William Rodriguez Vindicated by Newly Released 9/11 Commission Notes

[Re-Animator]

so you are saying Bush knew about all of this?

why did he want WTC 7 to come down?

Bush didn't want anything to come down, he just wanted an excuse to go to Iraq and he got it. I don't even think Bush and the others thought so many people would die. They figured they would all evacuate in time.

It was a good idea at the time and it went wrong. The only reason people like Galileo and myself want the truth is because the Bush administration tried to cover things up, they ed up hiding , WTF there where over 80 cameras at the Pentagon and we get 5 still frames?

All that guilty behavior made them look su ious, You all should be wanting to know the question you ask for your own personal reasons. Don't make us do all your dirty work.

[Blake]

Its pretty sad that you guys are resorting to this . Make an argument other than its true because these guys said so.

so it's not true because YOU say so?

who are you again?

Oh that's right.......you referred to yourself as "ME" and you know more than 'basic' science..........which must trump the NIST idiots in your world.

Do you know what the NIST is or who runs it or who wrote the report or what analysis they used to come to the conclusions they didor are you just accepting it becasue youre too intellectually lazy to verify it yourself?

the NIST reports are sound enough for me, but if you have ideas or evidence of what really happened that can disprove the NIST's findings, please feel free to elaborate on your "thought exercise".

You know in all the videos all that smoke and coming out of the buildings? Well that is a whole ton of heat escaping. You do understand that the whole damn thing heats up so its not the fire that has to reach 1000 degrees but instead all of the steel and concrete etc and I am sorry but I just do not buy that.

I also do not buy that when the damage to the supports etc occurred more on one side yet the whole thing breaks apart simultaneously.

If it was controlled demolitions, then where is the physical evidence, who was behind it and why? Why did they also want WTC 7 to come down?

Thought Exercise.

[Blake]

Bush didn't want anything to come down, he just wanted an excuse to go to Iraq and he got it.

so he didn't think a couple of planes would take down some buildings?

and if he didn't want anything to come down, then why was there a controlled demolition according to the truth gang?

I don't even think Bush and the others thought so many people would die. They figured they would all evacuate in time.

right, because logically, death is never involved in plane crashes.

It was a good idea at the time and it went wrong.

what exactly was a "good idea"?

The only reason people like Galileo and myself want the truth is because the Bush administration tried to cover things up, they ed up hiding , WTF there where over 80 cameras at the Pentagon and we get 5 still frames?

What exactly has Bush covered up?

All that guilty behavior made them look su ious, You all should be wanting to know the question you ask for your own personal reasons. Don't make us do all your dirty work.

what guilty behavior? what question?

You twoofers are the ones that keep starting these threads and claim conspiracy but instead of showing hard proof, you want someone like me to disprove your conspiracies.

Stop making me do all your dirty work.

[Wild Cobra]

WTC 7 didn't have structural damage.

It had all kinds of damage. What ever you're smoking, I'd sure like some so I can forget the current government we have.

[ChumpDumper]

It had all kinds of damage. What ever you're smoking, I'd sure like some so I can forget the current government we have.

Talk to this guy:

[Wild Cobra]

WTC 7 didn't have structural damage.

Think of the force it takes to throw debris from WTC 1 as far as it went, to the other side of Bldg 7:



Look at the proximity of the buildings and note the named items:



Now look at this picture taken before Bldg 7 fell:



There is no clear picture I've seen, but NIST forensic reports have WTC 7 taking major structural damage to the front from WTC 1. There is a good view of damage to the front side from the 18th floor down. Extensive damage cannot be ruled out to the front:

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Absolutely not.

If you put a hand under a falling ball that has back spin, it stops spinning. That's why your analogy is stupid.

You claimed that gravity stopped any torque I just gave you a simple example of how that was false. I never claimed a similarity between the behavior of the building and a ball.

I anything the behavior would be similar to dropping a plate like a free weight when you do that and it hits one edge that edge recoils and you get a clattering effect. If you were to drop said plate onto a comprssible column of equal diameter the only way that you could get its to compress stright down would be to drop it neraly perfectly horizontal. If you were to spin it or drop it at an angle it would compress one side first and then slide off.

You personally know everything in each building, its burning point and how much heat it could transfer? Please show your work.

You don't need to. Really what you can do is determine that amount of concrete and steel that is in the building and using specific heat determine how much energy would be required to heat all of it to 1000 degrees.

Someones already done that leg work and if you really want I can post it here. It doesn't add up.

I know exactly who runs the NIST and who wrote the reports. It's quite easy to see.

and......

What have you personally done to verify or disprove their conclusions? Please be specific.

Thats immaterial. Quite frankly a lot of it is prima facia. Nice red herring though.

