patrick.net

The Professor says

Bigsby says

The logical conclusion? What? No, it's not. It's a clear misrepresentation.

Can't you see the similiarity between the 2 diagrams?

They were both drawn using a computer?

Hi Professor,

Thank you for starting the two threads discussing the tragic controlled demolition of the World Trade Center. I see a lot of indisputable evidence being disputed by those in denial or misinformation campaigners.

Not sure if you've seen this video, but it clearly shows the missing "pile driver" of top floors due to pulverization and ejection by explosives.

It would be comforting to believe that the World Trade Center was destroyed by a highly organized, and well funded, conspiracy to attack the Middle East, but the evidence isn't there.

You should simply apply the logic, of logistics.

To carry out the proposed theory hundreds of people would be involved, going through the building over time, coordinating efforts, and be in communication with each other.

That didn't happen.

A guy with about $500K, the price of a California house, put together a rag tag group with a simple plan. It happened to work, by accident, or fluke, or was really well targeted.

It makes no difference because we also have the Pentagon to look at. Where was the concerted effort there?

Engineers want to make out like this was a conspiracy because no one wants to think that some guy, any guy, can make this bold of a statement without much planning.

Simple plans do succeed, complex conspiracies have way too many chances for failure.

There is no evidence. The only evidence that was obtained was from a wreckage it took years to clear.

What I find more compelling is that Bush ran off to attack Iraq rather than target Osama bin Laden in Afganistan.

Literally I think in the world of conspiracies you are looking at the smoke, and mirrors of the twin towers when the real conspiracy was Bush rushing the judgement of Iraqi involvement.

I think Bush, and his handling of the tradgedy, are much more the obvious target here.

You want the truth about the investigation being rushed? It was rushed so that Bush could move forward with a preconceived agenda.

You said flawed, and I said rushed.

You don't want to go down this conspiracy theory rabbit hole.

Bush was demanding answers that fit his larger agenda that had Iraq financing this act of terrorism.

That first year of investigation was seriously looking for a larger, organized group than just 19 people. We were running around the globe, torturing people, making them confess, and sending them to Gitmo, out of sight.

As hard as every one has tried, no big terrorist organization has been found.

We call it Al Quida, but what we find is armed militias.

No one wants to say that a group of no more than 24 guys, with $500K could do this much damage, at will, on American soil.

The Professor says

Newtons Laws says

Not sure if you've seen this video, but it clearly shows the missing "pile driver" of top floors due to pulverization and ejection by explosives.

I just started this thread. The other discussion was too full of personal attack and trolling.

@Newtons Law What video?

You forgot to include the link.

Apologies for the technical difficulties. New to the auto-formatting on this site:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/ZvUQRF0ygiI

Oh, alrighty, as long as you persist, yes the government is covering up a complete lack of care, or concern, about the real threats to the United States.

First let me says that architects, and engineers have this belief that they draw the specs, and that's the way things should be, well they aren't. Between the paper that the plans are drawn on, and the construction actual economics take place. Concrete gets watered down, steel of lesser quality is used. Everything may pass inspection, and code but this really looks like a very plausible wreckage.

As far as foundation liquification, the theory I would think be proposed is that the ground shook for an extended period of time, the soil below building seven became unstable, the piling system failed, and the building collapsed onto itself.
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/36526/32824988.pdf?sequence=1

In the world of conspiracies the World Trade Center is the last act of a plot that went on for decades, and was ignored by our arrogant government.

The arrogance of the United States government continued through our boots on the ground appraoch to kill Saddam Hussein, and the fact that we, like every other occupier, got run out of Afganistan by a bunch of militia men, and women.

You can not fight these people, but you can negotiate.

The same conspiracy is playing out today with Iran, Syria, and now Lebanon.

You have become another cog in the wheel of that conspiracy that is covering up the New World Order that we are losing.

Look over there at the Twin Towers, but don't look at Iraq, Iran, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, or Syria.

It's all about oil, World War Two, Israel, and global economics.

