patrick.net

The Professor says

We are still waiting for a list of scientist and engineers that support the official story.

That would be every other scientist in the world. Obviously, if they believed your little fairy tale, they would have signed the petition. They did not sign the petition, therefore, they know what actually happened, and it was not a controlled demolition. You see, we don't need to make "lists" of people who believe normal things. Do you have a list of people who believe the sky is blue? Of course not.

Zlxr says

Bob - you miss the point and make big issues of lesser issues. So the Port Authority still owns the site - but Larry Silverstein owns the buildings for 99 years. You missed the part that he couldn't find tenants to fill the offices in the buildings in their then current state.

So....you're saying that Larry Silverstein arranged for 4 commercial jet planes to be hijacked, had one crashed in Pennsylvania, and convinced the U.S. military to allow him to crash another one into the pentagon, then blew up 3 of the buildings he was leasing, but not the other 4. But then he forgot to fly a plane into WTC7, so it looked suspicious when he blew it up. Then he admitted he was responsible for everything on camera.

Really? Does that really make sense to you?

I think you've been watching too many Batman movies.

Zlxr says

Bob - you miss the point and make big issues of lesser issues. So the Port Authority still owns the site - but Larry Silverstein owns the buildings for 99 years. You missed the part that he couldn't find tenants to fill the offices in the buildings in their then current state.

He obviously needed to get with the times and rewire and renovate the buildings to where people would want to rent.

I can't believe you don't know the difference between lease and own. Pretty amazing.

WTF are you talking about rewire and renovate the buildings to where people want to rent. The buildings were just fine. You are right, I missed the part where Silverman couldn't find tenants in. Everyone except you and who ever wrote the blog you read missed it also. Occupancy rate was 98%. You understand that that's like almost totally occupied don't you. Like Bigsby said even conspiracy nuts can be a little selective instead of just parroting anything other conspiracy nuts write. Do you have any idea how to use google?

Here is a part of a press release from Feb 2001:

NET LEASE OF WORLD TRADE CENTER JUST BUSINESS AS USUAL FOR PORT AUTHORITY\'S REAL ESTATE DIRECTOR -- Cherrie Nanninga Credited with Shepherding Office, Retail Renaissance At Trade Center, Other Port Authority Facilities
Date: February 12, 2001
Press Release Number: 16-2001

When Port Authority Real Estate Director Cherrie Nanninga enters her 88th floor office each day, she passes a model of the World Trade Center, a stark reminder that she is in charge of the largest real estate transaction in New York history. The scale and complexity of the negotiations are astonishing. The complex has 10.4 million square feet of office space, 10 percent of all of the office space in downtown Manhattan. There are 400,000 square feet of stores selling upscale clothing, books and food - enough to keep Main Street bustling in a small town. And the world-famous landmark has offices for 40,000 workers.

As Real Estate Director, a position Mrs. Nanninga has held since 1996, the occupancy rate at the trade center has risen from 78 percent to a healthy 98 percent, retail soared in the trade center's mall, and available office space in the Newark Legal Center has nearly been filled.

The Professor says

bob2356 says

Time traveling aliens could have hit the towers with a death ray

Doesn't that violate Occam's razor?

Not at all. Let's see:

1. The military has had aliens in the deserts of Nevada and New Mexico for 50 years. I've seen pictures of alien bodies on the internet so this is a fact.

2. The military has huge facilities for talking to aliens all over the world. Look at http://www.seti.org/seti-institute/projects. Yes the government says these are for civilian research, but we are all more sophisticated than that here at patnet. We know to never believe the official government story.

3. The military didn't shoot down the remote controlled 9/11 planes. Where was Norad? Norad should have brought done the planes instantly as soon as they deviated from their flight path. The remote controlled planes flew into the wtc to create a story to cover up the alien death ray melting the steel in the towers and collapsing them.

4. There was popping sounds as the towers collapsed. You have kindly presented many videos showing this. This was actually the death ray melting the steel of the buildings. Plus the only way the buildings could have fallen and not violated newtons third law was if all the steel in the buildings were melted at exactly the same time. This could only be done with a death ray, not thermite.

Unassailable proof that the twin towers were brought down by aliens.

The Professor says

Destroyed, not collapsed, DESTROYED!

