patrick.net

bgamall4 says

You are arguing against yourself, certainly not against any proof I show, since you don't even watch it.

Serious character flaw, Bigsby.

Serious character flaw? Ha. Everyone knows what's in these videos. It's the same bloody arguments again and again. Do I have to sit through several minutes of different controlled explosions to get the gist of what a video is about? I don't think so. That's why these videos have a control bar - so you can fast forward through the painful music and repetitive nonsense and get a damn accurate idea of the crap that is being peddled. Or do you think I missed something important by only spending 3 minutes instead of 4 watching this nonsense?

bgamall4 says

I think you all should see this entertaining video and then look at WTC towers and WTC7 in the context of these explosions.

Why should we watch those? First you said it was exactly like a controlled demolition, then you said it was different than a controlled demolition. You contradicted yourself. You change your argument depending upon what's convenient to you at the moment. You are full of shit. End of story.

bgamall4 says

NIST ignored the squibs in WTC7 in the report, an obvious coverup.

There were no squibs. The NIST did not ignore the puffs of smoke (and debris); they explained it perfectly.

bgamall4 says

I don't believe you do. You didn't watch them.

I've been posting throughout this thread. I've posted in response to 9/11 nut jobs a number of times before. You all have the same arguments and the same videos. You seem to directly avoid responding to the most pertinent questions and just post up another Youtube video.
Again, how could the explosives survive a fire that raged for the better part of 8 hours? And please explain to everyone the glaring differences between all those CDs posted up in that video (the video I've watched) and what actually happened on 9/11.

Also explain why Larry Silverstein would admit on camera that he was part of a secret conspiracy.

You cannot convince media programmed 'people' to think for themselves. But good try!

This idea also is present in trends. Housing bubble frenzy. What about the german persecution of the jew? All media, and herd mentality. What terrible things people follow just because it is the accepted norm.

People feel safe believing what the majority crowd believes. Remember the earth is flat. That guy must of been a nut to think it was round!

bgamall4 says

I received a call at my work one time and the official from DC said, out of the blue, that we went into Iraq for oil.

I'm totally impressed that you are so important that officials from DC call you up to tell you what were obviously state secrets like we went to Iraq for oil. It's just amazing that no one had any awareness at all that Iraq having second largest oil reserves on the planet had anything at all to do with the president (most of his family fortune from oil) and vice president (former ceo of halliburton one of the really big players in the oil business) going to Iraq. I''m shocked at this information I tell you, just shocked.

How did you get to be this important?

bgamall4 says

Remember the earth was flat people were in the majority, but they were the nut jobs.

Pretty weak at history aren't we? The earth was know to be round since Pythagoras 6th century BC. Flat earthers have been in the minority in the western world since Socrates. Google the myth of the flat earth. Then try another argument, this one doesn't hunt.

Squatting in East CoCo says

I find it disturbing that you accept the official story without reading it.

Did you reject www.ae911truth.org without reading it?

Ho, ho, ho, point me to where I said I hadn't read it. Last time I checked, I'm not a specialist in this field, rather like you. You asked a stupid question about 100% accepting the report and I gave you my answer, but in your world, you appear to create the answers you want to hear. And I've looked at that ridiculous website and watched a good number of the videos you conspiracist wingnuts have posted up and I know where I think the overwhelming weight of evidence lies, and I'm afraid it isn't with you.

bgamall4 says

No, believing that the towers did not come down by explosives is the nut job. Remember the earth was flat people were in the majority, but they were the nut jobs. You are a flat earther because you can't find me a video showing a fire taking down a building like a demolition does and you know you can't find it. You lie to yourself Grigsby.

Sure, sure, because believing that the towers were not brought down by explosives (and the overwhelming evidence in favour of that) is exactly like flat Earthers. And by the way, most educated people didn't actually believe in the idea of a flat Earth.
And I'm sorry, but it isn't me that's lying to myself, it's you. You seem extraordinarily invested in your claims, invested at the expense of science and common sense.
And I notice that you still haven't addressed the issue of how the explosives survived the fire and how a few of your 'squibs' suddenly equate to the sort of CDs that you seem to want to draw attention to. It's like saying 'look at this photograph of a UFO, it's so clear, it's so obvious,' and all everyone else can see are the lights and silhouette of a 747. You simply want to see what you want to see and no rational argument can counter that. This conspiracy theory is your religion, the reverse scientific method your God.

bgamall4 says

Come up with the video that shows buildings on fire implode like demolitions? We are waiting and growing tired of your inability to provide proof of your position.

