patrick.net

Squatting in East CoCo says

Can you see the contradiction between:

"The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building."
and
"Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building."

Can you see the contradiction in NIST's 2 statements

No, not at all, Simple logic dictates this isn't a contradiction. It doesn't say that you can't get the buildings to come down by blasting a few key columns (depending on the construction). You CAN. just that no one WOULD, because the entire point of a controlled demolition is the DEMOLITION part. People demolishing buildings are paid very well to make absolutely sure buildings come down completely and cleanly on the first try. Demolishing a substantial sized building is a big enterprise. Large area's need to be clear of people, Traffic has to be stopped. Security has to be hired. Utilities must be shut off. All very expensive. So no one that intends to continue their career in demolition is going to say hey let's knock out a few columns and see if it falls or not. Plus if it doesn't go on the first try then it would be very dangerous to go back in and set more explosives. So setting enough explosives to be absolutely sure the building goes down completely is the normal way of doing business. Nothing to see here, move along.

Bigsby says

I'd say he's making a very salient point.

I bet you've been waiting years to use salient in a sentence. Very good, the level of debate here has taken a jump up.

Squatting in East CoCo says

I have been teaching for more than 20 years and I have a lot of patience for helping students understand concepts.

You are a teacher? God help us.

bgamall4 says

The underpinning of the supports to allow falling into the footprint must come by demolition. There is no other way.

You have no scientific backing for this claim. The fact that you typed something on a message board does not render it true.

Squatting in East CoCo says

bob2356 says

So setting enough explosives to be absolutely sure the building goes down completely is the normal way of doing business. Nothing to see here, move along.

WRONG! Now that you recognize the conspiracy you can't just move along.

I agree with you that they did set enough explosives to make sure the building came down.

Of course "they" did. The time traveling aliens are very clever. Sneaking tons of explosives in the buildings, ripping apart lots of walls to place explosives, running miles of wire to connect them, getting the explosives to stand up to hours of fire, leaving no trace of explosives except what would occur in the building anyway, getting the explosives to explode with almost no noise. All while thousands of people went in and out of the buildings every day. Very, very clever. Good thing marvin bush was there to turn off the camera's at critical times. I worked at a clients office in 3 wtc (aka Marriott World Trade Center) in 94 and I didn't see a single alien go in or out the whole time. Very clever.

Hey Coriacci, you were much prettier last week. Sex change went bad?

bgamall4 says

Raw says

Hey Coriacci, you were much prettier last week. Sex change went bad?

That wasn't nice, Raw. What does that have to do with the Towers imploding?

Gary Anderson strategicdefaultbooks.com

I recognize that picture. It is of a Pakistani in England who is the offspring of a first cousin marriage, which was forwarded to me in a video last month.
I just want to know why a pretty girl would want to replace her picture with that one?

bgamall4 says

If you keep calling me a kook I am going to complain to Patrick. You are a troll and you keep posting with no information and no proof of your own. I have posted proof after proof and you insist on ignoring it and accusing me of being a kook in the face of overwhelming evidence. Why don't you just shut up if you don't have anything factually to contribute.

You have got to be bloody joking. Shall we have a look back at this thread and see what you've been calling me and others?

And how the hell am I a troll? What information do you want me to post? I am not the one trying to prove a ridiculous conspiracy theory by posting laughable videos that show nothing but the opposite of what you think you're trying to demonstrate. You're posting evidence against what you are saying, but you are so caught up in your nonsense you can't even see that.

And if you want people who don't have anything factual to say to be quiet, then you should be the first to shut up.

So anyway Bgamall4, complain away to Patrick that I called you a kook. You are.

bgamall4 says

I have told you over and over that it was nanno thermite. And I have told you that Marvin Bush controlled the cameras. So, don't insult, just refute. Oh, you can't refute facts can you?