Looks like a pretty big pile of rubble to me. You do remember there is something like 70-80 feet of parking garages below ground level don't you. So there is another 70 feet of rubble sitting below ground lever. Let's see, 100 story building with about 1 foot of material per floor leaves a pile of rubble about 100 feet high. So 70 feet below ground and 30 feet above ground is just about right.

That means collapsed professor. Try again.

The Professor says

bob2356 says

Unassailable proof that the twin towers were brought down by aliens.

Excellent Analysis!!!

Why are we in Afghanistan?

1. The military has aliens in residence.
2. The military talks to aliens in space.
3. The military didn't shoot down the planes.
4. There were popping sounds and only a steel melting death ray could have avoided violating newton third law.

Argue the facts professor, argue the facts.

Homeboy says

Zlxr says

Bob - you miss the point and make big issues of lesser issues. So the Port Authority still owns the site - but Larry Silverstein owns the buildings for 99 years. You missed the part that he couldn't find tenants to fill the offices in the buildings in their then current state.

So....you're saying that Larry Silverstein arranged for 4 commercial jet planes to be hijacked, had one crashed in Pennsylvania, and convinced the U.S. military to allow him to crash another one into the pentagon, then blew up 3 of the buildings he was leasing, but not the other 4. But then he forgot to fly a plane into WTC7, so it looked suspicious when he blew it up. Then he admitted he was responsible for everything on camera.

Really? Does that really make sense to you?

I think you've been watching too many Batman movies.

You forgot that he managed to arrange all this including wiring the buildings for demolition in the 1 month between when he signed the lease and when 9/11 happened. Amazing guy that silverman.

The Professor says

So why are we in Afghanistan?

Oil.

The Professor says

Lets assume that it took 10 tons of explosives (20,000 lbs)to blow the buildings. If one man could carry 50 lbs of explosive in a rolling toolbox and place it near columns it would take one man 400 trips or 10 men 40 trips to place all the explosives.

Difficult does not mean impossible.

Nice thought. So 400 big rolling toolboxes left all around the wtc and no one would notice. Good thing Marvin Bush was on the job.

I thought you claimed many times that is was proved that thermite did it? All a toolbox full of thermite would do is make a really intense fire.

For someone who claims to be a professor who has read extensively on the subject there are an awful lot of convenient holes in your knowledge base. Especially when people have written about these things several times on this post. Severe short term memory loss like this is serious, you should have it checked out.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

Fire can weaken steel. The WTC fires weakened trusses. There are videos clearly showing the outer columns of the twin towers bowing inwards at the point where the floors collapsed. Obviously those columns gave way and...

... go ahead tell us the rest of the story.

It collapsed. You keep posting up videos of it.

The Professor says

Yeah it happens. Sometimes you forget what I post. Memory is short on these boards.

It was a month ago tomorrow that I discovered AE911truth.org

I have been learning more and more and my mind has changed as I review more evidence.

I don't remember you providing any convincing evidence?

Learning more and more? Let us all guess where you've been 'learning.'

And no evidence would convince you. Facts are not an issue to you as shown by the videos you post up and that you claim are proof. Your belief in this conspiracy is an article of faith, not a matter of science, so you don't care what evidence is supplied. You will simply dismiss what we say and move onto your next video or cut and paste job.

The Professor says

I've only been studying for a month.

We need a new investigation to fill in the holes.

You've been 'studying' for a month? Why is it that you haven't managed to progress beyond one conspiracy website in all that time? Is that your normal course of rigorous intellectual pursuit? And no we don't need a new investigation to answer the ridiculous claims of conspiracists. Let us all just imagine if such an investigation were carried out. And let's imagine that it didn't conclude that the buildings were brought down by CDs. I think we can all imagine what you'd then be posting up on here.

The Professor says

The evidence is already there.

That is why there is no need to do another investigation. As a professor, you should know that investigations aren't redone because a bunch of conspiracists with bizarre Youtube videos want it so. Oh wait, I forgot you aren't a professor.

The Professor says

The Professor says

Bigsby says

I am actually a postgrad

What discipline?

By postgrad do you mean high school?

I think you're talking about yourself. And like I said, it wasn't in a related field so it's irrelevant what I did as a postgrad. Of course, I could just make up shit like you and pretend to be a structural engineer or some such to try and give the pretense of bolstering my arguments. However, there's no need to do that as I can simply rely on the work of actual experts, people who don't require a constant stream of inane Youtube videos to make their points.

