I think the conspiracy theory is really part of a conspiracy theory to remove blame from the Al Qaeda terrorists.

The information they give is just what they want you to think. Yeah. Pretty clever.

PAX

including why news outlets like the BBC and CNN reported that the building had collapsed an hOur before it actually fell,

Because thousands and thousands were involved in a conspiracy and they've all kept quiet and news outlets NEVER make a mistake. A testament to Bush's intelligence and cunning, WYS? This dumb chimp thing is all an act you must agree.

firefighters on the scene who are heard on video saying, Keep your eye on that building, itll be coming down soon.--

Really. What an utterly unusual thing for a firefighter to say about a burning structure.

Never mind. This is too silly to continue and the believers in this drivel are too silly to understand facts.

"This is too silly to continue "

Then why do you continue to argue it?

Hate to rain on the op's parade, but are not we supposed to post a brief summary instead of the whole article?

NIST completely fails to address prior knowledge of the buildings collapse, including why news outlets like the BBC and CNN reported that the building had collapsed an hour before it actually fell, as well as firefighters on the scene who are heard on video saying, Keep your eye on that building, itll be coming down soon

----

You know, it could be simple as...

Bad reporting on BBC and CNN's part and strong speculation that WTC7 would fall based on the sights and sounds.

Or it could be a worldwide conspiracy where major news outlets and local firefighters have been given knowledge beforehand. That's the normal thing to do is tell news organizations and local rescue people about the conspiracy you are try to hide.

Then why do you continue to argue it

???

I just stopped, didn't I?

WTC-7 was destroyed by aliens in a UFO, under command of Elvis Presley. And I resent Jeff trying to muscle in on my turf.

Sincerely

BooB

Those damned engineers. They are alsways trying to kill god (bush/cheney) with their cockamamy ideals about stuff like materials and physics and cause and effect.

Everybody know that shit don't exist. Especially when you have such an honorable group of people telling it doesn't.

Especially when you have such an honorable group of people telling it doesn't.

Posted by Lipzoidial at 2008-08-23 10:05 PM | Reply

Gotta hand it to the NYFD -- allowing so many firefighters (and union members) to die in order to aid the conspiracy.

Now those are good sports!

Only morons, cowards, and professional liars still believe the official story.
according to a FOX poll that they quickly stopped said that 85% don't believe the official story.
I suspect the actual number is higher.
Once people wake up from the perpetual myth that the corporate media feeds us constantly then they will see the whole thing is a big lie.

Not many people would think that taking out a few floors at the same time near the top of a 100 plus story sky skraper, and counting on it to pancake straight down would be a good idea.

Yet that is the concept many are defending. Defending it twice.

Even knowing that the floors weren't damaged equally across the whole building. Even seeing the mast tilt as the top floors start to fall.

Are you an architectural engineer, bOoB? Do you have any engineering data from a statistically valid number of them to back up your claims?

Didn't think so. Better stick to something you know about like antennae combat

according to a FOX poll that they quickly stopped said that 85% don't believe the official story.

According to history, 100% of the people alive before Copernicus thought that the sun orbited the earth, so it must've been true.

I wonder how heliocentricity came about just because Copernicus was born?

I suspect the actual number is higher.

Among the deranged, perhaps. I hang around with sane people. Of the dozens, perhaps into the hundreds of people I've discussed this with over the last 7 years, not a single one believes this nonesense. This is a good sampling of people, too. Liberals, conservatives, New Yorkers, Californians, Texans. The only thing all these people had in common was that they had common sense and were free thinkers with reasonable cognitive skills. There's not a one of them I would classify as a moron, cowards, or professional liar

But I guess if I asked a gullible idiot or brainless zombie who believes what they read on conspiracy.com or crooksthievesandliars.com, I'd get a different story. I guess I just don't hang with the right crowd.

Are you an architectural engineer, bOoB?

Posted by goatman

I'm an engineer goat. What cha wanna know? Here, let me make it easy for you. The buildings (all of them) were brought down by demolition. There is no amount of evidence to make you believe it if you are set against it (but don't forget all the evidence has been destroyed before an indepedent investigation could be done). Just like the belief that God creating the world in 7 days.

And Bush Cheny did not set up the action, they just funneled funds to groups that were dying (no pun intended) to attack america but lacked the resources to do so.

What cha wanna know?

I'd like to know which parts of the report you dispute. There are some technical details and though I am not a structural engineer, I am educated and smart enough to understand the physics and math the put in the report.

Are these figures and facts in error? If not all of them, which ones? I presume by the tone of your repsonse and easily dismissal of it that you have read it. I finished it (yes, all 800+ pages!) early this morning.

Thanks for volunteering to help me understand the errors in the report.

There is no amount of evidence to make you beleve it if you are set against it

I'm not set against it. I have an open mind. That's why I am thrilled that an engineer (btw what kind of engineer?) such as yourself will dispute the report and help me understand what is wrong with it -- because from what I read it looks like it made a lot of sense.

And though I'm sure you were trying to be helpful with your statement "Here, let me make it easy for you. The buildings (all of them) were brought down by demolition." but it doesn't really satisfy the technical part of my brain. That's not really much more convincing than when da bOoB says, "Here's my proof: youtube.com"

But thanks again. I look forward to your rebuttal to the report. And don't worry about getting too technical. In real life, I'm not really as stupid as I appear on this blog.

Goatman still thinks the world is flat.
Like his head....
BTW, Goatman, which are you? Moron, coward, or professional liar?

So which part of the report do you dispute, Jeff? Or are you one of those closed-minded people like moder8 who disputes it without reading it?

, Goatman, which are you? Moron, coward, or professional liar

None. Which one is the person who disputes something they have not read? I would guess professional liar and moron. I leave out coward because it takes a lot of guts to openly admit you are so closed minded and ignorant that you would criticize something you have not read.

If I'm wrong, I'm dying to hear which part of the report is in error. Put up or shut up, jeff.

(I have a mental picture of a mental midget in Denmark furiously searching prisonplanet.com and crooksliarsandthieves.com to get his marching orders from his sheepleherd since he has obviously not read the report.)

LOL

With emphasis on 'moron'. Only the truly idiotic on this planet thinks that thousands of people it would take to pull of this conspiracy would keep quiet.

Goatman

Do you have any engineering data from a statistically valid number of them to back up your claims?

Didn't think so. Better stick to something you know about like antennae combat

Posted by goatman at 2008-08-24 07:04 AM | Reply | Flag

How about 520 engineers? Is that enough validation?

Nope, bOoB -- water engineer, software engineer, project managers, etc. on that list. There are a couple of dozen architectural engineers. Considering that there are tens of thousands of them in the USA alone, a fraction of a percent is not statistically valid. Hell, one in 19 people in the USA is considered mentally ill, so you could have 5 times that amount and still fall within the acceptable statistical range of bOoBs.

We'll put that one to bed.

How about 140 Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials?

Sure -- if they are licensed architectural engineers. I don't think anyone else would be qualified to dispute it. Oh, yeah -- to be statistically valid, we need many times more. As I said above, there will always be a statistically acceptable fraction of crackpots.

We'll put this one to bed.

How about 120+ Pilots and Aviation Professionsls?

Sure -- if they are licensed architectural engineers. I don't think anyone else would be qualified to dispute it. Oh, yeah -- to be statistically valid, we need many times more. As I said above, there will always be a statistically acceptable fraction of crackpots.

We'll put this one to bed.

You ask for evidence, then move the bar.

???

I didn't move the bar. I said "

Do you have any engineering data from a statistically valid number of them to back up your claims?

Considering there are tens of thousands of architectural engineers in the USA and you provided names of a couple of dozen, that is hardly statistically valid.

