patrick.net

Squatting in East CoCo says

I helped overhaul fast attack subs for the DoD. I was a marine machinery mechanic apprentice right out of high school. We refurbished all the mechanical systems on the boats. I specifically worked with the watertight doors & hatches (a lot of exotic alloys) and the freshwater systems crews.

So you learned metallurgy overhauling doors as an apprentice mechanic? Why not, it fits in with everything else you posted. So you are saying you don't know any more about metals than anyone else in all reality.

Squatting in East CoCo says

So you work as a fairy sprinkling magic dust?

Damn right. Beats spreading bullshit which seems to be your area of specialization.

Squatting in East CoCo says

On 9/11 three steel framed buildings were completely destroyed in a manner that defied the physics of structural engineering

OK. Now we're getting somewhere. Specifically, please outline how the destruction defied the structural engineering physics.

People with schizophrenia are often detached from reality, experiencing bouts of hallucinations and delusions all at the same time. The complexity of their thought processes can manifest on their handwriting as most graphologists have been able to identify characteristics unique of schizophrenic handwriting. Aside from being illegible, schizophrenic patients often use multiple languages or multiple writing styles within a single paragraph. Sentences that they create don’t jive together and capital letters are written in a way that doesn’t make sense. They sometimes write sensible sentences but within a few minutes or so, they go back to their usual writing style.

http://filipinonurses.org/index.php/2012/04/how-to-identify-health-problems-using-your-handwriting/

Squatting in East CoCo says

Go check out ae911truth.org they have lots of answers.
Also check out that video I have posted several times.
If that does not make sense let me know and I will post more evidence to help clear your misunderstanding.

That's not what I was asking. YOU made a statement that the collapse defied the physics of structural engineering. I'm wondering what, specifically, led you to that conclusion.

I don't want a link or a video. I'm looking for more for calculations and logical deductions.

bob2356 says

So you learned metallurgy overhauling doors as an apprentice mechanic? Why not, it fits in with everything else you posted. So you are saying you don't know any more about metals than anyone else in all reality.

lol .. dude, you said you know about NAVY because your dad was NAVY ... see any irony in this? lol

Bap33 says

tatupu70 says

That's not evidence. That's an observation.

Bap33 says

that is true. Does the WTC #7 building falling get your attention, or peak any interest at all? Just wonder what you think about that one.

I just reposed it because I think you just missed it due to the volume of posting.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Here you go. it is a video, but it is from a high school physics teacher who goes into the math and shows why the official report defies the laws of physics.

So according to this loser, the collapse doesn't start when you can clearly see the building begin to collapse; it starts when HE says it starts.

Next....

Squatting in East CoCo says

Attack my evidence, produce your own, and convince me with ideas.

signed, The professor

Can't be done when you don't have a clue what the word evidence means.

Squatting in East CoCo says

"More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.

The national survey of 1,010 adults also found that anger against the federal government is at record levels, with 54 percent saying they "personally are more angry" at the government than they used to be."

http://www.antiessays.com/free-essays/322811.html

Wow, people are more angry with their government after the Bush presidency, two failed wars, and a massive recession. I'm shocked.
It still doesn't say that a third believe in your bullshit controlled demolition theory though, does it?

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

It still doesn't say that a third believe in your bullshit controlled demolition theory though, does it?

It is more than a third, Gadsby:

http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

You keep saying things that are not true in between saying nothing. I think you are a conspiracy.

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? That doesn't say more than a third believe in your CD nonsense, does it? Try reading it again. Slowly.
And the survey means nothing in terms of the actual facts. Plenty of people are angry at the government for one reason or another and lap up all sorts of conspiracy theories peddled on the internet without having the vaguest idea of what actually happened. Rather like when some people feel qualified to deny global warming. Or evolution. Or...

Squatting in East CoCo says

Bigsby says

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? That doesn't say more than a third believe in your CD nonsense, does it? Try reading it again. Slowly.

And the survey means nothing in terms of the actual facts. Plenty of people are angry at the government for one reason or another and lap up all sorts of conspiracy theories peddled on the internet without having the vaguest idea of what actually happened. Rather like when some people feel qualified to deny global warming. Or evolution. Or...

Yeah bgamall, learn to read, and your spelling is attroshus!! And yYOUR GRAMMER Don't get me started on your GRANMMER!!!

