patrick.net

I have been to Breckenridge twice now and I just can't get comfortable there because of the altitude. Has to be something like 10,000 feet. Very hard to sleep when you're breathing heavily because of the thin air.

The Professor says

The official report did not even TEST for explosives.

I'm wondering why you keep saying this. Do you think it proves something?

Here are some other things NIST didn't test for:

Dinosaur DNA
Leprechauns
Dodo bird eggs
Marinara sauce
Moon rocks

Do you think NIST should have tested for these things? Do you think not testing for moon rocks proves a conspiracy? If you can understand why they didn't test for all these things, then you will understand why they did not test for explosives.

But I'm sure this is way over your head, "Professor".

Personally, I think you should have gone with "Gilligan". It suits you better.

Oh, and I don't care if you want to ignore me; it only proves that you are stumped. You are unable to support your own arguments, and you are unable to address any of mine. Anything more than cutting and pasting drivel off ae911truth.org is beyond your intellectual abilities.

Zlxr says

Also -planes can be remotely controlled - so they didn't need hijackers. Apparently the technology is so good that the pilots can't do anything once it takes over.

Prove that the planes were remote-controlled.

Zlxr says

http://www.public-action.com/911/noradsend.html

How NORAD could not have missed those planes for that long.

Also -planes can be remotely controlled - so they didn't need hijackers. Apparently the technology is so good that the pilots can't do anything once it takes over.

Are you saying the planes were remotely controlled on 9/11?

Zlxr says

How can you prove the planes weren't remotely controlled?

Why are you asking us to prove a negative? If you are claiming that the planes were remotely-controlled, then prove it.

If I said the moon was made of green cheese, would you have to prove it's NOT made of green cheese? Of course not.

Zlxr says

And why have hijackers attacking passengers when they are going to crash and blow up and die anyway?

What?

Yet another truther hit-and-run. Claim that the planes were remote-controlled without even a shred of evidence, offer no evidence, then just quietly crawl back into the woodwork when challenged on it.

Zlxr says

And just because somebody's passport is sitting in the ruins doesn't mean anything more than there's a passport sitting in the ruins.

it means that it was planted there is all.

bgamall4 says

Homeboy says

Yet another truther hit-and-run. Claim that the planes were remote-controlled without even a shred of evidence, offer no evidence, then just quietly crawl back into the woodwork when challenged on it.

They could have been. That was the MO of the Operation Northwoods, to remote control the planes. The technology was present to do that.

Even if the technology exists, that doesn't prove it was done.

Please show your proof that the planes were remote-controlled. "They could have been" is not proof. If you don't have any evidence, then there is no reason for us to believe you.

The Professor says

WE, the people, have been at war for more than a decade against an idea, terrorism.

Again, you show your inability to think logically. The fact that we are "at war against terrorism" doesn't prove that the WTC was brought down by a controlled demolition.

Just admit you're a kid on your dad's computer. C'mon, we all know it now.

The Professor says

Professor vs Rudin of the BBC as he tries to dismiss hard evidence and instead maintain the ridiculous lies over the 911 attacks.

Reminds me of The Professor vs Bigsby and Bob.

In that his argument is that it's never happened before to a steel building, so couldn't happen in the future under different circumstances? Yeah, I guess he does sound like you. What other insights did he supply beyond that basic premise? He just sounded exactly like every other conspiracy theorist.

I guess though that an obvious difference with you is that he really is a professor (though in a field that hardly makes him an expert on the topic being discussed), whereas you...

Homeboy says

Please show your proof that the planes were remote-controlled. "They could have been" is not proof. If you don't have any evidence, then there is no reason for us to believe you.

Of course there is proof. There is a link to a blog where someone says it's true. The blog also says that there is absolutely no public records. They don't say how they got the information, a small teeny tiny gap in credibility, but what the heck. The only standard of truth needed is someone says so, or someone has a video.

Homeboy says

Just admit you're a kid on your dad's computer. C'mon, we all know it now.

