patrick.net

bgamall4 says

I have told you over and over that it was nanno thermite. And I have told you that Marvin Bush controlled the cameras. So, don't insult, just refute. Oh, you can't refute facts can you?

Apparently you must have completely ignored the responses people posted on that. How very convenient. And by the way, saying something is a fact doesn't actually make it so. It requires an overwhelming weight of evidence in its favour, and I'm afraid to burst your bubble, but that doesn't equate to some tin hat conspirator posting Youtube videos.

bgamall4 says

bob2356 says

Sneaking tons of explosives in the buildings,

I have told you over and over that it was nanno thermite. And I have told you that Marvin Bush controlled the cameras. So, don't insult, just refute. Oh, you can't refute facts can you?

Gary Anderson strategicdefaultbooks.com

You can't even spell nano thermite much less have a clue what it does or how it works. No one can refute someone who just keep posting the same bs over an over. Just because you keep saying marvin bush controlled the camera's doesn't make it fact. Just because nutcase.org has it on their website doesn't make it a fact. Marvin Bush was a director, not in operations. Marvin Bush left the company a year before 9/11. Those are facts. Easy to look up, public record facts. So now you refute these facts (not possible) or accept the crown of troll supreme. Not that anyone doesn't already know that.

I still like the theory of time traveling aliens better anyway. It's at least as plausable as what you are dishing out.

BTW I actually did do consulting work at 3 WTC for 6 months in 94 for a couple of really sketchy Isreali's running a medical billing service on the 19th floor. It was a nice contract, I was living on the bayshore, took the early ferry from highlands to pier 11 every day, caught the first ferry back and was at the beach at horseshoe cove Sandy Hook by 4;40 every day windsurfing. No wind, no problem just ride my bike up to gunnision and ogle nudist teen girls. So sweet. I think those guys are currently in jail for medicare fraud.

bob2356 says

You can't even spell nano thermite much less have a clue what it does or how it works.

LOL!

Squatting in East CoCo says

bob2356 says

I still like the theory of time traveling aliens better anyway.

If you believe in aliens is it such a leap to imagine maintenance and security workers planting explosives?

Read more carefully, I said I believed aliens are at least as plausible if not more so as humping in tons of explosives and installing them unseen, not that I believed in them. It's a much more eloquent theory.

Could you provide the evidence that Marvin Bush was actually in a position to order the camera's turned off even though he left the company a year before 9/11 and was never a company employee, just a director. I notice bagmal hasn't stepped up to the plate on this one.

What happened to all the cool video's from 9/11 truth? Bagmal you are slowing down.

bgamall4 says

bob2356 says

Could you provide the evidence that Marvin Bush was actually in a position to order the camera's turned off even though he left the company a year before 9/11 and was never a company employee, just a director.

His contract terminated 911. His replacement died on the first day of work, 911. He was not liked by the Bush family. Look it up.

Gary Anderson strategicdefaultbooks.com

SInce you have the information in hand then why do you not provide it? The SEC and company records say he left the year before (I don't think this is on line any more, I read it like 6-7 years ago when the whole 9/11 truth thing started). What records do you have ( I know the answer is nothing)? We went over this in great detail earlier in the post. You seem to totally lack short term memory or you believe if you simply repeat things enough they are true. Either way it doesn't constitute evidence or even rational thinking.

Maybe we are going about this the wrong way. Let's start at the beginning. What does the word evidence mean to you? Use short words if you need to.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Bigsby says

Don't worry Squatting, I understand just fine. And your students have my sympathy. Oh, and by the way, you need to reread your initial contradiction post. There is no contradiction.

@Bigsby,

Let's forget about the contradictions of the NIST report for a moment and back up. Do you believe that government lies to us?

Yes, let's forget about your contradiction that wasn't. And everybody lies. And governments are run by people, so... It doesn't mean that your government blew up the WTC.

Squatting in East CoCo says

At what point were you convinced that building 7 was not intentionally demolished? Are you convinced beyond reasonable doubt that all of the experts that have doubts about the official story are wrong?

I respect experts who have doubts. The official story has lots of shadings in it to put the best light on some serious failings. But having doubts is a long way from simply making things up.

