RT news 9/11 truthers attend Treason in America conference in pennsylvania

reply to post by GenRadek


So all the 1,100+ are not real engineers/architects or they are just crack pots? hmmm...

As i have said the NIST report said #7 fell at a free fall speed. Do you know why or how?

I would like your opinion thanks.

reply to post by GunzCoty


yes NIST did say that. Did you see for how long? 3 seconds. So how does that make it "controlled demolition"? It doesnt. All it means that for that short time, there was little below it to offer it resistance. And then, it fell the rest of the time not at free-fall speed. Debris can fall at free fall, but the building did not. Also, the building was over a ConEd substation. maybe that had something to do with the speed in the beginning?
What about the fact the Penthouse collapsed first? 18 seconds is a long time for a building to collapse, meaning the interior was collapsing first, then we see the exterior shell fall down, towards the south, as it leaned.

Are all the AE9/11T people crackpots? Maybe some of them for sure. Griffin is. So is Gage. The others? Maybe just poor saps who got sucked into the truther websites, without any exposure to a counterside. Not their fault, i was almost suckered in too. But I started to use my brain.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by aethron

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by aethron

 

There was a hole... a big twenty story hole. It's in the darn reports about WTC 7 and it's not any kind of secret.

Oops,I apoligise then. I wasn't aware their was a twenty-story high cavity underneath WTC7.
Wow! ...What did they use it for?

I can't even believe I'm responding to this. I'm getting a headache from the retardation...

THE DEBRIS FROM WTC1 IMPACTED WTC7 AND CAUSED THE DAMAGE. I apologize for the caps, but come on! The firefighters on scene described it very well! Stop being ignorant!

Oh...so there wasn't a twenty-floor high cavity beneath WTC7 which would allow an explanation of the symmetrical freefall in terms of the known laws of physics? Then I retract my apology.

Bleating that one façade was superficially damaged by WTC1 debris goes nowhere towards explaining the symmetrical freefall collapse of WTC7. How did the superficial damage from WTC1 debris cause the simultaneously failure of the 83 gigantic steel support columns at ground level?

It‘s simply not possible, and a large part of the world realizes that already.

Americans somehow have to find a way to officially admit it was a controlled demolition, otherwise they will completely destroy their credibility, because it is clearly evident even to people of limited intelligence that it *was* a controlled demolition.

reply to post by GenRadek

Sorry but a group of "professionals" that is headed by a theologian, trying to prove demolitions, sounds more like a cult. Dr. Griffin is a theologian. Please tell me how that makes him qualified to speak about technical and engineering topics that are more for advanced persons like at NIST, ASCE and AEI? why havent the hundreds of thousands of actual professionals at these three (examples) organizations spoken out agianst the NIST reports, or how are they all wrong?

How does an interior home designer have the qualifications to comment on 110+ floor skyscraper egineering? How does a bachelor's degree in chemistry make someone a "professional"? Have you ever looked at the actual list? i can maybe count on ONE hand the amount of actual "qualified" persons that may have some experience to talk. But then again, it doesnt mean squat what the "title" is, because in every profession, there will ALWAYS be crackpots. Life and history has proven that many times. This is just another one of those times.

You are the prime example why so many people believe in ALL the lies of the OS.

You talk the talk, but you cannot produce any “evidence” to back up your nonsense as usual. If you want to believe in the proven lies of the NIST Report then knock yourself out, but do not expect logical thinking people to except your false assumptions as facts. You have been a member here for over three years, and you have been defending the OS like a religion, the same way you just attack A&E by stating false assumptions.

Show us the hundreds of scientist who have written reports refuting A&E and all their technical papers?
Show us hundreds of scientist who have written “any peer review report” proving Jones’ science is flawed.

Please show all the credible scientist that have put their names to the OS and support it 100%, not including the pseudo scientist at NIST?

I will be amazed if you even answer one question.

reply to post by aethron


It wasn't exactly simultaneous. The building was collapsing internally for a number of seconds before the exterior began to fall at "free fall" for three seconds, the approximate height that the damage was. Is it coincidence as you seem to think, or is it a sign that perhaps there is an explanation and you simply refuse to see it?

reply to post by impressme


Tell ya what, have Jones publish it in a respectable journal, and have it peer-reviewed by RESPECTABLE professionals who do not have a biased agenda. Maybe then someone will go on and take the challenge. Oh and tell hiim to fix the paper, by running the DSC in an inert atmosphere. Oh, and then explain why the "super thermite" self extinguished itself even while exposed to high temps. And can you direct me to the areas where AE9/11T has actually published their papers in a respectable venue where they were peer reviewed by other non-biased persons who are far more knowledgeable than they are?

