Real 9-11 Research

[RandomGuy]

# 1

source?

# 2

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

I asked you two questions.

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

and

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

You did not answer either.

[Yonivore]

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

That's called cherry-picking.

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

Where is your evidence that they did?

[Yonivore]

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

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

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

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

[Galileo]

I asked you two questions.

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

and

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

You did not answer either.

# 1

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

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

# 2

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

[RandomGuy]

# 1

source?

# 2

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

Cheeky.

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

my ass.

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

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

Now answer the following question:

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

[Yonivore]

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

That doesn't answer the question. Who did it? Did President Bush, himself, go in to WTC 7 and rig the explosives?

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

[RandomGuy]

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

What I Learned from
9-11 Conspiracy Theories.

• Somehow orchestrating the hijacking of multiple airliners to have them crash at explosive-rigged sites was more effective than just setting off the explosives by themselves in the first place.

[Yonivore]

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

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

From the FAQ:

Where does 911blogger.com get its news?
About 90% of our news comes from submissions from users like you.

That's right Galileo, like YOU. 90%

[RandomGuy]

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

What I Learned from
9-11 Conspiracy Theories.

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

[Galileo]

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

I can see that it looks like a controlled demolition.

[Galileo]

That's called cherry-picking.

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

Where is your evidence that they did?

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

Press releases are not evidence and irrelevant to science.

[Galileo]

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

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

[Galileo]

what does this have to do with WTC 7?

WTC 7 was not hit by an aiplane.

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

[Galileo]

From the FAQ:


That's right Galileo, like YOU. 90%

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

What's your point, smarty pants?

[Yonivore]

I can see that it looks like a controlled demolition.

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

[Yonivore]

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

Press releases are not evidence and irrelevant to science.

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

[ChumpDumper]

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

Press releases are not evidence and irrelevant to science.

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

[Galileo]

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

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

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

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

from a recent NIST progress report:

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

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r...tc_062907.html

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

So NIST is contradicting itself.

[ChumpDumper]

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

What to you think really happened on 9/11?

[Extra Stout]

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

[Galileo]

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

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

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

[Extra Stout]

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

[Galileo]

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

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

www.ae911truth.org

[Extra Stout]

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

www.ae911truth.org

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

[Yonivore]

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

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

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

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

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

from a recent NIST progress report:

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

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r...tc_062907.html

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

So NIST is contradicting itself.

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

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

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

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

Nice play, Einstein.