That's not true, he's richard gage owner of ae911truth.org. That's why he keeps shilling ae911truth.org. Did you notice how when anyone types in 911truth.org he always corrects it to ae911truth.org?

If the planes were remote controlled, how do you explain United 80? They have phone messages from the passengers telling loved ones about the hijackers, how they were going to attack them, as well as voice recordings from the cockpit.

Are those all faked too?

Or were 3 planes remote controlled along with 1 that was actually hijacked?

The Professor says

I notice the deniers have no comment on the official simulation.

All those beams you see falling means that a weld or several BIG nuts and bolts have FAILED completely. This has never happened without a controlled demolition.

Does anyone really believe that one conection failing from fire will cause a chain reaction that destroys thousands of weld & bolts in seconds and that will drag an entire building into its own footprint?

That's the official story!

It's not that I have no comments to make, it's just that it's a waste of time engaging with a person so immune to facts.

The Professor says

Did you watch the video???

He shows evidence for thermite, explosions, violation of Newtons laws in the NIST version of events, and a coverup.

Like I said, he sounded like he'd been reading and watching the same crap you peddle on here.

The Professor says

One of us is definitely out of touch with reality.

Yep. You.

The Professor says

You, Bigsby, have dismissed and denied any evidence I have presented. You make grand claims, Like:
Bigsby says

And once again, I said the vast majority don't believe your version of events

That's not a grand claim. Your version of events is very much the minority view.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

My facts? I take it that the evidence of the overwhelming majority of respected specialists in the related fields are not of interest then.

But when asked for links you change the subject.

Change the subject? If you want to read experts' views on the matter, then just stop typing in '9/11 conspiracy theories.' And what about all those experts who deem it unworthy to respond to the kind of stuff you try to pass off as the 'truth?' Most scientists just wouldn't respond to your points because they are baseless speculation.

The Professor says

*Links to a group of engineers or scientists that support the official story.
*Explanation on why the official NIST simulation stops before finishing and why the data and assumptions behind these simulations are not available to be replicated.

a. You appear to have access to the internet. For someone who claims to be trying to find the truth, you seem to be carrying out very one-sided 'research.'
b. Why don't you ask NIST rather than me?

The Professor says

"At 12:18 P.M. on Friday, February 26, 1993, an explosion rocked the second level of the parking basement beneath Trade Tower One. The explosive material, as forensic investigators would later determine in their chemical analyses of samples retrieved at the site, was somewhere between 1,200 and 1,500 pounds (54480 kg) of urea nitrate, a homemade fertilizer-based explosive.

The blast ripped open a crater 150 feet (46 meters) in diameter and 5 floors deep, rupturing sewer and water mains and cutting off electricity. Over the hours that followed, more than 50,000 people were evacuated from the Trade Center complex."

Those were some tough towers. They were well engineered.

That rather raises the question of how many explosives you think were carted into the three buildings. A very substantial amount by the sounds of it. And then all that ripping down, cutting etc... etc... All completely unnoticed. Quite the accomplishment that. Worker after worker. Truck after truck. Day after day. And then all those explosives surviving raging fires, going off without being heard, at the exact points where 2 planes hit for 2 of the buildings, and without a single video showing what passes for controlled demolitions in the real world (as distinct from the 2-puffs-of-smoke-controlled-demolitions so beloved of Youtube conspiracists). Yes indeed. Quite the accomplishment.

The Professor says

"At 12:18 P.M. on Friday, February 26, 1993, an explosion rocked the second level of the parking basement beneath Trade Tower One. The explosive material, as forensic investigators would later determine in their chemical analyses of samples retrieved at the site, was somewhere between 1,200 and 1,500 pounds (54480 kg) of urea nitrate, a homemade fertilizer-based explosive.

The blast ripped open a crater 150 feet (46 meters) in diameter and 5 floors deep, rupturing sewer and water mains and cutting off electricity. Over the hours that followed, more than 50,000 people were evacuated from the Trade Center complex."

Those were some tough towers. They were well engineered.

So you are saying that an explosion couldn't take the building down, and you are also saying that an explosion is the ONLY thing that could take the building down.

