patrick.net

bgamall4 says

George Bush Sr was in Dallas the day Kennedy was assassinated. He has denied it but there is proof.

There is a video? That seems to be the only acceptable proof to you.

bgamall4 says

bob2356 says

. Northwoods was designed so no one would be injured or killed.

Only part of Northwoods was designed so no one would be killed. While it is true that the aircraft was to be unmanned, bombings were also proposed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Gary Anderson strategicdefaultbooks.com

Wikipedia? Why not read the original? http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/ I was able to find it again in less than a second. After rereading it, it does propose to sink a boatload of cuban refugees (rescue isn't specified) or use a bomb to injure cuban refugees living in florida, but everything else specifies prevention of injuries or death. I guess cuban nationals didn't count as real people.. So how does this compare in any way shape or form to your theory that the bush admin murdered 2996 us citizens in 9/11?

bgamall4 says

No, there is a picture and an FBI memo

God I love this man. You make my day. One blurry long distance photo and a memo that was altered by a not very bright third grader is certainly proof enough for me.

I bet you think that Men In Black was a documentary, don't you. Keep up the great work, this is so much fun.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Read the article from 911 myths. What a complicated mess.

Yeah, it has all those frightening and confusing things like math, and facts. I know you're much more comfortable with videos that have lots of pretty pictures in them and scary music to tell you how you should think and feel.

Squatting in East CoCo says

I do not claim to know the truth.

And yet...

I notice you still haven't answered the questions that you've been repeatedly asked, bgamall4. Why is that?

Squatting in East CoCo says

Homeboy, You use big words, grammar, and spelling as if you have some kind of education. You spout authoritively as if you have some profession that gives you insight into physics and engineering.

I do have an education. Part of that education was learning critical thinking. That is why I don't just take some internet kook's word for it that 9/11 was some sort of huge U.S. government conspiracy when it has already been demonstrated that the things you claim to have happened are not possible. I have the ability to analyze the evidence and decide whether your theory is plausible. It is not. I also learned a bit about science and a bit about logic. I learned that it is neither scientific nor logical to simply assume a circuitous, overly-complex explanation for an event without any evidence to support that explanation. For example, I could assume that all the planets and stars in the universe orbit the Earth in an extremely complex pattern, or I can assume that the Earth orbits the sun. Without any evidence to support the former, the latter makes more sense.

I told you that I make no claim of special engineering knowledge. Did I stutter? Why are you having trouble understanding that? YOU are the one making claims that require knowledge of engineering and/or physics (buildings can't fall straight down, concrete can't be pulverized by crushing force, fire cannot weaken steel, etc.) I reject your conclusions; you have not proven your claims.

bgamall4 says

A picture is worth 10 thousand math equations.

Absolutely false. Your pictures have nothing to do with the claims you are making. You are attempting to apply a very simplistic, incorrect knowledge of physics and engineering to images you are viewing. Simply saying a thing does not make it correct.

I can show you math that comes from the thousands of engineers who know it was an implosion.

No you can't.

You, homeboy, have not shown me that skyscraper on fire that collapsed like the implosions. That is because none exist.

What's your point? Show me a skyscraper of the same type of design that got hit by a 767 full of fuel and DIDN'T collapse. You still have not shown me that. That is because none exist.

You have not proven that thermite charges were planted in the buildings.

You lose.

bgamall4 says

Grigsby, I provided a video that proved the fires in WTC7 were small.

I don't think you know what the word "prove" means.

bgamall4 says

Grigsby, I provided a video that proved the fires in WTC7 were small.

Strange, I posted a video... And here is the link to it once again:
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

Now bgama, I know you're a lover of videos. Does that or does that not look like a small fire?

And you are aware that fires usually start small and can... I guess not.

And you still haven't answered the questions.

bgamall4 says

Why do you insist on failing to provide the building that came down by fire that looked like an implosion? Why? Because you know and I know there aren't any.

Er, the three WTC buidlings.

bgamall4 says

But you believe there are. Three on 911. But there aren't any more. Makes you look pretty feeble doesn't it.

No, it makes you look ridiculous for completely ignoring those examples. Exactly how many skyscrapers have had uncontrolled fires raging in them, with no sprinklers working, and no firefighters trying to extinguish the flames? How many have also had jet fuel added to the mix? How many have been hit by debris from other buildings? Do you get the point? Oh, forget it, I know you are completely immune to any reasoned arguments.

