See other 9/11 Articles
Title: 9/11 and the Evidence
Source:
VDare
URL Source: http://www.vdare.com/roberts/070326_evidence.htm
Published: Mar 27, 2007
Author: Paul Craig Roberts
Post Date: 2007-03-27 12:26:54 by Peetie Wheatstraw
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 1739
Comments: 178
Professor David Ray Griffin is the nemesis of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. In his latest book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Griffin destroys the credibility of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Popular Mechanics reports, annihilates his critics, and proves himself to be a better scientist and engineer than the defenders of the official story. Griffin’s book is 385 pages divided into four chapters and containing 1,209 footnotes. Without question, the book is the most thorough presentation and examination of all known facts about the 9/11 attacks. Griffin is a person who is sensitive to evidence, logic, and scientific reasoning. There is no counterpart on the official side of the story who is as fully informed on all aspects of the attacks as Griffin. At the outset, Griffin points out that the reader’s choice is between two conspiracy theories: One is that Muslim fanatics, who were not qualified to fly airplanes, defeated the security apparatus of the US and succeeded in three out of four attacks using passenger jets as weapons. The other is that security failed across the board, not merely partially but totally, because of complicity of some part of the US government. Griffin points out that there has been no independent investigation of 9/11. What we have are a report by a political commission headed by Bush administration factotum Philip Zelikow, a NIST report produced by the Bush administration’s Department of Commerce, and a journalistic account produced by Popular Mechanics. Various scientists who work for the federal government or are dependent on government grants have issued speculative statements in behalf of the official conspiracy theory, but have not produced meaningful evidence in its behalf. The relevant skeptics of the official story are approximately 100 independent researchers consisting of experts and professors whose careers have required them to deal with evidence and its analysis. Their individual contributions to 9/11 analysis can be found online. Griffin has undertaken to absorb the arguments and evidence for the official account and the arguments and evidence against it. In his latest book, which has just been released, he presents the case for the official account and its evidential failure. Polls show that 36% of Americans do not believe the official story. Setting aside the 25% of the public that is so uninformed or uninvolved as to believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attack, leaves 39% of the public who believe the official story. However, this 39% is essentially relying on the mainstream media’s endorsement of the official story. Griffin believes, perhaps naively, that truth can prevail, and it is his commitment to truth that has motivated him to shoulder the enormous task. Everyone who believes in the integrity of the US government or the Bush administration will find Griffin’s book to be disturbing. Readers will have to confront such issues as why US authorities seized the forensic evidence resulting from the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings, the attack on the Pentagon and the crashed airliner in Pennsylvania and prevented any forensic examination of any part of the 9/11 attacks. Despite widespread belief that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attack, the evidence we have is a suspect video declared to be "bogus" by Bruce Lawrence, perhaps the leading American expert on bin Laden. The US government has never produced the promised report on bin Laden’s responsibility. When the Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden on presentation of evidence, the US government had no evidence to deliver; thus the invasion of Afghanistan. The fragility of the NIST report is astonishing. The report succeeded because people accepted its assurances without examination. Griffin shows that the Popular Mechanics report consists of special pleading, circular reasoning, appeals to the authority of the NIST report, straw men, and internal contradictions in the report itself. There is not space in a review to present the evidence Griffin has mustered. A few highlights should suffice to alert readers to the possibility that the Bush administration has lied about more than Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. The two WTC towers did not collapse. They blew up and disintegrated, as did WTC 7. There is an enormous energy deficit in every account that rules out the use of explosives. Gravitational energy is insufficient to explain the pulverization of the buildings and contents and the severing of the 47 massive center core steel columns in each of the towers into convenient lengths to be picked up and loaded onto trucks; much less can gravitational energy account for the pulverization of the top floors of the towers and ejection of steel beams hundreds of feet horizontally just prior to the disintegration of the floors below. Damage caused by airliners and short-lived limited fires cannot explain the disintegration of the buildings. The massive steel skeletons of the towers comprised a gigantic heat sink that wicked away whatever heat the limited fires produced. NIST’s final report stated that of the steel available to it for examination, "only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 degrees Celsius" (482 degrees Fahrenheit). The self-cleaning ovens in our home kitchens reach temperatures higher than this, and the ovens do not melt or deform. Steel begins to melt at 1,500 degrees C or 2,800 degrees F. Temperatures of 250 degrees C would have no effect on the strength of steel. The explanation that the buildings collapsed because fire weakened the steel is speculative. Open air fires do not produce temperatures sufficient to deprive steel of its structural integrity. Steel framed buildings have burned 22 hours in raging infernos, and the steel skeletons remained standing. The WTC fires in the towers lasted about one hour and were limited to a few floors. Moreover, it is impossible for fire to account for the sudden, total and symmetrical disintegration of powerfully constructed buildings, much less at free fall speeds that are obtainable only with controlled demolition. Griffin provides quotes from firefighters, police, and tenants, who heard and experienced a series of explosions prior to the disintegration of the towers. Such witness testimony is generally ignored by defenders of the official conspiracy theory. Molten steel was found in underground levels of the WTC buildings weeks after the buildings’ destruction. As everyone agrees that the fires did not approach the melting point of steel, a possible explanation is high explosives used in demolitions that produce 5,000 degree temperatures. The possibility that explosives were used remains unexamined except by independent researchers. Contradictions in the official conspiracy theory leap off the pages and hit the reader in the face. For example, the evidence that Flight 77, a Boeing 757, crashed into the Pentagon is the government’s claim to have obtained from the wreckage enough bodies and body parts to match the DNA for each person on the passenger list and flight crew. Simultaneously, the absence of passenger luggage, fuselage, wing and tail sections--indeed the absence of a 100,000 pound airliner--is attributed to the vaporization of the airplane due to the high speed crash and intense fire. The incompatibility of vaporized metal but recovered flesh and blood stood unnoticed until Griffin pointed it out. Another striking inconsistency in the official conspiracy theory is the difference in the impact of airliners on the Pentagon and the WTC towers. In the case of the Pentagon, the emphasis is on why the airliner caused so little damage to the building. In the case of the WTC towers, the emphasis is why the airliners caused so much damage. Perhaps it is merely a coincidence that just prior to 9/11 Cathleen P. Black, who has family connections to the CIA and Pentagon and is president of Hearst Magazines, the owner of Popular Mechanics, fired the magazine’s editor-in-chief and several senior veteran staff members and installed James B. Meigs and Benjamin Chertoff, a cousin of Bush administration factotum Michael Chertoff. It was Meigs and Benjamin Chertoff who produced the Popular Mechanics report that Griffin has eviscerated. In his conclusion Griffin reminds us that the 9/11 attack has been used to start wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to plan an attack on Iran, to curtail constitutional protections and civil liberties in the US, to radically expand US military budgets and the power of the executive, and to enrich entrenched vested interests. Griffin is definitely correct about this regardless of whether a believable case can ever be made for the government’s version of the 9/11 conspiracy.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#0)
Damage caused by airliners and short-lived limited fires cannot explain the disintegration of the buildings. The massive steel skeletons of the towers comprised a gigantic heat sink that wicked away whatever heat the limited fires produced. there sure are idiots who try though.
Huh? Follow ancient diplomatic custom such as the presenting of evidence of guilt on the subject of an extradition request? Bah! In the post 9/11 world such established procedures can't be bothered with by the federal government of the United State of America. VDare? A nearly mainstream site- with thousands of unique hits per day. The facade is falling apart.
Griffin’s book is 385 pages divided into four chapters and containing 1,209 footnotes. Without question, the book is the most thorough presentation and examination of all known facts about the 9/11 attacks. Add to your reading list bump! "The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
The massive steel skeletons of the towers comprised a gigantic heat sink that wicked away whatever heat the limited fires produced. Add that the broke windows conducted a high percentage of the heat outward as would a chimney. The blonde in the impact hole tells the greater truth - that was the hottest point in the whole event. AND - she came from the stairwell area - no damage to speak of there.
I just ordered the book to add to my 9/11 collections. I picked up quite few books in Germany, where debunking our government version of the event is a veritable cottage industry. I hate to belabor the point, but most Europeans think we are terminally stupid.
I don't blame them. How nice that we can help their economy and provide them with more jokes at the same time.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Most Euros would be spot-on correct (and they've thought that for decades now.)
