patrick.net

The Professor says

You deniers have three basic arguments:

1.) "You are a ridiculous stupid conspiracy theorist."

2.) "The towers could not have been demolished as it would have left evidence and too many people would have to have kept quiet."

3.) "By questioning the official story you are dishonoring the victims."

I don't recall using any of those arguments. I've yet to see a compelling version of what DID happen. Only vague criticisms of the official version. NEVER a similar explanation involving controlled demolition or laser guided planes, etc. If I'm wrong, please point me in the direction of the real story....

bgamall4 says

WTC7 is the factual basis for debunking the debunkers. They have no answer for WTC7. None. They never will.

No, they do. You just don't like it.

bgamall4 says

I have looked at hundreds of pictures of demolitions and the smoke just looks like 9/11.

And that passes for science in your mind? The smoke from 9/11 looked similar to smoke from controlled demolitions that you've seen?

I'm speechless.

Bap33 says

I think two planes hit two towers. I also happen to think they were controlled
remotely and/or were locked into their contact points in advance .. like a GPS
type of thing or lazor guided. OBL didn't do it.

And what about all those phone conversations between the doomed passengers and their loved ones who witnessed the 9/11 terrorists kill people on the plane and take over the cockpits?

All that shit faked too? Were the families and their answering machine recordings all part of the big conspiracy?

At what point do these conspiracy theories just collapse under their own weight and complexity?

The Professor says

Bigsby says

all the actual experts who disagree with you.

You've talked about the experts but never linked to them. You say you don't want to waste your time.

There are no "progressive collapse" experts that have not been debunked.

Complete and utter bullshit. You originally came to this discussion stating that you were open minded about what happened (complete nonsense of course) and then proceeded to reel off one ridiculous video after another. If you can find those, then I think you can find the numerous threads that you and Bgamall have started and where people have posted the information you claim you want to see (but which you will simply disregard because it doesn't align with your narrative). You can also use the rest of the internet. It's all a waste of time of course, because you've already made up your mind and are simply happy to lap up the most ludicrous of conspiracy nonsense. Fine, if that's what you want to do, then good for you, but why do you have to keep peddling the same old nonsense over and over again? Yes, we know what you think. Yes, we've seen your stupid videos, compiled by equally vapid individuals. And yes, we all know you have no scientific knowledge, but are completely happy to dismiss those that do because, well because you think you know better... think being the operative word.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

You seem to have forgotten (or rather very conveniently ignored) all the actual experts who disagree with you. But hey, you and Bgamall obviously know better...

They have either been threatened or they gain financially from what they do. They are not putting forth real science.

Where's the facepalm smilie when you need it?

bgamall4 says

tatupu70 says

OK--could you detail all the other times jet planes flew into skyscrapers of the same design as the twin towers?

Because otherwise, this is a unique event and lack of a comparable is not surprising.

But the smoke from detonation was the same. However, the smoke from the planes was black. Look at the picture here that says soot:

http://rense.com/general75/thrm.htm

An infant can see the difference in the smoke(s).

How do you know what the smoke from silent detonations looks like?

The Professor says

Bigsby says

Complete and utter bullshit.

So you still have nothing but insult?

Thank you for your contribution.

Er, your views require zero respect, and you know fine well where to look as I stated in the rest of the post you chose not to include.

socal2 says

And what about all those phone conversations between the doomed passengers
and their loved ones who witnessed the 9/11 terrorists kill people on the plane
and take over the cockpits?

no no, my post failed to say I did think the crazy arabs took over the cock-pit. I just happen to think the reason they were able to hit such a small target on the very first attempt could be due to a guidance system of some type. I am sorry, I can see from my post what you figured I meant, and that was not what I meant.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

your views require zero respect

Thank you for your contribution to the debate.

You're welcome. I hope you come to your senses as there are plenty more important things to focus on than wasting your time concocting bullshit 9/11 conspiracies.

bgamall4 says

You are outnumbered here. Your tin foil ideas are so lame. You know the black
smoke of the planes and the white smoke of detonation are easily identifiable.
You are lame and tin foil.

You do realize that a fire in the twin towers might produce both black and white smoke, right? Jet fuel was burning, but so were a LOT of other things in the building...

Jet fuel would not be burning if it all was spent in the first mili-second. Not that it matters to your point. Oil, hydrolic fluid, and other lube type fluids could be burning, but I doubt the jet fuel was still around .... unless there was just an itty bitty leak in the fuel tank and it dripped onto a lit fire. Otherwise, it exploded on impact and that was that. No more jet fuel. Right?

Well why don't we get the myth busters to fly a plane into the Willis tower and see if the same thing happens?

It could serve two purposes, it would solve the mystery about how the towers collapsed, and it would clean up Chicago a little bit.

bgamall4 says

Anything burning that was not thermite related was black smoke.

