patrick.net

KILLERJANE says

I agree. Anyone who cannot believe it was a controlled demolition is just another media brainwashed human bot controlled by tv. It is common knowledge that buildings do not burn and completely collapse straight down to pure ash without the use of coordinated controlled explosives. Government used it to control people further and justify the murder of all those who died in the war aftermath. Many connected companies profited. The country is in shit shape after the Bush years. Go figure. O but obama is the antichrist? Of course. Whynot. And my grandma is superman. No really.

Saw this video: http://www.youtube.com/embed/ho6DCYggFKo

Which shows the steel buckling where the aircraft hit... agreeing with the NIST...

However, it still looks like the building collapsed at the bottom and went straight down - instead of the top buckling over and falling to the side.

Buildings this tall, falling perfectly straight down?

coriacci1 says

no discussion? no counter arguments?

Oh, I'm sorry - did you make an argument that someone could counter? I sure haven't seen anything. You haven't said much of anything.

Many people still do not Realize Building 7 dropped in a free fall demolition at 5 thirty in the Afternoon in a classic Controlled Fashion.

No it didn't. If you believe it did, then prove it to our satisfaction.

Why did building 7
come down? it was'n hit by anything

Yes it was. It was hit by falling pieces of the North tower. It burned, and then it collapsed. If you believe otherwise, then prove it.

Why are these the only steel structure building in the world to have collapsed from fire at free fall speed?

They're not. If you believe otherwise, prove it.

Finished. The ball is in your court.

KILLERJANE says

It is common knowledge that buildings do not burn and completely collapse straight down to pure ash without the use of coordinated controlled explosives.

"Common knowledge"? That's your proof?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

proffer says

Anyone who cares to think realizes that building 7 came down in a controlled demolition.

Because why?.........

Homeboy says

proffer says

Anyone who cares to think realizes that building 7 came down in a controlled demolition.

Because why?.........

Perhaps because he's a dim-witted 911 conspiracy theorist?

Homeboy, To answer your question, because I saw the news footage. There was no visible damage to the exterior of the building from any debris. Also in the news video are barely visible spots of fire in only a few of the building's windows. Then you see it collapse in freefall from top to bottom in a completely controlled fashion. What did you think of the news footage, Homeboy? Did it look to you as if fire ravaged the building? Or that pieces of the towers compromised any part of the building?

proffer says

Homeboy, To answer your question, because I saw the news footage. There was no visible damage to the exterior of the building from any debris. Also in the news video are barely visible spots of fire in only a few of the building's windows. Then you see it collapse in freefall from top to bottom in a completely controlled fashion. What did you think of the news footage, Homeboy? Did it look to you as if fire ravaged the building? Or that pieces of the towers compromised any part of the building?

That may fit your requirements but directly contradicts the known facts.

coriacci1 says

Who dunnit? Who benefits? How did those towers come down?

Well Agent Mulder its a mystery to me !

The Kennedy assassination conspiracy books dried up.. so the same people have a new gig, a new conspiracy to pound on, new way of making a living
... but they still use the same questions. Yes.. idiots with nothing else to do benefit.

proffer says

Homeboy, To answer your question, because I saw the news footage. There was no visible damage to the exterior of the building from any debris. Also in the news video are barely visible spots of fire in only a few of the building's windows. Then you see it collapse in freefall from top to bottom in a completely controlled fashion. What did you think of the news footage, Homeboy? Did it look to you as if fire ravaged the building? Or that pieces of the towers compromised any part of the building?

If there was no damage, then why was the building burning? How do you know how much fire was inside the building? Why would you expect to see all the flames OUTSIDE of the building? Can you scientifically prove that there wasn't a big enough fire to weaken the structure of the building and cause it to collapse? What's your evidence of that? Just your gut feeling? Firefighters reported that the building was damaged long before it collapsed. Are we supposed to take your word, based on some grainy news footage you saw 11 years ago, over that of professional firefighters? I don't think so.

What is your scientific basis for your pronouncement of what constitutes a "controlled" collapse vs. a non-controlled collapse? Are you an expert on the physics of building collapses? You are comparing this "controlled" collapse to what? Have you seen other attacks where terrorists flew planes into skyscrapers and they didn't fall down vertically? Since gravity works vertically, wouldn't you expect heavy objects to fall vertically, as opposed to up or sideways? You are taking a unique event you saw on television and claiming it "should" have happened differently. You skipped a step. First, prove what it "should" have done. Prove that steel buildings behave a certain way when their structural members are damaged and weakened by fire, prove that this is true in ALL cases, and then demonstrate how WTC 7 did not behave in this way. Otherwise, you're just talking out of your ass.

please name steel structure building which collapsed after fire.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/e-wE2yppTDI

joshuatrio says

Buildings this tall, falling perfectly straight down?

