The Undebunkable Video: Eliminate The Impossible

Originally posted by dilly1
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Its obvious you've never worked in construction/design field. You have no concept of how hard it is to make a living in construction ,design or engineering. The building boom was a fantasy. Wasn't realistic . So before the boom (the majority of)GC's,Arch's and engineers were still hurting. So to even think the boom is reason why some professional would not speak out against there own boss(gov)is a joke. That's a joke.

The government doesn't build everything. Not all architects and engineers are broke. Your ideas are illogical.

Private projects? If your going to ask a question about why certified professionals from the private sector are silent. Then answer mine first. Show me or present to me any professional from the private sector that agrees with the 911 storyline.

You can't even stick to your own story. According to you all architects are terrified to speak out in case they lose work, so by that rationale they would all corroborate the OS.

By the way, that's not a question, it's a demand. And I'm not going to produce an architect by name just so he can be vilified personally. It would not be difficult to do so though. There are millions of them.

But you can't ,because most professionals one way or the other can be influenced by the government. And most arch./eng. that do come forward are done as for as bidding for any RFP local/state/fed level projects.. Perfect example is the Richard Gage. Whether you agree or despise him is irrelevant. What is relevant is knowing that he (and any other follower) is done doing any contractual work in this country.

Why? He can still work for private clients.

Yes he mite be able to design a home or two (or some pointless warehouse).

This is a side issue, but I'm fascinated as to why someone would build a "pointless" warehouse.

But designing a major building is not going to happen . And designing homes isn't really that profitable , unless you get to do the majority of a gated community.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Resi is the most lucrative type of building for developers and architects.

Which begs the question do you even know how hard it is to bid for a job(private or gov). Its sounds like you don't.

I've employed architects, structural engineers and M&E professionals. I know plenty about it.

From your prose, I'm going to take a stab and guess that if you've been anywhere near construction you're (maximum) a commissioning engineer. Not exactly someone with their hands on the reins of power.

All you do (like all debunkers) is continue to back our government as Saints.

Quite the reverse. You need to believe this for some reason, but it isn't true.

Understand, you blindly choose to do that. Not because our government has convinced you. ..How could they truly convince you, when you know nothing about the process on how to kick start a construction project , know nothing the process of constructing a building and you surely know nothing on how to demolish a structure.

Apart from the several buildings I've been involved in constructing. I know how to build those. I know a small amount about demolition, enough to know that the notion that any of the WTC buildings was CD'd is idiotic.

You see how detailed I am , how honest I am .

I know, you're amazing. All the other construction pros, the vast majority, are cowards. but you are a shining example of how good and honest a human being can be.

You are terrified to continue this debate with me , because you have no idea where this discussion will direct your way of thinking.

All you do is brand my thinking as ridiculous and a joke and hope that this debate will just disappear by me assuming I'll give up. ,,mmmm. I got to tell you sound eerily similar to a government official.

I'm very bored of this discussion, certainly. That's why I wouldn't mind if it ended. What you say doesn't even make sense on its own terms. You're ranting that everyone toes the government line because they're terrified of losing work. All 250k of them. That is a joke.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
.But that's exactly what those witnesses that I just posted were doing. They all witnessed the flight path of the airplane, and their testimonies all validate a flight path that's inconsistent with the official story and the one required to cause the light pole damage.

Yes, but they are the exception to the rule. In the case of the firefighters, they are largely unanimous in their opinion that the building would fall.

Really? Why don't you check out this thread that has, among many other things, controlled demolitions experts saying that the collapse of WTC7 had to have been a demolition for it to fall symmetrically at free-fall speed.

Danny Jowenko said that the twin towers couldn't possibly be a demo. He said that WTC7 was probably a CD. So does Sullivan. But I'm asking for a specific answer to my question about the firefighters. Are they thus lying? Because if Jowenko is right they must be.

I will do that, but I want you to also go to ae911truth.org and spend 20-30 minutes reading about what the experts think. Is that fair?

Sounds fair.

Lame argument, because those numbers mentioned there are the ones that are actually active members who have joined the group. AE911 and those experts are currently working on a documentary, and it's going to be released in September of this year. That will make Loose Change look like a literal piece of poop shoved in your VCR.

I'll look forward to it. It's not a lame argument though. The vast, vast majority of A&Es have no problem at all with 9/11.

] Yes I've read through quite a bit, and the majority if not all of the ones I've seen are very credible. But sure, strawman the kitchen designers and generalize that they're all unqualified, that's just as fair.

