lol. When BYU began a review of Jones's "evidence" on 9/11, after placing him on leave, Jones chose to retire in return for the review being dropped. Apparently he didn't care to actually have his paper peer reviewed. That doesn't bode well for his honesty, integrity, or findings.Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
fwiw - on Discovery Channel right now is 'Inside the Twin Towers'
It's a repeat, but an outstanding doucmentary on what happened that awful day. Not this crap a putz like event8 tries to throw out.
do they talk about the fema sample.
Appendix C of FEMA?s BPAT Report (attached to this email) documents steel samples showing
rapid oxidation, sulfidation, and intergranular melting.11 A liquid eutectic mixture, including
sulfur from an unknown source, caused intense corrosion of the steel, gaping holes in wide
flange beams, and the thinning of half-inch-thick flanges to almost razor-sharpness in the World
Trade Center 7 steel. The New York Times called this ?the deepest mystery uncovered in the
investigation.?.
Last year, physicist Steven Jones, two other physicists, and a geologist analyzed the slag at the ends of the beams and in the samples of the previously molten metal. They found iron,
aluminum, sulfur, manganese and fluorine ? the chemical evidence of thermate, a high-tech
incendiary cutting charge used by the military to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter. The by-product of the thermate reaction is molten iron! There?s no other possible source for all the molten iron that was found. One of thermate?s key ingredients is sulfur, which can form the liquid eutectic that FEMA found and lower the melting point of steel.
In addition, World Trade Center 7?s catastrophic structural failure showed every characteristic
Originally posted by: event8horizon
again refer to the bpat fema sample and how f'ed up that sample is. the only theory that i have seen presented is tlc's theory that a british born canadian came up with (frank greening). so i actually applaud tlc of understanding that this piece of metal isnt just scrap shit. its VERY important.
My comment is right on topic. You and other truthers consistenly demonstrate my claim above. You don't answer any questions. You merely try to raise doubt and cast suspicion but you never, ever provide any actual irrefutable evidence. Never. Maybe the complete and total lack of any real evidence doesn't deter you but any sane person feels otherwise. Continually pointing back to a piece of steel that has some odd properties doesn't prove your case because YOU can't prove why it's in that condition either. As others have other told you, you rely on pure conjecture, not evidence. Once again I ask you to bring some verifiable, realistic, solid evidence to this debate. Yet you fail to do so.Originally posted by: event8horizon
well, your getting off topic then the mods will prob lock this topic b/c we went off track. u can post it in the other 911 thread if u like and ill answer the best i can.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The problem is that truthers only ask questions, they don't answer them. They do everything in their power to stay away from a defensive posture because they know if they have to answer questions the weaknesses in their arguments, knowledge, and intelligence become highly evident. That's why event8horizon dodges and weaves when asked questions about his beliefs on 9/11. If he makes any solid claims he'll have to answer questions himself and he wants to avoid that at all cost.Originally posted by: alchemize
Please ask this question now of all truthersOriginally posted by: nick1985
you and your family die, sorry
"LIQUIFIED"Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: event8horizon
again refer to the bpat fema sample and how f'ed up that sample is. the only theory that i have seen presented is tlc's theory that a british born canadian came up with (frank greening). so i actually applaud tlc of understanding that this piece of metal isnt just scrap shit. its VERY important.
I don't mean to harp.
