes roughly 7 seconds to fall at free fall from the height of the impact zones, where the collapse started, and an object from the "explosives" was propelled at 1000 feet per second (a VERY LOW estimate) that would mean that bit would travel almost 2 miles before hitting the ground.

This would mean that if explosives were really used, the debris field of minor debris would have been MILES across.

Unless of course it is magic quiet explosives that magically don't propel objects at thousand of feet per second...

[RandomGuy]

The NIST report on WTC 7 has been delayed several times, and they have not cited financial reasons for the delay.

I'm aware that no one died in WTC 7, although there are reports which I have not confirmed that John O'Neil died there. Barry Jennings also reported dead bodies in the WTC 7 lobby. These people would have died from the morning explosions in WTC 7, not its collapse later.

Bush should be tried for mass murder, along with Rumsfeld and Cheney.

14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released for public comment by July 2008 and that the final report will be released shortly thereafter.

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, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted 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.

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

[RandomGuy]

One would reasonably have expected that some portions of the massive central steel core would have remained standing in these circumstances. It didn't. All 44 columns were brought to the ground in - relatively speaking - small lengths.



PE= m *9.8*413= 4073m

Mass is, by definition, simply a measurement of how much force a given amount of material will exert AT REST on an object that is resisting gravity.

SOOOO

The top floor would hit the ground with the same force as a 4073 story building, if that fall was unimpeded.

Now let's consider the fall of the top 30 stories.

They fell through the 3-5 floors of damaged sections and impacted the building below with some amount of force.

Let's call the distance accelerated as 3 floors and be generous. This is 11 meters.

Acceration of an object for 11 meters at 70% of gravity(dan's figure), would yeild an ending velocity of:


v^2= 2ad=2*9.8*.7*11=150=v^2, find the square root of 150, and bada bing, you get 12 meters per second

Substitute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m

This means the 30 floor section impacts the undamaged portion with the kinetic energy of SEVENTY FIVE TIMES ITS MASS.

Think about this for a moment.

The lower section of the building is designed to hold that 30 stories stationary plus a safety margin of 10 or 20%. So the maximum force that the underlying structure could apply to that falling section is 1.2 times its mass.

Further:
That falling section having as much kinetic energy as 75 times its mass means that it is effectively applying the same amount of force at the impact point that a 2270 story building would. if you held it stationary. (simple math: 30*75)
For the statement "the building would not have collapsed without explosives" implies that the building could have been TWENTY TWO TIMES TALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS without collapsing. :rolleyes

STILL FURTHER

Your calculations seem to imply that the building structure below could absorb 30% of the falling energy.

IN JUST THE FIRST 11 METERS OF A 400 METER COLLAPSE THERE IS 62 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF FORCE REQUIRED TO COLLAPSE THE BUILDING.

Your assumption of about 1/3 the energy used to collapse the building is about 20 times what is reasonable. (1/62*20= 1/3) (more actually, if you consider the further distance and mass)

What happens, then when MORE mass is added AND accelerated?

Even if half the mass falls away or off to the side, there is still FAR more force and energy than would be needed to collapse the building WITHOUT ANY EXPLOSIVES.

[Spurminator]

hmmm...very interesting that some of the flight attendants were found with bound hands because some attendants were making air-phone calls from the hijacked planes.....

...nice thread everyone.....


OMG!!! SOME!!!

[Galileo]

14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released for public comment by July 2008 and that the final report will be released shortly thereafter.

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, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted 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.

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

If you read what you actually post, you'd see that NIST still has no idea why WTC 7 fell. They may very well change everything and conclude it what is obvious to most people; a controlled demolition.

The area where they say failure occurred seems correct. The cause of that failure is explosives, as witnesses in that area have described them. I doubt the NIST political manangers have allowed the NIST scientists to talk to these witnesses (Barry Jennings & Mike Hess).

NIST hints at all this with their reference to 'hypotheitcal blast events'.

As you may know, hypothetical events do not effect buildings, only actual events do, and there are witnesses to actual blast events in WTC 7.

NIST exploring 9/11 conspiracy theory for WTC-7
New witness confirms Scholars previous findings
http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=113&Itemid=67

NIST has made no attempt to explain the evidence ususally cited as proof of controlled demolition; the scientific characterisitcs of controlled demolition seen in the videos.

[DarrinS]

The same government that can't "out" a CIA agent without getting busted can pull off the mother of all conspiracies.


Riiiight. :lol


By the way, John O'Neil did not die at WTC 7.

[Galileo]

Funny.

I watched a very basic, 4 floor structure get demolished from about a block away.

The explosions were deafening.

If enough explosives went off to demolish a 110 story building, how could people less than a block away not hear it?

For that matter, why did the explosions not carry sharp sounds for miles?

For that matter, since explosives impart debris velocities of thousands of feet per second, why was the debris field not miles across?

Assume it takes roughly 7 seconds to fall at free fall from the height of the impact zones, where the collapse started, and an object from the "explosives" was propelled at 1000 feet per second (a VERY LOW estimate) that would mean that bit would travel almost 2 miles before hitting the ground.

This would mean that if explosives were really used, the debris field of minor debris would have been MILES across.

Unless of course it is magic quiet explosives that magically don't propel objects at thousand of feet per second...

What are you trying to argue, that huge explosions weren't heard when WTC 1 fell?

Is not multi-ton steel chunks being thrown 500 feet not evidence enough for you of powerful explosions?

Your math is bad.

Force = mass x acceleration

a very small chunk might start at 1000 feet/second, but a small chunk would be slowed by air resistance.

a multi-ton chunk will not be going 1000 feet/second.

[Galileo]

The same government that can't "out" a CIA agent without getting busted can pull off the mother of all conspiracies.


Riiiight. :lol


By the way, John O'Neil did not die at WTC 7.

9/11 wasn't a conspiracy as I've stated many times here in this forum. It was a clean, legal, false-flag military operation.

[Nbadan]

hmmm....much experience in Physics RG?


1. How much strength would the steel have to lose for the WTC to collapse?

2. What temperature would the steel have to reach to occasion this loss of strength?

3. What was the temperature of the fire in the WTC; i.e., did it reach the critically weakening temperature?

Question 1:

In the original article, I cited my own experience that a support device must be capable of bearing three times the maximum load that would ever be applied.

It turns out that this rule-of-thumb is applicable only to dynamic loads, not static (structural) loads of commercial buildings. Since then, I have been informed by a commercial structural engineer that the standard ratio for static loads is five, not three. That is, if a bridge is rated to carry 1 ton, it should be capable of bearing 5 tons without collapsing at the time the bridge is built.

Going back to the fire at the WTC, we can see that reducing the steel structure to 60% its rated strength should NOT have weakened it to catastrophic collapse, because at 60% it would still support three times the rated load. The steel structure would have to be reduced to 20% of its rated strength to collapse.

Thus, even if the fire had heated the steel to 550 degrees C (1022 F), that would not have been sufficient to cause the towers to collapse.

Question 2:

The Corus page on fire vs. steel supports (http://www.corusconstruction.com/fire/fr006.htm) shows that the steel would have to be heated to about 720 degrees C (1320 F) to weaken the steel to 20% of its cool strength.

The text on that page discusses another change in the steel above 550 degrees C (1022 F): It looses elasticity and becomes plastic. Elasticity means that when the steel is bent, it returns to its original shape; it springs back. Plasticity means that the steel is permanently deformed and does not spring back to the original shape.

Springing back or not, our only concern with this page is to determine the point on the graph where the steel would be weakened to 20% its original strength, and that point is 720 degrees C (1320 F).

For steel, 550 degrees C (1022 F) is an important threshold, however, and we should not be glib with it. If a steel tower were heated to 550 C, loss of elasticity could mean that the tower would not spring back to the original shape after a gust of wind, and a series of buffets might cause the tower to fail -- if the strain exceeded the reduced strength of the hot steel.

Question 3:

Now let us make a guess on the actual heat of the fire.

Fortunately, a number of studies have been done under very similar conditions. In Europe, multi-storied "car parks" are often built of steel, and the possibility of vehicle fire is a distinct possibility. A parked vehicle, loaded with gasoline, diesel, tires, engine oil, engine tar, upholstery, hydraulic fluid, etc. can cause a fire that seems very hot. A number of other vehicles could be parked close to the burning one, and they too could catch fire, with a general conflagration. Any number of cars could contain almost any household items from shopping, etc.

These materials are similar to the materials we would expect in the burning offices of the WTC: jet fuel (which is a refined kerosene, very similar to the diesel used in some European cars), oil, upholstery, etc.

A summary of the results of these studies is published on the Corus page. Go to http://www.corusconstruction.com/ and click on "Fire". Individual articles are listed across the top of the window. The fourth article, "Fire in Car Parks," discusses the temperatures of "any fires that are likely to occur" in a car park (http://www.corusconstruction.com/carparks/cp006.htm).

Presumably, one car could catch fire and inflame other cars parked closely nearby. As explained below, "The maximum temperatures reached [in actual test fires] in open sided car parks in four countries" was 360 degrees C (680 F), and structural steel has "sufficient inherent resistance to withstand the effects of any fires that are likely to occur."

