patrick.net

Truth Seeker says

Though WTC1 & WTC2 were not 'classic' examples of "controlled demolitions" , they were nevertheless both brought down via "controlled demolitions". The primary difference was that the perpetrators used a much more sophisticated, top-down demolition scheme in an attempt to deceive the public about the true nature of the buildings' collapse.

WTC7 was an example of a more 'classic' "controlled demolition", complete with the traditional bottom floor collapse.

Please explain (don't just post a link to a 911truth video) what your evidence is for claiming it was a controlled demolition.

You didn't answer my question. I'll post it again. Is that why you're ducking out now? Afraid to answer it?

Truth Seeker says

Yes Bob2356, "very sophisticated". Yet your version of events reveals that you have a highly simplistic and incorrect understanding about what REALLY happened. You have obviously read NOTHING (beyond the newspapers) about what really happened. Why don't you go out there and educate yourself with the voluminous body of information and data that tells the real story?? Only then would you be able to come back with something more intelligent to say.

O.K., then tell us what really happened. I'm waiting.

Squatting in East CoCo says

So let us just test the remains for evidence of explosives. That should quickly and convincingly prove whether the tower was imploded or not.

How would you do that?

Squatting in East CoCo says

So let us just test the remains for evidence of explosives. That should quickly and convincingly prove whether the tower was imploded or not.

it's been done already by dr steven e jones and others. their unequivocal results
demonstrated the presence of nano thermite particle spheres. thermite was the the charge that cut and melted the steel. no office fire could have reached the necessary high temperatures to melt steel.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4884818450327382904

Squatting in East CoCo says

Homeboy says

Squatting in East CoCo says

So let us just test the remains for evidence of explosives. That should quickly and convincingly prove whether the tower was imploded or not.

How would you do that?

Probably with a chemist or engineer.

No shit? A chemist or engineer. LOL. Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about, so how do you know if it's possible to do such a thing?

coriacci1 says

it's been done already by dr steven e jones and others. their unequivocal results
demonstrated the presence of nano thermite particle spheres. thermite was the the charge that cut and melted the steel. no office fire could have reached the necessary high temperatures to melt steel

Oh, you mean the Steven E. Jones who up to that point had studied fusion and has absolutely no experience whatsoever in building collapse forensics? The Steven E. Jones whose other paper claims to prove that Jesus visited America? The Steven E. Jones who got kicked out of BYU and whose colleagues think is a joke?

coriacci1 says

it's been done already by dr steven e jones and others. their unequivocal results
demonstrated the presence of nano thermite particle spheres. thermite was the the charge that cut and melted the steel. no office fire could have reached the necessary high temperatures to melt steel.

We're not going to watch a video of some idiot rambling for 25 minutes. Where exactly does he mention those "nano thermite particle spheres"? He appears to be mostly talking about 1,3 diphenylpropane. He didn't test for that, the EPA monitored it in the air. He claims it's conclusive proof of sol-gel used to hold the thermite in place. If you would bother to read any sources other than your 911 conspiracy site, you would discover that burning plastic can produce 1,3 diphenylpropane. How many plastic things like computers do you think burned in the fires on 9/11?

Steven E. Jones is a joke.

p.s. FOR THE FOURTH TIME, THE STEEL DIDN'T MELT, IDIOT.

Zlxr says

We don't have to watch idiots ramble - we have you.

Obviously you don't know what steel is or what melt means.

If you want sparks - you're better off lighting your farts.

What are you trying to say? Do you think the WTC melted? Please, show me your proof.

NIST report:

"In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. "

Which word don't you understand, "steel", "melt", or "no"?

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Great thread! I really learned a lot especially when I look through some of the recommended websites by some of the posters. Wow, I've really had my eyes opened! 911 Mysteries blew me away!

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KoSEDuUOPJ0

Is that a picture of you? You don't look very intelligent (or nice)

Hmmm... what is it a picture of? Truth Seeker talks about "911 Mysteries", then announces that he is "out of here" (obviously the questions got too tough for him). Then "Avatar" show up 2 days later, and his very first post mentions how great he thinks "911 Mysteries" is.