But do you know what is in steel? Have you taken basic college level chemistry? How is this piece important, what is the chemical significance of it? In your own words please.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
My comment is right on topic. You and other truthers consistenly demonstrate my claim above. You don't answer any questions. You merely try to raise doubt and cast suspicion but you never, ever provide any actual irrefutable evidence. Never. Maybe the complete and total lack of any real evidence doesn't deter you but any sane person feels otherwise. Continually pointing back to a piece of steel that has some odd properties doesn't prove your case because YOU can't prove why it's in that condition either. As others have other told you, you rely on pure conjecture, not evidence. Once again I ask you to bring some verifiable, realistic, solid evidence to this debate. Yet you fail to do so.Originally posted by: event8horizon
well, your getting off topic then the mods will prob lock this topic b/c we went off track. u can post it in the other 911 thread if u like and ill answer the best i can.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The problem is that truthers only ask questions, they don't answer them. They do everything in their power to stay away from a defensive posture because they know if they have to answer questions the weaknesses in their arguments, knowledge, and intelligence become highly evident. That's why event8horizon dodges and weaves when asked questions about his beliefs on 9/11. If he makes any solid claims he'll have to answer questions himself and he wants to avoid that at all cost.Originally posted by: alchemize
Please ask this question now of all truthersOriginally posted by: nick1985
you and your family die, sorry
I'm asking you yet again to bring some solid evidence of your claim (Whatever that claim is, because you refuse to clarify your position on the matter). Telling me about a piece of steel, one whose conditions could have been caused by any number of conditions, does not prove your case or even raise any real suspicion. Anomalies do not make your case. Bring in some hard evidence if you want to prove a point. If not you're just pissing in the wind. Why you can't fathom that fact is mind boggling.
Originally posted by: event8horizon
"LIQUIFIED"Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: event8horizon
again refer to the bpat fema sample and how f'ed up that sample is. the only theory that i have seen presented is tlc's theory that a british born canadian came up with (frank greening). so i actually applaud tlc of understanding that this piece of metal isnt just scrap shit. its VERY important.
I don't mean to harp.
But do you know what is in steel? Have you taken basic college level chemistry? How is this piece important, what is the chemical significance of it? In your own words please.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
lol. When BYU began a review of Jones's "evidence" on 9/11, after placing him on leave, Jones chose to retire in return for the review being dropped. Apparently he didn't care to actually have his paper peer reviewed. That doesn't bode well for his honesty, integrity, or findings.Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
fwiw - on Discovery Channel right now is 'Inside the Twin Towers'
It's a repeat, but an outstanding doucmentary on what happened that awful day. Not this crap a putz like event8 tries to throw out.
do they talk about the fema sample.
Appendix C of FEMA?s BPAT Report (attached to this email) documents steel samples showing
rapid oxidation, sulfidation, and intergranular melting.11 A liquid eutectic mixture, including
sulfur from an unknown source, caused intense corrosion of the steel, gaping holes in wide
flange beams, and the thinning of half-inch-thick flanges to almost razor-sharpness in the World
Trade Center 7 steel. The New York Times called this ?the deepest mystery uncovered in the
investigation.?.
Last year, physicist Steven Jones, two other physicists, and a geologist analyzed the slag at the ends of the beams and in the samples of the previously molten metal. They found iron,
aluminum, sulfur, manganese and fluorine ? the chemical evidence of thermate, a high-tech
incendiary cutting charge used by the military to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter. The by-product of the thermate reaction is molten iron! There?s no other possible source for all the molten iron that was found. One of thermate?s key ingredients is sulfur, which can form the liquid eutectic that FEMA found and lower the melting point of steel.
In addition, World Trade Center 7?s catastrophic structural failure showed every characteristic
That's not to mention that a number of demolition experts have stated that it would not be possible to use thermate to bring down the WTC. One glaring discrepancy is that thermate doesn't explode. So what about the people who claim there were "squibs?" Another is the amount of thermate required to rbing down a building like the WTC. But the truthers ignore all that because it doesn't fit their narrative.
Ignoring those issues won't make them go away. And using an ex-professor that was pushed out of his job for being a fricking lunatic doesn't make for a compelling appeal to authority either.