Yeah, that makes sense. Does your dad know you're using his computer?

Bigsby says

That rather raises the question of how many explosives you think were carted into the three buildings. A very substantial amount by the sounds of it. And then all that ripping down, cutting etc... etc... All completely unnoticed. Quite the accomplishment that. Worker after worker. Truck after truck. Day after day. And then all those explosives surviving raging fires, going off without being heard, at the exact points where 2 planes hit for 2 of the buildings, and without a single video showing what passes for controlled demolitions in the real world (as distinct from the 2-puffs-of-smoke-controlled-demolitions so beloved of Youtube conspiracists). Yes indeed. Quite the accomplishment.

That's the easy part of the accomplishment. Think about Al queda, the cia, the president and his cabinet, silverman, the fbi, air traffic control, nypd, fdny, norad, sellers of thermit, sellers of detonators, all the people that installed the explosives, pilots, passengers, the pentagon staff, Israel, as well as bugs bunny all conspiring together and not one single person has admitted any involvement at all after 10 years. Pretty spectacular accomplishment in the age where the president can't keep a blow job in his locked office secret. Actually way beyond spectacular, I can't begin to come up with a superlative that actually describes how far beyond human comprehension this is.

So alleged "professor" how did they do it? Maybe the flashy thing they used to erase memory in Men In Black wasn't fiction at all. You were aware MIB is fiction weren't you?

The Professor says

a. There are no groups of scientist supporting the official version. I have searched.
b. Just looking for your opinion on the incredible official version. I know you have an opinion.

a. Ah, I see what you did. I never said that there were groups of scientists who had formed (whatever that means - presumably creating a nice website and posting up multiple Youtube videos) to counter your conspiracy arguments because scientists don't normally waste their time doing that. I said that the overwhelming majority of specialists don't support your view - that is demonstrated by either their stated opinions or the fact they haven't signed up to your silly website - the silent majority if you like. However you could always consider the NIST report a group of specialists, or Popular Mechanics....

b. The incredible official version? Whereas you think your conspiracy theory is credible? Go on take a guess on which version I find credible and which one I think is incredible - then you'll have my opinion on the NIST report.

Zlxr says

Look = I only brought up the fact that Technology has invented ways to operate planes remotely - as in drones and also passenger planes if the special devices are installed. One thing I read said that they did this to avoid having hijackers kill the pilots and have the plane crash or take off to parts unknown. That means that planes that have this device installed could actually be hijacked and that the pilot (any pilot) could not do a thing because the plane would be controlled from a remote position and then could be brought in safely to whatever airport was determined to be the right place to land.

I'm not saying this proves this was done. You just have to consider that it is possible.

No, I don't. You do understand that you don't actually have to consider everything that you read on conspiracy sites to be plausible. Even conspiracy nuts can be selective.

Zlxr says

From everything I can find out - the Twin Towers and Bldg 7 were full of asbestos and it needed to be removed BEFORE any renovating or destruction of the Buildings could take place. As you probably don't know - asbestos removal is only supposed to be done by specially trained people.

You need to read more. Actually I do know, I've worked in buildings while asbestos abatement work was done. Pretty much every building over 30 years old in NYC is full of asbestos. So what? As long as it's undisturbed it doesn't need to be removed (the correct term is abated) or touched at all. Silverman wouldn't be concerned about this. If there were any renovations done by Silverman rather than the tenants then the area being renovated would be abated if asbestos in sufficient quantities to require abatement (minor amounts don't) were present. It's done every day in NY. If you have to abate you only have to seal up the area you are working on. There are tons of abatement contractors, the construction blue book of NY lists 22 pages of them in the NYC area. There are plenty of landfills for asbestos, NYDEC has a list.

You couldn't look up any of this? Is google disabled on your browser? What exactly is everything you can find out? Everything you can find out on 911truth.org you mean.

The WTC was still publicly owned at the time of 9/11 and is still publicly owned today. Silverman leased it.

