patrick.net

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

If I'm a wingnut, then what the fuck are you?

A guy who obviously trusts what I see. You still don't have video proving fires cause implosions. And, you are ignoring it and posting crap instead.

Gary Anderson strategicdefaultbooks.com

Every single one of the videos you've posted of the WTC buildings on fire shows footage of how fires can cause a collapse.

You, however, seem to be much more taken by videos that show a few puffs of smoke and then trying to make out that they are exactly like the videos of the CDs you've also been posting. It's just strange that they don't look remotely the same.

And you still haven't answered the two questions you were asked.

My God, you really do see what you want to see, don't you? The bloody 'explosion' happened after the collapse began. It's there right in front of your bloody eyes.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Bigsby says

My God, you really do see what you want to see, don't you? The bloody 'explosion' happened after the collapse began. It's there right in front of your bloody eyes

What do you suppose fueled the explosion?

What do you mean what fueled the 'explosion'? The building was on fire. The building collapsed. What effect do you think the downward draft had? And for crying out loud, controlled demolitions are very obvious and make a very loud noise. Show me the video that clearly demonstrates that because not one of those posted so far comes anywhere near it.

bgamall4 says

Yeah Homeboy. You are a boy. If you were a man you would man up and believe the truth.

Wow, what a convincing argument. You are a fucking genius.

I said there were regular demolitions, like WTC7 and the obvious top down demolition of the towers.

Oh, so they're not "controlled" demolitions anymore, they're "regular" demolitions. Those must be the kind that don't look anything like controlled demolitions.

Look at the videos and quite being so rude. When people huff and puff like you do they are out of ideas and are challenged. You are being challenged homeboy.

Um, yeah, right. You just backpedaled on the central thesis of your theory, that the videos allegedly look like controlled demolitions. And then you called me names. It's clear who's out of ideas.

bgamall4 says

Come up with the video that shows buildings on fire implode like demolitions? We are waiting and growing tired of your inability to provide proof of your position.

They didn't implode. They fell down.

Show us your proof that skyscrapers normally topple over sideways.

Also, answer the rest of the questions we asked you.

bgamall4 says

No, one was 480 feet below the falling levels.

No, it wasn't.

bgamall4 says

I have no idea what you are talking about. Skyscrapers don't come down by fire, period. Imploded skyscrapers fall into their own footprint unless the detonation is top down, like the two towers.

Again, good night Homeboy.

Good night? Dear me. You've demonstrated nothing but the paucity of your argument. You keep asking us to show a skyscraper coming down as a consequence of a fire. You keep posting videos of 3 of them. You cannot demonstrate otherwise. Nothing you have posted up comes even remotely close to being convincing. You have your conclusion. You see things that no right thinking person sees. You argue that is proof. It isn't.

bgamall4 says

Goodnight Homeboy. Get the proof of any steel reinforced skyscraper coming down like a demolition but by fire alone and we will talk again sometime. Otherwise, we won't, at least about this subject

Well, that's a problem. There aren't any other examples of a full jet plane tank of airplane fuel being poured inside of a skyscraper and then set on fire, is there?

Some fires burn hotter than others. There literally is no comparison.

bgamall4 says

The jet fuel could not cause pulverization of concrete above the floors affected by the fuel. You have no explanation for that pulverization. None

Hey--I'm no expert. I'd say an explosion might cause pulverization of concrete though.

It was defective chinese steel...
bgamall4 says

tatupu70 says

Hey--I'm no expert. I'd say an explosion might cause pulverization of concrete though.

That is what our point is. There were explosives preplanted in the buildings. You just made my case. Thanks.

Gary Anderson strategicdefaultbooks.com

bgamall4 says

Lol, Bob, I was working in a hotel and the guy had to spill his guts. I was the guy he spilled it to! But it changed my whole view of government back

Gee, there must have been at least 3 or 4 people left in the world by 2005 that still believed the war in Iraq wasn't about oil. It's pretty good thing this mysterious guy who was obviously had inner access to the highest levels of government found one of them to spill his guts to. Was is condi, rummy, or darth cheney doing the remorseful spilling?

Squatting in East CoCo says

Was it a lone gunman that killed JFK?

Yep

Did the North Vietnamese attack us?

No

Did terrorists bring down the towers?

Yes. In fact, this must be true by definition...since it was an act of terrorism, whoever did it was a terrorist. But the answer to the question you are trying to ask is: Yes

Did Iraq have WMD's?

