patrick.net

Squatting in East CoCo says

I am willing to be convinced that the NIST report is accurate.

That is the least true thing I have read this year.

These are controlled demolitions:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/eem7d58gjno

Do you see any that implode from the top down? Do you see any that don't make a very regular boom, boom, boom, boom.... sound before they fall? Did any of the WTC buildings make sounds like that? Your video contains several clips of people saying they "heard explosions". Do any of them say they heard multiple "boom" sounds, regularly spaced, occurring in rapid succession?

See, this is what cracks me up about you. You are obsessed on this conspiracy mantra that "no steel building ever fell before". You seem to be unable to fathom that it is the first time this exact series of events ever happened. Yet you unquestioningly believe that this was the world's first top-down controlled demolition, the world's first controlled demo in which the normal "boom, boom, boom, boom..." sounds can't be heard, the world's first controlled demo where at best, a couple little puffs of smoke can be seen, and the multiple bright flashes of explosions throughout the building are missing, and the first controlled demo in the world where the "explosions" don't even start until the building is already falling.

A whole series of things that, if they were really part of a controlled demo, have never happened before in history, and you happily believe it all, hook, line, and sinker. Things that never happened before can't happen... unless it fits your argument at the time.

Squatting in East CoCo says

It's not just me.

Nope, there are a few other kooks too.

Squatting - answer my question. If you don't think a plane crashed into the pentagon, what do you think happened?

Squatting in East CoCo says

It did not fall, it exploded!

What exactly do you think you are looking at? That video highlights a couple of little puffs of smoke many floors below the collapse AFTER the collapse had begun. Seriously, I want to know what you think that represents and how that equates to a controlled demolition. This video is evidence that there wasn't a controlled demolition... that the puffs shown occurred after the collapse had already started and that they are simply the downward force of air being expelled lower down the building. Really, I just don't understand how you can look at that and say 'hey, here's proof of a controlled demolition.' Mind-boggling.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Bigsby says

Mind-boggling.

My mind is boggled too. That is why I am continuing to research this topic.

I am still hoping to be convinced against the cover up.

Just look at the videos you keep posting. It's evidence against your controlled demolition nonsense. And I'm sorry Squatter, but the mere fact you keep posting these videos without explaining what you think you are looking at or addressing the very obvious problems with them can only lead people to one conclusion about what you are doing.
And if your research amounts to simply posting Youtube videos, then I think you need to refine your research skills. You mentioned you had a postgrad qualification...

Squatting in East CoCo says

Bigsby says

Just look at the videos you keep posting. It's evidence against your controlled demolition nonsense.

I am just getting the evidence out, pro and con CD.

You can make up your own mind.

I must have missed the evidence you posted up against a CD unless the rest of us are supposed to take your pro CD videos as evidence against that particular conspiracy theory. Works for me.

Squatting in East CoCo says

"Thermite is a mixture of powdered iron oxide and elemental aluminum which, when ignited, reacts violently at 4,000-4,500° Fahrenheit (F) – well above the melting point of steel or iron, about 2,800° F, producing aluminum oxide and molten iron. When free sulfur is added to the mixture, the iron melts at a lower temperature. Thermite with sulfur added is called thermate. Structural steel in contact with ignited thermate also melts at a lower temperature. Contrary to what NIST and others have claimed, the sulfur could not have come from gypsum wallboard, where it is an inert, chemically “locked” ingredient."

Squatting in East CoCo says

Can't you debate the evidence I presented?

For someone claiming to be a college "teacher" (I've never heard anyone teaching at a college level refer to themselves as anything but professor, very curious) you have almost zero grasp of what the word evidence means. You cut an pasted a description of what thermite/thermate properties are along with a sentence where an unknown someone claims sulfur cannot have come from gypsum. This is evidence of what? So anything anyone says that you agree with is evidence?

Squatting in East CoCo says

I have restricted my research to the internet.