Apparently you must have completely ignored the responses people posted on that. How very convenient. And by the way, saying something is a fact doesn't actually make it so. It requires an overwhelming weight of evidence in its favour, and I'm afraid to burst your bubble, but that doesn't equate to some tin hat conspirator posting Youtube videos.

bgamall4 says

bob2356 says

Sneaking tons of explosives in the buildings,

I have told you over and over that it was nanno thermite. And I have told you that Marvin Bush controlled the cameras. So, don't insult, just refute. Oh, you can't refute facts can you?

Gary Anderson strategicdefaultbooks.com

You can't even spell nano thermite much less have a clue what it does or how it works. No one can refute someone who just keep posting the same bs over an over. Just because you keep saying marvin bush controlled the camera's doesn't make it fact. Just because nutcase.org has it on their website doesn't make it a fact. Marvin Bush was a director, not in operations. Marvin Bush left the company a year before 9/11. Those are facts. Easy to look up, public record facts. So now you refute these facts (not possible) or accept the crown of troll supreme. Not that anyone doesn't already know that.

I still like the theory of time traveling aliens better anyway. It's at least as plausable as what you are dishing out.

BTW I actually did do consulting work at 3 WTC for 6 months in 94 for a couple of really sketchy Isreali's running a medical billing service on the 19th floor. It was a nice contract, I was living on the bayshore, took the early ferry from highlands to pier 11 every day, caught the first ferry back and was at the beach at horseshoe cove Sandy Hook by 4;40 every day windsurfing. No wind, no problem just ride my bike up to gunnision and ogle nudist teen girls. So sweet. I think those guys are currently in jail for medicare fraud.

bob2356 says

You can't even spell nano thermite much less have a clue what it does or how it works.

LOL!

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?

Read more carefully, I said I believed aliens are at least as plausible if not more so as humping in tons of explosives and installing them unseen, not that I believed in them. It's a much more eloquent theory.

Could you provide the evidence that Marvin Bush was actually in a position to order the camera's turned off even though he left the company a year before 9/11 and was never a company employee, just a director. I notice bagmal hasn't stepped up to the plate on this one.

What happened to all the cool video's from 9/11 truth? Bagmal you are slowing down.

bgamall4 says

bob2356 says

Could you provide the evidence that Marvin Bush was actually in a position to order the camera's turned off even though he left the company a year before 9/11 and was never a company employee, just a director.

His contract terminated 911. His replacement died on the first day of work, 911. He was not liked by the Bush family. Look it up.

Gary Anderson strategicdefaultbooks.com

SInce you have the information in hand then why do you not provide it? The SEC and company records say he left the year before (I don't think this is on line any more, I read it like 6-7 years ago when the whole 9/11 truth thing started). What records do you have ( I know the answer is nothing)? We went over this in great detail earlier in the post. You seem to totally lack short term memory or you believe if you simply repeat things enough they are true. Either way it doesn't constitute evidence or even rational thinking.

Maybe we are going about this the wrong way. Let's start at the beginning. What does the word evidence mean to you? Use short words if you need to.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Bigsby says

Don't worry Squatting, I understand just fine. And your students have my sympathy. Oh, and by the way, you need to reread your initial contradiction post. There is no contradiction.

@Bigsby,

Let's forget about the contradictions of the NIST report for a moment and back up. Do you believe that government lies to us?

Yes, let's forget about your contradiction that wasn't. And everybody lies. And governments are run by people, so... It doesn't mean that your government blew up the WTC.

Squatting in East CoCo says

At what point were you convinced that building 7 was not intentionally demolished? Are you convinced beyond reasonable doubt that all of the experts that have doubts about the official story are wrong?

I respect experts who have doubts. The official story has lots of shadings in it to put the best light on some serious failings. But having doubts is a long way from simply making things up.

At what point? Maybe 2006. I read the 911truth.org website when it came out in 2004(?) or so followed by aetruth.org about a year later. I started with an open mind but the 9/11 truth stuff just doesn't add up or even makes sense unless you do the bgamal thing of just saying it's true because you want it be true. So much of what is on the truther websites just don't stand up to checking real records. Marvin Bush is the perfect example. Of course if you are bgamal then you just repeat whatever you find on a blog somewhere because everyone (or at least every truther) knows there was a gigantic conspiracy to alter all government/corporate records and only the truther blogs have the actual truth. How and where they came up with the actual truth is never explained.