I guess I'm going to have to take a look at this book. Supposedly, Griffin uses some of my material; but I don't know how much. {Sorry, BAC, it didn't occur to me that Griffin didn't have your permission!}
He did his homework.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
that is fantastic SkyDrifter - some of your work may be in a footnote. and fantastic for BAC too - that he contributed. Thanks BAC for helping to show the world that sept 11 was inside job. and now if you can only eat your DU dust and prove to us that DU dust is harmless as you said it was. BAC is hero. very intelligent. I read every word he writes.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
The following is a rebuttal of claims made by Griffin in his new book "9-11 and the American Empire": ********** From http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=47233&Disp=16#C16 False. That's NOT what experts in fire actually say. The WTC fires were very big and very hot. And they lasted as long as they needed to last in order to significantly weaken the fireproofing damaged steel. The Philadelphia fire took 18 hours just to gut 8 floors. That's because it was slowly spreading. The firefighters fought the fire for 11 hours before they evacuated the building fearing a collapse. The building, which was never hit by an aircraft, was structurally unsound and later had to be demolished (http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf ). In fact, according to that report, "Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors." Further, "The fire was stopped when it reached the 30th floor, which was protected by automatic sprinklers. As the fire ignited in different points this floor level through the floor assembly and by autoexposure through the windows, 10 sprinkler heads activated and the fires were extinguished at each point of penetration. The vertical spread of the fire was stopped solely by the action of the automatic sprinkler system, which was being supplied by Fire Department pumpers." The fire spread slowly in the Caracas fire too. And it was again fought by firefighters. And again the structure was severely damaged ... so much so that there was fear it would collapse. As always, the conspiracists leave out key details in their attempt to make the notion of bombs in the WTC towers remotely palatable. Also always ignored by the conspiracy crowd is the key difference between these structures and the WTC towers. These structures had a steel frame that looked like this: The WTC towers, on the other hand, had most of the steel in an outer web to increase office space: This made the towers more vulnerable to the type of failure they experienced than most other steel framed skyscrapers. This and other fallacious reasoning in the argument that because the WTC towers were the first steel skyscrapers to totally collapse it must have been bombs are discussed here: http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm Ignoring the fact that no other steel-framed, high rise buildings have been struck by modern high speed commercial jets and burned without firefighting measures, the key phrase here is "total collapse". If one looks at the Windsor Tower fire in Madrid in February of 2005, however, one finds a high rise in which ALL the portions of the tower (from the 18th to the 32nd floor) that relied primarily on steel frames for support collapsed (http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095 ). A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 17 floors and they did not collapse. And the collapse occurred solely due to fire with no externally caused structural damage and no jet fuel initiating that fire. And those sections collapsed within about 4 hours of exposure to the fire ... roughly the amount of time fire protection coatings could be expected to protect the steel from the fires heat. This is sheer nonsense. It is such extreme nonsense that NOT ONE demolition expert in the world concurs with this assertion. In fact, numerous, highly respected demolition experts have specifically stated that the collapse of the towers did NOT have the characteristics of a controlled demolition. And pointed out numerous features that prove it was not a controlled demolition. Steel members did sag well before the actual collapse. This is documented on film and in eyewitness statements. The structures were also observed to be tilting well before the actual collapse. The assertion that the collapses occurred out of the blue is simply FALSE. Here is the proof: http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html http://www.geocities.com/representativepress/WTC1SouthFace1023.html This is more nonsense. Steel framed skyscrapers cannot collapse any way but straight down as they lack the stiffness to topple over. I doubt that Griffin even understands the term. Again, NOT ONE demolition expert or structural engineer has said there was anything unexpected about the structures collapsing vertically. Another dishonesty. WTC 1 and WTC 2 did NOT collapse as *virtually free-fall* speed. That would have been a collapse in about 10 seconds. The towers took about 15 seconds for the collapsing level to reach the ground. In that time, a tower more than twice as high could have collapsed at "virtually free-fall speed". More dishonesty, proven simply by looking at videos and photos of the collapse and its aftermath. In fact, much of the core of the towers actually remained standing for a time after the collapsing level reached the ground. Molten metal does not equate to controlled demolition. It equates to high temperatures or a eutectic steel exposed to somewhat lower temperatures. Or it equates to metals with lower melting points (like Aluminum). And there are other rational explanations for high temperatures besides a controlled demolition. Here is one: http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf . The term *explosion* is merely an INTERPRETATION of what was observed or heard. NOT ONE structural engineer or demolition expert has said there were explosions caused by bombs in the WTC towers., They've provided other, more ordinary (and rational) explanations. Are they all evil neocons or morons ... or do they know something lay-people and theologians don't? First of all, there was molten metal observed flowing from one of the towers shortly before it collapsed. The experts said it was aluminum, which melts at about a 1000 F, temperatures that all the experts say were exceeded before the collapse. Second, the conditions in the rubble pile are something entirely different. Temperatures in ordinary fires (especially if there are plastics involved) can in fact exceed the melting point of steel without calling on magic spirits or foul play. This is fully discussed here: http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html Which is why not one expert in fire has come forward to suggest finding molten metal in the rubble was not possible or indicative of foul play. One thing the conspiracists never explain is how thermate would have kept the steel molten long after its reaction supposedly cut the beams and collapsed the building? We are talking WEEKS after the collapse before those steel beams were lifted from the rubble. What source of heat kept the metal molten so long? None of those saying it appeared to be a controlled demolition were experts in such matters. NONE of them. ALL were merely interpreting loud noises and the collapse from the position of a layperson. And LOTS of things in burning and collapsing structures make loud popping sounds. Griffin neglected to mention that Steven Jones is an expert in sub-atomic particles and cold fusion. That's ALL he has worked on for the past 30 years. And suddenly he's an expert in macro-world physics, structures, fire, impact, buckling and steel? ROTFLOL! He also neglected to mention that NONE of the experts in such things at BYU agrees with Jones. NOT ONE. What Griffin dishonestly leaves out is that Mr Jowenko (the demolition expert in question) specifically stated that the collapse of the WTC towers looked nothing like controlled demolitions and were definitely NOT controlled demolitions. And the interviewer who showed him very select video for WTC7 even lied to him about certain facts surrounding the collapse. Mr Jowenko also based his conclusion solely on that video tape. And his theory was that Mr Silverstein jury rigged the demolition AFTER the attack on the towers as a means of getting insurance money. He doesn't suggest for a minute that the government had anything to do with it. And he suggests that 30 to 50 people were needed to do it. ROTFLOL! Now Mr Bachmann's theory is that the terrorists installed explosives in the key supports of before the attack (fundamentally different than Mr Jowenko's theory). In fact, he suggests they rented office space in vulnerable parts of the building to do it. Any documentary evidence of this? No. And again, Mr Bachmann made his assertion about WTC7 after seeing only a few videos of the collapse by a kindly conspiracist. He didn't take time to study the case or research further. In fact, he doesn't seem to want to talk to conspiracists any more. Nor does his friend, Joerg Schneider, the other professor. This one is 73. He's retired. And like Bachmann was only shown a small portion of the video and other evidence ... the part that conspiracists who interviewed him chose to show. His resume would indicate he focused on concrete structures and then, later, the safety and reliability of structures, with special emphasis on human error. Not steel structures, impact or fire. Let's be clear about this. There are over a hundred thousand commercial pilots in the US. And so far, only a handful have made statements or joined 911 conspiracy organizations suggesting that it would have been impossible for a 757 to perform the maneuvers that occurred. Would that make the rest morons or just evil neocons? And this is a good example of the type of pilots they've been able to enlist in their movement. A pilot no longer ALLOWED to fly the planes. Tell them why, SKYDRIFTER. Nothing strange here. A horizontal impact wouldn't impart much energy into the ground. This is completely false. Photographs and eyewitnesses do, in fact, support the claim that a 757 hit the Pentagon. Which is why noone but KOOKS are claiming it didn't. How good was this eyewitness? Kwiatkowski is also on record stating that "the façade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter." That is completely false as numerous photos already posted to FD4UM several times prove. Here, this is just the LEFT SIDE of the hole: Also, there was considerable debris on the ground outside of the building, a fact captured in photos like this: This is just more dishonesty from Griffin. A quote taken completely out of context. http://www.911myths.com/html/jamie_mcintyre_and_the_pentago.html http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/even-more-quote-mining.html "Well let's look at what he says only a minute before this quote (emphasis mine): "And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane." Ah yes, April Gallop. For the rest of the story, folks, read this: http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/strange-case-of-april-gallop.html April clearly states that she believes a plane hit the Pentagon and the reason she didn't see any debris is because she wasn't wandering around but being triaged. ROTFLOL! Griffin depending on Omholt as an expert just proves how desperate Griffin is to find ANY *expert* to bolster his assertions. She should be glad that section of the Pentagon had recently been hardened and that the tail of a 757 didn't contain any fuel. Not at the time of 9/11. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24426 "Defense Department officials actually considered a terrorist scenario in which Islamic fundamentalist martyrs crashed planes into the otherwise impregnable Pentagon, but they ruled out countermeasures, such as anti-aircraft batteries and radar, as too costly and too dangerous to surrounding residential areas, a senior Pentagon official specializing in counterterrorism told WorldNetDaily in an exclusive interview." There are no structural engineers currently complaining about this. Some were initially unhappy but apparently their concerns were addressed by subsequent actions to allow access and save samples from the site. And they were supposed to just leave the debris (which I thought Griffin was claiming didn't exist) laying where it fell? OF COURSE they gathered it up. More nonsense. Investigators combed the site shoulder to shoulder looking for evidence. There are numerous photos documenting this. And the entire lawn was not covered with dirt and gravel. That's simply FALSE. Gravel was placed along certain paths to allow heavy equipment to get access to the structure so it could be repaired. Sorry, no conspiracy here. Although Griffin should tell his readers what most of the conspiracists who harp about this claim that this burial was done to cover up the DU from the missile used to damage the pentagon. ROTFLOL! As they were supposed to do. I supposed you'd have not collected them? That depends on how one interprets that video. A 757 could indeed be hiding in the shadows of that video. In fact, some see one in the details. But then again, why one would expect a low resolution, low frame rate, narrow field of view security camera to capture a clear image of the aircraft is beyond my understanding. ROTFLOL! In conclusion, here's the sort of sources those who want the truth should read: http://www.911myths.com/911TruthOrgCritiqueMay06.pdf http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf http://www.jod911.com/evidence.pdf http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html Rather than the dishonest nonsense of a philosopher and theologian. ******************
Yeah. ALL the structural engineers, demolition experts, materials engineers, experts in fire, and macro-world physicists in the world. What a bunch of morons. (sarcasm)
Rather than the dishonest nonsense of a philosopher and theologian. Oh, fuck you; BAC!
my sentiments exactly. :P
Another classic dimwitted spam post I see. Well your dipshit experts that you are so fond of quoting got a major part WRONG. What's wrong with this picture dipshit? It leaves out the entire core. That is a deliberate attempt to mislead. Why would any of your dimwitted experts need to mislead anyone if they had truth on their side? You are a proven shill. Take a hike.
The two WTC towers did not collapse. They blew up and disintegrated, as did WTC 7. There is an enormous energy deficit in every account that rules out the use of explosives. Gravitational energy is insufficient to explain the pulverization of the buildings and contents and the severing of the 47 massive center core steel columns in each of the towers into convenient lengths to be picked up and loaded onto trucks; much less can gravitational energy account for the pulverization of the top floors of the towers and ejection of steel beams hundreds of feet horizontally just prior to the disintegration of the floors below.
#2. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#0)
The US government has never produced the promised report on bin Laden’s responsibility. When the Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden on presentation of evidence, the US government had no evidence to deliver; thus the invasion of Afghanistan.
#3. To: Peetie Wheatstraw, aristeides, Diana, leveller, scrapper2 (#0)
(Edited)
In his latest book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Griffin destroys the credibility of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Popular Mechanics reports, annihilates his critics, and proves himself to be a better scientist and engineer than the defenders of the official story.
#4. To: Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#1)
#5. To: robin (#3)
Add to your reading list bump!
#6. To: karelian (#5)
I picked up quite few books in Germany, where debunking our government version of the event is a veritable cottage industry. I hate to belabor the point, but most Europeans think we are terminally stupid.
#7. To: karelian (#5)
I hate to belabor the point, but most Europeans think we are terminally stupid.
#8. To: Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#1)
#9. To: SKYDRIFTER (#8)
Griffin’s book is 385 pages divided into four chapters and containing 1,209 footnotes. Without question, the book is the most thorough presentation and examination of all known facts about the 9/11 attacks.
#10. To: SKYDRIFTER, BeAChooser (#8)
#11. To: Peetie Wheatstraw, ALL (#0)
Second, the fires in these buildings were not as big, hot, or long-lasting as fires in steel-frame high-rises that have not induced collapses.
In 1991, a fire in Philadelphia burned for 18 hours; in 2004, a fire in Caracas burned for 17 hours. But neither fire produced even a partial collapse.
Third, total collapses of steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought about by fire
Fourth, the collapses of these three buildings all manifested many standard features of the kind of controlled demolition known as “implosion,”
sudden onset (whereas steel, if weakened by fire, would gradually begin to sag)
straight-down collapse (as opposed to falling over)
collapse at virtually free-fall speed
total collapse (indicating that the massive steel columns in the core of each building had been broken into many pieces---which is what explosives do in controlled demolitions)
the production of molten metal;
and the occurrence of multiple explosions.
To begin with the molten metal: Many people have been led to believe, by misleading TV documentaries, that the Twin Towers collapsed because their steel melted. But steel does not begin to melt until it reaches 2800°F, whereas open fires based on hydrocarbons such as kerosene---which is what jet fuel is---cannot get much above 1700°F (even with an ideal mixture of fuel and oxygen, which seldom occurs in building fires). Nevertheless, molten metal was produced, according to many witnesses.