Here is the relevant paragraph, complete: "Steel-framed car parks have been rigorously fire tested in a number of countries (Table 3). These tests demonstrate that most unprotected steel in open sided steel-framed car parks has sufficient inherent resistance to withstand the effects of any fires that are likely to occur. Table 3 lists the maximum temperatures reached in open sided car park tests in four countries. These can be compared with the characteristic failure temperatures for beams carrying insulating floor slabs and columns of 620 [degrees] C and 550 [degrees] C respectively."

Note that the description does not limit the duration of the fire. From this it does not appear to matter whether the fire burned all week or just for two hours. No mention is made, as some people have suggested (from erroneous interpretation of other graphs involving time), that prolonged heat brings about progressive weakening of steel.

Here is the data from Corus' Table 3 (beams are horizontal members, columns are vertical):
Full scale fire tests Maximum measured steel temperature
Country Beam Column
UK 275 C (527 F) 360 C (680 F)
Japan 245 C (473 F) 242 C (467 F)
USA 226 C (438 F) -
Australia 340 C (644 F) 320 C (608 F)

A fire in a steel car park is a very imprecise event, and the heating of the steel supports varied widely in the tests. The temperature of (horizontal) beams varied from 226 C in the USA to 340 C in Australia; and the temperature of (vertical) columns varied from 242 C in Japan to 360 C in the UK. None of the steel was protected with the thermal insulation that is commonly used in office buildings, including the WTC.

To my mind, this is definitive answer: the maximum temperature in the unprotected steel supports in those test fires was 360 degrees C (680 F), and that is a long way from the first critical threshold in structural steel, 550 degrees C (1022 F).

Some may argue that there was much more fuel involved in the WTC events that in a car park. There was also much more steel involved, the support columns were more massive, and they were protected with insulation.

I think the case is made: The fire did not weaken the WTC structure sufficiently to cause the collapse of the towers.

— J. McMichael : Link (http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html)

[Galileo]

1. This has nothing to do with WTC 7

2. You state nothing that contradicts the controlled demoliton hypothesis.

3. Your math is horrid, and contradicts even what NIST has stated in their reports.

[RandomGuy]

What are you trying to argue, that huge explosions weren't heard when WTC 1 fell?

Is not multi-ton steel chunks being thrown 500 feet not evidence enough for you of powerful explosions?

Your math is bad.

Force = mass x acceleration

a very small chunk might start at 1000 feet/second, but a small chunk would be slowed by air resistance.

a multi-ton chunk will not be going 1000 feet/second.

Explosions, yes.

ExplosiVES, no.

Find any chunk of debris from the collapse heavier than a piece of paper that was found farther than 1000 feet away.

You're the one who says that massive amounts of explosives were used.

You must show that the observed phenomena fit that theory.

For that to be true the debris field would have to have been much larger.

This is where your fucktarded theory starts contradicting itself.

"The building was too strong for it NOT to have been brought down by anything other than explosives"

Is irreconciliable with:
"The explosives weren't powerful enough to throw chunks of debris for miles."

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

[RandomGuy]

1. This has nothing to do with WTC 7

2. You state nothing that contradicts the controlled demoliton hypothesis.

3. Your math is horrid, and contradicts even what NIST has stated in their reports.

1. I don't really give a rat's ass about WTC 7.

2. I have stated plenty that does.

3. Provide proof and a link to anything in my calculations that contradict the NIST report.

[RandomGuy]

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

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

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

[RandomGuy]

I actually found that in the FAQ, after I did my calculations.

It is simple fucking algebra, but since it doesn't fit your theory, you wave your hand and dismiss elementary physics as "irrelevant".

I mean that scienc-y stuff is for total shills.

Real truth seekers know that Bush is controlling the phsyics textbook manufacturers..

[DarrinS]

For our resident "moonbats"

Dr. S. Shyam Sunder of NIST dispells "troofer" theories

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html


EDIT> What he is saying is pretty much in agreement with what RandomGuy has been trying to explain to Galileo.

[Galileo]

Explosions, yes.

ExplosiVES, no.

Find any chunk of debris from the collapse heavier than a piece of paper that was found farther than 1000 feet away.

You're the one who says that massive amounts of explosives were used.

You must show that the observed phenomena fit that theory.

For that to be true the debris field would have to have been much larger.

This is where your fucktarded theory starts contradicting itself.

"The building was too strong for it NOT to have been brought down by anything other than explosives"

Is irreconciliable with:
"The explosives weren't powerful enough to throw chunks of debris for miles."

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

You speak double-talk.

First you say the towers can fall without any explosives at all. Then you assert the explosives must blow heavy debris 1000 feet.

The explosives just weren't as strong as you assert, they did blow heavy debris up to 700 feet.

[RandomGuy]

Here is the difference between "static" loads and dynamic loads for you if the math is too fucking hard.

Hold a 50 pound bag of cement over your head. You should be able to do so with ease. (static)

Now, drop that SAME bag from 35 feet (3 stories).(dynamic)

Can you catch it?

Or

Better yet:

You can do a push up, so you can support your body at rest. (static)

Assuming you can run about 18 miles an hour full out, hold your arms out and run as fast as you can into a brick wall. (dynamic)

Will it hurt?

Simple fucking common sense. I didn't even need math.

That is why, once you get a chunk of the building moving, it is VERY hard to stop it.

That is what the NIST said happened, and all it takes is either knowledge of basic physics or common sense to grasp it.

That you can't demonstrates you have neither.

[Galileo]

1. I don't really give a rat's ass about WTC 7.

2. I have stated plenty that does.

3. Provide proof and a link to anything in my calculations that contradict the NIST report.

I have a policy where I don't discuss the technical aspects of the twin towers, until WTC 7 is resolved.

Sorry.

:-(

[RandomGuy]

Here is the difference between "static" loads and dynamic loads for you if the math is too fucking hard.

Hold a 50 pound bag of cement over your head. You should be able to do so with ease. (static)

Now, drop that SAME bag from 35 feet (3 stories).(dynamic)

Can you catch it?

Or

Better yet:

You can do a push up, so you can support your body at rest. (static)

Assuming you can run about 18 miles an hour full out, hold your arms out and run as fast as you can into a brick wall. (dynamic)

Will it hurt?

Simple fucking common sense. I didn't even need math.

That is why, once you get a chunk of the building moving, it is VERY hard to stop it.

That is what the NIST said happened, and all it takes is either knowledge of basic physics or common sense to grasp it.

That you can't demonstrates you have neither.

(note that at free fall, and if you bother to do the calculations, that 50 pound bag has a momentum of over a ton and a half or so after 35 feet)

[RandomGuy]

I have a policy where I don't discuss the technical aspects of the twin towers, until WTC 7 is resolved.

Sorry.

:-(

Translation:

"My vagina hurts."

[Galileo]

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

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”



The structure below provided minimal resistance because explosives blew away the structure. This is all very simple. The Twin Towers had no fires or structural damage below floor 76.

The NIST report does not address this at all.

You are quoting from a press release statement written by NIST political managers, not by NIST scientists. The NIST report says nothing about this.

[RandomGuy]

I have a policy where I don't discuss the technical aspects of the twin towers, until WTC 7 is resolved.

Sorry.

:-(

That's ok, I understand.

The twin tower explosive demolition bit has been so thoroughly debunked, that the conspiracy fucks have mostly abandoned that ship, and concentrated on the thing they think they can "win".

Throwing shit at a wall to see if it sticks... :rolleyes

[Galileo]

I actually found that in the FAQ, after I did my calculations.

It is simple fucking algebra, but since it doesn't fit your theory, you wave your hand and dismiss elementary physics as "irrelevant".

I mean that scienc-y stuff is for total shills.

Real truth seekers know that Bush is controlling the phsyics textbook manufacturers..

your math is BS and not accepted by NIST scientists. Again, you quote from a statement written by Bush political appointees, not written by NIST scientists.

This is a common technique used by governments to manipulate science, having summaries written by politicians after scientists write a report. Political appointees also frequently re-write any summaries actually written by scientists in the reports themselves. The Bush administration does it with reports on secondhand smoke and global warming as well.

[Galileo]

Here is the difference between "static" loads and dynamic loads for you if the math is too fucking hard.

Hold a 50 pound bag of cement over your head. You should be able to do so with ease. (static)

Now, drop that SAME bag from 35 feet (3 stories).(dynamic)

Can you catch it?

Or

Better yet:

You can do a push up, so you can support your body at rest. (static)

Assuming you can run about 18 miles an hour full out, hold your arms out and run as fast as you can into a brick wall. (dynamic)

Will it hurt?

Simple fucking common sense. I didn't even need math.

That is why, once you get a chunk of the building moving, it is VERY hard to stop it.

That is what the NIST said happened, and all it takes is either knowledge of basic physics or common sense to grasp it.

That you can't demonstrates you have neither.

I already know the difference between static loads and kinetic loads.

If the top of WTC 1 or 2 actually did fall several feet into the lower portion of the tower, it would crush the top and then fall off to the side. It would not fall through the path of most resistance which is the rest of the building.

The NIST scientists are well aware of this, and nowhere in their report do they analyse the behavior of the building after intitial conditions for collapse begin.

[RandomGuy]

The structure below provided minimal resistance because explosives blew away the structure. This is all very simple. The Twin Towers had no fires or structural damage below floor 76.

The NIST report does not address this at all.