They didn't fall perfectly straight down. The video you posted shows nothing, only smoke, but there is another video that clearly shows the tower tilting to the side as it falls.

Contrary to popular conspiracy-theorist beliefs, tall buildings do not "topple" over to the side when they fall. They are very heavy and they fall not exactly, but essentially in a vertical direction. The towers failed near the top, and the immense weight of the structure caused each floor to successively collapse as all that weight bore down on it. That's how they fell. If you believe they "should have" fallen a different way, then you need to prove that. I don't see any reason to believe it just because you say so.

coriacci1 says

please name steel structure building which collapsed after fire.

Please answer all my questions. I thought you wanted a discussion. Or are you just a troll? As far as I'm concerned, your claims have no credibility until you answer all the questions I posted and prove all the points I brought up. And don't just post links to videos; use your words.

You do understand the expression, "the ball is in your court", don't you?

coriacci1 says

please name steel structure building which collapsed after fire.

was it 2 or 3 shots? did the magic bullet go through and turn twice at right angles?

One thing is sure...gravity sucks!

thomaswong.1986 says

was it 2 or 3 shots? did the magic bullet go through and turn twice at right angles?

More importantly, why did the CIA invent A.I.D.S.?

San Francisco, CA

... and someone wants to pay $1M for a shit shack in "that city", so they can go to some Lefty Meetings at a Coffee shop in North Beach... Smoke Pot (i mean medicine!) and argue how Bush was guilty of some crazy shit that created the attack on our nation.

Welcome to San Franpsycho ... when is the BIG One going to happen!

which steel structure building ever collapsed after fire was my question. simple, non techie. you gotta answer for me?

thomaswong.1986 says

and argue how Bush was guilty of some crazy shit that created the attack on our nation.

poor bush was as shocked as we all were!

Here's a physics lesson that maybe even pea-brained conspiracy theorists can understand. This is how tall things fall - towards the ground. They do not fall away from the ground. This is not a controlled demolition; they knocked it down by throwing things at it. Yet it still collapsed almost straight down. It did tilt a bit since it was hit much lower than the WTC, but even then, it did not topple. Note that all the fallen blocks were contained within a small perimeter:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/NBbz2eIoVDQ

The Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings

Based on the findings of Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was not caused by fire resulting from the crash of the planes:

In more than 100 steel-framed, high-rise fires (most of them very hot, very large and very long-lasting), not one has collapsed, ever. So it behooves all of us, as your own former chief of NIST’s Fire Science Division, Dr. James Quintiere, said, “to look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of these collapses.”

Let’s start with temperatures – 1,340° F. temperatures, recorded in thermal images of the surface of the World Trade Center rubble pile a week after 9/11 by NASA’s AVIRIS equipment on USGS overflights. Such temperatures cannot be achieved by oxygen-starved hydrocarbon fires. Such fires burn at only 600 to 800° F. Remember, there was no fire on the top of the pile. The source of this incredible heat was therefore below the surface of the rubble, where it must have been far hotter than 1,340 degrees.

Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., who was hired for the Building 7 cleanup, said that “molten steel was found at 7 WTC.” Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center structural engineer, stated that on October 5, “21 days after the attacks, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.” Fire department personnel, recorded on video, reported seeing “molten steel running down the channel rails… like you’re in a foundry – like lava from a volcano.” Joe O’Toole, a Bronx firefighter, saw a crane lifting a steel beam vertically from deep within a pile. He said “it was dripping from the molten steel.” Bart Voorsanger, an architect hired to save “relics from the rubble,” stated about the multi-ton “meteorite” that it was a “fused element of molten steel and concrete.”

Steel melts at about 2,850 degrees Fahrenheit, about twice the temperature of the World Trade Center Tower 1 and 2 fires as estimated by NIST. So what melted the steel?

Appendix C of FEMA’s BPAT Report documents steel samples showing rapid oxidation, sulfidation, and intergranular melting. A liquid eutectic mixture, including sulfur from an unknown source, caused intense corrosion of the steel, gaping holes in wide flange beams, and the thinning of half-inch-thick flanges to almost razor-sharpness in the World Trade Center 7 steel. The New York Times called this “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”

NIST left all of this crucial forensic evidence out of its report. Why? Because it didn’t fit in with the official conspiracy theory.