That would be no surprise only if the buildings’ steel columns had been sliced by the use of high-temperature explosives, such as thermite, thermate, or RDX, which are regularly used to cut steel. That this is what happened is supported by reports that sometimes when steel beams were lifted from the rubble, they were dripping molten metal.
With regard to explosions, literally dozens of people---including journalists, police officers, WTC employees, emergency medical workers, and firefighters---reported hearing explosions in the Twin Towers, with some of them explicitly saying that the collapses appeared to be instances of controlled demolition.
Steven Jones, a physicist who long taught at Brigham Young University, has pointed out that to believe the official account is to believe that some very basic laws of physics were violated.
it is not surprising that when a controlled demolition expert in Holland was shown videos of the collapse of WTC 7,[31] without being told what the building was (he had previously thought that only the Twin Towers had collapsed on 9/11), he said: “They have simply blown away columns. . . . A team of experts did this. . . . This is controlled demolition.”
It is also not surprising that two emeritus professors of structural analysis and construction at Zurich’s prestigious ETH Institute of Technology say that WTC 7 was “with the highest probability brought down by explosives.”[33]
Second, in order to get into position to hit Wedge 1 of the Pentagon, the aircraft had to execute an amazing downward spiral and come in at ground level, which according to some pilots would have been impossible for a Boeing 757, even under the control of an expert.
Ralph Omholt, a captain-qualified 757 pilot, agrees: “The idea that an unskilled pilot could have flown this trajectory,” says Omholt, “is simply too ridiculous to consider.”
Fourth, there is considerable evidence that the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was not even a Boeing 757. Unlike the strikes on the Twin Towers, the Pentagon strike did not create a detectable seismic signal.
Also, according to photographs and eyewitnesses, the kind of damage and debris that would have been produced by the impact of a Boeing 757 was not produced by the strike on the Pentagon.
With regard to the debris, the eyewitnesses include Karen Kwiatkowski, who was then an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel employed at the Pentagon. She writes of “a strange lack of visible debris on the Pentagon lawn, where I stood only moments after the impact. . . . I saw nothing of any significance at the point of impact---no airplane metal or cargo debris.”
Another eyewitness was CNN’s Jamie McIntyre, who said during a live report from the Pentagon on 9/11: “The only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand.”
The lack of the expected debris inside the Pentagon has been reported by April Gallop, who, along with her two-month-old son, was seriously injured. She says:
I was located at the E ring. . . . [W]e had to escape the building before the floors . . . collapsed on us. And I don't recall at any time seeing any plane debris. . . . If I wasn't informed [at the hospital that it was a plane] I would have never believed it. I walked through that place to try to get out before everything collapsed on us . . . . [S]urely we should have seen something.
With regard to damage, Omholt, discussing the photographic evidence,[48] writes: “There is no hole big enough to swallow a 757. . . . There is no viable evidence of burning jet fuel. . . . The expected ‘crash’ damage doesn’t exist. . . . Even the Pentagon lawn was undamaged! The geometry of the day certifies the ‘official’ account as a blatant lie.”
Significant testimony is also provided by Army Reservist Isabelle Slifer, whose fourth-floor office was directly above the strike zone between the first and second floors. Even though a 757 has a very large tail fin, her office was not damaged by the impact.
Also, the Pentagon is reportedly protected by batteries of surface-to-air missiles,
A sixth reason to be dubious of the official story is that, as at the World Trade Center, evidence was quickly destroyed.
Shortly after the strike, officials picked up debris in front of the impact site and carried it off.
the entire lawn was covered with dirt and gravel, so that any remaining forensic evidence was literally covered up.
FBI agents, moreover, quickly confiscated videos from security cameras on nearby buildings.
The Justice Department, after long refusing to release any of them, finally in May 2006 released one purporting to showing a Boeing 757 striking the Pentagon. But it did not.
#12. To: christine, ALL (#1)
there sure are idiots who try though.
#13. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#11)
#14. To: SKYDRIFTER (#13)
#15. To: BeAChooser (#11)
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#16. To: SKYDRIFTER, christine (#13)
I think there should be a maximum # of times that someone can post the exact same copy/paste. Also note, that Griffin's new book has not yet been released. Once again (for those of you in Rio Linda - or who just act like it), the title of Griffin's latest book is: Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (Paperback) by David Ray Griffin (Author) List Price: $20.00 Price: $13.60 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details You Save: $6.40 (32%) Pre-Order Price Guarantee! Order now and if the Amazon.com price decreases between your order time and release date, you'll receive the lowest price. See Details Availability: This title has not yet been released. You may order it now and we will ship it to you when it arrives. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Gift-wrap available.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#17. To: robin (#16)
yeah, i was JUST thinking the same thing.
I think there should be a maximum # of times that someone can post the exact same copy/paste
#18. To: Critter, ALL (#15)
What's wrong is that you didn't bother to actually read the link to the source of those images. I provided it (http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm ) but you clearly didn't read it. Because they specifically addressed your point and said why they didn't depict the vertical columns. Shall I post what they said, critter, since you were too lazy to read the link? What's wrong with this picture dipshit?
"Note: What's missing from the above photo are the core columns but they are not needed to show the difference in building construction. Conspiracy theorists (that would be YOU, critter) will be quick to point out this photo doesn't show the core columns but this isn't here to show how many stick figures someone can create. It's here to show how the building had a vastly different design than the average building. If you're a conspiracy theorist (that would be YOU, critter) just imagine your 47 box columns in the core. (The dark area in the center). The building will still be built differently, box columns in this image or not."
#19. To: christine, robin, ALL (#17)
You going to try and censor the truth, christine? That should be interesting. And what do you think all these articles posted about Griffin recently are other than copy/paste? Just because they are in the form of a thread article doesn't make them anything other than that. It took NO effort on the part of the poster to post the articles. Someone else already did the work of writing them.
I think there should be a maximum # of times that someone can post the exact same copy/paste
yeah, i was JUST thinking the same thing.
#20. To: BeAChooser (#19)
No, but a lot of your cut and paste bullshit with links to magazine subscrition sites and one man kook blogs is just garbage. That could go out with no problem. Speaking of KoOkery, what's happening with Ron Brown these days?
You going to try and censor the truth, christine?
.
#21. To: BeAChooser (#19)
Ghandi wouldn't toss out veiled threats this way. He would work for a solution. If you are going to convince us that you channel Ghandi, you are at least going ot have to sound like the guy.
That should be interesting.
.
#22. To: BeAChooser (#19)
By the way chooser, I never got a chance to ask you, did Goldi ban you for being a kook or for just being a butt hole? Seems it could have gone either way.
.
#23. To: BeAChooser (#19)
Chooser, I got it. Why don't you post ten pages of black spam that no one will read. Down at the bottom say something about the world being unfair to you. Then, two weeks from now, when Christine calls you on your bullshit, you can claim you have already proven her wrong in a prior post. Ask her if she remembers it and go ROTFLOL!! That should change reality and make things go your way.
.
#24. To: ... (#21)
What would Ghandi wouldn't toss out veiled threats this way
Jesus BUSH do?
#25. To: ..., ALL (#23)
This should answer your question: ********** From my first post here at 4um ... *************** http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=45230&Disp=75#C75 Hello everyone! In my first post here at Freedom4um, I wish to set the record straight regarding my recent banning at LibertyPost by that forum's owner. Post #293 of the following LP thread, http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=175627&Disp=327#C327 , is where Goldi-Lox kicked me off her forum. She stated I was "disruptive" to the thread (and it's "important message"). Her banning post was a response to a post I made to samcgwire. Goldi deleted, in its entirety, the post I made to samcgwire (#235), calling my post "UNCIVIL". Now you can decide for yourself whether I was disruptive (at least, any more so than scores of other folks have been on thousand other threads at LP). Before you do that, however, keep in mind that she responded to a post I'd made nearly 12 hours earlier, and between that time and her post, I posted nothing further to the thread (and there were another 60 posts added by then). I'd hardly characterize that the massive disruption she claimed it to be. And my response was a response to a very hostile post directed at me. Was I supposed to be the only one at LP to just turn the other cheek? Just as I was the only one not allowed to post the word KOOK? Furthermore, to single me out and ignore countless other examples of folks disrupting the forum in other threads says, I think, something about the consistency of Goldi's management of the forum. Many of these other cases have been pointed out to her (not just by me) and she took no action. So perhaps my banning just shows that only HER "issues" matter at LP. LP'ers take note. But that's ok. She is the owner and can do what she wants. And a final bit of irony. Note that the assertion being made in the thread by Goldi and others apparently turned out to be more hysteria and rumor, than actual fact. I'm not saying those in Washington aren't above trying to slip something by us, but in this case it appears her concerns were a little overblown. But that's ok. She is the owner and can do what she wants. Goldi-Lox chose to ban me ... permanently ... and without a real warning ... but that is her right as forum owner. She can do what she wants. So here I am, on Freedom4um. The same is true of this forum's owners. Should they decide I'm no longer welcome, they can ban me and I will make no effort to return. And for the record I have not posted at FR since Jim tossed me nor have I posted (or will I) at LP (unless, of course, invited to do so by Goldi). But, I do intend to give this forum's owner no legitimate cause to cancel my access. More on that later. First, I do feel that Goldi's pulling my comment #235 and labeling it UNCIVIL is a naked effort to hide the hypocrisy of her own actions. So here are the facts regarding that deleted post (and you know how I love facts). My post (#235) was a response to this post by samcgwire: **************** 228. To: BeAChooser (#218) Quite honestly, you Quisling POS. I hope you freaking choke on yourself. This might be my last night on LP. Chooser, you and everyone like you will hang before this is over. You sorry SOB. You can't cover for the treasonous bastards any longer. The jig is up. Game over. It's time for all quislings to pay the fiddler and start to reap the whirlwind. You and your ilk have done enough damage. samcgwire posted on 2007-02-05 21:07:36 ET Reply Trace ******************** To samcgwire's statement "Quite honestly, you Quisling POS. I hope you freaking choke on yourself.", I wrote (in #235) "What a civil, family oriented forum." How can Goldi find that comment uncivil, yet not consider calling someone a "POS" and an "SOB" uncivil? Does she not know what POS and SOB stand for? Or are they okay because they are abbreviations of foul language? And she must think that a death wish is civil, too. I hardly see the logic in that. But it's her forum. Next, in response to samcgwire's statement "This might be my last night on LP", I wrote "Why? You folks own this forum. I'm one little voice. What do you fear?" Again, does Goldi think that's being uncivil? There's no foul language. No labels. Just the simple truth. Folks like samcgwire do seem to dominate her forum. And I was just one little voice of rationality (IMO). What did she fear? Finally, in response to what I perceive to be a highly uncivil death threat, "Chooser, you and everyone like you will hang before this is over", I wrote "This is the sort of person you are associating yourself with, Goldi." I see nothing uncivil in that observation, either. And it was the truth. She was associating herself with that individual. Later, she even went out of her way in the thread to tell samcgwire to not quit the forum but just take some time off and come back. And samcgwire wasn't the only problematic individual she was chummy with in that thread. In my opinion. So here was a thread with it's very important topic (and I do think stopping illegal immigration is important) and Goldi willingly associates herself and the topic with an extremist who utters death threats and foul language at the drop of a hat, and others who I had shown (on other threads Goldi was pinged to) have a propensity for lying. I warned her in two emails after my banning that such associations are not going to get her views about this issue any favorable response from anyone who matters. Nor is allowing liars to corrupt a forum going to do that. My emails to her said quite a bit about the topic of liars. She ignores what I said at the risk of her own forum's future. But then it is her forum and I'll say no more on that matter unless asked to do so by her. I'm not holding my breath. Now, as to my presence on THIS forum, I'd going to try something different. I will not be calling anyone any names or labels (you know ... kook, liar, 5th Columnist, anti-American). No matter what you call me or uncivility you post to me. I won't bozo you (don't believe in that). I'm simply going to turn the other cheek. And we will see who comes out looking the worse in the long run. I'm also not going to engage in long debates, taking apart posts line by line. But I will be posting linked sources that will allow any open minded visitor to FD4UM to see that a claim made by a poster or a claim made in an article is false. They can draw their own conclusion from that. One last comment. I appreciate this forum's owners giving me the opportunity to join, despite our past differences. I sure this will be interesting. Now let the games begin ... *********** See ... I even addressed to you at the end. Guess you weren't paying attention. ROTFLOL!
