Conspiracy day here on the retort. I know exactly what the conspiracy theorists will say.

"Conspiracy day here on the retort. I know exactly what the conspiracy theorists will say."
Posted by Pirate at 2008-08-21 12:41 PM

YEAH!

They will say the Obvious:

Why is a "The Government Cant Do Anything Right" ditto head seem so anxious to make Sure everyone thinks The Government Got it Right this time?

Number of skyscrapers that have fallen, ever, except for the ones in the WTC comlex, due to fire = 0

No the government got it right relative to their mission. Protect Israel, Protect corporations and provide a means to take away peoples contitutional rights and make a false flag operation so we can go capture oil fields so our companies can drill and refine oil for sell to china and india.

The government is A #1 at that kind of corruption.

Please tell me you are not naive enough to think they are going to release a report that would sink a whole generation of political operatives as well as crush the whole american ideal and economy, as well as lead to hundreds of high level executives and the president being brought up on charges.

It ain't gonna happen. Never has, never will.

I suppose you think Oswald shot kennedy from 300 ft with pin-point accuracy with a bullet that either 1)defied the laws of physics or 2)was self propelled and could change directions. That's what the warren report said it did.

Bingo...that's the response I was waiting for.

Number of skyscrapers that have fallen, ever, except for the ones in the WTC comlex, due to fire = 0

----

Nice reasoning. Because it has never happened before it can never happen at all. Therefore, there can never be "a first time".

Bingo...that's the response I was waiting for.

Posted by Pirate

I thought so, happy I could oblige. But since you have no valid response, I suppose you are only speaking from a party politics perspective.

I was talking about physics and logic. It's ok if thats not your strong suit.

Fewer and fewer Americans believe what the government says about anything. Since the Bush administration has been in charge the doubters have been encouraged every time they are caught in a lie.
I don't know what happened at WTC7 but a government under this adminstration convinces me of nothing.

If you look closely, there was an orange dot.

"Number of skyscrapers that have fallen, ever, except for the ones in the WTC comlex, due to fire = 0"

You could say the same thing about the number of skyscrapers alleged to have been knocked down by our government too. But don't let that stop you from pretended your statement supports a conspiracy.

I was 85% convinced that it was an inside job.

PIRATE

With this thread and your other one on the Back Page about Big Foot you're stealing all of BuffaloBob's thunder. Guess he'll have to find one about more "oddities" on the lunar surface.

Big Foot set off the explosion which caused the collapse of WTC Building 7.

"Scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology say their three-year investigation of the collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center 7 was the first known instance of fire causing the total failure of a skyscraper."

"Investigators also concluded there was no evidence that the collapse was caused by fires from a substantial amount of diesel fuel that was stored in the building."

Okay, Now I get it???

Chris,

Yea, I figured these two stories would start trouble. :o)

Sully

One has nothing to do with the other.

To what length a government will go depends on men.

Whether a building falls because of fire depends on physics.

Besides, how do we know for sure our government hasn't knocked down other buildings to the same degree we know fire hasn't brought down steel skyscrapers?

Is there one OUNCE of evidence to indicate explosives or anything other than what a few hundred MILLION people witnessed live on television?

I mean other than that it would be easy to cover up [/sarcasm]

insane. Absolutely insane.

Does anyone know the number of people that would have to be involved with a conspiracy theiry of this magnitude, and the simple fact that no one has ever come forward feeling the elast bit guilty for killing thousands of people SHOULD be reason enough.... But I think the fact not one shred of evidence exists, AND scientists have proven conclusively how the fires caused by the jet fuel weakened the structures ARE reason enough to know this is insane drivil.

TN - First of all, I didn't address this in my initial post but the WTC buildings were hit by commercial airliners, which has also never happened before. The smaller buildings were hit by debris from the larger buildings. So Lip's statement is ignorant at best, more likely intellectually dishonest.

As for it being a matter of physics - plenty of reputable scientists and engineers support the towers being brought down in the same manner we all saw with our own eyes. So to pretend that science is on the side of a conspiracy also isn't true.

There is plenty of evidence to support the official story, including what I've seen with my own eyes. Show me evidence of a conspiracy and then I'll take it seriously. (please note: picking at the 'official story' is not the same as providing evidence of a conspiracy)

I really don't want to argue with you about it. Just let it go, the government will take care of you. It is benevolent and kind and truthful.

You know while I was riasing my children, it always amazed me that they would close their eyes and they thought I couldn't see them.

A lot of people of said the buildings going down look exactly like a controlled demolition.

If you're going to try to hide a controlled demo, are you really going to make it look exactly like a controlled demo?

Please lip. Provide one shred of credible proof instead of "the government sucks!" "They are all liars!"

If you want to talk about childish... THAT is the ultimate in schoolyard tactics.

"If you're going to try to hide a controlled demo, are you really going to make it look exactly like a controlled demo?"
Posted by Pirate at 2008-08-21 04:06 PM | Reply

Wow, Pirate, that's an excellent question. To get a building to perfectly implode like that takes a tremendous amount of planning and effort. If you're trying to conceal what you're doing, it seems to me that you wouldn't do it that way.

Big Foot set off the explosion which caused the collapse of WTC Building 7.

Posted by CalifChris

Who would have thought you could buy explosives at a costume shop.

Nice reasoning. Because it has never happened before it can never happen at all. Therefore, there can never be "a first time".

As an ET, I hear that reasoning all the time. In fact as recently as last night I went to troubleshoot a problem involving the choke and kill manifold. Without getting into the technical details here, after I identified the problem the driller said, "It never has done that -- I don't see how that can that can be the problem." IOW, it has never happened before, it can't be happening now.

Yes, the building that was over engineered to be a disaster command center collapsed due to a paper fire. A paper fire, which won't heat your backyard fire pit to any significant failure temperature after burning it in all night long magically has the power to warp massive beams that hold a 47 story building to the point of failure.

"Number of skyscrapers that have fallen, ever, except for the ones in the WTC comlex, due to fire = 0" - LIPZOIDAL

What the hell, exactly, is that proof of?

Number of ANYTHING that happened BEFORE the first time it happened = 0.

Number of times you walked before the first time you walked = 0.

Number of times you bought a house before the first time you bought a house = 0.

If there had been a skyscraper that fell before the WTC, then people could say about that "the number of times a skyscraper fell due to fire before THIS one = 0".

Pure idiocy.

"You know while I was riasing my children, it always amazed me that they would close their eyes and they thought I couldn't see them."

So the apples didn't fall far from the tree.

Aside from indicating your kids aren't rocket scientists, was there a point to that last post?

Hawk,

Somebody could use the excuse that it didn't go off like they wanted it to, but they would have to know the original plan and have proof of it to say that.

Or they could say, they wanted it that way...again though they would have to know the original plan and have proof of it.

Never mind that at this point, the conspirators would have to know that there would be 100s if not thousands of cameras trained on the area.

"I was talking about physics and logic. It's ok if thats not your strong suit." - LIPZOIDAL

Ironically, your statements follow neither logic nor physics.

Your logic says there can never be a first time because there always has to be a precedent. If there's no precedent, it can't happen.

Your physics seems to be saying that buildings can't fall, or fire can't cause damage and metal fatigue, or something.

Please by all means enlighten us with a physics dissertation that explains why fire couldn't destroy a skyscraper.

Who would have thought you could buy explosives at a costume shop.

----

I have a new theory. There was a hole in the space/time continuum allowing the results of the game Rampage 2 to happen to the WTC buildings.

If you're going to try to hide a controlled demo, are you really going to make it look exactly like a controlled demo?

That is an argument I've used with da bOoB many times. Fewer detonation devices could be used (and therefore less chance of detection during installation) to have the building fall in a haphazard way and cause far more damage.

Why would a building be rigged to fall in its own footprint (a much more difficult task) when maximum damage is the goal?

Good point. As far as the towers go, we'll say yes, it's the first time buildings have been hit. They were also designed for such including the burning fuel, the impact force (which was less than during a storm) etc. Structurally, the way I understand it, the exterior columns were like a screen door, where a breach would not effect several floors below. but down both of them came. And somehow the main colums were cut diagonally just like in demolition. But we're not talking about the towers (which by the way were going to cost hundreds of millions I believe in asbestos removal and had a recent amazing insurance policy on them after being sold to a private entity for the 1st time in history a month before.)

We're talking about Building 7 which appearently had fires and damage on the side we couldn't see but fell perfectly symmetrically in it's footprint at freefall speed. That's not just falling due to fire- its implosion due to fire. When has that ever happened?

I dont know what happened that day, but the buildings so obviously had help falling down- or looked like they did- that I would have expected a serious investigation into the possible planting of explosives in the WTC by terrorists! But no.

As far as evidence goes, do you notice how since TWA 800, circumstantial evidence is not included in these studies. And there is plenty. Other evvidence of the largest crime scene in US history was sold off as scrap steel before any serious investigation was done on it. More money was spent on the Clinton BJ investigation. I guess the evidence of a conspiracy is the hundreds of coincedences and physical leaps of faith involved in believing the official story.

Believe it or not I would like nothing more than being proven wrong here and to believe the official story. But I'm the one who needs the evidence. Other than a bunch of fireballs and hyped up patriotism. All those DC videos would be a good start.

Sorry- didn't mean to get into this whole thing here- I will check out the report and try to remain objective.

Yes, the building that was over engineered to be a disaster command center collapsed due to a paper fire. A paper fire, which won't heat your backyard fire pit to any significant failure temperature after burning it in all night long magically has the power to warp massive beams that hold a 47 story building to the point of failure.

Posted by IraqiBukkake

I think your knowledge of thermodynamics is bit lacking.

A piper fire is the catalyst, but their are other combustibles in a building that burn much hotter including paint, cleaning supplies, any number of things will ratchet the temperature up.

That is just the beginning. Let's not forget the massive damage sustained by the building from the FALLING SKYSCRAPER that just pummeled it with debris moving at near terminal velocity... I am SURE that wouldn;t weaken the supports eh?

Where is da bOoB anyway? He has a lot of cut and pasting into this thread to do.

Yes, it was to tell you that my least smart child is smarter than you AND has more class. (please look up class in the dictionary, I'm sure you don't know what it means)

The other point was that that is what you guys do, put your fingers in your ears and close your eyes and it makes it all go away, and the world is safe and happy again.

no fuss, no muss, happy happy joy joy

Why would a building be rigged to fall in its own footprint (a much more difficult task) when maximum damage is the goal?

----

I agree. That would cause max damage and also hide the controlled demo.

I've always said that the official story has holes it but the controlled demolition conspiracy theory has way more holes it.

"A lot of people of said the buildings going down look exactly like a controlled demolition." - Pirate

Well hell, let's all look to the average TV zombie american for an in depth analysis.

Too much TV. People who watch Law and Order think they are experts on Law too. You gonna hire them to defend you?

Thing is, events and things can LOOK like other things WITHOUT ACTUALLY BEING those things. Especially when you have a bunch of loudmouths who just like to hear themselves talk.

Given that the fires were (a) at higher floors and (b) quite uniform across the building cross-section and the construction method of the building, it's not really all that surprising that they well the way they did.

If they had been hit lower and more off-center, then it would be more realistic to expect them to tip over.

But because it's likely that the fires stressed the entire cross-section pretty equally, and the top floors failed uniformly, then the direct downward force of all that material would have imparted like downward force to everything below, and so on, causing the almost vertical collapse.

Never mind that at this point, the conspirators would have to know that there would be 100s if not thousands of cameras trained on the area.

So show me some pictures.

Nope, sorry, burning buildings are classified information evidently.

The one "damage" shot of WTC7 finally surfaced in 2003 or 04...this bullshit has been going on so long it's hard to remember when it happened anymore. That is the only one picture showing supposed structural integrity damage on the southwest face(aside from a few busted windows). One.

So gimme some pictures. How about some video! I want to understand! I mean, there could be hundreds if not thousands of cameras trained on that area! Surely you have some very compelling evidence...

Yes, here's one picture.

I was hoping for a dozen or so... Five maybe?

Nope, one.

Yes, it was to tell you that my least smart child is smarter than you AND has more class. (please look up class in the dictionary, I'm sure you don't know what it means)

The other point was that that is what you guys do, put your fingers in your ears and close your eyes and it makes it all go away, and the world is safe and happy again.

no fuss, no muss, happy happy joy joy

Posted by Lipzoidial

And again not one iota of evidence to support your outlandish, paranoid, "the govmint is out ta git us" conspiracy theory.

oh yes iraqi. Camera's are known to be "building falling down" proof.

I believe that is an option at Best Buy.

"Yes, it was to tell you that my least smart child is smarter than you AND has more class."

Well the story you told makes him sound like a little idiot. Maybe you need to tell another story when making that point.

"The other point was that that is what you guys do, put your fingers in your ears and close your eyes and it makes it all go away, and the world is safe and happy again."

Actually, you were asked for evidence at which point you started making this silly strawman arguement. You are the one avoiding reality.

So gimme some pictures. How about some video! I want to understand! I mean, there could be hundreds if not thousands of cameras trained on that area! Surely you have some very compelling evidence...

----

I obviously don't have the video.

The point of question is...

If you're trying to hide something, would you do it when there are bunches of cameras recording you?

"Believe it or not I would like nothing more than being proven wrong here and to believe the official story."

Well my problem is that most conspiracy supports want to be proven wrong without offering much to show why they are right. The official version of events hasn't been proven wrong either but conspiracy supporters have no problem dismissing it.

I'm not saying it isn't possible that the government lied about certain aspects for the events of 9/11. It may very well have. But there is much more evidence to support a terrorist attack being the cause of the disaster than there is to support any other version of events. And I don't think conspiracy supporters acknowledge that in any way.

Wrong, Bush shot the plane down with a missile. I saw it on youtube.

-Buffalo Roma

I'll bet it was Bigfoot who brought WTC7 down...or maybe it was someone who was a victim of alien abduction?

