John Pilger on 9/11, LIHOP and its role in the new cold war

reply to post by pteridine

Would that be the red paint that Steven Jones desperately wants to be thermite?

"We just have lots of people eager to believe obvious nonsense as long as someone will tell them what they want to hear."

Pteridine , you can believe it’s red paint, if that makes you feel better but the facts, & science says your wrong.

It certainly appears there are those who are “desperately eager” to want to believe the OS of 911, especially since most of the OS is hearsay. We all know it was demolition that was used to bring down the WTC.

The government and NIST did not do any reports into looking for explosive materials or even try to explain why thousands of tons of steel was BLASTED and hurled over 600 feet in the air (not just falling down) but BLASTED up in to the air, as all the News videos showed on the morning of 911. Perhaps, a few of you think you can convince us that’s not what we see when one is examining the News video feed, you’re all sadly mistaken, if you think you can.

Many of the ignorant OS believers cannot hide the “visible demolition,” which we all can clearly see on all these News videos, the videos alone tell the truth.
Our eyes are not deceiving us, it is the few OS believers who are.

You cannot hide what we all see.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

 

. We all know it was demolition that was used to bring down the WTC.

The government and NIST did not do any reports into looking for explosive materials or even try to explain why thousands of tons of steel was BLASTED and hurled over 600 feet in the air (not just falling down) but BLASTED up in to the air, as all the News videos showed on the morning of 911.

Many of the ignorant OS believers cannot hide the “visible demolition,” which we all can clearly see on all these News videos, the videos alone tell the truth.
Our eyes are not deceiving us, it is the few OS believers who are.

You cannot hide what we all see.

Blasted UP into the air 600 feet? Have you been reading and repeating without thinking again? Nothing was blasted UP 600 feet. If that is what you believe how do you reconcile thermite as the demolition material?

reply to post by pteridine

Blasted UP into the air 600 feet? Have you been reading and repeating without thinking again? Nothing was blasted UP 600 feet. If that is what you believe how do you reconcile thermite as the demolition material?

Your ignorance precedes you, as you have completely ignored evidence that supports this argument. I and no one else have made any claim that Thermite BLASTED steel beams in the air. It is my opinion that “demolition” was used with thermite. As your opinions are no explosions happened and the OS is all true. How does that work for you?

"The government and NIST did not do any reports into looking for explosive materials"

What was their explanation again? There was no video or audio evidence of explosion or demolition? How lame can you get?

Even if they wanted to do an analysis for explosives it was probably too late, since Puppet Bush was stalling and stonewalling the 9/11 investigation until all of the material evidence from the buildings was removed from the country and/or destroyed. Just for the record, concealing or altering physical evidence from a crime scene is a Class E felony in New York State.

Originally posted by impressme
Your ignorance precedes you, as you have completely ignored evidence that supports this argument. I and no one else have made any claim that Thermite BLASTED steel beams in the air. It is my opinion that “demolition” was used with thermite. As your opinions are no explosions happened and the OS is all true. How does that work for you?

I am waiting for the evidence that supports your argument. Blasting steel UP 600 feet means that there was steel 600 feet above the tops of the towers. Maybe you'd like to rethink that claim and discontinue reading the 911 fantasy web sites.

As to thermite and explosives being used, what would the reason be for that? Thermite was only invoked when there was no evidence of timed, high-explosive cutter charges.

reply to post by pteridine

no I am waiting for the evidence that supports your argument. Blasting steel UP 600 feet means that there was steel 600 feet above the tops of the towers. Maybe you'd like to rethink that claim and discontinue reading the 911 fantasy web sites.

According to you weedwhacker every website is a fantasy except the gov.org websites. Are you now saying that no scientist have made this claim, of steel beams been blown 600 feet?

As to thermite and explosives being used, what would the reason be for that?

Anyone with half a brain can figure that out. What’s your point? Why don’t you tell me the reason?

Thermite was only invoked when there was evidence of timed, high-explosive cutter charges.

Cutter charges? that is your opinion, do you have any evidence to support your opinion?

reply to post by pteridine


Who are you working for the DoD?CIA?Or some other complicit entity?
The simple facts are
1)carbon fires(IE furniture rigs etc)cannot create enough heat to melt steel
The fuel was also incapable of same.....
This leaves us with some problems...
Even if the steel was weakened as you claim it still would not have caused a simultaneous collapse in its own footprint of any of the buildings...
So many discrepancies are noted in the OS that it is laughable......

SOMETHING STINKS!!

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

 

no I am waiting for the evidence that supports your argument. Blasting steel UP 600 feet means that there was steel 600 feet above the tops of the towers. Maybe you'd like to rethink that claim and discontinue reading the 911 fantasy web sites.