And I take it that you are allowed to insult others, whereas...

The Professor says

Is there any other reason you don't want an investigation?

Because one was already done? You just don't like it as it doesn't mesh well with your conspiracy theory. Look, it's very simple, investigations aren't redone because a bunch of conspiracists post up Youtube videos with arrows pointing at puffs of forced air being expelled after the building starts to collapse, or because people post up videos 'showing' controlled demolitions that strangely enough only fellow conspiracists can actually see (but obviously not hear), or because...

Just as a heads up Bgamall, I can see that you've responded to my post from the front page. However, you are on my ignore list, so I can't see your actual posts (and I don't seem to be able to unignore without signing up to premium service). As such, I suggest you direct your drivel to others as you won't be getting any further responses from me.

The Professor says

Waiting for a list.

Yet another childish response from someone claiming to be a professor. The lists are those involved in the reports, and, if you like, those who haven't signed up to your conspiracy website. As I've already said before, actual scientists don't generally spend their time forming little internet groups to disprove outlandish conspiracy claims.

And it doesn't matter anyway because no amount of evidence will change your mind. Evidence is irrelevant to you. You are no different to say creationists in that regard.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

You've been 'studying' for a month? Why is it that you haven't managed to progress beyond one conspiracy website in all that time?

I have been to a lot of websites. The least believable one claims aliens and directed pulse weapons.

The NIST official report is full of holes.

And what pray tell is the purpose of that arrow or is that an attempt at humour on your part? You do understand that is evidence for an uncontrolled collapse rather than a CD, don't you? Ejecting debris over a wide field is what a CD tries to avoid. Why not check how far the debris spread at the site of the WTC?

Seriously, that could be your stupidest post so far and that is saying something.

The Professor says

Hot enough to melt columns?

Where is the facepalm smilie when you need it?

The Professor says

Even though it looks like the top of this building is falling over, the whole building is about to explode, demolishing, top down, every intact floor below it in a cloud of pulverized concrete.

Er, your image clearly shows that the building gave way on one side, the side where debris piled high as a consequence of the plane pushing it there and so fueling a very substantial fire, the side where trusses weakened because of said fire and the outer columns bowed inwards...

And the whole building is not about to 'explode,' it's going to continue to collapse. There is after all rather a lot of weight pushing down.

You SHOULD be able to supply very clear proof of a CD. Every single one of the video cameras pointing at the buildings should have recorded multiple large explosions in rapid succession. No such videos exist. Now most sane human beings would conclude... You, however, ...

The Professor says

Your right, education is irrelevant on the Internet. We don't judge others on the claims of their expertise but the content of their posts.

And your content seems to almost solely come in the form of posting up Youtube videos and copying and pasting other people's views (and you do this almost always without any comments of your own), so how should we judge you?

The Professor says

Hot enough to melt columns?

Or maybe there was a combination of cutting and explosive charges? It's not hard to imagine a thermite shaped charge cutting device to weaken supports and then some kind of high explosive to blow the concrete to smithereens.

Use your imagination.

Sorry but I just don't have anywhere enough imagination to follow all the bizarre twists and turns in your postings. Sorry I can't imagine a shaped charge made from thermite left in a toolbox.

An alleged "professor" should at least be able to google the term shaped charge and learn that a. They are made from explosives so thermite can't be used b. they must be against a steel beam to work c. they don't cut they shatter.

If this is what you have come up with after an alleged month of studying then you really need to be checked out for early onset alzheimers.

or maybe there were aliens? debate the evidence.

The Professor says

And here is the North tower coming down. You can really hear the explosions.

What on earth are you talking about? You can't hear any explosions in that video at all. I don't think you know what an explosion is.

The Professor says

And here is the North tower coming down. You can really hear the explosions.

At what point is it that you think you hear explosions? All I hear is roar. The last video is shot from almost directly below the collapse, yet there isn't any sound of explosions at all. An explosion from a shaped cutting charge big enough to cut the steel columns in the wtc would be LOUD and would reverberate and echo a lot in lower manhatten, yet nothing in the video. It would have rattled windows across the hudson in Jersey City yet no one has ever reported that. Very strange.

