patrick.net

Truth Seeker says

Homeboy says

Feel free to view my earlier link to a video explaining the difference. Somehow I don't think you'll watch it, because it's not part of your religion of Richard Gage worship.

And yes, I watched the video you posted, though I was decidedly UNIMPRESSED. I'll post some comments separately about that.

Truth Seeker says

Well Bigsby, those so-called "experts" are the ones who would try to get you to believe that WTC7, a massive 47 story building, somehow came completely down due to "fires" that were supposedly "raging". Yet there is NO VIDEO EVIDENCE of any fires in that building prior to approx. 12pm!

Also, those supposedly "raging" fires actually appeared to be low on fuel and relatively benign by the time that the building actually came down at 5:20pm.

Yet, this is the stuff that fairy tales are made of Bigsby!

Yeah, Bigsby. You believe in fairy tales. You should accept the much more logical story that the U.S. government planted thousand of pounds of thermite in each of 3 buildings without any of the thousands of occupants of those buildings seeing them do it, then projected holographic images of jet planes hitting two of the buildings, and somehow the holographic images made holes in the buildings (or maybe the holes were holographs as well?), made fake passenger manifests for the planes and put all the listed passengers in witness protection since they didn't actually die, then set some fires for no reason, then took the buildings down in classic controlled demolitions which made explosion noises that could be heard by witnesses but somehow couldn't be picked up on the numerous video recordings that were made, then paid off thousands of government officials, rescue workers, and engineering experts to lie about the real story, and none of them has ever come forward.

It's all so simple. How could you believe in a fairy tale?

bob2356 says

Truth Seeker says

Though WTC1 & WTC2 were not 'classic' examples of "controlled demolitions" , they were nevertheless both brought down via "controlled demolitions". The primary difference was that the perpetrators used a much more sophisticated, top-down demolition scheme in an attempt to deceive the public about the true nature of the buildings' collapse.

WTC7 was an example of a more 'classic' "controlled demolition", complete with the traditional bottom floor collapse.

Very sophisticated these unknown demolition people who set charges weeks/months/years before convincing arabs to conveniently fly planes into the building to cover up for the demolitions.

Yes Bob2356, "very sophisticated". Yet your version of events reveals that you have a highly simplistic and incorrect understanding about what REALLY happened. You have obviously read NOTHING (beyond the newspapers) about what really happened. Why don't you go out there and educate yourself with the voluminous body of information and data that tells the real story?? Only then would you be able to come back with something more intelligent to say.

Truth Seeker says

Again Homeboy, YOU are the one who first introduced me to Richard Gage. But he's obviously a very smart guy.

Either you are a liar, or you were spouting all these conspiracy theories without even being aware of their source, which would be kind of like discussing the theory of relativity without knowing who Einstein was.

Either way, it doesn't bode well for you.

Truth Seeker says

Yes Bob2356, "very sophisticated". Yet your version of events reveals that you have a highly simplistic and incorrect understanding about what REALLY happened. You have obviously read NOTHING (beyond the newspapers) about what really happened. Why don't you go out there and educate yourself with the voluminous body of information and data that tells the real story?? Only then would you be able to come back with something more intelligent to say.

O.K., then tell us what really happened. I'm waiting.

Truth Seeker says

And yes, I watched the video you posted, though I was decidedly UNIMPRESSED. I'll post some comments separately about that.

Yeah, sure you will....

Zlxr says

Homeboy

Great video Zlxr. I hadn't actually seen some of that footage. Thanks for sharing!

Homeboy says

Homeboy

Here are the points raised by your video along with some comments that effectively refute those points.

Point #1 - "The actual, real collapse time was well in excess of 14 seconds, probably closer to 18 seconds."

Well if you really want to split hairs, we could actually time the collapse of the buildings from any single point when the myriads of explosive charges throughout the building were going off. Pick your favorite explosion from the MANY that are clearly seen and heard throughout the '911 Mysteries’ documentary, some of which began long before the
towers actually fell, then start your stopwatch. That will actually prove nothing!