The reason you cannot provide it is because you don't have it. Why don't you be quiet until you provide the proof? Provide the proof or I will put you on ignore, Bigsby.

How many large skyscrapers have suffered uncontrolled fires, have been hit by large planes? You have your conclusion and you entirely ignore any evidence that doesn't support that. And please put me on ignore because I'm getting tired of reading your bullshit.
And you STILL haven't answered the two very glaring questions that have been asked of you multiple times.

bgamall4 says

You are the wingnut, thinking you are Santa Claus. Anyone who uses ho,ho,ho in writing has to be a wingnut. You have no idea how really stupid you sound and how stupid you are.

Remind me again what the consensus opinion is among structural engineers. Remind me again of all the 'experts' that believe in your conspiracy theory. If I'm a wingnut, then what the fuck are you?

bgamall4 says

Lol, Bob, I was working in a hotel and the guy had to spill his guts. I was the guy he spilled it to! But it changed my whole view of government back in 2005. I could have lied and said I was important. I missed my chance. :)

Sure he did.

bgamall4 says

I am not talking about about Socrates. I am talking about the people who were surrounding Copernicus and he was in the minority. As Wikipedia said:

"Copernicus seemed to be undermining the whole system of the philosophy of science at the time." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus

That's not what you said in your initial post, is it?

Copernicus lived in 1500-ies? Then he could not be proving anything to anybody, since the Antikythera mechanism, dated to 1st century BC (1600 years prior) proves beyond any doubt that even around 100 BC, the ancients already knew not only how Solar system works, but were perfectly and routinely able to calculate exact positions of planets and moon phased for any time in past or future, based on heliocentric model.

So, what exactly did Galilei and Copernicus do to further our understanding?

Let me see... I think they played the same exact role as those 19 Arabs. They provided a plausible explanation to those who were still ignorant of facts of self-evident nature.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

If I'm a wingnut, then what the fuck are you?

A guy who obviously trusts what I see. You still don't have video proving fires cause implosions. And, you are ignoring it and posting crap instead.

Gary Anderson strategicdefaultbooks.com

Every single one of the videos you've posted of the WTC buildings on fire shows footage of how fires can cause a collapse.

You, however, seem to be much more taken by videos that show a few puffs of smoke and then trying to make out that they are exactly like the videos of the CDs you've also been posting. It's just strange that they don't look remotely the same.

And you still haven't answered the two questions you were asked.

My God, you really do see what you want to see, don't you? The bloody 'explosion' happened after the collapse began. It's there right in front of your bloody eyes.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Bigsby says

My God, you really do see what you want to see, don't you? The bloody 'explosion' happened after the collapse began. It's there right in front of your bloody eyes

What do you suppose fueled the explosion?

What do you mean what fueled the 'explosion'? The building was on fire. The building collapsed. What effect do you think the downward draft had? And for crying out loud, controlled demolitions are very obvious and make a very loud noise. Show me the video that clearly demonstrates that because not one of those posted so far comes anywhere near it.

bgamall4 says

Yeah Homeboy. You are a boy. If you were a man you would man up and believe the truth.

Wow, what a convincing argument. You are a fucking genius.

I said there were regular demolitions, like WTC7 and the obvious top down demolition of the towers.

Oh, so they're not "controlled" demolitions anymore, they're "regular" demolitions. Those must be the kind that don't look anything like controlled demolitions.

Look at the videos and quite being so rude. When people huff and puff like you do they are out of ideas and are challenged. You are being challenged homeboy.

Um, yeah, right. You just backpedaled on the central thesis of your theory, that the videos allegedly look like controlled demolitions. And then you called me names. It's clear who's out of ideas.

bgamall4 says

Come up with the video that shows buildings on fire implode like demolitions? We are waiting and growing tired of your inability to provide proof of your position.

