patrick.net

Avatar says

"Do you believe what you can see with your own eyes, or do you believe what you are told?"

Avatar says

I really learned a lot especially when I look through some of the recommended websites by some of the posters.

Avatar says

I trust the evidence and logic of a very large group of trained architects and engineers

Avatar says

I go with informed opinion

Sounds like YOU believe what you are told. LOL.

Avatar says

This makes the NIST report look silly.

Have you even READ the NIST report?

Lots of people saw melted steel with their own eyes. Melted steel can't happen with normal building fires, or with kerosene

This is too easy, Avatar. Why don't you try challenging us?

0:01 “I'm curious, uh, about the, uh, pool of molten steel...that was found...in the...in the bottom of the towers.”

“Have you seen it?”

“Not personally.” FAIL!!!

1:01 “You get down below, you see molten steel” ← Who said this? A fireman? How did he know it was steel? Did he do a metallurgy test on it right there on the spot? FAIL!!!

1:14: “Who is this guy? What is his training in metallurgy? Who knows? FAIL!!!

1:35: “There are very sharp, but breakable shards on the end here” ← Steel that you can break with your bare hands? Um, that ain't steel. Did you hear they took “gullible” out of the dictionary? FAIL!!!

1:40 “This 8 ton steel I-beam is six inches thick.” And is it melted? No. What did the NIST say in their report? They said that steel did NOT melt due to the fires - “However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value.” Hmmm... your video shows a bent piece of steel. How is that inconsistent with the NIST report? Answer: it isn't. FAIL!!!

3:28 “8 weeks later we still got fires burning.” I thought the conspiracy theory you guys keep throwing around says it was a controlled demolition. Can you name any other controlled demolitions that resulted in fires that burned for 8 weeks? So how is this proof that it was a controlled demolition. It isn't. SUPER FAIL!!!

3:52 “Molten metal...” Did he say molten steel? No. EPIC FAIL!!!

Just because you see something that's melted doesn't mean it's steel. You got nothing. You lose.

Avatar says

"Do you believe what you can see with your own eyes, or do you believe what you are told?"

That video is ridiculous. What exactly do you think it demonstrates? It proves absolutely nothing of what you are trying to allege.

Avatar says

This makes the NIST report look silly. Lots of people saw melted steel with their own eyes. Melted steel can't happen with normal building fires, or with kerosene

Amazing, all the people in the video that saw molten steel with their own eyes and absolutely none of them thought to take a picture of it. I always liked the picture on 911truth.org that shows the group of firemen standing around looking down at an orange glow of "molten steel". Especially since the original shows them with their flashlights (edited out in the 911truth.org version of the pic) and the glow isn't orange, it's the white of the flashlights. Of course anyone who has done high school metal shop foundry work knows that they weren't standing around like that looking down at molten steel without getting 3rd degree burns. But why let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy?

Squatting in East CoCo says

A floor failure in a fire wouldn't (couldn't) have pulverised concrete into a huge pyroclastic flow and leave a nice little pile of rubble. There was a LOT of energy released in that DEMOLITION.

Wow, that's so cool. So the unknown, mysterious people who did the demolition didn't do an ordinary demolition that just knocked the building down, they did some kind of super demolition that pulverized all the concrete in the building. Very clever. That way anyone thinking that the buildings were demolished by explosives would be fooled by all the pulverized concrete. What did they use to pulverize all the concrete do you think? Holy Cow batman, that's why there was no explosive residue, they used an atomic bomb. Very very clever people. A HUGE pyroclastic flow, that's really cool also. Just curious, where did it flow to by the way? There's not a lot of downhill slope in lower manhatten.

http://www.wikihow.com/Use-There,-Their-and-They%27re

Ya gotta love how one of the truthers' arguments is the fires weren't that hot, and another one of their arguments is that the fires were really hot.

what does conspiracy mean anyway?

The earth is flat Batman.

I don't believe in conspiracy theories, but I would just like to have my mind put at ease.

-Why did multiple witnesses claim to hear multiple explosions before each of the twin towers came down?

-Building 7 was not seriously damaged, and was clearly not fully engulfed in flames. It housed all of the SEC's documents relating to investigations into Enron and other major corporations at the time. Why would it implode straight down?

-Why did the coroner that arrived on scene of the wreckage of flight 93 not find one drop of blood or sign of any human remains?

-Why is there not one single video capturing a plane hitting the Pentagon?

- How is it possible that not one single black box was recovered from either plane (2 on each plane) in the rubble at ground zero?

- How good of a pilot would you have to be to fly a 757 at close to its maximum capable speed, and bank a turn, and score a direct hit dead center of a building?