How in the world did you come to that conclusion? Last I checked, burning paper doesn't create black smoke.

bgamall4 says

Which is why the NIST waited years to post an explanation for it, because
they had no real explanation for it.

And, like I've said before, unusual things happen all the time. Doesn't mean there's a conspiracy involved. Since planes don't fly into skyscrapers every day, it stands to reason that it make take a bit longer to analyze the events.

bgamall4 says

We do know the NIST model is not valid because it doesn't look like the building
falling at all.

Again--you've got to be kidding. It must be wrong because it "doesn't look right"?

There is no reason why the government couldn't release more information about 911. That is what I find odd. For example, we have one "video" of the aircraft hitting the pentagon, but no flight path shots. No video of the aircraft at ANYTIME during its approach from any camera anywhere. Or any of the other aircraft. We deserve to know where all of those planes were at every minute, as well as the positions of our intercepting aircraft, before and after. For national security purposes at this point is a ridiculous excuse. All of the emergency response measures have changed now.

Why leave out that info unless it at least shows negligence? That they could have done more and chose not or failed to.

deepcgi says

We deserve to know where all of those planes were at every minute, as well as the positions of our intercepting aircraft, before and after... Why leave out that info unless it at least shows negligence?

Have you filed a FOIA request? Flight paths were reported, including mistakes, e.g. two fighter interceptors went the wrong way and had to turn around, just as W's motorcade also went the wrong way and had to make a U-turn on a divided highway. They weren't omitted, though they may have been buried under a pile of patriotic homilies, just as PatNet seems at times to get buried under stupid conspiracy threads like this one. It's ludicrous to claim you "deserve to know" something that you obviously haven't taken the time to research. The job of commercial news is to sell products for advertisers, and to make money for network executives and owners; if you rely only on what you see there then you get what you deserve. If you want really to see the whole flight paths, then invest the time to find them, don't pump up a stupid conspiracy theory by pretending they were concealed.

The Professor says

"Progressive collapse" has never happened anywhere before or since 9/11.

Repeating that lie does not make it true, but your choice to keep pushing this thread up the PatNet index is among the stupidest and worst things you've done. It bothers me doubly because I count Einstein among my favorite heroes, and 9/11 among the worst tragedies I ever saw, and you've insulted both with your misguided quest for attention.

I am aware of what is public about the flights, and we do NOT have precise information - which is why I said it. In fact I worked on the official aircraft visual identification training system for the Department of Defence for several years.

The Professor says

You're pushing it too.

My stated purpose is to educate or be educated.

You may state it, but you don't mean it.

curious2 says

a stupid conspiracy theory

c2- Here is what I think fuels all this bullshit. The government lies pathologically. The FBI lies when the truth would be easier and make them look better. They lie mostly to hide, not a nefarious criminal conspiracy, but a kind of greedy self serving ineptitude.
The Warren Commission never set out to honestly investigate, and hence people are trying to make sense of those events to this day.
The 911 commission was not rigorous investigatory body, it was a Historical Narrative Committee.
if you ever have time, listen to what Jesse Trentadeau says about the Oklahoma bombing. (He is the attorney whose brother was killed in an interrogation gone bad. He is a very poor speaker, unfortunately, but I believe he is completely credible)
He describes the kind of conspiracy that I believe in, a conspiracy to hide and deny prior knowledge, and cover up institutional ineptitude.
Think about the Pat Tillman story.
They lied their faces off in a butt-covering-frenzy about Waco and Ruby Ridge and so those will remain Unsolved Mysteries for some people.
When these people know they are not being told the truth they have no way of knowing how far the lie extends.
I feel sorry for them.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

You may state it, but you don't mean it.

For you Bigs; a diagram illustrating the official story of how the twin towers collapsed.

And there is a man who claims he wants to be educated.

The Professor says

Please link to evidence of progressive collapse in towers other than the three WTC Towers on 9/11

http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20120423/bridgeport-marks-25th-anniversary-of-lambiance-plaza-collapse-photo-gallery

http://nymag.com/news/9-11/10th-anniversary/towers-collapse/

Robert Sproul says

Think about the Pat Tillman story.

The late Pat Tillman, and his mom, should both be counted as American heroes. That example and others justify skepticism of official stories, especially from a unitary chain of command. Usually such stories come to light because genuinely interested parties, in that instance the late Pat Tillman's mom, have a genuine interest in finding the truth. They do not excuse "Professor" dirtbag trying to make hay out of others' pain.

The Professor says

You're pushing it too.

I'm done. You're on ignore. You'll have to find some way to live with yourself without further enabling from me.

Here is some first hand knowledge of 911 aftermath you haven't heard. Believe me or not...it's true.

A US Senator, who I won't name, was a neighbor of mine on 911. I had a chance to speak with him in a room with less than eight people in it on the Sunday following the incident.

I asked him face to face when the Congress would be declaring war on the terrorists. He told me flat out that "there's no way. They will definitely stop short of declaring war."

