patrick.net

Put your glasses on and your hearing aid in. And take your tin foil hat off whilst you're at it.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

Put your glasses on and your hearing aid in. And take your tin foil hat off whilst you're at it.

Attack the person when you can't rebut the evidence.

I would like someone to show me that I am wrong about the 3 Towers being blown up on 9/11 because I hate to think there is such evil in our government.

I posted a video of the demolition of a much smaller building than those of the WTC. What you saw and heard with your own eyes and ears were utterly different to 9-11 and yet you say what you say. There is no evidence that will convince you because you deny the obvious and replace it with the completely implausible. You clearly don't want anyone to show you you are wrong because you wouldn't post the nonsense that you do if you did.

The Professor says

And you consider that evidence that WTC7 was not blown up?

Obviously it is evidence. You are claiming those buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. I showed you a video of what a controlled demolition looks and sounds like on a MUCH SMALLER building. Show me the videos of the WTC collapse that are similar to that. You can't because there aren't any because it wasn't a controlled demolition.

It weakened the framework. Do you understand how that isn't the same as melted?
And unbelievable is someone claiming a controlled demolition occurred without having the controlled demolition that goes along with that.

hello,

I am a reasonable reputable and important white male.

I hereby proclaim you all nutbags of the highest order.

This ensures that no one ever calls me a nutbag, even if these theories turn out to be true. It's very safe, it's easy, no one persecutes you for it, and you have nothing to lose! don't be a nutbag, it's the way to go!

Sincerely,

White Man.

The Professor says

@Bigsby

I don't know if you are sincere in your beliefs, suffering from cognitive dissidence, or are just some kind of shill.

You still have not answered if you really believe that an almost 50 story steel framed building would collapse into a smoldering pile of twisted steel and pulverized concrete because rugs, desks, paneling, and other office combustibles burned?

I believe that two planes crashed into the buildings and as a consequence of that they collapsed. You, on the other hand, believe that they were brought down by a silent and unseen controlled demolition. And you are the one accusing me of cognitive DISSONANCE and being a shill. Utterly laughable.

Just post up the video that you believe is conclusive proof of a controlled demolition taking place and then we can compare and contrast that to an actual controlled demolition. Simple wouldn't you say?

The Professor says

Do you believe that an almost 50 story steel framed building would collapse into a smoldering pile of twisted steel and pulverized concrete because rugs, desks, paneling, and other office combustibles burned?

I don't really expect a straight or honest answer from you, but you do help me illustrate the absurdity of the official story.

Err, you believe that all the towers were brought down by controlled demolitions, so what about that?

WTC7 was brought down by an uncontrolled fire and the consequential effects that had on the structural integrity of the building. That is what happened and not a controlled demolition as you claim.

And if you actually have some real video proof of a CD rather than made up whackadoo bullshit devoid of any actual supporting evidence then post it up. You know, a video that at least has a passing similarity to every controlled demolition of a large structure that has taken place before. Come on now, it shouldn't be too difficult for you seeing as that is what you constantly claim took place.

The Professor says

No. It melted. Read the report from FEMA.

"professor" you are either a lying sack of shit or you didn't read the report. It says that the steel was corroded by a "A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel". Then it goes on to say "The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that
the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel".

"Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel". The chemical mix melted the steel flanges, not the temperature of the fire. Read your own postings dumbass. Approaching 1000 C is barely 2/3's of the way to the melting point of steel.

House and office fires have been recorded at over 1100 C many times, it's common. Structural steel loses 90% of it's strength by 800 C. That's why structural steel is fireproofed in the first place. To bad the fireproofing at the WTC wasn't designed to withstand the all too common event of driving a jet through the building.

The Professor says

You do know that no plane hit WTC7 don't you?

You do know that debris from the twin towers did, don't you?

The Professor says

bob2356 says

event of driving a jet through the building.

You do know that no plane hit WTC7 don't you?

You think the other two buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, so what about those two?

And I'm still waiting for that video.

The Professor says

What we "truthers" want is a real investigation, not a cover-up that matches the preconceived story that "fires heated the steal causing it to lose structural integrity initiating a progressive collapse", which has only happened 3 times in history, all on 9/11/2001.

No, you don't. You've already stated what you believe, and what you believe is utterly devoid of any evidence and completely moronic to anyone who isn't knee deep in conspiracy nonsense. A controlled demolition FFS. Post the bloody video that you think proves it, and then we can all have a good laugh at your idiocy.

The Professor says

400 structural connections (bolted and welded) per second had to fail in order for this to happen. Idiocy is thinking that this could happen by office fire

You've already been told and shown why that reasoning is wrong. The fact that you keep saying it shows that you DON'T want to learn the truth, but rather keep espousing this BS story.

The outside of the structure could have have remained for some time even as the structural connections inside were failing.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Show me the videos of the WTC collapse that are similar to that. You can't because there aren't any because it wasn't a controlled demolition.

Now you are being stupid. WTC7 has a side by side implosion video with a detonated building and they are identical. You are a fruitcake.

Post them up Mr. Tinfoil so we can all hear those multiple detonations.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

Post the bloody video that you think proves it, and then we can all have a good laugh at your idiocy.