By the way chooser, I never got a chance to ask you, did Goldi ban you for being a kook or for just being a butt hole?
#26. To: ... (#23)
By the way, I'm just curious if you ever posted over at LP and if so under what screen name. Since you seem to know so much about me ...
#27. To: BeAChooser (#25)
OK. She banned you for being a kook AND an asshole. Thanks for clearing that up. But, I suppose I could have figured it out for myself.
.
#28. To: BeAChooser (#26)
You post here. I don't need to go over there to see you in action.
.
#29. To: ..., ALL (#27)
Also ... do you have any specific defense you want to make for Griffin? Or will you just remain mum about that? And leave my points standing?
#30. To: BeAChooser (#26)
So why doesn't Bush go on national TV and spew your WMD drivel? If its true it would save Bush's Presidency and make utter fools of the Democratic Congress. What is the evil conspiracy that prevents this?
.
#31. To: ..., ALL (#28)
But you do visit that site a lot. Otherwise, how could you pretend to know what my views are on topics like Ron Brown? Right?
You post here. I don't need to go over there to see you in action.
#32. To: BeAChooser (#29)
And leave my points standing? Your "points" are from a month old article in a Bush boosting propaganda publication. They were published prior to the BBC's FOIA request coming in. The propaganda you posted has already been refuted by newer articles based upon the more recent information. But you know that already.
Or will you just remain mum about that?
.
#33. To: BeAChooser (#31)
Easy, you are a kook who is too dumb to question NewsMax. All kooks like you buy all the Ron Brown stories all the time. I know you also buy into the "move the WMD stories" even though I haven't seen you post on it. All I have to do is read NewsMax once a month to see inside your brain.
how could you pretend to know what my views are on topics like Ron Brown?
.
#34. To: BeAChooser (#31)
You are a gullible and easily manipulated kook who breathlessly believes every word NewsMax and WND spin for you. I could recite your entire world view without too much trouble.
.
#35. To: ..., ALL (#32)
You seem a little confused, ... You seem to think you are posting on the other thread ... the one about the Iraqi death toll. But this thread is about Griffin and his statements concerning 9/11. On this thread I asked you whether you were going to let my points about Griffin stand. This thread has nothing to do with the John Hopkin's study. WAKE UP before you make a fool of yourself. Now are you going to defend Griffin or not?
Your "points" are from a month old article in a Bush boosting propaganda publication.
#36. To: ..., ALL (#33)
So you are admitting you haven't actually read the material I've posted on Ron Brown. Correct?
Easy, you are a kook who is too dumb to question NewsMax. All kooks like you buy all the Ron Brown stories all the time.
#37. To: BeAChooser (#36)
Are you trying to put words in my mouth? Try again, it didn't work this time. I know you believe the Ron Brown kookery and go on about it when you think know one is going to hammer you for it.
So you are admitting you haven't actually read the material I've posted on Ron Brown. Correct?
.
#38. To: BeAChooser (#36)
Chosen...no one in their right mind would sift threw that pile... We got the gov't we deserved.
“Yes, but is this good for Jews?"
#39. To: BeAChooser (#35)
That is not the issue I raised with you on this thread. I asked if Goldi banned you for being a kook or an asshole. You indicated, in a very round about way, that she banned you for being both and kook AND an asshole. I didn't have much to say after that except that it seemed logical to me. You are the one trying to keep this going.
Now are you going to defend Griffin or not?
.
#40. To: BeAChooser, Eoghan (#11) (Edited)
Eoghan is right chooser. If you can't make your point if fifty words, you don't know what you are talking about. You should go out to your local Junior College and take a course in Composition and Communications. Be brief, be organized and be to the point.
.
#41. To: BeAChooser (#36)
So is Ron Brown dead or alive, or does he go back and forth?
So you are admitting you haven't actually read the material I've posted on Ron Brown. Correct?
.
#42. To: christine (#17)
yeah, i was JUST thinking the same thing. Why don't you limit chooser to a daily word count? You would actually be doing him a favor. It would force him to sift through his pages of garbage to pull out the single salient point ... if there was one. This would teach him to be both concise and precise in his arguments. Important abilities for any would be propagandist. It would also be a good thing for the rest of the forum. If chooser had no salient point to make, we would be spared his spam. On the rare occasions where he did have a point, people would actually read it as they would not be forced to wade through his normal reams of garbage.
I think there should be a maximum # of times that someone can post the exact same copy/paste
.
#43. To: BeAChooser (#35)
Actually chooser, the world has turned. No one gives a shit about your NewsMax headlines cica 1993. They are as irrelevant as Ron Brown or your WMD koOkery. These issues have long since been decided by the rational and effective politicos ... and you lost. And your ranting about it just highlights your kookery. What you should be doing is telling us about the kooky conspiracy that forces Monica Goodling to take the fifth. Or maybe spinning about what a strong and effective AG Gonzales is. Or take a clue from your hero Rush and tell us that today's Senate vote regarding the pull out provision in the supplemental was part of a Republican master scheme. There is lots of current stuff you could try to bullshit us about as your team circles the hole in the toilet and awaits the big slurp. Get with the program! You can still claim that 29% of the country still supports you. Make hay while the sun shines. You probably won't be able to claim the 29% after 2008.
But this thread is about Griffin and his statements concerning 9/11.
.
#44. To: BeAChooser, SKYDRIFTER, christine, Red Jones (#25)
This was the reason I was banned at FR some time ago, because shortly after the war against Iraq got started I had the nerve to say that that our military would not be greeted warmly by the Iraqi people, that we would not win over their hearts and minds, that in fact they would resent it. The posters at FR thought that was a terrible thing to say, so JR booted me off for being a disruptor. I'm sure you were considered disruptive on LP in another way though.
She stated I was "disruptive" to the thread (and it's "important message").
#45. To: BeAChooser, ..., Red Jones (#26)
That's probably because you have become an internet legend, you are famous! We are so lucky and honored to have you here!!
Since you seem to know so much about me ...
#46. To: BeAChooser (#18)
47 INTERCONECTED box colums, not unlike, but definitely much heavier than the interconnected but much smaller columns in the other picture, which they did show. Funny how everyone of the fairy tale believers forgets that the core was interconnected.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#47. To: Diana (#45)
Yes, he is like caLOL, TLBSHOW or Fahey. A legend, but not exactly in the way he imagines.
That's probably because you have become an internet legend, you are famous!
.
#48. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#19)
When did you get interested in the truth, BAC? You're a disinformationist, a deceiver; a LIAR! Eat shit & die, you sorry piece of shit! You going to try and censor the truth, christine?
#49. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#25)
Goldi was part of the 'team' that sent you over here to disrupt this forum. You're not fooling anyone important, BAC! Don't think you have any permanence here, BAC, we're just keeping an eye on you. I appreciate this forum's owners giving me the opportunity to join, despite our past differences. I sure this will be interesting.
#50. To: ..., ALL (#37)
So have you read the material I've posted about Ron Brown or not?
"So you are admitting you haven't actually read the material I've posted on Ron Brown. Correct?"
Are you trying to put words in my mouth?
#51. To: ..., christine, ALL (#39)
But it is the topic of this thread. And my raising those issues and christine's indication that she might censor my responses criticizing Griffin are what apparently drew you to this thread. So are you going to defend Griffin from what I said about him or not?
Now are you going to defend Griffin or not?
That is not the issue I raised with you on this thread.
#52. To: ..., ALL (#43)
Again you don't seem to know what this thread is about. Why is that?
But this thread is about Griffin and his statements concerning 9/11.
Actually chooser, the world has turned. No one gives a shit about your NewsMax headlines cica 1993.
#53. To: Diana, ALL (#44)
I'm curious Diana. Why do you think Goldi LIED about the content of my post? It clearly was not uncivil as she claimed (and then deleted). My message to her is the same as my message to you folks. You will not find the truth or a better world on a foundation of lies. That message goes out to the posters championing Griffin in this thread. He's a liar ... and you will not find the truth on a foundation of lies.
I'm sure you were considered disruptive on LP in another way though.
#54. To: Critter, ALL (#46)
Funny how you still don't get it. ROTFLOL!
47 INTERCONECTED box colums, not unlike, but definitely much heavier than the interconnected but much smaller columns in the other picture, which they did show.
#55. To: BeAChooser (#53)
you're the one whose belief system is based on a foundation of lies. that's what your beloved government does is LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE and you disgustingly lap it all up and puke it all over this forum. as i said before, the only reason you're here is that some posters enjoy engaging you. no one here, including your imaginary lurker fans, reads the spam you've been posting over and over and over. you're the only one who fails to see how many times your "truth" has been nullified.
You will not find the truth or a better world on a foundation of lies.
#56. To: BeAChooser (#53)
Because she's a double-knot secret hippie?
Why do you think Goldi LIED about the content of my post?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
#57. To: christine (#55)
Good smack down of our resident heeb, christine. I can't see what he wrote to elicit your slap, but I'm sure ROTFLOL! was part of it.
#58. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#53)
That message goes out to the posters championing Griffin in this thread. He's a liar ... and you will not find the truth on a foundation of lies. BAC, you're the resident LIAR, wherever you go. You're "clever" about it, but the LIAR, in any case. Your definition of "truth" is that which the Bush Cabal (read: "Israel") dictates to you. You're the human epitome of un-truth, lies and deceit! You were "banned" as an excuse to send you groveling over here - nothing more. Eat shit, and die; BAC! You will not find the truth or a better world on a foundation of lies.
#59. To: christine (#55)
Gosh chris ..don't attempt to steer him the right direction.. he puts his trust in the system .. the poor man will be in a fetal position for years if he'd take of the blinders.. but funny the system he so trusts is what Washington, Eisenhower warned against.. HEY and they were a part of the 'system' now werent they?