You are quoting from a press release statement written by NIST political managers, not by NIST scientists. The NIST report says nothing about this.

Have you read the whole report?

[RandomGuy]

I already know the difference between static loads and kinetic loads.

If the top of WTC 1 or 2 actually did fall several feet into the lower portion of the tower, it would crush the top and then fall off to the side. It would not fall through the path of most resistance which is the rest of the building.

The NIST scientists are well aware of this, and nowhere in their report do they analyse the behavior of the building after intitial conditions for collapse begin.

It would fall off to the side?

What force would cause that?

Last time I checked, gravity works only one direction.

Do tell.

[RandomGuy]

your math is BS and not accepted by NIST scientists. Again, you quote from a statement written by Bush political appointees, not written by NIST scientists.

This is a common technique used by governments to manipulate science, having summaries written by politicians after scientists write a report. Political appointees also frequently re-write any summaries actually written by scientists in the reports themselves. The Bush administration does it with reports on secondhand smoke and global warming as well.

If it is false, then do the math to tell me why it is wrong.

I have provided the math and you have made a counter claim.

The burden of proof is on you now.

Show proof as to why the math is wrong.

[Galileo]

(note that at free fall, and if you bother to do the calculations, that 50 pound bag has a momentum of over a ton and a half or so after 35 feet)

Here's what the NIST report has to say on this:

6.14.2 Results of Global Analysis of WTC 1
...

The inward bowing of the south wall caused failure of exterior column splices and spandrels, and these columns became unstable. The instability spread horizontally across the entire south face. The south wall, now unable to bear its gravity loads, redistributed these loads to the thermally weakened core through the hat truss and to the east and west walls through the spandrels. The building section above the impact zone began tilting to the south as the columns on the east and west walls rapidly became unable to carry the increased loads. This further increased the gravity loads on the core columns. Once the upper building section began to move downwards, the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued. (p 144-5/194-5)


6.14.3 Results of Global Analysis of WTC 2
...

The south exterior wall displaced downward following the aircraft impact, but did not displace further until the east wall became unstable 43 min later. The inward bowing of the east wall, due to the inward pull of the sagging floors, caused failure of exterior column splices and spandrels and resulted in the east wall columns becoming unstable. The instability progressed horizontally across the entire east face. The east wall, now unable to bear its gravity loads, redistributed them to the thermally weakened core through the hat truss and to the east and west walls through the spandrels.

The building section above the impact zone began tilting to the east and south as column instability progressed rapidly from the east wall along the adjacent north and south walls, and increased the gravity load on the weakened east core columns. As with WTC 1, once the upper building section began to move downwards, the weakened structure in the impact and fire zone was not able to absorb the tremendous energy of the falling building section and global collapse ensued. (p 145-6/195-6)

Please note that that all your BS about free-fall and dynamic loads is never mentioned. That's because if a collapse near the top started where the planes hit, the whole building would not fall down. The top part would fall into the lower part, crush it, and then fall off to the side to the ground.

The lower portions of the building had no structural damage from fires or plane impacts, according to your theory.

What really happened is that explosives below the failure point blew the core outward and the building fell.

[Galileo]

If it is false, then do the math to tell me why it is wrong.

I have provided the math and you have made a counter claim.

The burden of proof is on you now.

Show proof as to why the math is wrong.

tell NIST to do the math, that's why I pay taxes.

Many people are trying to get their documents regarding the collapse of the building after collapse initiation, and NIST will not release them.

Post something that demostrates that you understand what I'm talking about.

[DarrinS]

Please note that that all your BS about free-fall and dynamic loads is never mentioned. That's because if a collapse near the top started where the planes hit, the whole building would not fall down. The top part would fall into the lower part, crush it, and then fall off to the side to the ground.

:lol

[Galileo]

It would fall off to the side?

What force would cause that?

Last time I checked, gravity works only one direction.

Do tell.

are you daft?

if something falls and hits the top of something and then falls off to the side, that's gravity.

drop a small rock onto a tin can. The rock will hit the can, dent it, and then deflect off to the side from gravity.

[RandomGuy]

are you daft?

if something falls and hits the top of something and then falls off to the side, that's gravity.

drop a small rock onto a tin can. The rock will hit the can, dent it, and then deflect off to the side from gravity.

BZZT.

Wrong answer. That displays exactly the level of knowledge of physics I would expect.

You don't even know why you are wrong here, and that is the sad part.

Do your research, and you tell me where you went wrong here.

[Galileo]

Have you read the whole report?

I read the entire part dealing with the behaviour of the towers after the conditions for initial collapse were reached, and substantial protions of the rest of the report. The whole report is over 10,000 pages long.

I also read several papers regarding the report, from both sides of the argument.

Have you read the whole report?

[RandomGuy]

tell NIST to do the math, that's why I pay taxes.

Many people are trying to get their documents regarding the collapse of the building after collapse initiation, and NIST will not release them.

Post something that demostrates that you understand what I'm talking about.


You said my math was wrong. The burden of proof is on you to show how.

This is the logical fallacy of falsely attempting to shift the burden of proof.

Please show how my math was wrong.

[RandomGuy]

I read the entire part dealing with the behaviour of the towers after the conditions for initial collapse were reached, and substantial protions of the rest of the report. The whole report is over 10,000 pages long.

I also read several papers regarding the report, from both sides of the argument.

Have you read the whole report?

The main report is only about 300 pages. You are likely talking about the ancillary documents.

I have read that entire document, yes.

[Galileo]

If it is false, then do the math to tell me why it is wrong.

I have provided the math and you have made a counter claim.

The burden of proof is on you now.

Show proof as to why the math is wrong.

Your math doesn't explain why the top chunk would fall straight through the bottom portion of the building to the ground, rather than deflecting to one side where it only encountered air resistance.

If your math was correct, would it not be in the NIST report?

I will give you credit for trying, but you must beware of disinformation from the debunkers.

[Galileo]

:lol

If I dropped a large rock from 20 feet onto your cranium, it would dent it, and then deflect off to the side to the ground. Your IQ might go up as well from this experiment. :sleep

[RandomGuy]

That's because if a collapse near the top started where the planes hit,

That is precisely where the collapse started. Perhaps you have some footage that shows the bottom floors started moving before being impacted by debris?

That would be something, wouldn't it?

[Galileo]

The main report is only about 300 pages. You are likely talking about the ancillary documents.

I have read that entire document, yes.

Glad to hear you read the report.

Do you remember a part where is explains the global collapse of the entire structure?

The way they put out this information is all very clever.

[RandomGuy]

Glad to hear you read the report.

Do you remember a part where is explains the global collapse of the entire structure?

The way they put out this information is all very clever.er

I remember how you haven't shown me how my math is wrong, yes.

I'm still waiting.

[Galileo]

That is precisely where the collapse started. Perhaps you have some footage that shows the bottom floors started moving before being impacted by debris?

That would be something, wouldn't it?

some witnesses say the collapse started a few floors below where the planes hit, preceded by a giant explosion.

None of this is in the NIST report.

The NIST report says nothing abut what happens after the collapse starts, besides saying "global collapse ensued"

Building a Better Mirage
NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up
of the Crime of the Century
by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.0, Dec 8, 2005

a critique of the
Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team
on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers
by the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
of the World Trade Center Disaster
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/

[Galileo]

er

I remember how you haven't shown me how my math is wrong, yes.

I'm still waiting.

your math is two-dimensional, and does not consider asymmentries.

[RandomGuy]

some witnesses say the collapse started a few floors below where the planes hit, preceded by a giant explosion.

None of this is in the NIST report.

The NIST report says nothing abut what happens after the collapse starts, besides saying "global collapse ensued"

Building a Better Mirage
NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up
of the Crime of the Century
by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.0, Dec 8, 2005

a critique of the
Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team
on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers
by the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
of the World Trade Center Disaster
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/

The NIST said that they did roughly the same calculations I did, and came to the same conclusions.

Since the math is BS, you should easily be able to show how it is BS.

Your link does not do that.

I am still waiting.

[RandomGuy]

your math is two-dimensional, and does not consider asymmentries.

That's it? A non-sequiteur?

Oh man, that's weak.

Expand on that.

By the way, I am still waiting on why you were wrong about the rock.

What force caused the rock to move off to the side again?

[Galileo]

The NIST said that they did roughly the same calculations I did, and came to the same conclusions.

Since the math is BS, you should easily be able to show how it is BS.

Your link does not do that.

I am still waiting.

NIST never released the calculations, because they do not support their theory.

Your math doesn't explain why an object falling into the WTC would not deflect off to the side.

The force you cite, 75 times the static force, is not enough to destroy the entire building, only to crush the top part of it.

As the top portion hits the lower portion, it decelerates from resisitance. You claim it accelerates. Acceleration only occurs to the chunks that did deflect away and met only air resistance.

[RandomGuy]

The structure below provided minimal resistance because explosives blew away the structure. This is all very simple. The Twin Towers had no fires or structural damage below floor 76.

The NIST report does not address this at all.

You are quoting from a press release statement written by NIST political managers, not by NIST scientists. The NIST report says nothing about this.

"Minimal resistance"

The collapses took 14 and 22 seconds respectively. That actually shows plenty of resistance.