At what point? Maybe 2006. I read the 911truth.org website when it came out in 2004(?) or so followed by aetruth.org about a year later. I started with an open mind but the 9/11 truth stuff just doesn't add up or even makes sense unless you do the bgamal thing of just saying it's true because you want it be true. So much of what is on the truther websites just don't stand up to checking real records. Marvin Bush is the perfect example. Of course if you are bgamal then you just repeat whatever you find on a blog somewhere because everyone (or at least every truther) knows there was a gigantic conspiracy to alter all government/corporate records and only the truther blogs have the actual truth. How and where they came up with the actual truth is never explained.

I was curious about the validity of ae's credentialing claims when they first showed up so I submitted a couple totally bogus names and credentials and never heard a word asking for proof. The names I put in are still on the list. So I don't believe the majority of engineers for 9/11 truth are actually engineers. Other (much less lazy than me) people have actually checked the names against state licensing and have come up with a lot of blanks. So 1500 alleged engineers actually know the truth and the other what 20 or 30 million are just unwilling dupes of the government. Can you really believe that? I can't. I'm sure there are 1500 people of any large group such as lawyers, teachers, doctors, priests whatever that are actually psychotic and should not even be on the streets.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Bigsby says

It doesn't mean that your government blew up the WTC.

So who did blow up the WTC?

Is acting like a moron amusing to you?

Squatting in East CoCo says

The evidence we are debating:
Molten steel
Sounds of explosions
Physics defying explanation of WTC7 collapse from the official report
How explosives were set
Who did it

We aren't debating it, you are. What molten steel? What sounds of explosions (as in a CD)? What physics have been defied (quite the accomplishment that one)? What explosives were set (and yes, you need to produce real evidence for such an outlandish claim)? And as for your last one...

bgamall4 says

Here is the deal, you have not explained how WTC7 fell into it's own footprint. According to the laws of physics, it could not.

You'll have to explain that one. Should be amusing.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Physics defying explanation of WTC7 collapse from the official report

Which laws of physics does it defy?

Squatting in East CoCo says

Debate the facts Bigsby. Personal attacks are not helpful. Thanks

Debate what facts? You asked me who blew up the WTC. That was an idiotic question to ask me, don't you think?

bgamall4 says

Squatting in East CoCo says

Can you explain:
The molten steel and concrete.
The explosions witnessed and recorded.
The fact that only 3 steel buildings have ever imploded due to fire.
Why your mind is closed to any of the above evidence.

He cannot explain it. I have asked him if he is tied to the military, and so far no answer.

What do you mean I can't explain it? It's been discussed multiple times in this thread already. You just simply refuse to accept what people have been explaining to you. Just take your explosions comment. You two show a video of a few puffs of dust and go 'look at that' as if it's proof of a CD. I'm asking you how that is a CD. It's only a CD in the mind of someone who has already decided what they believe and ignores everything that counters that no matter how compelling or obvious.

Squatting in East CoCo says

We are debating whether the towers blew up. Your argument seems to be, "anyone that thinks the towers were intentionally destroyed is an idiot." I believe that there is evidence of an explosion and there should be an independent investigation.

You asked me who I thought blew up the WTC. I think it's pretty obvious from this thread that I don't think anyone blew up the WTC. That's why it was a ridiculous question.

And Squatter, I'd love you to explain how the collapse of the building ran contrary to Newton's 3rd law. Just because you read it on a conspiracy site doesn't make it so. Please, if you believe that, then explain it. And no, what you said isn't an explanation.

Squatting in East CoCo says

And thus violating newtons third law.

What part of my explanation does not make sense? Perhaps I can clarify.

Can you explain why you think Newtons third was not violated?

Are you a physics expert? No? Me neither. You are just cutting and pasting stuff you've read from conspiracy websites. Do you seriously think that if the collapse of the WTC buildings violated a fundamental law of physics that the furthest it would have got is conspiracy forums? Really? I don't know the ins and outs of the physics involved and neither do you, but the people who worked on the NIST report know a lot more than either you or I on this topic and guess who I'd rather rely on.

Squatting in East CoCo says

I am not convinced by your personal attacks. Please show me some "compelling or obvious" evidence.

What do you mean? You are the one peddling the conspiracy theory. It's for you to demonstrate compelling evidence, not me, and you've singularly failed to do so.