Squatting in East CoCo says

bob2356 says

Even worse for your point of view, it points out that pulverizing concrete with explosives would have taken 600 tonnes per building.

But a fire and a collapse could do it?? And vaporize (blow into untraceable basic elements) hundreds of people???

A lot of contradictions on both sides.

If you feel there is a contradiction and that the amount of energy released in the building collapse is not sufficient to account for the damage then go through the equations and point out where they are incorrect. The basic energy equations are mostly at a high school physics level and aren't hard to follow. If you can't point out where they are incorrect then how can you state there is a contradiction? That in and of itself is a contradiction.

It will never happen of course. Feeling it's a contradiction or feeling it's truth seems to be the new scientific norm of proof these days, at least on Pnet.

bgamall4 says

bob2356 says

After rereading it, it does propose to sink a boatload of cuban refugees (rescue isn't specified) or use a bomb to injure cuban refugees living in florida,

Innocent people. A few thousand of them? Just like 911 with three thousand deaths and people jumping to their deaths when their government had the responsibility to protect, not destroy, those citizens.

Gary Anderson strategicdefaultbooks.com

Have trouble reading often? Where did it say kill? It said sink not kill. If they were proposing to rescue or not rescue after the sinking wasn't specified. Believe it or not boats have sunk without everyone on board being killed. Bet you didn't know that. You did look at the original document didn't you, not the wiki clip notes.

Just like 9/11? Only in the deepest recesses of the conspiracy addled brain. I will grant that you have a very active imagination. I really liked the part about Bush Sr being part of killing JFK. Great stuff. Serious question, did you actually believe the memo wasn't altered, even though bush's name was poorly hand written in the middle of a typed document, or do you just think everyone else is so dumb they won't notice.

Is there a central website, a conspiracydujour.com type of thing, that you look all this stuff up on or do you just surf until you find something? Keep this stuff coming, I'm far to lazy to actually look for it.

bgamall4 says

None of these even came close to coming down. Bigsby, you are intellectually dishonest. Are you paid for this? Or do you show your lack of capacity to learn for free?

Again-- A fire burning jet fuel is different than a fire burning wood. You understand that, right?

bgamall4 says

A picture is worth 10 thousand math equations.

Obviously you didn't google "gorilla in the room". I'm surprised at that since you love video's so much. Theres hundreds about this subject. There's even some articles that are written with words.

tatupu70 says

Again-- A fire burning jet fuel is different than a fire burning wood.

jet fuel fires are too cool to melt steel

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm

coriacci1 says

jet fuel fires are too cool to melt steel

You haven't been keeping up, have you?

Bigsby says

coriacci1 says

jet fuel fires are too cool to melt steel

You haven't been keeping up, have you?

The conspiracy nuts have trouble following if there aren't a lot of pretty pictures to look at and narrators telling them what they should be thinking.

bgamall4 says

None of these even came close to coming down. Bigsby, you are intellectually dishonest. Are you paid for this? Or do you show your lack of capacity to learn for free?

Did you forget to show the part where 767s full of fuel hit the buildings and took out vital structural elements as well as immediately destroying the fireproofing? And did you forget to post the building plans showing that those buildings all just happen to be the same unconventional design of the WTC? Oh, wait - none of that stuff happened. Whoops - so much for your stupid theory.

I know it's more fun for you to watch movies with big neato flames in them, but you might try also using your brain.

bgamall4 says

But if you accept that WTC7 was pulled, you have to accept that they all were pulled.

That sends chills down your spine, Homeboy.

Your spine. You seem to be ignoring the fact that we don't agree with what you're saying.

bgamall4 says

But instead of debating and trying to come to terms with WTC7 which you cannot explain, you just say you don't agree. Weak.

Give me strength. What do you think this thread has been about? And if you want a proper discussion, then why don't you answer any of the questions that have been asked of you? Time and time again, you have singularly failed to do so. You aren't interested in a discussion. You simply want to post up banal Youtube videos and pretend that they are proof of your conspiracy theory. Unfortunately for you, they aren't.

bgamall4 says

The NIST version about WTC7 is impossible. Therefore, all the towers were loaded.