[DarrinS]

some witnesses say the collapse started a few floors below where the planes hit, preceded by a giant explosion.

None of this is in the NIST report.

The NIST report says nothing abut what happens after the collapse starts, besides saying "global collapse ensued"

Building a Better Mirage
NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up
of the Crime of the Century
by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.0, Dec 8, 2005

a critique of the
Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team
on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers
by the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
of the World Trade Center Disaster
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/



I'll believe the analysis offered on a moonbat website over the analyses done by any of the following:

NIST
ASCE
MIT
Popular Mechanics


:dizzy :downspin: :dizzy

[RandomGuy]

"Minimal resistance"

The collapses took 14 and 22 seconds respectively. That actually shows plenty of resistance.

"Free fall" debunked quite simply. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4)

[Galileo]

"Minimal resistance"

The collapses took 14 and 22 seconds respectively. That actually shows plenty of resistance.

It shows some resistance, but not enough. During most of the first half of the fall, it approached free fall speed.

22 seconds is too long, it did not take that long. 14 seconds is closer.

[DarrinS]

More analysis from professional engineers on WTC 7

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

[Galileo]

"Free fall" debunked quite simply. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4)

who are you debunking? The Straw Man?

[RandomGuy]

It shows some resistance, but not enough. During most of the first half of the fall, it approached free fall speed.

22 seconds is too long, it did not take that long. 14 seconds is closer.

You didn't even watch the video did you?

One took about 14, the other took longer.

Perfectly in line with the math I gave when one factors in a certain amount of deceleration (resistance), as I did.

Math you have yet to disprove.

[Galileo]

I'll believe the analysis offered on a moonbat website over the analyses done by any of the following:

NIST
ASCE
MIT
Popular Mechanics


:dizzy :downspin: :dizzy

Jim Hoffman is far more brilliant than anyone at the places you cite. Read his analysis, you'll see.

NIST does not do the analysis that we have been talking about. They are free to adopt anything that Popular Mechanics, ASCE puts out.

Popular Mechanics stuff is all qualitative. In fact, all the analysis from you debunkers in this issue is qualitiative.

They don't put it out because their theory is wrong.

[DarrinS]

who are you debunking? The Straw Man?



And WTC 7 actually took 8.2 seconds (not 6.6).

[DarrinS]

Jim Hoffman is far more brilliant than anyone at the places you cite. Read his analysis, you'll see.

NIST does not do the analysis that we have been talking about. They are free to adopt anything that Popular Mechanics, ASCE puts out.

Popular Mechanics stuff is all qualitative. In fact, all the analysis from you debunkers in this issue is qualitiative.

They don't put it out because their theory is wrong.


Jim Hoffman is not a structural engineer or a demolition expert. He's a computer programmer.

[DarrinS]

Can you say, Coo coo for Coacoa Puffs?

Here's the legendary Jim Hoffman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iAJJASlY3A



Where's his math?

[Galileo]

Jim Hoffman is not a structural engineer or a demolition expert. He's a computer programmer.

so what? His analysis is brilliant.

[Galileo]

And WTC 7 actually took 8.2 seconds (not 6.6).

that's bullshit.

What's your point?

[Yonivore]

that's bullshit.

What's your point?
I think that is his point. "That's bullshit," isn't exactly a rebuttal.

[Galileo]

You didn't even watch the video did you?

One took about 14, the other took longer.

Perfectly in line with the math I gave when one factors in a certain amount of deceleration (resistance), as I did.

Math you have yet to disprove.

I agree one took 14 seconds, the other about 17 to 18 seconds.

What's your point?

The 9/11 Commission says they fell in 10 seconds, why don't you debunk them?

[Galileo]

I think that is his point. "That's bullshit," isn't exactly a rebuttal.

yes it is.

[DarrinS]

so what? His analysis is brilliant.


Just watched his little youtube video. LOL at him comparing small buildings destroyed by earthquakes to the WTC 1 & 2. Did he think they were going to topple over like trees? :lmao

[Yonivore]

yes it is.
Maybe in your "60-is-30," world. But, in the real world, "that's bullshit," is generally followed by a reasoned, well-supported, alternative view.

[Galileo]

Just watched his little youtube video. LOL at him comparing small buildings destroyed by earthquakes to the WTC 1 & 2. Did he think they were going to topple over like trees? :lmao

You're too stupid to understand Hoffman.

why don't you try Dr. Suess?

:ihit

You're also a defender of mass murder, so why should I trust you?

[Galileo]

Maybe in your "60-is-30," world. But, in the real world, "that's bullshit," is generally followed by a reasoned, well-supported, alternative view.

In my world the videos are self-evident.

6.6 seconds.

Show me where Thomas Jefferson has reasoned, well-supported arguments for the self-evident rights of man?

[DarrinS]

You're too stupid to understand Hoffman.

why don't you try Dr. Suess?

:ihit

You're also a defender of mass murder, so why should I trust you?


If I ever see this dimwit on the street, I'm giving him a swift kick in the nuts.

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2007/09/13/hoffman07.jpg

[Yonivore]

In my world the videos are self-evident.
Yeah, we know.



6.6 seconds.
Have you validated the fps rate of the videos on which your 6.6 is based? How many times were they duplicated before you viewed them. What is the origin and are you viewing original, unedited, non-duplicated video?


Show me where Thomas Jefferson has reasoned, well-supported arguments for the self-evident rights of man?
Where does Jefferson mention self-evident rights? Or, are you referring to self-evident truths and unalienable rights?

[Galileo]

If I ever see this dimwit on the street, I'm giving him a swift kick in the nuts.

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2007/09/13/hoffman07.jpg

It's not too smart to post stuff like this on the Internet. The police will use it against you, the next time you lose your temper.

Hoffman may also have google alerts, so he may be reading this.

[Yonivore]

It's not too smart to post stuff like this on the Internet. The police will use it against you, the next time you lose your temper.

Hoffman may also have google alerts, so he may be reading this.
He probably doesn't have the disk space to hold all the derogatory remarks made on his behalf...much less, do the police have the time to worry of such comments.

What's the matter, does he make you lick his nuts every time they get kicked?

[Galileo]

Yeah, we know.


Have you validated the fps rate of the videos on which your 6.6 is based? How many times were they duplicated before you viewed them. What is the origin and are you viewing original, unedited, non-duplicated video?


Where does Jefferson mention self-evident rights? Or, are you referring to self-evident truths and unalienable rights?

What's your point?

If WTC 7 fell in 8.2 seconds instead of 6.6 seconds, how would that refute controlled demolition?

How did four fires after 3PM on the north face of WTC 7 at floors 7, 8, 12, and 13, cause the east Penthouse on the roof to collapse?

Are you able to focus?

WTC 7 fell in 6.6 seconds.

[Yonivore]

What's your point?

If WTC 7 fell in 8.2 seconds instead of 6.6 seconds, how would that refute controlled demolition?
You're the one arguing for 6.6.


How did four fires after 3PM on the north face of WTC 7 at floors 7, 8, 12, and 13, cause the east Penthouse on the roof to collapse?
Structural failure caused the Penthouse to collapse.


Are you able to focus?
Yes.


WTC 7 fell in 6.6 seconds.
How do you know?

[Galileo]

Structural failure caused the Penthouse to collapse.




so you agree that explosives caused that structural failure? There were no fires in the vicinity.

[Yonivore]

so you agree that explosives caused that structural failure?
No.


There were no fires in the vicinity.
You have no clue what was in the area or what got moved around in that building when it was struck by a huge chunk of WTC1.

Tell me this, Gal. If you fall against an object that is not fixed to the floor, what happens? If you strike it with enough force, it moves. Now, if the object is fixed to the ground (WTC7) the object may not move but, internal structures can be weakened, broken, or snapped by the force of being struck...even those that are not in the immediate vicinity of the insult.

It's entirely possible that support beams all throughout WTC7 were so affected by the building being struck, laterally, by a large mass of debris as WTC1 debris fell over WTC6; particularly if that debris were ricocheting off of WTC6, directly into the side of WTC7...right across the street.

[Galileo]

No.


You have no clue what was in the area or what got moved around in that building when it was struck by a huge chunk of WTC1.

Tell me this, Gal. If you fall against an object that is not fixed to the floor, what happens? If you strike it with enough force, it moves. Now, if the object is fixed to the ground (WTC7) the object may not move but, internal structures can be weakened, broken, or snapped by the force of being struck...even those that are not in the immediate vicinity of the insult.

It's entirely possible that support beams all throughout WTC7 were so affected by the building being struck, laterally, by a large mass of debris as WTC1 debris fell over WTC6; particularly if that debris were ricocheting off of WTC6, directly into the side of WTC7...right across the street.

The fire locations are all detailed in the NIST progress report. Have you ever looked at it? These fires do not explain the collapse. If they did, NIST would have finished their report a long time ago.

None of your mumbo jumbo is in the NISt report because the report has to be scientifically plausible.

Controlled demolition explains the collapse perfectly.

Do you have a brain? An office fire on the 13th floor does not make the 47th floor east Penthouse collapse.

There was no debris damage anywhere near this area. The only significant documented debris damage was the SW corner.

We have eyewitness reports of a huge explosion right near the area of failure. Why don't you stick with the evidence instead of speculating?

[RandomGuy]

NIST never released the calculations, because they do not support their theory.

