patrick.net

Trolling in East CoCo says

bob2356 says

So how much explosive do the experts at ae911truth actually believe was used and how long would it have taken to place. I haven't them discuss it. You keep saying what but never how.

One step at a time.

I'm only going to live another 40 years or so. Can you possibly speed up the process. You keep saying there had to be explosives or thermite or both on every floor to obey newtons law's. So HOW did it get there?

300,000 lbs was a typo. 30,000 lbs is the number thrown around a lot. which is a hell of a lot of jet fuel.

563

Homeboy 2012 Oct 3, 12:07pm

I am a troll. I pretend that I'm interested in what happened on 9/11, but I ignore people when they ask me questions and just keep cutting and pasting drivel from conspiracy websites.

564

Homeboy 2012 Oct 3, 3:40pm

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/aluminum/Aluminum_Glows.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5d5iIoCiI8g

A whole video based on the "fact" that molten aluminum doesn't glow. Only problem is that molten aluminum DOES glow:

Oops, so much for your stupid video. These nutballs don't care about the truth at all.

565

Homeboy 2012 Oct 3, 4:58pm

You Can't Violate Newtons laws!

God, this just gets dumber and dumber. The WTC wasn't a solid cube; why would he do experiments with solid cubes of ice? And in the videos of buildings falling, the thing that arrests the fall of the building is THE GROUND - which actually proves that solid objects (like the ground, and cubes of ice) do not behave the same way in collisions as non-solid objects (like the framework of a building). OF COURSE the buildings in the video do not continue to collapse - the entire upper sections of the buildings stayed together as a single unit and only fell a few stories before reaching the ground. The WTC towers actually look quite similar when they begin falling - the upper portions remain together as a unit - the difference is the great distance that they fell. By the time the upper portions got all the way to the ground, there was a huge amount of energy which easily reduced the upper floors to rubble. Those buildings in the stupid video fell what looks like about 5 floors or so. The WTC towers fell, what, like 80 floors? Do you really think those are analogous situations?

566

Homeboy 2012 Oct 4, 7:01am

bgamall4 says

It cannot collapse steel. That has no known examples ever before. Nice try though.

There have been no known examples of controlled demolitions with nanothermite, or top-down controlled demolitions.

I'd say "nice try", but your try was actually pretty weak.

567

Homeboy 2012 Oct 4, 7:14am

This is why we have to have an investigation.

Copout.

If you see what you think is a problem with the official explanation, you claim it's proof that the official explanation is wrong. But if there's a problem with YOUR explanation, you just shrug it off and change the subject. By your own standard, the fact that you can't explain how they got the explosives in there PROVES that your whole theory is wrong.

There was trace evidence of thermite.

Wrong. That nonsense has been debunked.

There was earwitness and video account of explosions.

There were certainly some noises, but none that would be consistent with a controlled demolition. And the only explosions on video are the fuel igniting when the planes crash, and explosions of air out of the windows as the building collapses.

You even cited a source who claims thermite was used, specifically because there WEREN'T sounds of explosions. So which is it: did they use standard explosives or did they use thermite? Those 2 theories are not consistent with each other.

WTC7 fell in a manner which defied physics.

Nonsense. The WTC was not a solid block of ice.

568

coriacci1 2012 Oct 4, 12:05pm

robertoaribas says

There is no debate.

professor? no debate? ce l'hai piccolo?

569 bob2356 2012 Oct 4, 3:17pm

There was trace evidence of thermite.

There was earwitness and video account of explosions.

Debate the evidence.

What evidence? You are presenting two opposing ideas but are so lacking in critical thinking and logic you totally fail to understand the implications. Thermite doesn't explode it burns. You posted the video showing burning thermite cutting steel. You posted the video showing people claiming to hear explosions. This contradiction is supposed to be evidence enough to spend millions on a new investigation? You allegedly teach at a college level? Never happened. I doubt you could qualify to teach at pre school.

As a person with great concern for my fellow man I would respectfully suggest it is time to wean yourself off the coke or speed (the twin pillars of paranoia) habit. You "debate" is clear evidence that drugs are very bad thing for your mind. Go to rehab and maybe you can regain some short term memory.

Now that your "debate" has come down to repeating the same 4 sentences in every post I am bowing out. Pulling your chain was amusing, but you've run out of steam.