Seriously, have you ever heard explosives? They make a very loud and very distinctive crack. Here is a video of a shaped charge being set off from what looks like 250-300 meters, a longer distance than the top of the towers to where the last video was shot. It rattles the camera and would leave ringing in your ears without ear protection. Where is this in any of the 17 videos? Show me the point in the last video where the camera shakes from the shock wave of high explosives. http://www.youtube.com/embed/y_RazXRM3f0

On the other hand an alien death ray would be silent. Debate the facts "professor".

The Professor says

bob2356 says

I just don't have anywhere enough imagination

Sorry about that.

Thanks for your contribution to the debate.

Anyone with enough imagination to follow your thinking would be institutionalized also. It's amazing the men in white coats let you have so much time on the computer.

The Professor says

There is an incredible amount of info out there!

There's an incredible amount of crap out there about aliens. Doesn't mean it's true.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/RUki-07sp2E

Homeboy says

There's an incredible amount of crap out there about aliens. Doesn't mean it's true.

It's not true?

bob2356 says

Homeboy says

There's an incredible amount of crap out there about aliens. Doesn't mean it's true.

It's not true?

Of course it's true. You can't find an official group of scientists who say that alien abductions aren't happening, so therefore it's true.

Why is the government refusing to investigate aliens?

The Professor says

" a mentally disturbed individual, lost in delirium, harboring wild conspiracy theories.

Yeah, that's a pretty good description of truthers.

The Professor says

"Whoever dares raise questions about the official 9/11 narrative, will be excluded from both the mainstream and “progressive” media, dismissed as a mentally disturbed individual, lost in delirium, harboring wild conspiracy theories.

In reality, the governmental spoon-fed 9/11 myth crumbles like a house of cards when confronted to facts and scientific analysis."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/911-facts-fiction-and-censorship/?print=1

Like I said, you just copy and paste. How about your input? And quite clearly the official story doesn't 'crumble like a house of cards when confronted to facts and scientific analysis.' That is just very convenient bluster on the part of conspiracists. There is nothing scientific about the quotes you copy and paste and there is nothing scientific about the videos you post up.

The Professor says

Still waiting for you to present evidence to convince me the official story is true. Again, you may have run across something convincing that I have overlooked.

You overlook anything that doesn't fit with your predetermined viewpoint.

The Professor says

Arrow came with the original picture. It illustrates that debris was thrown over 200 feet from the collapsing building.

Proof indeed of er, erm, er... Perhaps you'd care to explain what you think would happen if a building of that size collapsed without the intervention of explosives. All the debris lands in a large plastic bag planted in the center of the building perhaps.

The Professor says

Explode. The Mass is not pushing down, it is being blown out.

Complete and utter bullshit. What explosions? The building collapses. An immense amount of debris falls and ... FFS, what the hell do you think is going to happen to the debris? Your argument is just comical.

You sound less and less like a professor with every additional post you make.

The Professor says

Your arguments, and evidence, is non-existent.

Try the official reports. Try the evidence of your own eyes. Oh sorry, I forgot you see and hear explosions where none exist.

The Professor says

You need to chill. I can feel your blood pressure rise in your posts.

Is there a reason you argue so vehemently for the official story?

Do you actually have any convincing evidence to counter the evidence I have cut and paste?

Perhaps you should give more consideration to what you post (being a supposed professor and all that), then people wouldn't get so irritated responding to the constant stream of absurd stuff you seem to consider as proof.

The Professor says

We are still waiting for you to cut and paste a link to a modern steel framed building that was pulverised by a couple of hours of fire. Never happened before 9/11, never happened after.

I rather think this point has already been covered before. Do you wear permanent conspiracy blinkers?

The Professor says

You do realize you are a nut for the official conspiracy story?

Another very foolish comment from a so called professor.

The Professor says

Facts that indicate a Controlled Demolition of WTC7:
*There was trace evidence of thermite in the WTC dust.
*There was earwitness and video account of explosions.
*The official story has WTC7 falling in a manner which defied physics.
*The official report neglected or denied evidence.

Still waiting for explanations to this CD evidence.

Reread the thread.

The Professor says

I thought we established that education was meaningless on the Internet?

Argue the facts!

It's relevant when it demonstrates you to be a complete and utter bullshitter.

The Professor says

THe NIST simulation stopped before total collapse. The data that created the NIST simulation is secret and unavailable for recreation.

