Thread Rating:
  • 3 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?
09-30-2010, 08:43 PM, (This post was last modified: 09-30-2010, 08:58 PM by rsol.)
RE: Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?
orange hot now is it jazz? what next red?
This is what i mean by a flip flop. and once again you talk of only 1 floor. there were more you know. UNDAMAGED 100%

Quote:I care about the murder your lies might commit.
NOW you sound like a shill. you think im lying now?
A lesson in alternative history:
late2002 Bush, cheney indicted after the discovery of evidence they ok'ed using anthrax on the population and democratic polititions. With further investigations into the whole administration. discovery of a massive plot to get into a war in the middle east comes as no shock to the general population.......the war on terror ends RIGHT THERE. The murders of 100s of 1000s of iraqis is due to this. how dare you say its MY fault for taking these dicks to task. THAT DESERVES A BIG FUCK YOU FROM ME.

and by the way mr all knowing...
Quote:"It cannot be presented more simply than I have presented it. "Heat" and "kitchen" spring to mind... ...or you could try sitting down with Google, WIKI, a calculator, a pen and paper."
This is what we call BAD IT. you obviously dont know what your computer can do. Its not just for posting shit on forums. look at the "start" button and then look up. yeah theres a calculatorSmile you are what we in IT trade would call the "between chair and keyboard error"
Quote:"That was in the context of WHEN TO CARE. It is now FAR TOO LATE. Other things are happening now - what are they?
You didn't answer, because YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THE PRESENT. You identify with a "truth" that's a LIE, and are too committed to let go."

And for you to give so little regard to the truth of history speaks volumes. this is from a man who will be dead before the future arrives, i on the other hand have to live with the crap your generation left behind. thanks.
HE WHO CONTROLS THE PRESENT CONTROLS THE PAST, HE WHO CONTROLS THE PAST CONTROLS THE FUTURE. you are naive to think that history doesn't matter and arrogant for it.

Chomski is a linguist, that doesn't mean he can build something. I wouldn't leave a chemist in charge of plane any more than id ask a linguist about architecture. The fact that just because he can write a book on linguistics he must know all about thermodynamics, metallurgy or even fucking flower arranging. hes interested in HIS cause. nothing more.

Funny how we agree on the no-plane argument. I know why, because its far too simple to deduce, the fact that you run it all the way to the end makes me wonder if you are just a blinded man. you picked on chem trails because its easy. This is not so simple. You are the opposite extreme of the no-planers. I suspect you have lumped many 911 truthers in that group.

Then there is JFK. funny because i can prove to you, without a shadow of a doubt that Oswald killed him and he was alone. I can also prove the magic bullet wasn't so magic. but would you listen? probably not, because you have made up your mind and there is no changing it. pride is a stubborn thing.

I've debunked many conspiracy theories in my life, but the one you seem to cling onto is the US government line. Why? because you trust your authority figures. you do. dont try to deny it. You have said as much in this thread. anarchist bollox. Or are you a one world chomski lover. hes just a man you know.....


They will tell you an engineer is not an engineer, they will tell you that explosives are only loud. They will tell you that controlled demolition was impossible. you would need SOOOOO much explosive. they will tell you the building fell into itself almost at freefall and without any resistance. AND YOU BOUGHT IT!!! no explosives needed to bring them down at all.

By the way its to do with left leaning despisers of the truth movement believing in miracles. that would be you. ive been on topic from the get go.


and my final point
Quote:"Far from it.
I started CONVINCED that they had done it.
To my disappointment I discovered that everything running as a criticism was a LIE and a STRETCH. No exceptions whatsoever. For clarification it was only necessary to REACH DEEPER. It was a bit like being yold that your wallet had been placed in a fresh cowpat."

no you were not. you were convinced those building came down perfectly naturally. you said so yourself. maybe its time for me to call up YOU on lying. which is it jazz?

Ignorance always follows arrogance, hoping to pick up a few tricks on the journey. arrogance keeps ignorance around just to feel truly superior to someone.

I've never needed anyone to "explain" the earth being round to me. Its obvious to anyone on top of a hill. some have to be taught common sense.