I was curious about the validity of ae's credentialing claims when they first showed up so I submitted a couple totally bogus names and credentials and never heard a word asking for proof. The names I put in are still on the list. So I don't believe the majority of engineers for 9/11 truth are actually engineers. Other (much less lazy than me) people have actually checked the names against state licensing and have come up with a lot of blanks. So 1500 alleged engineers actually know the truth and the other what 20 or 30 million are just unwilling dupes of the government. Can you really believe that? I can't. I'm sure there are 1500 people of any large group such as lawyers, teachers, doctors, priests whatever that are actually psychotic and should not even be on the streets.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Bigsby says

It doesn't mean that your government blew up the WTC.

So who did blow up the WTC?

Is acting like a moron amusing to you?

Squatting in East CoCo says

The evidence we are debating:
Molten steel
Sounds of explosions
Physics defying explanation of WTC7 collapse from the official report
How explosives were set
Who did it

We aren't debating it, you are. What molten steel? What sounds of explosions (as in a CD)? What physics have been defied (quite the accomplishment that one)? What explosives were set (and yes, you need to produce real evidence for such an outlandish claim)? And as for your last one...

bgamall4 says

Here is the deal, you have not explained how WTC7 fell into it's own footprint. According to the laws of physics, it could not.

You'll have to explain that one. Should be amusing.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Physics defying explanation of WTC7 collapse from the official report

Which laws of physics does it defy?

Squatting in East CoCo says

Debate the facts Bigsby. Personal attacks are not helpful. Thanks

Debate what facts? You asked me who blew up the WTC. That was an idiotic question to ask me, don't you think?

bgamall4 says

Squatting in East CoCo says

Can you explain:
The molten steel and concrete.
The explosions witnessed and recorded.
The fact that only 3 steel buildings have ever imploded due to fire.
Why your mind is closed to any of the above evidence.

He cannot explain it. I have asked him if he is tied to the military, and so far no answer.

What do you mean I can't explain it? It's been discussed multiple times in this thread already. You just simply refuse to accept what people have been explaining to you. Just take your explosions comment. You two show a video of a few puffs of dust and go 'look at that' as if it's proof of a CD. I'm asking you how that is a CD. It's only a CD in the mind of someone who has already decided what they believe and ignores everything that counters that no matter how compelling or obvious.

Squatting in East CoCo says

We are debating whether the towers blew up. Your argument seems to be, "anyone that thinks the towers were intentionally destroyed is an idiot." I believe that there is evidence of an explosion and there should be an independent investigation.

You asked me who I thought blew up the WTC. I think it's pretty obvious from this thread that I don't think anyone blew up the WTC. That's why it was a ridiculous question.

And Squatter, I'd love you to explain how the collapse of the building ran contrary to Newton's 3rd law. Just because you read it on a conspiracy site doesn't make it so. Please, if you believe that, then explain it. And no, what you said isn't an explanation.

Squatting in East CoCo says

And thus violating newtons third law.

What part of my explanation does not make sense? Perhaps I can clarify.

Can you explain why you think Newtons third was not violated?

Are you a physics expert? No? Me neither. You are just cutting and pasting stuff you've read from conspiracy websites. Do you seriously think that if the collapse of the WTC buildings violated a fundamental law of physics that the furthest it would have got is conspiracy forums? Really? I don't know the ins and outs of the physics involved and neither do you, but the people who worked on the NIST report know a lot more than either you or I on this topic and guess who I'd rather rely on.

Squatting in East CoCo says

I am not convinced by your personal attacks. Please show me some "compelling or obvious" evidence.

What do you mean? You are the one peddling the conspiracy theory. It's for you to demonstrate compelling evidence, not me, and you've singularly failed to do so.

