patrick.net

Squatting in East CoCo says

Personal attacks aren't helpful.

Neither are trolls.

Squatting in East CoCo says

I am not "siding" with anyone. I am looking for a debate on the evidence presented by this questionably "dubious... minority of all the engineers in the world".

No you're not. Your mind is already made up.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Do you have a link to an actual pic of the plane hitting the pentagon? My searches turn up blank.

Your mind turns up blank.

Squatting in East CoCo says

My credentials are modest by comparison to some of the members of ae911truth.org.

Alleged credentials of members of ae911truth.org.

Everybody remembers 9/11, but does anyone remember what happened 9/10? Let me remind everybody. 9/10 was the day when, the then secretary of defense D Rumsfeld, on national TV reveiled that the pentagon couldn't account for $2.3 TRILLION!!!! Oddly, the following day the pentagon was hit by and "airplane". The accounting quaters were hit, several mostly civilians, were killed, and the records conveniently destroyed!

Squatting in East CoCo says

On the contrary from the "dubious" site:

"Most architects and engineers have never been presented with the scientific evidence of controlled demolition. In addition, most of those who take the time to examine this evidence acknowledge that the official story can’t be true. As of the date of this publication, there are almost 1,700 architects and engineers who openly support the findings of AE911Truth vs. only a few dozen who have openly supported the NIST WTC reports. Even so, in the end, the evidence stands on its own, regardless of how many professionals are aware of it. "

On the contrary of what? What exactly do you think a conspiracy website is going to post up? What do you think this demonstrates? I've read your posts. You aren't being honest about where you are coming from. You aren't new to this. And you aren't interested in debate. At least bgamall is straight up with his opinion. You, on the other hand, are playing a game.

Squatting in East CoCo says

This would be true in a pancake collapse but the videos make it obvious that the building was blown out from the top down. Most of the mass of the building was ejected outward and would not be available to destroy the intact building beneath.

Which video are you talking about now? And you are saying most of the mass was ejected outward? What makes you say that? Because there were dust clouds? Haven't you and bgamall been demanding an explanation for how a building can collapse into its own footprint? Now you're saying most of the debris was ejected away from the building. Which is it?

Squatting in East CoCo says

So there are no pics or videos?

So you don't know how to search "plane hits pentagon" on youtube?

bgamall4 says

The government has the full pics of the plane or whatever hitting the pentagon. They have chosen not to reveal them.

Lie.

There apparently was not enough large parts left to believe that it was a plane. Anyway, Rumsfeld said it was a missile.

Lie.

Squatting in East CoCo says

What is your point here homeboy?

That the security tape from the pentagon is readily available on the internet, and for you to say you "can't find it" either means you are disingenuous or stupid.

Squatting in East CoCo says

"Most architects and engineers have never been presented with the scientific evidence of controlled demolition. In addition, most of those who take the time to examine this evidence acknowledge that the official story can’t be true.

Obviously a lie. The site claims 7 million hits, and says 1700 A&Es plus 15,000 petition signers believe in the controlled demolition. So out of 7 million who "reviewed the evidence", only 16,700 believe that the official story isn't true. That's only 0.002%. That's quite a ways from "most".

With 7 million hits, for them to suggest that their message isn't getting out, is absurd. We've seen their evidence; it's just that we think it's bullshit.

Squatting in East CoCo says

"We had to blow WTC7 because it had sensitive material stored by the many agencies stationed there. The building was prewired for collapse in the event of an attack on the nation. An overzealous junior agent pushed the wrong button after the terrorist attack. He has been promoted to a position where he cannot cause any more trouble."

Do you have any evidence to support this theory?

Squatting in East CoCo says

It's not a theory, it's an imaginative story I made up to support the evidence presented by ae911truth.org.

It's a better story than the "concrete godzilla".

Boy, you really are obtuse. The concrete godzilla was a rhetorical device I used to demonstrate the absurdity of your point of view, i.e. you wanted to test for thermite even though the elements that would be tested for are already present in the building materials. I was showing how ridiculous that is by suggesting we test for concrete, even though concrete is already present, to determine if a concrete godzilla attacked the building. It wasn't supposed to be a "good" story; it was supposed to show how ridiculous your point of view is.

But your scenario was not rhetorical at all. You genuinely stated that you would find that believable.

Are you really a college-level teacher? I'm having a hard time believing you even WENT to college.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Personal attacks are not helpful to the debate.

What debate? You are just trolling, jabbering, and posting links to feeble conspiracy videos.

Squatting in East CoCo says

You can put me on ignore and be done with me.

Why? It's much more fun to see what stupid thing you will say next. It's entertaining to listen to someone who claims to be a college-level teacher and doesn't even understand the difference between reductio ad absurdum and an earnest argument, or understand how to do a simple web search.

Squatting in East CoCo says

I am looking for a believable explanation given all the evidence of a controlled demolition.