Like I said you really don't want to go there, because it has to do with your individual freedoms, and a dream your government has that it can control the New World Order. Well, they can't.

Absolutely, without question, there was shoddy construction.

More than that, or covering that up, or getting the insurance companies to pay, the United States had an agenda to fulfill.

Osama bin Laden was our boy, the same as Mubarack, Gaddafi, and Saddam. These were the dictators George Bush Senior was talking about, and yet these were the guys doing our dirty work after World War Two, and the formation of Israel.

You don't want to go there, no one does, and we are now faced with the very real possibility a guy like Romney may be elected who will unravel everything that has been done to free the people of North Africa.

Free markets, not free loaders.

The Professor says

I have found some very compelling new evidence AGAINST the demolition of WTC.

I will have to investigate further.

Does anyone know about NMSR?

http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911.htm

Why is nmsr911 information any more compelling than the hundreds of posts that said the exact same thing (many were the same articles) that you totally dismissed? ae911 vs nmsr911? I wonder if there is a relation? Are you setting up to get donations from both sides of the argument? Very slick work Rich. Follow the money.

History tells you everything you need to know. You're focusing upon detailed specifics instaed of charactoristics of every major event in the last 100 years.

All the breakdowns are under the control and scope of the very same entity that increases both scope and control after the tragic event. The means or assistance and the end result are moot, because it's the inner circle of control that always comes out on top.

An overview; a total breakdown in security, murky security/events that mirror the tragic violence
scapegost is/was interconnected to the government itself in some way or form
strict resistance and control of, with an illogical outcome where blame can only be upon it's own neglect
government increases it's scope and control

WW2, JFK, Vietnam, Gulf War, 9/11, this goes on and on

Just as frequent as the murder of a married person's suspect is the spouse,
always look within first. Anything else is tail-chasing.

More food for thought: One family has either financed, supported, helped maintain their power of, about every well known dictator/despot for close to 100 years.

From Hitler, to Saddam, Osama, Quadhaffi, Shaw of Iran, and numerous others. That same family seems to always be around or part of the group who take the aforementioned OUT of power.

And, there's another member of that family who is considered to be somewhat smarter, but far more sinister, just waiting in the shadows for the year 2016 to come around. Lookout Saudi Arabia, as their power has surpassed their usefulness.

The Professor says

The real war is on liberty.

True. 9/11 was an excuse the government used to demolish even basic human and civil rights. The Bush administration didn't use explosives to bring down any buildings, but that administration did choose to ignore the threat -- Bid Laden Determined to Attack in the United States -- so that they could use the resulting tragedy for political gain. Dick Cheney got his Pearl Harbor, and all he had to do was nothing.

The Bush administration let 9/11 happen. They didn't participate in it. They just let it happen. And they would have done it again because letting 9/11 happen is why Bush got a second term and was able to implement all his evil policies. For Republicans, 9/11 is the best thing they could hope for and given a chance to prevent it, they wouldn't.

Dan8267 says

The Professor says

The real war is on liberty.

True. 9/11 was an excuse the government used to demolish even basic human and civil rights. The Bush administration didn't use explosives to bring down any buildings, but that administration did choose to ignore the threat -- Bid Laden Determined to Attack in the United States -- so that they could use the resulting tragedy for political gain. Dick Cheney got his Pearl Harbor, and all he had to do was nothing.

The Bush administration let 9/11 happen. They didn't participate in it. They just let it happen. And they would have done it again because letting 9/11 happen is why Bush got a second term and was able to implement all his evil policies. For Republicans, 9/11 is the best thing they could hope for and given a chance to prevent it, they wouldn't.

That's pretty much how I see it - Occam's razor.

mell says

That's pretty much how I see it - Occam's razor.

yeah, I wouldn't put it past them "letting" it happen.

Not necessarily the whole suicide plane part, but the hijackings themselves, since in the past arab extremist hijackings were resolved without too much brouhaha, maybe a passenger or two killed, no biggie.

In this thesis, perhaps the "Truther" movement is counter-intelligence intended to 'poison the well' here about actual admin culpability.

