patrick.net

The Professor says

What would you consider evidence that the official story is flawed?

Factual errors in the report, scientific errors in the report, something that you can point to as a mistake.

Heck, if you can even show me a poor inference or poorly though out deduction, I'd be surprised.

Anything besides--"it doesn't look right", or "it's never happened before". Those are not compelling arguments.

The Professor says

If you have not read the book-loads of evidence contrary to the official report have you even read the official report?

It's not up to me to support the findings, it's up to you to present evidence as to why you think it's faulty.

So, all you've got so far is that some witnesses reported hearing explosions while NIST says no blast sounds were recorded or reported by witnesses.

"It does not look right" is horseshit. You (or bga) don't know how it "should" look.

Please post the UL data.

Not releasing computer models is not evidence of anything.

the only way to know for sure is to build them back up and knock em down again, this time with lots of sensors....

The Professor says

It is obvious that there was no "pancake" or "pile driver" effect. The building was blown to pulverized concrete and human bone shards as it was detonated from the top down.

it's not saturday morning??

bgamall4 says

ThreeBays says

Not that I'm any kind of expert, but it just doesn't look like a controlled demolition.

WTC7, the one not hit by the plane, dropped from the bottom like a classic implosion. However, the towers dropped in a timed sequence to make it look like it was a pancake. But of course, a pancake is impossible because...

Perhaps the answer to 9/11 and to the current crisis has something to do with Gold backwardation.

http://www.fgmr.com/gold-backwardation-explained.html

www.kahudes.net

Karen Hudes used to work for World Bank (which she claims is corrupt).

If I understand things correctly - Gold Backwardation is when people become reluctant to exchange paper money for gold and she says it's happening now.

So if our friends (ie China and Russia etc)refuse to accept our paper and refuse to finance our debt - then who is left? The American People. And how does one get us to part with all of our money to finance all this crap ----- well it seems to me that a phony war will work - because then we have to be protected so therefore we must part with our money so that can happen.

I would guess that a war to protect us would be Washington's preference to telling us they're going to confiscate our funds. If Obama told us the latter - I'm guessing he would be history and so would Congress. So whose butts are they saving - theirs or ours?

The Professor says

We are now in our 12th year of "State of Emergency". Orwell would be
proud.

Well him and the f-ers that found a way to bypass the constitution and everything it prohibits and protects.

The Professor says

A denier does not have time to "sort through all your videos". When you
detail the evidence, they claim that the evidence is "not evidence". They treat
the official story as gospel.

Since the rest of your post talks about what "deniers" do, I'll take that as a no. You cannot simply lay out the mistakes in the commission's report.

That's the common theme in all the conspiracy nonsense. It's all innuendo, motive, etc. Never a compilation of evidence that backs a theory. Hell, I can't even get two of you to agree on what you think actually DID happen.

The Professor says

You won't look at the evidence.

I will. But I don't want to waste my time wading through 16 minute videos. What is so hard? Just write down 4-5 things that the commission has wrong and then provide evidence supporting your points.

If you can't do this, then you really need to re-evaluate why you think the commission is wrong.

Notice the bit where he says 'wall'? He's quite obviously talking about something else and/or is confused about what the questioner is referring to. But hey, we all know how desperately you grasp on to even the most tenuous of examples.

bgamall4 says

I think you are confused because of the lack of electrical connections in that little brain of yours, Bigs. Take the obvious interpretation of Kerry, and it is about WTC7 and is undeniable. He made a reference to a wall being in danger. That does not change the basis for his contention that the WTC7 was a controlled demolition. And we know, although Kerry tries to get around it by the wall reference, that you cannot arm a building for detonation that quickly. Therefore the detonation that he admits, had to be armed days and weeks before 9/11. Watch it again and weep for your stupidity

You are a conspiracy nut. You see nothing except what you want to see to confirm your own overwhelming bias. You are so wrong-headed and unthinking it defies belief. You spend your time pontificating on things you know little to nothing about and try to pass that off as fact. People just need to look at all that crap you spouted about the City of London to see what utter nonsense you are capable of peddling.
The only stupidity anyone needs to weep for is your blatant disregard for anything that actually equates to real evidence.
And just to be clear (as you seem to be confused as usual), it's your contention that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition not John Kerry's.

I have already. It's quite obvious that you are peddling your usual nonsense.

Because you can do that all by yourself.

Incredibly predictable.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

Incredibly predictable.

Please post links to evidence pro and con. Argue facts and evidence with me. Convince the professor that the official story was correct. Or help me spread the call for truth.

Or put me on ignore. It really works.

Why should I put you on ignore? Your posts invariably give me a good laugh. And why don't you just stop recycling the same old cobblers so we don't have to keep seeing your same old nonsense repeated ad nausea?

bgamall4 says

The Professor says

Argue facts and evidence with me.

He can't. It isn't part of his pay grade.

Ah yes, bgamall, the man who literally does think that a couple of puffs of smoke is conclusive evidence of an enormous controlled demolition. Facts and evidence are clearly utterly irrelevant to you and your whackadoo conspiracy theories.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

the man who literally does think that a couple of puffs of smoke is conclusive evidence of an enormous controlled demolition.

