patrick.net

Squatting in East CoCo says

a. There was thermite found in the dust.

b. The video evidence clearly has sounds of explosions. You can argue that they were not CD explosions but I see you are not argueing that there were no explosions.

c. According to NIST's official story a single unseated girder was quickly followed by over 400 structural steel connections per second failing. It was the only steel building to ever implode into its own footprint from fire alone. Yes, there was damage from the falling of the towers (not near as much damage as other WTC buildings that did not fall) but according to NIST the building would have fell from fire alone.

a. has already been discussed by other people a number of times, so what is your purpose in bringing that up again?
b. a couple of very small and random 'explosions' when a huge building is on fire does not, in any way, shape or form constitute a CD and to try and imply otherwise is ridiculous. Post up the video that shows a CD or stop peddling this line. As I know you can't, just stop repeating something that can clearly be demonstrated to be false.
c. what's your point?

Squatting in East CoCo says

Bigsby says

Zlxr, did you really just post that? Is it meant as a joke?

He's mocking the official theory of how office fires deformed steel.

I rather thought he just posted something that came across as very foolish. Just look at the number of times he used the word melt in it.

Zlxr says

Well - according to your theories about how weak steel is.

1. cars that catch on fire should also melt or bend out of shape. Especially when it's a gas fire.

2. Gas stoves should be melting and or deforming the burners when cranked up to high.

2. car crashes and fires on bridges should result in the bridges bending out of shape and the concrete and asphalt exploding into powdery substances.

3. The replacement building for the World Trade Center should not be built. So any tenants stupid enough to rent office space are fools.

4. Self cleaning ovens should result in melting stoves and house fires, barbecues should self destruct and the legs on barbecues should become deformed and bend since you believe that steel conducts heat so readily.

5. Fireplace pokers etc. should deform and bend out of shape quite easily for those of you who like to play around with the burning logs.

6. Refineries should melt down when they have fires.

How is someone this stupid even able to dress himself? Seriously - I don't understand it.

I don't see or hear any explosions where those steel connections are being blown out. Therefore, not a CD. How many times do we have to say this?

O.K., you can post your 4 sentences now.

Trolling in East CoCo says

Replace "melt" with "deformed" in zlxr's post and you might understand the mocking.

I posted a picture of steel deformed by fire just a little while ago, and you posted this in response:

Trolling in East CoCo says

Yes, "Look at pictures of any large steel structure that has burned. There is tons of twisted deformed steel." but not a collapsed pile. Unless it was part of a controlled demolition.

You ADMITTED that fire can deform steel in a building fire and now you are flip-flopping on that. Did you forget to take your Ritalin today?

Zlxr says

6. Refineries should melt down when they have fires.

You mean like this?

Squatting in East CoCo says

Bigsby says

I rather thought he just posted something that came across as very foolish. Just look at the number of times he used the word melt in it.

Bigsby,

Replace "melt" with "deformed" in zlxr's post and you might understand the mocking.

I understand perfectly well what he's doing, and what he's doing is stupid.

Squatting in East CoCo says

From my research I have found thermite is used for cutting steel not "to shatter steel". Are you argueing that thermite cannot cut down a steel beam?

Where did you study thermodynamics?

So you are admitting that you now understand (as everyone has been trying to explain to you for ages) that thermite cuts steel by melting it with high concentrated heat not that it explodes and shatters steel like high explosives? Then what are the explosions you claim are thermite on the videos? That makes two of your 4 horsemen in direct conflict. Evidence? I think not.

I'm still waiting for you to outline the mechanism of the controlled demolition theory. HOW did people get tons of explosives and or thermite into the building, plant them in the walls, keep the batteries alive, protect them from fire, etc.. As an alleged college professor you are surely aware that a theory must have a mechanism to be valid. A real college professor would most assuredly know that postulating without explanation isn't science, it's just a bunch of male bovine feces. A real college professor wouldn't throw out a theory and then say use your imagination as to how it can be done.

University of Texas. I didn't say I studied thermodynamics I said THE CLASS (as in 1, meaning singular) I took because it seemed interesting and I needed another science credit. Pay attention please. I did look up the numbers on line since I can't find my old textbook.

Surely Gage could have looked up the same numbers I did, but chose not to. Very odd you would put such faith in someone that doesn't even bother to look up (or was very careful to ignore) established easily confirmed information that contradicts his grand inflammatory statements. I'm certain as a college professor you would have the back round to look this up for yourself also, but you also choose not to. Curious behavior for people who claim they only wants to get at the truth. I'd be very interested to see how much money Mr. Gage makes from ae911truth.org. You wouldn't have any involvement in ae911truth.org yourself would you? Hmmm. Follow the money.