570

Homeboy 2012 Oct 4, 4:28pm

actually I have homeboy on ignore, I found him way too annoying

Translation: You weren't able to answer my questions, so you just ignored them.

You have no interest in debating. You haven't responded to any of the really great points made by Bob, Roberto, and others. You just keep posting the same shit over and over. I think it's likely you ARE on drugs. Either that or you have severe ADD, autism, or paranoid delusions. I'm not sure exactly what your problem is, and frankly I don't really care. If you really are teaching at college level, you should be immediately fired.

571

Bigsby 2012 Oct 4, 4:32pm

bob2356 says

Thermite doesn't explode it burns.

"If the thermate is formed into ultra-fine particles, as has been accomplished at Los Alamos National Laboratory, it is called super-thermate, and is very explosive".(Richard Gage, January 2008)

Then show a video of a controlled demolition occurring at the point where the two planes hit (remarkable, don't you think?). You know, one with multiple explosions at the same level all the way around the structure of the buildings. That's what occurs in the videos you show of controlled demolitions of other buildings. But apparently, a couple of puffs of smoke many floors below the point of collapse AFTER the collapse had begun is what passes for evidence (to you) of a CD of the WTC buildings. Funny that.

572 bob2356 2012 Oct 4, 5:41pm

bob2356 says

Thermite doesn't explode it burns.

"If the thermate is formed into ultra-fine particles, as has been accomplished at Los Alamos National Laboratory, it is called super-thermate, and is very explosive".(Richard Gage, January 2008)

Does Richard Gage (the founder of ae911truth.org) ever talk about how (oh god the how word again) someone came to be in possession of very large quantities of a substance that seems to have only existed in experimental quantities in military labs at the time of 9/11. I know he's been asked, but there has never been a response. Did you see one?

Here is an great article about nano technology. ammtiac.alionscience.com/pdf/AMPQ6_1.pdf It talks about the developments in nano technology including nano thermite currently under research in the labs as well as possible FUTURE applications. The issue is spring 2002.

Can you find any actual evidence other than Richard Gage says so that nanothermite is explosive. The published numbers for copper-oxide/aluminum nanothermite 2400 m/s, for an iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite the type Gage claims was at the wtc it's 895 m/s. 895 m/s is not high enough to be considered explosive. 2400 m/s is barely in the range of being considered explosive. Tnt is 6900 m/s RDX is 8750 m/s. You need a minimum of 6100 m/s to shatter steel. At 895m/s there would have been NO explosive sounds. All things that are very conveniently ignored by Mr. Gage. I always knew the thermodynamics course I took would be useful someday.

Ok you can post your 4 sentences again now.

573

Bigsby 2012 Oct 4, 7:21pm

Bigsby says

That's what occurs in the videos you show of controlled demolitions of other buildings. But apparently, a couple of puffs of smoke many floors below the point of collapse AFTER the collapse had begun is what passes for evidence (to you) of a CD of the WTC buildings. Funny that.

What passes for evidence (to Me) for controlled demolition of WTC7:

a. There was trace evidence of thermite.

b. There was earwitness and video account of explosions.

c. WTC7 fell in a manner which defied physics.

a. That's already been discussed.
b. People hearing explosions does not equate to a CD. The video evidence you have posted clearly disproves your belief in a CD.
c. WTC7 fell in a manner that defied physics? Not being an expert on physics (just like you), I'll take the fact that only conspiracy websites argue that point as being proof that its collapse didn't defy physics (quite the newsworthy story one would think, but apparently not... I wonder why).

574

Bigsby 2012 Oct 4, 8:08pm

Zlxr, did you really just post that? Is it meant as a joke?

575

Bigsby 2012 Oct 4, 8:17pm

Bigsby - assuming you are right - why in the world should we build another sky scraper that could collapse if someone is dumb enough to start an office fire - or it gets hit by another airplane or a bolt of lightening?

It's now a proven fact that an old man with a laptop computer sitting in a cave can outsmart our defense system. You should be quaking in your boots or whatever.

Or whatever? Profound stuff.

I take it that you understand that what happened on 9/11 wasn't exactly a run-of-the-mill office fire because, apparently, you don't.

576

Bigsby 2012 Oct 4, 8:33pm

I see you have a problem deciding which side of the argument you are on. It's all about just arguing for the sake of arguing isn't it?