Why don't you answer that question? Again you resort to asking questions instead of answering them. I'm still waiting for some solid proof from you and you consistenly fail to provide anything of the sort.Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
My comment is right on topic. You and other truthers consistenly demonstrate my claim above. You don't answer any questions. You merely try to raise doubt and cast suspicion but you never, ever provide any actual irrefutable evidence. Never. Maybe the complete and total lack of any real evidence doesn't deter you but any sane person feels otherwise. Continually pointing back to a piece of steel that has some odd properties doesn't prove your case because YOU can't prove why it's in that condition either. As others have other told you, you rely on pure conjecture, not evidence. Once again I ask you to bring some verifiable, realistic, solid evidence to this debate. Yet you fail to do so.Originally posted by: event8horizon
well, your getting off topic then the mods will prob lock this topic b/c we went off track. u can post it in the other 911 thread if u like and ill answer the best i can.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The problem is that truthers only ask questions, they don't answer them. They do everything in their power to stay away from a defensive posture because they know if they have to answer questions the weaknesses in their arguments, knowledge, and intelligence become highly evident. That's why event8horizon dodges and weaves when asked questions about his beliefs on 9/11. If he makes any solid claims he'll have to answer questions himself and he wants to avoid that at all cost.Originally posted by: alchemize
Please ask this question now of all truthersOriginally posted by: nick1985
you and your family die, sorry
I'm asking you yet again to bring some solid evidence of your claim (Whatever that claim is, because you refuse to clarify your position on the matter). Telling me about a piece of steel, one whose conditions could have been caused by any number of conditions, does not prove your case or even raise any real suspicion. Anomalies do not make your case. Bring in some hard evidence if you want to prove a point. If not you're just pissing in the wind. Why you can't fathom that fact is mind boggling.
tell me tlc, what "any number of conditions" could have caused that piece of steel to exhibit such traits.
my point is, this is forensic evidence found at the crime scene. the nist did not incorporate this forensic evidence into their theory of why wtc 7 fell. fema had the sample....where is it now. if one is looking at the whole story, one is not going to throw away evidence so the next guys (nist) formulates a theory that does not incorporate that piece of steel. how many other pieces of steel might have looked like that that they threw into the furnace??
what are u asking??Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: event8horizon
"LIQUIFIED"Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: event8horizon
again refer to the bpat fema sample and how f'ed up that sample is. the only theory that i have seen presented is tlc's theory that a british born canadian came up with (frank greening). so i actually applaud tlc of understanding that this piece of metal isnt just scrap shit. its VERY important.
I don't mean to harp.
But do you know what is in steel? Have you taken basic college level chemistry? How is this piece important, what is the chemical significance of it? In your own words please.
OK, I'll bite. Though I promised myself not to respond.
Get you a crucible, play with some steel in said crucible and capture what elements/molecules they give off. You'll find the ingredients of steel. I won't tell you what they are.
C'mon dude, I'm not some expert in chemistry, only had like 4 semesters in college. But this kind of stuff is basic knowledge IMHO to even pretend to talk about the subject at hand.
Wait! You mean you haven't actually bothered to investigate how much thermate would be required to bring down the WTC? And you claim to be searching for the truth?Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
lol. When BYU began a review of Jones's "evidence" on 9/11, after placing him on leave, Jones chose to retire in return for the review being dropped. Apparently he didn't care to actually have his paper peer reviewed. That doesn't bode well for his honesty, integrity, or findings.Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
fwiw - on Discovery Channel right now is 'Inside the Twin Towers'
It's a repeat, but an outstanding doucmentary on what happened that awful day. Not this crap a putz like event8 tries to throw out.
do they talk about the fema sample.
Appendix C of FEMA?s BPAT Report (attached to this email) documents steel samples showing
rapid oxidation, sulfidation, and intergranular melting.11 A liquid eutectic mixture, including
sulfur from an unknown source, caused intense corrosion of the steel, gaping holes in wide
flange beams, and the thinning of half-inch-thick flanges to almost razor-sharpness in the World
Trade Center 7 steel. The New York Times called this ?the deepest mystery uncovered in the
investigation.?.