#60. To: christine, ALL (#55)
I haven't posted any lies to this forum. Not a one. You and everyone else here are welcome to try proving I have. So far, most 4umers simply run from my posts. Bozo themselves. And the rest ignore the content, just as you have done on this thread. And anyone who visits 4um and reads this or any other thread that I've participated in will see this clear as day. None of you seem able to cope with the notion that Griffin has LIED to you about the facts surrounding the collapse of the towers. Hence, your behavior here.
you're the one whose belief system is based on a foundation of lies. that's what your beloved government does is LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE and you disgustingly lap it all up and puke it all over this forum. as i said before, the only reason you're here is that some posters enjoy engaging you. no one here, including your imaginary lurker fans, reads the spam you've been posting over and over and over. you're the only one who fails to see how many times your "truth" has been nullified.
#61. To: christine, Jethro Tull, ALL (#57)
See what I mean, christine? Most of your flock want to remain clueless and think that's a badge of honor.
Jethro Tull - Good smack down of our resident heeb, christine. I can't see what he wrote to elicit your slap,
#62. To: christine, SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#58)
Or you have posters like SKYDRIFTER. Meanwhile, NONE of you have challenged the details of the post I made about Griffin. Interesting ...
SKYDRIFTER - Eat shit, and die; BAC!
#63. To: BeAChooser (#53)
It clearly was not uncivil as she claimed (and then deleted). That is a good question, maybe she got tired of you as she has gotten tired of others then booted them off. I agree it was not uncivil. You make people angry but you don't stoop to vulgarity and such, though you have the capability to incite others into using bad langauge at times.
Why do you think Goldi LIED about the content of my post?
#64. To: BeAChooser (#60)
Hahahaha...idiot! Care to put any more words into the mouths of others while you're at it?
None of you seem able to cope with the notion that Griffin has LIED to you about the facts surrounding the collapse of the towers. Hence, your behavior here.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
#65. To: BeAChooser (#54)
Don't get what? That they took the time to draw every single column and interconnecting beam in the one example and then said they wouldn't waste their time making "stick figures" showing all 47 core columns and interconnecting beams? Don't get what? That they are deliberately misleading the uninformed? Don't get what? That you're a shill?
Funny how you still don't get it.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#66. To: BeAChooser (#62)
I challenged the misleading images, now I will challenge another lie in your post. Go to the 9:45 mark of this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2179339594842383954&hl=en There's one expert who believes 7 was a controlled demolition.
It is such extreme nonsense that NOT ONE demolition expert in the world concurs with this assertion.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#67. To: Diana (#63)
I refuse to be accused of using *&^%%ing *^*%$ language about that *^%$$#%^*& *^%$ shill. ;)
....though you have the capability to incite others into using bad langauge at times.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may know peace." -Thomas Paine
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these.
- - IndieTX
- - IndieTX
#68. To: IndieTX (#67)
I refuse to be accused of using *&^%%ing *^*%$ language about that *^%$$#%^*& *^%$ shill. ;) I do admire your restraint ;P
....though you have the capability to incite others into using bad langauge at times.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#69. To: Diana, ALL (#63)
If she was tired of me, all she had to do was ask me to leave. It was her forum and her right. But instead she lied to create an excuse. She will not build a forum where truth, right and justice will prevail on a foundation of lies. The same goes for Freedom4um. Freedom will not begin with a lie.
That is a good question, maybe she got tired of you as she has gotten tired of others then booted them off. I agree it was not uncivil.
#70. To: Critter, ALL (#65)
That one structure had columns throughout and the other did not? That the construction of the two was significantly different? They didn't mislead. I posted what they wrote right below that figure.
Don't get what?
That they are deliberately misleading the uninformed?
#71. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#62)
Or you have posters like SKYDRIFTER. Griffin has his facts together! Your ability to cut and paste bullshit articles doesn't alter that! A stopwatch says that three WTC buildings free-fell onto their own footprint; nothing alters that - as in "controlled demolition." Eat shit, and die; BAC!
#72. To: Critter, ALL (#66)
Except we were talking about the TOWERS in the discussion above. Not WTC7. That particular expert (Jowenko) is also on record saying that the TOWERS were NOT controlled demolitions. He just thought that WTC7 was, after being shown just the material that a conspiracist like you *chose* to show him. Initially, he didn't know it happened on 9/11, didn't know the the building was on fire, and didn't know that firemen had observed the building was leaning long before the collapse. We should also point out to our readers that his theory is that Silverstein decided on the spur of the moment to take WTC7 down AFTER the planes hit the towers rather than have to repair it. No government plot. And he estimated that it would take 30 to 50 people to do it in the time available. ANY evidence to suggest that 30 to 50 people arrived at the site to do this ... AFTER the impact of the planes and tower collapses? No?
It is such extreme nonsense that NOT ONE demolition expert in the world concurs with this assertion.
... snip ...
There's one expert who believes 7 was a controlled demolition.
#73. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#71)
The two towers did NOT freefall.
A stopwatch says that three WTC buildings free-fell
#74. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#73)
They sure as fuck did! A stopwatch says it all! What bullshit are you using, as being anything but a freefall? C'mon, asshole, let's hear it! The two towers did NOT freefall.
#75. To: SKYDRIFTER (#71)
http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
#76. To: BeAChooser (#72)
There you go lying again. You insisted that no one has tried to rebut your "debunking". Well I rebutted it and now you're lying again. From the book: Your "debunking": The book talks about 3 buildings, not two. Or do you magically forget about building 7 just like the government and the main stream media? It is convenient to forget the most damning of the three demolitions, isn't it?
Except we were talking about the TOWERS in the discussion above. Not WTC7.
Fourth, the collapses of these three buildings all manifested many standard features of the kind of controlled demolition known as “implosion,”
This is sheer nonsense. It is such extreme nonsense that NOT ONE demolition expert in the world concurs with this assertion.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#77. To: BeAChooser (#73)
LIAR you really are evil.
The two towers did NOT freefall.
#78. To: BeAChooser (#70)
They did mislead. They acurately represented the other type of structure and inaccurately represented the towers, using the EXCUSE about not wanting to create a stick figure. Well they created one already, why would creating a stick figure for the towers be such a big deal? If they didn't want to create a stick figure, why did they draw all of the columns and interconnecting beams for the other type of structure? They are LIARS!!!
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#79. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#74)
And what do you claim the collapse times of WTC1 and WTC2 are?
The two towers did NOT freefall.
They sure as fuck did!
#80. To: BeAChooser (#79)
Be careful BAC. IMO, lies like yours caused Tony Snow to relapse. Professional political spinning (lies) is dangerous to ones health. ROTFLM (recently checked and healthy)AO
#81. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#79)
And what do you claim the collapse times of WTC1 and WTC2 are? Less than 20 seconds - that's a "free-fall!" C'mon, BAC, you asshole; account for the timing - whatever figures YOU want to use! Don't answer a question with a question, this time!
#82. To: BeAChooser (#79)
Close enough to freefall for the 80 or 90 stories below the impact zlone to have put up little or no resistance. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt for a second. Let's say it took 15 seconds to collapse a tower. And lets say that 10 seconds is freefall in a vacuum. So it took 5 seconds to overcome 90 floors worth of resistance? So your contention is that it took on average less than six one hundredths of a second to overcome each floor? Are you really that ignorant, that you can believe that a gravitational collapse had the energy to overcome 90 floors (INCLUDING core and perimeter columns) in less than 6/100ths of a second for each floor? The actual figure would be 55/1000ths or 5.5/100ths. I'd really like to know what kind of drugs you guys take. Oh yeah, you official fairy tale believers like to say that the ejection of the debris up to 300 feet or more to the side of the buildings was the result of trapped air being compressed and then released as the floors came down. So not only does the collapse have to overcome the resistance of the floors, but also compress the air and blow out the debris in that same 55/1000ths of a second. At this point, any sane person would be feeling really dumb for believing the fairy tale to begin with, so are you sane and feeling dumb, or are you a shill?
And what do you claim the collapse times of WTC1 and WTC2 are?
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#83. To: Itisa1mosttoolate, SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#75)
Too bad the assertion made in your link is based on a false premise, IATL. It claims: No, it is not. It is a misstatement by some Senate staffer who apparently didn't understand what he/she was being told. And the conspiracists who spent a lot of time putting together that website you linked would know this if they'd done even a modicum of research ... if they'd even listened to some of the conspiracy sites out there. The truth is that the two towers each took about 15 seconds to fully collapse. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html "It is widely accepted that both Towers completely fell (nearly everything but the dust reached the ground) in around ten seconds. This estimate appears to be based mainly on seismic data. However, video evidence of the North Tower collapse suggests that it took close to 15 seconds for the destruction to reach the ground. ... snip ... Despite the availability of detailed studies of collapse times based on the compositing of video and photographic evidence, and in-depth analysis of the seismic records, many commentors have incorrectly treated the durations of the largest seismic signals as synonymous with total collapse times. Statements that the Towers fell in eight and ten seconds have been repeated by both proponents and critics of the official explanation." http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/reynolds/ "video recordings show that each collapse took approximately 15 seconds. See, for example, this elapsed time analysis of the North Tower collapse." The fact is that it took about 10 seconds just for the first pieces of the outer shell to reach the ground. Images like these from the south tower: clearly show that material was falling well ahead of the collapsing level. That would not be the case if the collapsing level was free-falling as you claim. And surely what NIST has said would be the "official" government number. And here is what NIST has CLEARLY stated: "NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2." Now surely you understand what is meant by FIRST EXTERIOR PANELS. Surely ... And here is more to discredit what your link claims. (http://www.seekinglight.net/911vis/rwtchtm.htm) says Jim Hoffman (another conspiracist) states that "Each of the Twin Towers totally collapsed in an interval of approximately 14 to 16 seconds." It goes on to quote Hoffman saying "Despite the availability of video evidence establishing lower bounds of total collapse times of over 13 seconds for each of the towers, assertions that they collapsed in under ten seconds are widespread." Here is another except from the 911research link: "The top of the North Tower began to suddenly telescope about a fourth of a second after the radio tower started to fall. In views from the north the top is swallowed up in about two seconds. The CNN live video clip shows the mushrooming dust cloud reaching the ground at about 13 seconds. ... The CNN video suggests that it takes about ten seconds for the bottom of the mushrooming dust cloud to reach the ground, and another seven or so for the top to reach the ground." Surely you aren't claiming the above sources are run by traitors. Some are part of the conspiracy movement. And surely you aren't claiming that structural engineers or physicists around the world don't know the physics and can't do the math? That they wouldn't see what you claim is obvious? Because NOT ONE anywhere in the world has come forward to support your assertion. Now, as you've done many times before, I expect you to ignore what I just posted. But I'll try one more time. Take a look at these photos of the North Tower collapse: Focus on the large chunks of outer surface aluminum seen in the photos falling and trailing dust. It is clear from these photos that these chunks of structure are well ahead of the collapsing level. You can see still intact tower high above them. It is clear from earlier photos of the beginning of the collapse that these chunks of structure first ejected horizontally from the building (with little in the way of a vertical component to the velocity). Thus, any vertical velocity must be due to only gravitational effects. And mind you, those chunks of structure are subject to the effects of air and terminal velocity. They might not have even reached the peak velocity that is possible in a vacuum. Yet, they are still far ahead of the collapsing level. So how in the world can ANYONE rational claim the structure completely collapsed within 10 seconds? In fact, this source (a conspiracy source, by the way) states that this image: was taken "11 seconds into the collapse". Notice how much of the tower is still standing? So when are you folks finally going to give up on this silly assertion? Will you ever? Or will you simply go on discrediting yourselves, this forum and the "truth movement"?
http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml
On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". That's the government's official number.