- What the hell was Dick Cheney talking about?

The list goes on and on...
I am really not one to believe in conspiracy theories. I simply think there are a ton of questions with no good answers.... or no answers period.

What's more hilarious is that you think Ockham had a razor....

Homeboy says

It's hilarious how one of you "disliked" Occam's Razor.

SoftShell says

What's more hilarious is that you think Ockham had a razor....

Looks like he shaved his head.

coriacci1 says

what does conspiracy mean anyway?

It's that thing you believe in.

Homeboy says

It's that thing you believe in.

you presume much.

coriacci1 says

you presume much.

You lie much.

Why would "they" need to bring down building 7? Wouldn't the two towers be enough? Wouldn't it arouse unnecessary suspicion? The two towers failed at the point of impact. (or did "they" know where the planes were going to hit and place explosives only below those points?)

Homeboy says

Down is the direction that buildings fall, because of gravity. If you knew anything about physics, you would know that it is actually more difficult to make a skyscraper fall over sideways than it is to make it fall down.

you know nothing of physics, obviously.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Er, you mean you trust the opinions of a group of architects and engineers who share your conspiracy theory as opposed to accepting the views of the vast majority who don't. Remarkable.

The vast majority, as you say, are stupid. Wake up. Here is the video that should put your little misguided thinking into it's proper place:

If you dare watch that video, you will see absolute evidence that the government was totally involved in 911. I dare you to watch it.

Gary Anderson strategicdefaultbooks.com

Oh for FFS, your proof is a Youtube video with 130 views of a couple of firemen in a state of shock trying to get a handle on what is happening. You really are stretching it, aren't you?

Squatting in East CoCo says

Please provide link. I can't find a single picture of an airliner hitting the pentagon.

So they blew up the Pentagon as well, did they?

Squatting in East CoCo says

Homeboy says

YOU are the one making an alleged scientific conclusion. Are you trained in building collapse forensics?

Homeboy, what are your credentials? Education? Profession? Are you trained in building collapse forensics?

I rather think you are missing the point.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Maybe. What is the point?

What exactly do you think Homeboy is basing his arguments on? And you?

Squatting in East CoCo says

Bigsby says

Squatting in East CoCo says

Maybe. What is the point?

What exactly do you think Homeboy is basing his arguments on? And you?

Internet Info.

What is the point I am missing?

He's referencing scientific reports. You and your ilk are using Youtube videos with 130 views.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Can you define and describe your ilk?

People who don't rely on Youtube videos posted by unqualified 9/11 conspiracists to form their opinions.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Bigsby

Do you believe the official story 100%?

Do you believe the engineers at www.ae911truth.org/ are 100% wrong?

I believe that your opinion that the WTC buildings (along with the Pentagon) were blown up as part of an inside job (with an enormous cover up ever since) is wrong if that's what you are asking me.

Squatting in East CoCo says

I don't want to believe it either.

Oh, I think you do.

coriacci1 says

you know nothing of physics, obviously.

Obviously I know more than you, which isn't saying much.

Look, this is very easy to settle. Those of you who are claiming that the "normal" way for a skyscraper to fall down is sideways, simply provide your scientific evidence to prove that fact. You are making a very specific claim:

YOU ARE CLAIMING THAT BUILDINGS CANNOT COLLAPSE VERTICALLY UNLESS EXPLOSIVES ARE USED, AND YOU ARE CLAIMING THAT THE TOWERS COLLAPSING VERTICALLY IS PROOF THAT EXPLOSIVES WERE PLANTED.

The burden of proof is on those of you claiming that something happened OTHER than what we saw in the video footage. I already posted a video of a very tall model tower falling, which shows that gravity causes tall structures to fall vertically. The principle is the same, whether it's a scale model or a full size building. If you believe otherwise, all you have to do is show us your evidence - EVIDENCE, not just somebody SAYING it. Just SAYING something does not prove it is true.

If you cannot prove that skyscrapers ALWAYS fall over sideways in the absence of explosives, then your point has no merit, and you have no business posting that nonsense here.

Bigsby says

Squatting in East CoCo says

I don't want to believe it either.

Oh, I think you do.

Yep, desperately.

bgamall4 says

You got better eyewitnesses??? I didn't think so.