Not that people aren't crazy enough to gin up this stuff on their own.

The Professor says

Does anyone remember the anthrax attacks?

I was thinking about this the other day. The FBI tortured Irvin into suicide by leaking all kinds of personal things that he did or wrote without charging him, but it was an entirely circumstantial case. They searched his house and effects countless times but never could match the time frame and batches he worked with with the samples from the letters. They had all the samples from the letters, samples from the labs, and abundant records, plus years to analyze them, but could never tie the batches he worked with nor any of his effects to the anthrax letters.

At one point they were going to write him off as a suspect but I believe political pressure "to find somebody, anybody", led them to simply harass Irvin constantly in hopes he would go nuts and have a meltdown, which would make him look guilty.

Remember Richard Jewell, the security guard at the Olympics? What happened to him reminds me of what happened to Irvin. The FBI and the newsmedia slandered his ass for months, leaked all kinds of personal shit, but he turned out to be 100% innocent; it was Eric Rudolph who did it (and, in fact, called in the bomb threat 10 minutes AFTER Jewell found the bag and notified the authorities) I believe he sued them and won.

The Professor says

Does anyone remember the anthrax attacks?

Yeah, the terrorist attacks that happened after 9/11 which give lie to the Republican talking point that "Bush kept us safe after September 11".

finehoe says

"Bush kept us safe after September 11".

Like Obama prevented a Depression and created Jobs.

Feed 'em beans and fuck 'em up the ass, American people will believe anything.

As open-minded as ever I see.

The Professor says

Even some of the investigators admitted that they did not believe the results
of the report

Can you provide the quotes?

The Professor says

All I hope to achieve from this thread is to inform more people of the controversy and make an attempt at debating the deniers.

Debate the deniers? What on Earth does that mean? You and your ilk are the deniers. And you have already long ago drawn your conclusions. You always trot out this line about being open and interested in the debate, etc. etc. No, you aren't. Your posts show that to be a lie. You are a conspiracist. You are just trying to give yourself a bit of credibility, but you are clearly being disingenuous, so it actually gives you less.

The Professor says

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/10/former-nist-employee-blows-whistle.html

There are no quotes in that link. It is an anonymous redacted email on a blog. Pretty much worthless.

When you say the investigators admitted that they did not believe the results, I'd expect an attributed quote from a prominent investigator.

I'll assume you were exaggerating again...

I know everything.
I don't have any inclination to post any facts to educate those with lesser knowledge. LOL

upisdown says

History tells you everything you need to know. You're focusing upon detailed specifics instaed of charactoristics of every major event in the last 100 years.

This is the right approach. Do not keep arguing about unanswered questions until the end of times. Read WG Tarpley's " Synthetic Terror Made in USA", the most profound study of 9/11. If you have time check out Dimitri Khalezov_9_11 the third truth. Learn.

The Professor says

I could say, "Anyone who believes that steel frame buildings can pulverize themselves by office fires is an idiot", But I don't.

The problem with saying that would be, it's a strawman argument. When steel is heated, it becomes easier to bend, as anyone can see. That fact has been known since ancient times, and yet 9/11 conspiracy theorists overlook it. When you heat trusses and columns that have a lot of weight on them, they can bend and collapse. There is no need for explosives, conspiracies, or anything else, just heat.

you may think that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel.....

but what about the stuff they put in the jets to make those "Chem trails" who knows what's in that stuff or how hot it burns ..

Alex Rademacher says

jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel

The steel did not need to melt, it needed only to weaken enough to bend under the weight from above. Once the bending started, there was no way to stop the collapse. That's why steel buildings always have fire insulation, although alas the twin towers did not have good enough fire insulation on 9/11.

curious2 says

The steel did not need to melt, only weaken enough to bend under the weight from above.

At which point all the pillars in the basement got blown up in both WTC towers and the entire building disintegrated into dust!

Weakened steel does not blow the columns or disintegrative steel or concrete.

BULLSHIT!

Never in history before 2001 have three buildings that were concrete steel reinforced crumbled due to fire

NEVER! NEVER! NEVER!