Last year, physicist Steven Jones, two other physicists, and a geologist analyzed the slag at the ends of the beams and in the samples of the previously molten metal. They found iron,
aluminum, sulfur, manganese and fluorine ? the chemical evidence of thermate, a high-tech
incendiary cutting charge used by the military to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter. The by-product of the thermate reaction is molten iron! There?s no other possible source for all the molten iron that was found. One of thermate?s key ingredients is sulfur, which can form the liquid eutectic that FEMA found and lower the melting point of steel.
In addition, World Trade Center 7?s catastrophic structural failure showed every characteristic
That's not to mention that a number of demolition experts have stated that it would not be possible to use thermate to bring down the WTC. One glaring discrepancy is that thermate doesn't explode. So what about the people who claim there were "squibs?" Another is the amount of thermate required to rbing down a building like the WTC. But the truthers ignore all that because it doesn't fit their narrative.
Ignoring those issues won't make them go away. And using an ex-professor that was pushed out of his job for being a fricking lunatic doesn't make for a compelling appeal to authority either.
thermate alone to bring down the wtc?? tell us how much thermate would be required to take the buildings down. got any government/israeli issued demotion
manuals in your pocket?? some of those guys caught up in the israeli spy ring were demoliton experts. i wonder what kind of stuff they were taught.
Prominent conspiracy theorist Steven Jones and others have suggested that thermate could have been inserted into a column, exploding the column without the loud boom of a demolition. Sunder said his team considered that theory. "In order for the thermate reaction to melt steel to take place, there has to be materials. If you look at the amount needed?at least 100 pounds for one column?you need someone to get that amount in the building, and place it, and for the reaction to take place. It is unlikely."
Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: Woofmeister
Bah arguing with the conspiracy theorists about this is a compete waste of time. The conspiracy mongers always zero in on small pieces of the puzzle but never stitch any thing together into a meaningful narrative. Something that is required in order to offer an alternative explanation for anything.
I challenge any 9-11 "truther" to answer the following question:
"The reason why it was necessary for the Republicans/Zionists/Mossad/Aliens/Haliburton Employees, etc. to knock down 7 World Trade Center after the World Trade Center Towers had already collapsed was because . . .
of coarse that is a hypothetical question but didnt a plane crash or get shot down??? maybe that was suppose to hit wtc7.
Originally posted by: event8horizon
i just think it is "good" that people are exposed to this other line of thought so they can make their own decisions.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Why don't you answer that question? Again you resort to asking questions instead of answering them. I'm still waiting for some solid proof from you and you consistenly fail to provide anything of the sort.Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
My comment is right on topic. You and other truthers consistenly demonstrate my claim above. You don't answer any questions. You merely try to raise doubt and cast suspicion but you never, ever provide any actual irrefutable evidence. Never. Maybe the complete and total lack of any real evidence doesn't deter you but any sane person feels otherwise. Continually pointing back to a piece of steel that has some odd properties doesn't prove your case because YOU can't prove why it's in that condition either. As others have other told you, you rely on pure conjecture, not evidence. Once again I ask you to bring some verifiable, realistic, solid evidence to this debate. Yet you fail to do so.Originally posted by: event8horizon
well, your getting off topic then the mods will prob lock this topic b/c we went off track. u can post it in the other 911 thread if u like and ill answer the best i can.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The problem is that truthers only ask questions, they don't answer them. They do everything in their power to stay away from a defensive posture because they know if they have to answer questions the weaknesses in their arguments, knowledge, and intelligence become highly evident. That's why event8horizon dodges and weaves when asked questions about his beliefs on 9/11. If he makes any solid claims he'll have to answer questions himself and he wants to avoid that at all cost.Originally posted by: alchemize
Please ask this question now of all truthersOriginally posted by: nick1985
you and your family die, sorry
I'm asking you yet again to bring some solid evidence of your claim (Whatever that claim is, because you refuse to clarify your position on the matter). Telling me about a piece of steel, one whose conditions could have been caused by any number of conditions, does not prove your case or even raise any real suspicion. Anomalies do not make your case. Bring in some hard evidence if you want to prove a point. If not you're just pissing in the wind. Why you can't fathom that fact is mind boggling.
tell me tlc, what "any number of conditions" could have caused that piece of steel to exhibit such traits.
my point is, this is forensic evidence found at the crime scene. the nist did not incorporate this forensic evidence into their theory of why wtc 7 fell. fema had the sample....where is it now. if one is looking at the whole story, one is not going to throw away evidence so the next guys (nist) formulates a theory that does not incorporate that piece of steel. how many other pieces of steel might have looked like that that they threw into the furnace??