Last year, physicist Steven Jones, two other physicists, and a geologist analyzed the slag at the ends of the beams and in the samples of the previously molten metal. They found iron, aluminum, sulfur, manganese and fluorine – the chemical evidence of thermate, a high-tech incendiary cutting charge used by the military to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter. The by-product of the thermate reaction is molten iron! There’s no other possible source for all the molten iron that was found. One of thermate’s key ingredients is sulfur, which can form the liquid eutectic that FEMA found and lower the melting point of steel.

In addition, World Trade Center 7′s catastrophic structural failure showed every characteristic of explosive, controlled demolition. … The destruction began suddenly at the base of the building. Several first responders reported explosions occurring about a second before the collapse. There was the symmetrical, near-free-fall speed of collapse, through the path of greatest resistance – with 40,000 tons of steel designed to resist this load – straight down into its own footprint. This requires that all the columns have to fail within a fraction of a second of each other – perimeter columns as well as core columns. There was also the appearance of mistimed explosions (squibs?) at the upper seven floors on the network video recordings of the collapse. And we have expert testimony from a European demolitions expert, Danny Jowenko, who said “This is controlled demolition… a team of experts did this… This is professional work, without any doubt.”

Fire cannot produce these effects. Fire produces large, gradual deformations and asymmetrical collapses. Thermate can produce all of these effects used in conjunction with linear shaped charges. 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)

The following AE911Truth Video provides irrefutable evidence that the WTC center towers were brought down through controlled demolition.

According to David Ray Griffin: “The official theory of the collapse, therefore, is essentially a fire theory, so it cannot be emphasized too much that fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse—never, whether before 9/11, or after 9/11, or anywhere in the world on 9/11 except allegedly New York City—never.” (See David Ray Griffin).

According to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, based on solid scientific analysis and evidence, the collapse of the WTC towers was engineered through controlled demolition. While AE11Truth does not speculate on who might be behind the conspiracy to bring down the WTC buildings, they nonetheless suggest that the carrying out such an operation would require a carefully planned course of action with prior access to the buildings as well as an advanced level of expertise in the use of explosives, etc.

Do you know how to form an argument and communicate it? You are simply copying and pasting nonsense from conspiracy-nut websites verbatim. Did you forget that Google exists? I can plug in the text of your post and see that you stole it from another website.

Now why don't you get busy actually RESPONDING to my questions and the points that I brought up? You do know how to write sentences in English, don't you?

I thought you "wanted a discussion". Well? Where is it?

which steel skyscraper did you say was brought down by fire? you haven't mentioned a one.

Without any conspiracy theory there are some plane facts about 9/11:

1. There was no real congressional investigation, Bush administration actually blocked it. The members of the administration were extremely evasive while being questioned.

2. The day before 9/11, on 9/10/2001 Shah Massud the leader of Northern Alliance in Afghanistan was assasinated by two British journalists, which left anti-taliban forces leaderless. The assasins were extradicted to GB, declared members of Al-Qaeda, but no more information about them and the assasination ever came out.

3. I found it extremely unlikely that Osama bin Laden, the former agent on CIA payroll, was left unfollowed by CIA. Rather than considering CIA completely incapable, I would beliebe it had collected adequate information about his and his organization's plans and made it available to the decision makers in American administration.

4. The killing of Osama bin Laden and the top secrecy about documents found there look like a cover up operation rather than a genuine retaliation.

coriacci1 says

which steel skyscraper did you say was brought down by fire? you haven't mentioned a one.

The World Trade Center.

Please name all steel skyscrapers that were hit by Boing 767s full of fuel, had vital structural members and the fireproofing insulation destroyed, burned for an hour, and did NOT fall.

Now, are you going to answer any of my questions, troll?

You said you wanted a discussion. Guess you were lying, huh?

michaelsch says

3. I found it extremely unlikely that Osama bin Laden, the former agent on CIA payroll, was left unfollowed by CIA. Rather than considering CIA completely incapable, I would beliebe it had collected adequate information about his and his organization's plans and made it available to the decision makers in American administration.

Not the CIA, the FBI. They did present a memo to Bush on August 6, 2001, titled, "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S.", and specifically mentioning bin Laden's desire to hijack American planes. Bush didn't do anything about it because he's an idiot.

michaelsch says

2. The day before 9/11, on 9/10/2001 Shah Massud the leader of Northern Alliance in Afghanistan was assasinated by two British journalists, which left anti-taliban forces leaderless. The assasins were extradicted to GB, declared members of Al-Qaeda, but no more information about them and the assasination ever came out.