No, you are STARTING with the unfounded belief that it was a controlled demolition and searching for whatever tortured reasoning you can use to convince yourself that it's true. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the controlled demolition theory.

Squatting in East CoCo says

"Thermite is a mixture of powdered iron oxide and elemental aluminum which, when ignited, reacts violently at 4,000-4,500° Fahrenheit (F) – well above the melting point of steel or iron, about 2,800° F, producing aluminum oxide and molten iron. When free sulfur is added to the mixture, the iron melts at a lower temperature. Thermite with sulfur added is called thermate. Structural steel in contact with ignited thermate also melts at a lower temperature. Contrary to what NIST and others have claimed, the sulfur could not have come from gypsum wallboard, where it is an inert, chemically “locked” ingredient."

I'll give you this: You have figured out how to use Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V. Is that what you teach those college students in your computer class?

Squatting in East CoCo says

We both know that there are no pictures of the jet hitting the pentagon. There are only pics of the explosion.

You are right; there are no "pictures" of the plane hitting the pentagon. There are security VIDEOS of the plane hitting the pentagon. Security cameras are not high-speed cameras, so they did not pick up clear images of a plane traveling over 400 mph. I hope that is not a mystery to you. It's certainly clear that something happened, and a fire started. What do you think caused it?

The rest of the videos that would show the actual plane hitting were confiscated by the authorities and never released.

Um, no. That is false.

Squatting in East CoCo says

You wont even tell us where you are coming from.

I really am from California, honest.

Where I am coming from? Is that supposed to be English? Anyway, I am English. I don't live permanently in America, but I have a home in Monterey, which is the reason why I have an interest in US real estate. Happy now?

bgamall4 says

The twin towers appear to come down

We keep telling this to Bigsby and he cannot comprehend it. Why does he bother to come on this board if he doesn't comprehend anything people say to him?

The towers were top down, and they shot out concrete from the top but the structure of steel imploded on itself anyway, for the most part.

Er, strangely enough, I didn't think the towers went up. And of course concrete and debris was pushed outwards from the downward pressure. What exactly do you expect to happen? But that isn't the majority of the mass of the building, is it?
Look, you believe that the government planted a massive amount of explosives right at the points where two planes struck two different buildings and then managed to detonate said explosives without any sound or any video evidence of an actual controlled demolition. Most sane people don't actually believe your version of events. I know that may be a shock to you, but there you go.

Squatting in East CoCo says

We both know that there are no pictures of the jet hitting the pentagon. There are only pics of the explosion. The rest of the videos that would show the actual plane hitting were confiscated by the authorities and never released.

Did you know that?

Like I said, you are a liar. You came to that conspiracy website 2 weeks ago, did you? I don't think so. You post a comment saying you believe a plane hit the Pentagon and then demand proof that a plane hit the Pentagon. How exactly does that work if you clearly think you know that video evidence isn't available showing that? You are playing a game. A very obvious game of deception and leading.

bgamall4 says

No, he is correct about the videos being confiscated. You are the liar.

Dummy Rummy said it was a missile. I take him at his word. Let's see the video.

Always helps to actually read what was posted before responding. You should try it.

Bigsby says

Where I am coming from? Is that supposed to be English?

"american" language, is what it is. get it limey?

bgamall4 says

There you go again. There were the fire fighters saying there were explosions heard, top down. It is all here if you look, Bigsby. The concrete shot out from above where the planes hit. Think about it Bigsby.

No, you think about it. Think about the fact that some clearly traumatized firemen talking about explosions doesn't actually equate to evidence of a controlled demolition. Think about the fact there are no videos showing a controlled demolition. Think about the complete lack of any visual or audio evidence to back up your claims despite all the cameras pointing in the direction of the buildings. Think about what your claims actually entail. Think about the complete impossibility of all that. Just think.

coriacci1 says

"american" language, is what it is. get it limey?

'Where are you coming from' is American English for 'where do you live?' OK, if you say so.

bgamall4 says

He said this:

" We both know that there are no pictures of the jet hitting the pentagon. There are only pics of the explosion. The rest of the videos that would show the actual plane hitting were confiscated by the authorities and never released.

Did you know that?"

You called him a liar.

I answered with this:

"No, he is correct about the videos being confiscated. You are the liar.

Dummy Rummy said it was a missile. I take him at his word. Let's see the video."

So, what the hell are you talking about, Grizby?

Reading comprehension is not your strong point, is it? Read my post again and actually think about it. And just to help you as you seem as confused as usual, I wasn't referring to the Pentagon, I was referring to his past claims of being interested in both sides of the argument, of wanting a debate, and most relevantly, of only being made aware of that conspiracy website after reading this thread. Get it now?

BigsbyBigsby says

'Where are you coming from' is American English for 'where do you live?' OK.

it depends on who's doing the talkin. you get my drift?

bgamall4 says

What is your point, why do you exist, why are you still here? Those are the things that matter, Bisby.