Again, twoofers have no sense of scale. There was still a ton of heat inside the building.

What is easier to heat up: your house or your car? I mean really since you want to talk about scale and how its important you should consider this question. I think if you think really hard you can figure out the significance.

You should look at the closeup videos of the collapse, but I know you won't.

I actually have and more than just that. What really concerns me is that there is no evidence of what I would expect from having one floor fail to fall and hit the next floor causing it to fail and so forth which would result in a stuttering acceleration. The motion is fluid.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Can we trade this guy to the dark side? he is not helping our cause.

You're right man it wasn't cool. I didn't appreciate having my intelligence insulted so I responded in kind. It was obviously the response he was hoping for, but sorry for that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

so it's not true because YOU say so?

who are you again?

Oh that's right.......you referred to yourself as "ME" and you know more than 'basic' science..........which must trump the NIST idiots in your world.

I didn't just say so. I went through and gave logical reaoning concerning the heat generated by fuel the nature of the collapse etc. Its pretty evident that you just want to get into a pissing contest.

Its actually cute the tiff that you are having over my use of the terms 'thought exercise' and 'science.' Hey you keep going with your bad self.

the NIST reports are sound enough for me, but if you have ideas or evidence of what really happened that can disprove the NIST's findings, please feel free to elaborate on your "thought exercise".

It actually contradicts a lot of what was in the FEMA report. It has internal contradictions concerning what fires were occuring at what times and at what intervals. Its models do not match with the actual data etc.

If it was controlled demolitions, then where is the physical evidence, who was behind it and why? Why did they also want WTC 7 to come down?

Thought Exercise.

Who cares of the why? and there is evidence of explosives in the FEMA report when they talk about the melting of the steel and the elements including sulfur that were found tehrein. It could not be accounted for by the contents of the building and certainly not in the amounts that it was found.

[ChumpDumper]

You claimed that gravity stopped any torque I just gave you a simple example of how that was false. I never claimed a similarity between the behavior of the building and a ball.

I claimed that no force that was causing the top of the building to tilt was stronger than the force of gravity. Are you seriously arguing that it was stronger than gravity?

I anything the behavior would be similar to dropping a plate like a free weight when you do that and it hits one edge that edge recoils and you get a clattering effect. If you were to drop said plate onto a comprssible column of equal diameter the only way that you could get its to compress stright down would be to drop it neraly perfectly horizontal. If you were to spin it or drop it at an angle it would compress one side first and then slide off.

So now you are saying the twin towers were solid objects. I disagree.

You don't need to. Really what you can do is determine that amount of concrete and steel that is in the building and using specific heat determine how much energy would be required to heat all of it to 1000 degrees.

Now you are saying the entire building would have to be heated to 1000 degrees. I disagree.

Someones already done that leg work and if you really want I can post it here. It doesn't add up.

Somebody has already been a dumbass here.

Thats immaterial. Quite frankly a lot of it is prima facia. Nice red herring though.

So you have personally done nothing to verify or disprove their conclusions. Lazy.

What is easier to heat up: your house or your car? I mean really since you want to talk about scale and how its important you should consider this question. I think if you think really hard you can figure out the significance

You analogies significantly suck.

I actually have and more than just that. What really concerns me is that there is no evidence of what I would expect from having one floor fail to fall and hit the next floor causing it to fail and so forth which would result in a stuttering acceleration. The motion is fluid.

So arguing from incredulity is your strategy. Fine.

[mouse]

so he didn't think a couple of planes would take down some buildings?

Like I really have to explain Bush to you?
He didn't care if any building fell or not. He just wanted America to be attacked like Pearl Harbor. Bush doesn't really look at all the details, your talking about a man who asked ORHA to come up with a plan to rebuild Iraq and gave them only 60 days notice.

and if he didn't want anything to come down, then why was there a controlled demolition according to the truth gang?

I said Bush didn't care either way what fell down and what didn't. The owner of the WTC towers was going to have to spend Billions removing the asbestos maybe he wanted them down why not ask Chump he is the man with all the answers.

right, because logically, death is never involved in plane crashes.

Bush knew people would die, I don't think he knew it would be around 3,000

what exactly was a "good idea"?

One word ........................




Vice president Cheney was an Ex CEO you do the math.

What exactly has Bush covered up?

Your really serious?

what guilty behavior? what question?

Not going alone to answer questions about 9/11 why did he have to go with ?

You twoofers are the ones that keep starting these threads and claim conspiracy but instead of showing hard proof, you want someone like me to disprove your conspiracies.

Seems like 90% of Americans feel they was lied to so we are not alone.

Stop making me do all your dirty work.

If you call wanting the truth dirty? then you can stay with your white lies.

[mouse]

You're right man it wasn't cool. I didn't appreciate having my intelligence insulted so I responded in kind. It was obviously the response he was hoping for, but sorry for that.