400 structural connections (bolted and welded) per second had to fail in order for this to happen. Idiocy is thinking that this could happen by office fire.

Idiocy is thinking that looks or sounds like a controlled demolition. Is that what you are actually saying or are you still searching for a video?

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

diocy is thinking that looks or sounds like a controlled demolition. Is that what you are actually saying or are you still searching for a video?

Surely you have seen this. And, btw, your constant posting with no proof followed by our postings with proof destroy your cause:

Yes, I've seen that. You've posted it several times already (like all your videos). They are a couple of firemen (out of hundreds) going through a very traumatic experience. That in no way, shape or form is proof of a controlled demolition because everything else demonstrates it wasn't. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, but you are such a disingenuous so-and-so that you wouldn't, of course, acknowledge this. Oh, and just to clarify, they are talking about explosions in the lobby. Remind us all how that building collapsed.

Where is your video of the supposed controlled demolitions that took place (in all three buildings) so that everyone else can then compare what you take to be evidence and what all sane people know occurs when a very large structure is brought down in a controlled fashion. Please include audio with your video. I've already posted my example. Where is yours?

bgamall4 says

And the fellow who posted the above video says this:

Unfortunate truths become worthless in worthless hands!

NYC firefighters witness bombs in the towers... Is this proof the media covers up info? What do the skeptics have to say about this new video? Can they still be in denial? Newly obtained video that was reluctantly released after a lawsuit shows two firefighters on 9/11 discussing how secondary explosions occurred immediately before the collapse of the twin towers, providing damning new evidence that explosive devices were used to bring down the buildings.

You lack any kind of normal filter, don't you? You lap up anything that conspiracists post without question and dismiss every single thing those with a rational explanation (backed by actual scientific research and the mountain of video evidence of what took place on that day) state. You are simply bonkers. Nothing more, nothing less.

The Professor says

tatupu70 says

The outside of the structure could have have remained for some time even as the structural connections inside were failing.

Ever played with an erector set? You may not be old enough.

Anyone, not just architects and engineers, can see that the supporting structure of WTC7 was eliminated. To think that fires alone could do this requires denial of reality.

Still waiting for the video of your supposed controlled demolition. The sound of multiple very rapid explosions are what should be expected. Make sure your video has audio so that we can all clearly hear that happening, unless of course you are going to give us some complete nonsense about the use of silent explosives or some such.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

The sound of multiple very rapid explosions are what should be expected.

Yeah, rapid explosions in the basement before collapse is to be expected only if explosives were placed there. Are you a moron by birth or did you practice?

Duh. Is thinking that much of a challenge for you? You've said all 3 buildings were brought down by CD. I said show the video evidence of that happening. All 3 buildings were filmed when they collapsed. It should be a very simple process for you to post 3 definitive videos showing the explosions taking place. Funny you can't manage that. And interesting that you think they were brought down by explosions in the basements. Is that all of them or one in particular?

@the professor
I said post a video of the controlled demolition taking place, not of the building collapsing. Do you notice anything missing from your video... like er umm the sound of the required explosions perhaps?
I presume you are just being willfully aggravating or you are just trolling if you think that is evidence of what I asked for. Either way it speaks volumes for what your 'evidence' actually amounts to.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

the sound of the required explosions perhaps?

How loud would explosions have to be to convince you the towers and WTC7 have to be to convince you?

Oh, I think loud enough so that someone managed to record them, wouldn't you say? After all it sounded pretty loud in the video I posted, don't you think? But I guess they were special explosives on 9-11. The silent kind.

None of those are remotely the same as recordings of what happens when there is a controlled demolition of a large structure... as you well know. Look again at the video I posted. Look at what you are posting. You were right about cognitive dissonance. You were just wrong about how to spell it and who was demonstrating it.

Arf, arf, arf. Are you now claiming that they used that technique on 9-11? Really?

http://www.hodiho.fr/2010/06/demolition-tour-def-cite-balzac-vitry-sur-seine.html

I don't think so.

And if you aren't, what was the point in posting it in response to what I'm requesting?

And if others can hear the explosions, then post up the video that resembles the kind of controlled demolition that you claim occurred. They're loud you know. They'd be clearly recorded on all the many videos that were made on that day. Why is it taking you so long to post just one? People might think you're dodging the issue for one very obvious reason.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

And if others can hear the explosions, then post up the video that resembles the kind of controlled demolition that you claim occurred. They're loud you know

I do not know the mechanism that caused the three towers to collapse but I do not believe the official story.

Do you believe that office fires caused a steel framed building (WTC7) to collapse into a pile of twisted metal and pulverized concrete? I do not.

That is complete and utter bullshit. You've frequently claimed it was a controlled demolition.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

That is complete and utter bullshit. You've frequently claimed it was a controlled demolition.

Do you believe that office fires caused a steel framed building (WTC7) to collapse into a pile of twisted metal and pulverized concrete?

How many times have you asked that question and how many times have I answered it? A person might get the idea you are deflecting. You claim a controlled demolition, so post up a video that shows a controlled demolition taking place. Why is that so difficult? Shall I tell you why once again?