They didn't implode. They fell down.

Show us your proof that skyscrapers normally topple over sideways.

Also, answer the rest of the questions we asked you.

bgamall4 says

No, one was 480 feet below the falling levels.

No, it wasn't.

bgamall4 says

I have no idea what you are talking about. Skyscrapers don't come down by fire, period. Imploded skyscrapers fall into their own footprint unless the detonation is top down, like the two towers.

Again, good night Homeboy.

Good night? Dear me. You've demonstrated nothing but the paucity of your argument. You keep asking us to show a skyscraper coming down as a consequence of a fire. You keep posting videos of 3 of them. You cannot demonstrate otherwise. Nothing you have posted up comes even remotely close to being convincing. You have your conclusion. You see things that no right thinking person sees. You argue that is proof. It isn't.

bgamall4 says

Goodnight Homeboy. Get the proof of any steel reinforced skyscraper coming down like a demolition but by fire alone and we will talk again sometime. Otherwise, we won't, at least about this subject

Well, that's a problem. There aren't any other examples of a full jet plane tank of airplane fuel being poured inside of a skyscraper and then set on fire, is there?

Some fires burn hotter than others. There literally is no comparison.

bgamall4 says

The jet fuel could not cause pulverization of concrete above the floors affected by the fuel. You have no explanation for that pulverization. None

Hey--I'm no expert. I'd say an explosion might cause pulverization of concrete though.

It was defective chinese steel...
bgamall4 says

tatupu70 says

Hey--I'm no expert. I'd say an explosion might cause pulverization of concrete though.

That is what our point is. There were explosives preplanted in the buildings. You just made my case. Thanks.

Gary Anderson strategicdefaultbooks.com

bgamall4 says

Lol, Bob, I was working in a hotel and the guy had to spill his guts. I was the guy he spilled it to! But it changed my whole view of government back

Gee, there must have been at least 3 or 4 people left in the world by 2005 that still believed the war in Iraq wasn't about oil. It's pretty good thing this mysterious guy who was obviously had inner access to the highest levels of government found one of them to spill his guts to. Was is condi, rummy, or darth cheney doing the remorseful spilling?

Squatting in East CoCo says

Was it a lone gunman that killed JFK?

Yep

Did the North Vietnamese attack us?

No

Did terrorists bring down the towers?

Yes. In fact, this must be true by definition...since it was an act of terrorism, whoever did it was a terrorist. But the answer to the question you are trying to ask is: Yes

Did Iraq have WMD's?

No

Hope that helps.

Chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq had them.

bdrasin says

Did Iraq have WMD's?

No

bgamall4 says

Yet there is no example, nor will you find one on youtube video, of that ever happening before. The burden of proof is on you and you are not right thinking.

The burden of proof is on me? Are you mad? The burden of proof is entirely on you because you are the one making the outlandish claims. We don't have to prove anything, you do, and you have singularly failed in that task.

bgamall4 says

The jet fuel could not cause pulverization of concrete above the floors affected by the fuel. You have no explanation for that pulverization. None.

This is your mantra. You've repeated it over and over again. Humour me. What exactly do you mean by pulverization and what concrete are you talking about? Are you seriously saying that this 'pulverization' was caused by explosives? Does that mean you are saying every floor was rigged with explosives? I'd like to see that video.

It's just figuring out who the bigger terrorists are. What answer does the tv tell you?

KILLERJANE says

It's just figuring out who the bigger terrorists are. What answer does the tv tell you?

Just keep your blinders on! Common sense is a myth.

Says the person who gets his answers from Youtube.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Was it a lone gunman that killed JFK?
Did the North Vietnamese attack us?
Did terrorists bring down the towers?
Did Iraq have WMD's?

Remember the Maine?

I love conspiracy nuts. It's a perfect world they live in since no one can prove a negative. But I don't see any conspiracy in most of these.