At least 90% of the buildings in NYC are filled with asbestos, as are the subway system, the sewer system, all the underground utilities. bridges, tunnels, etc., etc., etc.. Any idea that the WTC was destroyed because it had asbestos is just stupid. One more desperate grasp from the conspiracy nuts. Like radio controlled airplanes, it could have happened. Time traveling aliens could have hit the towers with a death ray also. Prove that they didn't.

The Professor says

I think this is a picture of controlled demolition. If it were the result of a "pancake collapse" where are all of the pancakes?

All I see is batter.

Yes, yes, so the death of nearly 3000 of your fellow citizens is now a source of humour to you, Mr. Make Believe Professor.

And you can 'think' a lot of things, but that doesn't automatically make them true. Any normal individual would look at that image and say it is an image of the collapsing WTC. That and no more. How, pray tell, does that image indicate a CD to you?

Whats's your point? You've filled up an entire thread with false claims of proof. Perhaps you need to look a bit closer to home before you start down this path.

The Professor says

The pulverized concrete blowing out across Manhattan. The fact that the entire steel frame of those towers were destroyed. The fact that a large group of scientists and engineers agree that there is evidence of a controlled demolition of the 3 towers.

That's a lot of information from one photo. And what exactly do you think happens to concrete in such a collapse? It's hardly the strongest of materials. Climb up a ladder and drop a lump of it to the ground. What happens? Now look at the situation on 9/11. And yes, when that much weight starts collapsing, then that force would naturally lead to the steel frames also collapsing. Why is that such a surprise to you? And what do you mean by 'destroyed?' Why not say collapsed?

And a large group of scientists and engineers agree that there is evidence of CDs at the THREE towers, do they? How many constitutes a large group? How many of those on your favoured websites believe the 3 towers were brought down with CDs rather than just think the government is hiding something? How many are actual scientists/engineers in relevant fields? How many of those claimed scientists on your conspiracy website have actually been verified to be such? How many scientists does that leave who haven't signed on to your conspiracy theory?

Come on 'professor,' you are aware that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and not just bluster. If you actually were a professor, you would know that. The fact that you obviously lie about your employment credentials doesn't really bolster any of your other points.

The Professor says

"The 9/11 Commission was a colossal cover-up exercise even according to the Commission’s own chairmen Thomas Kean and Lee H. Hamilton. Let us not forget that the 9/11 myth is the pillar of another fabrication, the so-called “Global War on Terrorism” and constitutes the one and only pretext for the U.S. imperialist war on the world, responsible for the death of millions of innocent civilians."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/911-facts-fiction-and-censorship

I think you'll have to explain that in a bit more detail. Get googling. Whilst you're doing that perhaps you could also dream up some tenuous connection between this and your belief in CDs.

The Professor says

Doesn't that violate Occam's razor?

Doesn't EVERYTHING you have posted in this thread violate Occam's razor?

Zlxr says

Look = I only brought up the fact that Technology has invented ways to operate planes remotely - as in drones and also passenger planes if the special devices are installed. One thing I read said that they did this to avoid having hijackers kill the pilots and have the plane crash or take off to parts unknown. That means that planes that have this device installed could actually be hijacked and that the pilot (any pilot) could not do a thing because the plane would be controlled from a remote position and then could be brought in safely to whatever airport was determined to be the right place to land.

I'm not saying this proves this was done. You just have to consider that it is possible.

So basically you're throwing a bunch of shit at the wall and seeing if any sticks. You're not being very scientific.

That's a very professorial image.

Fire can weaken steel. The WTC fires weakened trusses. There are videos clearly showing the outer columns of the twin towers bowing inwards at the point where the floors collapsed. Obviously those columns gave way and... Why is that so difficult to accept and yet you find it so easy to believe in CDs despite the complete and utter lack of video and audio evidence? CDs make a bloody huge noise. There aren't any such sounds with the WTC collapses. Why is that? Because they weren't CDs.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

And what do you mean by 'destroyed?' Why not say collapsed?

Destroyed, not collapsed, DESTROYED!