ASCE, AEI, they all have access to the reports from NIST and FEMA. So why havent we heard any alarm bells going off from them? ASCE has 140,000 members. You'd think a least ONE of them would have glanced through the report, maybe passed it onto their friends at the society? But let me guess, they are all in on it too right? Or "fear for their lives/jobs/families/pets/etc" if they speak out. Boy I have to hand it to you guys, you keep all the bases covered for your fantasies to continue.

Boy I'd love to see a face off between NIST and the AE9/11 crew. Pseudo-scientists? NIST? My my arent we jealous? Or angry at the fact that your hero club is nothing more than a bunch of wannabes who couldnt put together a coherent argument if their lives depended on it? AE9/11 are pros? HAH! Amateurs at best.

Oh and by the way, what are the "proven lies" in the NIST reports? I would love to hear this. In fact I have yet to see you or anyone of the truther folks ever set them forward coherently. And please, no posting another thread, where I have to dig through piles of manure to find more. I want to see them retyped right here. Just like your response to Pteridine's question about the failure of the thermite to stay lit.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by aethron

 

It wasn't exactly simultaneous. The building was collapsing internally for a number of seconds before the exterior began to fall at "free fall" for three seconds, the approximate height that the damage was. Is it coincidence as you seem to think, or is it a sign that perhaps there is an explanation and you simply refuse to see it?

I suppose you realise that what you are describing here is a standard technique for demolishing a building while minimizing damage to surrounding buildings? First the center of the building is demolished, which creates space for the walls to fall inwards, forming a neat and compact rubble pile.

Do you really believe that WTC7, falling down randomly, just ‘happened’ to fall according this commonly used demolition sequence by sheer good luck, when you are surely aware of the high level of skill that is necessary to make such a thing happen deliberately?

Originally posted by Varemia

 

It wasn't exactly simultaneous. The building was collapsing internally for a number of seconds before the exterior began to fall at "free fall" for three seconds...

Thank you for describing the exact sequence for a controlled implosion demolition!

(no the facade damage had nothing to do with the collapse, time to let go of that old myth mate)

Once again for the millionth (don't quote me on that) time, because you seem to not be able to make the logical connections...

Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Maybe something is sinking in finally? Nah I doubt it, you just have no idea what it is you're saying, obviously.

I think that people should not discount the possibility that Satan and his Fallen Angels may have had a hand in 9/11. The way the whole operation was set up looks like it was designed to exploit human psychological weaknesses which has resulted in perpetual confusion and arguments regarding what really happened. I think the intend was to complete the mission and because it was a huge operation, they determined through their high level knowledge of how the human mind works that the best way to keep it hidden was by hiding it in conspiracy theories.

Read Daniel chapter 2 verse 43 and you will get a sense that someone from an ancient world was trying to portray in the language of his time what we today would call genetically engineered reptilian human hybrids. The only reason why he doesn't use the word genetics is because at the time, they did not yet have the technology. In the book of Revelations you will find chapter 13 verse 15 speaks of something similar again using the language of his time to portray what we know today as genetically engineered human hybrids.

Even when God needed his Son to be born into this world, he too needed a body for his Son's soul to be born into. When Satan and his Fallen Angels wanted to incarnate into this world, they used genetically engineered hybrid bodies without souls so that theirs can occupy their bodies.

Daniel 2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

REVELATIONS 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

reply to post by GenRadek

Show us the hundreds of scientist who have written reports refuting A&E and all their technical papers?
Show us hundreds of scientist who have written “any peer review report” proving Jones’ science is flawed.

Please show all the credible scientist that have put their names to the OS and support it 100%, not including the pseudo scientist at NIST?

I will be amazed if you even answer one question.

Just as I thought, you cannot answer the given questions, but you sure can give us your unconstructive opinions to credible evidence against the OS. One doesn’t have to ask you any questions concerning 911 we already know your answers, the OS is your truth.