The fact that you are providing lists that contain professions like "software engineer" and "family members" (WTF?!?) tell me are are on a heavy duty obfuscation mission.

I'm not stupid enough to fall for it. I can read. I can reason. And I'll do both.

Besides, have you read the report? This thread is about the report. Just like moderate, jeff in denmark, you want to dispute it without reading it.

Read it, tell me what's wrong with it (and the page so I can reference it) and we'll talk. I refuse to debate a report when you refuse to read it.

Later, bOoB.

Goatman

all that and you can't answer a simple question? What a surprise.

Let's try again. I know how to get you to see the question.

Tell me what part of that report was the smoking gun for you? Which part is proof positive that the Towers and WTC7 fell from fire?

Tell me what part of that report was the smoking gun for you? Which part is proof positive that the Towers and WTC7 fell from fire?

Tell me what part of that report was the smoking gun for you? Which part is proof positive that the Towers and WTC7 fell from fire?

Tell me what part of that report was the smoking gun for you? Which part is proof positive that the Towers and WTC7 fell from fire?

Tell me what part of that report was the smoking gun for you? Which part is proof positive that the Towers and WTC7 fell from fire?

Tell me what part of that report was the smoking gun for you? Which part is proof positive that the Towers and WTC7 fell from fire?

Tell me what part of that report was the smoking gun for you? Which part is proof positive that the Towers and WTC7 fell from fire?

Tell me what part of that report was the smoking gun for you? Which part is proof positive that the Towers and WTC7 fell from fire?

Tell me what part of that report was the smoking gun for you? Which part is proof positive that the Towers and WTC7 fell from fire?

The whole thing, bOoB
The whole thing, bOoB
The whole thing, bOoB
The whole thing, bOoB
The whole thing, bOoB
The whole thing, bOoB
The whole thing, bOoB
The whole thing, bOoB
The whole thing, bOoB
The whole thing, bOoB
The whole thing, bOoB
The whole thing, bOoB
The whole thing, bOoB
The whole thing, bOoB
The whole thing, bOoB
The whole thing, bOoB

Goatman

So the title convinces you that WTC7 fell by fire.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH
AHAHAHAHAH

WHAT A MAROON.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHA

wow

No intelligent rebuttal, I see.

What a surprise. After all, you did not read the report, so how could you come back with one?

Looks like until you read it and can debate it, you lose by default

Never mind. This is too silly to continue and the believers in this drivel are too silly to understand facts.

Posted by goatman

Hahahahaha. So much for that.

I'm bored again, null. We are shut down due to weather and I lost too much in dominoes two days ago to enter the poker game that's going on.

All Right...which one of you got BuffaloBoob so worked up that he had to post stuff reminiscent of Jack Nicholson's character in "The Shining." Shame on you! Whoever did it has probably pushed him completely over the edge and they may never let him out of the institution again.

You know, bOoB -- I made it so easy for you to come back with something to debate. I left it wide open. I said the entire report was the defining factor. I could have said that the defining point was the section that talked about how that specific type of steel was doped with calcium for its flexibility properties while maintaining tensile strength and since the load bearing qualities of beam are dependant on the square root of cross sectional area, the resulting volume is that same area cubed, giving more compression. (I didn't copy this, I'm paraphrasing as I remember it)

But I know that you are deathly frightened of numbers and other technical details, so I left it wide open for you. All you had to do is go to the report and pick out one or two pages your simple mind could understand. But no, you couldn't even do that. The best you could do in this debate is to post a series of HAs in bold.

Your debating skills really, really, suck. Even when the argument is yours to cherry pick, you can't even cut the mustard.

Too bad for you. That's why you'll always be the loser in any debate.

Goatman

Here is another Title--I bet you believe this one too!!!!!!!!!!!

Goatman

You have been proven a liar so many times, I can't believe you read the 800 page report. You have no credibility. From your own words, you can't defend anything. You just say--I read the report--you didn't. But you lie. That's a problem isn't it. I'll tell you who has credibility.

This guy.

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect Member, American Institute of Architects. A practicing Architect for 20 years who has worked on most types of building construction including numerous fire-proofed steel-framed buildings. Founding member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
Speech at Sonoma State University 4/20/07:

Thanks for reinforcing my point, that you are an idiot with no debating skills, bOoB, but it isn't necessary.

If you would like to have an intelligent debate, read the report, stop spamming, and get back with me. If you do not desire an intelligent debate, continue what you are doing.

But you lie

prove it, then get back to me.

bOoB tactic #2 (after spamming, which is #1)

When you cannot make a valid counterpoint, call the other guy a liar.

Goatman

You want to talk about engineers? These guys have credibility.

16% believe that the World Trade Center's Twin Towers were brought down by explosives.

I know that math frightens you and you think I'm a liar, but you'll just have to trust me on this: 16% is far, far less than half. Since you won't believe me, ask one of your conspiratorial friends. I'm sure you have at least one who can do this simple math, don't you?

This guy has credibility.

H. Theodore Elden, Jr., B.Arch, AIA Practicing licensed architect in West Virginia for over 25 years. Now retired. Graduate of Carnegie Mellon University. Member, American Institute of Architects, West Virginia Chapter. Appointed Member of West Virginia State Board of Architects. Former Member, National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB), and Member, National Committee, Intern Development Program for Architects (IDP). Professional photographer.
Letter to American Institute of Architects 11/26/06:

"The primary duty of registered professionals is to protect the public safety. Professionals' intelligence, knowledge and experience provide a delicate connection between science and fact. ...

9-11 was a tragic event for our country, quickly solved-- by our government and propagated by our media, leading our country into fear, anguish, anger, war and unrestrained spending.

Have we, as building professionals, been hoodwinked? Who should better understand the collapse of the World Trade Towers than those in our profession, possibly with the consultation of demolition experts?

As I and millions have reviewed the events of that day, it seems much of the cover story is not true and impossible. As the nation is confused on the reality of that day, have we been making bad decisions ever since?

My web site collects salient information that isolates the demise of the World Trade Towers linking many experienced, dedicated and articulate technical analysis that show clearly that the World Trade Towers were destroyed by internal explosives and not "fires from the airlines". ...

Goatman

The number that believe the official story used to be 100%, including myself.

The number who don't believe the official story has been steadily rising since 911. It used to be 16% believed there was a problem with the official story. Now only 16% believe the official story

84% don't believe the official story.

This guy has credibility.

Frank A. DeMartini WTC victim. Architect and WTC Construction Manager, North Tower, 88th floor. Demartini first worked at the World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the terrorist truck bombing in 1993.

Video interview 1/25/01: "The [Twin Tower] building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door. This intense grid and the jet-plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting." http://video.google.com

Editor's note: The Boeing 767-200s that impacted the Twin Towers on 9/11 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated. The maximum takeoff weight of the 707 is 15% less than the 767.

Goat,

I'm afraid to be specific, because i like my job, but I am an electrical engineer (but i do software because it pays more). My company designs the platforms like you work on (so you better be nice to me).

If you know what thunderhorse is, we are currently designing the next generation like thunderhorse for that same company. It's gonna take us about 5 years to design it.

Kind of a paradox, someone with my politics working for the oil industry, huh? the irony is not lost on me.

If you know what thunderhorse is, we are currently designing the next generation like thunderhorse

Of course I know what the thunderhorse is. I've got one of their stickers on my hard hat.

You want to talk about engineers? These guys have credibility.

*yawn*

Still far, far, far fewer than the ones who don't doubt the report.

Nice try, bOoB.

Kind of a paradox, someone with my politics working for the oil industry, huh?

No. I (as well as some others on my rig) are quite vocal about the need to become oil independent. I don't mean this in a mean way, but you must work for a very paranoid company.