Your math doesn't explain why an object falling into the WTC would not deflect off to the side.

The force you cite, 75 times the static force, is not enough to destroy the entire building, only to crush the top part of it.

As the top portion hits the lower portion, it decelerates from resisitance. You claim it accelerates. Acceleration only occurs to the chunks that did deflect away and met only air resistance.

You dipfuck. Gravity doesn't stop acting on that falling debris once it hits.

Actually the 75 times figure is quite enough to collapse the entire building, even if, as you suggest, gravity magically stops accelerating the falling debris.

[RandomGuy]

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

What I Learned from
9-11 Conspiracy Theories.

The U.S. is actually quite popular worldwide; so much so, in fact, that its government must create artificial terrorist organizations to attack it. Left to their own devices, everybody else pretty much respects Americans and leaves them alone.
It takes the complacency or cooperation of the world's largest superpower to hijack a defenseless civilian aircraft.
If you believe what your government tells you about 9-11, you are part of the conspiracy or, at least, part of "the problem." But if you accuse people at all levels of the government, including the U.S. military, of planning and carrying out the largest terrorist attack on U.S. soil, killing thousands of civilians, then you are a patriot.
The large fireballs seen at the WTC impacts look like napalm explosions, so it was probably a napalm bomb that actually caused the damage. Of course, napalm being jellied fuel, and jet aircraft being full of fuel, you can see the vast difference there.
The WTC towers fell in what was obviously a controlled demolition. The largest, messiest, deadliest, most witnessed, most mismanaged, most ill-timed, most poorly executed, and most uncontrolled controlled demolition in history.
Even though our civilian airliner pilots had been trained to cooperate with hijackers and not try to physically resist, and even though short knives and box cutters were allowed in carry-on luggage, we shouldn't believe the absurd claim that four or five strong and very determined men armed with knives and a fanatic eagerness to die killing Americans could take over an unlocked cockpit.
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.
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.
Those plane crashes were like so totally fake cuz they were so totally unlike all the real fiery passenger jet crashes into buildings I've seen in real life.
When you refer to the planes, say "alleged aircraft." When referring to the terrorists, say "alleged terrorists." Because not only can we not be sure they even existed, but also, "alleged" has such a nice, objective ring to it.
The plane-shaped holes in the WTC towers were an absurdity, like a cat-shaped hole in a fence in a Tom and Jerry cartoon, because the planes would have either smashed to pieces against the building and fallen straight down to the street below, or flown right through the building (making a cartoon-like hole) and emerged out the other side relatively intact.
Cries of "Death to America!" and "America is the Great Satan!" by Islamic extremists are all part of our government's plan for world domination. Left to themselves, the so-called "extremists" are actually quite pleasant, simple folk (but very good actors).
The rigged explosives in the upper floors of WTC2 were powerful enough to collapse a skyscraper, but not powerful enough to instantly kill Kevin Cosgrove, on floor 105, who was talking on the phone with a fire dispatcher and managed to blurt out three words between the time of the "explosion" and the collapse that killed him.
The meandering directions of the hijacked aircrafts' flight paths were all part of well-planned routes, and not due to the terrorist pilots flying and navigating a large, real, multi-engine passenger jet for the first time.
Our service men and women chose not to shoot down the planes or protect the Pentagon and WTC because they were part of the conspiracy, and they're not speaking out because they've been bought off. Better still, NORAD actually sent the remote-controlled aircraft into their targets.
A black helicopter was hovering over the WTC South Tower before, during, and after the crashes, and the floor that was on fire the most must have had barrels and barrels of a crude oil-diesel mixture that was remotely ignited to ensure a hiding place for the helicopter which is the only thing that could explain black sooty smoke coming from an office building filled with office supplies, and the people working on that floor didn't notice the barrels and barrels of oil and went about their daily routine, and nobody working security or janitorial in the building noticed black-suited men rolling barrels of crude oil on the elevators, all to hide the black helicopter because we all know what black helicopters do. Seriously!
If a large, thin-skinned aircraft impacts the side of a thick concrete building at 400mph, and only small pieces of the aircraft are found outside on the lawn, then it's obvious the pieces were planted there, and a plane didn't crash at all.
The shape of the Pentagon and the approach path of the aircraft are Illuminati symbols. 'Nuff said.
Although the 1993 WTC bombing was obviously the work of terrorists, the idea that the 2001 attacks were perpetrated by terrorists is ludicrous.
Because the shape of the impact holes in the WTC towers and the Pentagon don't match what I think the shape of the planes should be, then it must have been some other type of craft that did the damage, in spite of all of the eyewitness reports and physical evidence to the contrary. Which means that, since the alleged hijacked aircraft are, indeed, missing, and the passengers on said aircraft are, indeed, missing, then the government must have landed those passenger jets in secret somewhere, removed the people, killed them, dismembered them, sprinkled their remains around the crash sites somehow, and destroyed/hid the aircraft somewhere else. Masterful. Much more convincing than just actually crashing the planes into the buildings in the first place.
The same nefarious conspirators that pulled off the single largest concerted suicide attack in history forgot to make a hole in the Pentagon to help fake the airliner impact site.
The images and other references of the WTC on pre-9-11 terrorism reports and books reveals a casual, open foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks, and in no way could possibly ever ever refer to the largest pre-9-11 foreign terrorist attack on U.S. soil, the 1993 WTC parking garage bombing.
Of course, if the shadow government could pull off the 9-11 attacks, then plotting the 1993 WTC attack would have been child's play.
Incompetence, being unprepared, not foreseeing events, rushed decisions, finger pointing, blame trading, and hysteria equal "conspiracy."
More information only muddles "the truth:" The most accurate and complete reports of any disaster are from selections of the first hurried reports, not from more complete, thoughtful analysis and more thorough eyewitness reports that come later.
Of all the types of aircraft described by witnesses at the WTC and Pentagon, we should choose to believe only the ones that fit our theories, not the ones that describe actual planes that are missing that contained actual passengers who are missing and whose body parts and DNA were found at the crash sites and whose planes were tracked to impact.
When some eyewitnesses at the WTC describe a really big noise as an "explosion," we should believe them, and not our own eyes that saw floors pancaking on each other, ejecting debris out the windows. And we should believe their assessment of the "explosions" because, you know, of their experience discriminating between the sounds of some of the tallest skyscrapers in the world collapsing and explosions 80 stories up.
When we hear witnesses describing "something like a bomb going off" in the Pentagon, we should ignore subsequent (and concurrent) eyewitness reports of a rather large passenger jet flying into exactly the same spot, and ignored reports and photos of engines, landing gear, other aircraft parts, aircraft passengers, and other debris being found on and in the site, and absolutely no evidence of any explosive.
When pointing out how a B-25 flew into the Empire State Building in 1945, but the building easily survived and didn't collapse, we should disregard how much smaller the B-25 is than a 767, the amount of fuel that each contains, and that the ESB was constructed largely of concrete (like, say, the Pentagon).
Any videos of the crashes that surface more than a day or two after the event are obviously computer-generated fakes, because the time it took to create the fake videos explains why they weren't immediately released. Because everyone knows that if someone takes home video of a disaster, they run straight to a media outlet to share it with the rest of the world.
The same government conspirators who plotted this complex event didn't prepare fake videos ahead of time. They waited until the events happened to prepare the computer-generated fakery, which delayed their release until a cloud of suspicion could fall on their authenticity.
No buildings in history ever fell because of fire until 9-11. And if the WTC towers were the first modern, steel structures to collapse by fire, it is not a testament to the intelligent engineering put into the design of skyscrapers in general, but only evidence that the WTC was brought down by other means. No, I don't mean by airplanes filled with thousands of pounds of fuel ramming into them, I mean by a bomb. Yes!
Steel supports must liquify at their melting point of 3000°F in order to weaken and fail, and everything that metalurgists and engineers have told us about heat of only about 700°Fweakening steel is false, and for thousands of years, metal workers like blacksmiths and armorers have just had it all wrong, because they only needed large blast furnaces, spigots, and molds to form horseshoes, swords, and plowshares from liquid metal, and they didn't need a hammer and anvil, as you see in Hollywood movies' special effects.
If a large plane crashes into a large skyscraper and starts a raging fire inside, then a woman later waves from the outside edge of a lower part of the huge jagged entry hole, then that's proof that the fire inside isn't actually all that hot.
Although a simple concrete barrier can sucker punch a dump truck to a dead stop and virtually atomize a fighter jet, we should expect the impact site of a passenger jet on the world's largest reinforced concrete building to be marked by a plane-shaped hole in the wall.
When actor Charlie Sheen says that the U.S. government was behind the attacks, and that "We're not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue," we should believe him because he is a "highly credible public figure" who is a star on the current hit comedy show "Two and a Half Men." And his stammering, "The more you look at stuff, especially specific incidents, specific events, in or around the fateful day, it just-- it just raises a lot of questions" makes you realize just how articulate he is, and how Tom "You don't know...psychiatry--I do" Cruise could take debating pointers from him.
Most of the WTC towers' exterior was glass; most of the Pentagon's exterior was thick concrete. Naturally, we should expect them to be affected by aircraft impacts the same way.
If there is disagreement on the approach angle and bank of the plane hitting the Pentagon in an official report and from online bloggers, then we can safely assume that the plane, in fact, did not exist.
When pointing out how the FAA rule allowing pilots to fly armed was rescinded two months before 9-11, we should ignore the fact that at the time, no pilots were taking advantage of the rule, and we should not jump to the conclusion that the repeal is any different than businesses or schools banning employees from carrying firearms.
It doesn't make sense that remains of the hijackers and passengers, who hit the sides of mostly open-spaced office buildings at hundreds of miles an hour and ejected out the other side, were some of the first remains discovered, and not under thousands of tons of rubble straight down. The body parts must have been planted on streets, on the roofs of buildings, and through broken windows by burglars. Or something.
If people aren't listening to my theories, then maybe shouting them in eye-searing hot pink will do the trick.
Disagreement between government reports and eyewitness accounts do not mean that the individuals witnessed the same event; they only mean that the accounts that don't agree with my paranoid point of view are lies as part of the government cover-up, are mass hallucinations, or, just to be thorough, both.
Since verbose, difficult-to-read scientific reports contradict my claims of conspiracy, I'll use a different approach: Nothing says "Science" like lots of photos, drawings, and short captions in a PowerPoint or Flash animation backed by spooky "conspiracy music."
If video is poor quality, or with low frame rates (like with a surveillance film), it must be fake.