According to you weedwhacker every website is a fantasy except the gov.org websites. Are you now saying that no scientist have made this claim, of steel beams been blown 600 feet?

As to thermite and explosives being used, what would the reason be for that?

Anyone with half a brain can figure that out. What’s your point? Why don’t you tell me the reason?

Thermite was only invoked when there was evidence of timed, high-explosive cutter charges.

Cutter charges? that is your opinion, do you have any evidence to support your opinion?

First, if you plan to quote a post, you should not quote it incorrectly. My post said NO evidence of cutter charges. Is this more deception on your part?

What does weedwhacker have to do with this? Your statement was that the steel was blown UP in the air which is incorrect.

If anyone with half a brain can figure that out, you should be in a commanding position to answer the question. Why do you think that there was a mix of thermite and high explosives, especially when there is evidence for neither?

Originally posted by stirling
reply to post by pteridine

 

Who are you working for the DoD?CIA?Or some other complicit entity?
The simple facts are
1)carbon fires(IE furniture rigs etc)cannot create enough heat to melt steel
The fuel was also incapable of same.....
This leaves us with some problems...
Even if the steel was weakened as you claim it still would not have caused a simultaneous collapse in its own footprint of any of the buildings...
So many discrepancies are noted in the OS that it is laughable......

SOMETHING STINKS!!

Melted steel did not precipitate the collapse. Steel weakened from the fires started the collapse.

The something that stinks are the charlatans making paid lectures or offering to sell books and CD's explaining their theories in detail. They do nothing but fleece the suckers while working to perpetuate their incomes. Principal among these petty criminals is Griffin, an erstwhile theology professor, who has published two books with little substance other than grist for the mills of the perpetually paranoid. Of course there are others and a simple search of the someclowns-for-truth websites will provide a list.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The NIST already did the with paint deformation tests. I downloaded the NCSTAR1 report and burned it to DVD years ago.

This entire event is already ridiculous based on existing data. We just have lots of people eager to believe obvious nonsense as long as someone will tell them what they want to hear.

psik

Would that be the red paint that Steven Jones desperately wants to be thermite?

"We just have lots of people eager to believe obvious nonsense as long as someone will tell them what they want to hear."

You demonstrate believing obvious nonsense perfectly.

I didn't say anything about the color of the paint. I haven't seen much red paint used in office buildings. Wouldn't paint being tested for heat deformation be bigger than microscopic? Like I said, can't see the obvious.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You demonstrate believing obvious nonsense perfectly.

I didn't say anything about the color of the paint. I haven't seen much red paint used in office buildings. Wouldn't paint being tested for heat deformation be bigger than microscopic? Like I said, can't see the obvious.

psik

Can you explain "Wouldn't paint being tested for heat deformation be bigger than microscopic?" If you look at the pieces of the WTC that were saved as monuments, you will see that they are covered with red paint.

reply to post by pteridine

no I am waiting for the evidence that supports your argument. Blasting steel UP 600 feet means that there was steel 600 feet above the tops of the towers. Maybe you'd like to rethink that claim and discontinue reading the 911 fantasy web sites.

Evidence is as clear as day when anyone watches any of the News feeds from 911, perhaps you may want to rethink your ridiculous claims that the OS of 911 is all true.

As the WTC skyscrapers disintegrated before the
eyes of stunned observers, [color=gold]steel framing sections
weighing four to nine tons were hurled up to 600
feet away. This required an explosive force capable
of ejecting the perimeter wall units at up to 70 mph
as if out of a cannon. Some 90,000 tons of concrete
and metal decking were pulverized, creating
pyroclastic-like flows (hot gases with suspended
solids) similar to those observed and filmed during
the explosion of the Mt. St. Helens volcano.

When the clouds of dust settled, what was
left were remarkably symmetrical debris fields
consisting mainly of completely dismembered
structural steel framing. Although the media often
repeats that the Twin Towers’ concrete floors came
down like a series of stacked pancakes, there were
in fact no pancaked floors to be found in the photos
or videos of the debris piles. “There’s no concrete...
it was pulverized,” gasped Gov. Pataki at his first
visit to the site.

www.rockcreekfreepress.com...

If you want to support the ridiculous claim that this information is false then you prove it, the door swings both ways.

reply to post by impressme


Very dramatic, especially the Governor "gasping." If you reread this example of sophomoric journalism, you will see where you went wrong.
You said blown UP in the air 600 feet. The article said steel sections were hurled up to 600 feet away. This means that during the collapse, as the walls peeled away, pieces ended up as far as 600 feet away. Sideways and down, not up. This is not surprising as the building was much taller than 600 feet. Of course, this kind of flushes the good old "collapsed in its own footprint" claim down the drain.