That's problem #1. Doesn't your college that you work at or local town have a library? Perhaps you consider some books. Maybe if you read up on some of the subjects you would find out that thermite/thermate is very damn hard to ignite. It would be a lousy choice for demolition. It doesn't explode it burns, didn't you watch your own video of the thermite torch? So what would the booms be if thermite were used? It just goes hiss. If conventional explosives were used, even if enhanced by thermite, then where is the residue of the explosives? Chromotology will show conventional explosives. Where are all the thousands of detonators, not one single one was recovered.

You need to make up your mind about what the conspiracy was before you can present it. Thermite or explosives, the government did it to destroy records or silverman did it for insurance, bombs planted since buildings or just put in recently, the list goes on and on.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Only three steel framed buildings have ever collapsed from fire. WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.

No building before, no building after.

No building ever built like the wtc. You forgot that point.

Squatting in East CoCo says

It did not fall, it exploded!

I've been thinking about this. The truthers are very good with what but never can come up with how. So they just keep repeating what no matter how many times people ask how.

So the problem in your mind is that the buildings fell too fast so there must have been explosives on each floor that pulverized the concrete and dropped all the floors in a way that did not violate newtons' third law. I did a few calculations on that, it's very interesting.

Between 1,2,7 wt there are roughly 250 floors of offices. Each floor has 48 core columns plus 236 exterior columns for a total of 284 columns times 250 floors. That's 62,000 charges.

The standard charts for c4 calls for a 1" wall thickness column 24x24 to use 6.8lbs of c4 to cut through it. As per the wtc plans these columns range from 16x36 to 22x52. so the average size of the wtc columns is bigger than 24x24 so let's round up to 8lbs, that's very very conservative, 12 lbs would be more realistic. That means 496,000 lbs of c4 to secretly hump into the buildings. Thermite would be more weight than that. A substantial amount to carry in backpacks and briefcases I would say.

Then we have access. Each of the hundreds (or more) of offices in the wtc would have had it's own alarm. I've been in and out of a LOT of offices in NYC, they all have alarms. So the unknown "they" would have had to have the alarm codes for each and every office, gotten into the offices at least 62,000 times (assuming there weren't more than one column per office) without being seen by security. A pretty amazing feat even for the mission impossible crew.

Then "they" would have had access to the columns to place the charges. I would say going after the floor trusses was out since you would be talking about ripping up floors. So they had to rip out walls 62,000 times to get to the columns. Even better they would have had to have had exact matches to the paint/wallpaper or whatever wall covering in each and every office. So they would have to sneak into each office beforehand to get this information and then buy the correct supplies, matching the paint perfectly by eye. That is times 62,000 plus there is the weight of the supplies to think about also. I'm a pretty fast handyman. I could put a hole in the wall, patch it, tape it, blow dry the tape, paint it, blow dry the paint and clean up in a couple of hours maybe. Assuming there wasn't a lot of furniture moving. So that's 124,000 hours of work. Say you had 10 guys doing this it's 12,400 hours or about 516 days working 24 hours a day. Since you would be sneaking info offices you would have to assume 8 hours max or 1548 days or 4.24 years All without being seen by security or setting off an office alarm. That leaves silverman out since he only signed the lease 1 month before. That leaves bush out since he only took office 1 year before.

Then there were detonators. Assuming "they" weren't going to string 62,000 wires along the outside of the building "they" would need 62,000 radio controlled detonators. Obviously "they" would have to use some type of digital encoded signal for the detonators since using one that just checks a single frequency would present problems with premature detonation, a very big whoops. Where does one order 62,000 specialized detonators like that? Someone would notice something just a little odd about that order. Then there is the problem of keeping 62,000 batteries charged until you need them. And keeping the radio units from getting torched by the fire. There is no way either of these problems could be addressed that I can think of.

Looking at all this I have to say time traveling aliens doesn't seem so far fetched idea after all.

Any reasonable explanation how this could have all been accomplished? Ive never seen any on ae911truth, which is why I have dismissed them as crackpots.

Squatting in East CoCo says

bob2356 says

No building ever built like the wtc. You forgot that point.