And evolution is a myth to those that ignore evidence. It doesn't matter how compelling.
Reply
10-02-2010, 12:30 AM,
RE: Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?
I think the lesson from the plethora of arguments like these all over the world is that the physical evidence of 9/11 is fairly ambiguous. Even if someone other than the alleged had planned 9/11, it would have been down to the the kind of detail it would take to make the physical evidence "inconclusive". Although when you talk about flip flopping NIST have certainly done that.
debate is the vehicle of truth
Reply
10-02-2010, 12:24 PM, (This post was last modified: 10-02-2010, 12:50 PM by JazzRoc.)
RE: Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?
(09-30-2010, 07:20 PM)capmtripps Wrote: are you in favour of that data to support your point (that no explosives or what have you was necessary) or are you saying that the math/physics presented is fallible?
No explosives were necessary. The calculations are within a few percentage points of actuality.

Quote:North tower hit first, plane close to the centre of tower, stood for almost 2 hours
The plane had a steep angle of bank and ignited SIX floors. The strike was HIGH up the building, and was loaded by only 50,000 tons of steel, offices and a machinery floor, above it.

Quote:South tower hit second, plane close to corner of tower, stood for about 1 hour
Was struck just over halfway up, with a 150,000 ton dead load, plus ALL the offices and TWO machine floors over it.

Quote:In situation A, there was perhaps more jet fuel released into the building, which ought cause more damage.
THREE times more fuel. They BOTH released massive fireballs. The first strike video just doesn't show it from the other side, does it?

Quote:Both towers received incongruous damage yet fell identically, vertically.
Vertically, yes, identically, not at all.

Quote:Situation A, where more potential energy in the jet fuel was in the building, ought to cause the tower to fall sooner than in situation B, where less potential energy was actually in the building.
The difference is the THREE times greater LOAD at the WTC2 impact zone.

Quote:Also, that the south tower didn't fall over sideways also struck me as inconsistent.
Both towers "threaded" their way down their CORES, which remained standing afterward, until they fell over, slag-laden and "puddled" as they were in molten steel. Their BASES had been HAMMERED a hundred times from above...

Quote:psychedelic experiences and my related research into the related phenomenology.
These are separate issues, to me, from the above subject.

Quote:There would be no experience without miracle, in my view.
Only if that miracle is Science.

Quote:I'm glad we can be more civil about all of this Smile
So am I. You didn't start well, that's all, and in my country of origin we drive on the left so that we can get our swords out and strike oncomers with maximum dispatch and extreme prejudice.

Quote:Peace
Yep.

(10-02-2010, 12:30 AM)eyeland Wrote: I think the lesson from the plethora of arguments like these all over the world is that the physical evidence of 9/11 is fairly ambiguous.
I don't agree. It is clear to me. It would win a court case.

Quote:Even if someone other than the alleged had planned 9/11, it would have been down to the the kind of detail it would take to make the physical evidence "inconclusive". Although when you talk about flip flopping NIST have certainly done that.
As one gets down to precise detail in the physical world, one always approaches ambiguity.
But if one takes a more general view, and judges the overall component count making up the "it was terrorists" account, and comparing it with the "Bush-MIT conspiracy to terrorize USA into Oil War" account, then you have to account for a MASSIVELY SUCCESSFUL and country-wide conspiracy with NO whistleblowers. No cockups. And, of course, produce EVIDENCE.
Massively successful? Them? Please. Absurd. You misunderestimate yourself.
Reply
10-02-2010, 01:55 PM, (This post was last modified: 10-02-2010, 01:57 PM by JazzRoc.)
RE: Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?
(09-30-2010, 08:43 PM)rsol Wrote: late2002 Bush, cheney indicted after the discovery of evidence they ok'ed using anthrax on the population and democratic polititions. With further investigations into the whole administration. discovery of a massive plot to get into a war in the middle east comes as no shock to the general population.......the war on terror ends RIGHT THERE. The murders of 100s of 1000s of iraqis is due to this. how dare you say its MY fault for taking these dicks to task. THAT DESERVES A BIG FUCK YOU FROM ME.




Quote:This is what we call BAD IT. you obviously dont know what your computer can do. Its not just for posting shit on forums. look at the "start" button and then look up. yeah theres a calculatorSmile you are what we in IT trade would call the "between chair and keyboard error"
That calculator doesn't seemed to have done YOU much good.