No

Hope that helps.

Chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq had them.

bdrasin says

Did Iraq have WMD's?

No

bgamall4 says

Yet there is no example, nor will you find one on youtube video, of that ever happening before. The burden of proof is on you and you are not right thinking.

The burden of proof is on me? Are you mad? The burden of proof is entirely on you because you are the one making the outlandish claims. We don't have to prove anything, you do, and you have singularly failed in that task.

bgamall4 says

The jet fuel could not cause pulverization of concrete above the floors affected by the fuel. You have no explanation for that pulverization. None.

This is your mantra. You've repeated it over and over again. Humour me. What exactly do you mean by pulverization and what concrete are you talking about? Are you seriously saying that this 'pulverization' was caused by explosives? Does that mean you are saying every floor was rigged with explosives? I'd like to see that video.

It's just figuring out who the bigger terrorists are. What answer does the tv tell you?

KILLERJANE says

It's just figuring out who the bigger terrorists are. What answer does the tv tell you?

Just keep your blinders on! Common sense is a myth.

Says the person who gets his answers from Youtube.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Was it a lone gunman that killed JFK?
Did the North Vietnamese attack us?
Did terrorists bring down the towers?
Did Iraq have WMD's?

Remember the Maine?

I love conspiracy nuts. It's a perfect world they live in since no one can prove a negative. But I don't see any conspiracy in most of these.

Johnson had the information that NV didn't attack literally in his pocket when he gave the gulf of tonkin speech to congress. He just lied to go to war. Bush rejected any intelligence against wmd, of which there was a lot. He just lied to go to war. McKinnely read the reports that said no one knew why the Maine blew up and blamed the spanish anyway. He just lied to go to war. Bush blamed Iraq for 9/11 when he knew Iraq was not involved at all. He just lied to go to war part 2. Anyone see a pattern here? The president says this is reality as I like it and all the court jesters say yes sir. That's not conspiracy, it's just abuse of power for reasons of personal ego.

Or maybe McKinnely arranged to blow up the maine, Roosevelt arranged for the Japanese to bomb pearl harbor, Johnson arranged for the NV to attack the Maddox plus arranged for JFK to be shot, and Bush arranged to blow up the wtc. Let's go there, after all you can never prove it didn't happen.

bgamall4 says

That is what our point is. There were explosives preplanted in the buildings. You just made my case. Thanks.

Again--I'm a novice, but it sure looked like there was an explosion when the planes hit the towers.

In any event, here's a simple tip for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

SoftShell says

Chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq had them.

bdrasin says

Did Iraq have WMD's?

No

As far as I know, the only chemical weapons found were a few decaying shells leftover from before Desert Storm. But sure, I'll amend that to "kinda sorta, but not really".

bgamall4 says

A guy who obviously trusts what I see.

A perfect representative of the game boy generation. Analysis, logic, research, are all remnants of an irrelevant older society. Google gorilla in the room sometime to find out how reliable what you see actually is. Everyone that has ever been involved with the courts knows that eyewitnesses are amazingly inconsistent and inaccurate. Even prosecutors and DA's have called for more careful use of eyewitness testimony after all the research showing how poor it can be.

But of course the exception to this rule is that any eyewitnesses involved in 9/11 have perfect recall.

Yeah, I'm sure the million or so dead/maimed iraqs would agree with your "kinda, sorta" analysis..... you've redefined the term "blinders"..

According to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants — friends on friends, circles within circles — making an entire population complicit in his rule".[9] Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war.[10] Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000[11] to over 600,000,[12] estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000,[13] and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000[14] to 200,000.[12] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.[15]
bdrasin says

SoftShell says

Chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq had them.

bdrasin says

Did Iraq have WMD's?

No

As far as I know, the only chemical weapons found were a few decaying shells leftover from before Desert Storm. But sure, I'll amend that to "kinda sorta, but not really".

SoftShell says

Yeah, I'm sure the million or so dead/maimed iraqs would agree with your "kinda, sorta" analysis..... you've redefined the term "blinders"..

Ok, if you mean had Iraq under Saddam Hussein EVER had WMD, then the answer is of course yes. I was referring to the claim that Iraq had WMD in the run-up to the 2003 invasion; sorry if that wasn't obvious. Can I please get off this thread now?