Is it a picture of me? Um, no - sorry. Wrong answer.

a few more points to consider.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/8_tf25lx_3o

http://www.youtube.com/embed/0BjbjXMlCHc
http://www.youtube.com/embed/56nQnqf7zwA
http://www.youtube.com/embed/SC3Se86IBAw&feature=related

Squatting in East CoCo says

SO a little fire brought it all down by causing a "key structural column to fail". But it would have taken massive amounts of explosives around "most, if not all, interior columns" to blow it up. Can you see the contradiction?

Why are you deliberately misquoting the NIST report? You left out a crucial part of the sentence. And it wasn't a "little" fire. That's ridiculous. You truthers have already decided on your conclusion, and would do anything to convince yourselves - mislead, misquote, lie, whatever.

Are you a structural engineer with experience in building demolition? If not, then how do you know what is required to cause a building to fall down? This is the problem - a bunch of self-proclaimed experts who imagine they know something because they know how to get on the internet.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Homeboy says

No shit? A chemist or engineer. LOL. Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about, so how do you know if it's possible to do such a thing?

Use the truth if it is on your side, otherwise try personal attacks.

I don't think you know what the word "truth" means. You are using it in a religious sense. Your religion (the conspiracy theory) is "truth" to you, no matter how much it is disproven.

Now how is my post a personal attack? You said they should "test for explosives", and that would supposedly prove if the towers were intentionally detonated.

Except you have no idea what that even means. I asked you how that could be done, and you gave me a sarcastic non-answer. I attacked your ARGUMENT - you are advocating an action for which you have no idea if it's even possible or how it would be done.

Squatting in East CoCo says

The problem with conspiracy theories is that it pulls you down a rabbit hole until everything is one big interconnected conspiracy.

So then stop believing in them.

Do you feel safer since the war, initiated by 911, on terrorism started?

Not a bit. You are still more likely to be struck by lightning than you are to be killed by a terrorist. And yet they have created an entire government entity dedicated to making our lives miserable. Flying used to be a pleasant experience and now is a horrible ordeal. We fought a war for no reason that we had no business fighting.

None of this means that the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition. Bush certainly capitalized on the situation to turn the U.S. into a police state, but there's no evidence that he masterminded it.

Homeboy says

Bush certainly capitalized on the situation to turn the U.S. into a police state, but there's no evidence that he masterminded it.

i guess you never heard of the project for a new american century either.

Squatting in East CoCo says

I'm sorry, my "sarcastic non answer" assumed

Ah! you "assumed". You conspiracy buffs seem to do a lot of that.

that most people reading this forum understood that we have the forensic knowledge to determine if explosives are used.

How do you know this? The NIST stated in their report that testing for thermite would be inconclusive, since the elements they would test for would already be present in the building materials themselves.

You are claiming that the NIST is wrong, and that it is possible to test for explosives. I am asking you how you know this.

Hint: Just SAYING you know it is not proof.

Squatting in East CoCo says

What are your credentials, homeboy?

I have none. That is why I do not make outlandish claims about secret conspiracies to destroy buildings with controlled demolitions, and, unlike you, I do not claim that things are "impossible" when you clearly have no knowledge of structural collapse forensics.

Occam's Razor: One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

Now you're just acting like an idiot. Good bye.

coriacci1 says

a few more points to consider.

thanks. more good info . the 1st and 4th video (for me) especially added more to think about. I'm still reeling from a few of the others that were mentioned, not sleeping too well right now

http://www.youtube.com/embed/KoSEDuUOPJ0

this one also talks about the Pentagon and Shanksville, PA on 9/11

http://www.youtube.com/embed/2IWJX879fOk

remember this little project and who was involved?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Squatting in East CoCo says

SO a little fire brought it all down by causing a "key structural column to fail". But it would have taken massive amounts of explosives around "most, if not all, interior columns" to blow it up. Can you see the contradiction?

No, read your own qoutes again. Since when does uncontrolled translate into little? Did you miss the part that said "chain of events"? Read what the chain of events was.

Squatting in East CoCo says

SO an uncontrolled office fire brought it all down by causing a "key structural column to fail". But it would have taken massive amounts of explosives around "most, if not all, interior columns" to blow it up. Can you see the contradiction?