And being obnoxious.

A problem with which side of the argument I'm on? Er, no. And how was I being obnoxious? I thought I was being quite restrained given what you posted.

577

Bigsby 2012 Oct 5, 2:24am

a. There was thermite found in the dust.

b. The video evidence clearly has sounds of explosions. You can argue that they were not CD explosions but I see you are not argueing that there were no explosions.

c. According to NIST's official story a single unseated girder was quickly followed by over 400 structural steel connections per second failing. It was the only steel building to ever implode into its own footprint from fire alone. Yes, there was damage from the falling of the towers (not near as much damage as other WTC buildings that did not fall) but according to NIST the building would have fell from fire alone.

a. has already been discussed by other people a number of times, so what is your purpose in bringing that up again?
b. a couple of very small and random 'explosions' when a huge building is on fire does not, in any way, shape or form constitute a CD and to try and imply otherwise is ridiculous. Post up the video that shows a CD or stop peddling this line. As I know you can't, just stop repeating something that can clearly be demonstrated to be false.
c. what's your point?

578

Bigsby 2012 Oct 5, 2:27am

Bigsby says

Zlxr, did you really just post that? Is it meant as a joke?

He's mocking the official theory of how office fires deformed steel.

I rather thought he just posted something that came across as very foolish. Just look at the number of times he used the word melt in it.

579

Homeboy 2012 Oct 5, 3:57am

Trolling in East CoCo says

Well - according to your theories about how weak steel is.

1. cars that catch on fire should also melt or bend out of shape. Especially when it's a gas fire.

2. Gas stoves should be melting and or deforming the burners when cranked up to high.

2. car crashes and fires on bridges should result in the bridges bending out of shape and the concrete and asphalt exploding into powdery substances.

3. The replacement building for the World Trade Center should not be built. So any tenants stupid enough to rent office space are fools.

4. Self cleaning ovens should result in melting stoves and house fires, barbecues should self destruct and the legs on barbecues should become deformed and bend since you believe that steel conducts heat so readily.

5. Fireplace pokers etc. should deform and bend out of shape quite easily for those of you who like to play around with the burning logs.

6. Refineries should melt down when they have fires.

How is someone this stupid even able to dress himself? Seriously - I don't understand it.

580

Homeboy 2012 Oct 5, 4:18am

I don't see or hear any explosions where those steel connections are being blown out. Therefore, not a CD. How many times do we have to say this?

O.K., you can post your 4 sentences now.

581

Homeboy 2012 Oct 5, 4:24am

Replace "melt" with "deformed" in zlxr's post and you might understand the mocking.

I posted a picture of steel deformed by fire just a little while ago, and you posted this in response:

Trolling in East CoCo says

Yes, "Look at pictures of any large steel structure that has burned. There is tons of twisted deformed steel." but not a collapsed pile. Unless it was part of a controlled demolition.

You ADMITTED that fire can deform steel in a building fire and now you are flip-flopping on that. Did you forget to take your Ritalin today?

582

Homeboy 2012 Oct 5, 4:40am

6. Refineries should melt down when they have fires.

You mean like this?

583

Bigsby 2012 Oct 5, 5:18am

Bigsby says

I rather thought he just posted something that came across as very foolish. Just look at the number of times he used the word melt in it.

Bigsby,

Replace "melt" with "deformed" in zlxr's post and you might understand the mocking.

I understand perfectly well what he's doing, and what he's doing is stupid.

584 bob2356 2012 Oct 5, 6:24am

From my research I have found thermite is used for cutting steel not "to shatter steel". Are you argueing that thermite cannot cut down a steel beam?

Where did you study thermodynamics?

So you are admitting that you now understand (as everyone has been trying to explain to you for ages) that thermite cuts steel by melting it with high concentrated heat not that it explodes and shatters steel like high explosives? Then what are the explosions you claim are thermite on the videos? That makes two of your 4 horsemen in direct conflict. Evidence? I think not.

I'm still waiting for you to outline the mechanism of the controlled demolition theory. HOW did people get tons of explosives and or thermite into the building, plant them in the walls, keep the batteries alive, protect them from fire, etc.. As an alleged college professor you are surely aware that a theory must have a mechanism to be valid. A real college professor would most assuredly know that postulating without explanation isn't science, it's just a bunch of male bovine feces. A real college professor wouldn't throw out a theory and then say use your imagination as to how it can be done.