Johnson had the information that NV didn't attack literally in his pocket when he gave the gulf of tonkin speech to congress. He just lied to go to war. Bush rejected any intelligence against wmd, of which there was a lot. He just lied to go to war. McKinnely read the reports that said no one knew why the Maine blew up and blamed the spanish anyway. He just lied to go to war. Bush blamed Iraq for 9/11 when he knew Iraq was not involved at all. He just lied to go to war part 2. Anyone see a pattern here? The president says this is reality as I like it and all the court jesters say yes sir. That's not conspiracy, it's just abuse of power for reasons of personal ego.

Or maybe McKinnely arranged to blow up the maine, Roosevelt arranged for the Japanese to bomb pearl harbor, Johnson arranged for the NV to attack the Maddox plus arranged for JFK to be shot, and Bush arranged to blow up the wtc. Let's go there, after all you can never prove it didn't happen.

bgamall4 says

That is what our point is. There were explosives preplanted in the buildings. You just made my case. Thanks.

Again--I'm a novice, but it sure looked like there was an explosion when the planes hit the towers.

In any event, here's a simple tip for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

SoftShell says

Chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq had them.

bdrasin says

Did Iraq have WMD's?

No

As far as I know, the only chemical weapons found were a few decaying shells leftover from before Desert Storm. But sure, I'll amend that to "kinda sorta, but not really".

bgamall4 says

A guy who obviously trusts what I see.

A perfect representative of the game boy generation. Analysis, logic, research, are all remnants of an irrelevant older society. Google gorilla in the room sometime to find out how reliable what you see actually is. Everyone that has ever been involved with the courts knows that eyewitnesses are amazingly inconsistent and inaccurate. Even prosecutors and DA's have called for more careful use of eyewitness testimony after all the research showing how poor it can be.

But of course the exception to this rule is that any eyewitnesses involved in 9/11 have perfect recall.

Yeah, I'm sure the million or so dead/maimed iraqs would agree with your "kinda, sorta" analysis..... you've redefined the term "blinders"..

According to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants — friends on friends, circles within circles — making an entire population complicit in his rule".[9] Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war.[10] Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000[11] to over 600,000,[12] estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000,[13] and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000[14] to 200,000.[12] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.[15]
bdrasin says

SoftShell says

Chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq had them.

bdrasin says

Did Iraq have WMD's?

No

As far as I know, the only chemical weapons found were a few decaying shells leftover from before Desert Storm. But sure, I'll amend that to "kinda sorta, but not really".

SoftShell says

Yeah, I'm sure the million or so dead/maimed iraqs would agree with your "kinda, sorta" analysis..... you've redefined the term "blinders"..

Ok, if you mean had Iraq under Saddam Hussein EVER had WMD, then the answer is of course yes. I was referring to the claim that Iraq had WMD in the run-up to the 2003 invasion; sorry if that wasn't obvious. Can I please get off this thread now?

Prove it.

bgamall4 says

The reason claimed for going into Iraq was for nukes.

bgamall4 says

The shower of concrete started as the towers came down. The shower of concrete only happens in detonations. It does not happen in fire.

This has got to be the silliest thing I have ever heard. I don't know what a "shower of concrete" is supposed to mean, but obviously there were clouds of debris emanating from the building as it collapsed. That tends to happen when things are crushed by 500,000 tons of force.

I think you need to review the NIST report. You seem to believe their position is that fire somehow broke the buildings into millions of pieces. That WOULD be ridiculous, but nobody has ever claimed such a thing. Quite obviously, if you're not a moron, the buildings broke apart as they collapsed, from the immense weight of the structure falling.

Have you ever seen someone break up concrete with a jackhammer? Did they need thermite explosions to do it? You really believe that an explosion is the only way to break concrete?

No, because you are still wrong.
Saddam hid them in Syria according to his own generals...

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/

bdrasin says

SoftShell says

Yeah, I'm sure the million or so dead/maimed iraqs would agree with your "kinda, sorta" analysis..... you've redefined the term "blinders"..

Ok, if you mean had Iraq under Saddam Hussein EVER had WMD, then the answer is of course yes. I was referring to the claim that Iraq had WMD in the run-up to the 2003 invasion; sorry if that wasn't obvious. Can I please get off this thread now?