What about the evidence of thermite in the dust? Even though there was numerous witnesses to explosions the official investigators never even tested for explosives.

What is your agenda bigsby?

My agenda? Er, perhaps not being so stupid as to believe that the sound of some randomly spaced explosions in massive buildings on fire is the same as a controlled demolition. How about that for starters?

Spot the differences between this and 9-11:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/hdqWRHe4AKs

Put your glasses on and your hearing aid in. And take your tin foil hat off whilst you're at it.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

Put your glasses on and your hearing aid in. And take your tin foil hat off whilst you're at it.

Attack the person when you can't rebut the evidence.

I would like someone to show me that I am wrong about the 3 Towers being blown up on 9/11 because I hate to think there is such evil in our government.

I posted a video of the demolition of a much smaller building than those of the WTC. What you saw and heard with your own eyes and ears were utterly different to 9-11 and yet you say what you say. There is no evidence that will convince you because you deny the obvious and replace it with the completely implausible. You clearly don't want anyone to show you you are wrong because you wouldn't post the nonsense that you do if you did.

The Professor says

And you consider that evidence that WTC7 was not blown up?

Obviously it is evidence. You are claiming those buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. I showed you a video of what a controlled demolition looks and sounds like on a MUCH SMALLER building. Show me the videos of the WTC collapse that are similar to that. You can't because there aren't any because it wasn't a controlled demolition.

It weakened the framework. Do you understand how that isn't the same as melted?
And unbelievable is someone claiming a controlled demolition occurred without having the controlled demolition that goes along with that.

hello,

I am a reasonable reputable and important white male.

I hereby proclaim you all nutbags of the highest order.

This ensures that no one ever calls me a nutbag, even if these theories turn out to be true. It's very safe, it's easy, no one persecutes you for it, and you have nothing to lose! don't be a nutbag, it's the way to go!

Sincerely,

White Man.

The Professor says

@Bigsby

I don't know if you are sincere in your beliefs, suffering from cognitive dissidence, or are just some kind of shill.

You still have not answered if you really believe that an almost 50 story steel framed building would collapse into a smoldering pile of twisted steel and pulverized concrete because rugs, desks, paneling, and other office combustibles burned?

I believe that two planes crashed into the buildings and as a consequence of that they collapsed. You, on the other hand, believe that they were brought down by a silent and unseen controlled demolition. And you are the one accusing me of cognitive DISSONANCE and being a shill. Utterly laughable.

Just post up the video that you believe is conclusive proof of a controlled demolition taking place and then we can compare and contrast that to an actual controlled demolition. Simple wouldn't you say?

The Professor says

Do you believe that an almost 50 story steel framed building would collapse into a smoldering pile of twisted steel and pulverized concrete because rugs, desks, paneling, and other office combustibles burned?

I don't really expect a straight or honest answer from you, but you do help me illustrate the absurdity of the official story.

Err, you believe that all the towers were brought down by controlled demolitions, so what about that?

WTC7 was brought down by an uncontrolled fire and the consequential effects that had on the structural integrity of the building. That is what happened and not a controlled demolition as you claim.

And if you actually have some real video proof of a CD rather than made up whackadoo bullshit devoid of any actual supporting evidence then post it up. You know, a video that at least has a passing similarity to every controlled demolition of a large structure that has taken place before. Come on now, it shouldn't be too difficult for you seeing as that is what you constantly claim took place.

The Professor says

No. It melted. Read the report from FEMA.

"professor" you are either a lying sack of shit or you didn't read the report. It says that the steel was corroded by a "A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel". Then it goes on to say "The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that
the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel".

"Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel". The chemical mix melted the steel flanges, not the temperature of the fire. Read your own postings dumbass. Approaching 1000 C is barely 2/3's of the way to the melting point of steel.

House and office fires have been recorded at over 1100 C many times, it's common. Structural steel loses 90% of it's strength by 800 C. That's why structural steel is fireproofed in the first place. To bad the fireproofing at the WTC wasn't designed to withstand the all too common event of driving a jet through the building.

The Professor says

You do know that no plane hit WTC7 don't you?

You do know that debris from the twin towers did, don't you?

The Professor says

bob2356 says

event of driving a jet through the building.

You do know that no plane hit WTC7 don't you?

You think the other two buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, so what about those two?

And I'm still waiting for that video.

The Professor says

What we "truthers" want is a real investigation, not a cover-up that matches the preconceived story that "fires heated the steal causing it to lose structural integrity initiating a progressive collapse", which has only happened 3 times in history, all on 9/11/2001.

No, you don't. You've already stated what you believe, and what you believe is utterly devoid of any evidence and completely moronic to anyone who isn't knee deep in conspiracy nonsense. A controlled demolition FFS. Post the bloody video that you think proves it, and then we can all have a good laugh at your idiocy.

The Professor says

400 structural connections (bolted and welded) per second had to fail in order for this to happen. Idiocy is thinking that this could happen by office fire

You've already been told and shown why that reasoning is wrong. The fact that you keep saying it shows that you DON'T want to learn the truth, but rather keep espousing this BS story.