Quote:And for you to give so little regard to the truth of history speaks volumes. this is from a man who will be dead before the future arrives, i on the other hand have to live with the crap your generation left behind. thanks.
HE WHO CONTROLS THE PRESENT CONTROLS THE PAST, HE WHO CONTROLS THE PAST CONTROLS THE FUTURE. you are naive to think that history doesn't matter and arrogant for it.
That's YOUR straw man.

Quote:Chomski is a linguist, that doesn't mean he can build something. I wouldn't leave a chemist in charge of plane any more than id ask a linguist about architecture. The fact that just because he can write a book on linguistics he must know all about thermodynamics, metallurgy or even fucking flower arranging. hes interested in HIS cause. nothing more.
His LOGIC is unarguable. How's your flower-arranging?

Quote:Funny how we agree on the no-plane argument. I know why, because its far too simple to deduce, the fact that you run it all the way to the end makes me wonder if you are just a blinded man. you picked on chem trails because its easy. This is not so simple. You are the opposite extreme of the no-planers. I suspect you have lumped many 911 truthers in that group.
I include you in the group that makes outrageous claims without proof. So far.

Quote:Then there is JFK. funny because i can prove to you, without a shadow of a doubt that Oswald killed him and he was alone. I can also prove the magic bullet wasn't so magic. but would you listen? probably not, because you have made up your mind and there is no changing it. pride is a stubborn thing.
Try me privately.

Quote:I've debunked many conspiracy theories in my life, but the one you seem to cling onto is the US government line. Why? because you trust your authority figures. you do. dont try to deny it. You have said as much in this thread. anarchist bollox. Or are you a one world chomski lover. hes just a man you know...
That's all we've ever been.

Quote:They will tell you - rants - get go.
Ppppppp... Smile

Quote:I've never needed anyone to "explain" the earth being round to me. Its obvious to anyone on top of a hill. some have to be taught common sense.
Yes, no need to bother with engineering. I see.
Reply
10-02-2010, 02:15 PM,
RE: Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?
straw manSmile if you dont understand what your computer is capable of that's not my faultSmile

And when i say JFK. all you have to do is just remember that your government wouldn't do that. its easy. you try it.
then just follow your nose. i think maybe you have looked into this a bit. then went into some debunking sites and that's where your depth ended.

Keep debunking the no-planers and the chemtrailersSmile

Reply
10-02-2010, 05:13 PM, (This post was last modified: 10-02-2010, 05:33 PM by JazzRoc.)
RE: Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?
(10-02-2010, 02:15 PM)rsol Wrote: straw manSmile if you dont understand what your computer is capable of that's not my faultSmile
I understand my computer to be slower to operate than my programmable calculator for one-off calcs. Otherwise I'd use a spreadsheet. I used to be handy with a slide rule, too.

Quote:And when i say JFK. all you have to do is just remember that your government wouldn't do that. its easy. you try it.
"My" government is Spanish and Socialist.

Quote:then just follow your nose. i think maybe you have looked into this a bit. then went into some debunking sites and that's where your depth ended.
Well you would say that, wouldn't you?

But you're holding on to the belief that THERMITE IRON, formed at 3,500 degrees Celsius, actually found its way to the OUTSIDE of the building, having been FIRST retained by some material.
Don't bother trying to name me that retaining material, for there wasn't such a material in the building. There would have been NOTHING there, anywhere, to hold it back from pouring STRAIGHT DOWN.
Whereas if the liquid were a light metal, then yes, a warped steel floor would have done the job.
So the pouring metal WAS dural. Wasn't it THAT corner of the tower that the remnants of the plane had slid to?
So your reason to believe thermite was used to bring down the towers no longer exists.
Do you have any other reason that substantiates your claim?