The only criteria that matters in this particular discussion deals with the amount of time
that it actually takes for the MAJOR part of the structure to drop to the ground (the largest mass of dropping debris). Based upon this criteria and the simple laws of physics, it is quite impossible for the "official pancake theory" to hold any merit (defined as each floor collapsing upon the floor below in a sequential, domino-like fashion).

That theory just doesn't hold water as each floor smacking into the floor below would push up against a certain amount of mass and weight, which would necessarily require a greater amount of TIME to push through the next floor below. Multiply that more time consuming process times 110 floors and you will conclude that it is COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE for a 110 story building to drop in a "pancake-like manner" as quickly as a rock falling from the sky from the same height.

So the ONLY explanation that would allow the speed of a 110 story building (the MAJOR part of the building, not the antenna, Penthouse, etc) to fall as quickly as gravity, would necessitate the use of EXPLOSIVES to clear the path for a more rapid collapse. Only if the steel core super structure were completely destroyed at multiple points (controlled demolition), could it fall as quickly as a rock at the speed of gravity. This is a HUGELY important point that all but PROVES that explosives had to have been used as part of a "controlled demolition" in WTC1 & 2.

Again, the “official version” promotes the fairy tale about the pancake theory. Yet any critically thinking person can easily surmise that simple physics and common sense dictate otherwise.

For a more thorough explanation about the NIST claims, watch the following excellent video:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/pP4_8s-2Gmc&list=UUxvGFyCUkbMk4pB0C-AUJwQ&index=6&feature=plcp

Homeboy says

Let's see if you tinfoil heads have the guts to watch this:

Point #2 - "No loud explosions? No explosive flashes?" (from WTC7).

Watch the following video that contains MUCH more detail about this point, including eye witness accounts and sophisticated audio/video/time sequencing:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/ERhoNYj9_fg&list=UUxvGFyCUkbMk4pB0C-AUJwQ&index=7&feature=plcp

Homeboy says

Truth Seeker says

And yes, I watched the video you posted, though I was decidedly UNIMPRESSED. I'll post some comments separately about that.

Yeah, sure you will....

POINT #3 - "FDNY officers knew that WTC7 was severely damaged by huge fires. They pulled personnel away by about 2pm, and were expecting the building to collapse. The press were notified."

Well according to Fox’s supposed “live coverage”, this anchor-woman is caught PRE-ANNOUNCING the falling of WTC7 BEFORE IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED!!

BBC made the same “mistake” (look it up!), so this obviously proves that the PR handlers were directing the media coverage to a very controlled degree, even PREDICTING that the building would fall at an approximate time. And they were confident enough about their scripted “prediction” to pre-notify all of the media.

If this isn’t proof-positive that explosives had to have been systematically installed throughout the building prior to 9/11, I don’t know what to say to the Sheeple who believe otherwise!

http://www.youtube.com/embed/QOVnvFl5jZo&feature=related

Homeboy says

Truth Seeker says

And yes, I watched the video you posted, though I was decidedly UNIMPRESSED. I'll post some comments separately about that.

Yeah, sure you will....

POINT #4 - "WTC7 also burned with multiple fires for several hours after being hit by a 1000' tall building, the WTC North Tower. In no way do these circumstances resemble a 'classic controlled demolition'"

What’s the matter Homeboy, you don’t believe your own lying eyes?? LOL!

I know how much you HATE this evidence but it’s so OVERWHELMINGLY CONVINCING to anyone with even a modest amount of critical thinking skills, that I just had to offer it up for the Patrick.net viewers:

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/home.html

Oh, and on a related topic (considering the number of persistent trolls around here), if any of you doubt that our government is not actively trying to influence these types of discussions through the use of hired PR firms, social networking manipulation, etc, check out this story. It came out about a year ago reporting that the Feds actually issued a 'request for proposal' (RFP) seeking to hire vendors to create a program to help them sway peoples opinions through social media. There are plenty of other websites that go into much further detail with this story, but just pointing out this blatant government attempt at crowd control and manipulation. This represents an attempt to create a modern version of propaganda to sway and control public opinion (not unlike the objectives that Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Mao all tried to achieve).