Stupid conspiracy kooks!

Sully,

I'm not asking you to believe what I think or say. If you want to believe, do so, or not, if you want to debate, that's ok too.

I am sure that I have seen the same evidence that you have seen. We just interpret it from a purely scientific viewpoint, because that's the way i'm wired and my education was in that direction.

I don't have a political party to influence my thinking or give me a metric that all my ideals have to fit into.

And I find no moral justification to condemn a whole culture of people especially when the person condemning them is known liar (GWB).

A piper fire is the catalyst, but their are other combustibles in a building that burn much hotter including paint, cleaning supplies, any number of things will ratchet the temperature up.

Ooohhh... Paint?!??! Cleaning Supplies? Yeah... that's just ratcheting up the temperature alright.

I hope that building doesn't have a cleaning crew, or that thing is coming down!!!

I'm just asking questions. Like, where is my diaper?
Sincerely,
BuffaloAroma

Lipzoidal... I am 100% sure I have never seen the evidence you are talking about.

Please enlighten us! Scientists have told us what happened. You disagree. I think that places the burden on you to show how and where you disagree.

Sully- there is a bunch of circumstancial evidence. If millions were spent on a proper independent investigation- no holes barred- with a 911 Commission not made up of mostly oil people it might count for something. There are 100s of scientists and govt/military people with questions too.

Instead we see the planes as the whole story and a bogus bin laden viideotape with a half-assed non-confession- quite a lucky find- as the evidence we need! Even though several of the highjackers are still alive!

Nothing going on here folks. Keep it movin...

A piper fire is the catalyst, but their are other combustibles in a building that burn much hotter including paint, cleaning supplies, any number of things will ratchet the temperature up.

Ooohhh... Paint?!??! Cleaning Supplies? Yeah... that's just ratcheting up the temperature alright.

I hope that building doesn't have a cleaning crew, or that thing is coming down!!!

Posted by IraqiBukkake

Is it your contention that oil based paint and ammonia based cleaning supplies don't burn hot?

Ooohhh... Paint?!??! Cleaning Supplies? Yeah... that's just ratcheting up the temperature alright.

You didn't read the article, I see. or if you did, you are being obtuse. It said a lot of diesel was stored there.

Sully- there is a bunch of circumstancial evidence. If millions were spent on a proper independent investigation- no holes barred- with a 911 Commission not made up of mostly oil people it might count for something. There are 100s of scientists and govt/military people with questions too.

Instead we see the planes as the whole story and a bogus bin laden viideotape with a half-assed non-confession- quite a lucky find- as the evidence we need! Even though several of the highjackers are still alive!

Nothing going on here folks. Keep it movin...

Posted by TN_Independent

Circumstantial in that people see what they want to see. The only evidence anyone cites is theories and the fact the government hasn't spent millions in investigating conspiracy theories of a phantom "missile" despite the aircraft wreckage found....

I would rather my government didn;t spend gajillions on that. The investigation they did was proper and independent.

I would LOVE to know how it wasn't.

On on the subject of "oil companies" what makes oil companies any more evil than say the cotton industry? or the acloholic beverage industry that all have similar profit margins?

It said a lot of diesel was stored there.

Posted by goatman

No doubt under direct orders from W himself.

"A piper fire"

"We just interpret it from a purely scientific viewpoint, because that's the way i'm wired and my education was in that direction."

I'm not sure what kind of scientist you are but you can't pretend that everyone with a scientific background is saying the same thing you are. So people who don't agree with you aren't sticking their fingers in the ears and ignoring the scientific community. The reality is that the scientific community hasn't reached a consensus on this. That being a given, I have to go with the story for which there is more evidence and that makes more sense to me (not that the Al Queda makes any sense but they had been attacking us and promising something bigger for a quite a while before 9/11).

"I don't have a political party to influence my thinking or give me a metric that all my ideals have to fit into."

Neither do I.

It said a lot of diesel was stored there.

Posted by goatman

I knew an oil company would surface in this conspiracy.

I would LOVE to know how it wasn't.

Check out The 911 Commission:Omissions an Distortions by Griffin.

Why are oil companies more evil? They're not until you take into account the Afghan oil pipeline history and the lengths we go to to get oil, and that coincedentally, the 911 Commission, like this administration who starts wars, was filled with oil people. It is at least the appearance of conflict of interest.

And even the Commission members have since complained their hands were tied in the investigation. So when can I see all the confiscated DC videos if theres nothing to hide?

For all the true believers out their just ask yourself one question:

"What happened to the billions of dollars worth of gold bars located in the basement of the world trade center which was owned by the Bank of Nova Scotia, and why was it removed the weekend before 9/11 under military guard?"

I don't know the answer, I am just asking?

TN - As far as the hijackers being alive - I think we can both agree that nobody who was on those plains is still alive. So at best, what you can say is people alleged to have been hijackers are still alive. And I have little interest in digging it up again, but I thought those stories were disproven. I know the BBC (who initially reported this) and the Saudi Arabian government no longer deny that anyone on the final list of hijackers was involved or that they died on 9/11.

And the idea the government just swept in and took all the scrap from the WTC center away in a flash isn't true. I don't live in NYC but I lived close at that time. I knew people involved in the cleanup. It was all skilled union workers and it took them a long time. There were cops and fireman at the site the whole time. I would find it hard to believe that any of these people found physical evidence of a demolition and didn't say anything.

As for why they started the cleanup right away - I think you have no idea what this whole thing did to people living in the area. The mess smoldered for weeks. It was a health hazard and it was emotionally disturbing to see every day. Nobody at the time was thinking that this big noxious pile of human misery needed to be preserved as a crime scene. Everyone wanted it cleaned up as quickly as possible for very good reason.

I think you have to be a child, insane, stupid, or some combination of the above to believe much of anything that the american corporate/government says.

but a government under this adminstration convinces me of nothing.

Posted by danni at 2008-08-21 03:34 PM | Reply

At the least, Danni always trusted and believed previous administrations.

'I invented the Internet."

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

"Our ship was attacked in international waters in the Gulf of Tonkin."

Ok trained Structural Engineer here...

I read the goings on here to humor me most of the time, but I felt the need to speak up on this the Conspiracy theory is Wacked. I buy the explanation. Especially with the attached building recommendations. I know the construction companies will push the engineers to accept "inferior" ties and such. Been there... And yes while technically they are "sufficient" in a worst case scenario, stronger is always better.

Explosion video - while a descent one it was not deafening (i.e. didn't distort the mike for one thing). I have been near building that were collapsed via explosives - it is DEAFENING. You have no idea where that explosion came from, what it was or exactly when it was. It really could have been anything. I don't see any video evidence showing it coming from #7 or there being an explosion causing it. Things may very well explode before a collapse. How about a GAS line blowing?

I have no doubt they are correct in the report that the fire caused the collapse. The damage caused by the mega-skyscrapers next door collapsing didn't help either. The shear in the columns is easy to explain away in a collapse. So - what is supposed to happen? Is a building supposed to just tip over if it collapses? DOH. No - most of it is probably going to fall right on itself (note what the towers next door did).

I have not spent any time "investigating" this on my own. But I am sure the building DID sustain damage from the collapse next door - the significance of that damage I have no clue. Obviously not enough to cause an immediate collapse. Quite possible there was an explosion or two or three during the collapse of #7. Electrical units, diesel tank, etc. They can all make big bangs but I don't think you would see them since they are usually deep inside the building. And lets face it folks - people don't have photographic memories. I mean if a collapse started - the facade and concrete could very well look and sound like a explosion and that is essentially what it is doing, exploding under the pressure. The collapse may be well on it's way before you "see" it. The eye witness is the most unreliable - especially an untrained one. How many people have been wrongly convicted (or worse executed) on eye witness testimony?

But the weakening of steel in a fire is to say the least a known issue and something that the columns and beams are much better protected against in a modern structure. I don't buy that the planes slamming in at 200-300 MPH didn't strip the protection off in the main towers or that the flames from the planes were anticipated to burn that hot or long. These were old structures but cutting edge in their time and they did have some good insulation - but not modern. It's actually amazing the towers next door withstood the TWO impacts. So what brought them down?

I also didn't see anywhere mentioned that is was just a paper fire - something I read in the posts. Are you telling me there isn't a good possibility it wasn't natural gas fed? Must have had some massive feeds into that building. It is all too much for the arm chair conspiracy theorists here to take in or me to put down in a post.

Bottom line, when you have no sprinkler system (ALL skyscrapers have one) as in a "normal" fire situation to fight or control a fire and like in #7 have a contained fire rage for some time heating crucial support sections, add on 43 stories of weight and sway + just a guess here - damage to the foundation (from the collapse next door) = a massive building in big trouble. I seriously doubt there was any cover up. The target was the BIG buildings next door were the target - #7 barely ranked on the radar in comparison.

Dip shit 911 truth scholars chime in here. Dr Jones KNOWS more then any engineers!

Funny how most all the dem party has bought into the 911 terrorist conspiracy, while bani and co KNOW otherwise. Oh thank goodness for you scholars! I wonder how you know more then the press and your elected officials.....

provide a means to take away peoples contitutional rights and make a false flag operation so we can ...

Posted by Lipzoidial at 2008-08-21 01:04 PM | Reply

OK, who is responsible for the 'false flag' phrase of the past week or so?

Every time a quip like that shows up, weak-minded fools like LiphHemoroid here repeat it again and again.

Stop feeding these fools cute phrases like this. You make them think they are saying something thoughtful and intelligent.

The OFFICIAL government report is here? WHEW! I just felt this huge wave of relief come over my whole being!

I am new here and I don't know how to link stories yet but here is another version of 9/11 you all can discuss after class:

And ask yourself this; why did Dick cheney put himself in charge of our air defenses on 9-11-01. He thought it was time to run some war games, so the hijacked airplanes would not be shot down.

Let me clear about one point. I 100% do believe there were Al Queda terrorists that were flying the planes into the buildings.

They were allowed to continue their path by dick cheney who confused our air defenses so they couldn't shoot them down (remember there was about 30 minutes between hits).

The whole operation was funding by bush and family who is good friends with the bin laden family and the saudi royal family.

That by itself is enough evidence.

then you have the problem of the buildings free-falling. again bulidings only free fall when the legs are knocked out from under them as every demolition expert who has studied it has testified.

Then you have the problem of the other explosions on the ground floor that were captured on camera.

Then you have the problem of the gold - where is it indeed

then you have the problem of wtc 7

Then you have the problem that mossad knew an attack was gonna happen somewhere, they just didn't know where, and they told the us so. it was ignored.

then you have the problem that of all the jews that worked in the wtc complex (thousands), they all stayed home that day.

If you're going to try to hide a controlled demo, are you really going to make it look exactly like a controlled demo?

Posted by Pirate at 2008-08-21 04:06 PM | Reply

Pirate,

You are missing the total brilliance of the conspiracy: everyone has seen controlled demolitions on TV, so to convince people they had to make it look familiar.

Plus, Bush had only been in office a few months. Retards like Lip-Hemoroid think an implosion can be done in a weekend, but it can take six months to arrange a building implosion; Bush didn't have time to set it up any other way.

Sully, I was a resident of NYC at the time. I flew out of the city on 9/10 and back 2 weeks after the event.

There arre plenty of places to keep evidence as long as they needed to. I didn't suggest they shouldn't have started the cleanup right away.

Cops and firemen were looking for survivors and then cleaning up as quickly as possible. They were not conducting forensics.

My favorite side story I love to follow is the money part of 911...Larry Silverstein makes $4.7 billion off the deal!

Thursday, November 08, 2007
Government's 9/11 Investigators Were ALSO Lead OKC Bombing Investigators
Would you be surprised to learn that the exact same investigators who headed up the government's investigation into the World Trade Center collapses and the Pentagon attack on 9/11 also headed up the government's investigation into the Oklahoma City bombing?

The WTC collapses, Pentagon attack and OKC bombing involved assessments of entirely different kinds of structures inflicted with different kinds of damage. And there are 1.5 million engineers in the U.S., many of them highly-qualified to investigate attacks and their damage.

And yet the authors of the official report on the Murrah Federal Building -- Gene Corley, Charles Thornton, Paul Mlaker, and Mete Sozen -- were all among the initial team of the American Society of Civil Engineers' 9/11 investigation.

Several of these individuals have strong connections to industries that benefited from the attack, and that would suffer if it were known that 9/11 was an inside job, such as armaments makers and oil and gas producers.

As if that is not bad enough, the same handful of people who came up with the unscientific "pancake collapse" theory for the Twin Towers while working for FEMA then moved over to spread unscientific theories for NIST:

FEMA Chapter 1 authors:
Therese McAllister: co-write NIST report 1-6 and 1-7
John Gross: co-wrote NIST report 1-6 and 1-7
Ronald Hamburger: NIST contributor
FEMA Chapter 2 authors:
Ronald Hamburger: see above
William Baker: NIST contributor, Freedom Tower
Harold Nelson: co-wrote NIST report 1-5 and 1-7
FEMA Chapter 5 authors (WTC7):
Ramon Gilsanz: co-wrote NIST report 1-6F
Harold Nelson: see above

Does this essay put the above-described information in perspective?

More money was spent on the Clinton BJ investigation. I guess the evidence of a conspiracy is ....

Posted by TN_Independent at 2008-08-21 04:28 PM | Reply

Why did it take so long for an irrelevant reference to Clinton's blow job?

Are these assclowns finally getting over thier silly indignation that Clinton was impeached for lying under oath to a federal grand jury?

Is this some pathetic last gasp about wanting payback by impeaching Bush? Or is this just Danni's alter ego who hit the F-3 hot key?

"Cops and firemen were looking for survivors and then cleaning up as quickly as possible. They were not conducting forensics."

How feasible is it to conduct forensic examinations on thousands of tons of debris? How legitimate are forensic findings when the evidence has been handled and moved around by any number of untrained inviduals beforehand? It would be impossible to verify that any small piece of debris was even at the site once you move it.

