patrick.net

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.

Squatting in East CoCo says

What are your credentials, homeboy?

I have none. That is why I do not make outlandish claims about secret conspiracies to destroy buildings with controlled demolitions, and, unlike you, I do not claim that things are "impossible" when you clearly have no knowledge of structural collapse forensics.

Occam's Razor: One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

Now you're just acting like an idiot. Good bye.

coriacci1 says

a few more points to consider.

thanks. more good info . the 1st and 4th video (for me) especially added more to think about. I'm still reeling from a few of the others that were mentioned, not sleeping too well right now

http://www.youtube.com/embed/KoSEDuUOPJ0

this one also talks about the Pentagon and Shanksville, PA on 9/11

http://www.youtube.com/embed/2IWJX879fOk

remember this little project and who was involved?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

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?

No, read your own qoutes again. Since when does uncontrolled translate into little? Did you miss the part that said "chain of events"? Read what the chain of events was.

Squatting in East CoCo says

SO an uncontrolled office 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?

Nope don't see the contradiction at all.

You missed some critical parts of the report. First off we are talking about 7 wt report, not 1&2. Secondly the report never said a key structural column failed. It said a key structural column buckled (bend under strain after being heated) , causing the floor girder connection to fail. Once the floors collapsed the building went down. The report clearly states that temps for columns was 300c and floors under 600c. Heat expansion and buckling, not any kind of steel failure, caused connector failure.

No one said massive amounts of explosives. Where did you get this? You seem to read a lot into things. It said for explosives to be effective they have to be put right onto the steel. So everything around the steel would have needed to be taken down. This is true. Controlled detonations need the position, size, and composition of the explosives to be carefully done.

The (alleged) a&e for 911 truth "evidence" doesn't make much sense to me. It involves lots of black magic and unknown conspiracies that I don't see as being plausible.

bob2356 says

You missed some critical parts of the report. First off we are talking about 7 wt report, not 1&2. Secondly the report never said a key structural column failed. It said a key structural column buckled (bend under strain after being heated) , causing the floor girder connection to fail. Once the floors collapsed the building went down. The report clearly states that temps for columns was 300c and floors under 600c. Heat expansion and buckling, not any kind of steel failure, caused connector failure.

No one said massive amounts of explosives. Where did you get this? You seem to read a lot into things. It said for explosives to be effective they have to be put right onto the steel. So everything around the steel would have needed to be taken down. This is true. Controlled detonations need the position, size, and composition of the explosives to be carefully done.

He's not going to listen to you. His mind is already made up. No amount of evidence or logic will ever convince these people.

Homeboy says

He's not going to listen to you. His mind is already made up. No amount of evidence or logic will ever convince these people.

This is some heavy stuff and I trust the evidence and logic of a very large group of trained architects and engineers over you and Bob2356.

Squatting in E. CoCo is right, you guys sound like a couple of those social networking trolls.

See?

It's hilarious how one of you "disliked" Occam's Razor. I think that says it all.

Avatar says

This is some heavy stuff and I trust the evidence and logic of a very large group of trained architects and engineers over you and Bob2356.

Squatting in E. CoCo is right, you guys sound like a couple of those social networking trolls.

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.

Bigsby says

Avatar says

This is some heavy stuff and I trust the evidence and logic of a very large group of trained architects and engineers over you and Bob2356.

Squatting in E. CoCo is right, you guys sound like a couple of those social networking trolls.

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.

That's correct. I go with informed opinion over the herd (who are like lemmings) any day.