We need Fuzzy! He may have a short fuse but he makes it up with his passion and fresh info he brings to the topic! We need him to rid this site of the thick headed Bush lovers.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I claimed that no force that was causing the top of the building to tilt was stronger than the force of gravity. Are you seriously arguing that it was stronger than gravity?

/sigh the two forces do not work in opposition thats been my entire point. One moves horizontally and the other vertically. Whats obvious is that you do not have even a rudimentary knowledge of how to add vectors in more than one dimension.

So now you are saying the twin towers were solid objects. I disagree.

Nice strawman. I never said that it was a solid object. It called using a simpler model for the sake of discussion. Instead I would call it a layering of steel mesh. It still breaks and compresses or the tower would have never come down.

Now you are saying the entire building would have to be heated to 1000 degrees. I disagree.

With what? the 1000 degrees or the entire building? If your saying the entire building then I would agree with you. You would still need to determine the concrete and steel in the section of the building. If youre arguing the 1000 degrees then I do not knwo what to say considering thats what NIST contends. You don't even understand vectors so.....

Somebody has already been a dumbass here.

So you have personally done nothing to verify or disprove their conclusions. Lazy.

You analogies significantly suck.

Its amazing how much of your argument relies on ad himinem. Your the one that mentioned scale.

There was 'a lot of heat' in there you said. Well no , thanks. The issue of scale thats important though is that in larger spaces or '20 acres' as your so fond of saying requires more energy. In this sense, the bigger the scale, the more energy is required to raise the temperature.

Youre making the claim that we don't understand scale when its evident that your the one lacking in perspective.

So arguing from incredulity is your strategy. Fine.

No its called deduction. The NIST report for example reports the time it took for the WTC7 to collapse to be 5.5 seconds. I invite you to time the time it takes for building to collapse. There are plenty of videos out there and look at the time stamps and subtract them. Tell me what you come up with.

[Alex Jones]

FuzzyLumpkins is kicking ass tonight!

[The Power Hour.]

Think of the force it takes to throw debris from WTC 1 as far as it went, to the other side of Bldg 7:



Look at the proximity of the buildings and note the named items:



Now look at this picture taken before Bldg 7 fell:



There is no clear picture I've seen, but NIST forensic reports have WTC 7 taking major structural damage to the front from WTC 1. There is a good view of damage to the front side from the 18th floor down. Extensive damage cannot be ruled out to the front:

Debunked!

[The Power Hour.]

If wild Cobra had his way he would blame WTC7 on Godzilla.

[ChumpDumper]

/sigh the two forces do not work in opposition thats been my entire point. One moves horizontally and the other vertically. Whats obvious is that you do not have even a rudimentary knowledge of how to add vectors in more than one dimension.

So if a ball with backspin is pulled out of the air, it stops spinning and goes down. There you go.

Nice strawman. I never said that it was a solid object.

You tried to make an analogy with two solid objects.

It called using a simpler model for the sake of discussion. Instead I would call it a layering of steel mesh. It still breaks and compresses or the tower would have never come down.

Why don't you call them cardboard boxes so I can post the picture of your hero again.

With what? the 1000 degrees or the entire building? If your saying the entire building then I would agree with you.

You would still need to determine the concrete and steel in the section of the building.

So now you are agreeing with my disagreeing with you.

Its amazing how much of your argument relies on ad himinem. Your the one that mentioned scale.

Right, because you and your ilk simply cannot grasp how big these building actually were. You try to make them solid plates or cardboard boxes or basketballs and think you got it figured out.

There was 'a lot of heat' in there you said. Well no , thanks.

You're welcome.

The issue of scale thats important though is that in larger spaces or '20 acres' as your so fond of saying requires more energy. In this sense, the bigger the scale, the more energy is required to raise the temperature.

Yep, and there was enough to clearly deform the building before it collapsed.

Youre making the claim that we don't understand scale when its evident that your the one lacking in perspective.

Right, it's more like a basketball backspinning onto a weight plate. Perfect.

No its called deduction. The NIST report for example reports the time it took for the WTC7 to collapse to be 5.5 seconds. I invite you to time the time it takes for building to collapse. There are plenty of videos out there and look at the time stamps and subtract them. Tell me what you come up with.

Closer to 15 seconds from the actual beginning of the collapse that twoofers cut out of all their videos. Now you are cherry picking from edited YouTubes. Congratulations, you have destroyed your credibility.

[Laker Lanny]

Chump is standing firm and holding his ground!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So if a ball with backspin is pulled out of the air, it stops spinning and goes down. There you go.

Pulled by what? Youre talking about applying some unnamed amorphous external fantasy force. Its not only vectors you are clueless about its also on how to model phenomenon.