Nope don't see the contradiction at all.

You missed some critical parts of the report. First off we are talking about 7 wt report, not 1&2. Secondly the report never said a key structural column failed. It said a key structural column buckled (bend under strain after being heated) , causing the floor girder connection to fail. Once the floors collapsed the building went down. The report clearly states that temps for columns was 300c and floors under 600c. Heat expansion and buckling, not any kind of steel failure, caused connector failure.

No one said massive amounts of explosives. Where did you get this? You seem to read a lot into things. It said for explosives to be effective they have to be put right onto the steel. So everything around the steel would have needed to be taken down. This is true. Controlled detonations need the position, size, and composition of the explosives to be carefully done.

The (alleged) a&e for 911 truth "evidence" doesn't make much sense to me. It involves lots of black magic and unknown conspiracies that I don't see as being plausible.

bob2356 says

You missed some critical parts of the report. First off we are talking about 7 wt report, not 1&2. Secondly the report never said a key structural column failed. It said a key structural column buckled (bend under strain after being heated) , causing the floor girder connection to fail. Once the floors collapsed the building went down. The report clearly states that temps for columns was 300c and floors under 600c. Heat expansion and buckling, not any kind of steel failure, caused connector failure.

No one said massive amounts of explosives. Where did you get this? You seem to read a lot into things. It said for explosives to be effective they have to be put right onto the steel. So everything around the steel would have needed to be taken down. This is true. Controlled detonations need the position, size, and composition of the explosives to be carefully done.

He's not going to listen to you. His mind is already made up. No amount of evidence or logic will ever convince these people.

Homeboy says

He's not going to listen to you. His mind is already made up. No amount of evidence or logic will ever convince these people.

This is some heavy stuff and I trust the evidence and logic of a very large group of trained architects and engineers over you and Bob2356.

Squatting in E. CoCo is right, you guys sound like a couple of those social networking trolls.

See?

It's hilarious how one of you "disliked" Occam's Razor. I think that says it all.

Avatar says

This is some heavy stuff and I trust the evidence and logic of a very large group of trained architects and engineers over you and Bob2356.

Squatting in E. CoCo is right, you guys sound like a couple of those social networking trolls.

Er, you mean you trust the opinions of a group of architects and engineers who share your conspiracy theory as opposed to accepting the views of the vast majority who don't. Remarkable.

Bigsby says

Avatar says

This is some heavy stuff and I trust the evidence and logic of a very large group of trained architects and engineers over you and Bob2356.

Squatting in E. CoCo is right, you guys sound like a couple of those social networking trolls.

Er, you mean you trust the opinions of a group of architects and engineers who share your conspiracy theory as opposed to accepting the views of the vast majority who don't. Remarkable.

That's correct. I go with informed opinion over the herd (who are like lemmings) any day.

Even though it's shocking, I'd rather know what really happened. I think that the majority don't really have much of a clue. Maybe everyone is too busy watching American Idol and Dancing with Stars

coriacci1 says

remember this little project and who was involved?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

I wouldn't be surprised about those guys

Avatar says

That's correct. I go with informed opinion over the herd (who are like lemmings) any day.

No, you've just chosen to latch onto a group of uninformed individuals because you are obviously one of those people who laps up conspiracy nonsense irrespective of the veracity of the arguments.

coriacci1 ...I agree with you. The detractors here think they are scientists but there is little light with their heads so far up their butts. Even if detractors have problems with the idea that WTC 7 fell without being hit by a plane, there is no denying that 9/11 gave the US govt so many goodies: Homeland Security, TSA, two wars, NDAA, increasing global police state, reasons to ignore the crimes committed by bankers against the people, all for starters.
It was in the US govts interest to see all this happen. No doubt Bush rubbed his hands with glee.
You see, all crimes have motives. The US govt gained far more than it lost. No doubt if they could do it again to accelerate the police state, and the primal fears of the great unwashed, they would.

laughnow says

The detractors here think they are scientists but there is little light with their heads so far up their butts.

I rather think you've got that arse-backwards.
Honestly, this is like banging your head against a brick wall. We rely on the knowledge and work done by respected scientists to form our opinions. The kooks on here are the ones that think they know better.