Is manipulation and propaganda really a valid function of government??

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/09/the-federal-reserve-has-just-entered-the-counterespionage-era-and-will-be-monitoring-everything-written-about-it-anywhere-in-the-world.html

So is “Homeboy” one of those hired PR types who has nothing better to do than sit around posting THOUSANDS of comments on this and probably many other various websites in an effort to sway public opinion towards the status quo??? Each of you will have to answer that for yourself.

As for myself, I’ve decided that rather than trying to continue feeding the trolls like Homeboy and others, I’ll just let the mountains of evidence speak for themselves. Life is actually more fun (and more productive) that way!

So I’m leaving this discussion for now, though I may occasionally check back from time to time to offer some selective information.

It really is worth it to invest the necessary time to see beyond the lies and distortions so common in our MSM news. In fact, it's practically a survival skill in today’s screwed up, deceptive world. Wishing you all the best in searching for the truth ~

Correction to Point #4 - this is the actual, direct link that I was referring to (and now, I'm outta here!) :

http://www.youtube.com/embed/hZEvA8BCoBw

Truth Seeker says

As for myself, I’ve decided that rather than trying to continue feeding the trolls like Homeboy and others, I’ll just let the mountains of evidence speak for themselves.

Yes, please for the love of God do that.

Very weak argument. RFP's are issued even by local governments, they are pretty common. Can the government try to sway opinion..sure..will it? Probably not

How is this plan different from any other company plan? Companies are deathly afraid of what people say on the internet...especially when it comes to sensitivity.

One video made by one guy led to all of the violence in Libya and Egypt...just one video.

You never made any real specific argument in terms of what was the outright group(s) responsible and what exactly was the net gain? Could it be argued it made it easier to attack Iraq? Maybe..but the USA had no fly zones against Iraq for eight years so it was already bombing them on a weekly basis.

So what was the profit...Halliburton?
http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3AHAL 33 billion dollar market cap and yet there are box stores (tractor supply) that have outperformed it with ease. Now if halliburton was the largest company on the planet maybe you'd have some small evidence. So what was the gain...war? a lack of space in nyc? just deaths? a patriot act that few enforce etc. You are asking us to suspend the concept of belief of one line of thought but not asking us what exactly to replace it with..

Truth Seeker says

Well if you really want to split hairs, we could actually time the collapse of the buildings from any single point when the myriads of explosive charges throughout the building were going off. Pick your favorite explosion from the MANY that are clearly seen and heard throughout the '911 Mysteries’ documentary, some of which began long before the
towers actually fell, then start your stopwatch. That will actually prove nothing!

I'm starting to think you may actually have brain damage. There were no "explosive charges". Even if there were, why would you time the collapse from then? You should time the collapse from when THE COLLAPSE starts.

Do you realize that the building was not hollow? It had structural columns throughout the center of the building. When you see that penthouse fall, what is happening is that the center of the building is collapsing. Where did you think the penthouse is going? Do you think it is sharing the same space with the still-intact floor below it as it falls? Do you think it phased into another dimension like on Star Trek? How would that be possible? Obviously, something has collapsed underneath it. To try to argue against this fact and to cherry-pick the time when YOU want the collapse to start, demonstrates your blind adherence to your "religion".

The only criteria that matters in this particular discussion deals with the amount of time
that it actually takes for the MAJOR part of the structure to drop to the ground (the largest mass of dropping debris). Based upon this criteria and the simple laws of physics, it is quite impossible for the "official pancake theory" to hold any merit (defined as each floor collapsing upon the floor below in a sequential, domino-like fashion).

Um, you really have no idea what you are talking about. WTC7 was a progressive collapse. The TOWERS pancaked. You are confusing the two. Please explain how you are able to determine which portion of the collapse contains the "largest mass" from a video, where you cannot even SEE the center of the building collapsing. And why would that be relevant anyway?

Truth Seeker says

POINT #4 - "WTC7 also burned with multiple fires for several hours after being hit by a 1000' tall building, the WTC North Tower. In no way do these circumstances resemble a 'classic controlled demolition'"

What’s the matter Homeboy, you don’t believe your own lying eyes?? LOL!