Homeboy says

How is someone this stupid even able to dress himself? Seriously - I don't understand it

I'm sure he's not stupid, just woefully ignorant. Not everyone makes it past 3rd grade. It's no shame. Please try to be understanding of people who are doing the best that they can.

Squatting in East CoCo says

The building also housed other secret and top secret agencies. Security was heavy and a lot of "extras" were built in including a "doomsday" device which was designed to destroy all of the sensitive documents in the event of an attack.

Construction began on WTC7 in 1984. The building was 570 feet tall, and had 81 support columns with 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns spanning from basement to roof. Each one of these columns was prewired with cutting charges designed to disintegrate upon activation.

In addition the file rooms of the building had large thermite bombs that would vaporize all of the secret documents.

The jihadist plane struck the first tower at 8:46 on the morning of 9/11. Panic set in after the second plane slammed into the other tower at 9:03. Almost an hour later one of the super secret agencies lit their self destruct bomb.

Meanwhile, Jack Bauer speeds towards the scene in his shiny new Ford Expedition. He knows he only has minutes to expose the government conspiracy and save the World Trade Center. Chloe manages to hack into the conspirators' computers and download the secret schematic showing the location of the thermite bombs. She quickly sends them to Jack's PDF. Will Jack arrive in time to disarm the bombs?

Pulling up to WTC7, Jack jumps out of the car, only to find himself in the middle of a hail of bullets. "Oh, no! More government conspirators!" shouts Jack. Using his cat-like reflexes and his his steady trigger finger, Jack makes quick work of downing all the conspirators while running towards the building. Entering the building, Jack locates the first thermite bomb. Suddenly, he spots Osama bin Laden in the corridor. Jack shoots bin Laden in the kneecap. As bin Laden writhes in agony, Jack yells, "Now you're going to tell me everything you know!" Between moans of pain, bin Laden responds, "Secret....conspiracy....Me, Bush, Silverstein....Enron.... Planned 60 years ago....explosives planted in all WTC buildings...." "Where's the detonator???", screams Jack. "I will not tell you, infidel pig". Jack shoots bin Laden's other kneecap. "Tell me, NOW!" "No, I will never tell you" shouts bin Laden. Jack puts a bullet through bin Laden's head and begins trying to disarm the bomb.

Suddenly, Tony runs in. "Jack, we have to get out, NOW! Silverstein just gave the order to pull it." Jack replies, "But I haven't disarmed the bombs". "It's too late!" Tony warns. Already, they can hear explosions. "How come we can hear explosions if thermite doesn't explode?" Tony asks Jack. "How the hell am I supposed to know? Let's get out of here." yells Jack.

Running out the door as the building collapses around them, Jack and Tony see George W. Bush standing outside, still holding his copy of "My Pet Goat". "So, you discovered my secret strategery to blow up the WTC. Well now you fellahs is goin' to Gitmo, 'cuz we can't have y'all blabbin' about this."

THE END.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Please don't ask me to "prove my theory". It's not a theory; it's my imagination. The proof is above.

Quite clearly the proof is above, but just not for your little piece of fiction.

Homeboy says

Running out the door as the building collapses around them, Jack and Tony see George W. Bush standing outside, still holding his copy of "My Pet Goat". "So, you discovered my secret strategery to blow up the WTC. Well now you fellahs is goin' to Gitmo, 'cuz we can't have y'all blabbin' about this."

You forgot about Marvin playing with the CCTV joystick.

bob2356 says

I'd be very interested to see how much money Mr. Gage makes from ae911truth.org.

Ask and ye shall receive. That's a public record, and can be found at guidestar.org. You have to sign up to see their tax filing, but sign up is free.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Richard Gage, President and CEO
Berkeley, CA

Total Revenue: $434,526
Compensation for President Richard Gage: $80,652

Of course, I would bet you he's getting the lion's share of that 400 grand as well. After all, what expenses does he have? Paying $50 a year for the domain name for his website? Maybe renting a cheap office space in Berkeley? That's about it, right?

Dude's laughing all the way to the bank. I'm seeing him in a new light now. He's actually a fucking genius.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Please don't ask me to "prove my theory". It's not a theory; it's my imagination. The proof is above.

Where above? At least know you are admitting 1 & 2 wtc were brought down by the damage from the planes. That's a start. The problem is 7 wtc wasn't brought down by explosives, Aliens did it.

***************

Time traveling aliens knocked down 7 wtc with a death ray.

*************

The proof is above. It's at least as good as your proof. Probably better.

I notice no denial about your connections to ae911truth.org. I think you are actually Richard Gage in drag.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Thanks for the input guys. I think we are getting closer to a plausible explanation for the controlled demolition evidence at WTC7.

I think you're getting closer to the nut farm.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Are you argueing that thermite doesn't explode?