Reply
10-02-2010, 05:26 PM, (This post was last modified: 10-02-2010, 05:27 PM by rsol.)
RE: Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?
yellow hot jazz. i repeat yellow hot. not white hot. not "orange" yellow hot. too hot for dural and hot enough for cooling molten iron. you see im taking into acount that the building is a massive heat-sink. sorry you cant have that one. you think this stuff stays hot forever?
Reply
10-02-2010, 05:47 PM,
RE: Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?
(10-02-2010, 05:26 PM)rsol Wrote: yellow hot jazz. i repeat yellow hot. not white hot. not "orange" yellow hot. too hot for dural and hot enough for cooling molten iron. you see im taking into acount that the building is a massive heat-sink. sorry you cant have that one. you think this stuff stays hot forever?
3,500 degrees Celsius is WHITE hot. ALL the liquid metal at that temperature would have CUT its way STRAIGHT DOWN, and BEFORE it had tme to pool.
I thought YOU were the possessor of "commonsense".
How, exactly, can a liquid that melts everything it touches (because it's a 1000 degrees C hotter than molten iron) pool?

Reply
10-17-2010, 11:41 PM,
RE: Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?
Evidence Refutes the Official 9/11 Investigation: The Scientific Forensic Facts

By Richard Gage and Gregg Roberts

Global Research, October 13, 2010
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth - 2010-10-04

AE911Truth Delivers the Evidence to the Media: Press Conference - National Press Club – Washington DC
Ed. – This is the actual 10-minute statement read by Richard Gage, AIA, to the media at the AE911Truth press conference at the National Press Club in Washington DC on September 9, 2010.

Good afternoon, my name is Richard Gage, AIA. I’m a member of the American Institute of Architects; I’ve been a licensed architect for 22 years; And I’m the founder of the non-profit organization, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth).

As a group, we now have more than 1,270 architect and engineer petition signers. Collectively, we have more than 25,000 years of building and technical experience. This press conference is being given by our petition signers and supporters today in 65 [it turned out to be 67] locations around the world, including 30 states and 4 countries.

Today, we’re here to inform you that we have uncovered evidence that the official investigations into what happened to the World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11 were deeply flawed, or worse. The scientific forensic facts we have discovered have very troubling implications.

For example, a technologically advanced, highly energetic material has been discovered in World Trade Center dust from the 9/11 catastrophe.

This follows the discovery, by the United States Geological Survey and others, of high concentrations of unusual previously molten iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust. These microspheres can only have been formed during the destruction of the World Trade Center at temperatures far higher than can be explained by the jet fuel and office fires. Those fires, we are told by engineers employed by NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, were allegedly the cause of the World Trade Center’s destruction. The discovery of this advanced energetic material, in the form of red/gray chips distributed throughout the dust, both explains the iron-rich microspheres and confirms the inadequacy of the official account of what happened that tragic day.

Even before the microspheres and red/gray chips had been identified and brought to our attention, we were deeply concerned about other aspects of the destruction of these iconic buildings, and how they were investigated. More than two dozen firefighters, engineers, and other witnesses reported seeing substantial quantities of molten iron or steel, flowing like lava in the debris under all three World Trade Center high-rises. Office fires and jet fuel cannot possibly reach the temperatures necessary to liquefy iron or steel. A mixture called thermite, consisting of pulverized iron oxide and aluminum, CAN generate temperatures above 4000°F -- far more than is needed to melt iron or steel, which melts at about 2750°F.
[Image: pyro.jpg]
The energetic material that was found in the WTC dust by an international team of scientists (led by Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen in Denmark) was reported in the peer-reviewed Bentham Open Journal of Chemical Physics. It consists of nano-engineered iron oxide and aluminum particles 1000th the size of a human hair, embedded in another substance consisting of carbon, oxygen, and silicon. The sizes of the iron oxide particles are extremely uniform, and neither they nor the ultra-fine-grain aluminum platelets could possibly have been created by a natural process such as a gravitational collapse or the impact of jetliners. The red/gray chips in which these particles were found exhibit the same characteristics as advanced energetic materials developed in US national laboratories in the years leading up to 9/11. They have no reason to be in this dust. Given all the horrific costs in human lives, lost civil liberties, and trillions of tax dollars spent in response to the official account of 9/11, there can be no more urgent need than for our country and the world to find out who put those materials in the World Trade Center – and why.