University of Texas. I didn't say I studied thermodynamics I said THE CLASS (as in 1, meaning singular) I took because it seemed interesting and I needed another science credit. Pay attention please. I did look up the numbers on line since I can't find my old textbook.

Surely Gage could have looked up the same numbers I did, but chose not to. Very odd you would put such faith in someone that doesn't even bother to look up (or was very careful to ignore) established easily confirmed information that contradicts his grand inflammatory statements. I'm certain as a college professor you would have the back round to look this up for yourself also, but you also choose not to. Curious behavior for people who claim they only wants to get at the truth. I'd be very interested to see how much money Mr. Gage makes from ae911truth.org. You wouldn't have any involvement in ae911truth.org yourself would you? Hmmm. Follow the money.

585 bob2356 2012 Oct 5, 6:35am

How is someone this stupid even able to dress himself? Seriously - I don't understand it

I'm sure he's not stupid, just woefully ignorant. Not everyone makes it past 3rd grade. It's no shame. Please try to be understanding of people who are doing the best that they can.

586

Homeboy 2012 Oct 5, 1:15pm

The building also housed other secret and top secret agencies. Security was heavy and a lot of "extras" were built in including a "doomsday" device which was designed to destroy all of the sensitive documents in the event of an attack.

Construction began on WTC7 in 1984. The building was 570 feet tall, and had 81 support columns with 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns spanning from basement to roof. Each one of these columns was prewired with cutting charges designed to disintegrate upon activation.

In addition the file rooms of the building had large thermite bombs that would vaporize all of the secret documents.

The jihadist plane struck the first tower at 8:46 on the morning of 9/11. Panic set in after the second plane slammed into the other tower at 9:03. Almost an hour later one of the super secret agencies lit their self destruct bomb.

Meanwhile, Jack Bauer speeds towards the scene in his shiny new Ford Expedition. He knows he only has minutes to expose the government conspiracy and save the World Trade Center. Chloe manages to hack into the conspirators' computers and download the secret schematic showing the location of the thermite bombs. She quickly sends them to Jack's PDF. Will Jack arrive in time to disarm the bombs?

Pulling up to WTC7, Jack jumps out of the car, only to find himself in the middle of a hail of bullets. "Oh, no! More government conspirators!" shouts Jack. Using his cat-like reflexes and his his steady trigger finger, Jack makes quick work of downing all the conspirators while running towards the building. Entering the building, Jack locates the first thermite bomb. Suddenly, he spots Osama bin Laden in the corridor. Jack shoots bin Laden in the kneecap. As bin Laden writhes in agony, Jack yells, "Now you're going to tell me everything you know!" Between moans of pain, bin Laden responds, "Secret....conspiracy....Me, Bush, Silverstein....Enron.... Planned 60 years ago....explosives planted in all WTC buildings...." "Where's the detonator???", screams Jack. "I will not tell you, infidel pig". Jack shoots bin Laden's other kneecap. "Tell me, NOW!" "No, I will never tell you" shouts bin Laden. Jack puts a bullet through bin Laden's head and begins trying to disarm the bomb.

Suddenly, Tony runs in. "Jack, we have to get out, NOW! Silverstein just gave the order to pull it." Jack replies, "But I haven't disarmed the bombs". "It's too late!" Tony warns. Already, they can hear explosions. "How come we can hear explosions if thermite doesn't explode?" Tony asks Jack. "How the hell am I supposed to know? Let's get out of here." yells Jack.

Running out the door as the building collapses around them, Jack and Tony see George W. Bush standing outside, still holding his copy of "My Pet Goat". "So, you discovered my secret strategery to blow up the WTC. Well now you fellahs is goin' to Gitmo, 'cuz we can't have y'all blabbin' about this."

THE END.

587

Bigsby 2012 Oct 5, 1:21pm

Please don't ask me to "prove my theory". It's not a theory; it's my imagination. The proof is above.

Quite clearly the proof is above, but just not for your little piece of fiction.

588

Bigsby 2012 Oct 5, 1:26pm

Running out the door as the building collapses around them, Jack and Tony see George W. Bush standing outside, still holding his copy of "My Pet Goat". "So, you discovered my secret strategery to blow up the WTC. Well now you fellahs is goin' to Gitmo, 'cuz we can't have y'all blabbin' about this."