I'll pull out a few while I'm looking at the site. Some years ago I picked three at random. One had designed an ecologically sound traffic flow system for bikes (unimplemented), another was a kitchen designer and the other had built a temporary house out of hay bales for a country fare. That was the extent of their expertise.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Yes, but they are the exception to the rule.

That is stupid, unfair, and it shows how biased you are.

In the case of the firefighters, they are largely unanimous in their opinion that the building would fall.

Was it also their opinions that fires were scattered uniformly throughout the building? Was there the same amount of fire on certain floors burning at the exact same temperature for the exact same amount of time, allowing the majority of core columns to fail within a second of each other, causing a symmetrical free-fall collapse?


Really? Why don't you check out this thread that has, among many other things, controlled demolitions experts saying that the collapse of WTC7 had to have been a demolition for it to fall symmetrically at free-fall speed.

Danny Jowenko said that the twin towers couldn't possibly be a demo. He said that WTC7 was probably a CD. So does Sullivan. But I'm asking for a specific answer to my question about the firefighters. Are they thus lying? Because if Jowenko is right they must be.

I love how you keep pulling the, "Oh, so are you saying the firefighters are lying? Are you accusing firemen of LYING? BLASPHEMY!".

Nobody is saying their lying, the building fell in a manner that is 100% consistent with a controlled demolition and explosives experts agree. Just stop mentioning the firemen, because them saying "Yeah, the buildings on fire. Some of the structure is hot, and there's lots of smoke, maybe we should back people up" isn't "Every core column has a fire burning on it at the same temperature, so we need to move because this building is without a doubt coming down in a symmetrical free-fall collapse."

Originally posted by TupacShakur
That is stupid, unfair, and it shows how biased you are.

Wrong. It's a fact. That you are unable to accept this displays your bias.

Was it also their opinions that fires were scattered uniformly throughout the building? Was there the same amount of fire on certain floors burning at the exact same temperature for the exact same amount of time, allowing the majority of core columns to fail within a second of each other, causing a symmetrical free-fall collapse?

No. Do some research. They looked at the building and were of the opinion that there was a serious danger of collapse. They fell back and then, as they expected, it fell down.

I love how you keep pulling the, "Oh, so are you saying the firefighters are lying? Are you accusing firemen of LYING? BLASPHEMY!".

I don't think it's blasphemy to accuse a firemen of lying, and indeed I've never said that so I'm uncertain as to where you're getting that from.

Nobody is saying their lying,

You are. Because you're saying that they couldn't possibly have expected the building to fall. And yet they did. So you're calling them liars.

That's fine, but at least accept the implications of your arguments.

Just stop mentioning the firemen

That would be a lot easier, wouldn't it? Then you could conveniently forget that their testimony makes your ideas about what happened rather implausible.

because them saying "Yeah, the buildings on fire. Some of the structure is hot, and there's lots of smoke, maybe we should back people up" isn't "Every core column has a fire burning on it at the same temperature, so we need to move because this building is without a doubt coming down in a symmetrical free-fall collapse."

Read their testimony. They didn't pull people out just because of the fire. They did it because they thought it would collapse. And it did. So either they're in on it, or it was reasonable to assume that it would fall down and explosives were not required.

You can't ignore this stuff. If you want to put forward your CD thesis then you have to account for it or you're going to struggle to convince people.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Man, you dis-info agents sure know how to grind my gears. I guess that's what you're here for.

Wrong. It's a fact. That you are unable to accept this displays your bias.

Let me get this straight. Several witnesses drawing the flight path of the plane that hit Pentagon, and having all of them match up in a manner that's inconsistent with the official story doesn't matter to you? Their the exception because they go against the official story?

No. Do some research. They looked at the building and were of the opinion that there was a serious danger of collapse. They fell back and then, as they expected, it fell down.

"Do some research", how about you post the research that you've done yourself for the sake of time and convenience? Yes, it fell down, but do you understand that for it to fall how it did due to fire damage is impossible?

Please, explain how some random fires can cause core columns to symmetrically and simultaneously fail within milliseconds of each other, and how the material between floors was removed, allowing the building to free-fall? Please tell me why there is a fault during the collapse which matches up with the core columns being removed first to the building will fall inward? Please tell me how despite the fact that every characteristic of the collapse of WTC7 matches a controlled demolition perfectly, some firemen saying the building might fall erases all doubt in your mind that it was a CD even though it matches up 100% with one?