You are certainly are quick to grasp the obvious. Yes professor thermite doesn't explode. As someone pointed out the only way thermite explodes is if you mix it with lots of explosives as can be said about corn flakes.

Homeboy says

Dude's laughing all the way to the bank. I'm seeing him in a new light now. He's actually a fucking genius.

Wow, for 400k I could pitch a lot of bullshit with a straight face also. Not only is he raking in mega bucks but he's got an entire army of unpaid volunteers (like squatting) frothing at the mouth to shill for him because they actually believe what he is shoveling out no matter how silly it is. You are right, he's a fucking genius.

He's really no more than a televangelist, but the religion he's touting is The Church of Controlled Demolition.

Homeboy says

He's really no more than a televangelist, but the religion he's touting is The Church of Controlled Demolition.

I like it. The CoCD. Hucksters don't even need a tent or state fairs any more. Now gullible people seek them out via google. Progress is great isn't it? I do miss the striped jacket and top hat look though.

Squatting in East CoCo says

bob2356 says

Ok you can post your 4 sentences again now.

There was trace evidence of thermite.

There was earwitness and video account of explosions.

WTC7 fell in a manner which defied physics.

The official report neglected or denied the evidence.

You are a broken record.

@bob,
when I watch the few vids of WTC 7 going down, it sure does seem like a lot of destruction happens in many places at the same time. What I mean is, like, the roof didnt just collapse in the weakest area, or a side of finishing material didn't just flake off, of a window or two burst when the thing flexed ... it just sagged in the center, from front to back, and then went down, in, down, in, and looks very "smooth", for a lack of better word.

If the building lost it's integrity due to the ground being heaved, then a big earth quake would have done the same thing, and more important than that, there may be other buildings in that general area that have been stressed. Right?

Anyways, for me, it is WTC 7 that bugs me. I don't buy the interanl job idea, but the NWO / Rothchilds / Illuminati type of event trigger is possible, right?

Squatting in East CoCo says

con·spir·a·cy/kənˈspirəsē/

Noun:

1.A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

2.The action of plotting or conspiring.

All of you deniers realize that the government's story is a conspiracy story too, Right?

Wrong.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Bigsby says

Squatting in East CoCo says

bob2356 says

Ok you can post your 4 sentences again now.

There was trace evidence of thermite.

There was earwitness and video account of explosions.

WTC7 fell in a manner which defied physics.

The official report neglected or denied the evidence.

You are a broken record.

Personal attacks are not helpful. Debate the evidence.

Like I said, you're a broken record. You keep posting 'personal attacks are not helpful. Debate the evidence,' and then you just keep posting the same 'evidence' again and again. The problem is there's nothing to 'debate.' You believe in your conspiracy despite the complete lack of any credible evidence for it. It is simply an article of faith to you. You've exhausted all your Youtube videos and conspiracy go to points. We don't agree with what you are peddling. Believe in your conspiracy theory if you so wish, but what's the point in posting the same thing over and over again?

So he's in the military. You do understand that there are people in all walks of life who believe in this sort of stuff. Why should we give any more credence to this particular individual than anybody else? He's not somebody with expertise in this area or any insider knowledge. He is a soldier one step above a major. Are we suddenly supposed to be converted to your point of view just because he likes a conspiracy theory or two? He just sounds like your typical right-winger.

Squatting in East CoCo says

If there is nothing left to debate, then why are you still here?

You have NOT been debating the evidence as much as attacking me personally.

What debate has there been? You don't respond to what people say to you, you simply repeat the same points over and over.
Squatting in East CoCo says

I have submitted lots of credible evidence to counter an incredible official story.

No, you haven't.

Squatting in East CoCo says

I say there were explosions, You say there were no explosions.

No, we don't. We say there was no controlled demolition. It's quite possible for things to explode in a major fire. That is entirely different to a CD.

Squatting in East CoCo says

I submit videos with explosions. You say they were not controlled demolition explosions without admitting there actually were explosions.

What? You post them up stating they are evidence of a CD. We say they clearly don't show a CD because one small flash or a couple of puffs of smoke do not make for a CD except in the mind of those immune to the glaringly obvious.

Squatting in East CoCo says

I could say the same about your belief in the official conspiracy theory.

The official story isn't a conspiracy theory if you believe it to be an accurate reflection of the events, which I do.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Right wingers, left wingers, civilians, active duty militairy, engineers, architechts, chemists, People from all walks of life QUESTION the official story.

Open your mind to the EVIDENCE!

And the vast majority of people don't believe in your version of events, so how about you open your mind to the evidence rather than relying on Youtube videos and wing-nut websites.

Squatting in East CoCo says

This was in 2008. Back then I was part of the, less than majority of, people who believed in the official conspiracy story.