All three?

All three had uncontrolled fires, why not?

Squatting - if you don't think a plane flew into the pentagon, then what do you think happened? I don't think you're really interested in this subject. Since you won't answer my question, I think you're just a troll.

bob2356 says

Any reasonable explanation how this could have all been accomplished? Ive never seen any on ae911truth, which is why I have dismissed them as crackpots.

C'mon, aren't you paying attention? It was magic super-duper thermite.

Squatting in East CoCo says

I really is a college teacher. My students call me professor but I don't have a PhD so technically I am an instructor.

What are you?

Back to the evidence.

Explain how quoting an unidentified source making a simple declarative unsubstantiated statement constitutes evidence professor. You clearly don't understand the term.

Why won't you answer my question, Squatting? Is it because you have no answer?

Squatting in East CoCo says

bob2356 says

That means 496,000 lbs of c4 to secretly hump into the buildings. Thermite would be more weight than that. A substantial amount to carry in backpacks and briefcases I would say.

Makes sense, it would require a half ton of c4 or an office fire.

You says it's explosives not me. So how much was used and where? Once again we have what but not how. BTW 496,000 libs is considerably more than half a ton. I hope you are not teaching math.

Homeboy says

bob2356 says

Any reasonable explanation how this could have all been accomplished? Ive never seen any on ae911truth, which is why I have dismissed them as crackpots.

C'mon, aren't you paying attention? It was magic super-duper thermite.

It's hard to pay attention, the story changes by the minute. I'm still betting on aliens.

Squatting in East CoCo says

bob2356 says

There is no way either of these problems could be addressed that I can think of.

Use your imagination. It is vivid.

Your scenario is plausible but I don't think an actual rigging for radio controlled demolition would require that much explosive. The official story says that without any explosives a fire could cause the building to collapse.

Is it beyond your imagination to imagine your secret "they" are masquerading as security, construction and maintenance workers?

I don't have to use my imagination, it's your theory tell me HOW it's possible. Tell me how you can keep batteries alive for years sealed up in a wall and how you can keep sensitive detonators alive in the middle of a raging fire. That dirty how word again. You entire theory falls apart when faced with how.

You think people shuffling in and out sneaking into alarmed offices punching holes in walls and repairing them so well that nobody noticed in the dead of night for years is plausible? Are you high?

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.

Do you even understand the difference between the words what and how? It appears that you don't.

Yes I believe fire could have weakened steel to the point of deforming allowing the floors to fall. Look at pictures of any large steel structure that has burned. There is tons of twisted deformed steel. That's without 300,000 lbs of burning kerosene and god only knows how much office stuff (chairs, desks, carpets, etct.) helping it along.

Still won't answer my question, eh Squatting?

Squatting in East CoCo says

SO it would require ALMOST HALF A MILLION POUNDS of explosives, or office fires, to make the buildings collapse.

You forgot about the plane. I think that might be important.

bob2356 says

Yes I believe fire could have weakened steel to the point of deforming allowing the floors to fall. Look at pictures of any large steel structure that has burned. There is tons of twisted deformed steel. That's without 300,000 lbs of burning kerosene and god only knows how much office stuff (chairs, desks, carpets, etct.) helping it along.

No way. Everyone knows that fire can't weaken steel.

Squatting 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.

Trolling in East CoCo says

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.

Squatting in East CoCo says

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:

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

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

Squatting in East CoCo says

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?

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.

Squatting in East CoCo says

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.

robertoaribas says

There is no debate.

professor? no debate? ce l'hai piccolo?

Squatting in East CoCo says

There was trace evidence of thermite.

There was earwitness and video account of explosions.

Squatting in East CoCo says

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.

Squatting in East CoCo says

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.

Squatting in East CoCo says

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.

Squatting in East CoCo says

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.

Squatting in East CoCo says

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).

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

Zlxr says

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.

Zlxr says

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.

Squatting in East CoCo says

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?

Squatting in East CoCo says

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.

Zlxr 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.

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.