Anyway this is just getting incredibly pointless as it's just going round in circles now. Believe what you want to believe. Believe your Youtube videos. See in them what you want to see. Believe your fellow conspiracists. Rely on the reverse scientific method to reinforce your beliefs, but don't try to pretend to the rest of us that you have conclusive proof in the videos you post up. You don't.

bgamall4 says

His logic and reasoning is retarded, based on what he has contributed to this thread. A third grader could reason with more conviction.

Is that your go to argument? You post a series of videos. Claim they are conclusive proof. People criticize them for glaringly obvious reasons and then you call our logic retarded. OK, enough time wasted responding to what you are peddling. Believe what you like.

Squatting in East CoCo says

There is evidence of a conspiracy. If the argument the other side has is:
Bigsby says

Is acting like a moron amusing to you?

when we offer evidence we should not lower ourselves to their level.

Let's debate the facts and stop the personal attacks.

Oh God, that's not the evidence of the other side, that's a response to you asking me who I thought 'blew up the WTC' after 600+ bloody posts. You already knew my answer, so what exactly was your purpose in asking? It was idiotic.

Debating this topic with you two is like debating religion with a person of faith. It's pointless. It doesn't matter what we say, you'll just deny it or ignore it and post up another one of your videos. You believe what you believe. No amount of evidence will change your minds because you are wedded to your beliefs. You are convinced by even the most tenuous of evidence (as demonstrated by the constant stream of Youtube videos you post up that don't demonstrate anything you claim to anybody who isn't similarly wedded to your views). Look, I don't particularly care what happened on 9/11, but I do favour a reliance on hard evidence. If someone PROVED to me that God existed with overwhelming evidence, then I'd become a believer. Saying it's so isn't evidence. The same applies to your arguments. You can shout as loud as you want, call our reasoning retarded, but we're all watching the same videos, and the only people who see what you claim are you and your fellow conspirators. If your evidence is so convincing, then why is that?

bgamall4 says

You haven't said anything. That is the problem, Grasby.

Oh, right and beyond your Youtube videos and saying my logic is retarded what exactly have you said, dimall (did you see what I did there - very childish, isn't it?).

Squatting in East CoCo says

I, and many others, do care about what happened on 9/11.

Why not have a new investigation?

Presumably because most people who actually have expertise and knowledge of what happened on that day don't share your conspiracy theory.

Squatting in East CoCo says

I did study physics in college. I am no expert but I am convinced , by experiments in class, that Newtons laws are valid.

Daily experience also shows us that Newtons LAWS are valid.

The damaged part of the building would not have crushed the undamaged part without some delay. There just was not enough kinetic energy.

You didn't learn that by doing experiments in college. You read it on a conspiracy website, and the guy who wrote it is full of crap. Now you're just blatantly lying.

Squatting in East CoCo says

NIST never even tested for explosives because thay MIGHT have found false positive results! Why do you suppose that is?

Um, because they might have found false positive results. It's right in your own sentence. Why would you test for chemicals that you know are already there? If you found them, it wouldn't prove anything. Of course, you conspiracy nutcases don't seem to understand the concept of proof.

Squatting in East CoCo says

I am not convinced by your personal attacks. Please show me some "compelling or obvious" evidence.

Multiple videos of airplanes crashing into buildings is not compelling or obvious?

Squatting in East CoCo says

NIST never even tested for explosives because thay MIGHT have found false positive results! Why do you suppose that is?

Ok I actually took you sort of seriously (as opposed to BAGMAL who is just a troll) until this idiocy. A false positive? The elements they would test for are part of the building. That wouldn't be "false" positive. So what would testing for them show? That elements that were used to build the building exist in the rubble. Perfect. So not testing for elements that should have existed means is a cover up? Amazing logic. Take a bow.

Squatting in East CoCo says

I did study physics in college. I am no expert but I am convinced , by experiments in class, that Newtons laws are valid.

Daily experience also shows us that Newtons LAWS are valid.

The damaged part of the building would not have crushed the undamaged part without some delay. There just was not enough kinetic energy.

That's odd, I provided a paper earlier that was written by people more than qualified to know that did the math and it says there was enough kinetic energy. Please use your physics knowledge and point out where their calculations are incorrect. They looked pretty correct from what I remember of physics and thermodynamics. You say they are wrong, you say you took physics, so point out how they are in error. I feel it to be true isn't good enough. Someone blogged it isn't good enough.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Why not have a new investigation?