I'll also remind you, again, that we've had this discussion already on the piece of steel that you continue to focus on with blindered precision, as if it proves anything that you might be claiming, and I've explained those other conditions in previous conversations. Also, once again, you resort to the the tactics I accused you of previously. Do you not realize what you are doing? Stop asking questions and provide some answers, for once.
And again you resort to appeals to authority, a very questionable authority at that, and don't provide anything in the way of evidence or proof. You're lame. I'm done with your regurgitating crap. You have nothing but paranoid suspicions and lame accusations, just like every other truther. It's as if you guys were all made from the same mold of stupid.Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Why don't you answer that question? Again you resort to asking questions instead of answering them. I'm still waiting for some solid proof from you and you consistenly fail to provide anything of the sort.Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
My comment is right on topic. You and other truthers consistenly demonstrate my claim above. You don't answer any questions. You merely try to raise doubt and cast suspicion but you never, ever provide any actual irrefutable evidence. Never. Maybe the complete and total lack of any real evidence doesn't deter you but any sane person feels otherwise. Continually pointing back to a piece of steel that has some odd properties doesn't prove your case because YOU can't prove why it's in that condition either. As others have other told you, you rely on pure conjecture, not evidence. Once again I ask you to bring some verifiable, realistic, solid evidence to this debate. Yet you fail to do so.Originally posted by: event8horizon
well, your getting off topic then the mods will prob lock this topic b/c we went off track. u can post it in the other 911 thread if u like and ill answer the best i can.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The problem is that truthers only ask questions, they don't answer them. They do everything in their power to stay away from a defensive posture because they know if they have to answer questions the weaknesses in their arguments, knowledge, and intelligence become highly evident. That's why event8horizon dodges and weaves when asked questions about his beliefs on 9/11. If he makes any solid claims he'll have to answer questions himself and he wants to avoid that at all cost.Originally posted by: alchemize
Please ask this question now of all truthersOriginally posted by: nick1985
you and your family die, sorry
I'm asking you yet again to bring some solid evidence of your claim (Whatever that claim is, because you refuse to clarify your position on the matter). Telling me about a piece of steel, one whose conditions could have been caused by any number of conditions, does not prove your case or even raise any real suspicion. Anomalies do not make your case. Bring in some hard evidence if you want to prove a point. If not you're just pissing in the wind. Why you can't fathom that fact is mind boggling.
tell me tlc, what "any number of conditions" could have caused that piece of steel to exhibit such traits.
my point is, this is forensic evidence found at the crime scene. the nist did not incorporate this forensic evidence into their theory of why wtc 7 fell. fema had the sample....where is it now. if one is looking at the whole story, one is not going to throw away evidence so the next guys (nist) formulates a theory that does not incorporate that piece of steel. how many other pieces of steel might have looked like that that they threw into the furnace??
I'll also remind you, again, that we've had this discussion already on the piece of steel that you continue to focus on with blindered precision, as if it proves anything that you might be claiming, and I've explained those other conditions in previous conversations. Also, once again, you resort to the the tactics I accused you of previously. Do you not realize what you are doing? Stop asking questions and provide some answers, for once.
the only conditions is what a british born canadian attempted to explain. my answer is this, there are multiple lines of evidence claimed by Architects and Engineers that point to controlled demolition. they might see other evidence as more story worthy but i see this piece of steel from the fema report of special interest. how many times has the bush admin lied. this is a matter of national security. even if the a&e are right, do u really think the "truth" as they see it will get out????