This need makes it all the more disturbing that top engineers in charge of the government’s investigation would avoid dealing straightforwardly with ALL the evidence that AE911Truth and others have repeatedly brought to their attention, much of which has been available in the public record since the beginning. John Gross, NIST co-project leader, has denied the existence of – or even any reports of – molten iron or steel at the World Trade Center.
[Image: excav.jpg]
They stopped their analysis of the towers’ complete and highly energetic destruction at the very point when the destruction began. And they have dismissed or avoided serious analysis of the additional evidence with which we are concerned, such as:

1. Both Twin Towers were completely dismembered and destroyed in just 10 to 14 seconds - which occurs at near free-fall acceleration. For this to happen, all 47 of their massive core columns as well as a large fraction of their external columns would have to be compromised with explosives beforehand.

2. More than 100 first responders reported hearing explosions and seeing flashes of light at the onset of destruction. Light flashes indicate explosive detonations. These witnesses are documented in NYC’s “Oral Histories” by City Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen

3. Multi-ton steel perimeter wall sections were ejected laterally at 60 mph to a distance of 600 ft. That speed and distance indicates that a high-pressure explosion initiated the ejection.

4. 90,000 tons of concrete and metal decking was pulverized in mid-air, again indicating explosions.

5. World Trade Center 7, a 47-story building which was not hit by an aircraft, fell at free-fall acceleration for more than 100 feet – a significant fact that NIST’s Shyam Sunder was forced to admit after being presented with our research. Yet NIST has failed to review or acknowledge the obvious implications of this fact, which is that the columns must have been explosively severed within fractions of a second of each other.

[Image: wtc7_filmstrip.jpg]

6. The complete destruction and dismemberment of Building 7, collapsing in just 6 ½ seconds—which is near freefall acceleration—through the path of what was greatest resistance, symmetrically vertical, including 2 ½ seconds of pure free-fall (zero resistance), is an occurrence only possible with expertly-placed explosives.

There are other falsehoods and omissions in NIST’s official report:

1. NIST overstated the severity and duration of the fires in all three skyscrapers, apparently in order to more credibly attribute the destruction to the fires, yet without exaggerating them enough to account for molten iron or steel.

2. NIST and FEMA did not follow the National Fire Protection Association’s standard procedures for fire and explosion investigations and test building debris for explosive residues.

3. NIST did not test for explosives when explosive demolition was the most likely hypothesis.

4. NIST’s animated computer model of Building 7’s destruction, showing the outer walls crumpling inward like a piece of foil, bears no resemblance to the actual collapse as seen in the videos.

5. NIST claims that the falling section of each of the Twin Towers, above the jetliner impact zones, crushed the much larger and more massive intact lower section. But [in the case of the North tower,] video analysis reveals clearly that the upper [section] disintegrated in waves of explosions prior to any crushing of the lower [section]. This indicates that the top sections could not have been the cause of the destruction of the lower [section].

6. NIST’s technical analysis into the twin towers’ collapses stops at the “initiation of collapse.” There is no technical analysis of the structural behavior of the building during the collapse itself. In response to our Request for Correction on this matter, NIST acknowledged that they were “unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.”

In short, NIST’s official technical explanation is fraudulent and inconsistent with the basic laws of physics. By contrast, the hypothesis of controlled demolition is consistent with all of the available technical evidence.

This week, here in Washington, DC, we personally delivered our DVD “9/11: Blueprint for Truth – The SF Press Conference Edition,” which included highlights of the forensic evidence, into the hands of staffers for the science advisors of every elected representative on Capitol Hill. In addition, we have sat down with over a dozen of them and presented in detail the overwhelming evidence of explosive controlled demolition. We have personally invited over 400 of them to today’s event. How many Congressional science advisors are here today? [None].

I urge you to go to our website AE911Truth.org for more information, including comments by our members on the problems with the official investigation. At this point, we are calling for Attorney General Eric Holder to ask a federal grand jury to investigate those responsible for the NIST report, including Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder and Co-Project Leader John Gross.

We’d like any and all reporters who will be covering this story to know that Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are here to give you any technical support you need.

Finally, I’d like to thank the thousands of scientists, senior level members of the military, intelligence and other government officials, pilots and aviation professionals, firefighters, scholars and university professionals, 9/11 survivors and their family members and concerned citizens here and around the world for their continuing support.

We also want to thank our growing family of more than three hundred sustaining financial supporters. We could not do this without you.