There you go. And in a couple of sentences too. That is why this thread is pointless and your arguments ridiculous.

bgamall4 says

No, it is impossible for a steel reinforced building to be taken down by fire. You cannot find one example because it never happens. That is why the owner said they pulled it. Are you guys for real? Grigsby, you are stuck in a muck.

Blah, blah, blah. Because it hadn't happened before until the WTC's particular circumstances doesn't make it impossible. It's an idiotic argument. Early human civilization built houses. For a few years no houses burnt down. Then a house burnt down. According to you, that's impossible because it had never happened before. Can you not see how stupid your argument is?

bgamall4 says

And only Ronald Reagan can say there you go. You have not earned the right with your feeble attempts to even say that.

Are you purposefully being moronic or does it just come naturally to you?

bgamall4 says

Homeboy says

Did you forget to show the part where 767s full of fuel hit the buildings and took out vital structural elements as well as immediately destroying the fireproofing?

Looks like that China fire took out everything. Including all fireproofing.

"Looks like"? What on earth are you talking about? That's really cool that you have X-ray vision so you can see fireproofing INSIDE a building by looking at the outside. The fire "took out everything"? It took out steel structural supports just like the planes did to the twin towers? I thought you said fire couldn't destroy steel. I don't think the voices in your head are agreeing with each other. You are just babbling nonsense now.

And I am arguing about WTC7, a classical steel building just like those examples. But if you accept that WTC7 was pulled, you have to accept that they all were pulled.

It was not "just like those examples". WTC7 had unusually long floor spans - up to 54 ft. long. Different design - you are comparing apples and oranges.

What's more, you are claiming that WTC7 was brought down by explosions, yet there is footage of the event, with audio, where no explosions can be heard. Therefore, what you are claiming did not happen.

You seem to believe that if EVERY tall building that catches fire doesn't fall down, then it can never happen. This is specious reasoning. It's tantamount to saying if anyone can survive a gunshot wound, then it's impossible to die from a gunshot wound, which is obviously false. You showed 3 buildings that had fires (under completely different circumstances) and didn't fall down. The 3 WTC buildings did fall down. You seem to believe this is impossible, but you are unable to provide any reason for it being impossible.

That sends chills down your spine, Homeboy.

No, but your creepy conspiracy mentality kind of does.

Homeboy says

What's more, you are claiming that WTC7 was brought down by explosions, yet there is footage of the event, with audio, where no explosions can be heard. Therefore, what you are claiming did not happen.

Don't be silly Homeboy. It was a new type of explosive. Silent.

Bigsby says

Don't be silly Homeboy. It was a new type of explosive. Silent.

It's all here in this detailed proof of the conspiracy:

Squatting in East CoCo says

First you must understand that there is a semi-secret super elite group of people that run our incompetent government; that run all of the worlds governments

That's just not true. It's the same time traveling aliens that planted the stories of Obama's birth that run our incompetent government. I saw a video that proves it.

Bigsby says

You aren't interested in a discussion. You simply want to post up banal Youtube videos and pretend that they are proof of your conspiracy theory

You're just catching on to this after 578 comments? For shame, you seemed so much brighter than that.

bob2356 says

You're just catching on to this after 578 comments? For shame, you seemed so much brighter than that.

Oh, I was fully aware of it, but having pointless 'discussions' on the internet fills some down time while in my office.

Bigsby says

bob2356 says

You're just catching on to this after 578 comments? For shame, you seemed so much brighter than that.

Oh, I was fully aware of it, but having pointless 'discussions' on the internet fills some down time while in my office.

That's fair. I do it while waiting for everyone else in the family to wake up.

bgamall4 says

No, he said they were going to pull the BUILDING. You are deceived aren't you? Are you NIST Grigsby?

Why would he admit that on film? I've asked at least 4 times, and you can't answer this simple question.

bgamall4 says

No, he said they were going to pull the BUILDING. You are deceived aren't you? Are you NIST Grigsby?

Strange then that he never actually said that. And here is the full quote:

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

The background to that quote is a discussion about the state of the fire and avoiding further loss of life. In no way, shape or form, except in a conspirator's warped perception, does that translate as an order to blow up the building. Perhaps you could explain why you think he would give that order to the fire department commander rather than one of the people who supposedly planted the explosives. Or are you now saying that it was the fire department commander who was in charge of the demolition? Utterly ridiculous. Rather like your arguments.
And you STILL haven't answered the questions you were asked.