Goatman

Says you. I don't see you listing their names and qualifications. I think I can match you two for one, and have better, more credible sources.

I listed the people who designed the WTC, and the WTC construcion manager. Who do you cite? ABC or CBS?

Spin away Topper

Nope. As I said, if you want an intelligent debate on this report (what do the twin towers have to do with it anyway, btw) read it and stop spamming. Oh yes, you have to accept that I am not a liar and have read it, too. Of course, if I haven't, you will know immediately after you read it and you can rub it in my face then.

Also, don't get freaked out that it is 800 pages. many of them are pictures -- albeit not like the ones that you are used to with men in yellow hats and monkeys. They are quite technical.

I think I can match you two for one, and have better, more credible sources.

More math problems here, bOoB. it is impossible if you have 16% to match two for each one of the remainder. Again, find a friend you trust who has been through 2nd grade math and ask.

Goatman

I was talking about engineers--that was the subject--remember?

You want to talk about engineers? These guys have credibility.

*yawn*

Still far, far, far fewer than the ones who don't doubt the report.

Nice try, bOoB.

Posted by goatman at 2008-08-24 05:02 PM | Reply |

Then I said:

Says you. I don't see you listing their names and qualifications. I think I can match you two for one, and have better, more credible sources.

I listed the people who designed the WTC, and the WTC construcion manager. Who do you cite? ABC or CBS?

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-08-24 05:06 PM | Reply

Nothing about the 16% in there. Who are your sources--what are their credentials? Let's see your list. My list is better than yours. Better qualified, and far more numerous. Need to see the two I've mentioned again? I know how you tend to forget things.

Frank A. DeMartini WTC victim. Architect and WTC Construction Manager, North Tower, 88th floor

H. Theodore Elden, Jr., B.Arch, AIA Practicing licensed architect in West Virginia for over 25 years. Now retired. Graduate of Carnegie Mellon University. Member, American Institute of Architects, West Virginia Chapter. Appointed Member of West Virginia State Board of Architects. Former Member, National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB), and Member, National Committee, Intern Development Program for Architects (IDP).

And let's not forget the guys who designed the Towers to withstand impacts from jetliners.

So--let's see your list of engineers who say differently.

Let's see if you can stay on the topic which is the WTC-7 report.

bOoB tactic #3:

If #1 (spamming) and #2 (call the other person a liar) don't work try like hell to steer the subject to something else like talking snakes or the other WTC towers.

Stay focused, bOoB, stay focused.

This is like watching "Groundhog Day" 12 times in one day

LOL

Carry on....

Goatman

Where is your list? You are getting behind. Here is another.

Oops--I meant 400.

Where is your list?

Where is your list?

What list?

If you want to discuss this thread which is "NIST WTC 7 Report: Completely Flawed", I'll be happy to. If you want to discuss lists, start another thread.

I'm up to chapter 5 and I'll say it's definitely worth looking at.

You are right, Jay -- even if you don't believe it, it is a very interesting report IMO. I learned a lot about structural mechanics and materials properties as well as propogation of fire and stress forces.

Makes me wish I'd become a structural engineer!

"Groundhog Day", a new movie starring Bill Murray, will be playing at the following times:

6 am
6 am
6 am
6 am
6 am
6 am
6 am
6 am
6 am
6 am
6 am
6 am
6 am
6 am
6 am
6 am
6 am
6 am
6 am
6 am

You guys are too funny !!

All time funniest post from the "Fed Study: Fire Brought Down WTC 7" thread --

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

Posted by LeeAtwater at 2008-08-22 12:54 PM

I think it's playing at 6:00 AM, too.

I hope the next one doesn't almost sink like the thunderhorse did.

Posted by goatman

Sinking? That was just an undocumented feature.

The next one plans to use less 'sinky' technology and more 'floaty' technology.

BuffaloBob -

I have one final thing to say to you.

I think you are sexist. How come when I take a position on the WTC 7 building collapse that is counter to your theory (and videos) I'm told to "politely fuck off for eternity" -- and you mean it. Yet the guys on here can call you every name in the book --"total loon" being the kindest -- and take a real hardball attitude in pointing out the flaws they see in your arguments but you come running back to them begging for more.

Am I suppose to give up my own points of view and yell surrender because you toss a couple videos in my lap???? I viewed them -- more than many on here bother to do for you. If it's bothering you because I'm female and am able to present enough valid and solid facts to pound your own "facts" into the ground (like I did on the other WTC 7 thread) that is no reason to not want to debate me anymore. Just think of me as some genderless poster if that's what's getting in the way of your huge ego. I can't think of any other reason why I'm being treated differently doing battle with you. You can tell me any time you think my point of view is full of s--t, I don't care. But I don't intend to back off my position just because you've put up what you think is a more valid one and expect me to agree to it on the spot. No one else is told to fuck off FOREVER when they keep on disputing what you have to say, so why am I? Haven't you argued with women before? Well, you are now.

That that is, is. That that is not, is not.

Once again, it's whatever fits you own personal worldview - it's a free country and you are welcome to believe whatever you want.

Bob and goat in their real lives:

BBob

I've had my final say with what I wrote above. I won't be back on this thread again so you don't have to hide or be afraid to come back on here and do your thing. As I said on the other thread about WTC 7, your wish has been granted.

Here's a parting song you can relate to....

DAVE

The Audio Clip samples sound hilarious. Glad they weren't MY neighbors LOL

Here's the link to that page:

It's funny that my wife, a structural engineer, had to study the designs of those buildings, as at the time of their building a concern was what if something that larger did fall? and they were specifically designed to collapse the way they did.

Try doing some damn research.

I'm an engineer goat...
The buildings (all of them) were brought down by demolition...Posted by Lipzoidial
You must be one stupid SOB engineer.

You must be one stupid SOB engineer.

Posted by midtowncowboy

Yes, that must be it. I was also the man on the grassy knoll. In my spare time, I am the unknown comic.

Who are you? I mean other than a sold out republican looser?

Lipzoidial: I'm still curious which parts of the report you found in error. You seemed willing to offer assistance in your 12:04 yesterday. As I said, your response, buildings (all of them) were brought down by demolition. doesn't do much to satisfy my technical tooth and does not address any issues in the report at all.

Also, last week you said you were taking bets that that the there would be a shooting in the school in Texas that allows teachers to pack heat. I offered to take you up on that bet, but I never heard back.

Is "zoidial" a synonym for "service"?

Goatman,
I don't need to read NIST. I don't need to be told that the sun is shining. I can see with my own 2 eyes. I have worked construction for over 30 years. I have a small amount of education in building inspection technology, I've studied stress loads, structure span, bearing load, ect.. I'm a certified for life building inspector with my education from Butte College. I know that the way the Twin Towers were designed that they couldn't have collapsed like that. The core columns had to have been cut.
I saw the video of building 7. I know demolition when I see it.
Never in the history of steel construction have skyscrapers collapsed in their own foot print except for on 911. And amazingly. 3!! buildings collapsed.
It still amazes me that they could sell this lie. Damn! People are stupid!
Just like they have sold the war on terror. And now they are trying to sell WW3 with Russia. Are you morons going to buy the big lie about that to?

"There is no amount of evidence to make you believe it if you are set against it"

You say this as if conspiracy theorists have ever offered a scrap of evidence to support their claims.

Note: Poking holes in any other version of events is not real evidence.

I don't need to read NIST.

This is rich. This is really rich. You start a thread titled "NIST WTC 7 Report: Completely Flawed" then actually have the chutzpah to say that you don't need to read the report.

I don't need to be told that the sun is shining. I can see with my own 2 eyes.