The outside of the structure could have have remained for some time even as the structural connections inside were failing.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Show me the videos of the WTC collapse that are similar to that. You can't because there aren't any because it wasn't a controlled demolition.

Now you are being stupid. WTC7 has a side by side implosion video with a detonated building and they are identical. You are a fruitcake.

Post them up Mr. Tinfoil so we can all hear those multiple detonations.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

Post the bloody video that you think proves it, and then we can all have a good laugh at your idiocy.

400 structural connections (bolted and welded) per second had to fail in order for this to happen. Idiocy is thinking that this could happen by office fire.

Idiocy is thinking that looks or sounds like a controlled demolition. Is that what you are actually saying or are you still searching for a video?

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

diocy is thinking that looks or sounds like a controlled demolition. Is that what you are actually saying or are you still searching for a video?

Surely you have seen this. And, btw, your constant posting with no proof followed by our postings with proof destroy your cause:

Yes, I've seen that. You've posted it several times already (like all your videos). They are a couple of firemen (out of hundreds) going through a very traumatic experience. That in no way, shape or form is proof of a controlled demolition because everything else demonstrates it wasn't. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, but you are such a disingenuous so-and-so that you wouldn't, of course, acknowledge this. Oh, and just to clarify, they are talking about explosions in the lobby. Remind us all how that building collapsed.

Where is your video of the supposed controlled demolitions that took place (in all three buildings) so that everyone else can then compare what you take to be evidence and what all sane people know occurs when a very large structure is brought down in a controlled fashion. Please include audio with your video. I've already posted my example. Where is yours?

bgamall4 says

And the fellow who posted the above video says this:

Unfortunate truths become worthless in worthless hands!

NYC firefighters witness bombs in the towers... Is this proof the media covers up info? What do the skeptics have to say about this new video? Can they still be in denial? Newly obtained video that was reluctantly released after a lawsuit shows two firefighters on 9/11 discussing how secondary explosions occurred immediately before the collapse of the twin towers, providing damning new evidence that explosive devices were used to bring down the buildings.

You lack any kind of normal filter, don't you? You lap up anything that conspiracists post without question and dismiss every single thing those with a rational explanation (backed by actual scientific research and the mountain of video evidence of what took place on that day) state. You are simply bonkers. Nothing more, nothing less.

The Professor says

tatupu70 says

The outside of the structure could have have remained for some time even as the structural connections inside were failing.

Ever played with an erector set? You may not be old enough.

Anyone, not just architects and engineers, can see that the supporting structure of WTC7 was eliminated. To think that fires alone could do this requires denial of reality.

Still waiting for the video of your supposed controlled demolition. The sound of multiple very rapid explosions are what should be expected. Make sure your video has audio so that we can all clearly hear that happening, unless of course you are going to give us some complete nonsense about the use of silent explosives or some such.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

The sound of multiple very rapid explosions are what should be expected.

Yeah, rapid explosions in the basement before collapse is to be expected only if explosives were placed there. Are you a moron by birth or did you practice?

Duh. Is thinking that much of a challenge for you? You've said all 3 buildings were brought down by CD. I said show the video evidence of that happening. All 3 buildings were filmed when they collapsed. It should be a very simple process for you to post 3 definitive videos showing the explosions taking place. Funny you can't manage that. And interesting that you think they were brought down by explosions in the basements. Is that all of them or one in particular?

@the professor
I said post a video of the controlled demolition taking place, not of the building collapsing. Do you notice anything missing from your video... like er umm the sound of the required explosions perhaps?
I presume you are just being willfully aggravating or you are just trolling if you think that is evidence of what I asked for. Either way it speaks volumes for what your 'evidence' actually amounts to.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

the sound of the required explosions perhaps?

How loud would explosions have to be to convince you the towers and WTC7 have to be to convince you?

Oh, I think loud enough so that someone managed to record them, wouldn't you say? After all it sounded pretty loud in the video I posted, don't you think? But I guess they were special explosives on 9-11. The silent kind.

None of those are remotely the same as recordings of what happens when there is a controlled demolition of a large structure... as you well know. Look again at the video I posted. Look at what you are posting. You were right about cognitive dissonance. You were just wrong about how to spell it and who was demonstrating it.

Arf, arf, arf. Are you now claiming that they used that technique on 9-11? Really?

http://www.hodiho.fr/2010/06/demolition-tour-def-cite-balzac-vitry-sur-seine.html

I don't think so.

And if you aren't, what was the point in posting it in response to what I'm requesting?

And if others can hear the explosions, then post up the video that resembles the kind of controlled demolition that you claim occurred. They're loud you know. They'd be clearly recorded on all the many videos that were made on that day. Why is it taking you so long to post just one? People might think you're dodging the issue for one very obvious reason.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

And if others can hear the explosions, then post up the video that resembles the kind of controlled demolition that you claim occurred. They're loud you know

I do not know the mechanism that caused the three towers to collapse but I do not believe the official story.

Do you believe that office fires caused a steel framed building (WTC7) to collapse into a pile of twisted metal and pulverized concrete? I do not.

That is complete and utter bullshit. You've frequently claimed it was a controlled demolition.