#84. To: BeAChooser (#83)
Focus. Think about what you want to say and deal with that single point - and only that single point. Bevity and clarity are important to good communication. Hiding behind mindless spam this way is silly. People just scroll past the sort of drek you posted above.
.
#85. To: Critter, ALL (#76)
My only comments on this thread have concerned Griffin's claims about the two TOWERS and the pentagon damage. And you've offered NOTHING to convince folks that what Griffin claims about the two TOWERS and the Pentagon damage is correct. No, what you do is throw out a red herring and hope the gullible go after it.
"Except we were talking about the TOWERS in the discussion above. Not WTC7."
There you go lying again.
#86. To: christine, ALL (#77)
Explain to us what you see in this photo, christine. It came from a conspiracy website and was accompanied by the caption that it was taken "11 seconds into the collapse". You tell me why I'm evil for suggesting those claiming the collapse was free-fall are wrong. Go ahead...
"The two towers did NOT freefall."
LIAR
you really are evil.
#87. To: Critter, ALL (#78)
ROTFLOL! Your desperation is showing, critter.
They are LIARS!!!
#88. To: BeAChooser (#85)
I quoted your post where you quote Griffin saying 3 buildings fell exhibiting signs of controlled demolition. Your post which I quoted also said that no expert in the world agrees. Did you not post that comment in response to Griffin's claim? Caught you lying yet again. Do you ever get tired of being a liar?
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#89. To: BeAChooser (#85)
Sort of like you with the Ron Brown thing huh? The goob fooler machine tossed out the Ron Brown conspiracy theory and you gobbled it right up. And then spent years of your life making a laughing stock of yourself over it. Why don't you quote us some NewsMax on the subject? It's a dull day and watching kooks is funny.
No, what you do is throw out a red herring and hope the gullible go after it.
.
#90. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#81)
Now that's really funny coming from a pilot. Or should I say EX-pilot?
Less than 20 seconds - that's a "free-fall!"
#91. To: BeAChooser, Christine (#90)
Is this the best you can do? Repeatedly tossing out very vile personal attacks against the members of this forum? This seems to be a constant MO of yours.
Or should I say EX-pilot?
.
#92. To: BeAChooser (#87)
My desperation? LMFAO!!!! You get caught in lie after lie and post more lies ina desperate attempt to cover your previous lies and I am desperate? ROFLMAOPIMP!!!!!
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#93. To: BeAChooser (#86)
Mr. angry white male. I think it's time to turn off the 'puter until you get a grip on your emotions. Why don't you take a break and come back when you are able to behave in a civil manner? This isn't FreeRepublic and you can't act like an animal here.
.
#94. To: Critter, ALL (#82)
You don't have to give me the benefit of the doubt. All you have to do is look at pictures that have been around for 5 YEARS. Well first of all, portions of the core were actually still standing after those 15 seconds. And secondly, "are you really that ignorant, that you can believe" all the structural engineers and macro-world physicists in the world haven't noticed by now what you claim is *obvious*? I suspect they understand something you do not. Same drugs as all those professional designing every structure we use in the world. http://www.911myths.com/html/explosive_force.html "How fast would it have to be thrown to cover this 390 foot distance? If the beam came from the 90th floor of WTC1, that would put it 1119 feet up. The debris hit around half way up WFC 3, we’ll call that 369 feet for convenience: that’s a fall of 750 feet. Freefall from that height gives the debris around 6.83 seconds to travel through the air, meaning it would need to average a horizontal velocity of 57.1 feet per second, or 38.94 miles per hour. Is this possible? The following analysis, emailed to us, suggests so, even though later comments suggest it originated with someone sceptical of the official story." Now you'll have to visit that site to see that analysis. Will you? Are all the structural engineers, demolition experts and macro-world physicists in the world? Because they apparently agree with ME.
Let's give you the benefit of the doubt for a second.
Are you really that ignorant, that you can believe that a gravitational collapse had the energy to overcome 90 floors (INCLUDING core and perimeter columns) in less than 6/100ths of a second for each floor?
I'd really like to know what kind of drugs you guys take.
Oh yeah, you official fairy tale believers like to say that the ejection of the debris up to 300 feet or more to the side of the buildings was the result of trapped air being compressed and then released as the floors came down.
At this point, any sane person would be feeling really dumb for believing the fairy tale to begin with, so are you sane and feeling dumb, or are you a shill?
#95. To: ..., ALL (#84)
Tell you what ... You look at this single photo, which 911research.wtc7.net says was taken "11 seconds into the collapse", and tell us why you think the WTC towers collapsed at free-fall velocity. Let's see how you do when it comes to brevity and clarity. ROTFLOL!
Bevity and clarity are important to good communication.
#96. To: BeAChooser (#94)
Again ... let me suggest that you focus on what you want to say before hitting the post button. Try reading your post and deleting off topic references. If it won't fit in the browser window, people are probably not going to read it.
.
#97. To: BeAChooser (#95)
Why? It doesn't concern me. But you know that. The fact that you toss out this red herring tells me that I hit a nerve by commenting on your silly spam.
You look at this single photo, which http://911research.wtc7.net says was taken "11 seconds into the collapse",
.
#98. To: BeAChooser (#95)
Are you capable of anything beyond these silly personal attacks and your mornic rudeness?
.
#99. To: ..., ALL (#91)
That's not a vile personal attack. It's an observation about an established FACT. It would be like you saying I'm an ex-pilot ... if you actually knew that to be the case. I am curious what I did to you in the past that's led to this verbal assault of yours on thread after thread. You obviously have no interest in actually debating the issues that are being raised. You just want to taunt me. Which leads one to wonder about your motivation. What did I do to you in some previous exchange to cause such impassioned dislike of me? We must have conversed. But I know I've never met a poster named ... prior to joining 4um. Thus, you must have had a different screen name when we had that prior exchange. Care to tell us what that was???
Repeatedly tossing out very vile personal attacks against the members of this forum?
#100. To: BeAChooser, christine, SKYDRIFTER (#86)
Don't waste your time on this POS. Yeah, Freak, you are a POS. You're a Ziojew, aren't you? Your arrogance is only matched by the worst of the lying Zios like William Kristol.
#101. To: BeAChooser, Christine (#99)
It is a very obvious personal attack and you know it. Your dishonst spinning after the fact doesn't mitigate it. You can't get away with that shit here.
That's not a vile personal attack. It's an observation about an established FACT. It would be like you saying I'm an ex-pilot ... if you actually knew that to be the case.
.
#102. To: BeAChooser (#99)
You are wondering why I point out what a dishonest idiot you are. That's just my job. That's all you need to know.
.
#103. To: Nostalgia, ALL (#100)
Thank you for demonstrating the underlying nature of Freedom4um for anyone that might chance upon this site.
Don't waste your time on this POS. Yeah, Freak, you are a POS. You're a Ziojew, aren't you?
#104. To: BeAChooser (#103) (Edited)
If you were not Jewish, you would have simply said "I'm not Jewish". At least that's the way it goes in my experience. Is that why you work so hard at getting the US involved in Middle East conflicts?
.
#105. To: BeAChooser (#103)
You can still say "I'm not Jewish" and I will take you at your word.
.
#106. To: Jethro Tull (#80)
That was magnanimous of you, JT. I'm not able to do that. I'm hoping BeAChooser (what a lame ass name. Chooser of what?) gets the "Snowing" he deserves. Now that would be justice.
Be careful BAC.
#107. To: BeAChooser (#103)
I feel no shame in expressing my absolute loathing and disdain for you, succubus.
#108. To: Nostalgia, ALL (#106)
http://www.amazon.com/Beggars-Choosers-Trilogy-known-Sleepless/dp/0812550102 And what are you nostalgic about?
I'm hoping BeAChooser (what a lame ass name. Chooser of what?)
#109. To: Nostalgia, ALL (#107)
But can you challenge ANYTHING I've posted about Griffin? Or the bogus assertion that the collapse of the towers was Free Fall? Hmmmmmmmmmm? And have we met before? There must be some reason you are so passionate in your hatred of me. But I don't recall any past contact with a poster named Nostalgia. So how about it? Did you post somewhere else under a different screename? Or is your hatred JUST irrational?
I feel no shame in expressing my absolute loathing and disdain for you, succubus.
#110. To: BeAChooser (#109)
No, given that you are an asshole, the hatred seems perfectly rational to me.
Or is your hatred JUST irrational?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#111. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#79)
Don't answer a question with a question - asshole!
#112. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#99)
Well, BAC, you do realize that you're more than welcome to leave! But I know I've never met a poster named ... prior to joining 4um.
#113. To: beachooser (#83)
BAC - any numbers you quote come up as a freefall, asshole! What part of "freefall" don't you understand? Your PSYOPS diverging over to nit-noy details doesn't change a thing!
#114. To: BeAChooser, skydrifter, jethro tull, all, critter, minerva (#90) (Edited)
Or should I say EX-pilot? The fact that you can say this and get away with it, is a perfect example of Christine's belief in Freedom, despite the distasteful and disrespectful personal attacks you throw out. [Sorry bozo but once a pilot, always a pilot] I took you off bozo just long enough to tell you that you'll remain there forever, and that I believe you have nothing to offer this forum in the way of rational genuine argument. You are a complete fraud and total shill, as are RimJob and all of his ilk. 1. By the way, what is your screen name on FRaud? 2. Are you a Jew? 3. What exactly is it that you advocate we choose by implication of your screen name? Now that's really funny coming from a pilot.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may know peace." -Thomas Paine
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these.
- - IndieTX
- - IndieTX
#115. To: BeAChooser (#94)
No, most are afraid to say anything for fear of losing their jobs.
Are all the structural engineers, demolition experts and macro-world physicists in the world?
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#116. To: BeAChooser (#109)
From the way you keep coming back to get slapped I am thinking you are really con op. Ponchy? Is that you?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#117. To: IndieTX, ALL (#114)
It was, when I was still a member of FR, the same as it is here. Is that relevant to the issue of whether Griffin is lying or not? Or to knowing whether the towers fell in 10 seconds or 15 seconds? Because unless it is, I see no reason to answer the question one way or the other. Well if you hadn't bozo'd yourself ... ROTFLOL!
1. By the way, what is your screen name on FRaud?
2. Are you a Jew?
3. What exactly is it that you advocate we choose by implication of your screen name?
#118. To: Critter, ALL (#115)
Most? ROTFLOL! NOT ONE of the above anywhere in the world is on record saying WTC1 or WTC 2 collapsed due to explosives ... or energy beams ... or anything other than fire and impact damage. NOT ONE. IN THE WORLD. And why would a foreign engineer or scientist be afraid of losing his job should he come forward? Has Bush THAT much power? And what makes American engineers and scientists such cowards (compared to you) when thousands of Americans have been obviously (sarcasm) murdered? Are you something special in the way of brave? Are you something special in the way of not caring about money? Are you something special when it comes to putting country, truth and justice ahead of livelihood? Why are American engineers and scientists (millions of them) such a sorry, evil lot ... compared to you?