Great analogy. I'm gonna run with it. You are Ptolemy. I am Copernicus. I tell you, "The earth orbits the sun. Look at my calculations and figures. They prove it." You, Ptolemy, tell me, "I don't have to. All I have to do is look up in the sky and I can see the sun moving. Your facts, figures, and report mean nothing. I have my eyes."

If you want to say the report is flawed, you have to read it, then put it down. You can't say it's flawed then say you refuse to read it because your eyes tell you everything you need to know.

What a loser you are, jeff.

The buildings (all of them) were brought down by demolition.

It's just a guess Goatman, but I'd say he disagrees with the conclusions found in Appendix D: Hypothetical Blast Scenarios.

I'd say he disagrees with the conclusions found in Appendix D: Hypothetical Blast Scenarios.

I'm sure it's any of the anti deliberately caused things peppered throughout the report. But you gotta read it to disagree with it, especially since the rest of the report lays a very good foundation for the conclusions.

Critical Response to NIST Final Report
on the Mysterious Collapse of WTC Building 7

Join the 430 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth for an important live (audio) Press Conference. The subject is the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 which was a 47-story, steel-framed, fire-proofed high-rise the 3rd tower to fall straight down symmetrically at nearly free-fall speed on 9/11/01 with numerous reports of explosions and several tons of molten metal found in the basement carrying the "thermite fingerprint".

The AE911Truth tele-conference will follow immediately after the NIST (National Institute for Standards & Technology) slide presentation and Q&A of their WTC 7 Final Report which will be Webcast beginning at 8am PDT / 11am EDT. See the NIST webcast announcement & details here.

In our AE911Truth response we will be documenting major flaws in the NIST report as well as the most serious omissions such as the collapse features of WTC 7 and the scientific forensic evidence of its explosive controlled demolition.

Listeners:
The Tele-Conference Dial-in # for listeners is (712) 432-1001
and the access code is: 442-618-649#
Call in at 12pm EDT

Goatman,
I don't need to read that pack of lies, propaganda NIST report.
I will wait and read the rebuttal from over 430 Architects and Engineers who know what they are talking about.
NIST can whitewash Building 7 in any way they choose but they can't tell the truth, if they do its over for their big lie.

I don't need to read that pack of lies, propaganda NIST report.

Of course you don't. And Ptolemy didn't have to entertain any silly notions about the sun, not the earth being the center of the solar system. He had over 430 top astronomers of the day who agreed with him that the earth was the center of the solar system.

Nothing is as pitiful as someone who condemns something they have never read or seen. You are like a petulant child at the dinner table saying, "I don't like this. I don't have to taste it to know that".

I may be wrong about some things, but I will not condemn something without reading it first. Doing so makes you a loser of the first degree.

Now get back to your terracentric view of the solar system, ptolemy. Your eyes are all you need to know that it is the sun, not the earth that moves. You don't read that evil and obviously flawed report by that lunatic Copernicus. LOL

I will wait and read the rebuttal from over 430 Architects and Engineers

430 rebuttals from the millions of engineers of the world? LOL! That is several orders of magnitude lower than the estimated 5% of the population who are mentally ill or deranged.

Or are engineers somehow magically exempt from mental illness?

Goatman,
Have you even watched the video of building 7 collapsing?
If you have, and you still believe fires made it collapse in 7 seconds, straight down like that then you are a complete moron.
And if you have watched the video, and you know in your gut that something is wrong, but can't admit it to yourself then you are a coward. And if you are just lying to support the big lie, then you are a traitor to your country, and your childrens future.

I will wait and read the rebuttal from over 430 Architects and Engineers who know what they are talking about.

Are you personally acquainted with these 430 people? No? Then how do you know they know what they are talking about? What if it was 430 people who disagreed with those 430? I presume since your mind is made up that the latter 430 would not know what they are talking about, right? LOL

Jeff, just come out and say it: You have your mind made up and any facts presented to you will not sway your position.

I guess you're the one that would know about Mental illness.
You're the one that is still mind locked into believing the big lie.

"Are you personally acquainted with these 430 people?"
So by your logic, then are you personally acquainted with NIST?

430 rebuttals from the millions of engineers of the world?

Posted by goatman at 2008-08-25 11:19 AM | Reply

Link?

Have you even watched the video of building 7 collapsing?

Yes

If you have, and you still believe fires made it collapse in 7 seconds, straight down like that then you are a complete moron.

Wrong. The NIST report describes in great detail how it could have happened. The morons in this are those who depend solely on a video to determine what happened. You should expand your knowledge beyond videos, bob -- I mean jeff.

and they were specifically designed to collapse the way they did.

Try doing some damn research.

Posted by kwrx25 at 2008-08-25 08:24 AM | Reply

Link? Why is there such a problem with Links. If you are going to make an outrageous claims--at least put it with a link. It really looks like you are talking out your ass. That's why I have LINKS when I make statements.

Link?

Page up one or twice, bOoB. jeff said it.

fuck, what an idiot

Is "zoidial" a synonym for "service"?

Posted by goatman

Good one.

I agree with some of the critics on this issue.

We're beating a dead horse. If you believe, then believe, if you don't then don't but i will not do tons of research just to get you to believe that i am serious about what i believe.

It won't hurt my feeling if you don't believe, but if you want to learn, then the info is out there.

So by your logic, then are you personally acquainted with NIST?

No. Nor was I personally acquainted with Isaac Newton, but when presented with the drawings, physics, and math he postulated, I believe planets move as they do.

Just as the NIST presented the drawing, physics, and math to support their claims, I believe them.

Do you have a link to a report by 'your' 430 engineers that contain similiar drawings, physics, and math as the NIST report? If so, I'd be more than happy to read it.

It won't hurt my feeling if you don't believe, but if you want to learn, then the info is out there.

It is. I've read both sides, unlike you, jeff and bob who refuse to read the NIST report. I would say the fact I've read both sides puts me in a much better position to come to a logical conclusion, wouldn't you say?

Also, lip -- what about that bet on the school gun thing? Is that offer still good or have you changed your mind?

Same question for jeff and bob. I've read y'all's side of the issue. I've read the NIST report. In fact, I've probably read much more for much longer about the conspiracy theories than I spent reading the report.

The fact that I have acquainted myself with both sides of the issue would make me more likely to come to the correct conclustion, wouldn't you say?

Goatman

A quick question for you.

Do you really think that if you went to a to the Towers with explosives and took out two floors near the top of the Towers simultaneously---that the Towers would fall straight down? Seriously.

And if you are just lying to support the big lie, thenyou are a traitor to your country

LOL. I have to borrow a line from Ray:

"son of Tadowe"

I am not a traitor because I choose to learn both sides of an issue, jeff. How maudlin. You the drama queen, OTOH, are a traitor to yourself for refusing to learn all the facts.

Do you really think that if you went to a to the Towers with explosives and took out two floors near the top of the Towers simultaneously---that the Towers would fall straight down? Seriously.

If I took explosives? I don't have enough information. How much explosives? Where are they placed? Are they timed for maximum demolition impact? How far from the top are they placed?

But even with those questions answered, I'm not sure I could answer yours. I'm not a demolition expert.

Califchris

It has nothing to do with your sex or that you disagree with me on certain points. It has to do with me not liking two faced people. I make it a point to get people out of my life that cause me grief.

At times you seem friendly to me and I like reading your posts. But at other times you attack and call names. Now Goatman and the others are meaningless trolls that really can't figure things out so well, so their name calling means nothing, but people who I like--it does make a difference to me.

So now you know why, and yes--I mean it. Kindly fuck off

Bob and Goat... a gloriously co-dependant relationship.

Some need their nemeses.

If I took explosives? I don't have enough information. How much explosives? Where are they placed? Are they timed for maximum demolition impact? How far from the top are they placed?

But even with those questions answered, I'm not sure I could answer yours. I'm not a demolition expert.