I know how much you HATE this evidence but it’s so OVERWHELMINGLY CONVINCING to anyone with even a modest amount of critical thinking skills, that I just had to offer it up for the Patrick.net viewers:

So you watched the footage of a real controlled demolition, with deafening explosions and bright flashes, and then saw the footage of WTC7 collapsing, with no sound of explosions and no bright flashes, and you thought to yourself, "Yep, that looks exactly the same"?

Yep, gotta be brain damage.

Truth Seeker says

Yes Bob2356, "very sophisticated". Yet your version of events reveals that you have a highly simplistic and incorrect understanding about what REALLY happened. You have obviously read NOTHING (beyond the newspapers) about what really happened. Why don't you go out there and educate yourself with the voluminous body of information and data that tells the real story?? Only then would you be able to come back with something more intelligent to say.

I did educate myself with the voluminous body of information. The problem is unlike you I actually looked at sources other than 911truth.org. That's why I don't believe any of this explosives crap. The whole convoluted theory is so far out in space it's hard to believe anyone can be that paranoid without being institutionalized. Maybe the question should be who is making money on 911truth.org.

Truth Seeker says

Though WTC1 & WTC2 were not 'classic' examples of "controlled demolitions" , they were nevertheless both brought down via "controlled demolitions". The primary difference was that the perpetrators used a much more sophisticated, top-down demolition scheme in an attempt to deceive the public about the true nature of the buildings' collapse.

WTC7 was an example of a more 'classic' "controlled demolition", complete with the traditional bottom floor collapse.

Please explain (don't just post a link to a 911truth video) what your evidence is for claiming it was a controlled demolition.

You didn't answer my question. I'll post it again. Is that why you're ducking out now? Afraid to answer it?

Truth Seeker says

Yes Bob2356, "very sophisticated". Yet your version of events reveals that you have a highly simplistic and incorrect understanding about what REALLY happened. You have obviously read NOTHING (beyond the newspapers) about what really happened. Why don't you go out there and educate yourself with the voluminous body of information and data that tells the real story?? Only then would you be able to come back with something more intelligent to say.

O.K., then tell us what really happened. I'm waiting.

Squatting in East CoCo says

So let us just test the remains for evidence of explosives. That should quickly and convincingly prove whether the tower was imploded or not.

How would you do that?

Squatting in East CoCo says

So let us just test the remains for evidence of explosives. That should quickly and convincingly prove whether the tower was imploded or not.

it's been done already by dr steven e jones and others. their unequivocal results
demonstrated the presence of nano thermite particle spheres. thermite was the the charge that cut and melted the steel. no office fire could have reached the necessary high temperatures to melt steel.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4884818450327382904

Squatting in East CoCo says

Homeboy says

Squatting in East CoCo says

So let us just test the remains for evidence of explosives. That should quickly and convincingly prove whether the tower was imploded or not.

How would you do that?

Probably with a chemist or engineer.

No shit? A chemist or engineer. LOL. Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about, so how do you know if it's possible to do such a thing?

coriacci1 says

it's been done already by dr steven e jones and others. their unequivocal results
demonstrated the presence of nano thermite particle spheres. thermite was the the charge that cut and melted the steel. no office fire could have reached the necessary high temperatures to melt steel

Oh, you mean the Steven E. Jones who up to that point had studied fusion and has absolutely no experience whatsoever in building collapse forensics? The Steven E. Jones whose other paper claims to prove that Jesus visited America? The Steven E. Jones who got kicked out of BYU and whose colleagues think is a joke?

coriacci1 says

it's been done already by dr steven e jones and others. their unequivocal results
demonstrated the presence of nano thermite particle spheres. thermite was the the charge that cut and melted the steel. no office fire could have reached the necessary high temperatures to melt steel.

We're not going to watch a video of some idiot rambling for 25 minutes. Where exactly does he mention those "nano thermite particle spheres"? He appears to be mostly talking about 1,3 diphenylpropane. He didn't test for that, the EPA monitored it in the air. He claims it's conclusive proof of sol-gel used to hold the thermite in place. If you would bother to read any sources other than your 911 conspiracy site, you would discover that burning plastic can produce 1,3 diphenylpropane. How many plastic things like computers do you think burned in the fires on 9/11?