Anyway this is just getting incredibly pointless as it's just going round in circles now. Believe what you want to believe. Believe your Youtube videos. See in them what you want to see. Believe your fellow conspiracists. Rely on the reverse scientific method to reinforce your beliefs, but don't try to pretend to the rest of us that you have conclusive proof in the videos you post up. You don't.

bgamall4 says

His logic and reasoning is retarded, based on what he has contributed to this thread. A third grader could reason with more conviction.

Is that your go to argument? You post a series of videos. Claim they are conclusive proof. People criticize them for glaringly obvious reasons and then you call our logic retarded. OK, enough time wasted responding to what you are peddling. Believe what you like.

Squatting in East CoCo says

There is evidence of a conspiracy. If the argument the other side has is:
Bigsby says

Is acting like a moron amusing to you?

when we offer evidence we should not lower ourselves to their level.

Let's debate the facts and stop the personal attacks.

Oh God, that's not the evidence of the other side, that's a response to you asking me who I thought 'blew up the WTC' after 600+ bloody posts. You already knew my answer, so what exactly was your purpose in asking? It was idiotic.

Debating this topic with you two is like debating religion with a person of faith. It's pointless. It doesn't matter what we say, you'll just deny it or ignore it and post up another one of your videos. You believe what you believe. No amount of evidence will change your minds because you are wedded to your beliefs. You are convinced by even the most tenuous of evidence (as demonstrated by the constant stream of Youtube videos you post up that don't demonstrate anything you claim to anybody who isn't similarly wedded to your views). Look, I don't particularly care what happened on 9/11, but I do favour a reliance on hard evidence. If someone PROVED to me that God existed with overwhelming evidence, then I'd become a believer. Saying it's so isn't evidence. The same applies to your arguments. You can shout as loud as you want, call our reasoning retarded, but we're all watching the same videos, and the only people who see what you claim are you and your fellow conspirators. If your evidence is so convincing, then why is that?

bgamall4 says

You haven't said anything. That is the problem, Grasby.

Oh, right and beyond your Youtube videos and saying my logic is retarded what exactly have you said, dimall (did you see what I did there - very childish, isn't it?).

Squatting in East CoCo says

I, and many others, do care about what happened on 9/11.

Why not have a new investigation?

Presumably because most people who actually have expertise and knowledge of what happened on that day don't share your conspiracy theory.

Squatting in East CoCo says

I did study physics in college. I am no expert but I am convinced , by experiments in class, that Newtons laws are valid.

Daily experience also shows us that Newtons LAWS are valid.

The damaged part of the building would not have crushed the undamaged part without some delay. There just was not enough kinetic energy.

You didn't learn that by doing experiments in college. You read it on a conspiracy website, and the guy who wrote it is full of crap. Now you're just blatantly lying.

Squatting in East CoCo says

NIST never even tested for explosives because thay MIGHT have found false positive results! Why do you suppose that is?

Um, because they might have found false positive results. It's right in your own sentence. Why would you test for chemicals that you know are already there? If you found them, it wouldn't prove anything. Of course, you conspiracy nutcases don't seem to understand the concept of proof.

Squatting in East CoCo says

I am not convinced by your personal attacks. Please show me some "compelling or obvious" evidence.

Multiple videos of airplanes crashing into buildings is not compelling or obvious?

Squatting in East CoCo says

NIST never even tested for explosives because thay MIGHT have found false positive results! Why do you suppose that is?

Ok I actually took you sort of seriously (as opposed to BAGMAL who is just a troll) until this idiocy. A false positive? The elements they would test for are part of the building. That wouldn't be "false" positive. So what would testing for them show? That elements that were used to build the building exist in the rubble. Perfect. So not testing for elements that should have existed means is a cover up? Amazing logic. Take a bow.

Squatting in East CoCo says

I did study physics in college. I am no expert but I am convinced , by experiments in class, that Newtons laws are valid.

Daily experience also shows us that Newtons LAWS are valid.