AND KEEP YOU PERSONAL ATTACKS TO YOURSELF.

There really is evidence of a controlled demolition of WTC7.

Then show it. And no, as a 'professor' you should know that the 'evidence' you produce wouldn't pass muster in a kindergarten, which of course makes us (non-conspiracists) doubt your claims both on 9/11 and to be a 'professor.'

Zlxr says

Oh and I guess you now believe in Fairies or ghosts too Bigsby. Most people carry their passports on their person.

Please explain how the plane can vaporize, the guy disappeared, his cloths disappeared and his passport is completely undamaged ON TOP of the rubble that fell on top of where the plane would have fallen.

By the way - it appears that Flight 93 was shot down. I don't have a link at this moment but I did see a video where Cheney made the call.

There is some thinking that it was headed for WTC7 and if it had hit would have worked with the explosives. However, they were late or off track and Cheney etc. couldn't explain having the guys stand down any longer than they did.

Any more conspiracy bullshit you'd like to post up? How about the planes not being planes but rather cruise missiles. Or that the government faked the phone calls from flight 93. Or... Facts mean nothing to you. If you make a ridiculous claim, then support it with actual hard evidence. You don't because you can't.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Please sign the petition at ae911truth.org. Even if this whole "controlled demolition" story is a fraud we, the people, deserve an explanation which a new investigation would provide.

Ah, so you are now campaigning for people to sign a petition on a website you were supposedly new to a couple of weeks ago. How's that balanced review of the evidence going? Is that how professors normally operate? Draw a conclusion and then find evidence from conspiracy websites that, surprise, surprise, support that conclusion. How times have changed since I went to university.

Squatting in East CoCo says

bob2356 says

I still like the theory of time traveling aliens better anyway.

If you believe in aliens is it such a leap to imagine maintenance and security workers planting explosives?

You know, I keep coming back to this post. Squatting doesn't even understand what sarcasm is. He thought the "aliens" theory was serious rather than poking fun at the truthers. I think there's something seriously wrong with that boy. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced there is no way someone who appears to be functioning at maybe 2nd or 3rd grade level could possibly be teaching a college-level class. Could it be that all this time we've been dealing with some kid playing pretend on daddy's computer?

The "truthers" in this thread all seem completely non-responsive to any cogent point brought up, they post the exact same thing over and over, including splattering the thread with videos and not even caring if the claims being made are consistent with each other, and they seem to lack the capacity for logical thought. I think we are dealing with:

1. A schizophrenic.

2. A child.

3. A person with severe ADD or possibly autism.

4. Bap - who is a known troll, and maybe just plain nuts. Who knows?

Also makes me wonder how many of the people who signed the ae911 petition (besides the unknown number of signatures that are just plain fraudulent) also have learning disabilities of some kind.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Facts that indicate a Controlled Demolition of WTC7:
There was trace evidence of thermite in the WTC dust.
There was earwitness and video account of explosions.
The official story has WTC7 falling in a manner which defied physics.
The official report neglected or denied evidence.

So you keep repeating. Unfortunately (for you), you actually have to prove what you are saying, and so far, you've utterly failed to do so.

Squatting in East CoCo says

@bigsby Proof of thermite:

That's not proof, and if you really were a professor, you'd know that.

Squatting in East CoCo says

The official report seems to have predetermined that the fires weakened beams causing the global collapse of 3 buildings. They then twisted the evidence to match these preconceptions.

No, that's what you do.

Squatting in East CoCo says

@bigsby Lecture that explains how the collapse defied laws of physics:

I now know for a fact that you aren't a professor. These 'explanation' videos you post up are just laughable and getting more so with every subsequent post. This one takes the biscuit. I actually watched it. God knows why. I wonder if you did. I suspect Homeboy is right. Do you just type in the relevant search criteria and then post up the first video you stumble across that supports what you are looking for without considering its contents?

Squatting in East CoCo says

Please keep an open mind and don't let your preconceptions blind you to the real evidence.

You have to laugh.

Squatting in East CoCo says

@bigsby More Proof of explosions:

Good one. What do you think those videos demonstrate? They aren't evidence of controlled demolitions, are they? One or two 'explosions,' or were those large metal objects hitting the ground? Difficult to tell, but hey, why not post up a CD video so everyone can see what that sounds like? I know what it doesn't sound like - your videos.