The WTC towers fell straight down (more or less), which proves that it was a controlled demolition. If it were a true building falling down, it would have fallen over like a popsicle stick.
Although video clearly shows smoke and debris being blown out the pancaking WTC upper floors as the floors collapse against each other, but video of planned, controlled building demolitions clearly shows bright flashes of explosions before the building begins collapsing, the explosives planted in the towers must be some new super-secret kind because the explosive effect obviously goes back in time and starts the collapse of the building before the explosions throw stuff out the windows. So now there's the whole "Government Stuff Can Travel Through Time" conspiracy, and don't get me started.
George W. Bush is at once America's most deviously intelligent autocrat and its most stupidest president ever.
When an eyewitness describes a loud sound or strong, sudden vibration as "like a bomb," it means unequivocally that it was a bomb, because, you know, people have so much experience identifying bomb noises versus nearby passenger jet crashes.
If I am on the faculty of a university, and I use the university's good name and my position in the university as a crutch to substantiate my claims of a 9-11 mega-conspiracy, expecting my learned colleagues to believe and support me, I will get a harsh dose of reality when I am slapped down to administrative leave as my continued employment at said university is reconsidered.
99.9% of the worlds top engineers, architects, physicists, and chemists are all wrong, and I am right, because I read the Intarweb and I am so smart.
If I repeat the same absurd claims enough times, they will become truth: There are over 6.5 billion people in the world, and about 1.1 billion of those people use the Internet.
Chances are, I could claim anything on the Web, and at a million-to-one odds, over a thousand people would believe me. In the age of the Internet, that makes me an expert.
I can't be wrong because thousands of people believe my theories. But you can be wrong even though hundreds of millions believe you, because we all know there are millions of stupid people in the world.
Any information that comes from the government is suspect, because everybody knows that "the government" is one vast conspiracy utterly controlled by a small number of evil-doers, not made up of millions of honest, hard-working people, at all levels of bureaucracy, of all ages, of all parties, of all walks of life, each fighting in their own way for truth, justice, and the American way.
The jets that crashed were not piloted by hijackers, but by "advanced robotics and remote-control technology." So the video footage of "men of middle-eastern descent" boarding each of the aircraft was falsified, the cockpit voice recordings were falsified, the ground service crew, mechanics, and flight crew of the four aircraft didn't notice any of the advancedroboticsandremotecontroltechnology while prepping the aircraft, body parts of known terrorists were planted at the crash sites, the live phone conversations between crew, passengers, and their loved ones on the ground were implanted memories and falsified recordings, and the Flight 93 passengers actually wrestled with some hidden robotic equipment, not terrorists.
"The 9/11 hijacking attacks were very likely facilitated by a rogue group within the US government that created an Islamic terrorist 'Pearl Harbor' event as a catalyst for the military invasion of Middle Eastern countries." You know, because that strategy has worked so well in the past. And no it is not shameful to mention "conspiracy" and "Pearl Harbor" in the same breath.
The government has a track record of blowing up its own buildings to push its own nefarious agenda, like they did in the Oklahoma City bombing and the 1993 WTC attack, because, you know, those attacks enabled the government to, you know,... do stuff, and stuff. So you can see this isn't a new idea for them.
If I cave in to the majority and concede that the planes did, in fact, exist, then quibbling about the degrees of bank or impact angles or other meaningless trifles will somehow vindicate me.
If other conspiracy theorists make claims that are later widely disbelieved even in the conspiracy theory community, then it's not that fellow conspiracy theorists are wrong, it's that it was sinister counter-intelligence trying to undermine the "9/11 truth movement" with claims so absurd that it compromises the efficacy of the whole. Seriously.
Confusion of timelines and action reports at the time of the largest modern enemy attack on the United States were intentionally deceptive, and not the result of actual confusion, inconsistent memories, or finger pointing that usually accompany failures of intelligence.
The 9-11 attacks and the related misinformation/propaganda campaign were designed by the government to precipitate the lingering war in Iraq, so that we could get thousands of our men and women killed and thousands of Iraqi civilians killed to make the U.S. more popular and make the current administration more popular, which has worked like a charm.
The Pentagon fire owed much of its smoke to an emergency generator near the crash site that was remotely detonated, it's suspicious that an emergency generator would have a large extra fuel tank next to it, and the WTC was only made of steel and concrete, with little to no combustible materials inside like carpet, desks, electronics and electrical cables, cubicle walls, file cabinet contents, storage rooms, and pens.
When an "earwitness" to the Flight 93 crash claims she didn't hear a crash, but instead heard "an explosion, like an atomic bomb," we should believe her, because of her experience discriminating between the sounds of large passenger jets hitting the ground at high speed and the detonation of atomic weapons.
Cory Lidle's plane crash into an apartment building proves that the WTC should have survived a similar attack. Because although both planes were vastly different in size, mass, fuel load, and speed, and although the buildings were vastly different in structure, they both happened in New York City.
It's somehow productive to pontificate ad nauseum about whether there was a napalm bomb, or a missile, or a pod, or a whatever, attached under a passenger jet, since we all know how much more explosive power would be added by attaching something like that to a civilian jet already full of thousands of pounds of fuel.
It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that any web pages that poke fun at conspiracy theories are a part of the conspiracy itself. Surely no right-thinking person could doubt and preach against the conspiracies by their own free will.
If I e-mail the author of a web site that pokes fun at my conspiracy theories, I will write masterfully persuasive arguments for several pages, taking an entire evening of my time, making the text flow juuust right, and when he gets the e-mail he will read it all and will naturally be persuaded to see the error of his ways. After seeing how much work I put into it, he wouldn't just delete it without reading past the first ranting line. He just wouldn't.
People will see what they want to see, and believe what they want to believe. Because rubbing someone's face in their own absurd beliefs only makes them close their eyes tighter, the claims in this list will continue to be believed by many. To all others: May our future rest in your capable hands.

[Galileo]

You dipfuck. Gravity doesn't stop acting on that falling debris once it hits.

Actually the 75 times figure is quite enough to collapse the entire building, even if, as you suggest, gravity magically stops accelerating the falling debris.

fipduck;

Galileo is perfectly aware about the force of gravity.

The force of 75 times the static force is not large enough to collapse the building. Oh, wow! 75 is a big number! It must be enough to collapse the building!!

When are you going to explain to me why your calculations are not in the NIST report?

[RandomGuy]

By the way, I am still waiting on why you were wrong about the rock.

What force caused the rock to move off to the side again?

I want you to repeat it so I can show this to a physics professor. They will get a giggle about it.

[Galileo]

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

What I Learned from
9-11 Conspiracy Theories.