Damn, talk about making up shite. His name was Massoud. It was two days before. They posed as Belgian journalists, one was killed in the explosion, the other shot dead, and more to the point, what exactly do you think you are trying to insinuate with that comment?

coriacci1 says

which steel skyscraper did you say was brought down by fire? you haven't mentioned a one.

Very few tall buildings have had serious fires so your selection is pretty limited. Zero tall buildings other than the twin towers have been hit by jets traveling 500 mph and dumped with thousands of gallons of jet fuel. The WIndsor building in Madrid and Deft University technology building are off the top of my head as examples of collapses that I remember from the 9/11 stuff years ago.

Of course the tin hat crowd will find reasons that even though these steel buildings collapsed from fire they really didn't collapse from fire or they sort of collapsed from fire but not really, or they really collapsed from fire but it wasn't really really a collapse from fire, or actually martians did it, or it was the shooter on the grassy know or, or whatever it takes so their 9/11 conspiracy bs is still valid in their very small minds.

Bap33 says

why not give the crazy arabs some credit for having the ability to use the planes AND have some explosives ready to explode??? Why think "inside job" all of a sudden?? It makes no sense to give anyone else any credit. If the buildings were razed, and I happen to think #7 was, (insurance job) then why not let OBL have some credit for it?? Dude was quite the organizer.

Besides, if the crazy arabs did pull all that off, I would bet the saving-of-face issue would force the CIA to sit quiet and pretend. Maybe?

Too bad someone can't ask him about it.

Homeboy says

and the immense weight of the structure caused each floor to successively collapse as all that weight bore down on it

I just want to point out that the same weight was there all the time. It does not matter if the upper "X" number of floors are 1,000' high, or if they are squished down to 20' high, they still only weigh as much as "X" number of floors.

Auntiegrav says

Bap33 says

why not give the crazy arabs some credit for having the ability to use the planes AND have some explosives ready to explode??? Why think "inside job" all of a sudden?? It makes no sense to give anyone else any credit. If the buildings were razed, and I happen to think #7 was, (insurance job) then why not let OBL have some credit for it?? Dude was quite the organizer.

Besides, if the crazy arabs did pull all that off, I would bet the saving-of-face issue would force the CIA to sit quiet and pretend. Maybe?

Too bad someone can't ask him about it.

I am one of the folks that do not think OBL went swimming after a bath, some prayer, and clean shave - all after a two tap. I think he #1) was dead long ago, or #2) is in the WPP. I just don't buy his being killed and no physical proof given to the American public. Don't make sense.

I studied "911 truth" rather extensively years ago. I'll start by acknowleging that the subject matter attracts kooks and less-than-critical thinkers who trumpet sketchy evidence and implausible hypotheses with undifferentiated zeal along with hard facts and strong evidence. Alex Jones comes to mind.

The subject matter is serious enough to merit arguing with facts and proof of your own; leave the snarky tinfoil hat/moon landing remarks at the door or be taken less seriously than you are treating the OP.

Personally I have taken an agnostic point of view, awaiting new evidence that has not been forthcoming. There are a cloud of possibilites, from blindsided by it/official story; some neocon foreknowlege/let it happen on purpose; neocons planned it/made it happen on purpose. My own position is a percent chance of these and other theories; I am not beholden to a particular answer awaiting further proof.

I have many questions about the official story. Skeptics who have good answers to these are welcome to share; name callers have already staked out their positions.

Pentagon: large plane, small hole. Where is the footage of the plane coming in? What was on the surveillance tapes quickly confiscated from the gas station and hotel?

Shanksville: Were the alleged cell calls even possible with 2001 equipment? Where did THIS plane go, a small hole in landfill yet burned debris retrieved miles away; pics of alleged hijackers in airport don't match up.

WTC: It really does look like explosions happening below the collapse zone; blueprints appear to rule out compressed air from above. There are 1 or 2 pictures of WTC7 showing damage at the bottom; one looked almost certainly doctored to me. The collapse seemed planned. Much about Larry Silverstein beyond his "pull" remark- galvanic corrosion of towers necessitating dismantling, generous new insurance, also questionable stock and credit card activity.

Generally, PNAC documents, fake OBL pictures, Downing street memos, patriot act point to a conspiracy to cynically benefit after the fact. There was the means, motive, and opportunity for the neocons to "push" this event.