Bigsby says

Ah, so you are now campaigning for people to sign a petition on a website you were supposedly new to a couple of weeks ago.

I haven't seen any denial that squatting isn't richard gage. How are things in sf rich?

Homeboy says

Squatting doesn't even understand what sarcasm is.

That's what makes it so much fun. Everyone else is in on the joke.

I have been to Breckenridge twice now and I just can't get comfortable there because of the altitude. Has to be something like 10,000 feet. Very hard to sleep when you're breathing heavily because of the thin air.

The Professor says

The official report did not even TEST for explosives.

I'm wondering why you keep saying this. Do you think it proves something?

Here are some other things NIST didn't test for:

Dinosaur DNA
Leprechauns
Dodo bird eggs
Marinara sauce
Moon rocks

Do you think NIST should have tested for these things? Do you think not testing for moon rocks proves a conspiracy? If you can understand why they didn't test for all these things, then you will understand why they did not test for explosives.

But I'm sure this is way over your head, "Professor".

Personally, I think you should have gone with "Gilligan". It suits you better.

Oh, and I don't care if you want to ignore me; it only proves that you are stumped. You are unable to support your own arguments, and you are unable to address any of mine. Anything more than cutting and pasting drivel off ae911truth.org is beyond your intellectual abilities.

Zlxr says

Also -planes can be remotely controlled - so they didn't need hijackers. Apparently the technology is so good that the pilots can't do anything once it takes over.

Prove that the planes were remote-controlled.

Zlxr says

http://www.public-action.com/911/noradsend.html

How NORAD could not have missed those planes for that long.

Also -planes can be remotely controlled - so they didn't need hijackers. Apparently the technology is so good that the pilots can't do anything once it takes over.

Are you saying the planes were remotely controlled on 9/11?

Zlxr says

How can you prove the planes weren't remotely controlled?

Why are you asking us to prove a negative? If you are claiming that the planes were remotely-controlled, then prove it.

If I said the moon was made of green cheese, would you have to prove it's NOT made of green cheese? Of course not.

Zlxr says

And why have hijackers attacking passengers when they are going to crash and blow up and die anyway?

What?

Yet another truther hit-and-run. Claim that the planes were remote-controlled without even a shred of evidence, offer no evidence, then just quietly crawl back into the woodwork when challenged on it.

Zlxr says

And just because somebody's passport is sitting in the ruins doesn't mean anything more than there's a passport sitting in the ruins.

it means that it was planted there is all.

bgamall4 says

Homeboy says

Yet another truther hit-and-run. Claim that the planes were remote-controlled without even a shred of evidence, offer no evidence, then just quietly crawl back into the woodwork when challenged on it.

They could have been. That was the MO of the Operation Northwoods, to remote control the planes. The technology was present to do that.

Even if the technology exists, that doesn't prove it was done.

Please show your proof that the planes were remote-controlled. "They could have been" is not proof. If you don't have any evidence, then there is no reason for us to believe you.

The Professor says

WE, the people, have been at war for more than a decade against an idea, terrorism.

Again, you show your inability to think logically. The fact that we are "at war against terrorism" doesn't prove that the WTC was brought down by a controlled demolition.

Just admit you're a kid on your dad's computer. C'mon, we all know it now.

The Professor says

Professor vs Rudin of the BBC as he tries to dismiss hard evidence and instead maintain the ridiculous lies over the 911 attacks.

Reminds me of The Professor vs Bigsby and Bob.

In that his argument is that it's never happened before to a steel building, so couldn't happen in the future under different circumstances? Yeah, I guess he does sound like you. What other insights did he supply beyond that basic premise? He just sounded exactly like every other conspiracy theorist.

I guess though that an obvious difference with you is that he really is a professor (though in a field that hardly makes him an expert on the topic being discussed), whereas you...

Homeboy says

Please show your proof that the planes were remote-controlled. "They could have been" is not proof. If you don't have any evidence, then there is no reason for us to believe you.

Of course there is proof. There is a link to a blog where someone says it's true. The blog also says that there is absolutely no public records. They don't say how they got the information, a small teeny tiny gap in credibility, but what the heck. The only standard of truth needed is someone says so, or someone has a video.