I don't think it's blasphemy to accuse a firemen of lying, and indeed I've never said that so I'm uncertain as to where you're getting that from.

You keep pulling that card, and setting up the ultimatum "Believe that since they said the structure looked bad, the building free-fall symmetrically like a controlled demolition".

You are. Because you're saying that they couldn't possibly have expected the building to fall. And yet they did. So you're calling them liars.

Alright, since I'm sick of you saying this, I will just say this to satisfy your stupid argument: I think every single one of those firemen is a liar. Every one of them.

Now that that's out of the way, stop squeezing your way out of the corner by saying "Oh, so were the firemen lying?"

So, tell me how fires could cause core columns to symmetrically fail, and also remove the material within the building allowing it to free-fall? You know what can do those things? A controlled demolition, and it's done it hundreds of times before. Do you know what hasn't caused a building to symmetrically free-fall through it's path of greatest resistance? Fire.

Read their testimony. They didn't pull people out just because of the fire. They did it because they thought it would collapse. And it did. So either they're in on it, or it was reasonable to assume that it would fall down and explosives were not required.

You can't ignore this stuff. If you want to put forward your CD thesis then you have to account for it or you're going to struggle to convince people.

Quit weaseling back to the firemen's testimonies like their some Greek God of fire. "I AM SOLARIS, GOD OF KNOWING THAT BUILDINGS WILL FALL DOWN BECAUSE OF SOME FIRE"

I don't care about what some firemen said, you can keep bringing that up as if it erases the fact that the building fell in a manner that is 100% consistent with a controlled demolition, but it doesn't.

reply to post by TupacShakur


have sent you a message
dunno if you received it?

9/11 Firefighter Oral Histories, First-Hand Reports




also, 5 weeks and later, molten steel was found in all 3 basements (by Tully Corporation), hot, alive and kickin' in an oxygen poor environment

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Man, you dis-info agents sure know how to grind my gears. I guess that's what you're here for.

That's because it's annoying being shown inconsistencies in your argument. Because you're so keen to believe it any evidence to the contrary infuriates you.

Let me get this straight. Several witnesses drawing the flight path of the plane that hit Pentagon, and having all of them match up in a manner that's inconsistent with the official story doesn't matter to you? Their the exception because they go against the official story?

You haven't got it straight. Their testimony is the exception to the majority of the eyewitness testimony.

The situation with the fire chiefs is different. They all concur that they thought the building would collapse, and they were proved correct.

some firemen saying the building might fall erases all doubt in your mind that it was a CD even though it matches up 100% with one?

I find it highly unlikely that they are lying. And I don't think that because something resembles something else then it definitely is that thing.

] You keep pulling that card, and setting up the ultimatum "Believe that since they said the structure looked bad, the building free-fall symmetrically like a controlled demolition".

I don't actually. That the firemen are liars is a logical consequence of your argument. They remain unsurprised by the collapse - a collapse they forecast - and I believe them, not you. that means that a CD is wildly improbable.

Alright, since I'm sick of you saying this, I will just say this to satisfy your stupid argument: I think every single one of those firemen is a liar. Every one of them.

You don't sound sure about that. And it's not a stupid argument - as I say, it is an absolutely logical consequence of your position. For the CD to have happened, they must be lying. Yet another layer of co-conspirators are added to make your silly theory work.

Quit weaseling back to the firemen's testimonies like their some Greek God of fire. "I AM SOLARIS, GOD OF KNOWING THAT BUILDINGS WILL FALL DOWN BECAUSE OF SOME FIRE"

This will seem odd to you, but when I formulate my view about what happened in a situation I consider all the factors. I don't just ignore some because they "grind my gears" and are inconvenient for the story I want to believe.

I don't care about what some firemen said

You, on the other hand, are apparently happy to leave out the bits you find uncomfortable. That's why you're struggling to advance your view of 9/11.

reply to post by TupacShakur

Let me get this straight. Several witnesses drawing the flight path of the plane that hit Pentagon, and having all of them match up in a manner that's inconsistent with the official story doesn't matter to you? Their the exception because they go against the official story?

Let me get THIS straight....

Several witnesses, who watched Flight 77 slam into the Pentagon, draw a flight plan different than that offered by the FDR on Flight 77...........but STILL WITHIN THE MARGIN OF ERROR of the nav systems on the plane..........is somehow proof of a conspiracy??????

reply to post by vipertech0596

Several witnesses, who watched Flight 77 slam into the Pentagon, draw a flight plan different than that offered by the FDR on Flight 77...........but STILL WITHIN THE MARGIN OF ERROR of the nav systems on the plane..........is somehow proof of a conspiracy??????