Now, I will answer any quick questions you may have. Keep in mind that most of your questions will probably be answered during the Mock Debate – which will be starting in just a minute. Also, more detailed information is available in our DVD, 9/11: Blueprint for Truth – The Architecture of Destruction, which is available on our website AE911Truth.org.
[Image: conspiracy_theory.jpg]
Reply
10-18-2010, 02:25 PM, (This post was last modified: 10-18-2010, 03:03 PM by JazzRoc.)
RE: Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?
Before I start on this, I'd like to mention that this comment is at least not a self-demeaning one.
Ad hominem attacks on me leave me personally quite unmoved. I have been an anarchist ever since I read sufficient of Prince Kropotkin's work at the age of 22. I understood then that anarcho-syndicalism was unlikely ever to be taken up, due to the intense political rivalries (and outright hatred) it appears to inspire in others. Ever since that time I have voted socialist, liberal, or green, and made it a point NEVER to harm others intentionally by my needs. This has caused me to have had a total of 55 employment "opportunities" at my disposal for accordingly brief periods of time. When confronted for some (usually concocted) reason I simply departed. I have never been "cornered". I am on company and security blacklists, I believe, because through the nineties it became progressively more difficult to obtain employment, and on a couple of occasions I was hired, left in limbo for a week, then fired, with abuse, but without reasons. I have come across blacklists in the past and know they riddle the workplace everywhere, and are almost always EVIL. They are filled in by people with personal and mendacious motivations, and taken for truth by others, and are irreversible, and continue past the victim's death. It's awful.
In spite of this I have raised a family, and am the father of two graduates and grandfather to two children, and am now retired on a Spanish island in relative warmth and peace.
I know more about the vicissitudes of human nature than most, am reasonably courageous, like a good fight on occasion, but choose peace and non-involvement whenever I see that combat causes more problems than it solves. That's almost always.
The world's a large place: I went to fourteen schools and three centres of further education, worked as a mechanic, engineer, draughtsman, industrial designer, scientist, inventor, and director. I have always worked when it was possible, have never been overpaid, never had savings, and have none now.

(10-17-2010, 11:41 PM)h3rm35 Wrote: a technologically advanced, highly energetic material has been discovered in World Trade Center dust from the 9/11 catastrophe.
Powdered aluminum and oxidized iron would have been made in some quantity by such buildings collapsing.

Quote:the discovery of unusual previously molten iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust. These microspheres can only have been formed during the destruction of the World Trade Center at temperatures far higher than can be explained by the jet fuel and office fires.
Wrong. They are made every time energetic collisions occur, where vaporized iron condenses. What, do you suppose, are the final consequences of a steel SPARK? What IS a spark? THINK....

Quote:The discovery of this advanced energetic material, in the form of red/gray chips distributed throughout the dust, both explains the iron-rich microspheres and confirms the inadequacy of the official account of what happened that tragic day.
Wrong. It most certainly does NOT.

Quote:substantial quantities of molten iron or steel
Wrong. It was neither, but instead most probably an iron eutectic alloy with a lower melting-point(1100+ deg C), formed by hammering steel columns into concrete and aluminum fragments.

Quote:Office fires and jet fuel cannot possibly reach the temperatures necessary to liquefy iron or steel.
True, but not relevant.

Quote:A mixture called thermite, consisting of pulverized iron oxide and aluminum, CAN generate temperatures above 4000°F
True, but not relevant.

Quote:The sizes of the iron oxide particles are extremely uniform, and could not possibly have been created by a natural process such as a gravitational collapse or the impact of jetliners.
That is a flagrant contradiction to FACT. Normally called a LIE.

Quote:ultra-fine-grain aluminum platelets
Are the basic constituent of aluminum paint.

Quote:The red/gray chips in which these particles were found
Are the red oxide primer used to coat the steel prior to and during construction..

Quote:They have no reason to be in this dust.
That is a flagrant contradiction to FACT. Normally called a LIE.

Quote:Given etc
That is a flagrant contradiction to FACT. Normally called a LIE.

Quote:This need etc
That is a flagrant contradiction to FACT. Normally called a LIE.

Quote:John Gross, NIST co-project leader, has denied the existence of molten iron or steel at the World Trade Center.
[Image: excav.jpg]
The image shows hot, but not molten, material. If it were molten then some sort of spoon would have been required.