Posted by goatman at 2008-08-25 11:56 AM | Reply

You don't have to be a demolition expert. Let's say you had the expertise, the motive, and opportunity to take out two floors from the Towers at the same location of the plane strikes. Let's say you could take out those two floors simultaneously--do you think the Towers would fall straight down? Seriously.

Let's say you had the expertise, ...do you think the Towers would fall straight down?

Of course I could if I had the expertise.

You are resorting to tactic #3 (see above) to avoid the current topic, so this is the last question I'll entertain about the twin towers.

I would really, really like to discuss this report, but it seems the conspiracists have their minds made up and refuse to read it making a debate on it impossible.

How strange it is that someone who calls themself a truthseeker will not look at both sides of the story.

Bob and Goat... a gloriously co-dependant relationship.

Yes, the evolutionary acme of symbiosis indeed!

But at other times you attack and call names. At times you seem friendly to me and I like reading your posts. But at other times you attack and call names. Now Goatman and the others are meaningless trolls that really can't figure things out so well, so their name calling means nothing, but people who I like--it does make a difference to me.

- Buffalobob

Oh please. The only, and worst, name I can remember ever calling you on the other WTC 7 thread was -- (((DRUMROLL)))) -- "BuffaloNutjob"

aaagggghhh - the horror!

I have NEVER told you to "fuck off" -- permanently or not.

I will fuck-off permanently -- with pleasure -- if I can't even say "BuffaloNutjob" 'cause your buffalo hide is so thin you can't even take a mild bit of namecalling in the heat of battle. What a wuss.

Well, since I now have to fuck-off forever into cyberspace, I want ONE last zinger to make my point and it concerns that one video you demanded I watch and then got into your "fuck-off forever" snit when I didn't roll over and praise your video find as proof positive.

It was the video showing two buildings (one was WTC 7) collapsing simultaneously side by side on a split screen. You used it as your "proof" that the WTC 7 building shown collapsing in a pancake fashion into its own footprint was proof of a pre-set demolition. Your "proof" was your claim that the other building (shown on right half of the split screen) fell over sideways (not in a pancake fashion). Correct?

Below is why I believe you were incorrect in comparing the fall of those two buildings to make your point--

WTC 7 was built according to strict U.S. building code standards -- the toughest in the world. (Precisely why you do not see all the buildings collapse during earthquakes here in CA yet you see thousands of buildings collapse in third world countries in an earthquake of the same strength).

Here's the KEY --

The other building shown your side-by-side comparison video looked to me to be a building collapse in another country -- not here in the U.S. That would explain exactly why WTC 7 collapsed exactly as it was designed to do -- in a pancake fashion with minimal damage outside its footprint -- and the other (a building built in some 3rd world country?)collapsed sideways and spilled debris all over the place.

Can you provide proof that both the buildings shown collapsing simutaneously in your spit-screen video were BOTH buildings here in the U.S. and built according to U.S. strict building code requirements? If not, it was not a fair comparison and you are precluded from using that particular video as proof.

I won't be back (in order to honor your request) but will peek in later on this thread to see if you were able to answer my question. If you can't prove both buildings were U.S. built, then your comparison spit screen video was merely a cheap trick of smoke and mirrors.

Thank you sweet, wonderful, charming BuffaloBob for any time and effort you may put into answering my question.

(Nice enough, for ya now?)

Listeners:
The Tele-Conference Dial-in # for listeners is (712) 432-1001
and the access code is: 442-618-649#
Call in at 12pm EDT

Posted by JeffnDenmark

Still no conference, Jeff.

Goatman,
The NIST report is based solely on computer models to explain their lie.
I could prove to you that it is possible to land a 747 on the head of a pin if I tweaked the computer model enough.

Bob and Jeff,

Since you're dealing with the hypothetical, lets say you find irrefutable evidence backing your suspicions.

What could you do about it? Shout to the heavens? Post it here? Write a book? Write a letter? Hire an attorney?

What would it prove? What would it change?

Nothing.

The NIST report is based solely on computer models to explain their lie.

???

Oh -- I forgot. You didn't read it. That explains your post.

"Still no conference, Jeff."

You are just too much of a lemming to hear it.

Sincerely,

JeffnBuffaolBobodial

Goatman and the others are meaningless trolls that really can't figure things out so well,

You are right, bOoB: We who read both sides of the story have a much harder time figuring things out than you who read only one side. LOL

(is it unPC to laugh at the deranged?)

(is it unPC to laugh at the deranged?)

It's why I read these threads. The usual characters never fail to amuse.

You are just too much of a lemming to hear it.

Posted by Sully

Damn... the emperor's new conference call?

I tried calling in "collect" but I was denied. Apparently the guberment teat I suckle from won't pay for the call either. This sucks. Socialist paradise me ass. I'm thinking of quitting the job I don't have and moving to some place a little more generous with the benies.
Sincerely,
Skidmark

"Damn... the emperor's new conference call?"

I bet Jeff can hear perfectly well even though he's calling in on his stapler.

BuffaloBob

Re the comments in my 12:40 p.m.

I went back to the other thread and got the video link. Watched it again and now I KNOW I'm correct about the one building shown collapsing on the right hand side of the spit screen was probably built in some 3rd world country -- using 3rd world country building codes -- as the video for that building collapse is captioned all in Spanish.

This is too funny.

I clicked on the youtube video linked above and started to read a couple of the posts underneath the video screen and the very first post is signed "Dethspud" -- even down to the "Be well" signature sign-off. Could it have been "our" Spud?

It tickles my funny bone they way my threads attracked all of the Drudge douchebags.
Hehehe!

I think that's italian and not spanish, cc. so much for your 3rd world country theory.

Oh, and that's definitely spud. even talks about himself in the third person.

Here's the post I was referring to above shown on BBob's youtube video in case some on here can't open the link --

dethspud (2 days ago)

That was either a controlled demolition or an act of God. Being an athiest/ recovering Catholic Spud is going with the former assessment.

Be Well.

Hagbard Celine

I think that's italian and not spanish, cc. so much for your 3rd world country theory.

Gracias. I will agree with you Italy is not some third world country. However, I don't agree with your thinking Italian building codes for highrises are as strict and as state of the art as U.S. building codes set in place for highrises in our own country. I seriously doubt it.

How strange it is that someone who calls themself a truthseeker will not look at both sides of the story.

Posted by goatman at 2008-08-25 12:31 PM | Reply

I've never called myself a truthseeker. You have not read the report. If you had--you would be making points with what you had read---you would be explaining the simplicity of how such a thing as a few little fires could bring down a 47 story building. You would be explaining to us know nothings how a building falls straight down when heavily damaged on one side. You read nothing. You don't look at both sides.

I look at both sides. On one side I see people trying to tell me that a few fires and heavy damage on one side made the building fall into its own footprint. On the other side I see the explosive charges traveling up the sides of the building and the kink in the middle of the roof just like a controlled demolition. To me it is an evaluation of which seems more logical. The explosions I see convince me. The fact that the entire structure fell uniformly into its own footprint convinces me. What convinces you? What was in that report that you read that convinced you? Oh yeah--THE WHOLE THING. Good explanation there chief.

;-)

Cali - It is a waste of time to argue with Bob about one of his videos. He had this one where he claims there was an explosion on one of the WTC towers right before the plane hits the building. The problem was that you can look at the video and clearly see that the nose and half the cockpit are in the building before the flash ever occurs. I pointed this out to him using markings on the plane as reference points that made what was happening very clear and got generic "you're wrong" responses that didn't specifically address anything I was trying to tell him. So of course you can't compare WTC 7 to some random Italian building that was built God knows when and call it a reasonable study but you'll never convince Bob of that once he's decided this video "proves" something.