I just don't see this as a realistic expectation or as something that would have satisfied conspiracy supporters had it been done.

The only thing I find humorous is these rightie tighties believe the government and its reports on this sight.

The sheep continue to show their willingness for purposeful ignorance for the sake of party.

The funniest out of all this is the righties tighties HATE government in anything but yet here we see they love the government.

You didn't read the article, I see. or if you did, you are being obtuse. It said a lot of diesel was stored there.
____________________________

Investigators also concluded there was no evidence that the collapse was caused by fires from a substantial amount of diesel fuel that was stored in the building.

You didn't read the article, I see. or if you did, you are being obtuse.

I would rather my government didn;t spend gajillions on that. The investigation they did was proper and independent.

I would LOVE to know how it wasn't.

You are a clown. Look up Phillip Zelikow and then come back and tell me the investigation was proper and independent.

Ok trained Structural Engineer here...

Let's see...

Appeal to authority, haven't looked at any evidence yourself, the government is right.

Thanks for stopping by.

Ok trained Structural Engineer here...

Posted by GalaxiePete at 2008-08-21 05:27 PM | Reply

You are just trying to spoil the paranoia of Lefty crackpots like Lip-Hemoroid and TN. Don't bring up facts and informed reasoning.

I've talked with structural engineers who conduct controlled demolition, and they all say that every building wants to fall down (gravity) and it does not take much to make it happen.

How feasible is it to conduct forensic examinations on thousands of tons of debris? How legitimate are forensic findings when the evidence has been handled and moved around by any number of untrained inviduals beforehand? It would be impossible to verify that any small piece of debris was even at the site once you move it.

I just don't see this as a realistic expectation or as something that would have satisfied conspiracy supporters had it been done.

Testing for explosives is conducted in an investigation when arson is suspected in New York. It's a part of their fire code.

Explosives were never tested for in WTC7.

"The only thing I find humorous is these rightie tighties believe the government and its reports on this sight."
Posted by moneywar at 2008-08-21 05:55 PM | Reply

Interesting. Because the thing that I find humorous is that people who don't believe that the Bush Administration can take a crap without blowing it, believe they had a hand in the most successful attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor.
History demonstrates that any evidence that indicates the Bush Administration had the slightest part in this HAS to be incorrect.

"A piper fire"

The worst ever. 168 lives lost. The oil industry still mourns 20 years

"The sheep continue to show their willingness for purposeful ignorance for the sake of party."

This is so idiotic. Even if you call it manufactured evidence, you have to concede that there is evidence to support the official story.

There is ZERO evidence to support a demolition. Other than "it looked like a demolition".

So who is acting on faith here?

I hate Bush, BTW. I'm just not blinded by it.

Sully,

So with lack of evidence we should just believe the government and this administration right!

Interesting, since it was the administration and the government who disposed of the evidence.

One building coming straight down on its own is in the million to one, two in the billion to one and a third, not even being struck is so far out that it would take purposeful ignorance to even think that this didn't have help.

Don't know who but certainly do know the government isn't telling the truth.

So with lack of evidence we should just believe the government and this administration right!

???

There is a study. Did you read it? If so, what is your dispute with it? If not, remove your foot from your mouth.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand why the building the collapsed.

Fire First. Thousands of gallons of jet fuel plus building combustibles primary in the floor that is struck.

Local heating of the steel columns due to the fire.

Considerable mass above the fire.

Mechanical shock broke most of the fire insulation off the steel columns in the floor where the planes hit.

The columns are exposed directly to the fire and reach 1/2 strength around 8-900 degrees F. At 1200 they are completely plastic.

So they collapse in that floor, which triggers a chain reaction. The enormous falling mass above the fire produces dynamic loads which quickly collapse the columns clear to the ground, even though those sections never overheated.

Its like the difference between putting a car on a jack and dropping a car 40 feet onto a jack. In the first case the jack easily handles the load, but in the second it is crushed.

Some of the WTC steel was recycled into the USS New York

DUH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Only an idiot would thin k different.. FIRE BURNS

I linked to the Piper Alpha incident above for different reasons, but a lesson learned there applies here.

There are those (bOoB, e.g.) who maintain that jet fuel could not burn hot enough to cause the softening of steel necessary for collapse. The Piper Alpha was burning crude (i.e., unrefined oil) yet it managed to cause the collapse of that rig. And that rig didn't even have the weight of a few dozen floors concrete and more steel above it!

I'll be honest with you guys, I was ok with all the ambiquities and unusual connections for a long time. Then I found out the little snippet about Dick Cheney deciding he wants to be air command boss for a day.

There are voice recordings from the pilots that were in the air command that day. They recieved the calls that several planes had been hijacked etc... They were also getting war-game commands which led them away from the real action. What would you think if you got a call that 3 planes had been hijacked in NY? You would think it was part of the war-game.

They sound very qualified and professional. The whole game was designed to try to confuse the pilots, but since they are on active duty also, they are given a means to end the game in case of an actual emergency. The pilot asked the dipatcher if this was a go, an emergency, the dispatcher stammered around and said something like, i'll get back to ya.

I don't know what other conclusion I can draw from that other than it was a manipulated situation on some level and that automatically makes you start looking suspiciously at ever other level.

All the physical evidence has been observed by experts and it is inconclusive, however. every one also said that there was enough evidence to support further study. That's just a big old scientific 'I Don't Know'.

The biggest single scientific strange thing was the way the building fell, in a freefall. It's not like we have a lot of empirical evidence to fall back on, there's not many skyscrapers pancaking, in fact it has never even been seen before outside of controlled demolitions.

The reason it is hard to understand is that we only saw it from about 3000 ft away. Something had to break the inertia of the building. It is possible a floor collapsed, and got the inertia started.

Anyone seen footage of the WTC and the explosions going off? Practically every news channel that day thought other bombs were planted in those buildings... Oh, and check out the pictures of the beams at the WTC after the collapse... they are cut at 45 degree angles, what is this about???

FDNY was interviewed on camera, just YouTube it, and many fire fighters said they heard other explosions going off in the towers... This was after the planes had already smashed into the towers...

What about the steel analysis that showed evidence for a military grade patented controlled demolitions explosive, THERMITE!???

This "scientific" analysis by NIST is a bunch of balogne...

Then it went on and on like that as it pancaked on down. But that takes time to do. It is definately not a freefall. This has been measured btw, that it does in fact fall at almost freefall speed.

Now I ask myself if this was all circumstantial, possibly. What about the character of the people involved? Ah, now, we have a problem. Considering that they later lied to the whole of the world and caused death, destruction and mayhem (and great riches for their friends), now we have a character problem on a collosal scale.

I say we go back and look at everything. There will be no prosecutions but at least we'll know to what extent we were fucked over.

Somebody's lamp's gone out.

[citation needed]

I have a serious question here.

I have heard many say that steel cant melt by fire.

Isn't that just how they make steel, by melting it with fire? So why do people say this, I don't get it.

If there are any qualified metalurgists/inspectors or scientists out there with a response, I would greatly appreciate an explanation.

....The Piper Alpha was burning crude (i.e., unrefined oil) yet it managed to cause the collapse of that rig. And that rig didn't even have the weight of a few dozen floors concrete and more steel above it!

Posted by goatman at 2008-08-21

Here's another photo of the Piper Alpha -- this one of it burning at night -- which shows even more the intensity of the fire.

"and weaken to where the building would eventually collapse"

The word is anneal.

I agree with Goatman's analysis

Who would have thought?!!!

Get a room already and get it over with.

One of my favorite physics lecture demonstrations is to take an annealed copper rod and twist it rapidly into a pretzel shape.

Then ask the biggest jock in the audience to straighten it out; He can't. It's work-hardened.

Go back to the machine shop, heat it up and straighten it out for the next fool.

ZAT

"and weaken to where the building would eventually collapse"

The word is anneal.

- Zat

Okay, genius, let me rephrase it then ....

"and the steel annealed to where the building would eventually collapse."

Is it right now?
Learn something new all the time on here.

Now I ask myself if this was all circumstantial, possibly. What about the character of the people involved? Ah, now, we have a problem. Considering that they later lied to the whole of the world and caused death, destruction and mayhem (and great riches for their friends), now we have a character problem on a collosal scale.

----

This just happened after Bush was elected by a narrow and contested margin. There's no way this was all planned in 10 months.

Here's where the conspiracy theory really spins out of control.

ZAT

Or should I have said "...the heat caused the steel to anneal to where the building
would eventually collapse"?

Chris

A rose is a rose ...

anneal əˈnil/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-neel]

verb (used with object)

1. to heat (glass, earthenware, metals, etc.) to remove or prevent internal stress.
2. to free from internal stress by heating and gradually cooling.
3. to toughen or temper.
4. Biochemistry. to recombine (nucleic acid strands) at low temperature after separating by heat.
5. to fuse colors onto (a vitreous or metallic surface) by heating.
noun
6. an act, instance, or product of annealing.

"I agree with Goatman's analysis"

Who would have thought?!!!

Posted by moneywar

What bs, $$$$War.
I tell Goatman every time he's wrong on a point or issue too. Why just look at all the times I've pointed out all your mistakes, errors, miscalculations, misjudgments, and messed up logic. : )

Zat

Chris

A rose is a rose ...

Thanks for the flowers.

"Thanks for the flowers."

Posted by CalifChris

That's a ham radio term for a good signal report.

With the recent enormous rain I have one tiny rose outside.

No need to run the irrigation system.

Zat

err, what is it?
A topo map?

I thought I'd get a photo of one nice little rose. *sigh*

oh well.

As far as the Piper Alpha is concerned (and I am no expert) I would imagine that burning crude and the gas vapor that would rise along with the actual crude would have a different burn profile than Jet fuel. Also there could have been corrosion caused by salt that could have contributed the collapse.

When I was in the service the jets used JP5 witch had a suppressant in it and was thickened so it would not leak or spontaneously erupt. I dont know if it is the same fuel used on commercial flights.

Also, the engineers on board would scare the newbies by dropping light matches down the sounding tubes to prove the point that the diesel we used onboard was more flammable as a gas than as a liquid.

My two scents - may mean nothing..

"A topo map?

I thought I'd get a photo of one nice little rose. *sigh*"

Irrigated hay field.

Just a minute.

I think it was a jet that brought it down. I could have saved them millions of dollars!

It'a a beautiful rose, Zat. Thank you.

They were allowed to continue their path by dick cheney who confused our air defenses so they couldn't shoot them down (remember there was about 30 minutes between hits).

There is nothing left to say to people that honestly believe this... that someone could be stupid enough to think that not only could the Vice President do this, but more importantly get away with it is mind blowing.

To me it is more likely that Cheney actually did it, then for someone to honestly be this stupid.... unbelievable.

Even though two airplanes brought down two buildings ineptitude and a coverup was the order of the day.

Air Traffic Controllers made real time cassette tapes of their interactions with American and United but their Supervisor cut the tapes into itty bitty pieces and threw them away.

Both black boxes were discovered by firemen during the demolition. These boxes were immediately confiscated by the FBI. Their contents are top secret.

"It'a a beautiful rose, Zat. Thank you."

Posted by CalifChris

The little darlin' sure caught my attention.
Thanks for motivatin' me to record it.
The Goddess tells me that bush is a Double Delight.
We're going to the Eckert James River bat cave on Sunday.

I am so tired of 9/11. People who believe the official government accounts are living with their heads in the clouds. A fire brought down this building? Not likely.

9/11 was orchestrated by Bush/Cheney and the Israelis. Everybody knows it.

"So with lack of evidence we should just believe the government and this administration right!"

You keep forgetting...... There IS evidence to support the government's story. Could they be wrong or lying about some details? Sure. But the basic story they are telling seems most likely.

There is NO evidence to support your conspiracy theory. So as much as you want to pretend that I'm the follower here, you are the one acting on faith.

Zat

I'm glad you saved the rose forever in a photo.

Also, the bat cave should be fun and very interesting to see. Certain parts of Yosemite Valley would have bats flying about outside when it got towards dusk. Your daughter's art work is quite unique. I liked the artwork piece she did which you once showed us -- all in shades of yellow with different textures, if I remember it correctly. Very nice. You all have a good time on Sunday!

WTC 7 collapsed into it's own footprint in under a minute.

It's simply impossible that this occured purely because of a fire.

This fucked up Federal study is stunningly stupid.

This Report will go right next to the Warren Report in the Hall of "Great Moments in Government White Washes".

My two scents

~Prolix247

"You all have a good time on Sunday!"

Posted by CalifChris

Feeding the Durango will suck, but at 55 MPH it gets 20 MPG. And It's got radios from DC to light.
We've been in Mexico with that truck when the skid plates paid for themselves.

Also there could have been corrosion caused by salt that could have contributed the collapse.

There is no salt corrosion above decks (where the collapse took place) on an oil rig. Very little below decks as far as that is concerned.

What bs, $$$$War.
I tell Goatman every time he's wrong on a point or issue too. Why just look at all the times I've pointed out all your mistakes, errors, miscalculations, misjudgments, and messed up logic

She is probably the most unbiased person on the DR, runnysore. It is you who needs to get a room -- one that is lined with rubber. da bOoB knows where to get 'em cheap. Talk to him.

A fire brought down this building? Not likely.

???

It's very likely

Totally---

It's simply impossible that this occured purely because of a fire.

Do you have any engineering data to support this or is it a knee jerk opinion based on hate of the current administration?

Burning crude oil melted and collapsed an oil rig. Crude oil burns at a lower temp than its distillates. Also an oil rig has only a fraction the weight above it that the WTC had.

Or maybe the Piper Alpha was wired for a controlled detonation too?

And on the outside in the Credibility Derby, along comes Bigfoot.

Twin Towers is moving up.

On the outside UFOs are lagging behind.

And wait, here on the inside is Little Green Men ...