**Ignore**

reply to post by ANOK


You know, you can ignore damage and fire all day long, but in the end they were still there. They are still factors, and a scientific mind cannot ignore them and claim explosives without some kind of evidence. The penthouse collapsed into the building "coincidentally" above the fires. The building "coincidentally" falls in the direction of the damage. I guess the demolitions experts expected everything and planted those charges to make it look like it was caused by the chance factors that took place, eh? They even managed to make the charges completely silent, those diabolical villains. I mean, I'd like to shake the hand of the devious mind who was able to calculate all of that ahead of time.

Or, you could all be wagging your tails for a story you WANT to believe. I can't accept something just because you want me to accept it. I'm not a drone, and repeating something a hundred times doesn't make it true. It makes it a common misconception. I'm not an engineer (and neither are any of you, I assume. Correct me if I'm wrong), but I do understand the concept of gravity and cause and effect. You have to have a cause to get an effect. With WTC 7 we have a cause: fire and damage, and then an effect: collapse, first in the area of fire (after almost 7 hours!) and then in the direction of the damage. But again, I guess that doesn't matter. It's demolitions because you say so.

Well, sorry buddy, but I'm not going to fall for it. I USE my brain.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK

 

You know, you can ignore damage and fire all day long, but in the end they were still there. They are still factors, and a scientific mind cannot ignore them and claim explosives without some kind of evidence. The penthouse collapsed into the building "coincidentally" above the fires. The building "coincidentally" falls in the direction of the damage. I guess the demolitions experts expected everything and planted those charges to make it look like it was caused by the chance factors that took place, eh? They even managed to make the charges completely silent, those diabolical villains. I mean, I'd like to shake the hand of the devious mind who was able to calculate all of that ahead of time.

Or, you could all be wagging your tails for a story you WANT to believe. I can't accept something just because you want me to accept it. I'm not a drone, and repeating something a hundred times doesn't make it true. It makes it a common misconception. I'm not an engineer (and neither are any of you, I assume. Correct me if I'm wrong), but I do understand the concept of gravity and cause and effect. You have to have a cause to get an effect. With WTC 7 we have a cause: fire and damage, and then an effect: collapse, first in the area of fire (after almost 7 hours!) and then in the direction of the damage. But again, I guess that doesn't matter. It's demolitions because you say so.

Well, sorry buddy, but I'm not going to fall for it. I USE my brain.

What do you know about fire and damage? Are you an architect? If a pletora of architect and engineers come forward and say things dont add up they dont add up. Why would American and European experts conspire against America? And while we are on the topic of ignoring, politicians military and intelligence personell came forward and said 911 was an inside job. They are all lying too? Why do all those people only "lie" about 911, why dont they make up other stories unrelated to 911 if they are such crackpots?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Dave, I wouldn't worry too much about Anok. He has posted the same photo more than once and still hasn't figured out that it confirms that WTC 7 tilted towards the Tower debris pile (i.e. it WASN"T symmetrical) as it fell.

Yes, I know. I've posted I don't know how many times that the video footage of the WTC 7 collapse irrefutably proves the penthouse collapsed into the interior of the building some six seconds before the entire structure collapsed, and you can see from the windows that were breaking just how far down it had collapsed. This essentially means the structure had little to no interior support at the time of the collapse so of course the facade would naturally wind up on top on the pile. These conspiracy people simply do what they've always done when shown why their claims are unrealistic- they ignore it and pretend that it doesn't exist. There's only so many times I can watch these people run away the same way vampires run away from sunlight until I simply shrug and wonder, "Why bother".

Say, Anok, which one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites did you get that photo from, anyway? I know full well you didn't come up with this bit by yourself.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

These conspiracy people simply do what they've always done when shown why their claims are unrealistic- they ignore it and pretend that it doesn't exist.

No Dave, you’re wrong as always. It is a fact that people like you OS staunch supporters who completely ignore everything. You just demonstrated in your post as always.

Dave you have made it very clear that there is no conspiracy into 911 but what I don’t understand is why are you in these 911 threads daily defending the proven lies of the OS?
If there is no conspiracy then why bother? It’s apparent to me there are a few in here who have an agenda and the Truth is not one of them.

There's only so many times I can watch these people run away the same way vampires run away from sunlight until I simply shrug and wonder, "Why bother".

The fact is you just described many OS supporters.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK

 

You know, you can ignore damage and fire all day long, but in the end they were still there.