"Are all the structural engineers, demolition experts and macro-world physicists in the world?"
No, most are afraid to say anything for fear of losing their jobs.
#119. To: BeAChooser (#117)
You think you're so clever with the changeabout of the words. You're not. How many have bozo'd you on this forum? How many had bozo'd you on LP? I'm betting the number is comparable.
Well if you hadn't bozo'd yourself ...
#120. To: BeAChooser (#118)
Are you something special in the way of brave? Are you something special in the way of not caring about money? Are you something special when it comes to putting country, truth and justice ahead of livelihood? Are you just an asshole who insults people for the fun of it?
And what makes American engineers and scientists such cowards (compared to you) when thousands of Americans have been obviously (sarcasm) murdered?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#121. To: BeAChooser (#117)
Is that relevant to the issue of whether Griffin is lying or not? That means "yes" in Hebrew.
2. Are you a Jew?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#122. To: BeAChooser (#118)
To be honest, buckeroo was a better site kook than you are. At least he had a sense of humor.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#123. To: BeAChooser (#118)
I'm not going to lose anything by speaking my mind about 9/11. Ask Bill O'Reilly what will happen to anyone who publicly aligns himself with the truth movement. He said Charlie Sheen would be finished if he narated the next Loose Change edition. Ask Profesor Jones what happens when you use your knowlege and education to debunk the official fairy tale. You end up unemployed. Ask Kevin Ryan what happens when you point out that NIST was misrepresenting the results of UL tests. You end up unemployed. By the way, most of the experts you speak of in some way shape or form earn their living off the government tit.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#124. To: Minerva, BeALoser, I mean BeAChooser (#120)
Yes he is, but he will lie about that too. hehehe Tis ok for him to insult me though. I insult him all day every day around here. I have no patience for his government propaganda any more.
Are you just an asshole
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#125. To: BeAChooser (#94)
Hey dipshit, you still haven't addressed the fact that I showed you a demolition expert that thinks building 7 was a controlled demo. You going to pretend that he doesn't exist now?
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#126. To: Nostalgia, ALL (#119)
Again, have we met before? There must be some reason you are so passionate in your hatred of me. I don't recall any past contact with a poster named Nostalgia. So how about it? Did you post at LP or FR under a different screenname?
How many had bozo'd you on LP?
#127. To: Minerva, critter, ALL (#120)
Now Minerva, I didn't insult critter. In fact, just the opposite. I noted that he must be much braver, much less driven by money, and put country, truth and justice much farther ahead of livelihood, than do the millions of evil, moronic, moneygrubbing American scientists and engineers who haven't said one word about explosives bringing down the WTC towers.
Are you just an asshole who insults people for the fun of it?
#128. To: BeAChooser, Nostalgia (#126)
Gathering intel for your handlers?
Did you post at LP or FR under a different screenname?
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#129. To: Minerva, ALL (#121)
It means I'm not going to answer a stupid question which has no relevance to the facts about Griffin and the collapse of the WTC towers. You go ahead and play your "I-hate-jew" card all you want, Minerva. It isn't going to change the facts one iota. Whether I'm jewish, christian, hindu, buddhist, agnostic or whatever ... the facts about Griffin and the collapse of the WTC towers are not going to change. Your charge is simply a red herring to avoid facing the truth.
2. Are you a Jew?
"Is that relevant to the issue of whether Griffin is lying or not?"
That means "yes" in Hebrew.
#130. To: BeAChooser (#129)
Didn't I warn you about ass cancer, heeb?
#131. To: Critter, ALL (#123)
Actually, Steven Jones had NO knowledge or education in structures, demolition, and hadn't done any macro-world physics for over 30 years. And for the record, he RESIGNED from BYU and specifically stated that he was NOT forced out. Kevin Ryan's letter was filled with disinformation about the NIST results and UL tests and the reason he ended up unemployed is that a water treatment expert shouldn't go making claims about subjects he knows nothing about ON UL STATIONARY. Then you are up the creek, since you use the things they design and make every single day. And again, you must be special to not be subject to the same influences. And there must be something about American macro-world physicists and structural engineers that makes them incapable of doing what so many other whistleblowers whose livelihood depends on the government have done countless times in the last few decades ... and with far less at stake.
Ask Profesor Jones what happens when you use your knowlege and education to debunk the official fairy tale. You end up unemployed.
Ask Kevin Ryan what happens when you point out that NIST was misrepresenting the results of UL tests. You end up unemployed.
By the way, most of the experts you speak of in some way shape or form earn their living off the government tit.
#132. To: Critter, ALL (#125)
Of course not. He exists. He said WTC7 was a controlled demolition ... based SOLELY on watching a few video clips that a conspiracist like you provided him ... without telling him the event took place on 9/11, that the building was on fire for many, many hours before it collapsed and that the building was leaning long before the collapse. Now are you going to pretend that his theory isn't that Silverstein decided AFTER the planes hit the towers to bring down WTC7 rather than have to repair it? Are you going to pretend that he didn't say WTC 1 and WTC 2 looked nothing like controlled demos? If you agree with him about WTC7, do you agree with him about the towers too? Hmmmmm, critter?
Hey dipshit, you still haven't addressed the fact that I showed you a demolition expert that thinks building 7 was a controlled demo. You going to pretend that he doesn't exist now?
#133. To: BeAChooser (#132)
If one building was a controlled demo, they all must have been demos.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#134. To: Critter, ALL (#133)
Yet your demolition expert said WTC1 and WTC2 were definitely NOT demos. So is he now a moron too, critter?
If one building was a controlled demo, they all must have been demos.
#135. To: BeAChooser (#134)
If one is, they all are. He may mean that that the towers weren't a "controlled" demolition in the classic sense. They weren't. They couldn't be without it looking way too obvious. But 7 was a classic controlled demo, and all I have to do to prove that the official fairy tale is a lie, is prove that one of them was controlled demo.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#136. To: Critter, ALL (#135)
Is that a new law of nature? Shall we call it Critter's Law? So you think he was parsing his words when he said that? ROTFLOL! And he just failed to mention the word explosives in the context of what collapsed the two towers? Yet for so long the conspiracy movement INSISTED they show the classic signs of a controlled demo. In fact, I believe many in the movement still do say that. One of them being Griffin. So are you disagreeing with Griffin now too, critter?
If one is, they all are.
He may mean that that the towers weren't a "controlled" demolition in the classic sense.
They weren't.
#137. To: BeAChooser (#126)
The fact that you're an obnoxious asshat isn't reason enough?
There must be some reason you are so passionate in your hatred of me.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#138. To: BeAChooser (#136)
They may show signs, but the towers weren't "classic" controlled demos. I have always said that, or at least since I realized how words can be misconstrued.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#139. To: BeAChooser (#129)
You could have just said "Yes, I am Jewsih". Why are you so verbose all the time?
Whether I'm jewish, christian, hindu, buddhist, agnostic or whatever ... the facts about Griffin and the collapse of the WTC towers are not going to change. Your charge is simply a red herring to avoid facing the truth.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#140. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#136)
The three buildings were all too obviously brought down onto their own foootprint by controolled demolition - as evidenced just by a stopwatch. You can't change that, BAC, you stubborn asshole! Common sense doesn't require a degree.
#141. To: Minerva (#139)
BAC won't deny being queer, either. (He knows what he is!)
#142. To: BeAChooser (#129)
Do you eat that smelly fish that comes in the little round jar?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#143. To: SKYDRIFTER (#140)
If they could lie about the War in Iraq and the Media would promote it and then help cover it up. Then these SAME people could be lying about 911 with the media covering it up as they cover up all things related to Israel. We KNOW they lied about Iraq and we KNOW who made the fabrications. We KNOW what country they have dual citizenship with and which same country has been caught spying on the US (though unreported by the MSM) twice both before and after 911. We KNOW the Mossad lived next door to said hijackers and was caught filming and celebrating the WTC attacks. Connect the dots. 911, Iraq, and PNAC Where do all the Roads lead? No not the nwo/illuminati/pope/lizards it leads to ISRAEL. and ISAREL is going to start WWIII and attack Iran, Syria and Lebanon. If we don't do something. You konw WHAT happened on 911
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
#144. To: Minerva, skydrifter (#139) (Edited)
I think it's a Jewish guilt thing...excuse me...a homo Jew guilt thing.
He won't deny being queer either.
You could have just said "Yes, I am Jewsih".
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may know peace." -Thomas Paine
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these.
- - IndieTX
- - IndieTX
#145. To: BeAChooserstein (#129)
We are only joking with you. I hope you don't take it seriously.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#146. To: BeAChooser (#136)
I guess all those firemen were unqualified to speak to what they heard, is that your line, BAC? Are they too non-expert to be considered credible?
#147. To: BeAChooserberg (#136)
Are you off the net for Passover?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#148. To: Critter, ALL (#138)
David Griffin published an article insisting that you are wrong ... that the collapse of the towers has all the characteristics of a classic "controlled demolition". http://www.911truthseekers.org/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=2 Are you saying Griffin is wrong, critter?
#149. To: BeAChooser (#148)
No. He is right. I did a quick scan of the aricle since time is tight right now, but I didn't find the exact quote that he said it contained "all" of the characteristics. However, there are only two characteristics missing from the towers collapses: Starting from the bottom, and containing the debris field to prevent damage to surrounding buildings. The characteristics he does mention were indeed part of the tower collapses.
Are you saying Griffin is wrong, critter?
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#150. To: Critter, ALL (#149)
Yet he said WTC1 and WTC2 were "controlled demolitions". You claim they aren't.
"Are you saying Griffin is wrong, critter?"
No. He is right.
#151. To: BeAChooser (#150)
Who pays you to post here?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
#152. To: Dakmar, ALL (#151)
Same people as you?
Who pays you to post here?
#153. To: BeAChooser (#152)
The freemasons? Wow, those cats have really branched out recently. How much do they pay you?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
#154. To: BeAChooser (#150)
That's not exactly what he said. You are misquoting him here.
Yet he said WTC1 and WTC2 were "controlled demolitions". You claim they aren't.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#155. To: Dakmar (#153)
Damn, Grand Lodge keeps increasing our dues, but I didn't know..... What the hell, I'm only a 32nd Degree; what would I know, right? The freemasons? Wow, those cats have really branched out recently.
#156. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#148)
I'm involved with a group setting Griffin's upcoming appearance in Seattle; anything you want me to ask him, BAC? Are you saying Griffin is wrong ......
#157. To: IndieTX (#144)
I understand they are routinely coming out of the closet, these days. Another sect, I assume. I think it's a Jewish guilt thing...excuse me...a homo Jew guilt thing.
#158. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#129)
You got something straight, for a change. Less than 20 seconds to collapse - on their own footprint = "...controlled demolition!" Damn, BAC, there's hope for you, yet.
.... the facts about Griffin and the collapse of the WTC towers are not going to change.
#159. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#156)
Sure, SKYDRIFTER. Ask him to join us at 4um so he can explain to all why he LIED so many times in his book. I'll be happy to go over the specifics with him personally. You tell me when he will be available here. And if he won't do that, just ask him how long it took the WTC towers to collapse ... in seconds. Tell us his response.