Them thar creatures what snuck explosives "into" the Pentagon, sure are devious folk. And the vow of silence that the guards have taken, omerta, has been maintained. Now, that's discipline for you.

There are 15,000 people involved in the massive conspiracy, and not one of them has talked. You need to acknowledge that our guys are well-trained, and ...

Are these assclowns finally getting over thier silly indignation that Clinton was impeached for lying under oath to a federal grand jury?
Is this some pathetic last gasp about wanting payback by impeaching Bush? Or is this just Danni's alter ego who hit the F-3 hot key?
POSTED BY VERNON

Hey Vern- I am no defender of Bill Clinton. I even had no problem with the impeachment at the time. But your disingenuous retort here avoids the point I was making which was, if it was worth 40 million (or whatever) to find Clinton guilty of the crime of lying under oath, why is it only worth 7 million and counting on volunteers to get to the bottom of the biggest crime in US history?

So how did you feel about buchcheney REFUSING to go under oath or even in front of closed doors without ANY record about 911??? Dont you think it was worse than lying under oath about a bj or anything else- Just a little bit? Otherwise- are you saying Clinton's only messup was agreeing to go under oath?

I don't buy a U.S. conspiracy to hit ourselves. It was a terrorist attack.

That said, there are serious holes in the story, and the govt has already been caught lying to us in this war repeatedly.

Tillman. Lynch. The WTC debris not being dangerous to people on the ground.

it's not a conspiracy. It's CYA( Cover your ass) and some bits of national security info.(tapes showing plane impact on the petagon were confiscated and never shown)

It's ALL about CYA with our govt. Why else would they collect and remove the steel so quickly? I also believe, based on testimony and sound evidence on tapes, that there were explosions in at least one of the WTC buildings causing it to fall.(perhaps an elevator dropping?) Maybe its being covered up because the building wasn't up to code and shouldn't have fallen. We know it had asbestos inside that only became dangerous when the building collapsed.

And another note:

I believe that 9-11 has become a good indicator of people's worlds views on the net.

We have skeptics, pragmatics, conspiracy nuts, authority haters, and authority lovers.

It seems our views of 9-11 tell others more about ourselves than they do about the massacre itself.

Wow, it's been a long time since I've thought about 9-11. If there was a cover up, it succeeded. It's too late now, if evidence came out today it would feel manufactured, fake, there's been time to really plan it out.

No, the official explanation stands, it's become history now. It would be unthinkable for the public for a conspiracy to be revealed at this point.

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.

Bill was nobodies fool.

Inside job.

And another note:

I believe that 9-11 has become a good indicator of people's worlds views on the net.

We have skeptics, pragmatics, conspiracy nuts, authority haters, and authority lovers.

It seems our views of 9-11 tell others more about ourselves than they do about the massacre itself.

Posted by Alexandrite

I agree with you here Alex...

So what does that say about yourself?:>)

ps I would language "conspiracy nuts" with another term...perhaps "fact finders"?:>)

Monday, June 25, 2007
70 Reasons To Doubt The Official Story of 9/11

John Doraemi

I agree with you here Alex...

So what does that say about yourself?:>)

Posted by Bani at 2008-08-22 12:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm a skeptic. I don't immediately believe what the govt tells me, but also don't buy fevered and illogical crap as an alternate explanation.

I wish anyone out there who doubts that a fire could cause the collapse of the WTC would explain how a fire could cause a collapse of this oil rig:

Got some Ocean front property in Arizona real cheap for you Neoturds that believe everything this administration tells you. Seeing how they have been wrong about every single thing for eight years! Ask Rudy G. what really happened to tower 7, he knew it was coming down.

Well the WTC had the diesel stored there, Goat.

And I don't know if you've ever seen diesel subjected to an ignition source....

....but whooo-dogie!

You'd better Cuidado!

Interesting article written in 1999 about the Piper Alpha and the gas leak which set off the explosion. Be careful, Goat, if they move your own rig over to that new spot where they told you guys to take extra precautions for possible gas escaping. Oil, gas and fire are a dangerous mix, that's for sure.

Well the WTC had the diesel stored there, Goat.

But, but, but da bOoB says that's not possible for diesel to cause that kind of heat to soften steel. He saw it on youtube.com so it's gotta be true.

Be careful, Goat, if they move your own rig over to that new spot where they told you guys to take extra precautions for possible gas escaping.

The gas they are worried about (and will take away my beard next month) is H2S, hydrogen sulfide. A few of whiffs of it at over a couple of hundred PPM or so is deadly. It's not natural gas they are worried about. Our next well is predicted to have H2S. So if the well takes a kick during drilling and the BOP fails and gas comes up the riser, I guess it's curtains. I'm not too worried -- mainly because I'm one of the guys who makes sure the safety guards work.

That's kind of scary -- actually really scary.
No chance to even put on a gas mask if you had it on your desk.

Hope they're providing you with state of the art H2S gas detection equipment. By the time you can smell the gas yourself it might be too late. I read it smells like rotten eggs.

This stuff is nasty, Goat!

Joining Rice on the Obama call was former National Security Council counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke, who dubbed the presumptive Republican nominee "Quick Draw John." Clarke drew on his experience on the NSC to talk about McCain's own judgment after Sept. 11, 2001, saying that McCain was pushing for war with Iraq before the Bush administration had even made its own mind up on the matter. "Sen. McCain had already decided," Clarke said. "He and his neoconservative foreign policy types that he agreed with are one of the reasons that George W. Bush decided to go to Iraq."

----

That was from the McCain wanted to attack Iraq before Bush article. Interesting thing to note.

If Bush planned 9/11 as a reason to invade Iraq, why was he undecided afterwards?

Wait, I know. It's all part of the overall neocon plan that McCain and Bush are involved with. Bush was having second thoughts and McCain had to push him along.

I'm not too worried -- mainly because I'm one of the guys who makes sure the safety guards work.

Call me paranoid, call me crazy, but I'd make sure not only the safety guards I was responsible for worked but I'd personally want to see to it that everyone else has made sure their safety guards worked too -- kind of a team effort, let's say. All you need (or don't need!) is one guy who didn't check it right. I imagine you all have each other double check your work, though. At least for a safety situation like this.

Interesting stuff at the end of that article I linked about H2S on oil rigs. To me you can never learn too much when dealing with a situation concerning a substance as dangerous as H2s.

Read in that article how after awhile your olfactory (sp?) nerves can be desensitized to the odor of the gas after th gas reaches a certain level. That's another precaution you'd want to be aware of. imho

good luck and take care!

I read it smells like rotten eggs.

It does. I've sniffed it. We have a can of test gas that is nitrogen and 25 ppm H2S that we calibrate the sensors with. Even the small amount that escapes and gets to the nose (probably a couple of ppm by then) smells strongly of rotten eggs.

Goatman

One more article, although I imagine you guys have it more than covered for precautions on your own rig.

Go down to the section on H2S on off shore rigs -- it's Alabama's State Oil and Gas Board -- offshore rigs - H2S precautions. Be interesting to see how this one compares with your own. The way I see it, you can never learn too much about this dealing with this stuff.

Got some Ocean front property in Arizona real cheap for you Neoturds that believe everything this administration tells you.

'Neoturd'. I presume that is my excrement before it reaches a certain age?

I don't need any administration to tell me that a fire can cause a weakening of steel that cannot support thousands of kilos of mass above it.

My, my, you are indeed 'a crafty one'

How is this possible, "fact finders" (Bani)? Do you think the rig was rigged with the same detonation explosives as the WTC?

Please, any of you doubters -- I'd like to know the answer to this perplexing question.

Posted by goatman

good luck on it!...I like to stick to what's so super obvious:>)

Debunking NIST's Conclusions about WTC 7: Easy as Shooting Fish in a Barrel

That link doesn't answer my question, but thanks for posting it anyway, bani.

In case you didn't catch the question, I was wondering why a fire could cause a collapse of an oil rig, but supposedly not affect the WTC. Given its weight and type of fire, it would be much more susceptible to structual failure in an inferno than an oil rig.

But, but, but da bOoB says that's not possible for diesel to cause that kind of heat to soften steel. He saw it on youtube.com so it's gotta be true.

Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7,--

NIST says diesel had nothing to do with the collapse. Why do you keep acting like it says it does?

"Fewer and fewer Americans believe what the
government says about anything."

take this a step or three further...
is there anything the government doesn't lie to us about.
not just 9/11, the oklahoma city bombing, the bay of tonkin, oswald or alien creatures that vote straight-ticket-republican.
it is impossible to believe anything one hears on the news... tis just the delivery machine for those in power.
they are so accustomed to holding back the truth that it is all that they know how to do.
and of course there are the crimes to cover up.

all the best

Hey, I'm all for invisible cities like Shambhala & hellfire oil rigs, Flying Dutchman...& so forth:>)

NIST says diesel had nothing to do with the collapse. Why do you keep acting like it says it does?

Forget the diesel. I was responding to a retort that mentioned diesel.

I want to know why they naysayers think a fire could not collapse that building, but a lesser one could collapse an oil rig with much less mass.

okay, bb...I mean goatie...

Debunking NIST's Conclusions about WTC 7: Easy as Shooting Fish in a Barrel

----

I'm sure the guy read all 77 pages of the report too. Wait, he just linked the Q&A page.

and...
if one looks into building 7 and lines up the anomalies in the structure's fate, it's really tough to buy the official story.
the uniqueness of its building's perfect collapse is one part, of course... and a good one at that, but the thermite found in the air can only come from an explosive device... nothing else from the planes or natural environment would cause that. the cia had a center set up there... that should say something. on and on...
too many oddities will bring out the loon as well as the non-loon. they'll look closely to see what it is that is the most logical & reasonable answer.
it won't be what the government has told us.

all the best

As federal agency declares 'new phenomenon' downed WTC 7, activists cry foul

I don't know, this website makes some real valid arguments -- along with some great photos -- showing how Buiiding 7 collapsed and it was due to fire weakening the structure and then the building's collapse, not due to explosives.

It also debunks the famous theory that Bldg. 7 "was pulled"

check it out --

Fires Knocked Down Steel-Frame Buildings

NIST said fires alone brought down Building 7, but other office fires have burned longer and hotter without causing collapse.

----

He didn't debunk this. All he is saying is since it hasn't happened before so therefore, it can't happen. That's faulty logic.

uniqueness of its building's perfect collapse is one part, of course

That is the silliest of all arguments. It is an art to make a building fall exactly as you want it to. If someone was going to configure a building to collapse and cause max damage, why would they take the extra time (and risk of getting caught) to make sure the explosives were placed perfectly? Wouldn't they do a quicker job by putting the explosives on one side, causing the building to fall to one side and cause more collateral damage?

Or was the mindset something like, "We want to cause damage by toppling a building, but not too much damage"?

Right. You guys are funny with your 'logic'

Move one, please. There are space aliens in NM we have to report on.

Check out the second photo in my link -- the large photo of the building.
It's sides are literally peeling away like skin off an onion. The whole building is gutted. No explosion, just lots of damage and it was gutted.

"There are space aliens in NM we have to report on."

no, goatman.
they were ran out of new mexico and are inhabiting in the eastern region of phoenix.
i see them every day.
i've photos!

all the best

you can't make this stuff up...Lucky Larry owned the 3 buildings for how long?

Lucky Larry wants $12.3 billion more for 9/11
By Jerry Mazza
Online Journal Associate Editor

Apr 3, 2008, 00:38

Like the proverbial bad penny, Lucky Larry Silverstein keeps popping up. Hes back and hes bad again. Not content with the nearly $4.6 billion in insurance payments he received to cover his losses at the World Trade Center, he is now seeking $12.3 billion in damages from the airlines and airport security companies for the 9/11 attack in a suit filed in 2004.

Not tainted enough by the fact that Silverstein & Partners took out a lease for 99 years in July of 2001 on the WTC, two months before the attack . . . not content Larry & Partners upped the insurance at that time to $3.5 billion and (presciently) to cover potential hits by airliners flown by terrorist hijackers-- . . .

Not content that Silverstein & Partners subsequently sued the insurers for $7 billion, considering the attack a double strike because separate liners hit Towers One and Two. Not content that Larry spent the next six years in litigation with the insurance companies, only to have the deal fortunately settled, brokered by then Governor Spitzer in 2007, yielding $4.55 to Lucky Larry and Partners . . .

Not content either that his personal stake in the lease was only some $14 million, the balance supplied by his partners. Not content that he made another $500 million on the destruction of his Tower 7, which he owned and quickly rebuilt bigger and better. Not content that no liner hit Tower 7 and that the fires were out, he announced at 3:30 p.m. on 9/11 that there had been so much pain and suffering that he and the NYFD decided to pull it-- -- Tower 7 . . .

Not content that in fact at 5 p,m,, not even two hours later . . . Tower 7 went down at the freefall speed of gravity in a matter of seconds neatly into its own footprint, a classic internal demolition.-- Not content that you cant set up an internal demolition on a 47-story steel-framed building in less than two hours or two days, or even two weeks. Not content that his smoking gun-- has attracted the attention of every 9/11 critic around the world . . .

Not content that the BBC made an incredible gaffe as a TV journo of theirs, supposedly in New York, reported that Tower 7 had fallen, that is, 26 minutes before it actually fell and with a News24 time stamp-- video to prove it. Not content that even Google had to pull the video . . . Larry Silverstein, the Oliver Twist of 9/11 disaster, is back, asking for more, sir, more please. Incredible! What colossal chutzpah!

But hey, Larrys got reasons; boy, does he have reasons. His lawyers aired them in the United States Southeastern District Court in Manhattan, the same court in which the 9/11 victims families have been plaintiffs for cases to sue the airlines and security companies, and by the way, where 90 families have been turned down for lawsuits and only two remain who havent taken the money and shut up, and where Ellen Mariani has been consistently turned down and continues to be . . .

Yet,Larrys lawyers have come to ask the wonderful Judge Hellerstein for more, the same Hellerstein who asked all the families to take the money and move on-- and told them that money was the universal lubricant . . ." What goes around comes around.