The U.S. is actually quite popular worldwide; so much so, in fact, that its government must create artificial terrorist organizations to attack it. Left to their own devices, everybody else pretty much respects Americans and leaves them alone.
It takes the complacency or cooperation of the world's largest superpower to hijack a defenseless civilian aircraft.
If you believe what your government tells you about 9-11, you are part of the conspiracy or, at least, part of "the problem." But if you accuse people at all levels of the government, including the U.S. military, of planning and carrying out the largest terrorist attack on U.S. soil, killing thousands of civilians, then you are a patriot.
The large fireballs seen at the WTC impacts look like napalm explosions, so it was probably a napalm bomb that actually caused the damage. Of course, napalm being jellied fuel, and jet aircraft being full of fuel, you can see the vast difference there.
The WTC towers fell in what was obviously a controlled demolition. The largest, messiest, deadliest, most witnessed, most mismanaged, most ill-timed, most poorly executed, and most uncontrolled controlled demolition in history.
Even though our civilian airliner pilots had been trained to cooperate with hijackers and not try to physically resist, and even though short knives and box cutters were allowed in carry-on luggage, we shouldn't believe the absurd claim that four or five strong and very determined men armed with knives and a fanatic eagerness to die killing Americans could take over an unlocked cockpit.
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.
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.
Those plane crashes were like so totally fake cuz they were so totally unlike all the real fiery passenger jet crashes into buildings I've seen in real life.
When you refer to the planes, say "alleged aircraft." When referring to the terrorists, say "alleged terrorists." Because not only can we not be sure they even existed, but also, "alleged" has such a nice, objective ring to it.
The plane-shaped holes in the WTC towers were an absurdity, like a cat-shaped hole in a fence in a Tom and Jerry cartoon, because the planes would have either smashed to pieces against the building and fallen straight down to the street below, or flown right through the building (making a cartoon-like hole) and emerged out the other side relatively intact.
Cries of "Death to America!" and "America is the Great Satan!" by Islamic extremists are all part of our government's plan for world domination. Left to themselves, the so-called "extremists" are actually quite pleasant, simple folk (but very good actors).
The rigged explosives in the upper floors of WTC2 were powerful enough to collapse a skyscraper, but not powerful enough to instantly kill Kevin Cosgrove, on floor 105, who was talking on the phone with a fire dispatcher and managed to blurt out three words between the time of the "explosion" and the collapse that killed him.
The meandering directions of the hijacked aircrafts' flight paths were all part of well-planned routes, and not due to the terrorist pilots flying and navigating a large, real, multi-engine passenger jet for the first time.
Our service men and women chose not to shoot down the planes or protect the Pentagon and WTC because they were part of the conspiracy, and they're not speaking out because they've been bought off. Better still, NORAD actually sent the remote-controlled aircraft into their targets.
A black helicopter was hovering over the WTC South Tower before, during, and after the crashes, and the floor that was on fire the most must have had barrels and barrels of a crude oil-diesel mixture that was remotely ignited to ensure a hiding place for the helicopter which is the only thing that could explain black sooty smoke coming from an office building filled with office supplies, and the people working on that floor didn't notice the barrels and barrels of oil and went about their daily routine, and nobody working security or janitorial in the building noticed black-suited men rolling barrels of crude oil on the elevators, all to hide the black helicopter because we all know what black helicopters do. Seriously!
If a large, thin-skinned aircraft impacts the side of a thick concrete building at 400mph, and only small pieces of the aircraft are found outside on the lawn, then it's obvious the pieces were planted there, and a plane didn't crash at all.
The shape of the Pentagon and the approach path of the aircraft are Illuminati symbols. 'Nuff said.
Although the 1993 WTC bombing was obviously the work of terrorists, the idea that the 2001 attacks were perpetrated by terrorists is ludicrous.
Because the shape of the impact holes in the WTC towers and the Pentagon don't match what I think the shape of the planes should be, then it must have been some other type of craft that did the damage, in spite of all of the eyewitness reports and physical evidence to the contrary. Which means that, since the alleged hijacked aircraft are, indeed, missing, and the passengers on said aircraft are, indeed, missing, then the government must have landed those passenger jets in secret somewhere, removed the people, killed them, dismembered them, sprinkled their remains around the crash sites somehow, and destroyed/hid the aircraft somewhere else. Masterful. Much more convincing than just actually crashing the planes into the buildings in the first place.
The same nefarious conspirators that pulled off the single largest concerted suicide attack in history forgot to make a hole in the Pentagon to help fake the airliner impact site.
The images and other references of the WTC on pre-9-11 terrorism reports and books reveals a casual, open foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks, and in no way could possibly ever ever refer to the largest pre-9-11 foreign terrorist attack on U.S. soil, the 1993 WTC parking garage bombing.
Of course, if the shadow government could pull off the 9-11 attacks, then plotting the 1993 WTC attack would have been child's play.
Incompetence, being unprepared, not foreseeing events, rushed decisions, finger pointing, blame trading, and hysteria equal "conspiracy."
More information only muddles "the truth:" The most accurate and complete reports of any disaster are from selections of the first hurried reports, not from more complete, thoughtful analysis and more thorough eyewitness reports that come later.
Of all the types of aircraft described by witnesses at the WTC and Pentagon, we should choose to believe only the ones that fit our theories, not the ones that describe actual planes that are missing that contained actual passengers who are missing and whose body parts and DNA were found at the crash sites and whose planes were tracked to impact.
When some eyewitnesses at the WTC describe a really big noise as an "explosion," we should believe them, and not our own eyes that saw floors pancaking on each other, ejecting debris out the windows. And we should believe their assessment of the "explosions" because, you know, of their experience discriminating between the sounds of some of the tallest skyscrapers in the world collapsing and explosions 80 stories up.
When we hear witnesses describing "something like a bomb going off" in the Pentagon, we should ignore subsequent (and concurrent) eyewitness reports of a rather large passenger jet flying into exactly the same spot, and ignored reports and photos of engines, landing gear, other aircraft parts, aircraft passengers, and other debris being found on and in the site, and absolutely no evidence of any explosive.
When pointing out how a B-25 flew into the Empire State Building in 1945, but the building easily survived and didn't collapse, we should disregard how much smaller the B-25 is than a 767, the amount of fuel that each contains, and that the ESB was constructed largely of concrete (like, say, the Pentagon).
Any videos of the crashes that surface more than a day or two after the event are obviously computer-generated fakes, because the time it took to create the fake videos explains why they weren't immediately released. Because everyone knows that if someone takes home video of a disaster, they run straight to a media outlet to share it with the rest of the world.
The same government conspirators who plotted this complex event didn't prepare fake videos ahead of time. They waited until the events happened to prepare the computer-generated fakery, which delayed their release until a cloud of suspicion could fall on their authenticity.
No buildings in history ever fell because of fire until 9-11. And if the WTC towers were the first modern, steel structures to collapse by fire, it is not a testament to the intelligent engineering put into the design of skyscrapers in general, but only evidence that the WTC was brought down by other means. No, I don't mean by airplanes filled with thousands of pounds of fuel ramming into them, I mean by a bomb. Yes!
Steel supports must liquify at their melting point of 3000°F in order to weaken and fail, and everything that metalurgists and engineers have told us about heat of only about 700°Fweakening steel is false, and for thousands of years, metal workers like blacksmiths and armorers have just had it all wrong, because they only needed large blast furnaces, spigots, and molds to form horseshoes, swords, and plowshares from liquid metal, and they didn't need a hammer and anvil, as you see in Hollywood movies' special effects.
If a large plane crashes into a large skyscraper and starts a raging fire inside, then a woman later waves from the outside edge of a lower part of the huge jagged entry hole, then that's proof that the fire inside isn't actually all that hot.
Although a simple concrete barrier can sucker punch a dump truck to a dead stop and virtually atomize a fighter jet, we should expect the impact site of a passenger jet on the world's largest reinforced concrete building to be marked by a plane-shaped hole in the wall.
When actor Charlie Sheen says that the U.S. government was behind the attacks, and that "We're not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue," we should believe him because he is a "highly credible public figure" who is a star on the current hit comedy show "Two and a Half Men." And his stammering, "The more you look at stuff, especially specific incidents, specific events, in or around the fateful day, it just-- it just raises a lot of questions" makes you realize just how articulate he is, and how Tom "You don't know...psychiatry--I do" Cruise could take debating pointers from him.
Most of the WTC towers' exterior was glass; most of the Pentagon's exterior was thick concrete. Naturally, we should expect them to be affected by aircraft impacts the same way.
If there is disagreement on the approach angle and bank of the plane hitting the Pentagon in an official report and from online bloggers, then we can safely assume that the plane, in fact, did not exist.
When pointing out how the FAA rule allowing pilots to fly armed was rescinded two months before 9-11, we should ignore the fact that at the time, no pilots were taking advantage of the rule, and we should not jump to the conclusion that the repeal is any different than businesses or schools banning employees from carrying firearms.
It doesn't make sense that remains of the hijackers and passengers, who hit the sides of mostly open-spaced office buildings at hundreds of miles an hour and ejected out the other side, were some of the first remains discovered, and not under thousands of tons of rubble straight down. The body parts must have been planted on streets, on the roofs of buildings, and through broken windows by burglars. Or something.
If people aren't listening to my theories, then maybe shouting them in eye-searing hot pink will do the trick.
Disagreement between government reports and eyewitness accounts do not mean that the individuals witnessed the same event; they only mean that the accounts that don't agree with my paranoid point of view are lies as part of the government cover-up, are mass hallucinations, or, just to be thorough, both.
Since verbose, difficult-to-read scientific reports contradict my claims of conspiracy, I'll use a different approach: Nothing says "Science" like lots of photos, drawings, and short captions in a PowerPoint or Flash animation backed by spooky "conspiracy music."
If video is poor quality, or with low frame rates (like with a surveillance film), it must be fake.