The damaged part of the building would not have crushed the undamaged part without some delay. There just was not enough kinetic energy.

That's odd, I provided a paper earlier that was written by people more than qualified to know that did the math and it says there was enough kinetic energy. Please use your physics knowledge and point out where their calculations are incorrect. They looked pretty correct from what I remember of physics and thermodynamics. You say they are wrong, you say you took physics, so point out how they are in error. I feel it to be true isn't good enough. Someone blogged it isn't good enough.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Why not have a new investigation?

Based on not testing for chemicals that should have been present and your yet undisclosed calculations on newtons laws? Why?

Squatting in East CoCo says

They might NOT have found any positive evidence of explosives which would be conclusive evidence that the building was NOT blown up, but they did not. If they DID do the tests and found NO evidence of explosives this discussion thread would never be here.

That is the most retarded thing I have ever heard. Are you serious?

I propose that a Godzilla-like creature made out of concrete knocked the building down. I think they should have done chemical tests of the rubble to see if concrete was present. The fact that they didn't do chemical tests for concrete conclusively proves that Godzilla attacked the building.

Fun with logic...

bgamall4 says

No, if they don't test for explosives it is a cover up and they won't be able to remove the doubt. And there is much more evidence for the conspiracy than there is against it.

So then you also believe they should check for Godzilla concrete, correct? Do you believe that is also a cover up?

Squatting in East CoCo says

The problem with the logic of the paper you provided earlier was that the calculation of the kinetic energy assumed the top of the building was one huge mass. Even if this were true such a huge amount of kinetic energy would have destroyed the section immediately below it thereby dissipating the energy and stopping there. Otherwise would violate Newtons third.

Now I know you never studied physics even in grade school. So the only two possibilities that exist are total destruction of each floor or no destruction at all? Why is that? So show me the calculations that make it impossible for some pulverizing to occur and the bulk of the mass continuing to fall.

I don't even understand what you are saying. What huge mass? That doesn't make sense. The calculations are based on the actual building mass. Each floor added to the mass one at a time. So you are saying that the first x floors fell creating such a huge mass so that the y floors below were totally pulverized which should dissipated the energy and stopped the x floor mass from falling. Huh? Stopped where, in mid air? You call that logic?

Wow you guys make up some really funny shit.

Squatting in East CoCo says

The problem with the logic of the paper you provided earlier was that the calculation of the kinetic energy assumed the top of the building was one huge mass.

It WAS one huge mass. Have you SEEN the video? You act like you haven't seen it.

Even if this were true such a huge amount of kinetic energy would have destroyed the section immediately below it thereby dissipating the energy and stopping there.

Why? Just because you say so?

Squatting in East CoCo says

The problem with the logic of the paper you provided earlier was that the calculation of the kinetic energy assumed the top of the building was one huge mass.

It WAS one huge mass. Have you SEEN the video? You act like you haven't seen it. The towers failed at the point where they were damaged and everything above that fell as a single piece.

Even if this were true such a huge amount of kinetic energy would have destroyed the section immediately below it thereby dissipating the energy and stopping there.

Why? Just because you say so?

Squatting in East CoCo says

Homeboy says

Squatting in East CoCo says

The problem with the logic of the paper you provided earlier was that the calculation of the kinetic energy assumed the top of the building was one huge mass.

It WAS one huge mass. Have you SEEN the video? You act like you haven't seen it. The towers failed at the point where they were damaged and everything above that fell as a single piece.

Even if this were true such a huge amount of kinetic energy would have destroyed the section immediately below it thereby dissipating the energy and stopping there.

Why? Just because you say so?

Nope. Newton's Third.

Aren't you leaving out a little math, there?

I can't tell if you're serious or if you're trolling now. That's about the second most ridiculous thing I've ever heard anyone say. If I make a house of cards and drop a bowling ball on it, it doesn't arrest the fall of the bowling ball. Obviously there are calculations you need to make about the mass and energy involved, which you just completely blew off.