He sounds like a good wife.
Will he be replacing the dog in your avatar??

robertoaribas says

and he looks great. But he can't think. I work out with him

bgamall4 says

Homeboy says

Why would he admit that on film?

What difference does it make why he said it. It fits perfectly with what actually happened to the building. The NIST waited months to put out the report, and ignored the squibs. They are liars.

"What difference does it make?" That's your answer? Seriously?

It makes ALL the difference. If Silverstein were part of a secret conspiracy to detonate 3 buildings and make it look like a terrorist attack, he would not admit this on camera and then later say it wasn't true. That doesn't make any sense.

I'm almost at a loss for words here. Do you not realize that "secret" and "admitted on camera" are mutually exclusive things? You seem to be perfectly happy to dismiss this obvious fact when doing so "fits" with your conspiracy theory.

If they were going to admit they blew up the buildings, then there would be no reason to pretend that terrorists did it, therefore no reason to fly planes into the buildings. Your scenario doesn't make any sense; therefore it could not have happened. This is called logic.

Please, try to use your brain just a tiny bit. You believe in nonsensical things, and the fact that they are nonsensical doesn't seem to faze you in the least. This is troublesome.

bgamall4 says

Homeboy says

WTC7 had unusually long floor spans - up to 54 ft. long. Different design - you are comparing apples and oranges.

So you are saying that three of the worst structured engineered buildings in the history of mankind were built all in the same place. The odds of that are near zero.

I said no such thing, and your proclamation of the "odds" of events are wholly without foundation. Do you understand that calculating odds is a mathematical process, not just something that you make up?

They were not the "worst" engineered buildings. Instead of having tightly spaced steel girders in a grid, necessitating small rooms, they were designed to be able to have larger rooms. The engineers obviously didn't anticipate the exact series of events that would happen on 9/11. I did see an interview with the WTC designer, and he seemed quite genuinely distraught that his building had failed in the way that it did.

But clearly the WTC was a different type of design from earlier high-rises, and to pretend this is not true is to be in denial.

Here is a picture of the Empire State Building being constructed. Do you see the tightly spaced steel columns throughout the building?

Now here is the WTC being constructed. Do you see the central core, and then the relatively large expanse without any vertical support that extends to the perimeter facade?

♫ One of these things is not like the other.... ♫

I don't know why I'm bothering. You obviously aren't about to listen to reason.

a chi giove?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/systemic-destabilization-as-a-strategy-of-tension-911-the-jfk-assassination-and-the-oklahoma-city-bombing/

bgamall4 says

That is bogus science. I am talking about WTC7 which was a normal steel constructed building. If it had explosives, and it did, the others had explosives too, regardless of your arguments. Squibs were observed in them. If WTC7 was pulled, and it was, you can argue until the cows come home and know that if the NIST lied about that building the whole thing is a lie.

You like videos. Where's the video that shows the necessary controlled explosions to bring down a very large building and the accompanying loud noises that said explosions make? And no, a video of a couple of puffs of smoke does not show a controlled explosion.

And guess what? I think you might know what's coming.. you STILL haven't answered those earlier, very relevant, questions.

bgamall4 says

Homeboy says

he would not admit this on camera and then later say it wasn't true.

He would say it wasn't true if he was trying to cover up the truth. You think backwards.

You are dense as molasses.

Yes, he would say it wasn't true if he were trying to cover up the truth, but...

HE WOULDN'T ADMIT ON CAMERA THAT HE WAS PART OF A SECRET CONSPIRACY, DUMBASS!!!!!

That is bogus science.

Well you're certainly the expert on that, LOL. It's a picture. Are you saying you do not see the difference in construction between the Empire State Building and the World Trade Center? And I thought you liked looking at pictures.

I am talking about WTC7 which was a normal steel constructed building. If it had explosives, and it did, the others had explosives too, regardless of your arguments. Squibs were observed in them. If WTC7 was pulled, and it was, you can argue until the cows come home and know that if the NIST lied about that building the whole thing is a lie.

WTC7 also had unusually long floor spans, which is part of why it failed. I told you that already. Try to keep up, o.k.?

There were no squibs. The squibs are only in your mind.