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: Woofmeister
Bah arguing with the conspiracy theorists about this is a compete waste of time. The conspiracy mongers always zero in on small pieces of the puzzle but never stitch any thing together into a meaningful narrative. Something that is required in order to offer an alternative explanation for anything.
I challenge any 9-11 "truther" to answer the following question:
"The reason why it was necessary for the Republicans/Zionists/Mossad/Aliens/Haliburton Employees, etc. to knock down 7 World Trade Center after the World Trade Center Towers had already collapsed was because . . .
of coarse that is a hypothetical question but didnt a plane crash or get shot down??? maybe that was suppose to hit wtc7.
Well, if it was, they were apparently lost. The plane wasn't on a heading toward NYC. I suppose this is just one more case of speculating about something without sufficient information.
btw, there was a lot of glass in the world trade center. Where'd it go? I mean, the glass used would have had a lower melting point than steel. If there was molten steel, then where was the molten glass? Heck, the last time we went camping, our fire ring was fashioned from an old semi-wheel. We threw our beer bottles in there and watched them melt. The fire ring is still there; the bottles are not. Not that I believe there was a stream of molten anything.
Originally posted by: event8horizon
i just think it is "good" that people are exposed to this other line of thought so they can make their own decisions.
Translation: you're hoping other people buy into this conspiracy theory crap.
Originally posted by: event8horizon
what are u asking??
Good points? Maybe they sound good on the face of them to people who don't bother to use a little bit of critical thinking. But to those that do they are not "good points." Beside that, you ask me to watch a movie on the collapse of the Twin Towers and then go on about WTC7?Originally posted by: event8horizon
tlc-
watch the movie and check out these points. i read your frank greening article. so maybe u can watch a movie. do u find it strange at all that fema found steel that had those characteristics???
http://video.google.com/videop...A&q=richard+gage&hl=en
heres some goog points to make concerning the controlled demolition of wtc 7
http://www.ae911truth.org/
What is that supposed to mean? Once a building begins collapsing it should happen in slow motion? Besides that, in controlled demolitions the building invariably collapse from the bottom up, not the top down as both the twin towers and WTC7 did. Or are you trying to tell me that they somehow rigged the demolition in the twin towers to begin the collapses precisely where the airplanes crashed into them, locations that were different for each tower?1. Rapid onset of ?collapse?
How do you know they were explosions? Do you not understand that as strucutural beams are buckling and breaking they are going to make noise? Does a building collapse and make no sound? Besides that, and as I've pointed out already, thermate does NOT explode. So by claiming there were explosions you completely invalidate your own theory that thermate was used in a demolition. Did you even stop to consider your own contrarian theories?2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse
The "nearly free-fall speed" has been debunked over and over again, yet the truthers still repeat it ad naseum. They somehow believe that using trite phrases like "path of greatest resistance" has any meaning. It doesn't. Once there is a strucutural load failure and a widespread weakened structure, as there was in WTC7, it's coming down.3. Symmetrical ?collapse? ? through the path of greatest resistance ? at nearly free-fall speed ? the columns gave no resistance
There's another of those trite, meaningless truther phrases. As you can see from the graphic on the following page that shows the debris field, neither of the twin towers collapsed into their own footprint. Not even close.4. ?Collapses? into its own footprint ? with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment
You mean there shouldn't have been a debris cloud when a huge building that's been burning crumbles to the ground?5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
"Tons" of molten metal? So what was that metal? Steel, iron, aluminum? Do you know the melting point of aluminum? Do you now how much aluminum was used in the twin towers? It covered the entire facade. Both buildings were burning. Of course there's going to be some molten metal as well as glowing metal.6. Tons of molten metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor).