But you are supposed to believe it like the sheople you are.

curious2 says

That's why steel buildings always have fire insulation, although alas the twin towers did not have good enough fire insulation on 9/11.

Is that why the grey smoke was billowing out of the building due to the fire suppression systems kicking in , WHAT FIRE! confirmed by fireman on the scene!

The NASA recorded temperature was not hot enough to do whatever these morons are claiming.

And don't forget the billions in gold and silver bullion that just vanished!!!!!

curious2 says

Once the bending started, there was no way to stop the collapse.

Bending is not splintering, shredding or disintegrating, is it!

What do you think the odds of 3 buildings that caught fire collapse into perfect pancakes?

It is PHYSICALLY impossible and mathematically improbable. These kinds of buildings have "NEVER" collapsed EVER! Some have burned for days and days without falling. Let alone fold into a pancacke straight down.

It's just too perfect.

Some people said here that the steel bent? well if it bent why did the building not bow , nope, it just fell straight down like a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

Why did the second building fall first? If the fire burned much longer in building 1 and according to some delusional logic that fire did it , Answer that.

It is proven the fire did not burn for long as the you think in the videos, we see tons of grey smoke due to the fire suppression kicking in. Fireman confirmed this.

Fireman also confirmed the explosions in the basement eye witnesses said it looked like molten lava down there, long before the towers collapsed and no fire ever reached them.

I see 'the professor' is off again peddling the same old crap. Wash, rinse, repeat. Surprise, surprise.

I was not aware of a fire raging there. No footage really shows that kind of thing, but I see your point. It just seems kinda odd. I thought it just was vibrated into failure. Was the fire due to the planes crashing or something else and it just happend to match the time frame of the crashes? That could have been the case. Totally serious questions here, not any type of bs.

WHat do you think about the straight drop vs a lopsides tip over for the big buildings?

Bap33 says

I also dont see why the towers went down in a tight footprint, instead of tipping over, like a pez despenser.

Bop69, I will think of this comment whenever you tell other people how to live. The towers didn't tip over like a tree, or if you prefer a Pez dispenser, because they were strong enough to resist the airplane impacts; each had been designed specifically to withstand a 707, an earthquake, and NYC's 100mph windstorms. The towers fell because heat from the fires weakened their structural steel until it buckled, at which point gravity pulled them down. As anyone with even a grade school education could explain to you, gravity always pulls down. As anyone who has studied even high school physics could tell you, when the upper floors of a building come down, they strike the lower floors with a force proportionate to the square of their velocity, in addition to their weight. Your inability to comprehend this fact, more than a decade after witnessing it in action, shows truly astonishing stupidity. What amazes me about ignorance is, the most ignorant people are the most blind to their own ignorance, and opine with arrogant certitude about how other people whom they've never met should be required to live their own lives. I count that as one of the costs of Bronze Age religions; people listen to a preacher, and if they feel like they understood the sermon, they feel like they know all they need to know, even though those sermons are a little short on science.

Bap33 says

I thought it just was vibrated into failure.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I suppose, since heat is a vibration, I will give you this one. Yes, vibrations in the form of heat caused the buildings to fail. Most people would call those vibrations by a more common name: fire.

I suppose retirement constitutes losing your career.

Bap33 says

I was not aware of a fire raging there. No footage really shows that kind of thing, but I see your point. It just seems kinda odd. I thought it just was vibrated into failure. Was the fire due to the planes crashing or something else and it just happend to match the time frame of the crashes? That could have been the case. Totally serious questions here, not any type of bs.

WHat do you think about the straight drop vs a lopsides tip over for the big buildings?

There's this thing called the internet that has videos like this on it:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U

Are you saying that doesn't look like a rather serious fire?

He was a tenured professor. As you aren't actually a professor, perhaps you should google how difficult it is to get rid of such employees. He was put on paid leave and shortly after that retired without fighting his case. That in no way shape or form constitutes being forced out.

And you don't look at the evidence. You simply keep repeating all your go to truther spiel. Unbiased indeed.