Where's BBob? He owns this thread.

Bani,

That's circumstantial. Where's the hard proof?

lol

Tower 7 went down at the freefall speed

No, it didn't.

Not content that the BBC made an incredible gaffe as a TV journo of theirs, supposedly in New York, reported that Tower 7 had fallen, that is, 26 minutes before it actually fell and with a News24 time stamp-- video to prove it

BBC is in on the conspiracy I guess.

I'm out for the night.

Where's the hard proof?

Silly rabbit -- That's the beauty of conspiracies -- you don't need hard proof. You just say it, and it's so.

Thermite, however, does not make an explosion sound. And while this was raised to Dr. Sunder in the media's Q&A session, he dismissed it as impossible.

"FEMA found it," said Gage. "Dr. Steven Jones found it, in the dust that landed in the entire area of lower Manhattan. And he finds it in the chunks of previously molten metal [from the towers]."

Specifically, in Appendix C of its World Trade Center Building Performance Study, FEMA claimed:

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel... The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.
Yet, no study of the mysterious sulfur or melted steel was included in the NIST report.

Bani -- all your links mean nothing. It has been proven in real life that a fire caused by gas or oil can indeed weaken a structure enough to collapse. Thermite is not needed.

Unless of course they were using thermite in the construction of oil rigs in the '70s. But I doubt it.

There is nothing new in this thread. The government position has always been that fire brought down WTC7. Except in the old days they used to say the stored deisel was to blame for all the heat. But again, deisel has to be mist/gas/vapor before it will ignite. It will not burn in the liquid state.

Nothing in WTC7 burned hot enough to weaken steel.

That WTC7 was brought down with explosives is proven by anyone with eyes that can see the explosive charges traveling up the sides of WTC7 just before it falls into its own footprint.

"Bani -- all your links mean nothing to fools like me?"

lol

----

So Larry got the lease, crafted and executed the plan in 2 months. All for insurance money when he was already super rich.

Seriously, quit smoking candy corn.

Seriously, quit smoking candy corn.

Posted by Pirate

is that why you are so dense?

Please tell me you are not naive enough to think they are going to release a report that would sink a whole generation of political operatives as well as crush the whole american ideal and economy, as well as lead to hundreds of high level executives and the president being brought up on charges.

It ain't gonna happen. Never has, never will.

I suppose you think Oswald shot kennedy from 300 ft with pin-point accuracy with a bullet that either 1)defied the laws of physics or 2)was self propelled and could change directions. That's what the warren report said it did.

Posted by Lipzoidial"

Hey lipservice, sounds like a new Oliver Stone or Michael Moore movie to me...

I bet you will be among those first in line to buy tickets in support of your wackjob heros, eh?

Nothing in WTC7 burned hot enough to weaken steel.

Right, and I take it you're a part of the conspiracy?

I mean you know so much about what really happened you must have insider information.

Larry's not a trillionaire like the Marcos family:>)

September 26, 2003

Gold Warriors
The Plundering of Asia
By DOUGLAS VALENTINE

"In return for services rendered, Marcos was allowed to sell over $1 trillion in gold through Australian brokers."

How was a natural gas fire able to cause the collapse of the Piper Alpha -- especially considering that there was hundreds of times less weight involved on the Piper Alpha, bOoB?

Beats me--but natural gas fires don't melt steel. Ever heard of a Stove? People keep them in their kithen, and Stoves have natural gas fires right on top of them--four natural gas fires at a time are possible, and guess what--the stoves are made of steel--so are the burners--and the stoves and burners don't melt.

I see you didn't respond to what your eyes see. Are you waiting for the government to tell you what you see?

Beats me--but natural gas fires don't melt steel.

Well, it happened. If a natural gas fire can collapse an oil rig with say 1000 tons of steel, there is no doubt a hotter burning jet fuel fire could collapse a building with thousands of times the weight on top.

So unless you can explain the Piper Alpha, your statement Nothing in WTC7 burned hot enough to weaken steel. is blatantly untrue. The Piper Alpha proves it.

Or do you think the Piper Alpha was rigged with explosives? LOL

This is really quite a story about the Piper Alpha.
All the talk made me want to read about it and I came across this article if anyone is interested.
A few of the guys that managed to survive jumped 170 feet off the helideck deck into the water. A riviting account. What a horrible accident.

Well, it happened. If a natural gas fire can collapse an oil rig with say 1000 tons of steel, there is no doubt a hotter burning jet fuel fire could collapse a building with thousands of times the weight on top.

I see your oil rig and lots of unmelted steel.

So unless you can explain the Piper Alpha, your statement Nothing in WTC7 burned hot enough to weaken steel. is blatantly untrue. The Piper Alpha proves it.

Sorry--I see no proof that fire did all the damage to your Piper structure, and you have provide no proof other than a picture. Show me a link that says a natural gas fire gets hot enough to melt steel, and you will have a point. Kerosene doesn't get how enough to melt fuel, and jet fuel is kerosene based.

Or do you think the Piper Alpha was rigged with explosives? LOL

I don't think the piper alpha is anything but your imagination. You still haven't responded to the video link, and here is another.

I guess the proof of your own eyes isn't good enough.

Beats me--but natural gas fires don't melt steel.

???

Who said it did? It weakened it enought to cause a collapse however.

Another thing to consider: The Piper Alpha was not enclosed as was the WTC -- it was in the wide open, so it probably burned even cooler than it would if the fire was confined inside as was the WTC fire.

Looks like real life trumps a youtube.com video again, bOoB. Sorry about that.

well, sea stuff has so many potential mysteries in them unlike such obvious inside jobs like 911...

Invisible Residents: Startling evidence for the possibility of intelligent life underwater by a distinguished naturalist and scientist.

by Ivan Terence Sanderson

"I've read the first page to a multitude of people and they simply don't know what to say. It starts off in the South Atlantic Ocean in Admiralty Bay with US Navy's "Operation Deep Freeze" with a 'something' that 'suddenly came roaring up out of the sea through no less than 37 feet of ice, and went on up into the sky like a vast silvery bullet(!)'"

Beats me--but natural gas fires don't melt steel. Ever heard of a Stove? People keep them in their kithen, and Stoves have natural gas fires right on top of them--four natural gas fires at a time are possible, and guess what--the stoves are made of steel--so are the burners--and the stoves and burners don't melt.

I see you didn't respond to what your eyes see. Are you waiting for the government to tell you what you see?

www.youtube.com

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-08-22 02:47 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

You obviously don't know jack shit about anything Buffalo Bob. I swore I wouldn't come back to the retort. But alas I must. This is BULLSHIT deluxe and MUST be addressed. Natural Gas Fires Do indeed melt steel. My Town is living proof of this.

I see you didn't respond to what your eyes see.

LOL I see you didn't respond to what your eyes see.

Goatman

Show me a link that says a natural gas fire gets hot enough to melt steel,

Jesus, you are dense. I'll say it one more time. Read slowly:

It did not melt it. It weakened it.

Got it? It's a simple concept that even your simple mind should be able to grasp.

wow -- this one small safety valve, this one small detail overlooked and BOOM --
blew up the Piper Alpha. Shows you can never be too careful.

It was down to one small safety valve, one of more than 100 identical devices that were essential to prevent a dangerous build-up of liquid gas in an area of the oil rig known as C module.

As part of routine maintenance and safety procedure, technicians had removed, checked and replaced all these valves - all except for this one, which had been taken off earlier that day and checked, but never put back.

At 10pm, unaware that the safety valve had not been replaced, a technician pressed a start button for the liquid gas pumps - and the gas began to leak out of it.

LARRY! Welcome back. We missed you! Speaking for myself, I am sincere in my sentiments. I'm glad to see you again.

While I still believe explosives brought down WTC 1 2 and 7 Natural Gas Fires do indeed melt steel. I have seen it with My own eyes.

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr

great post & good to see you back for a nite ~ Larry!

I am not sure that I am back or not Goatman I just had to say something about the natural gas thing. I lived through it. Thanks for the WB however.

Larry

Larry! Great to see you're back. Just now saw your name on the Front Page.
Are you back to stay for awhile?

Don't know CalifChris. I really don't. I just got totally pissed at Buffalo Bob and just HAD to say something. Lord only knows.

Larry

Larry,

Murphy has been asking for you.
There's some sports games she wanted to share with you, I think.
Your favorite game -- women's softball hahaha -- has been on plus the Olympic games too. I know she'd like to see you stick around and so would the rest of us.

Case closed.

It sure is. A real life demonstration that weakened steel can collapse under less stressful conditions than were at the WTC does indeed close the case. Sorry you lost.

You'll be redeemed if you can explain the Piper Alpha. Until then we have to assume that if steel can weaken to the point of collapse on an oil rig, it can weaken in a skyscraper to that point, too.

See ya, loser. LOL

Oh and Buffalo Bob do You know WHY Natural Gas doesn't melt Your burners and stove metals?? It's because the pressure isn't there for it to melt them. I believe ours is in the neighborhood of between 4 to 25 PSI. That is from the meter to Your hotwater tanks and stoves and such. If they opened the valve all the way and had full bore pressure they would melt. Just an FYI

Larry

. I just got totally pissed at Buffalo Bob and just HAD to say something. Lord only knows.

What, BuffaloBbob piss someone off? hahaha

Well, if he pissed you off enough to bring you back here from cyberspace it was worth it, right?

Great Cartoon!

"Then a miracle occurs"

Well, good to see ya, Larry. Hope you come back tomorrow too.
Have fun, you all.

Yeah I guess CalifChris. So Murphy has been asking about Me huh?? That's strange. I'll tell Her hi tomorrow. Thanks for the 411.

Larry

I don't think the piper alpha is anything but your imagination.

What a fucked up thing to say. 168 people died. a couple of dozen more maimed and/or disfigured for life.

have you no decency whatsoever?

Yeah, Murphy asked a couple of times on the Nooner if anyone knew where you've been. nanc said she heard from you and you just sort of felt like taking a breather from here -- something all of us can relate to.

have you no decency whatsoever?

en.wikipedia.org

Posted by goatman

as goatie goes for the kill...

did you get a chance to some necccccessssary infanticide yet thru time travel?

Smoky fires are cool fires.

did you get a chance to some necccccessssary infanticide yet thru time travel?

You mean that Hitler thing? Still working on it. I'm counting on some of Art Bell's time travelers to provide some assistance.

"My imagination running amok again."

That would be the etheric plane in St. Paul's cosmology

fire after the neocons detonated explosives

Still working on it. I'm counting on some of Art Bell's time travelers to provide some assistance.

Posted by goatman

Beaming John Titor!

"There is a civil war in the United States that starts in 2005. That conflict flares up and down for 10 years. In 2015, Russia launches a nuclear strike against the major cities in the United States (which is the "other side" of the civil war from my perspective), China and Europe. The United States counter attacks. The US cities are destroyed along with the AFE (American Federal Empire)...thus we (in the country) won. The European Union and China were also destroyed. Russia is now our largest trading partner and the Capitol of the US was moved to Omaha Nebraska."

hey, I lived in Omaha when I was between 2 & 4...

Oh and Buffalo Bob many Manufacturers use Natural Gas to melt steel in the manufacturing process. You should watch the Discovery channel sometime How It's Made. Oh and just an FYI. MythBusters is doing the Moon landing hoax myth next Wednesday just FYI.

Larry

Laters MAYBE

While I still believe explosives brought down WTC 1 2 and 7 Natural Gas Fires do indeed melt steel. I have seen it with My own eyes.

Larry Mohr

Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-08-22 03:03 AM | Reply

You need to figure out the difference between an explosion and a fire. Your links talk about explosions doing the damage.

Show me a link where natural gas reaches a high enough temperature to melt steel. I already know that exploding natural gas tears steel apart.

... natural gas fires don't melt steel.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-08-22 02:47 AM

The Tharos is driven off due to the fearsome heat, which begins to melt the surrounding machinery and steelwork.

Goatman

I checked into the Piper Alpha, and as usual, your perception is skewed. What damaged the platform steel was a giant explosion, followed by secondary explosions--not the fire.

Don't be a stranger, Larry

Oh, I'm part of BB world, too, in the same way you are goatie...

we all have a similar sparkie from Mr.(Ms?) Invisible

You need to figure out the difference between an explosion and a fire. Your links talk about explosions doing the damage.

Show me a link where natural gas reaches a high enough temperature to melt steel. I already know that exploding natural gas tears steel apart.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-08-22 03:40 AM | Reply

I guess I am back quicker than I thought. There was an initial explosion with the subsequent fire afterwards.

fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too

Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can.

i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!

What damaged the platform steel was a giant explosion, followed by secondary explosions--not the fire.

You didn't check very far, then. If you had, you'd have known that the explosion knocked out some above deck bulkheads. It did nothing to the structure itself.

Read it again, dodo.

Even if wasn't in print, we have seen that video many times at many safety meetings on the rigs. The three major explosions happened in the first 25 minutes. The rig was still standing with live men on board.

Do some more research, idiot, and get your facts straight. The last explosion was at 10:20. The rig started to melt at 10:50

10:50 p.m. The second gas line ruptures, spilling millions of litres of gas into the conflagration. Huge flames shoot over three hundred feet in the air. The Tharos is driven off due to the fearsome heat, which begins to melt the surrounding machinery and steelwork.

Steel Mills use Natural Gas to melt steel in their manufgacturing facilities.

Goatman

Show me a link that has natural gas burning at a higher temperature than steel melts. Your report of the Tharos being driven off by heat that was melting steel machinery is hardly conclusive. How about a nice scientific sheet that says natural gas can burn hot enough to melt steel.

If you give a link that says natural gas fire at the Piper Alpha was melting steel---there should be a scientific link somewhere that says Natural gas burns hot enough to melt steel. I looked--I didn't see it.

Latest Nist report still no better than the flswed Warren Report which Newsweek still endorses...so what else is new?