I'd bet that if you checked you find that the chemicals present in WTC samples are also present in asteroids. Does that mean an asteroid hit the towers? Besides that, you neglect to mention that Jones did not find the chemicals in the proper percentages that would have resulted from thermate residue.7. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
And? FEMA does not conclude or even suggest this was caused by thermate. In fact, do you have ANY proof that thermate would cause such a condition?8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
Lame appeal to authority. Meaningless. You need to learn to stop using that tactic because for every one lunatic you can cite there are a thousand experts who disagree with that person.9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
You mean it wrong to assume that if a building is severely sagging, has taken on massive damage from falling debris, and has been burning for hours that it just might fall down? Duh!10. Fore-knowledge of ?collapse? by media, NYPD, FDNY
Well there was more to it than just a fire, wasn't there? Very large jet planes crashed into those buildings. How many 100+ story, steel frame buildings have been crashed into by commercial jets loaded with fuel at 450+ mph, then proceeded to burn, and didn't collapse? Please name them all.And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never ?collapsed?.
Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Why don't you answer that question? Again you resort to asking questions instead of answering them. I'm still waiting for some solid proof from you and you consistenly fail to provide anything of the sort.Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
My comment is right on topic. You and other truthers consistenly demonstrate my claim above. You don't answer any questions. You merely try to raise doubt and cast suspicion but you never, ever provide any actual irrefutable evidence. Never. Maybe the complete and total lack of any real evidence doesn't deter you but any sane person feels otherwise. Continually pointing back to a piece of steel that has some odd properties doesn't prove your case because YOU can't prove why it's in that condition either. As others have other told you, you rely on pure conjecture, not evidence. Once again I ask you to bring some verifiable, realistic, solid evidence to this debate. Yet you fail to do so.Originally posted by: event8horizon
well, your getting off topic then the mods will prob lock this topic b/c we went off track. u can post it in the other 911 thread if u like and ill answer the best i can.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The problem is that truthers only ask questions, they don't answer them. They do everything in their power to stay away from a defensive posture because they know if they have to answer questions the weaknesses in their arguments, knowledge, and intelligence become highly evident. That's why event8horizon dodges and weaves when asked questions about his beliefs on 9/11. If he makes any solid claims he'll have to answer questions himself and he wants to avoid that at all cost.Originally posted by: alchemize
Please ask this question now of all truthersOriginally posted by: nick1985
you and your family die, sorry
I'm asking you yet again to bring some solid evidence of your claim (Whatever that claim is, because you refuse to clarify your position on the matter). Telling me about a piece of steel, one whose conditions could have been caused by any number of conditions, does not prove your case or even raise any real suspicion. Anomalies do not make your case. Bring in some hard evidence if you want to prove a point. If not you're just pissing in the wind. Why you can't fathom that fact is mind boggling.
tell me tlc, what "any number of conditions" could have caused that piece of steel to exhibit such traits.
my point is, this is forensic evidence found at the crime scene. the nist did not incorporate this forensic evidence into their theory of why wtc 7 fell. fema had the sample....where is it now. if one is looking at the whole story, one is not going to throw away evidence so the next guys (nist) formulates a theory that does not incorporate that piece of steel. how many other pieces of steel might have looked like that that they threw into the furnace??
I'll also remind you, again, that we've had this discussion already on the piece of steel that you continue to focus on with blindered precision, as if it proves anything that you might be claiming, and I've explained those other conditions in previous conversations. Also, once again, you resort to the the tactics I accused you of previously. Do you not realize what you are doing? Stop asking questions and provide some answers, for once.
the only conditions is what a british born canadian attempted to explain. my answer is this, there are multiple lines of evidence claimed by Architects and Engineers that point to controlled demolition. they might see other evidence as more story worthy but i see this piece of steel from the fema report of special interest. how many times has the bush admin lied. this is a matter of national security. even if the a&e are right, do u really think the "truth" as they see it will get out????
Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: event8horizon
the nist focused on a single hypothetical blast scenario. involving column 79 on floor 12 with 9 lbs RDX. they didnt test anything else it looks like b/c "other scenarios would have required more explosives. or were considered infeasible to carry out without detecdtion."
i guess they didnt test the thermite/thermate scenario.