You are reading into it what you want to hear. Ask another dozen firemen who were in the same place at the same time and you'll more than likely get 12 different opinions about what was going on.
Ask those same firemen today, in the cold light of day, what they think happened.
Ask them what they actually meant when they talk about 'explosions.' I don't see how that automatically translates into a controlled explosion except in the mind of someone who wants to hear that.
And there are a million eyewitnesses, and no doubt a million different versions of what happened, which is precisely why eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable.
And I'm not sure if I'm missing something, but didn't they say they escaped from the lobby? Isn't that the lobby that you lot think was rigged with explosives to bring down the building?

bgamall4 says

They cannot be pulverized into dust on the way down without explosives. There is some grey matter between your ears right? Think about it.

A. They weren't "pulverized into dust".

B. Explosives don't pulverize buildings into dust anyway.

C. Prove that skyscrapers always fall down sideways, or shut up.

"Think about it" is not proof. That's very weak.

But it did make clouds of dust. You obviously have no clue how heavy a 110 story building is, or how much energy is released when it falls. It's not like when you play with your legos.

bgamall4 says

If you dare watch that video, you will see absolute evidence that the government was totally involved in 911. I dare you to watch it.

Wait. Are you saying the building was undergoing a controlled demolition, the firemen were INSIDE the building as the explosive charges were detonated, and they got out alive? You actually believe that, huh?

Man, you are even dumber than I thought.

O.K, I think I'm starting to understand what happened. Apparently, Enron hired some hijackers to fly planes into buildings, but they also planted thousands of pounds of explosives in the buildings, because they wanted to make it look like the planes made the buildings fall down. Except they demolished the buildings in a very precise, controlled way, so it didn't actually look like the planes did it. I'm not sure why they wanted it to look controlled if they were trying to make it look like it was uncontrolled, but apparently they just did that for no particular reason. Oh, and they planted explosives in one of the buildings but didn't fly a plane into it. Again, it's not clear why they would leave huge clues like that for us to discover and figure out their plot, but I guess we shouldn't question that.

Oh, but also, the hijackers learned on small planes, so they didn't actually know how to fly a passenger jet well enough to crash it into a building, so maybe the planes were some sort of illusion or remote-controlled or something. And they also crashed another plane into the ground, also for no particular reason, I guess. But maybe that one was an illusion also. And then they blew a hole in the side of the pentagon and said a plane flew into it, but they forgot to make the hole the right size. So they wanted us to see planes flying into the twin towers, but they DIDN'T want us to see a plane flying into the pentagon, even though they wanted us to think it did, so they confiscated all the film (apparently there are a whole bunch of movie cameras pointing at the pentagon at all times). Also they somehow got ahold of every tape made that day and cleverly erased the sound of deafening explosions that would be heard during a controlled demolition, but somehow managed to leave all other sounds on the tape.

Yes, that makes perfect sense. You guys are geniuses.

What are you talking about Homeboy? They weren't planes, they were missiles. I saw it on a Youtube video.

homeboy says:

Obviously I know more than you, which isn't saying much.

obviously you missed that paragraph in your 8th grade physics textbook on resistance and free fall speed, huh?

That was 3rd grade physics at my school.
What sort of developmental disabilities did you inherit?

coriacci1 says

obviously you missed that paragraph in your 8th grade physics textbook on resistance and free fall speed, huh?

WTC 7 imploded [collapsed in on itself]. The entire upper part of WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet. That means all the supporting structure was removed in a precisely controlled manner. This video is enough for a reasonable objective person.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=p3uUQUZQC_A&NR=1
If you need more:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/hZEvA8BCoBw

SoftShell says

That was 3rd grade physics at my school.
What sort of developmental disabilities did you inherit?

thank you for highlighting one of the myriad benefits of a"good catholic school" education.

coriacci1 says

You have overwhelming evidence.

you also had then mayor of san francisco, willie brown, receive a warning not to take his flight to ny next morning.

bgamall4 says

Silverstein said they were going to pull WTC7. Get it man!

If it was supposed to be a secret conspiracy, why would he later publicly admit to it? Could you at least explain that?

Also, how many people were involved in this conspiracy? So far we seem to have Bush, Cheney, Enron, Silverstein, Chevron, Saudi Arabia, Warren Buffet, David Boren, Unocal, PNAC, and presumably all the security and maintenance people at the World Trade Center and the pentagon.

Would it be easier if I asked who WASN'T in on the conspiracy?

robertoaribas says

since a controlled demolition is only about 10,000 times harder than a simple destructive event, (not to mention taking months to set up with people drilling and wiring it up... and leaving tons of evidence of your plot] It would make zero sense to any terrorist ever.

THEN, if you are going to bomb the building, why bother with the slightly difficult part of hijacking planes and flying them into them?

Maybe they're like James Bond villains, where they give away their whole secret plot and then leave Bond in a position where he can escape.