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA PROPAGANDA EFFORT ON NEW WTC7 COLLAPSE THEORY FALLS IN A HEAP.

Yesterdays release of the National Institute of Standards and Technologys (NIST) report on the collapse of WTC7 seems to have been carefully coordinated with the mainstream media in an all-out propaganda effort to debunk so-called conspiracy theories that insist that WTC7 collapsed after being rigged with demolition charges which would infer that, due to time constraints, could only have been placed in the building before 9/11.

READ THIS BUFFALO BOB READ IT.

"The problem, at least from the governments point of view, is that the NIST report, far from debunking the so-called conspiracy theorists alternative explanations for the events of 9/11, have actually strengthened peoples view about the government lying about the events of 9/11 and, in the process, by bringing it all out into the mainstream media as they have, will now gain more converts to the idea that the governments version of events is a cover-up."

lol

Your report of the Tharos being driven off by heat that was melting steel machinery is hardly conclusive.

Then go to wikipedia and change it. They allow anyone in the world to change false information.

After you do, get back with me.

Looks like you don't see much either.

Nope. I can't get streaming videos on the rig. I know I've mentioned this to you dozens of times, but I also know what's left of your brain is as leaky as a screen door in a submarine.

Like I said Laters MAYBE

"I know I've mentioned this to you dozens of times, but I also know what's left of your brain is as leaky as a screen door in a submarine."

true love!

I bet you two were lovers in some past lives together!

READ THIS BUFFALO BOB READ IT.

books.google.com

Larry

Posted by LarryMohr at 2008-08-22 03:59 AM | Reply

Look up the word "supplemental" and then look up a link that says natural gas burns at a higher temperature than steel melts.

If what you say is true--that shouldn't be too hard a task. Prove your point.

"Steel-melting furnaces...fuel used, natural gas exclusively"

Steelmaking based on natural gas rather than coal is proposed as a logical solution to concerns about climate change and global warming

Goatman

Show me the link that says natural gas burns at a higher temperature than steel melts.

Show me something scientific with melting temperature of steel and the highest temperature of burning natural gas.

If what you say is true--that shouldn't be too hard a task. Prove your point.

I've proven mine time and again.

bubye Buffalo Bob

Show me the link that says natural gas burns at a higher temperature than steel melts.

Looks like Larry did it, bOoB. And I provided links that shows where it was being done in a real industrial environment.

What the fuck more do you want?

I've proven mine time and again.

www.youtube.com

www.youtube.com

I can show you a youtube.com video that wookies exist. Wanna see it?

Dude, natural gas or jet fuel do NOT need to burn high enough to melt steel.

ONLY high enough to weaken it so the above weight collapses.

I proved that temp was possible many months ago to you, bob. And then you jumped to another thread and continued the "jet fuel can't melt or weaken steel" lie.

Like you've done here. At this point you're just lying.

Alex I also proved it to him with the Piper Alpha story and pictures. He just wants to people to beat him up. I think it's some sort of masochistic thing he's into when the woman with high heels and whip isn't available.

I think it's some sort of masochistic thing he's into when the woman with high heels and whip isn't available.

Posted by goatman at 2008-08-22 04:39 AM

Go on...

No offense goatie, but I make fun of you for fucking this guy up...

because a good number of us on this board(larry and betel for starters) spent years doing this and you see what we got for it. NADA. When I type "go play with bob" it translates to "fuck you alexandrite of '04-'07, you're wasting time!"

I can't even tell you how many 9-11 threads he got trashed in before you came along. Even the times it was only me and a few others are uncountable. I can only imagine the brutal punishment he's received that I did not personally witnessed.

The guy just can't admit. being. wrong.

Ever notice how da bOoB demands declarations of stupidity or error from everyone if he proves them wrong? But when he ass gets handed to him he slinks silently into the night.

Not surprising for someone still waiting for his testicles to descend, I guess

No offense goatie, but I make fun of you for fucking this guy up...

I understand. You may have noticed that lately I've given him one or two punches then left the ring. But then there are nights like tonight that I am so incredibly bored that even shooting fish in a barrel is an acceptable pasttime

You need to figure out the difference between an explosion and a fire. Your links talk about explosions doing the damage.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-08-22 03:40 AM

"My links" say nothing about explosions causing the damage. You need to figure out the difference between night and day. As the wiki link said, the last explosion was at 10:50 PM

Why were the windows of W7 still intact???

If there actually had been a fire in building W7,and massive enough to melt steel girders,then the intense heat (would have to be at least 2700 degrees to melt steel girders) from this fire would have also "melted" the glass windows! The videos of the collapse showed that W7's windows were intact!

But then again the terrific heat from a "girder melting" fire would have also combusted every other flammable material in W7 and this would have produced massive clouds of exhaust gases from that incineration,this would have blackened and then blown out W7's windows and billowed thickly upwards all around that building.The videos of W7's collapse showed none of this evidence!

Why were the windows of W7 still intact???

Did you read the report? It was probably explained in there.

Why were the windows of W7 still intact???

???

You made me curious, AC, so I went to the report. Here is a link to the summary, then within are links to both volumes (about 800 pages)

(would have to be at least 2700 degrees to melt steel girders)

AC: Why is it no matter how many times it is said, you conspiracists keep coming up with this melted steel thing.

I'll say it for the hundreth time (but I bet it dosn't help): The steel does not have to melt. It just has to be weakened by the heat to a point that the massive weight of the floors above cause it to buckle.

Even seen pictures or actually seen a blacksmith at work? Steel that can't be bent at room temperature can be bent easily by the heat of wood or coal turning it red hot. It is not melted, just softened. This happens in building girders too.

Come on Goatman. Didn't you know it takes shaped charges and det cord to make horseshoes!

I'll say it for the hundreth time (but I bet it dosn't help): The steel does not have to melt. It just has to be weakened by the heat to a point that the massive weight of the floors above cause it to buckle.

Yes you are correct.

The one thing you government believers continue to forget is it would mean all the steel around the building would have to soften all at the same time and rate to fall straight down upon itself.

No slipping or sliding and falling at an angle but entire floor falling straight down. That's one hell of an accidental surround the edges fire.

No slipping or sliding and falling at an angle but entire floor falling straight down. That's one hell of an accidental surround the edges fire

Sure is, but it must've happened. Nothing short of a planted explosive could've done it according to the report. If if it was that, then:

The team said that the smallest blast event capable of crippling the critical column would have produced a sound level of 130 to 140 decibels at a distance of half a mile,-- yet no noise this loud was reported by witnesses or recorded on videos.

You really ought to read the report and learn something as I am doing, runnysore. It's easier to have a meaningful dialogue that way. In my opinion, facts are preferable to specualation. As a lawyer, I'm surprised you don't feel the same way.

You really ought to read the report and learn something as I am doing, runnysore. It's easier to have a meaningful dialogue that way. In my opinion, facts are preferable to specualation. As a lawyer, I'm surprised you don't feel the same way.

No, I find common sense rules the day.

Once, odds being astronomical, two out of this world but three should spark any prudent individual of foul play.

It is clear things are not correct here, to bad you are more interested in pushing pejorical rhetoric rather than meaningful dialogue.

No, I find common sense rules the day.

LOL. "I don't want to read the report and debate it. Because if I do I will have to confront the truth. I'd rather hide behind speculation that I don't have to verify".

moneywar

I'm glad the great thinkers of the day were not as ignorant as you. Common sense that ruled the day made man think that the earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it. Commmon sense says so.

It was suggested that the earth turned, but the scientists of the day said, no, because if it did, when you jumped up, it would move out from underneath you. Common sense, right?

Go ahead and keep you head in the sand runnysore. Don't try to learn anything. Keep your 'common sense'.

Me? I choose to learn. I'm going to read the report.

At least you haven't let me down. You have merely underscored my opinion of you as an ignorant fool who doesn't want to learn anything, yet criticize those of us who want to.

Loser

Common sense says that the minimum number of people in a room to have a 50/50 chance of two having the same birthday is 182. Wrong. It is 52

Common sense says that to turn a motorcycle left at high speed you have to turn the forks left. Wrong. You have to turn them right.

Common sense says that the larger a star, the longer its lifetime. Wrong

Common sense says that since things contract when they get cold ice should have less volume than water. Wrong

Common sense says that all people who want to learn the truth learn the facts. Wrong. Some depend on 'common sense'

Goat,

Stop being an ass.

I have read the reports, not all but soon learned that most where nothing but conjecture and theories with nothing of substance to what actually happened. Why might that be????? What was missing to make nothing really factual?????

You dismiss my common sense of reality but you know what, even when a plane crashes to the bottom of the sea the system goes out of its way to gather all the pieces up to find the truth. When that doesn't happen there is a reason, and it is not for bringing out the truth but for masking it.

pejorical rhetoric rather than meaningful dialogue.

I've now read about 100 pages of the 800 page report and I have not found anything that I would even remotely call pejorative. I would ask you to point out a single pejorative passage in it, but you refuse to read it. LOL

Is this more "common sense"?

You know, if you are not going to read it, it would be best to just keep quiet on the subject instead of making a total fool of yourself.

To me, meaningful dialogue is two people talking about subject they both understand. If you don't know the subject being discussed (in this case, the report) how can you possibly have a meaningful dialogue?

I can't believe you are a lawyer. That has to be a lie.

Stop being an ass.

WAAH! I don't wanna read the report. I want to criticize it though. Stop pointing out to me how stupid that is! WAAAH

I have read the reports,

???

Then why is it when I suggested you read it a couple of posts back you said:

No, I find common sense rules the day.

Besides, it came out yesterday. It is over 800 pages long. And you've already read it? Now I know you are lying. Fuck you are pathetic. Your childlike desire to criticize something you say you won't read (but later say you did) is pathetic, funny, sad, idiotic.

I can't believe you are a lawyer. That has to be a lie.

moneywar a lawyer? news to me.

I didn't know Walmart offered legal advice.

LOL

Actually, I thought moneywar worked in manufacturing. At least he used to work in the aircraft industry.

Goat,

Read what I wrote, I said YOU are pushing pejorical dialogue not the report.

One fact remains clear, we don't know why the buildings came straight down and we will never know. Why is that????

All the report is theory, you know it, I know it and the people know it and they are angry because of it.

The administration and the government abdicated their responsibility to find out the reasons for the structural failures and make these kind of buildings safer for our future. We lost a major opportunity to improve our build process. WHY???

Goat,

Again you fail to actually read what I wrote. Stop projecting what you what to read and actually read what is.

This report is just another of many that is protecting the failures of what our process should have been, but go ahead and continue to focus on me the person and what you think are my misgivings.

One fact remains clear, we don't know why the buildings came straight down and we will never know.

When 'we' includes you, that is correct. If 'we' includes the people who read the report, you are incorrect. I am currently reading some explanations.

As I said, if you don't want to read it, you should quit making a fool of yourself. And also, like someone who refuses to vote and has no right to criticize the government, you have no right to criticize the report without reading it. But it's funny watching you try, I will admit.

All the report is theory, you know it, I know it and the people know it and they are angry because of it.

*sigh* No, I don't know that. It is full of numbers, pictures and diagrams, not theory. But since you refuse to look at it, you don't know that. LOL

OK, Time for you to stick your foot back into your mouth for the fifth time this hour. Go for it.

Actually, I thought moneywar worked in manufacturing.

I think you are right, eb. My bad. I was confusing him for that other idiot, moder8. Hard to keep these clowns separated in my mind.

Goat,

Please tell us the actual numbers taken from the actual steel, tell us what the actual annealing of the actual steel measured from the steel debri.

Oops! You can't, the report can't......Why????

Oops! You can't, the report can't......Why????

???

Because I haven't finished it reading it yet. I said upthread it is over 800 pages and I have read about 100. Short memory span or poor reading comprehension to blame here, runnysore?

Goat,

When you're done, please give us the rockwell test on the metal after the fall.

Oops! The report won't have that......Why??????

Oops! The report won't have that......

How do you know without reading the report? Oh yeah. Common sense

Why?

I'm in the mood for a laugh, so I'll bite. Why?

Common sense my friend, just plain common sense.

Read all you want but you won't find it because you haven't thought this through.

Common sense my friend, just plain common sense.

Read all you want but you won't find it because you haven't thought this through.

OOOH. The old cryptic "I have a secret that I'm not telling" answer.

How mature and how predictible for someone who hasn't a clue.

If you don't know -- just say so. What a child. Get back to class. Recess is over.

Honestly, runnysore -- I dind't think you could get any more pathetic, then comes the "neener neener neener. I know something you don't know"

You've proven you can't debate because you won't read the report. Now your debate tactic is "I know but you don't and I'm not telling."

Incredible to see an adult (?) act like that. I'd say, "Just admit you are a loser" but you already have. LOL

Goat,

You are not debating, you are attacking me.

You do know, your just being obtuse as to the whole issue. Open your mind alittle bit.

What happened to my original postings and finding out how the buildings fell?

Why do you not understand about what happened to the debri?

You are not debating, you are attacking me.

For good cause. Anyone who criticizes a report he has never read deserves to be attacked. Just like Jimmy Buffet said:

Don't try to describe the scenery if you've never seen it.
Don't ever forget that you just might end up being wrong.

And you are very wrong.

Open your mind alittle bit.

Says the guy who refuses to read the report because he has already made up his mind. Now that's rich, runnysore -- really, really rich. Open my mind indeed. LOL

What happened to my original postings and finding out how the buildings fell?

I give up. And it is singular. WTC 7 is one building. Please try to get one thing right on this thread. You are batting .000 so far.

Why do you not understand about what happened to the debri?

Once again: (please read slowly and repeat a few times) I have not finished the report yet.

And if you are implying that the debris is necessary for the rockwell test, you are wrong. During steel manufacturing samples are taken and their properties are recorded for each batch. These records still exist. Same is done for concrete, plastics, most manufactured materials.