They didn't test it because the evidence did not point towards an explosion... duh. Why waste resources when the evidence is clearly telling you that a fire brought the building to structural failure.
There is just no convincing you. We'd have better success opening a door with the words "Open Sesame" than showing you that you are a crazy, tinfoil hat wearing loon.
as posted above they didnt test for the signitures of explosives.
their evidence didnt point towards it but others have. what the evidence they had to look at and analyze is still not available to the public.
Originally posted by: event8horizon
bush made a law to shield the israeli security at the gates of the airports. i remember familes were trying to sue them amoung other security companies.Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
event8horizon, 9/11 Truthers are tinfoil hat through and through because they can never come up with solid, verifiable evidence to support any of their claims. Pure innuendo and conjecture, and sadly hacks like Alex Jones and Loose Change make money off it.
In any case, we would have seen concerted efforts by all sorts of special attorneys/prosecutors, yet none have occurred. This reality is stark and obvious, and I feel bad that you waste so much of your life trying to prove something with nothing concrete.
this is an interesting read concerning some of the legal stuff going on-Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: event8horizon
bush made a law to shield the israeli security at the gates of the airports. i remember familes were trying to sue them amoung other security companies.Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
event8horizon, 9/11 Truthers are tinfoil hat through and through because they can never come up with solid, verifiable evidence to support any of their claims. Pure innuendo and conjecture, and sadly hacks like Alex Jones and Loose Change make money off it.
In any case, we would have seen concerted efforts by all sorts of special attorneys/prosecutors, yet none have occurred. This reality is stark and obvious, and I feel bad that you waste so much of your life trying to prove something with nothing concrete.
What is sad is you actually believe your own diatribe!!
Originally posted by: event8horizon
this is an interesting read concerning some of the legal stuff going on-Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: event8horizon
bush made a law to shield the israeli security at the gates of the airports. i remember familes were trying to sue them amoung other security companies.Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
event8horizon, 9/11 Truthers are tinfoil hat through and through because they can never come up with solid, verifiable evidence to support any of their claims. Pure innuendo and conjecture, and sadly hacks like Alex Jones and Loose Change make money off it.
In any case, we would have seen concerted efforts by all sorts of special attorneys/prosecutors, yet none have occurred. This reality is stark and obvious, and I feel bad that you waste so much of your life trying to prove something with nothing concrete.
What is sad is you actually believe your own diatribe!!
NY judge ?sanitizes? 9/11 airline trials, blocks key fed witness testimony
http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/Ju...itizes911AirTrials.htm
Hellerstein cancels FBI, CIA, counter-terror chiefs? testimony, asserts bias against punitive damages despite foreign conflicts
JUDICIAL FOREIGN CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Judge Hellerstein?s wife is a former senior vice-president and current treasurer of Americans for Israel and Torah (AMIT), raising potential foreign government conflict of interest questions as to why former Attorney General Ashcroft released the arrested Israeli 9/11 suspects without a trial, then selected Hellerstein to control evidence by ordering the consolidation of all 9/11 lawsuits, then blocked full government legal discovery and testimony which has so far prevented any lawsuits from going to public trial?and now only with careful legal damage control.
Though remaining families want a trial, Hellerstein has been coercing them all along to negotiate a settlement with his ?special mediator,? Sheila L. Birnbaum, a partner in the Skadden Arps law firm which calls itself ?one of the leading U.S. legal advisors to Israeli companies doing business and raising capital outside of Israel,? with several attorneys fluent in Hebrew and English admitted to the Israeli and New York bar.
Strangely, Huntleigth USA, an airport passenger screening company owned by Israel?s International Consultants on Targeted Security (ICTS), led by ?former Israeli military commanders and members of its intelligence and security agencies,? received congressional immunity for failed airport security at Boston and Newark airports where three of the four doomed planes originated on September 11.