Quote:They stopped their analysis of the towers’ complete and highly energetic destruction at the very point when the destruction began.
Because thereafter it would have been mere speculation.

Quote:Both Twin Towers were completely dismembered and destroyed in just 10 to 14 seconds
Strange. I have 14.5 and 22.1 seconds, and a smooth acceleration of about 2/3G. Indicating orderly crushing taking place in both circumstances.

Quote:For this to happen, all 47 of their massive core columns as well as a large fraction of their external columns would have to be compromised with explosives beforehand.
Neither event was a prerequisite for collapse.
The latter would have been a VERY VISIBLE event. Which DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Quote:responders reported hearing explosions and seeing flashes of light at the onset of destruction. Light flashes indicate explosive detonations.
And electrical arcing and transformer explosions, energetic collisions and ignition of uncombusted gases, tanks of liquid fuel exploding, and sunlight reflected from falling and fluttering broken glass.

Quote:Multi-ton steel perimeter wall sections were ejected laterally at 60 mph to a distance of 600 ft. That speed and distance indicates that a high-pressure explosion initiated the ejection.
Or that that was the lateral speed achieved by the local section of a violently-buckled column OR that that was the speed reached by the section when accelerated from inside by violently expanding compressed air caused by the piston effect of the falling building.

Quote:90,000 tons of concrete and metal decking was pulverized in mid-air, again indicating explosions.
SOME of the metal might "pulverize", maybe, but MOST would not. The same goes for the concrete, a reasonable figure for which is closer to 10,000 tons.
NONE of it would "pulverize in mid-air", especially due to explosions. But it would do so by IMPACT. And there was plenty of THAT.

Quote:World Trade Center 7
Had been burning for seven hours and "was fully involved". That, and the fact that it was basically a bridge made its collapse inevitable.

Quote:The complete destruction of Building 7 is an occurrence only possible with expertly-placed explosives.
Which apparently had a seven-hour fire resistance (better than the steel). Laughable.

NIST didn't
Quote: account for molten iron or steel
But I HAVE shown each building had the potential energy to melt 2,700 tons of steel. The molten metal seen pouring from WTC1 had to be a light metal. Molten thermitic combustion material would cut its way STRAIGHT DOWN and couldn't reach the building's exterior.

Quote:NIST and FEMA did not follow the National Fire Protection Association’s standard procedures for fire and explosion investigations and test building debris for explosive residues, or test for explosives.
I accept that. Were they under external compulsion to do so?

Quote:NIST’s animated computer model of Building 7’s destruction, showing the outer walls crumpling inward like a piece of foil, bears no resemblance to the actual collapse as seen in the videos.
Possibly because it failed to account for internal, unknowable, assymmetries. There isn't much point in speculation beyond the known.

Quote:the top sections could not have been the cause of the destruction of the lower section.
Nor were they. It was the kinetic energy of the top section and/or its rubble, which did that, magnifying exponentially over time.

Quote:NIST acknowledged that they were “unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.”
And quite rightly so.

Quote:In short, NIST’s official technical explanation is fraudulent and inconsistent with the basic laws of physics. By contrast, the hypothesis of controlled demolition is consistent with all of the available technical evidence.
NIST's official technical explanation is honest and consistent with the basic laws of physics.
By contrast, your assertion of controlled demolition is consistent with your paranoia, ignorance of physics, and avoidance of all reasoning other than your own. It matches your distortion of the facts, too.
Every point made, save for the NIST "failure to proceed" to an explosives analysis, has been answered. It seems to me that NIST were correct not to proceed. There wasn't anything to proceed with.
At least you don't assert that no planes were there against (apparently) forty privately-recorded videos. Some hope, then...
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Information Power and Control: The Anti-Nuclear Energy Movement - Leveraging the Japan Tsunami and Other Disasters FastTadpole 37 19,031 01-23-2014, 01:51 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  Signs Of The Times Blog: An Inconvenient Truth FighterFromAfar 0 817 04-07-2007, 10:31 PM
Last Post: FighterFromAfar
  When Did The Spraying Start ? (maby The Truth Is In The Movies) lando 3 1,331 03-18-2007, 09:54 PM
Last Post: Karl292

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)