You tried to make an analogy with two solid objects.Why don't you call them cardboard boxes so I can post the picture of your hero again.

Youre the one that likes to talk about laziness. Dear lord youre bad. I woould ask you to explain why the model is ineffective but seeing how you lack the ability to interpret force vectors I know youre incapable of doing that.

If you hit a steel mesh on the side its going to tilt.

So now you are agreeing with my disagreeing with you.

It was still a strawman and the point still stands an office fire + jet fuel != 1000 degrees.

Right, because you and your ilk simply cannot grasp how big these building actually were. You try to make them solid plates or cardboard boxes or basketballs and think you got it figured out.

What you fail to understand is that unless the scale is approaching 90% of the speed of light or goes down about the size of a planck length that Newton's Laws apply. Scale doesn't mean .

This is a really nice spin though. You were talking scale in terms of the temperature becasue that was what you quoted and it proceeded right after you commenting on how much heat there was.

But you see thats whats funny. I do know how to work with force vectors and I do understand radiant and specific heats. You on the other hand seem to say, 'gee golly, that skyscraper sure is big, those guys at NIST must be right.'

Right, it's more like a basketball backspinning onto a weight plate. Perfect.

See its funny how you use this tactic to try and cover up how you really do not understand something. I never said that and its pretty sad how you do this.

Closer to 15 seconds from the actual beginning of the collapse that twoofers cut out of all their videos. Now you are cherry picking from edited YouTubes. Congratulations, you have destroyed your credibility.

Really provide some evidence showing that the videos that deomnstrate a but under 4 seconds were doctored. I made a cursory look found nothing. You claimed I was lazy if I couldn't back up what I said so lets see how much of a hypocrite you are.

[Stacie]

Fuzzy 9

Chump 9

this is tight!

[911]

[ChumpDumper]

Pulled by what?

Gra

vi

ty.

Youre talking about applying some unnamed amorphous external fantasy force. Its not only vectors you are clueless about its also on how to model phenomenon.

If you want to argue against the existence of gravity, that is completely your business. I insist it exists.

Youre the one that likes to talk about laziness. Dear lord youre bad. I woould ask you to explain why the model is ineffective but seeing how you lack the ability to interpret force vectors I know youre incapable of doing that.

The towers were not solid.

If you hit a steel mesh on the side its going to tilt.

And if it falls down at the same time?

It was still a strawman and the point still stands an office fire + jet fuel != 1000 degrees.

Why not. Which tests have you conducted to disprove this?

What you fail to understand is that unless the scale is approaching 90% of the speed of light or goes down about the size of a planck length that Newton's Laws apply. Scale doesn't mean .

Scale means nothing! It's a basketball falling on a weight plate!

This is a really nice spin though. You were talking scale in terms of the temperature becasue that was what you quoted and it proceeded right after you commenting on how much heat there was.

But you see thats whats funny. I do know how to work with force vectors and I do understand radiant and specific heats. You on the other hand seem to say, 'gee golly, that skyscraper sure is big, those guys at NIST must be right.'

So tell us all what was in each tower and their burning temperatures and their heat transfer to the building.

Show us all your work.

See its funny how you use this tactic to try and cover up how you really do not understand something. I never said that and its pretty sad how you do this.

Oh, I'm sorry. First you said it was a spinning basketball, then you said it was two solid weight plates. Let's just say it was a weight plate with backspin falling on another weight plate.

Really provide some evidence showing that the videos that deomnstrate a but under 4 seconds were doctored. I made a cursory look found nothing. You claimed I was lazy if I couldn't back up what I said so lets see how much of a hypocrite you are.

You can't find a video of the entire collapse?

You're an idiot.

Or lazy.

Or a liar.

[ChumpDumper]

As for the temperature argument, what is your evidence that office fires don't get that hot?

All one has to do is look at the temperatures recorded in simulated office fires for tests like the Building Research Establishment Test in the UK done three years before 9/11.

I'll let you see if you can find that one on your own. Good luck!

[Professor Lilloman]

What I don't get is why a so called "collapsed" building would have huge clouds of crystallized cement many blocks away. What would cause cement to turn to powder and cause millions of paper to shred into 1 inch pieces? Wouldn't a collapsed building have many floors with trapped office furniture?

[DarrinS]

What I don't get is why a so called "collapsed" building would have huge clouds of crystallized cement many blocks away. What would cause cement to turn to powder and cause millions of paper to shred into 1 inch pieces? Wouldn't a collapsed building have many floors with trapped office furniture?

Ah, the internet is full of armchair structural engineers, demolition experts, and forensic scientists.


What's really at the heart of the "twoof" movement is ignorance, plain and simple.


But what's really sad is that most of you are completely devoid of common sense.