Prove it.

bgamall4 says

The reason claimed for going into Iraq was for nukes.

bgamall4 says

The shower of concrete started as the towers came down. The shower of concrete only happens in detonations. It does not happen in fire.

This has got to be the silliest thing I have ever heard. I don't know what a "shower of concrete" is supposed to mean, but obviously there were clouds of debris emanating from the building as it collapsed. That tends to happen when things are crushed by 500,000 tons of force.

I think you need to review the NIST report. You seem to believe their position is that fire somehow broke the buildings into millions of pieces. That WOULD be ridiculous, but nobody has ever claimed such a thing. Quite obviously, if you're not a moron, the buildings broke apart as they collapsed, from the immense weight of the structure falling.

Have you ever seen someone break up concrete with a jackhammer? Did they need thermite explosions to do it? You really believe that an explosion is the only way to break concrete?

No, because you are still wrong.
Saddam hid them in Syria according to his own generals...

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/

bdrasin says

SoftShell says

Yeah, I'm sure the million or so dead/maimed iraqs would agree with your "kinda, sorta" analysis..... you've redefined the term "blinders"..

Ok, if you mean had Iraq under Saddam Hussein EVER had WMD, then the answer is of course yes. I was referring to the claim that Iraq had WMD in the run-up to the 2003 invasion; sorry if that wasn't obvious. Can I please get off this thread now?

A combination of 'scares'...u can't just pin it on 'nuclear'...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-wallechinsky/what-is-the-real-reason-g_b_11116.html

bgamall4 says

And remember, the WMD were chemical, but Condi Rice scared us with the threat of the Iraq mushroom cloud, remember?

bgamall4 says

The shower of concrete started as the towers came down. The shower of concrete only happens in detonations. It does not happen in fire. So, as you can see:

What were we supposed to see? The editor of the salem oregon newspaper talking for 4:19 and one 3 second shot of the wtc with someone flagging? What does this prove exactly? I'm confused. He says over 1000 architects and engineers. Out how many in the world? Homework assignment for you, what percentage of architects and engineers does 1000 represent of all the engineers and architects in the world. Actually it's only 999 since I signed up my dog as a chemical engineer with architects and engineers for 9/11 truth several years ago. He signed the petition also. I never heard from them asking to verify his credentials. Funny that.

Here is an actual engineering analysis of the concrete in the wtc. It's probably not for you since it isn't a video, you have to go old school and read it. Worse than that there is math involved, lots of math. Real engineers do math, not make videos. Even worse for your point of view, it points out that pulverizing concrete with explosives would have taken 600 tonnes per building. That's a lot of trips with a backpack. I looked up a couple of the equations in my old (very old I had physics a long long time ago) physics textbook and they seem to work out. I was just to lazy to check the sources named, but feel free if you would like. www.911myths.com/WTCONC1.pdf

bgamall4 says

bob2356 says

But of course the exception to this rule is that any eyewitnesses involved in 9/11 have perfect recall.

Glad your statements make you feel better. Go off now and enjoy your polyanna view of our government. Its ok. I understand. It would wreck your world view I know. Every studied Operation Northwoods? Basically the same MO as 911 to bomb US cities and blame it on the Cubans was stopped by Kennedy. It has been declassified. It is on record. It was a false flag that almost happened. You people are so foolish.

Gary Anderson strategicdefaultbooks.com

Yes I read about it when it was declassified in the mid 90's somewhere. There is just a small teeny, tiny, little difference. Northwoods was designed so no one would be injured or killed. To compare it to 9/11 is just absurd.

What does this have to do with the accuracy of eyewitnesses?

bgamall4 says

Bob, thousands of engineers believe 911 was a detonation. No, not 600 tons, because they used micro thermite.

And, remember, the guy in charge of the 911 security cameras was Marvin Bush, little known brother of George Bush. His replacement, not liked by the Bush family, lost his life on the first day on the job, on 911.

Check out operation northwoods and realize the generals already approved a false flag against the US. Only Kennedy stood in the way. W was no Kennedy. His daddy probably helped kill Kennedy.

George Bush Sr was in Dallas the day Kennedy was assassinated. He has denied it but there is proof.

Gary Anderson strategicdefaultbooks.com

Wow I'm impressed you read a 20 page engineering report with complex math in less than 2 minutes. That's just great. You are a fricking genius bar none.