Now kindly fuck off forever. ;)

I've never called myself a truthseeker.

- BuffaloBob

That is true. BBob never refers to himself as "Truthseeker," I'm the one who started referring to BuffalobBob as "Truthseeker" but it was done to be a friendly/affectionate kind of nickname -- not to mock him.

It tickles my funny bone they way my threads attracked all of the Drudge douchebags,

And it tickles us how willing your are to do it at the expense of your reputation by remaining so ignorant.

If I make a joke, I don't use myself as the butt of it. But I'm not you, Jeff.

However, I don't agree with your thinking Italian building codes for highrises are as strict and as state of the art as U.S. building codes set in place for highrises in our own country. I seriously doubt it.

Posted by CalifChris

Really? The creators of the arch, and vaulted ceilings? ok. I have no idea, so I'm not going to disagree beyond stating that.

Cali - It is a waste of time to argue with Bob about one of his videos.

...

Now kindly fuck off forever. ;)

Posted by Sully at 2008-08-25 02:07 PM

Et tu, Sully?

Good one! Too funny.

You have not read the report.

And your proof of that is . . .?

I didn't think so. LOL

bOoB debate tactics:

1) spam
2) call the other person a liar
3) deflect to another topic

I'll take door #2, Monty

Really? The [Italian] creators of the arch, and vaulted ceilings? ok. I have no idea, so I'm not going to disagree beyond stating that.

OMG! Now we have to compare the WTC Twin Tower collapse to the building codes in place at the time of the construction of the ancient Coliseum of Rome? Oh noooooooo. You boys can hash that one out. That one argument alone should be good for another 5000 more posts. As for me, much as I'd love to play some more, I've got work to do around here. Later, y'all.

you would be explaining the simplicity of how such a thing as a few little fires could bring down a 47 story building.

???

Oh, I forgot you didn't read the report. That explains this idiotic post.

Read it and get back with us, bOoB.

I've never called myself a truthseeker.

Good. At least you admit you aren't seeking the truth.

You have not read the report. If you had--you would be making points with what you had read

???

That's ignorant as hell. The report makes its own points -- hundreds of them. I do not need to parrot them. The topic of this thread assumes you have read it and want to debate specific points of it. Which point in the report do you dispute, bOoB?

I look at both sides.
Posted by BuffaloBob

LOL!

Shyam Sunder of NIST says that there was no explosive sound loud enough to have been an explosion that could have taken out one of these columns. Here is a recording of 2 of them:

The NIST team found no evidence that explosives were involved in the collapse.--

Because they didnt LOOK. (NIST admitted they NEVER TESTED FOR EXPLOSIVE RESIDUE. NIST did not test for the presence of explosive residue and such tests would not necessarily have been conclusive.--)

Our analysis shows that even the smallest explosive charge that was capable of bringing down the critical column in the building, had it occurred, we would have seen sound levels of 120 to 130 dbs, a half a mile away. That (could) have been an incredibly loud sound, and that sound was not picked up by any of the videos or the witnesses we have talked to.-- Shyam Sunder.

Only the fanatics believe.

Take a look at who the retards are that buy in to this shit. Then notice the other crazy and uninformed things they say on totally unrelated threads.
It's always the crazy (BuffaloBob) uneducated (skidmark) retards (bani) that cling to this stupidity.

It's always the usual cast of characters.

Shyam Sunder of NIST says that there was no explosive sound loud enough to have been an explosion that could have taken out one of these columns. Here is a recording of 2 of them:

LOL. You say that then quote this upthread:

There are holes in this story that you can drive a truck through,-- he added, citing NISTs claim that no evidence suggested loud explosive booms accompanied the collapse of the building by reminding that Thermite, a steel cutting agent, makes no explosive sound.

Which one are you going with, Jeff?

That's what's so cool about backing a conspiracy: You can make any argument work. No sound? No problem -- Thermite. Sound? Still no problem -- just listen to this tape. But the discrepency when two different conspiracists' stories don't match? *crickets*

You guys should have a big conspiracist meeting and decide on the details of your story -- like if there is the sound of an explosion or not. LOL

I see the headline and I know whats going to happen. It's like watching a train wreck.

Speaking of retards..
chairpoodle is back!
Did your life partner let you out of the closet for the night?

"I look at both sides.
Posted by BuffaloBob

LOL!"

No he really does.

He's willing to consider that the WTC was brought down by missiles OR by controlled demo.

What time is it in Denmark, Jeff?

Shouldn't you be out getting your ration of Akvavit?

Here is how NIST came to their conclusion.
They started out with the outcome they wanted. You know how to get beams to sag 40 inches instead of 4, and metal melting at temperatures lower than what are known to have occurred.
They downloaded these out comes into their computer models, and then tweaked the data to get the results they wanted.
They even invented a rare phenomenon called "global collapse" to explain their lie. Never before in the history of building technology has "global collapse" occured. It's so rare that they can't even reproduce it in their computer models without tweaking the data.

And your proof of that, Jeff, is. . .?

Or is this simply your opinion?

They even invented a rare phenomenon called "global collapse" to explain their lie. Never before in the history of building technology has "global collapse" occured.

On what page of the report is this global collapse mentioned? I don't remember it.

Let me clarify my question, jeff. After I reread it, it is ambiguous.

On what page of the report is it declared that global collapse is a rare phenomenom and that it was invented by the NIST?

Thanks

Next week the DR is going to start featuring a new weekly article in which Buffy and JnD review films they haven't seen.

All interested...this is a very good article. It's a PDF document but it disputes the controlled demolition theory.

It's an analysis done by experts in explosive demolition.

Yet, the conspiracy theorists try to debunk him.

The conspiracy theorists debunk people supporting the official story.

The official story supports debunk people supporting the conspiracy theory.

Alas, the circle will continue on and on.

They started out with the outcome they wanted

Jeff, even those supporting the conspiracy theory are that way. Anything supporting the official story is immediately viewed as incorrect.

BuffaloBob

It has nothing to do with your sex or that you disagree with me on certain points. It has to do with me not liking two faced people. I make it a point to get people out of my life that cause me grief....so their name calling means nothing, but people who I like--it does make a difference to me.

So now you know why, and yes--I mean it. Kindly fuck off

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-08-25 11:56 AM

I can't believe I'm even having this conversation, but alright. If it means so much to you, I will not call you "BuffaloNutjob" nor any other name other than the three I've always used in the past (no matter how much you can drive me nuts with your retorts). I will only address you from now on only as BuffaloBob, BBob, or Truthseeker.

btw -- I've never been a two-faced person as you called me today nor am I a backstabber -- either on DR or outside of here. So that part of your comment is a lie and you own me an apology. Man up and apologize.

I have people on DR I get along with okay 95% of the time but sometimes I can frustrate them with my comments and they'll clobber me verbally but it's all done in the heat of battle. I've often had "fucking idiot" "a--hole" and other DR terms of affection whispered in my ear. Yet at least I can understand why I might occasionally elicit those terms of endearment. :). I don't pout or take them personally. Why should you be any different? This place isn't some ladies' church social, ya know.

Still, I'll go along with the promise in my first paragraph to not call you any so-called "derrogatory" names if it means that much to you and somehow hurt your feelings before.

Consider your answer as to whether or not you want to accept this truce very carefully.
It will not be offered again, BuffaloBob. Your decision.

correction

you own me = you owe me

I have read the report

Goatman

And your proof of that is . . .?

I didn't think so. LOL

DUmmY debate tactics:

1) lie
2) lie some more
3) lie again

You've read nothing. The proof is that you have said nothing. The proof is you have not stated what they say brought down the towers that is different from what they said 7 years ago.

Everyone can see the teeny tiny fires that are supposed to have brought down this 47 story building..