Why do I exist and why am I still here? What sort of questions are those? You really are a complete fool, aren't you?

Bigsby says

You really are a complete fool, aren't you?

you are english. you said it. you must be right.

coriacci1 says

Bigsby says

You really are a complete fool, aren't you?

you are english. you said it. you must be right.

That's the first correct thing you've said in the entire thread.

Bigsby says

That's the first correct thing you've said in the entire thread.

pretty funny!

bgamall4 says

Here is the bottom line, Bigsby, you are curious about the 911 conspiracy. But you are cowardly and cannot come to believe it even though you doubt the official story.

Gary Anderson strategicdefaultbooks.com

Ah right, the bottom line according to an idiot. You say I am cowardly because I don't believe the bullshit you are serving up? Don't make me laugh. And you'll have to explain how I doubt the official story. Have you actually been reading what was posted in this thread?
Anyway, I might still respond to Squatting, but as for you, life is too short to spend dealing with people who are clearly a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Bigsby says

Squatting in East CoCo says

You wont even tell us where you are coming from.

I really am from California, honest.

Where I am coming from? Is that supposed to be English? Anyway, I am English. I don't live permanently in America, but I have a home in Monterey, which is the reason why I have an interest in US real estate. Happy now?

Where you are coming from includes where you live, where you were raised, your education, and your occupation, parts of the basis on where your opinion comes from. You previously declined to give this information thus my statement' "You wont even tell us where you are coming from."

Does that clear it up?

You asked the question and then answered it by saying you're from California. Now you apparently require an entire life story.
Once again, you are the one with the outlandish views. I don't need to try to bolster my arguments by giving a personal background history. It's irrelevant. You claim you were suddenly converted by a wing-nut website 11 years after the event. OK, I still don't believe you, but OK. Now you are evangelizing for it on a forum. Quite the turn around for someone new to laughably idiotic ideas that a minuscule number of people take seriously. But hey, keep posting your videos - there's a certain entertainment value in trying to see what you people see in them. So far, I'm just seeing what everyone else sees - further evidence against what you are claiming.

War says

Bibsy.... you're a known and proven liar.

You're a known and proven liar and troll. How are the name changes and bannings coming along by the way? Both must be heading towards double figures or higher by now.
And you still apparently don't know when 2004 starts.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Homeboy says

The rest of the videos that would show the actual plane hitting were confiscated by the authorities and never released.

Um, no. That is false.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/footage.html

"Not only has the government refused to release footage that would clearly show how the Pentagon was attacked, it has also seized footage not belonging to the military. The FBI confiscated video recordings from several private businesses near the Pentagon in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Those recordings, if they still exist, might provide decisive evidence about the attack. "

The government is not hiding any videos that show the plane crashing into the pentagon. That doesn't even make sense.

If you don't think a plane crashed into the pentagon, what do you think happened?

Squatting in East CoCo says

I am willing to be convinced that the NIST report is accurate.

That is the least true thing I have read this year.

These are controlled demolitions:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/eem7d58gjno

Do you see any that implode from the top down? Do you see any that don't make a very regular boom, boom, boom, boom.... sound before they fall? Did any of the WTC buildings make sounds like that? Your video contains several clips of people saying they "heard explosions". Do any of them say they heard multiple "boom" sounds, regularly spaced, occurring in rapid succession?

See, this is what cracks me up about you. You are obsessed on this conspiracy mantra that "no steel building ever fell before". You seem to be unable to fathom that it is the first time this exact series of events ever happened. Yet you unquestioningly believe that this was the world's first top-down controlled demolition, the world's first controlled demo in which the normal "boom, boom, boom, boom..." sounds can't be heard, the world's first controlled demo where at best, a couple little puffs of smoke can be seen, and the multiple bright flashes of explosions throughout the building are missing, and the first controlled demo in the world where the "explosions" don't even start until the building is already falling.

A whole series of things that, if they were really part of a controlled demo, have never happened before in history, and you happily believe it all, hook, line, and sinker. Things that never happened before can't happen... unless it fits your argument at the time.

Squatting in East CoCo says

It's not just me.

Nope, there are a few other kooks too.

Squatting - answer my question. If you don't think a plane crashed into the pentagon, what do you think happened?

Squatting in East CoCo says

It did not fall, it exploded!

What exactly do you think you are looking at? That video highlights a couple of little puffs of smoke many floors below the collapse AFTER the collapse had begun. Seriously, I want to know what you think that represents and how that equates to a controlled demolition. This video is evidence that there wasn't a controlled demolition... that the puffs shown occurred after the collapse had already started and that they are simply the downward force of air being expelled lower down the building. Really, I just don't understand how you can look at that and say 'hey, here's proof of a controlled demolition.' Mind-boggling.