The Professor says

I claim that the evidence points to a demolition. If there had been a real investigation they would have at least looked for explosives. The 9/11 commission report never even mentioned WTC7.

So post a video up that shows that. You don't because you can't, which says rather a lot about your claims.

The Professor says

Humor the "thinking challenged" one more time. Do you believe that office fires caused a steel framed building (WTC7) to collapse into a pile of twisted metal and pulverized concrete?

I won't explain my views to you again. Explain to me why I have to restate the same thing that has already been posted in this thread just because you are too lazy to scroll back and/or are playing a very stupid game.

That is possibly the most ridiculous thing you have ever posted on here and that really is saying something. Do you really, honestly believe that shows a controlled demolition? Seriously? In that video, do you notice something happening? I believe it's called a building collapsing. That entails a certain amount of downward force. What consequence do you think that might have? Ah yes, exactly what is demonstrated in that video. A controlled demolition starts a collapse. That is a video of a collapse in progress. I would like you to post a video that shows the explosions taking place that you claim STARTED the collapse and not the downward pressure that expelled dust and debris out of the building as the collapse progressed.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

I won't explain my views to you again.

Yeah if I were you I would not agree that the official story of desks and paneling and rugs burning could cause a steel frame building to be utterly destroyed was correct either.

Thanks for your contribution.

And if I were you, I wouldn't claim that 3 buildings were brought down by silent and unseen controlled demolitions. You may as well claim that God fired 3 invisible lightning bolts out of his arse for all the veracity your argument has.

The Professor says

Interesting interview with Dr Niels Harrit by the BBC

Is that your attempt at appeal to authority? The video is embarrassing, embarrassing to Harrit. He is a run of the mill 'truther.'

"Minor, random, small fires (in WTC7)." Err...

The Professor says

I am not posting it here for you deniers because you have already made up your mind and believe the official story even though it has been thoroughly debunked.

Comedy gold.

to the bigsbys of this world,

what can you possibly gain by ignoring the facts?

coriacci1 says

to the bigsbys of this world,

what can you possibly gain by ignoring the facts?

I think you should ask yourself that question.

bgamall4 says

coriacci1 says

to the bigsbys of this world,

what can you possibly gain by ignoring the facts?

I agree. He ignores a mountain of evidence. And it is like he is paid off or something by the uselessness of his posts.

You mean like your Rooke post where what you said was demonstrably utter bullshit, and when that was pointed out to you, you refused to admit you were wrong, instead indulging in blathering nonsense. Evidence quite obviously means nothing to you.

The Professor says

Sometimes I wish I had never learned. Ignorance is bliss.

You must be very happy indeed then.

The Professor says

I do not push this story for my own gratification or to get attention. I am an anonymous poster on the internet. I keep on running across information on this conspiracy that I think should be shared.

Then why is it you constantly post up stuff that you've already posted before?

Bigsby says

The video is embarrassing, embarrassing to Harrit. He is a run of the mill 'truther.'

you are a run of the mill troller

coriacci1 says

Bigsby says

The video is embarrassing, embarrassing to Harrit. He is a run of the mill 'truther.'

you are a run of the mill troller

And you are a run of the mill conspiracy nut.

The Professor says

I still have Bigsby on ignore. If he ever says anything of substance (not likely) I would appreciate somebody quoting it so I can respond.

A shrinking minority actually believes that 19 jihadi took down 3 buildings with 2 airplanes. Spread the word so that "the war on terror" can end.

Take me off ignore and respond to my points rather than running away and simply repetitively posting the same guff over and over again. You quite obviously ignore any reasoned points in favour of conspiracy nonsense. That is your choice, but don't try and pretend you are offering anything insightful. You are simply making assertions without any evidence. It's idle speculation or down right lies that you are interested in passing off as the 'truth.' Bgamall's Rooke story is a perfect example of what you conspiracists do. You simply lie and then ignore the rebuttals that people put up. You then deflect and move on, and further down the line simply repeat the already disproved claim. You are a bunch of intellectually dishonest individuals whose arrogance and lack of rigorous thought make for an unfortunate combination on the internet. It's a shame that you now have such a large outlet for your unsubstantiated gibberish.

Bigsby says

you conspiracists

who pays you to write this stuff?

coriacci1 says

Bigsby says

you conspiracists

who pays you to write this stuff?

I rest my case. An utterly typical conspiracy nut response.

here you go prof.......Bigsby says

Take me off ignore and respond to my points rather than running away and simply repetitively posting the same guff over and over again. You quite obviously ignore any reasoned points in favour of conspiracy nonsense. That is your choice, but don't try and pretend you are offering anything insightful. You are simply making assertions without any evidence. It's idle speculation or down right lies that you are interested in passing off as the 'truth.' Bgamall's Rooke story is a perfect example of what you conspiracists do. You simply lie and then ignore the rebuttals that people put up. You then deflect and move on, and further down the line simply repeat the already disproved claim. You are bunch of intellectually dishonest individuals whose arrogance and lack of rigorous thought make for an unfortunate combination on the internet. It's a shame that you now have such a large outlet for your unsubstantiated gibberish.