Destroyed? Your image shows the consequences of a huge building collapsing and spreading debris over a wide area (and not, I might add, solely into its own footprint). You are using the word destroyed for very obvious emotive reasons.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

Climb up a ladder and drop a lump of it to the ground. What happens?

[sarcasm] It hits the ground and pulverises into dust. [/sarcasm]

Ah, Mr. Professor, you rather fail to see the obvious, but hey, I'll explain it to you - you can easily break up concrete with very little force and from very little height. Now compare that to the WTC....

The Professor says

Do you have proof that I am being untruthful about my credentials? How would that affect the evidence?

Proof? Oh, I don't know, how about your approach to posts on this thread? Your complete lack of intellectual honesty. Your pretense of 'looking for the truth.' Your complete ignorance of the scientific method. Your claims that the Youtube videos you post up are 'proof' etc. etc.

The Professor says

If you had some science background the evidence might make more sense. Even if you had a liberal arts degree you might have the critical thinking skills to understand the evidence.

I am actually a postgrad unlike you. I'm no expert on structural engineering, but I don't need to be to see through your bullshit.
And if you're such an expert, why is it that you do nothing but post up other people's videos and cut and paste their comments? Can you not think or argue for yourself - two qualities I think most people would generally associate with a professor?

The Professor says

Assuming you are not a government troll.

Argue the facts and skip the personal attacks.

Oh, the hypocrisy.

The Professor says

We are still waiting for a list of scientist and engineers that support the official story.

That would be every other scientist in the world. Obviously, if they believed your little fairy tale, they would have signed the petition. They did not sign the petition, therefore, they know what actually happened, and it was not a controlled demolition. You see, we don't need to make "lists" of people who believe normal things. Do you have a list of people who believe the sky is blue? Of course not.

Zlxr says

Bob - you miss the point and make big issues of lesser issues. So the Port Authority still owns the site - but Larry Silverstein owns the buildings for 99 years. You missed the part that he couldn't find tenants to fill the offices in the buildings in their then current state.

So....you're saying that Larry Silverstein arranged for 4 commercial jet planes to be hijacked, had one crashed in Pennsylvania, and convinced the U.S. military to allow him to crash another one into the pentagon, then blew up 3 of the buildings he was leasing, but not the other 4. But then he forgot to fly a plane into WTC7, so it looked suspicious when he blew it up. Then he admitted he was responsible for everything on camera.

Really? Does that really make sense to you?

I think you've been watching too many Batman movies.

Zlxr says

Bob - you miss the point and make big issues of lesser issues. So the Port Authority still owns the site - but Larry Silverstein owns the buildings for 99 years. You missed the part that he couldn't find tenants to fill the offices in the buildings in their then current state.

He obviously needed to get with the times and rewire and renovate the buildings to where people would want to rent.

I can't believe you don't know the difference between lease and own. Pretty amazing.

WTF are you talking about rewire and renovate the buildings to where people want to rent. The buildings were just fine. You are right, I missed the part where Silverman couldn't find tenants in. Everyone except you and who ever wrote the blog you read missed it also. Occupancy rate was 98%. You understand that that's like almost totally occupied don't you. Like Bigsby said even conspiracy nuts can be a little selective instead of just parroting anything other conspiracy nuts write. Do you have any idea how to use google?

Here is a part of a press release from Feb 2001:

NET LEASE OF WORLD TRADE CENTER JUST BUSINESS AS USUAL FOR PORT AUTHORITY\'S REAL ESTATE DIRECTOR -- Cherrie Nanninga Credited with Shepherding Office, Retail Renaissance At Trade Center, Other Port Authority Facilities
Date: February 12, 2001
Press Release Number: 16-2001

When Port Authority Real Estate Director Cherrie Nanninga enters her 88th floor office each day, she passes a model of the World Trade Center, a stark reminder that she is in charge of the largest real estate transaction in New York history. The scale and complexity of the negotiations are astonishing. The complex has 10.4 million square feet of office space, 10 percent of all of the office space in downtown Manhattan. There are 400,000 square feet of stores selling upscale clothing, books and food - enough to keep Main Street bustling in a small town. And the world-famous landmark has offices for 40,000 workers.