Count me as a serious doubter of the "official story" of 9/11. This is not the same as uncritically believing "conspiracy theories."

Bap33 says

I just want to point out that the same weight was there all the time. It does not matter if the upper "X" number of floors are 1,000' high, or if they are squished down to 20' high, they still only weigh as much as "X" number of floors.

Dude, you REALLY need to bone up on the difference between static load and dynamic load. You're just proving that you conspiracy nuts don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Automan Empire says

Pentagon: large plane, small hole. Where is the footage of the plane coming in? What was on the surveillance tapes quickly confiscated from the gas station and hotel?

I've seen the tape from the pentagon security camera on the web. It wasn't hard to find. I find it hard to believe you weren't able to locate it. Due to the extreme speed of the plane, the wings were instantly folded back and crushed, so the hole left by the plane was roughly the size of the fuselage. And this is the problem with you conspiracy nuts: You ASSUME silly things such as an airplane made of aluminum, plastic, and carbon fiber, when hitting a massive steel or concrete structure, leaving a cartoonish hole the exact size and shape of an airplane, with wings outstretched, without deforming at all, like in an old Three Stooges episode where they jump through a wall and leave holes in the exact outline of their bodies. You have no evidence that planes EVER leave such holes, yet you just ASSUME that they do, and use your incorrect assumption to promote your asinine theories.

The really sad part is that this has been explained time and time again, by experts, yet you would rather take the word of some nutball with a website.

Shanksville: Were the alleged cell calls even possible with 2001 equipment? Where did THIS plane go, a small hole in landfill yet burned debris retrieved miles away; pics of alleged hijackers in airport don't match up.

I too was initially taken in by a flashy website raising a lot of questions about flight 93. But then I started to realize the criticism didn't add up. I did a little research, and discovered that this "debris" found miles away was nothing more than charred bits of paper that had blown in the wind. Pics don't match up? Don't know what you're talking about. You'll have to prove that one.

WTC: It really does look like explosions happening below the collapse zone; blueprints appear to rule out compressed air from above. There are 1 or 2 pictures of WTC7 showing damage at the bottom; one looked almost certainly doctored to me. The collapse seemed planned. Much about Larry Silverstein beyond his "pull" remark- galvanic corrosion of towers necessitating dismantling, generous new insurance, also questionable stock and credit card activity.

Again, this is just the same old nonsense that has been debunked ad infinitum. But it doesn't matter how many times it's debunked, the conspiracy nuts keep trotting it out again and again. There were no explosions - air was forced out of the building as it collapsed. Have you ever seen someone play an accordion? What happens when they squeeze it together? Air comes out. This is no mystery. It's called air pressure. The rest is just armchair physicists who have no clue what they're talking about. It "looks" like it was doctored. It "seemed" planned. And "pull it" - that's so ridiculous it doesn't even deserve a response.

You got nothing - just a bunch of silly questions that have already been answered a million times. We're not making fun of you guys because you ask questions; it's because the questions have already been answered. A thousand years ago, it might not have been that funny if a person believed the Earth was flat. But if someone believes it NOW, it's funny, and they deserve to be ridiculed.

I'm gonna help you conspiracy nuts out. Before you embarrass yourselves any further, read this. It explains every one of your silly conspiracy theory questions. Save us all some time.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

I'm not a conspiracy nut my friend. I'm just playing along. Relax.

Homeboy is the person who insisted the world was flat when new data, that was not yet mainstream, found that the world was NOT flat.

Bap33 says

I'm not a conspiracy nut my friend. I'm just playing along. Relax.

No, you're just an idiot. I am quite relaxed. In fact I rather enjoy putting conspiracy nuts in their place. Did you google static vs. dynamic load yet? Be sure to get back to me when you do.

KILLERJANE says

Homeboy is the person who insisted the world was flat when new data, that was not yet mainstream, found that the world was NOT flat.

Um, you don't have any new data. It's the same old crap you conspiracy nuts have been harping on for 10 years. Maybe you should give us more of that "common knowledge" LOL.

where was the strategic air command?

coriacci1 says

where was the strategic air command?

Where exactly do you expect it to be?

I've seen the tape from the pentagon security camera on the web. It wasn't hard to find. I find it hard to believe you weren't able to locate it. Due to the extreme speed of the plane, the wings were instantly folded back and crushed

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The most important and secure building in the world, and the only video is 5 frames from a parking gate camera. I'm not talking about that video; we all saw it.

And no, the wings were not instantly folded back. I'm going to leave you there.