Moneywar is blinded by both hate and stupidity. For at least a year he claimed that the US Government was lying about the casualty numbers in the Iraq war. He claimed they'd ship injured US soldiers to Germany or the sates so that they wouldn't die in Iraq and be counted in the official total of KIA's.
For that whole year I followed him around and prooved he was wrong. He would flat out ignore the evidence and the common sense explanations as to why he was wrong. Then he changed handles.

Eventually, after countless posts showing what a retard he was, he finally came around. I'm not kidding you when I say he's a dumbshit. He should have seen the stupidity in his argument after it was pointed out in the first rebuttal to his KIA stupidity.

The point is, regardless of how much evidence, and no matter how often you explain things in common sense terms, some people are just too dumb to get it. See BuffaloBoob for another prime example.

The fire didn't burn hot enough or long enough to weaken steel. Nothing new in this report. The government has always said fire brought down WTC7 and the Towers. Burning furniture and carpet will not melt steel. That it was a controlled demolition is obvious. You can see the explosions travelling up the sides just as it collapses.

Spud,
Frolix 8 sends greetings.

Used to be at Hufpo but got exiled.

Truth and irony are the first victims at the huffer.

Been browsing here for a while and decided to join the fray.

Once again, it's da bOoB against the world. It must really suck to live in a universe where everyone is wrong and you are the only one that is right.

Posted by goatman at 2008-08-22 03:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

IT'S SO EASY TO SEE......BuffaloBobShit(tm) tells all those nice men in the white coats they are so wrong all day long too! They just smile and tighten his restraints a bit more..... Why not just do the same?

Spud,
Frolix 8 sends greetings.

Used to be at Hufpo but got exiled.

Truth and irony are the first victims at the huffer.

Been browsing here for a while and decided to join the fray.

Posted by Prolix247 at 2008-08-22 12:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Great...another SpudSucker! Maybe you can beat the DudSpud's(tm) record when he got his banishment on the DR.

Goatman,
There is always corrosion caused by salt both above the water level and below even on painted surfaces. My ship was in dry-dock in 88' and as they were sandblasting and needle-gunning the hull the ship workers were punching holes right through the hull due to corrosion. Above decks on our radar mounts it was a constant chip, sand and paint just to keep up.

Ride on,

Sure... you Okay???

Might be time to get off the ride...

The fire didn't burn hot enough or long enough to weaken steel. Nothing new in this report. The government has always said fire brought down WTC7 and the Towers. Burning furniture and carpet will not melt steel. That it was a controlled demolition is obvious. You can see the explosions travelling up the sides just as it collapses.

Here, bOoB -- let me help you with your spamming so as to save you some trouble:

The fire didn't burn hot enough or long enough to weaken steel. Nothing new in this report. The government has always said fire brought down WTC7 and the Towers. Burning furniture and carpet will not melt steel. That it was a controlled demolition is obvious. You can see the explosions travelling up the sides just as it collapses.

www.youtube.com

www.youtube.com

The fire didn't burn hot enough or long enough to weaken steel. Nothing new in this report. The government has always said fire brought down WTC7 and the Towers. Burning furniture and carpet will not melt steel. That it was a controlled demolition is obvious. You can see the explosions travelling up the sides just as it collapses.

www.youtube.com

www.youtube.com

The fire didn't burn hot enough or long enough to weaken steel. Nothing new in this report. The government has always said fire brought down WTC7 and the Towers. Burning furniture and carpet will not melt steel. That it was a controlled demolition is obvious. You can see the explosions travelling up the sides just as it collapses.

www.youtube.com

www.youtube.com

The fire didn't burn hot enough or long enough to weaken steel. Nothing new in this report. The government has always said fire brought down WTC7 and the Towers. Burning furniture and carpet will not melt steel. That it was a controlled demolition is obvious. You can see the explosions travelling up the sides just as it collapses.

www.youtube.com

www.youtube.com

Don't say I never did anything for for you

Thanks Goatman, it feels so good that someone agrees with me.

Sincerely,

BuffaloBobShit(tm)

P.S. Can you guys please loosen these restraints..... Oh, hey BigFoot....loosen these up will ya? Wow, did you see that orange dot go by outside. I sure like to watch those smokestacks on the moon. What the fuck is that blue vapor cloud hanging around me for?

Turn me on, Goatman
Turn me on, Goatman
Turn me on, Goatman
Turn me on, Goatman
Turn me on, Goatman
Turn me on, Goatman
Turn me on, Goatman

Buffalo Bob

The fire didn't burn hot enough or long enough to weaken steel. Nothing new in this report. The government has always said fire brought down WTC7 and the Towers. Burning furniture and carpet will not melt steel. That it was a controlled demolition is obvious. You can see the explosions travelling up the sides just as it collapses.

you guys are nuts -- but you sure make me laugh a lot

....BuffaloBobShit(tm) just proved that he truly is mentally ill and never learns. Spam on.....and white coats.....tighten the BoBShit's restrainsts a bit more please.

The fire didn't burn hot enough or long enough to weaken steel. Nothing new in this report. The government has always said fire brought down WTC7 and the Towers. Burning furniture and carpet will not melt steel. That it was a controlled demolition is obvious. You can see the explosions travelling up the sides just as it collapses.

asswipe bob needs a timeout.

Asswipe eberly needs to deal with the facts. As do the rest of you morons.

Asswipe eberly needs to deal with the facts.

it isn't my fault nobody likes you asswipebob. you own that problem 100%. you have never and WILL never post a FACT.

Eberly

It is a fact you are an asswipe. That asswipes like you don't like me, I consider as evidence that I'm doing something right--like looking at the fucking building and seeing the explosive charges traveling up the side. Like not believing the foolish stories put out by the people responsible for 911.
Foolish stories like burning couches melt steel

Asswipes like you actually believe a burning couch will melt steel because that's what the government says happened.

It wasn't a burning couch that melted the steel? What was it then asswipe? The carpet? The Jet fuel? The paintings on the wall? What got so hot in that fire as to melt steel?

Don't give the nonsense that there wasn't melted steel. There are videos of it and eyewitness accounts by firefighters that the steel was still molten after 6 weeks.

Asswipes like you actually believe a burning couch will melt steel because that's what the government says happened.

It wasn't a burning couch that melted the steel? What was it then asswipe? The carpet? The Jet fuel? The paintings on the wall? What got so hot in that fire as to melt steel?

You are attacking my beliefs bob. how insensitive of you. I'm flagging this post.

:-(

I love the circus. You get to throw shit at the clowns.

The problem with Bob is he'll keep posting shit like "What melted the steel?". When in reality nothing melted the steel. The steel was weakened. He'll just continually try to frame the arguement in dishonest terms and then demand that you play along with his game.

I'm surprised he hasn't resorted to Scenario A, Scenario B levels of foolishness yet.

The problem with Bob is he'll keep posting shit like "What melted the steel?". When in reality nothing melted the steel.

The problem with you is you believe what the government tells you rather than your own eyes.

"Nothing in that fire was hot enough to weaken steel. It was a smoke filled fire, which means a cooler fire."

Yet you claim the steel actually melted in the same smoke filled fire. So which is it?

Yet you claim the steel actually melted in the same smoke filled fire. So which is it?

Posted by Sully

I think that was his point, sully.

But I have to admit... I watched Loose Change.

...then you also might want to read Chump Change. Funny book.

"I think that was his point, sully.

But I have to admit... I watched Loose Change."

No, you don't get it. Bob is saying that the steel melted and therefore something other than jet fuel, paper, plastics, etc had to be burning in that building because that fire had to be very hot to melt steel.

At the same time, he's saying the presence of all that smoke proves the fire wasn't even hot enough to weaken steel. (Yet per the previous assertion the steel melted in the same fire)

So unless I am missing something and he's saying the steel melted without fire being involved at all, he's contradicting himself - which is what happens when you keep throwing random points out there.

BOOB, You are using YOU TUBE video as your evidence. BWHAHAHAhAHA!!!!! wow that helps your point. You dont think that most of that crap has been edited or modified by people. YOUR CRAZIER than I thought!!!!

So unless I am missing something and he's saying the steel melted without fire being involved at all, he's contradicting himself - Posted by Sully

You got it exactly right there.... that's what he's suggesting.

I think bob will have to reduce his confidence in this to 85%.

It worked great the last time he did this with similar evidence.

YOUR CRAZIER than I thought!!!!

Posted by armyof1 at 2008-08-22 03:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

He's NOT CRAZIER THAN I THOUGHT. Heck, I knew it from the first post I ever saw of his. Just calling it like it is.

"You got it exactly right there.... that's what he's suggesting."

OK. I misunderstood then. I still think he's crazier than a shithouse rat.

If I believed that the steel in the WTC was actually melted, I might ask how that was accomplished. I might also ask for one other example where a "controlled demolition"
was accomplished by melting the steel support structure of a building. But it all seems a waste of time.

But it all seems a waste of time.

Posted by Sully at 2008-08-22 03:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

BINGO! BuffaloBobShit(tm) is a waste of time. But, he does keep some white coats employed....so like everything, it's not all bad.

To all that have defended this regime, er, administration, you are all blind, confused and obviously in the minority of supporters of our puppet president. I'm sure you people blow with the wind, always jump on the bandwagon and full of paradoxes in you're everyday life. Your kind is a lonely kind, a stagnant sort of person full of hate and ignorance. Do you realize this country has disintegrated unders this adminstration? Our budget deficit is astronomical? An inept admin incapable of dealing with the current housing crisis, credit crunch and rising unemployment? There is a reason why popularity(or lack of it)polls are at all time lows, for ANY president. He was a failure as a governor, a baseball owner and president. You all have been hooked, lined and sunk. Stop defending this crook and his admin and just go away.

Better yet, give me reasons why the Bush Admin HAS been a success in his 8 years of (dis)service? I would love to enlightened after all these years.

I am trying to figure out what the above crazy rant has to do with the FACT that the buildings were on fire and then collapsed in onthemselves when the structural integrity of the frame work detriorated to one ounce less than required to support the weight it had been supporting above.....

Oh wait .. I'm sorry... Our own government did it!

u all have been hooked, lined and sunk. Stop defending this crook and his admin and just go away.

Wrong thread. The hate Bush threads are elsewhere. This one is about the WTC report

Sully

Yet you claim the steel actually melted in the same smoke filled fire. So which is it?

Posted by Sully at 2008-08-22 03:03 PM | Reply | Flag

It is both. The fire had nothing to do with the melted steel. The steel was melted by either thermate or thermite--probably thermate.

The facts are--the fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel--proven by the fire itself. It just wasn't big enough and it was smoky. Yet, there was melted steel--so--something else had to melt the steel.

The theory is that it was a controlled demolition of a different sort. Silverstein knew the attack was coming as did the Bush administration. Whether they worked together or not is questionable. But the WTC Towers had been showing their age and were scheduled for major overhauls in the next ten years--more than the cost of building new Towers from scratch. So Silverstein had the Towers and WTC7 wired for explosives, knowing the planes would be there in a few months. But he couldn't have it wired so that all the explosives went off at once because it would be too obvious. So some of the explosives that wouldn't cause a collapse but were necessary for a collapse to happen were done every few minutes to weaken the structure--these explosions were widely reported secondary explosions. But even then the structure was too big to bring down with explosives because some points were just too well constructed and the explosion would have to have been too loud and large to not be noticed for what it was--in those cases thermate was used.

Facts are you can see the charges going off up the sides of WTC7, and the fires never got hot enough to melt steel--yet the melted steel was there.

Unless you think the firefighters were lying.

Didn't want to spoil the party earlier on here as the conversations were all over the place and I didn't really know if we were talking about the two WTC buildings collapse again (which had the jets crash into them) or only the collapse of WTC 7.

The following -- in a nutshell -- is THE definitive answer about why WTC 7 collapsed and what caused it.

FACTS:

When the WTC Towers collapsed the building was so tall (80 plus stories high) that when they collapsed part of that building fell on WTC 7 and left a 20 story high open gap on the side of the WTC 7 building greatly weakening the structure.

Also, a number of smaller fires were burning throughout WTC 7 building.

At that point it was decided by the NYFD
that the WTC 7 building could not be saved.

The NYFD did not want to endanger any more lives so ALL the men working at that time on trying to save WTC 7 were ordered to get away from the buidling and to clear a wide "collapse zone" all around the perimeter of the building to make room for its eventual collapse and to make sure no one was still in harm's way.

3 hours after that order was given, as everyone continued to watch it from a safe area away from the building, the WTC 7 building collapsed and pancaked down all on its own accord due the extensive damage already suffered.

End of Story>/b>

Don't have enough room on this post so directly below I am posting the testimony of the NYFD Fire Chief who summarizes what I set out above -- all of which I got in my link I gave you all yesterday (but apparently no one bothered to read).

(CONTINUED BELOW )

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)

Here's a short testimony by the NYPD Fire Chief:

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone.

Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

I will post my link one more time. This is where I obtained the info I gave you guys in my two posts above.

I might also ask for one other example where a "controlled demolition"
was accomplished by melting the steel support structure of a building. But it all seems a waste of time.

Posted by Sully at 2008-08-22 03:54 PM | Reply | Flag

Thermate is commonly used in the controlled demolition of steel buildings. Do you think explosives are the only way to tear down a structure? Sometimes you don't want debris flying around like bullets.

WTC 7 was NOT a "controlled" demolition, BBob.

WTC 7 was so badly damaged that the decision was made by the NYFD to let it eventually collapse of its own accord rather than continue to risk men's lives by having them try to save a building already irreparably. Three hours after that decision was made WTC 7 building did indeed collapse!

Got it???

oops, a word dropped off a sentence in my last post

"to save a building already irrepairably damaged...."

Unless you think the firefighters were lying.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-08-22 07:46 PM |

No I don't -- especially they chief who knows fare more on the subject than his subordinates:

......
Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

(or is da bOoB going to cherry pick the firefighters he wants to believe just as he cherry picks quotes from astronauts? Of course he is! He's da bOoB after all!)