Do you have more updated polls on what the "majority" of people believe?

And how many of those 15% thought the US government actually blew up the buildings? And no, I don't collect polls on wing-nut conspiracy theories, so why don't you Google one that directly asked the question of whether or not those polled believed the US government blew up all the WTC buildings.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Bigsby says

And the vast majority of people don't believe in your version of events,

Do you have evidence to back this claim?

The poll you just posted.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Okay, then, who really was behind the attacks on 9/11?

Squatting in East CoCo says

My version of events is that the official story is questionable. According to the, old, poll I posted 46% believed (past tense 2008) the official story.

In what world is 46% a "vast majority of people"?

Please explain your logic?

I said the vast majority of people do not believe your conspiracy theory. You posted up a poll saying that 15% of people polled believe the US government was involved in some way - NOT that it necessarily blew up the buildings. Your own bloody poll shows you are in a very small minority.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Outside of my imaginary scenarios, I never concluded the government was involved.

Again, I count myself in the 25% that don't know.

You are bullshitting.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Personal attacks are not helpful to the debate.

Please debate the evidence.

Here we go again.
You say you count yourself in the 25% who don't know (from that poll) and yet you do nothing but post stupid arguments in favour of the conspiracy theory (until, of course, I pointed that out to you, and so you posted up the Chomsky video -presumably so you could go 'no, no, look I'm examining all the evidence.' Sure you are.). Like I said, you are a bullshitter.

Squatting in East CoCo says

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/09/911-and-the-war-on-terror-polls-show-what-people-really-believe-10-years-later.html

So Youtube is popular. So what? Or do you think that a poll showing a lot of Chinese don't trust the US government (paint me shocked) is somehow proof that your government blew up the WTC?
As has been said by others, I do not believe for a second you are a professor, and if you are, I hope to an imaginary God that you don't teach a critical thinking course. Perhaps you work at Liberty University...

Squatting in East CoCo says

Bigsby

What is your personal reason for attacking me instead of debating the evidence I present?

You say you are a brit in monterey. Do you have some personal reason for perpetuating the official conspiracy theory?

Blah-blah-blah. You are just a conspiracy wing-nut who isn't interested in any informed discussion of the evidence. People have posted numerous responses to what you've posted and you've singularly failed to address any of them. Once again, you aren't new to this and you aren't interested in any form of reasoned discussion - you are simply repeating the same tired points over and over. You are someone who has accepted an outlandish conspiracy theory, who then ignores all evidence to the contrary, and tries to bolster their argument with the thinnest of Youtube 'evidence.' Why is someone who claims to be a professor so wedded to the reverse scientific method? The lack of logic and critical thinking skills you've demonstrated in this thread is a very poor reflection on you as a supposed educator. I stress the word supposed.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Or do you think that a poll showing a lot of Chinese don't trust the US government (paint me shocked) is somehow proof that your government blew up the WTC?

??

Do you find that hard to follow? It's not that complicated.

Squatting in East CoCo says

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/poll_only_16_percent_believe_gov_on_911.htm

And once again, that is not a poll showing how many people think the US government blew up the WTC buildings. Show me a poll of US citizens that deals with that question.

Squatting in East CoCo says

I am not argueing that the government blew up WTC7. I am argueing that there is evidence that the building was destroyed by controlled demolition.

And who do you think carried out this supposed CD for which you have yet to post any convincing evidence and for which you seem to be very strongly implying that the US government carried out. Is a picture of you in the dictionary next to the word disingenuous?

Squatting in East CoCo says

Can you show me a poll that shows the "vast majority" of people accept the official story of 9/11? No?

And once again, I said the vast majority don't believe your version of events (and I'm talking about US citizens here before you go off and find yet another poll, no doubt this time about what Middle Eastern arabs think happened). You really don't seem very good at following a line of argument. Are you sure you're a professor?

Squatting in East CoCo says

Are you saying that "the Chinese not trusting the US government is proof that the US government blew up the wtc"?

Help me understand your logic?

Oh, good God. This is the level of a US university professor? Read what I posted again. It really isn't that difficult to follow.

Squatting in East CoCo says

And once again can you show me a poll that backs up your statement that "the vast majority don't believe your version of events"?

You posted one up for crying out loud. This is just ridiculous.

And I take it you do actually understand that when polls show some people don't fully believe the government's version of events, it doesn't actually mean they therefore think that the government blew up the buildings.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Please help me understand the logic of your statement:

" do you think that a poll showing a lot of Chinese don't trust the US government (paint me shocked) is somehow proof that your government blew up the WTC?"

FFS, read the bloody link you posted up and then think about it. It's not that bloody hard to understand or are you just playing the village idiot?