You forgot about Marvin playing with the CCTV joystick.

589

Homeboy 2012 Oct 5, 4:16pm

bob2356 says

I'd be very interested to see how much money Mr. Gage makes from ae911truth.org.

Ask and ye shall receive. That's a public record, and can be found at guidestar.org. You have to sign up to see their tax filing, but sign up is free.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Richard Gage, President and CEO
Berkeley, CA

Total Revenue: $434,526
Compensation for President Richard Gage: $80,652

Of course, I would bet you he's getting the lion's share of that 400 grand as well. After all, what expenses does he have? Paying $50 a year for the domain name for his website? Maybe renting a cheap office space in Berkeley? That's about it, right?

Dude's laughing all the way to the bank. I'm seeing him in a new light now. He's actually a fucking genius.

590 bob2356 2012 Oct 5, 4:20pm

Please don't ask me to "prove my theory". It's not a theory; it's my imagination. The proof is above.

Where above? At least know you are admitting 1 & 2 wtc were brought down by the damage from the planes. That's a start. The problem is 7 wtc wasn't brought down by explosives, Aliens did it.

***************

Time traveling aliens knocked down 7 wtc with a death ray.

*************

The proof is above. It's at least as good as your proof. Probably better.

I notice no denial about your connections to ae911truth.org. I think you are actually Richard Gage in drag.

591

Homeboy 2012 Oct 5, 4:21pm

Thanks for the input guys. I think we are getting closer to a plausible explanation for the controlled demolition evidence at WTC7.

I think you're getting closer to the nut farm.

592 bob2356 2012 Oct 5, 4:25pm

Are you argueing that thermite doesn't explode?

You are certainly are quick to grasp the obvious. Yes professor thermite doesn't explode. As someone pointed out the only way thermite explodes is if you mix it with lots of explosives as can be said about corn flakes.

593 bob2356 2012 Oct 5, 4:33pm

Dude's laughing all the way to the bank. I'm seeing him in a new light now. He's actually a fucking genius.

Wow, for 400k I could pitch a lot of bullshit with a straight face also. Not only is he raking in mega bucks but he's got an entire army of unpaid volunteers (like squatting) frothing at the mouth to shill for him because they actually believe what he is shoveling out no matter how silly it is. You are right, he's a fucking genius.

594

Homeboy 2012 Oct 5, 4:41pm

He's really no more than a televangelist, but the religion he's touting is The Church of Controlled Demolition.

595 bob2356 2012 Oct 5, 5:09pm

He's really no more than a televangelist, but the religion he's touting is The Church of Controlled Demolition.

I like it. The CoCD. Hucksters don't even need a tent or state fairs any more. Now gullible people seek them out via google. Progress is great isn't it? I do miss the striped jacket and top hat look though.

596

Bigsby 2012 Oct 5, 5:30pm

bob2356 says

Ok you can post your 4 sentences again now.

There was trace evidence of thermite.

There was earwitness and video account of explosions.

WTC7 fell in a manner which defied physics.

The official report neglected or denied the evidence.

You are a broken record.

597

Bap33 2012 Oct 6, 1:53am

@bob,
when I watch the few vids of WTC 7 going down, it sure does seem like a lot of destruction happens in many places at the same time. What I mean is, like, the roof didnt just collapse in the weakest area, or a side of finishing material didn't just flake off, of a window or two burst when the thing flexed ... it just sagged in the center, from front to back, and then went down, in, down, in, and looks very "smooth", for a lack of better word.

If the building lost it's integrity due to the ground being heaved, then a big earth quake would have done the same thing, and more important than that, there may be other buildings in that general area that have been stressed. Right?

Anyways, for me, it is WTC 7 that bugs me. I don't buy the interanl job idea, but the NWO / Rothchilds / Illuminati type of event trigger is possible, right?

598

Bigsby 2012 Oct 6, 1:58am

conÂ·spirÂ·aÂ·cy/kÉ™nËˆspirÉ™sÄ“/

Noun:

1.A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

2.The action of plotting or conspiring.

All of you deniers realize that the government's story is a conspiracy story too, Right?

Wrong.

599

Bigsby 2012 Oct 6, 2:08am