Yeah, because if the flight path is even off by 30 feet, it couldn't have knocked over the light poles.

reply to post by TupacShakur


You might want to recheck some of your research in regards to wingtip vortices/shockwaves and their potential effect on ground objects. You might also want to gather the observations of quite a few more of the witnesses in regards to the flight path. You are making a conclusion based on not enough information.

She hasn't seen any plane part...Pentagon employee

reply to post by bing0


April Gallop again? You are joking right?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by bing0

 

April Gallop again? You are joking right?

cool you know her name! Wil you believe me when i say:

1. i m not joking
2. never heard of

but your reaction made.....me smile. She was there, and has the balls to open her mouth. You don't like that, or do i miss something?

reply to post by bing0


No, its that her story has more holes than a wheel of Swiss cheese. Do a search on ATS using her name.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

You haven't got it straight. Their testimony is the exception to the majority of the eyewitness testimony.

Where is this majority? Where are the flight paths that they drew? The only one I know of is the one provided by the flight recorder. Can you show me these testimonies that saw the light poles get struck and knocked over?

The situation with the fire chiefs is different. They all concur that they thought the building would collapse, and they were proved correct.

Maybe I just have bad memory, but I don't recall you providing me with these testimonies. Sorry to be an inconvenience, but can you show me the fire chiefs saying the building was going to come down? I understand exactly what you're saying, firemen thought the building would fall, and it fell. Case closed, right? What they thought would happen happened, so why am I arguing against a predicted outcome that played out in reality?

I think the collapse of the building was a controlled demolition because it matched up 100% with controlled demolitions. In this thread, there's an explosive technician who goes heavily into detail explaining why WTC 7 had to have been a controlled demolition. I understand that you think it was just caused by fires, but check out his interview and see what he has to say and tell me what you think about it.

Firemen thought the building would collapse, and it did. But all signs point to a controlled demolition, so I'm not going to treat their testimonies as proof that it wasn't a CD, since there's lots of proof that it was. Do you get where I'm coming from?

I don't actually. That the firemen are liars is a logical consequence of your argument. They remain unsurprised by the collapse - a collapse they forecast - and I believe them, not you. that means that a CD is wildly improbable.

You're right, they thought it would collapse, and it did. That doesn't rule out a CD though, because the collapse resembled a CD. This thread proves how both the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 couldn't have been caused by fire damage. It actually uses lots of NIST and FEMAs own work, among other things, to prove that.

You don't sound sure about that. And it's not a stupid argument - as I say, it is an absolutely logical consequence of your position. For the CD to have happened, they must be lying. Yet another layer of co-conspirators are added to make your silly theory work.

You're right, I'm very upsettable in the morning before I drink my coffee. Sorry if that came off douchy.

You, on the other hand, are apparently happy to leave out the bits you find uncomfortable. That's why you're struggling to advance your view of 9/11.

I acknowledge that they said the building would fall, and it did. Now can you take a look at that thread which proves that a CD is the only thing that could have brought down the towers? Even though the firemen accurately predicted the towers collapse, the facts that are presented in that thread prove that it had to have been caused by a controlled demolition.

reply to post by vipertech0596

You might want to recheck some of your research in regards to wingtip vortices/shockwaves and their potential effect on ground objects.

I'm saying the plane wasn't near the lightpoles, so it couldn't have struck them.

You might also want to gather the observations of quite a few more of the witnesses in regards to the flight path.

Why can't you do that and post it here so I can see it?

reply to post by TupacShakur


Wingtip vortices/shockwaves have been know the roil the air enough to cause smaller planes a mile behind an airliner to crash. As for the witness statements, they are online in a multitude of places, happy hunting.

reply to post by vipertech0596

Wingtip vortices/shockwaves have been know the roil the air enough to cause smaller planes a mile behind an airliner to crash.

That's what you're implying, that the shockwave could have caused them to fall, right?

As for the witness statements, they are online in a multitude of places, happy hunting.

That's good, once you provide me with a link to them I will be more than happy to read them.

Originally posted by vipertech0596

Several witnesses, who watched Flight 77 slam into the Pentagon, draw a flight plan different than that offered by the FDR on Flight 77...........but STILL WITHIN THE MARGIN OF ERROR of the nav systems on the plane..........is somehow proof of a conspiracy??????

Name ONE witness who saw the plane IMPACT the pentagon...

Happy hunting.