Califchris

You can see the charges travel up the side of WTC7. In addition, they KNEW it was going to fall--there was no guessing on their part. Those fires and that damage wasn't that bad, and the collapse was too complete. Too perfect. With that damage taking out that chunk, it should have fallen to the side like a tree, rather than into its own footprint if it was going to fall at all.

Zat

Here you go Chris: [photo of a single red rose]

To let you know, I put your rose in a small bud vase filled with water yesterday.
It's as beautiful as ever today. *wink*

(or is da bOoB going to cherry pick the firefighters he wants to believe just as he cherry picks quotes from astronauts? Of course he is! He's da bOoB after all!)

Posted by goatman at 2008-08-22 08:09 PM | Reply |

I don't see the Chief around anyplace. Yeah--I think his subordinates know more about what is going on. They are the ones who saw the molten steel.

Anybody who thinks it was an inside job really needs professional help. Get a life you fucking losers.. Geezzzzzzzzzz

No I don't -- especially they chief who knows fare more on the subject than his subordinates:

They chief??????

What the fuck does that mean?????

More than one?

Yes, all boss's know way way way more than those workers, that's why workers should never ever be made into a boss.

It's a elite status thing.

Califchris

The links disprove your theory.

Got it?

BBOB

Those fires and that damage wasn't that bad, and the collapse was too complete. Too perfect. With that damage taking out that chunk, it should have fallen to the side like a tree, rather than into its own footprint if it was going to fall at all.

There was an open gap 20 stories high on the side of the 40 plus story high WTC 7.

Yes, the fires were small but they were multiple throughout WTC 7 . So the COMBINATION of the multiple small fires and all the other damage sustained (when portions of the WTC Twin Towers buildings collapsed and hit the WTC 7 building) all added up to a building which could not be repair and/or saved. duh.

Damage was too extensive to save it. It collapsed of its own accord. Get it now?

Poor poor moneywar. You have never been aboss have you? Pathetic human

BuffaloNutjob

I don't see the Chief around anyplace. Yeah--I think his subordinates know more about what is going on. They are the ones who saw the molten steel.

How do you even know what the Chief even looks like. The NYFD men were watching the collapse from a distance, from all different vantage points set up outside of the collapse zone. You mean to tell me your youtube video camera got up close and personal with each and every NYFD guy watching WTC 7 collapse? Got each of the men on camera? Get real.

Califchris

You missed the point. With that damage--if it was going to fall--it would have fallen toward the weaker section---like a tree falls.

It did not. The damaged sectiohad no effect on the fall. The fall was straight down.

The link shows the explosive charge traveling up the sides of WTC7 just before the collapse.

The Chief is covering his ass and saying what he is told to say. I can't blame him.

But I believe my eyes. Look at the video for once. You can see the roof kink in the middle of WTC7 just like a controlled demolition. You can see the charges traveling up the sides just before the collapse. Maybe your eyes are lying to you.

How do you even know what the Chief even looks like. The NYFD men were watching the collapse from a distance, from all different vantage points set up outside of the collapse zone. You mean to tell me your youtube video camera got up close and personal with each and every NYFD guy watching WTC 7 collapse? Got each of the men on camera? Get real.

Posted by CalifChris at 2008-08-22 08:23 PM | Reply | Flag

I don't have to know what the Chief looks like. He isn't in the video. The guys who are in the video are the ones who know whats going on, and the Chief isn't there. The point was--was there melted steel. Not every firefighter had to see the melted steel for there to be melted steel. Had you looked at the video you wouldn't have to ask such questions.

See, Larry Silverstein, the news media, the fire department, and tens of thousands of others had been contacted by Darth Cheney and informed of the necessity to bring down building 7.

This was becasue the detruction of the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and the fourth plan, were not enough to convince America to go to war for oil in Iraq.

The real reason is being hidden at Area 59-64 in New Mexcico with the alien spacecraft we have.

I know this because I heard it on my ham radio about two months ago. Funny thing is, it wasn't even on.

And everyone knows steel can't melt, it's like krypton, it comes preformed in it's shape from god.

You saw what came out this past week about that lunkhead Jerry Ford. After 40 plus years it's revealed that Ford on the Warren Commission was secretly collaborating with Jedgar Hoover so that the report would come out to Hoover's satisfaction. There really are conspiracies and successful ones at that.
BTW, one explanation we got as to why the fireproofing of beams failed in the towers was that impact and fireball knocked off the girder fireproofing. So what's the explanation here? I've heard synopses of the report that it does not have hard numbers but describes the fires and temperatures as extreme.

BBob

The damaged section had no effect on the fall. The fall was straight down.

The link shows the explosive charge traveling up the sides of WTC7 just before the collapse.

So what if the NYFD used an explosive charge.

The NYFD took measures (via use of explosives) to make sure the WTC 7 pancaked straight down to the ground rather than have the building possibly collapse and fall way out to one side or the other and probably damage some of the other surrounding buildings. They NYFD wanted to make sure it collapsed down in a pancake fashion,

The WTC 7 could not be saved. If explosives were used to help make sure that when the building finally collapsed (as they knew it was going to do) the NYFD would want to try and make sure the collapse would be confined (and pancaked) within the perimeters of the collapse zone the NYFD had set up.

WHY do you find that so difficult to understand? Why? Why? Why?

I know for a fact that Popular Mechanics was involved in the coverup because they cancelled my subscription and sent me a past due notice after I posted on this subject.

Proof positive.

WTC 7 was so badly damaged that the decision was made by the NYFD to let it eventually collapse of its own accord rather than continue to risk men's lives by having them try to save a building already irreparably. Three hours after that decision was made WTC 7 building did indeed collapse!
Got it???

Sure- I got it. But can you tell me why the NIST took years coming up with what you (and your fire chief) explain as a very simple logical reason? In the initial report there was no explanation given for building 7. Seems like kind of an obvious reason they came up 7 years later.

Chris, you may as well argue with someone who thinks the moon is made of cheese and the world is flat. You can't convince the truely mentally ill they are sick with argumentation.

You know I find it funny. Everyone that doesn't believe We "Conspiracy theorists" wrong does so because they can not deal in their own minds the very real possibility that their own Government killed their own citizenry to initiate a Resource War. Times 2. Myself I believe that explosives brought all 3 towers down WTC 1 WTC 2 and WTC7. I will believe that til My last breath. It's the only thing that makes sense. Oh and as far as WTC 1 and 2 they were designed to withstand an impact of a boeing 707. Funny that the planes that hit both towers didn't weigh that much more.

Larry

You missed the point. With that damage--if it was going to fall--it would have fallen toward the weaker section---like a tree falls.

It did not. The damaged sectiohad no effect on the fall. The fall was straight down.

The link shows the explosive charge traveling up the sides of WTC7 just before the collapse.

The Chief is covering his ass and saying what he is told to say. I can't blame him.

But I believe my eyes. Look at the video for once. You can see the roof kink in the middle of WTC7 just like a controlled demolition. You can see the charges traveling up the sides just before the collapse. Maybe your eyes are lying to you.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-08-22 08:23 PM

Bob,

Please tell all of us about your engineering and architectural education and job experience since you seem to be an expert on this subject. And since you do not believe the Fire Chief, please tell us about your education in Fire Technology and your real life experiences as a firefighter which gives you this insight.

Asshole

Thank Dog, er, uh, God, the voice of reason is here. Setem' straight, his Mohrness.

Or are you just a conspiracy nut that needs to get a fucking life and maybe a girlfriend?

Califchris
So what if the NYFD used an explosive charge.

First, I doubt they had the time after the decision was made to place the explosives, second they have never claimed they used explosives, third, it takes a while to determine where and how much explosives to use. The guys who do this for a living take weeks to determine how to bring a building down. Not minutes. Do you understand that concept?

The NYFD took measures (via use of explosives) to make sure the WTC 7 pancaked straight down to the ground rather than have the building possibly collapse and fall way out to one side or the other and probably damage some of the other surrounding buildings. They NYFD wanted to make sure it collapsed down in a pancake fashion,

link?

The WTC 7 could not be saved. If explosives were used to help make sure that when the building finally collapsed (as they knew it was going to do) the NYFD would want to try and make sure the collapse would be confined (and pancaked) within the perimeters of the collapse zone the NYFD had set up.

link?

WHY do you find that so difficult to understand? Why? Why? Why?

No link. If the New York Fire Department brought down WTC7 with explosives--the controversy is over. The controversy is that it was not brought down by explosives. SO---where is your link?

Posted by CalifChris at 2008-08-22 08:41 PM | Reply

Bob had a gal until the aliens abducted her. It's not that she didn't come back from Klatu Nictar, she did. But after the anal probing she received on the mother ship things were never the same.

Sure- I got it. But can you tell me why the NIST took years coming up with what you (and your fire chief) explain as a very simple logical reason? In the initial report there was no explanation given for building 7. Seems like kind of an obvious reason they came up 7 years later.

Because it takes time to gather evidence, take everyone's testimony taken and then put into printed form, get reports back from the hired various experts, etc. I know for a FACT it can sometimes take years to get a lawsuit or investigation together. Just the document production alone in an investigation such as this can literally take years.

Tons of different agencies would also have been involved. You have no clue how long and involved matters like be to finally be resolved.

If they were merely going to lie about it they could have gotten a story together right away and presented it. The fact it took seven years sounds more credible and believeable to me than if they had resolved it within only a year or so.

I need a break. You guys continue on...

And since you do not believe the Fire Chief, please tell us about your education in Fire Technology and your real life experiences as a firefighter which gives you this insight.

Asshole

Posted by retnluvnit at 2008-08-22 08:51 PM | Reply

Pay attention this time.

If you would just watch the irrifutable evidence on You Tube you would understand. You Tube never lies to me, they wouldn't do that, there are checks and balances there.

It's Mr. Cheney, in the bunker, with the depressor. It's so obvious even my pet chincilla, Horst, understands. And he has beeen stuffed and frozen for over a decade.

Answer my questions losers.

What is your point with the video?

I am sure if youtube had a video of Chaney on the grassy knoll you would belve he killed kennedy.

Ret, you're pretty dense too, ain't ya?

Has anyone posted this since 4am last nite when I last visited here?

Two Powerful Forces Should Have Made WTC 7 Tip Over

Answer the questions. Instead of calling people names how about answering the questions?

Answer the questions. Instead of calling people names how about answering the questions?

Posted by retnluvnit at 2008-08-22 09:20 PM | Reply

Answer my questions losers.

Posted by retnluvnit at 2008-08-22 09:06 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Ironic Don'tcha think??

Larry

Jeusus Obama Christ, just when you think you have seen every thing.

Ret, do me a favor, turn on your tap water until it is scalding hot and grab a pickle out of the firdge. First stick the pickle up your butt, then hold your face under the scalding hot water.

Do this for 2 full minutes, afterwards come reread my posts and see if your reading comprehension has improved any.

Retnluvnit

You call people names and then whine when you are called a name? How about that. I called you no name--you are the one that has gone to that level.

You can't put together your question and that video?

You asked where I got the expertise to make such statements--I gave you the expert source. Are you still confused?

Do you think they had a special Youtube video team there just to make this video?

How many videos do you need? There are lots of them.

Then feed the pickle to Larry.

Just as i thought................ I asked my questions earlier.

You freeks really need to get a fucking life.

Later trolls

Ret, come back buddy. Shane!......COME BACK.......

At least leave the pickle.

SIMPLE FACT.... if i BELIEVED for one second that our government attacked us on 9-11...... i would declare war on my own government..... i would arm up.... organise a militant group and fight until my last breath

but all you pussies do is say bad government...they attacked us on the internet....what have you done physically to free us from what you call a evil and oppressive government

for a bunch of pussies left wing nuts....how want to trash the 2nd amendment....you would think that they would at least want to protect themselves from what they call a criminal and oppressive POTUS admnitistration...and a evil and corrupt government

Judas-
I count around half a dozen lunatics on this thread, lunatics.
Pirate, you are little gremlin of evil.

I bet you trolls thought the pictures of the sasquach (spelling)were real, didn't you. Come on, be truthful.

Loon, sounds like you have experience with pickles and such. Whats the matter, can't find yourself a boyfriend?

The real lunatics are running our insane governments...

Impeachment is Not Enough

Indict all of the US government officials and their allies who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks.

Bani FF That was cool

This is so fucking fake.

It is evident to anyone with half a brain what really happened.

The supporting structure of the building was systematically weakened by the burning up of floor supports and the lack of water supply to the sprinklers only exacerbated the problem.

And now the fucking feds are trying to feed us this bullshit about some huge fucking plains being flown into the WTC towers as a screen for an elaborate plot of their own to destroy the WTC and building 7 and in so doing to immolate and crush thousands of Americans.

Fuck the fucking government...until our guys are the government!!

"It is evident to anyone with half a brain"

A mere 2% of the population; At best.

Because it takes time to gather evidence, take everyone's testimony taken and then put into printed form, get reports back from the hired various experts, etc.

Right CC. Like how they knew OBL did it day of and had the highjackers names the next day. Like they had the complete study done on the towers in time but #7 with the 20 story hole- hmmmmm- let's get our ducks in a row on this one for 7 years.

We really didn't hear about that hole till the pop mechanics piece. There really isn't that much photograpic or video evidence of it. Yet another coincedence that it would be the cause.

OBAMA/BIDEN '08
OBAMA/BIDEN '08
OBAMA/BIDEN '08
OBAMA/BIDEN '08
OBAMA/BIDEN '08
OBAMA/BIDEN '08
OBAMA/BIDEN '08
OBAMA/BIDEN '08
OBAMA/BIDEN '08
OBAMA/BIDEN '08
OBAMA/BIDEN '08
OBAMA/BIDEN '08

.....now THAT'S a winner!

It is evident to anyone with half a brain

A mere 2% of the population; At best.

I'm lucky. I have two halves. Is that just 1% of us?