Based on not testing for chemicals that should have been present and your yet undisclosed calculations on newtons laws? Why?

Squatting in East CoCo says

They might NOT have found any positive evidence of explosives which would be conclusive evidence that the building was NOT blown up, but they did not. If they DID do the tests and found NO evidence of explosives this discussion thread would never be here.

That is the most retarded thing I have ever heard. Are you serious?

I propose that a Godzilla-like creature made out of concrete knocked the building down. I think they should have done chemical tests of the rubble to see if concrete was present. The fact that they didn't do chemical tests for concrete conclusively proves that Godzilla attacked the building.

Fun with logic...

bgamall4 says

No, if they don't test for explosives it is a cover up and they won't be able to remove the doubt. And there is much more evidence for the conspiracy than there is against it.

So then you also believe they should check for Godzilla concrete, correct? Do you believe that is also a cover up?

Squatting in East CoCo says

The problem with the logic of the paper you provided earlier was that the calculation of the kinetic energy assumed the top of the building was one huge mass. Even if this were true such a huge amount of kinetic energy would have destroyed the section immediately below it thereby dissipating the energy and stopping there. Otherwise would violate Newtons third.

Now I know you never studied physics even in grade school. So the only two possibilities that exist are total destruction of each floor or no destruction at all? Why is that? So show me the calculations that make it impossible for some pulverizing to occur and the bulk of the mass continuing to fall.

I don't even understand what you are saying. What huge mass? That doesn't make sense. The calculations are based on the actual building mass. Each floor added to the mass one at a time. So you are saying that the first x floors fell creating such a huge mass so that the y floors below were totally pulverized which should dissipated the energy and stopped the x floor mass from falling. Huh? Stopped where, in mid air? You call that logic?

Wow you guys make up some really funny shit.

Squatting in East CoCo says

The problem with the logic of the paper you provided earlier was that the calculation of the kinetic energy assumed the top of the building was one huge mass.

It WAS one huge mass. Have you SEEN the video? You act like you haven't seen it.

Even if this were true such a huge amount of kinetic energy would have destroyed the section immediately below it thereby dissipating the energy and stopping there.

Why? Just because you say so?

Squatting in East CoCo says

The problem with the logic of the paper you provided earlier was that the calculation of the kinetic energy assumed the top of the building was one huge mass.

It WAS one huge mass. Have you SEEN the video? You act like you haven't seen it. The towers failed at the point where they were damaged and everything above that fell as a single piece.

Even if this were true such a huge amount of kinetic energy would have destroyed the section immediately below it thereby dissipating the energy and stopping there.

Why? Just because you say so?

Squatting in East CoCo says

Homeboy says

Squatting in East CoCo says

The problem with the logic of the paper you provided earlier was that the calculation of the kinetic energy assumed the top of the building was one huge mass.

It WAS one huge mass. Have you SEEN the video? You act like you haven't seen it. The towers failed at the point where they were damaged and everything above that fell as a single piece.

Even if this were true such a huge amount of kinetic energy would have destroyed the section immediately below it thereby dissipating the energy and stopping there.

Why? Just because you say so?

Nope. Newton's Third.

Aren't you leaving out a little math, there?

I can't tell if you're serious or if you're trolling now. That's about the second most ridiculous thing I've ever heard anyone say. If I make a house of cards and drop a bowling ball on it, it doesn't arrest the fall of the bowling ball. Obviously there are calculations you need to make about the mass and energy involved, which you just completely blew off.

Squatting in East CoCo says

What you say is pretty close to true, The mass would have stopped if the supporting columns were still there.

Aha, I can see the problem, you don't have a clue how the wtc was constructed. The floors didn't sit on top of the columns like a traditional high rise. The columns only held up the ends of the top bar of the floor trusses. Break or bend the last couple inches of the trusses the floors are in free fall. Not all that much mass is required to do that. Once the columns lose the lateral support of the floor trusses they collapse also. I thought you said you read the NIST report. It's well detailed in there.