The WTC towers fell straight down (more or less), which proves that it was a controlled demolition. If it were a true building falling down, it would have fallen over like a popsicle stick.
Although video clearly shows smoke and debris being blown out the pancaking WTC upper floors as the floors collapse against each other, but video of planned, controlled building demolitions clearly shows bright flashes of explosions before the building begins collapsing, the explosives planted in the towers must be some new super-secret kind because the explosive effect obviously goes back in time and starts the collapse of the building before the explosions throw stuff out the windows. So now there's the whole "Government Stuff Can Travel Through Time" conspiracy, and don't get me started.
George W. Bush is at once America's most deviously intelligent autocrat and its most stupidest president ever.
When an eyewitness describes a loud sound or strong, sudden vibration as "like a bomb," it means unequivocally that it was a bomb, because, you know, people have so much experience identifying bomb noises versus nearby passenger jet crashes.
If I am on the faculty of a university, and I use the university's good name and my position in the university as a crutch to substantiate my claims of a 9-11 mega-conspiracy, expecting my learned colleagues to believe and support me, I will get a harsh dose of reality when I am slapped down to administrative leave as my continued employment at said university is reconsidered.
99.9% of the worlds top engineers, architects, physicists, and chemists are all wrong, and I am right, because I read the Intarweb and I am so smart.
If I repeat the same absurd claims enough times, they will become truth: There are over 6.5 billion people in the world, and about 1.1 billion of those people use the Internet.
Chances are, I could claim anything on the Web, and at a million-to-one odds, over a thousand people would believe me. In the age of the Internet, that makes me an expert.
I can't be wrong because thousands of people believe my theories. But you can be wrong even though hundreds of millions believe you, because we all know there are millions of stupid people in the world.
Any information that comes from the government is suspect, because everybody knows that "the government" is one vast conspiracy utterly controlled by a small number of evil-doers, not made up of millions of honest, hard-working people, at all levels of bureaucracy, of all ages, of all parties, of all walks of life, each fighting in their own way for truth, justice, and the American way.
The jets that crashed were not piloted by hijackers, but by "advanced robotics and remote-control technology." So the video footage of "men of middle-eastern descent" boarding each of the aircraft was falsified, the cockpit voice recordings were falsified, the ground service crew, mechanics, and flight crew of the four aircraft didn't notice any of the advancedroboticsandremotecontroltechnology while prepping the aircraft, body parts of known terrorists were planted at the crash sites, the live phone conversations between crew, passengers, and their loved ones on the ground were implanted memories and falsified recordings, and the Flight 93 passengers actually wrestled with some hidden robotic equipment, not terrorists.
"The 9/11 hijacking attacks were very likely facilitated by a rogue group within the US government that created an Islamic terrorist 'Pearl Harbor' event as a catalyst for the military invasion of Middle Eastern countries." You know, because that strategy has worked so well in the past. And no it is not shameful to mention "conspiracy" and "Pearl Harbor" in the same breath.
The government has a track record of blowing up its own buildings to push its own nefarious agenda, like they did in the Oklahoma City bombing and the 1993 WTC attack, because, you know, those attacks enabled the government to, you know,... do stuff, and stuff. So you can see this isn't a new idea for them.
If I cave in to the majority and concede that the planes did, in fact, exist, then quibbling about the degrees of bank or impact angles or other meaningless trifles will somehow vindicate me.
If other conspiracy theorists make claims that are later widely disbelieved even in the conspiracy theory community, then it's not that fellow conspiracy theorists are wrong, it's that it was sinister counter-intelligence trying to undermine the "9/11 truth movement" with claims so absurd that it compromises the efficacy of the whole. Seriously.
Confusion of timelines and action reports at the time of the largest modern enemy attack on the United States were intentionally deceptive, and not the result of actual confusion, inconsistent memories, or finger pointing that usually accompany failures of intelligence.
The 9-11 attacks and the related misinformation/propaganda campaign were designed by the government to precipitate the lingering war in Iraq, so that we could get thousands of our men and women killed and thousands of Iraqi civilians killed to make the U.S. more popular and make the current administration more popular, which has worked like a charm.
The Pentagon fire owed much of its smoke to an emergency generator near the crash site that was remotely detonated, it's suspicious that an emergency generator would have a large extra fuel tank next to it, and the WTC was only made of steel and concrete, with little to no combustible materials inside like carpet, desks, electronics and electrical cables, cubicle walls, file cabinet contents, storage rooms, and pens.
When an "earwitness" to the Flight 93 crash claims she didn't hear a crash, but instead heard "an explosion, like an atomic bomb," we should believe her, because of her experience discriminating between the sounds of large passenger jets hitting the ground at high speed and the detonation of atomic weapons.
Cory Lidle's plane crash into an apartment building proves that the WTC should have survived a similar attack. Because although both planes were vastly different in size, mass, fuel load, and speed, and although the buildings were vastly different in structure, they both happened in New York City.
It's somehow productive to pontificate ad nauseum about whether there was a napalm bomb, or a missile, or a pod, or a whatever, attached under a passenger jet, since we all know how much more explosive power would be added by attaching something like that to a civilian jet already full of thousands of pounds of fuel.
It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that any web pages that poke fun at conspiracy theories are a part of the conspiracy itself. Surely no right-thinking person could doubt and preach against the conspiracies by their own free will.
If I e-mail the author of a web site that pokes fun at my conspiracy theories, I will write masterfully persuasive arguments for several pages, taking an entire evening of my time, making the text flow juuust right, and when he gets the e-mail he will read it all and will naturally be persuaded to see the error of his ways. After seeing how much work I put into it, he wouldn't just delete it without reading past the first ranting line. He just wouldn't.
People will see what they want to see, and believe what they want to believe. Because rubbing someone's face in their own absurd beliefs only makes them close their eyes tighter, the claims in this list will continue to be believed by many. To all others: May our future rest in your capable hands.

Thank you for sharing your weird conspiracy theories with us.

When are you going to explain how the damage outlined in the NIST report caused WTC 7 to fall?

[RandomGuy]

your math is BS and not accepted by NIST scientists. Again, you quote from a statement written by Bush political appointees, not written by NIST scientists.

This is a common technique used by governments to manipulate science, having summaries written by politicians after scientists write a report. Political appointees also frequently re-write any summaries actually written by scientists in the reports themselves. The Bush administration does it with reports on secondhand smoke and global warming as well.


If it is false, then do the math to tell me why it is wrong.

I have provided the math and you have made a counter claim.

The burden of proof is on you now.

Show proof as to why the math is wrong.

[Galileo]

By the way, I am still waiting on why you were wrong about the rock.

What force caused the rock to move off to the side again?

I want you to repeat it so I can show this to a physics professor. They will get a giggle about it.

Newton's third law of motion explains it.

[Galileo]

your math is BS and not accepted by NIST scientists. Again, you quote from a statement written by Bush political appointees, not written by NIST scientists.

This is a common technique used by governments to manipulate science, having summaries written by politicians after scientists write a report. Political appointees also frequently re-write any summaries actually written by scientists in the reports themselves. The Bush administration does it with reports on secondhand smoke and global warming as well.

need a Scooby Snack?

:corn:

[RandomGuy]

Thank you for sharing your weird conspiracy theories with us.

When are you going to explain how the damage outlined in the NIST report caused WTC 7 to fall?

Nope. Don't care.

[RandomGuy]

need a Scooby Snack?

:corn:



No. I need you to explain why my math is wrong.

I am STILL waiting.

[RandomGuy]

Newton's third law of motion explains it.

I don't want Newton's third law of motion to explain it, I want you to.

What is the force that causes the rock to move off to the side?

Surely if it is so simple you can easily explain it to me.

[Wild Cobra]

dude, there were shitloads of explosives going off long before any tower collapsed. the plane crashes no doubt did cause some to go off early.

What's your point?
Explosives do not just go off by impact or fire.

What's your point?

Ever play with C4? Makes a great sterno replacement.

Commercial explosives are very stable. If explosives were the cause, it would be home made mixes that terrorists would use, yet no evidence is found of explosives. Commercial or otherwise.

[Wild Cobra]

Barry Jennings also reported dead bodies in the WTC 7 lobby. These people would have died from the morning explosions in WTC 7, not its collapse later.

These people would have died from WTC 1 debris falling into the lobby, and resulting fires!

[Galileo]

These people would have died from WTC 1 debris falling into the lobby, and resulting fires!

Sorry, there were no fires in the lobby. Go back and read the NIST report.

Nor were the exterior windows of the lobby broken.

Do you debunkers just make stuff up?

[Wild Cobra]

your math is BS and not accepted by NIST scientists. Again, you quote from a statement written by Bush political appointees, not written by NIST scientists.

Math formulas are exacting. This is simple algebra. The answers have no dispute.

I get it now. You are a product of a complete liberal school environemnt. You get an "A" for trying.

Well guess what. In the real worls, 2+2 DOES NOT EQUAL 5! No matter how much you try to make it so!

[Galileo]

Explosives do not just go off by impact or fire.

What's your point?

Ever play with C4? Makes a great sterno replacement.

Commercial explosives are very stable. If explosives were the cause, it would be home made mixes that terrorists would use, yet no evidence is found of explosives. Commercial or otherwise.

Do you talk in circles?

You said the planes should have set off the explosives.

Getting senile?

How do you know they were commercial explosives?

[Galileo]

Math formulas are exacting. This is simple algebra. The answers have no dispute.

I get it now. You are a product of a complete liberal school environemnt. You get an "A" for trying.

Well guess what. In the real worls, 2+2 DOES NOT EQUAL 5! No matter how much you try to make it so!

Sorry, I have a degree in mathematics, which has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative.

And I am a former officer of the Libertarian Party, not a liberal.

Sorry again.

You are a pinhead.

[Wild Cobra]

And WTC 7 actually took 8.2 seconds (not 6.6).
Thank-You.

Didn't I say someplace 8 or 9 seconds?

When you lok at all the video's available, this can be seen.

Galileo, have a stopwatch by chance?