As Real Estate Director, a position Mrs. Nanninga has held since 1996, the occupancy rate at the trade center has risen from 78 percent to a healthy 98 percent, retail soared in the trade center's mall, and available office space in the Newark Legal Center has nearly been filled.

The Professor says

bob2356 says

Time traveling aliens could have hit the towers with a death ray

Doesn't that violate Occam's razor?

Not at all. Let's see:

1. The military has had aliens in the deserts of Nevada and New Mexico for 50 years. I've seen pictures of alien bodies on the internet so this is a fact.

2. The military has huge facilities for talking to aliens all over the world. Look at http://www.seti.org/seti-institute/projects. Yes the government says these are for civilian research, but we are all more sophisticated than that here at patnet. We know to never believe the official government story.

3. The military didn't shoot down the remote controlled 9/11 planes. Where was Norad? Norad should have brought done the planes instantly as soon as they deviated from their flight path. The remote controlled planes flew into the wtc to create a story to cover up the alien death ray melting the steel in the towers and collapsing them.

4. There was popping sounds as the towers collapsed. You have kindly presented many videos showing this. This was actually the death ray melting the steel of the buildings. Plus the only way the buildings could have fallen and not violated newtons third law was if all the steel in the buildings were melted at exactly the same time. This could only be done with a death ray, not thermite.

Unassailable proof that the twin towers were brought down by aliens.

The Professor says

Destroyed, not collapsed, DESTROYED!

Looks like a pretty big pile of rubble to me. You do remember there is something like 70-80 feet of parking garages below ground level don't you. So there is another 70 feet of rubble sitting below ground lever. Let's see, 100 story building with about 1 foot of material per floor leaves a pile of rubble about 100 feet high. So 70 feet below ground and 30 feet above ground is just about right.

That means collapsed professor. Try again.

The Professor says

bob2356 says

Unassailable proof that the twin towers were brought down by aliens.

Excellent Analysis!!!

Why are we in Afghanistan?

1. The military has aliens in residence.
2. The military talks to aliens in space.
3. The military didn't shoot down the planes.
4. There were popping sounds and only a steel melting death ray could have avoided violating newton third law.

Argue the facts professor, argue the facts.

Homeboy says

Zlxr says

Bob - you miss the point and make big issues of lesser issues. So the Port Authority still owns the site - but Larry Silverstein owns the buildings for 99 years. You missed the part that he couldn't find tenants to fill the offices in the buildings in their then current state.

So....you're saying that Larry Silverstein arranged for 4 commercial jet planes to be hijacked, had one crashed in Pennsylvania, and convinced the U.S. military to allow him to crash another one into the pentagon, then blew up 3 of the buildings he was leasing, but not the other 4. But then he forgot to fly a plane into WTC7, so it looked suspicious when he blew it up. Then he admitted he was responsible for everything on camera.

Really? Does that really make sense to you?

I think you've been watching too many Batman movies.

You forgot that he managed to arrange all this including wiring the buildings for demolition in the 1 month between when he signed the lease and when 9/11 happened. Amazing guy that silverman.

The Professor says

So why are we in Afghanistan?

Oil.

The Professor says

Lets assume that it took 10 tons of explosives (20,000 lbs)to blow the buildings. If one man could carry 50 lbs of explosive in a rolling toolbox and place it near columns it would take one man 400 trips or 10 men 40 trips to place all the explosives.

Difficult does not mean impossible.

Nice thought. So 400 big rolling toolboxes left all around the wtc and no one would notice. Good thing Marvin Bush was on the job.

I thought you claimed many times that is was proved that thermite did it? All a toolbox full of thermite would do is make a really intense fire.

For someone who claims to be a professor who has read extensively on the subject there are an awful lot of convenient holes in your knowledge base. Especially when people have written about these things several times on this post. Severe short term memory loss like this is serious, you should have it checked out.