Homeboy says

Just admit you're a kid on your dad's computer. C'mon, we all know it now.

That's not true, he's richard gage owner of ae911truth.org. That's why he keeps shilling ae911truth.org. Did you notice how when anyone types in 911truth.org he always corrects it to ae911truth.org?

If the planes were remote controlled, how do you explain United 80? They have phone messages from the passengers telling loved ones about the hijackers, how they were going to attack them, as well as voice recordings from the cockpit.

Are those all faked too?

Or were 3 planes remote controlled along with 1 that was actually hijacked?

The Professor says

I notice the deniers have no comment on the official simulation.

All those beams you see falling means that a weld or several BIG nuts and bolts have FAILED completely. This has never happened without a controlled demolition.

Does anyone really believe that one conection failing from fire will cause a chain reaction that destroys thousands of weld & bolts in seconds and that will drag an entire building into its own footprint?

That's the official story!

It's not that I have no comments to make, it's just that it's a waste of time engaging with a person so immune to facts.

The Professor says

Did you watch the video???

He shows evidence for thermite, explosions, violation of Newtons laws in the NIST version of events, and a coverup.

Like I said, he sounded like he'd been reading and watching the same crap you peddle on here.

The Professor says

One of us is definitely out of touch with reality.

Yep. You.

The Professor says

You, Bigsby, have dismissed and denied any evidence I have presented. You make grand claims, Like:
Bigsby says

And once again, I said the vast majority don't believe your version of events

That's not a grand claim. Your version of events is very much the minority view.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

My facts? I take it that the evidence of the overwhelming majority of respected specialists in the related fields are not of interest then.

But when asked for links you change the subject.

Change the subject? If you want to read experts' views on the matter, then just stop typing in '9/11 conspiracy theories.' And what about all those experts who deem it unworthy to respond to the kind of stuff you try to pass off as the 'truth?' Most scientists just wouldn't respond to your points because they are baseless speculation.

The Professor says

*Links to a group of engineers or scientists that support the official story.
*Explanation on why the official NIST simulation stops before finishing and why the data and assumptions behind these simulations are not available to be replicated.

a. You appear to have access to the internet. For someone who claims to be trying to find the truth, you seem to be carrying out very one-sided 'research.'
b. Why don't you ask NIST rather than me?

The Professor says

"At 12:18 P.M. on Friday, February 26, 1993, an explosion rocked the second level of the parking basement beneath Trade Tower One. The explosive material, as forensic investigators would later determine in their chemical analyses of samples retrieved at the site, was somewhere between 1,200 and 1,500 pounds (54480 kg) of urea nitrate, a homemade fertilizer-based explosive.

The blast ripped open a crater 150 feet (46 meters) in diameter and 5 floors deep, rupturing sewer and water mains and cutting off electricity. Over the hours that followed, more than 50,000 people were evacuated from the Trade Center complex."

Those were some tough towers. They were well engineered.

That rather raises the question of how many explosives you think were carted into the three buildings. A very substantial amount by the sounds of it. And then all that ripping down, cutting etc... etc... All completely unnoticed. Quite the accomplishment that. Worker after worker. Truck after truck. Day after day. And then all those explosives surviving raging fires, going off without being heard, at the exact points where 2 planes hit for 2 of the buildings, and without a single video showing what passes for controlled demolitions in the real world (as distinct from the 2-puffs-of-smoke-controlled-demolitions so beloved of Youtube conspiracists). Yes indeed. Quite the accomplishment.

The Professor says

"At 12:18 P.M. on Friday, February 26, 1993, an explosion rocked the second level of the parking basement beneath Trade Tower One. The explosive material, as forensic investigators would later determine in their chemical analyses of samples retrieved at the site, was somewhere between 1,200 and 1,500 pounds (54480 kg) of urea nitrate, a homemade fertilizer-based explosive.

The blast ripped open a crater 150 feet (46 meters) in diameter and 5 floors deep, rupturing sewer and water mains and cutting off electricity. Over the hours that followed, more than 50,000 people were evacuated from the Trade Center complex."

Those were some tough towers. They were well engineered.

So you are saying that an explosion couldn't take the building down, and you are also saying that an explosion is the ONLY thing that could take the building down.

Yeah, that makes sense. Does your dad know you're using his computer?