Your choice is simple; go for the 600 foot distance and gve up on the "footprint" claim or stick with the footprint and give up on the blasting sideways with the "force of some-made-up-number."

reply to post by pteridine

Your sources are wrong and so are their opinions.
My sources are correct.
www.ae911truth.org...

Your choice is simple; go for the 600 foot distance and gve up on the "footprint" claim or stick with the footprint and give up on the blasting sideways with the "force of some-made-up-number."

Oh boy, let’s go over this again shell we. WTC1 and WTC2 were blown to pieces by unknown demolition in my opinion and many scientists opinions these two WTC were blown apart with such force that is was done deliberately to be an “out of control” demolition it was done for the Shock and Ah. WTC 1 and WTC 2 did not fall perfectly in their own foot print. The two WTC were BLASTED to smithereens in every direction and the News videos captured steel beams being hurled over 600 hundred feet in every direction.
In my opinions, and in most science opinions WTC 7 was a perfect controlled demolition and that building fell perfectly in its own foot print and without damaging the buildings one each side of it.

The evidence of demolition has been presented to you repeatedly by many posters on ATS with credible sources; however you have never been able to disprove demonlition. The reason why you can not “disprove demolition” is because most scientist suggest it “IS” the only conclusion to what happened to the WTC and it supports the News videos documentation of that day on 911.
Perhaps, you should try and give up the OS of 911 claims, since no credible evidence supports it.

reply to post by impressme


I see you have changed your position about being blown UP and now concede falling out and down.

Being blown apart with demolitions is the spot where your theory is seriously lacking any sort of evidence. To blast things apart, you need explosives. To blast the towers apart you would need a great deal of explosives. They would be obvious from the standpoint of noise and flash. No such things were heard or seen.

Originally posted by impressme
In my opinions, and in most science opinions WTC 7 was a perfect controlled demolition and that building fell perfectly in its own foot print and without damaging the buildings one each side of it.

Yet another truther lie, WTC 7 did not fall into its own footprint - where is your evidence that it did?
www.fema.gov...
figure 5-26 shows it did not fall into its own footprint.... also most science opinions do not agree with you!

reply to post by pteridine

They would be obvious from the standpoint of noise and flash. No such things were heard or seen.

That is completely untrue and you are now calling NYC firemen, police officers, and first responders, and many professionals that worked in the WTC all lairs

[color=gold]VIDEO: Firefighters and law enforcement officers believe that bombs inside the WTC brought down the buildings

www.globalresearch.ca...

I suppose all these "credible people" are lairs to. Perhaps, you believe there were no explosions, because the Government doesn’t talk about it. You should try looking out side the gov.org websites, if you are looking for any truth to 911.

reply to post by impressme


Random noise is not controlled demolition. Controlled demolition requires a series of explosions in rapid succession to time and control the collapse.That obviously didn't happen.
A few explosions leading to collapse are an uncontrolled demolition. Uncontrolled demolition, where a key structural component is destroyed leading to collapse, is difficult to distinguish from an accidental collapse where that same structural component fails due to another cause.
Given the lack of evidence of explosive demolition, the only thing a rational mind can conclude is that the aircraft compromised the structure of the building and uncontrolled fires caused the collapse of the weakened structure.

reply to post by pteridine

Random noise is not controlled demolition. Controlled demolition requires a series of explosions in rapid succession to time and control the collapse.That obviously didn't happen.

No one said random noise.

Didn’t happen! Perhaps in your mind it didn’t happen, but in reality it did happen.

Given the lack of evidence of explosive demolition, the only thing a rational mind can conclude is that the aircraft compromised the structure of the building and uncontrolled fires caused the collapse of the weakened structure.

edit on 11/9/2010 by pteridine because: spelling correction

Sure there is a lack of evidence for you; you refuse to look at it, perhaps it will upset your belief system that 911 was an inside job.

Because you say there is no evidence, it doesn’t mean there is no evidence. You have been shown creditable evidence many times by many bloggers here on ATS, it is not our fault that you refuse to read it.

Office fires? Airplane brought down the WTC? What a joke, science has already proved the OS of 911, a joke. We are in here to deny ignorance, not to maintain it!

reply to post by impressme


Bring the evidence forward. The "I heard a loud noise it must be CD" witnesses are not evidence. Show remains of cutter charges, beams cut by said charges, residua from detcord, blasting machines, paper trails, confessions from perpetrators, secret orders, or other actual evidence.