Squatting in East CoCo says

"With a value of 1200 MJ for Ed we are finally in a position to evaluate the energy balance
equation:
½ Mn vi ^2 = ½ [Mn + M1] vf^ 2 + Ed
Thus, setting Mn to 5.8 ? 107 kg, M1 to 0.39 ? 107 kg and with vi equal to 8.52 m/s, we readily determine that the first impacted floor of WTC 1 moved off with a velocity vf equal to 5.4 m/s; that is 3.1 m/s or 36 % slower than the impact velocity. Nevertheless, this reduced velocity was more than sufficient to guarantee a self-sustaining global collapse of WTC 1."

Like I said before, the actual facts violate Newton's third.

Your own source shows that the collapse should have slowed down a little upon encountering each new floor. In the actual event the tower collapse speed increased as if there were NO floors below.

No it doesn't say that at all. Read more carefully, this only deals with the first floor to collapse, it doesn't say anything at all about subsequent floors. Even so, why would it slow each floor rather than accelerate? The least mass and energy is the first floor to fall, after that the mass increases and increases knocking each subsequent floor away more easily. Your statement makes no sense.

I still haven't seen your explanation of exactly how this violates newton's third law. If an object falls, knocks a second object loose and they both continue to fall it's not a violation or even all that relevant to newtons' third law.

If you were doing experiments on newtons laws in a college level physics course I would ask for my tuition back.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Homeboy says

So then you also believe they should check for Godzilla concrete, correct?

Wouldn't King Kong be more likely?

I think we can eliminate King Kong and Godzilla as the perpetrators of this dastardly deed as there would have been video.

There is no video of explosive charges, so that can be ruled out as well. You have only pointed out a couple puffs of smoke and a low rumbling sound heard when the audio is enhanced; the deafening sounds of explosions and numerous quick, bright flashes that are seen in videos of actual controlled demolitions are not present in any video.

By your own words, controlled demolition is ruled out. Thanks for proving my point.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Bowling ball? House of cards?

Are you trying to say that if you had a house of cards 110 storys high and lifted the top 15 stories and then dropped them the whole thing would drop in a burning pile?

The absurdity of your example makes me think you are not seriously looking at the evidence.

No, why would the house of cards burn? The WTC burned because a plane full of fuel flew into it. It didn't START burning after it fell. But yeah, if I doused a card house with kerosene and lit a match to it, it would burn.

I'm starting to think you don't even have the slightest clue what happened that day.

Is it just me or does coriacci1's avatar look like the live version of sesame streets Bert?

Squatting in East CoCo says

The process of knocking the second object (floor) loose would slow it down somewhat. The process of knocking each of the subsequent floors loose would slow the collapse below free fall speed.

How long did you say you have been defending the truth of 9/11?

So then this video violates the laws of physics? How did the model fall down, then?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/NBbz2eIoVDQ

bgamall4 says

You are blind. You don't have the intellect to understand the obvious. You talk about unicorns, but on the day of judgement the deeds of everyone, including Bush/Cheney and their co conspirators will be known.

Allll....righty then. Have fun with that.

bgamall4 says

Trust me, this does not have massive bolts in it. Therefore, and only therefore, does it not defy the laws of physics.

This is a joke, but it is a sad one, homeboy.

He didn't say anything about bolts. He simply said that each floor would slow the fall and slow the collapse beyond freefall speed. The model tower in my video did not weigh half a million tons like the twin towers did. Obviously, having a structure in place does not necessarily prevent it from collapsing. So we can rule out this theory that simply because there were floors below the collapse, that they would automatically arrest the fall of the towers.

You obviously are incapable of envisioning in your mind the scale we are talking about. If you shrunk the WTC to the size of the model tower, the steel beams would be like toothpicks, and the "massive bolts" would be like the head of a pin. You are trying to apply your layman's "gut feeling" to matters of physics and engineering, in which you have no training or experience. Things may "seem" or "feel" a certain way to you, but that is only because you are unable to grasp the immense forces that were in play. 500,000 tons is just a number to you; you obviously don't understand how much force that is when it is in motion. A bolt is not going to stop hundreds of thousands of tons of weight falling on it. The WTC was designed to hold up the weight of the building, not to arrest the fall of that much weight when it's already in motion.

The joke here is your refusal to listen to reason.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Homeboy says

You are trying to apply your layman's "gut feeling" to matters of physics and engineering, in which you have no training or experience.

What about the engineers at ae911truth.org ? Are you saying that you understand more than a structural engineer?

There's a rather obvious problem with that argument.