When I asked him why, his answer was quick and without delay..."Insurance companies. The big insurance companies can use an act-of-war like an act-of-god. It would nullify their liability entirely. The point is to not let them escape so easily. In fact, the chances of ever hearing a full declaration of war in our lifetimes, again, is very unlikely in my opinion."

There folks. You haven't heard that before, I'll wager.

i think that those companies were exempted in subsequent legislation.

That's what happens when politicians have chats without their staffers.

Silly senator.

(How did your neighborly "neighbor" vote on that one?)

Wrong. He was talking about the WTC towers.

"Soon after the September 11 attacks, Silverstein declared his intent to rebuild, though he and his insurers became embroiled in a multi-year dispute over whether the attacks had constituted one event or two under the terms of the insurance policy, which provided for a maximum of $3.55 billion coverage per event. A settlement was reached in 2007, with insurers agreeing to pay out $4.55 billion,[2] which was not as much as Silverstein had sought. Silverstein also ran into multiple disputes with other parties in the rebuilding effort, including with the Port Authority. In an agreement reached in April 2006, Silverstein retained rights to build three office towers (150 Greenwich Street, 175 Greenwich Street, and 200 Greenwich Street), while One World Trade Center (previously referred to as the "Freedom Tower") would be owned by the Port Authority, as would Tower Five, which it would have the option of leasing to a different private developer and having redesigned as a residential building."

I can't recall how my neighbor voted, but I can tell you how Ron Paul would have.

Yes.

I think the 9/11 legislation that gave payments to victims also had language to take those companies off the hook.

If you wanna "prove me wrong" go ahead, I'm not gonna spend the time to do it. But that's what I recall about it.

bgamall4 says

In a court of law people are identified by what they look like. An implosion
looks a certain way. WTC7 was an implosion, period. If you can't see that you
are either afraid to know the truth, a shill for the neocons, or just
stupid.

And if you were an expert on implosions, then your opinion might have weight.

The Professor says

Do any of you deniers have any evidence to refute the evidence of the planned
demolition of the three towers?

What evidence??????????? Seriously--what evidence do you have that it was a planned demolition. Some white smoke? BGa saying it "looks" different? That's not evidence.

The Professor says

Witnesses heard explosions

Is that surprising? I'd be surprised if they didn't hear explosions.

The Professor says

Residue of explosive

link please?

The Professor says

Official explanation contorted to fit the pre-conceived story

Not evidence.

The Professor says

Towers fell in a way that defies the laws of physics.

Not true.

Care to try again? Because the so called evidence is weak to say the least.

The Professor says

tatupu70 says

The Professor says

Residue of explosive

link please?

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

I tried to follow your link to the actual "scientific paper" but it didn't work. Do you have the link to the paper? Becauese I give that website zero credibility.

I suggest you check out this site

http://www.911myths.com/indexold.html

The Professor says

How about this:
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/

OK--that doesn't seem to support your contention. Was there a specific portion that you wanted to highlight?

The Professor says

Your turn. Can you name another large steel framed building that completely
failed and ended up in a pile of broken steel and a cloud of pulverized concrete
caused by "fire-induced progressive collapse."?

Interesting logic there. So, your contention is that if something hasn't ever happened, it therefore is impossible?

I'm glad the Wright Bros. didn't think that way...

The mechanism was described by NIST. Was there a specific part of the explanation that you disagree with? Some factual or scientific errors?

The Professor says

So you believe that office fires (desks, carpets, paper) heated up a beam,
which sagged, and caused the "progressive collapse" of over 400 structural
connections per second in the time it took for WTC7 to free fall to the
ground?

Nope--because that's not what anyone is suggesting happened.

You'll notice that another part of the explanation indicates that the interior of the building started collapsing prior to the exterior--so your timeline for how long it took to fall is way off...

The Professor says

I just asked you to provide ONE example of "fire-induced progressive
collapse'" and you admit that it never happened before or since 9/11/2001.

Yep. There are lots of things that haven't happened since 9/11/2001. Can you give me an example of a tsunami that caused a nuclear power plant to lose cooling since 3/11/2001? Should we be looking for explosives in the nuclear plant?

The Professor says

Can you explain why NIST did not even test for explosives considering the ear
witness testimony of explosions?

Can you explain why they didn't test for fairy dust? Or unicorn horns?

The Professor says

Can you admit that the government investigation was flawed?

Nope. Can you admit that it didn't matter what the investigation found--that your mind was already made up?

bgamall4 says

Why don't you give it up Tatupu? You have it wrong.

Not sure how a video of the OUTSIDE of the building rejects the explanation that the inside fell before the outside.

bgamall4 says

If something has never happened it is likely impossible in the world of
physics.

That is utterly ridiculous.

bgamall4 says

And notice the building fell absolutely symetrically. That is impossible
without detonation. I think you are being dumb.

Obviously it's not impossible as the video proved. You think a lot of things--unfortunately most of them are incorrect.