You'll have to explain what you think you are proving with that video.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

It's relevant when it demonstrates you to be a complete and utter bullshitter.

I see you have no facts and are reverting to personal attacks.

The facts have been covered over and over in this thread. You just choose to ignore them in favour of your conspiracy theory. But hey, it's clear that your approach is to stick with a few themes that you've drawn from your website. Those are your sole go to points. Points you just repeatedly post up (devoid of any personal input of course) and claim are proof. Which college do you teach at? Is that how other professors approach research? Latch onto someone else's theory. Accept all evidence supplied in favour of it irrespective of the credibility of said evidence (amateur Youtube videos etc. etc. are all taken at face value), whilst simultaneously dismissing all evidence that runs contrary to your predetermined beliefs (such as painstaking scientific studies carried out by actual scientists using enormous amounts of data...). You really are an academic role model. Or more likely a teenager who lacks basic critical thinking skills.

The Professor says

NO it has not been covered before. Do you HAVE any evidence of a steel frame building utterly collapsing after a short fire?

Yes, it has been covered before.

The Professor says

@bigsby

This video does a little better job explaining why the NIST simulation is faulty. If it still doesn't make sense I will post some more for you later. I have to go to yoga with the wife.

May I suggest you meditate on the absurdity of your views whilst you are there.

The Professor says

@bigsby

This video does a little better job explaining why the NIST simulation is faulty. If it still doesn't make sense I will post some more for you later. I have to go to yoga with the wife.

I look forward to seeing your alternative mathematical model for what happened on that day.

In the meantime, I think the NIST response effectively covers the issue (including the fact that these models aren't meant to exactly replicate what happened, but are simply 2 distinct analyses using 2 different data sets, one of which is strikingly similar to the actual collapse). Taken from NIST FAQs:

NIST conducted two global collapse analyses, one that included damage due to debris-impact from the collapse of WTC 1, and one that did not include any debris-impact damage. These two analyses were conducted to determine the influence of the debris-impact damage on the response of WTC 7 when subjected to the effects of the fires that burned on floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. In its comparison of the two analyses (see NIST NCSTAR 1A Section 3.5), NIST showed that the analysis with the debris-impact damage better simulated the sequence of observed events, and it is this simulation that is considered here.
NIST believes that the simulation of the collapse, based on the analysis with debris-impact damage, does capture the critical observations derived from the digital video recording. The critical observations and corresponding failures identified in the structural analysis include: 1) east-west motion of the building beginning at approximately the same time as failure of floors 6 through 14 around Column 79, 2) the formation of the “kink” in the roofline of the east penthouse approximately one second after Column 79 was found to buckle, 3) window breakage on the east side of the north face as the buckling of Column 79 precipitated the failure of upper floors, and 4) the beginning of global collapse (vertical drop of the building exterior) within approximately one-half second of the time predicted by analysis. Both measured time and analytically predicted time, from the start of failures of floors surrounding Column 79 to the initial downward motion of the north face roofline, was 12.9 seconds (see NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Table 3-1). The collapse observations, from video analysis of the CBS News Archive video, are covered in detail in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A Section 3.5 and NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 8.3. Only in the later stages of the animation, after the initiation of global collapse, do the upper exterior wall deformations from the NIST analysis differ from the video images.
Uncertainties associated with the approach taken by NIST are addressed in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 3.5, where it is noted, “Once simulation of the global collapse of WTC 7 was underway, there was a great increase in the uncertainty in the progression of the collapse sequence, due to the random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling debris.” The contribution to stiffness and strength of nonstructural materials and components, such as exterior cladding, interior walls and partitions, was not considered in the analyses conducted by NIST. It is well known that such non-structural components can increase the stiffness and strength of a structural system, but their contribution is difficult to quantify. Given these factors, disparities between the video and the animation in the later stages of collapse would be expected.

The Professor says

We are still waiting for you to cut and paste a link to a modern steel framed building that was pulverised by a couple of hours of fire. Never happened before 9/11, never happened after.

That didn't happen on 9/11 either. Some buildings were hit by large passenger jets full of fuel which took out some of the support structure of the building, then the heat of the resulting fire caused the steel beams to weaken and then collapse. It was not "pulverised [SIC] by a couple hours of fire."