BULLSHIT.

and you? STFU until you read something. Like the report. Your lies make you seem even more stupid than usual.

"Groundhog Day" showing at the following times:

6 am
6 am
6 am
6 am
6 am
6 am
6 am
6 am
6 am
6 am
6 am
6 am

1) lie
2) lie some more
3) lie again

da bOoB falls back to tactic #2

You've read nothing. The proof is that you have said nothing.

LOL. I never said anything when you accused me of being many other posters several months ago, either. I guess the people who admitted to being them later were lying.

I guess I haven't read hundreds of books in my life because I've never mentioned them. I guess I don't have a cousin named sue because I've never mentioned her.

Can anyone get anymore idiotic?

SO prove me wrong, bOoB. Read the report. Ask me questions about it. Prove I'm a liar. LOL

Everyone can see the teeny tiny fires that are supposed to have brought down this 47 story building..

Really? Everyone doesn't think that because I, for one, do not. But then again, I read the report. I know what brought it down. It wasn't teeny tiny fires. Did you hear this on conspiracy.com or nutjob.com?

STFU until you read something. Like the report.

I will if you will -- deal?

So, it looks like you have to shut up and I don't. LOL!!!

Pirate

Under assertion #1--It says there was no explosions on the lower floors--which is necessary to "get the structure moving".

This contadicts eyewitness accounts and video footage.

Eyewitness accounts

BBob, stop tapping the fishbowl. Goatman is becoming agitated.

Goatman

I don't have to prove you are a liar. You need to prove you are telling the truth. So far all I've seen is "I'VE READ THE REPORT"---anybody can say that. You can prove it by telling us the part that will convince us that a few small fires brought down WTC7. You can prove it by telling us how it explains how the building fell straight down even though it was supposedly weaker on one side. You can prove it by telling us why there were explosions seen traveling up the sides of WTC7 just before it collapsed.

You say you've read the report--prove it--put up or shut up.

Simple isn't it.

Goatman is becoming agitated.

???

laughing is a form of agitation? I guess in the strictest sense of the word.

I don't have to prove you are a liar. You need to prove you are telling the truth

Actually, you do. You made the claim I am a liar. Therefore you bear the burden of proof. I've explained this to you many, many times. It must really suck not having a memory.

Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven

Goatman

Sopry DumMy. You made the claim you read the report first. Prove your claim.

Prove your claim.

Since you have not read it, that would be impossible. Whatever I say was in it, you'd simply say it wasn't. duh

That's why I told you to read it and ask me questions about it. If I couldn't answer the questions, you'd know I was lying.

Let me know when you've read it and I'll take your little test. Normally I don't allow people to test me, but I want you to expand your horizons for once. So for this one time, if you read the entire report, I'll agree to your stupid little Q&A test. I'm doing it for your own good.

Let me know when you've finished it.

...even though it was supposedly weaker on one side.

Bob, are you referring to the damage caused by falling debris from the WTC1 collapse (West side) or the failure of column 79 (East side)?

Jay

I'll give you both. The building shouldn't have fallen at all.

JAY

Check out this video. It's not youtube. Not sure if it's been linked here previously but it's worth a look.

Click on the main larger video screen to see their findings and stimlated building collapse

(Plus there are two smaller animated simulated building collapses drawings just below it).

This video is on NIST's own website -- the engineering firm which did part of the investigation.

So Bob, what happened? What caused column 79 to fail? The report proves, to my satisfaction, that explosives were not used; there were no blown out windows.

What's your theory?

P.S.

Chris, my internet connection is pretty strong but the NIST site is crippled or crippling.

Cannot download.

JAY

That's too bad. I just checked it and the website came right up. Then I clicked on the left side of the video (the start button) and it came on. Well, better luck next time. Maybe you can try it again tomorrow.

BOB SAYS....

This guy has credibility.
Frank A. DeMartini WTC victim. Architect and WTC Construction Manager, North Tower, 88th floor. Demartini first worked at the World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the terrorist truck bombing in 1993.
Editor's note: The Boeing 767-200s that impacted the Twin Towers on 9/11 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated. The maximum takeoff weight of the 707 is 15% less than the 767.
Bio: www.legacy.com

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-08-24 04:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Whoa!

Bobtard,I thought you were convinced that windowless jets with missles struck the towers.

What gives?

Faker.

ROTFLMAO

rwd

Bobtard,

My answer in advance.

NICE DEFLECTION!!!!

LOL

rwd

Chris, I think they may be listening to us because I just clicked on it again, after your post, and it came right up. It took over an hour to download the pdf files from the NIST site yesterday, and no video files would work.

I have to reject your source.

----

I'm not surprised at all you reject it. You can't even fathom that the official story might be true so you reject any evidence even when presented by experts.

Checking thru the NIST website I found a link to list of Q&A's which sums up all the "hows and whys" of the WTC 7 collapse that most people might have about what happened.

Check it out --

Here's a very long (almost 300 pages) debunking of a NIST debunking. The author is a NASA research scientist.

It took over an hour to download the pdf files from the NIST site yesterday,

I know what you mean. It took me five tries to download volume 2 of the report four days ago. It's a popular site/report.

Goatman,
What page of the report did NIST state their findings on "molten steel"?

NIST left all of this crucial forensic evidence out of its report. Why?

What page of the report did NIST state their findings on "molten steel"?

Between the three documents, there are about 800 pages. When I get some spare time, I'll try to get that answer for you, Jeff.

But as I said, if we are going to debate the document, it only seems fair you read it too. Or am I the only one who has to do the heavy lifting here? Don't agree this is only fair -- especially since you are the one who started the thread claiming the report is flawed?

Fair or not? Let me know.

On second thought, I decided it is fair that you read the document.

So instead of you asking me what page something is on, you read it and tell me what page it's on and that you think the molten steel issue mentioned on page x is in error and why you think so. We'll debate it from there.

I'm not going to do your heavy lifting for you, Jeff. If you don't want to do your part by reading the report, it is clear you are trolling and have no real interest in a fair debate.

Fair or not? Let me know.

Well, Jeff, I see you are still on line, but you haven't answered my question. Isn't it fair that you read the report, too, if you want to debate it? Is it fair that you ask me to look up stuff in the report for you when you refuse to read it?

Please let me know if you think I am out of line in asking you to read the report in order to debate it. Your lack of response tells me you are trolling and have no interest in a real debate.

I'm not surprised at all you reject it. You can't even fathom that the official story might be true so you reject any evidence even when presented by experts.

Posted by Pirate at 2008-08-25 10:49 PM | Reply

You seem to reject eyewitness accounts of a large basement explosion by the people who were there.

You seem to reject the video evidence of an explosion at ground level before the planes hit.

Yeah--under those circumstances--I reject your experts who were sitting at home watching it on TV.

You seem to reject the video evidence of an explosion at ground level before the planes hit

Copernicus rejected eye witness accounts of how the sun 'moved' across the sky. He ended up being right. But of course he depended on this silly little thing called 'science' and this absurd notion we call 'mathematics' and did not depend on his eyes.

"but, but, but -- youtube.com! See! The sun does indeed move across the sky. The earth doesn't move. It's the sun that moves, dUmmY. I don't need no stieeeenkin' science and math. I've got my eyes!"

bluffalo bOoB

Goatman

We are talking about an expolsion in a lobby DuMmy. Not the sun. See the difference? The sun is that bright thing in the sky.

Califchris

I have decided it is me that needs an attitude adjustment, and I've done that. I gave you too much credit in the past, and I needed to re-evaluate the status I had given you. So, you can call all the names you like, it won't make a difference.

I looked at your link, and I still don't buy it. They say the fires raged on the lower floors up to the tenth, then the 13th floor collapsed then column 79 fails and it's like a domino chain reaction from there on.