No one is ignoring the damage, some of us know the damage is not significant. You can make it as significant you want in your own fantasy world, where buildings can collapse into their own footprints from asymmetrical damage and fires, but we look at the reality.

They are still factors, and a scientific mind cannot ignore them and claim explosives without some kind of evidence.

Again they have not been ignored.

The penthouse collapsed into the building "coincidentally" above the fires. The building "coincidentally" falls in the direction of the damage.

LOL the penthouse was above the fires? The building did not fall in the direction of the damage. It fell straight down, how many times do you have to watch it collapse, and look at the post collapse debris pile to realise this? If it fell one way then it wouldn't have landed in it own footprint. You wouldn't be able to see the outer walls on top of the debris pile.

Pictures don't lie Varemia, only OS supporters do...



The penthouse collapse is just more evidence it was a controlled implosion demolition, it does not help the OS at all.

I guess the demolitions experts expected everything and planted those charges to make it look like it was caused by the chance factors that took place, eh? They even managed to make the charges completely silent, those diabolical villains. I mean, I'd like to shake the hand of the devious mind who was able to calculate all of that ahead of time.

It didn't look like it was caused by the chance factors did it? How do you know it was silent? In fact it wasn't, again you are wrong...



Why do they keep saying it's going to 'blow up'? Remember no building has ever 'blown up' from fire, and no steel framed building has ever collapsed from fire.

I USE my brain.

Hmmmm now there is a topic for debate, mate.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK

 

Well, sorry buddy, but I'm not going to fall for it. I USE my brain.

Yes... he uses it so he doesn't get a draught when he turns side-on to the wind.

He didn't answer my question...(but am i surprised?..Noooo)

don't you people get it? It doesn't matter who was behind it. In fact, even if you knew who was really behind it, you would not believe it. The whole operation was designed to hide itself not using stealth but by causing an infinite loop of confusion in the human mind. This is why I believe that Satan may have had something to do with the planning. No human being could have planned the operation like that and have it execute perfectly as planned. It was too large of an operation and too complicated to have been done by humans.

Originally posted by ReRun
reply to post by dillweed

 

The TRUTH of the matter is ... NOT ONE SINGLE 9/11 conspiracy theory has held up to even the SLIGHTEST bit of scrutiny .

I agree with you on one point. This "NOT ONE SINGLE 9/11 conspiracy theory has held up to the SLIGHTEST bit of scrutiny" sure applies to the first conspiracy theory; namely the official fairy tale.

It sure can't stand up to the advance military grade nano thermate in the 911 dust,

The jig is up.

Originally posted by aethronDo you really believe that WTC7, falling down randomly, just ‘happened’ to fall according this commonly used demolition sequence by sheer good luck, when you are surely aware of the high level of skill that is necessary to make such a thing happen deliberately?

Apologies for not answering your question with due haste. I was away for some time and was rather upset when I posted last, because often times, people tell me to believe things because 'it kind of looks like it.'

I do agree, it did have a similar appearance to a demolition sequence, but I also feel that it was chance that allowed it to happen. Since the fires and damage were in such areas and had such time that the collapse could happen in that fashion, I do feel it is a mighty coincidence that the tower fell in a way similar to a controlled demolition.

While I do not believe in true coincidence, I cannot discount the fires and damage as inconsequential unless someone here can prove that a damaged skyscraper on fire will have no structural problems. Yes, a single column failing is what led to the collapse. Yes, it could have been done by a single detonation, but it was also right where there was a fire, and the collapse followed the damage.

Originally posted by impressme
No Dave, you’re wrong as always. It is a fact that people like you OS staunch supporters who completely ignore everything. You just demonstrated in your post as always.

I truly am getting tired of these childish games you always play, Impressme. It is an irrefutable, written in stone fact that the pentouse of WTC 7 collaped into the interior of the building some six seconds before the exterior of the building collapsed, which means it is an irrefutable written in stone fact that the way WTC 7 fell is completely different from the way every other building demolished by controlled demolitions had fallen..

Despite your feigned indignation you have not shown how even a microbe of anything I said was incorrect. What was the point in your post, anyway?

Dave you have made it very clear that there is no conspiracy into 911

I have likewise posted many times what I see the true conspiracy is, but Impressme doesn't care as he'll simply continue to believe the world works in this perverse, "the gov't is constantly plotting to murder us all" paranoia that these damned fool conspiracy web sites are indoctrinating him in, so I will waste no more of my time explaining it again.