Steven E. Jones is a joke.

p.s. FOR THE FOURTH TIME, THE STEEL DIDN'T MELT, IDIOT.

Zlxr says

We don't have to watch idiots ramble - we have you.

Obviously you don't know what steel is or what melt means.

If you want sparks - you're better off lighting your farts.

What are you trying to say? Do you think the WTC melted? Please, show me your proof.

NIST report:

"In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. "

Which word don't you understand, "steel", "melt", or "no"?

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Great thread! I really learned a lot especially when I look through some of the recommended websites by some of the posters. Wow, I've really had my eyes opened! 911 Mysteries blew me away!

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KoSEDuUOPJ0

Is that a picture of you? You don't look very intelligent (or nice)

Hmmm... what is it a picture of? Truth Seeker talks about "911 Mysteries", then announces that he is "out of here" (obviously the questions got too tough for him). Then "Avatar" show up 2 days later, and his very first post mentions how great he thinks "911 Mysteries" is.

Is it a picture of me? Um, no - sorry. Wrong answer.

a few more points to consider.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/8_tf25lx_3o

http://www.youtube.com/embed/0BjbjXMlCHc
http://www.youtube.com/embed/56nQnqf7zwA
http://www.youtube.com/embed/SC3Se86IBAw&feature=related

Squatting in East CoCo says

SO a little fire brought it all down by causing a "key structural column to fail". But it would have taken massive amounts of explosives around "most, if not all, interior columns" to blow it up. Can you see the contradiction?

Why are you deliberately misquoting the NIST report? You left out a crucial part of the sentence. And it wasn't a "little" fire. That's ridiculous. You truthers have already decided on your conclusion, and would do anything to convince yourselves - mislead, misquote, lie, whatever.

Are you a structural engineer with experience in building demolition? If not, then how do you know what is required to cause a building to fall down? This is the problem - a bunch of self-proclaimed experts who imagine they know something because they know how to get on the internet.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Homeboy says

No shit? A chemist or engineer. LOL. Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about, so how do you know if it's possible to do such a thing?

Use the truth if it is on your side, otherwise try personal attacks.

I don't think you know what the word "truth" means. You are using it in a religious sense. Your religion (the conspiracy theory) is "truth" to you, no matter how much it is disproven.

Now how is my post a personal attack? You said they should "test for explosives", and that would supposedly prove if the towers were intentionally detonated.

Except you have no idea what that even means. I asked you how that could be done, and you gave me a sarcastic non-answer. I attacked your ARGUMENT - you are advocating an action for which you have no idea if it's even possible or how it would be done.

Squatting in East CoCo says

The problem with conspiracy theories is that it pulls you down a rabbit hole until everything is one big interconnected conspiracy.

So then stop believing in them.

Do you feel safer since the war, initiated by 911, on terrorism started?

Not a bit. You are still more likely to be struck by lightning than you are to be killed by a terrorist. And yet they have created an entire government entity dedicated to making our lives miserable. Flying used to be a pleasant experience and now is a horrible ordeal. We fought a war for no reason that we had no business fighting.

None of this means that the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition. Bush certainly capitalized on the situation to turn the U.S. into a police state, but there's no evidence that he masterminded it.

Homeboy says

Bush certainly capitalized on the situation to turn the U.S. into a police state, but there's no evidence that he masterminded it.

i guess you never heard of the project for a new american century either.

Squatting in East CoCo says

I'm sorry, my "sarcastic non answer" assumed

Ah! you "assumed". You conspiracy buffs seem to do a lot of that.

that most people reading this forum understood that we have the forensic knowledge to determine if explosives are used.

How do you know this? The NIST stated in their report that testing for thermite would be inconclusive, since the elements they would test for would already be present in the building materials themselves.

You are claiming that the NIST is wrong, and that it is possible to test for explosives. I am asking you how you know this.

Hint: Just SAYING you know it is not proof.