Couple small problems with your post. There's no such thing a micro thermite, it's called nano thermite or super thermite. It's not an explosive on it's own, it's a cutting agent. It can be added to explosives to modify their properties. This has been pointed out to you before, but you keep posting it. Are you dishonest or just have a short memory?

Marven Bush was on the board of directors of one the security companies subcontractors, and left over a year before 9/11. By no stretch of the imagination could he be called in charge of the security cameras. This has been pointed out to you before, but you keep posting it. Are you dishonest or just have a short memory?

What percentage of engineers do your "thousands" represent? How many are actually verified as real engineers? Keep asking, but getting no answer.

bgamall4 says

George Bush Sr was in Dallas the day Kennedy was assassinated. He has denied it but there is proof.

There is a video? That seems to be the only acceptable proof to you.

bgamall4 says

bob2356 says

. Northwoods was designed so no one would be injured or killed.

Only part of Northwoods was designed so no one would be killed. While it is true that the aircraft was to be unmanned, bombings were also proposed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Gary Anderson strategicdefaultbooks.com

Wikipedia? Why not read the original? http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/ I was able to find it again in less than a second. After rereading it, it does propose to sink a boatload of cuban refugees (rescue isn't specified) or use a bomb to injure cuban refugees living in florida, but everything else specifies prevention of injuries or death. I guess cuban nationals didn't count as real people.. So how does this compare in any way shape or form to your theory that the bush admin murdered 2996 us citizens in 9/11?

bgamall4 says

No, there is a picture and an FBI memo

God I love this man. You make my day. One blurry long distance photo and a memo that was altered by a not very bright third grader is certainly proof enough for me.

I bet you think that Men In Black was a documentary, don't you. Keep up the great work, this is so much fun.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Read the article from 911 myths. What a complicated mess.

Yeah, it has all those frightening and confusing things like math, and facts. I know you're much more comfortable with videos that have lots of pretty pictures in them and scary music to tell you how you should think and feel.

Squatting in East CoCo says

I do not claim to know the truth.

And yet...

I notice you still haven't answered the questions that you've been repeatedly asked, bgamall4. Why is that?

Squatting in East CoCo says

Homeboy, You use big words, grammar, and spelling as if you have some kind of education. You spout authoritively as if you have some profession that gives you insight into physics and engineering.

I do have an education. Part of that education was learning critical thinking. That is why I don't just take some internet kook's word for it that 9/11 was some sort of huge U.S. government conspiracy when it has already been demonstrated that the things you claim to have happened are not possible. I have the ability to analyze the evidence and decide whether your theory is plausible. It is not. I also learned a bit about science and a bit about logic. I learned that it is neither scientific nor logical to simply assume a circuitous, overly-complex explanation for an event without any evidence to support that explanation. For example, I could assume that all the planets and stars in the universe orbit the Earth in an extremely complex pattern, or I can assume that the Earth orbits the sun. Without any evidence to support the former, the latter makes more sense.

I told you that I make no claim of special engineering knowledge. Did I stutter? Why are you having trouble understanding that? YOU are the one making claims that require knowledge of engineering and/or physics (buildings can't fall straight down, concrete can't be pulverized by crushing force, fire cannot weaken steel, etc.) I reject your conclusions; you have not proven your claims.

bgamall4 says

A picture is worth 10 thousand math equations.

Absolutely false. Your pictures have nothing to do with the claims you are making. You are attempting to apply a very simplistic, incorrect knowledge of physics and engineering to images you are viewing. Simply saying a thing does not make it correct.

I can show you math that comes from the thousands of engineers who know it was an implosion.

No you can't.

You, homeboy, have not shown me that skyscraper on fire that collapsed like the implosions. That is because none exist.

What's your point? Show me a skyscraper of the same type of design that got hit by a 767 full of fuel and DIDN'T collapse. You still have not shown me that. That is because none exist.

You have not proven that thermite charges were planted in the buildings.

You lose.

bgamall4 says

Grigsby, I provided a video that proved the fires in WTC7 were small.

I don't think you know what the word "prove" means.

bgamall4 says

Grigsby, I provided a video that proved the fires in WTC7 were small.

Strange, I posted a video... And here is the link to it once again:
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

Now bgama, I know you're a lover of videos. Does that or does that not look like a small fire?

And you are aware that fires usually start small and can... I guess not.

And you still haven't answered the questions.