First, I would say that is very poor construction if the whole of the building structure rests on one column.
Second, most of the building was undamaged yet it all crumbled.
Third, I can still see the explosions traveling up the sides of that building--the question and answers section did not deal with that aspect of the collapse.
Fourth, they say it didn't fall at freefall speed. True. It fell at controlled demolition speed. If it had been just one column that failed, I wouldn't expect the whole building to fall--talk about third world construction. That link I posted the other day didn't show a building falling on its side--I don't know how you got that interpretation out of it. What the link showed was the speed and appearance of a controlled demolition next to WTC7 for comparison. It does not show a building falling on its side.

We are talking about an expolsion in a lobby DuMmy. Not the sun.

Actually you were talking about what you saw with your eyes. I was saying your eyes can deceive you. Get it? It really isn't that tough to discern from the posts for those who possess the ability to think. For the rest of you -- yes, it might be kind of tough to figure out. Sorry I went over your head and assumed certain cognitive abilities in you. My bad indeed.

No what I was talking about was an explosion in the lobby with eyewitness and video accounts.

What you were talking about was the sun for some stupid reason. Do you think the sun melted the Towers?

What you were talking about was the sun for some stupid reason.

You are too dense to understand. Forget I said it. maybe another DRer will take the time to translate into a 5 YO level. I don't have the patience.

BuffaloBob

Califchris

I have decided it is me that needs an attitude adjustment, and I've done that.
I gave you too much credit in the past, and I needed to re-evaluate the status I had given you....

Err, why do I feel as though you just took our "truce" and smacked me upside the head with it?

...So, you can call all the names you like, it won't make a difference....

I don't want or need to "call you names." I told you the three names I would use from now on -- BuffaloBob, BBob, or Truthseeker -- same as I've always called you. Other than a one time
use of the name "BuffaloNutjob" a couple days ago, I never called you names anyway.

I also thought part of our "truce" was for you to man up and apologize for
lying when you said I was "two-faced" -- I'm still waiting.

GOATMAN

I assume you'll already be off the rig when Gustav hits the Gulf. So have a happy party time, man !!

Speaking of "Gustav", here's a pic of the largest crocodile ever seen. Gustave, a serial killer who's killed at least 30 fishermen over the years, lives in a river in Burundi. 25' and 2000 lbs.

A couple more pics of Gustave:

It looks like Gustave the reptile is to crocodiles what Gustav the storm will be to hurricanes. They are predicting a cat 3 when it enters the gulf and probably a 4 when it makes landfall.

You won't be in the Gulf, right?

Gustave has fattened up on fishermen for 35 years that people know of.

No. I crew change on Friday. They have started evacuating the rig today of non-essential personnel

Gus looks mean and nasty -- both the crock and the hurricane.

Goat -- you should put your rig info on the "Hurricane Threatens Cuba" thread on the Front Page. People are starting to talk about Texas and NOLA -- or actually, some were going to flee to Texas if it hits NOLA. Usually you and your rig gets mentioned every time there's a storm brewing in the GoM as people wonder how you're doing. I know there were a couple of posts wondering how you were managing in the storm prior to the last one. You were off your rig during that one though.

crock = croc

CC

Did you scroll down on the one link and see the closeup of Gustave?

Lordy Lordy Lordy

Yes, I looked at all the photos of Gus -- eeewww.

You won't catch me taking a swim there, that's for sure. Gus is one, big nasty-looking critter.

New thread alert --

JeffnDenmark just started another new conspiracy thread today. Guess it's because this one has been taken off the Front Page and put to rest so he's started a third one in case any of you were interested.

Same conspiracies, different thread.

here's the link if any of you are interested --

BuffaloBob

That link I posted the other day didn't show a building falling on its side--I don't know how you got that interpretation out of it.

You're correct on the part of not seeing the building fall on it's side. I think I got one of
the (8,786) youtube links you provided me blended in my mind's eye with yet another youtube video. I still stand on my points about differing building standards for different countries playing a big role in your video though.

I have some places I need to go now so will look more thoroughly at the points you made in you 1:04 p.m. Just can't delve into them until latger.

I'll also try and find that exact youtube video I was thinking of where one collapsed building did fall down and collapse over to the side. I'm 99% sure it was one of your links in one post or another on the other thread. Okay, need to run.

btw -- I'm still waiting for you to man up on your part of the truce.

you = your
latger = later

-- too much in a hurry

Califchris

I called no truce. I said I needed to adjust my attitude, and I have. The reason for my statement still stands.

Califchris

I called no truce. I said I needed to adjust my attitude, and I have. The reason for my statement still stands.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-08-26 07:22 PM

If you don't have enough integrity to take back your remark that you think I'm "two-faced" -- especially after I more or less apologized if I hurt your feelings by once calling you "BuffaloNutjob" -- then you can forget it. If we're on the same thread you go your way and I'll go mine.

You have no strings to pull, puppetmaster.
I won't dance to your tune.

If you don't have enough integrity to take back your remark that you think I'm "two-faced" --

Posted by CalifChris at 2008-08-27 01:40 AM | Reply

Got it???

Posted by CalifChris at 2008-08-22 08:06 PM

Get it now?

Posted by CalifChris at 2008-08-22 08:18 PM

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

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

BuffaloNutjob

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

Eat some brain food in the meantime.

Posted by CalifChris at 2008-08-23 01:21 PM

Humble pie a la mode. Eat it.

Posted by CalifChris at 2008-08-23 01:51 PM

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X

That is true. BBob never refers to himself as "Truthseeker," I'm the one who started referring to BuffalobBob as "Truthseeker" but it was done to be a friendly/affectionate kind of nickname -- not to mock him.

Posted by CalifChris at 2008-08-25 02:10 PM

And That's how I took it. And there have been other occasions where you made friendly or supportive comments. There was no Heat of Battle in our conversation. I only returned your sarcasm--and I didn't like the tone--yours or mine. So I decided it was best not to continue. But then, I decided I needed an attitude adjustment, and I made one. The way it works out is everybody says what they want so say, goes where they want to go, and does what they want to do. Seems pretty simple and fair to me--and it works for everybody. So you do what you want to do, but you'll do it without an apology from me.

...So you do what you want to do, but you'll do it without an apology from me.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-08-27 07:04 PM

You have no strings to pull, puppetmaster.
I won't dance to your tune.

BuffaloBob

I can't believe this thing has dragged out for days and over two different threads, but I'll
respond one final time because in reading your last post to me I see you still don't "get it" yet as to the reason why I want an apology. When you call me "two-faced" I feel you impugn my character. It's tantamount to calling me a "backstabber" and a "liar." That's different than mere namecalling.

You've called me an "asshole" before. You've told me to "politely fuck off forever" and a few other choice remarks but, as tacky as your remarks may have been, those names didn't attack my character. So that's the specific reason for me saying I want an apology for your "two-faced" comment and no amount of self-induced "attitude adjustment" (as you called it) on your part will suffice in its place.

At least I showed you some respect when you said my calling you "Buffalonutjob" sort of hurt your feelings so I took back my remark. That's more than you apparently are willing to do for me.

This is my final comment on this deal. I'm not insisting on your apology so I can say "I won" or "got ya" because I don't need to play those stupid games and have no huge ego that needs a boost. So if you still insist on not showing some integrity and apologize then you needn't bother posting anything further on this thread -- at least not directed to me. There's nothing more to say. Besides, if you don't want to apologize on your own accord it'll mean nothing anyway since you wouldn't have meant it sincerely. No sense in wasting anymore bandwidth on this. Adios.

btw -- You're wrong on your reasons for the WTC 7 building collapse. In case you won't apologize and I never "speak" to you anymore I wanted to be the one to have the last word. lol