I'm involved with a group setting Griffin's upcoming appearance in Seattle; anything you want me to ask him, BAC?
#160. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#158)
Why is 20 seconds a magic number, SKYDRIFTER? Why not 30 seconds? Or 40?
Less than 20 seconds to collapse
#161. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#158)
Or 19? Or 18? Or 15? Or 11? Why 20?
#162. To: SKYDRIFTER, christine (#158)
From 9:59 until 10:28 A.M. At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside, as well a number of individuals-both first responders and civilians-in the concourse, in the Marriott, and on neighboring streets. The building collapsed into itself, causing a ferocious windstorm and creating a massive debris cloud. The Marriott hotel suffered significant damage as a result of the collapse of the South Tower.156 (The above is from the govt report on 9/11.) The following is from: http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml. http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml Observations from 9/11 On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". (That's the government's official number. Videos confirm that it fell unnaturally, if not precisely that, fast. See for yourself: QT Real) But as we've just determined, that's free-fall time. (see first part of article here) That's close to the free-fall time in a vacuum, and an exceptionally rapid free-fall time through air. But the "collapse" proceeded "through" the lower floors of the tower. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower floors had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years. Air can't do that. Can anyone possibly imagine the undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the undamaged lower floors slowing the fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute? It is beyond the scope of the simple, but uncontested, physics in this presentation to tell you how long a collapse should [sic] have taken. Would it have taken a minute? An hour? A day? Forever? Perhaps. But what is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not have collapsed gravitationally, through intact lower floors, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close! Because, as you may recall, not only was much energy expended in causing the observed massive high-speed sideways ejections, but virtually all the glass and concrete was ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Free-falling from WTC heights The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height. Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared) or Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7 Time = 9.2 So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height. Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph. But that can only occur in a vacuum. Since the WTC was at sea level, in Earth's atmosphere, you might be able to imagine how much air resistance that represents. (Think about putting your arm out the window of a car moving half that fast!) Most free-falling objects would reach their terminal velocity long before they reached 200 mph. For example, the commonly-accepted terminal velocity of a free-falling human is around 120 mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph. (source) Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height. Conclusions In order for the tower to have collapsed "gravitationally", as we've been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met: * The undamaged floors below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse However, none of these physics-violating conditions can be accounted for by the official government conspiracy theory of 9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses designed to prop up the official theory of 9/11.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9.htm
pulverized -- actually dissociated is a much better word. (Nevermind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns...!!!) And the energy requirements to do anything even remotely like that rival the total amount of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. (source) So while gravity is nearly strong enough to cause some things to fall that far, through air, in the observed interval, and while gravity is probably not strong enough to have so thoroughly disintegrated the towers under their own weight, gravity is certainly not strong enough to have done both at once.
* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy
* On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity
* On 9/11, energy was not conserved
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#163. To: Fish Breath (#161) (Edited)
He studied it for a long time. He decided that "20" was the number most likely to get under your skin.
Why 20?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#164. To: SKYDRIFTER, christine (#162)
http://physics911.net/closerlook Next, I turned my attention to steel beams that fell in freefall next to the building as it collapsed. The beams were falling at the same rate that the towers themselves were descending. Familiar with elementary physics, including principles of conservation of energy and momentum, this seemed quite impossible if the towers were indeed "pancaking,”which is the official theory. The height of the South Tower is 1362 feet. I calculated that from that height, freefall in a vacuum (read, absolutely no resistance on earth) is 9.2 seconds. According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds. So the towers fell within 0.8-4.8 seconds of freefall in a vacuum. Just like WTC7, this speed seemed impossible if each of the 110 floors had to fail individually. As I was considering this, another problem arose. There is a principle in physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy. There is also the Law of Conservation of Momentum. I’ll briefly explain how these principles work. Let’s assume there are two identical Honda Civics on the freeway. One is sitting in neutral at a standstill (0 mph). The other is coasting at 60 mph. The second Honda slams into the back of the first one. The first Honda will then instantaneously be going much faster than it was, and the second will instantaneously be going much slower than it was. This is how the principle works in the horizontal direction, and it works the same in the vertical direction, with the added constant force of gravity added to it. Jim Hoffman, a professional scientist published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, took a long look at all of this. He calculated that even if the structure itself offered no resistance, that is to say, even if the 110 floors of each tower were hovering in mid-air, the “pancake” theory would still have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground. So, even if the building essentially didn’t exist, if it provided no resistance at all to the collapse, just the floors hitting each other and causing each other to decelerate would’ve taken 15.5 seconds to reach the ground. But of course the buildings did exist. They had stood for over 30 years. The floors weren’t hovering in mid-air. So how did the building provide no resistance? Yet another observation one makes in watching the collapsing towers is the huge dust clouds and debris, including steel beams, that were thrown hundreds of feet out horizontally from the towers as they fell. If we are to believe the pancake theory, this amount of scattering debris, fine pulverized concrete dust, and sheetrock powder would clearly indicate massive resistance to the vertical collapse. So there is an impossible conflict. You either have a miraculous, historical, instantaneous, catastrophic failure that occurs within a fraction of a second of freefall and that kicks out little dust, or you have a solid, hefty building that remains virtually unaffected after a massive, speeding projectile hits it. You either have a house of cards or a house of bricks. The building either resists its collapse or it doesn’t. And we know the WTC Towers were made of reinforced steel and concrete that would act much more like bricks than cards. Thus, put simply, the floors could not have been pancaking. The buildings fell too quickly. The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to reach the ground in such a short amount of time. But how?
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#165. To: robin (#162)
* The undamaged floors below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse However, none of these physics-violating conditions can be accounted for by the official government conspiracy theory of 9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses designed to prop up the official theory of 9/11. excellent (isn't it amazing the EVIL entity doesn't realize how stupid it looks with its splitting of hairs and it questions the credibility of this forum?)
In order for the tower to have collapsed "gravitationally", as we've been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:
* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy
* On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity
* On 9/11, energy was not conserved
#166. To: christine (#165) (Edited)
Also, don't miss that it was the govt report itself that claimed WTC1 fell in 10 seconds. The 9/11 truthers claim closer to 14 seconds, but the laws of physics still hold that this was not a natural gravitational fall.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#167. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#160)
It is a generic number which is valid but escapes your bullshit psyops nit- picking. Any figure posed to date amounts to a free-fall. OR, do you have a particular figure which you would commit to? C'mon, BAC, you deceitful ashole, you! Got a figure? C'mon! Why is 20 seconds a magic number, SKYDRIFTER?
#168. To: robin, SKYDRIFTER, critter (#166)
i saw that. "ROTFLOL!"
Also, don't miss that it was the govt report itself that claimed WTC1 fell in 10 seconds. The 9/11 truthers claim closer to 14 seconds, but the laws of physics still hold that this was not a natural gravitational fall.
#169. To: Robin, Brian S, Christine, Honway, Aristeides, Diana, All (#162)
Too often, people think in terms of the WTC tower "floors," forgetting the central 47 steel columns which didn't have any kind of natural reason for abruptly collapsing, let alone at free-fall rates. The floors were a structural mix-and match, no common means of collapsing, or inducing a symmetrical collapse, one upon another. If the floors fell as described, they would relieve the load upon the central columns, leaving them standing - for a substantial amount of time, in the worst- case scenario. The outer walls would have suffered the expansion of the falling debris; but not symmetrically, as the videos show - unless ....... (BAC is SO fucked-up!)
#170. To: Robin, Brian S, Christine, Honway, Aristeides, Diana, All (#164)
Excellent post! Common sense doesn't require "credentials."
#171. To: SKYDRIFTER (#169)
The speed and the symmetry spell explosives, also the way the cement was pulverized. Of course, all the explosions that were recorded and witnessed are more proof.
The floors were a structural mix-and match, no common means of collapsing, or inducing a symmetrical collapse, one upon another.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#172. To: Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#168)
Exactly! i saw that. "ROTFLOL!"
#173. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#159)
Okay, BAC, you asshole, what "lies" are you referring to? Your difference of opinion (Spam) makes Dr. Griffin a liar? NOT! 'Mon back there BAC - lay some "truth" on us for a change. Knock of that psyops re-packaging' (SPAM) nonsense & speak to some truly acceptable information. You're the forum liar, BAC. Ask him to join us at 4um so he can explain to all why he LIED so many times in his book.
#174. To: SKYDRIFTER (#170)
It's from the link posted there, http://physics911.net/closerlook There are so many good 9/11 truth websites now, I've never heard of half of them.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#175. To: robin, christine, SKYDRIFTER, all (#162)
The 9/11 Commission staff got it wrong. They didn't understand what they were told or shown. Below is a photo from http://911research.wtc7.net . It shows the collapse 11 seconds into it. There is a lot of tower still standing. Here is a link to time indexed frames from a video that clearly shows the collapse taking about 15 seconds: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/ntc_frames.html As to the official collapse time, NIST has stated: "NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2." The first exterior panels are not the collapsing level. What they are talking about are the objects seen well in front of the collapsing cloud in this photo: Here is a CNN live video clip that shows it took about ten seconds for the bottom of the mushrooming dust cloud to reach the ground, and another seven or so for the top to reach the ground. You are NOT a structural engineer. You know NOTHING about structural engineering, dynamics, materials, demolition, impact, fire, steel, buckling, momentum, macro-world physics, or any other subject needed to understand what happened to those towers. And neither does any of the sources or experts you folks have cited. That you can't even acknowledge the time it really took for the towers to come down is symptomatic of the problem with your whole *truth* movement and the members of it. You can call me evil but NOTHING is going to change the fact that it took 15 seconds, not 10 seconds, to collapse the towers and NOTHING is going to change the fact that you don't have ANY real experts on your side who agree with you about the towers and why they fell. Janitors, theologians, sub-atomic particle physicists, software developers, lawyers and the like just don't cut it. You want to go on believing a fairy tale, go ahead. You want to go around calling me evil for pointing out the above, go ahead. But in doing so you only discredit anything else you try to claim. You only make yourself and this forum look foolish.
On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds.
#176. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#175)
Jesus Christ, BAC! Listen-up, asshole! The point is that it wasn't a "structural collapse" in any way shape or form, versus as close to a free-fall as anyone can ask - three buildings fell onto their own footprint. That's the point - major conspiracy and cover-up, at the highest levels. What's arson traditionally called in New York? "Jewish Lightning!"
#177. To: SKYDRIFTER, christine (#176)
It is amusing though. To now claim the 9/11 commission "got it wrong", that "they didn't understand what they were told or shown", regarding the amount of time (10 seconds stated in their report) that it took WTC1 to fall. That would be the 10 seconds he was making fun of 2 days ago, all while every 9/11 truth website says close to freefall; that WTC1 fell in 14 seconds.
And then he brazenly uses a 9/11 truth website for timestamps and photos to make a false assumption, and totally disregards what that same 9/11 truth website has to say about the evidence they present. And there is a detailed explanation using high-school physics. But, then he claims we're too stupid to understand because we're not experts. It's all too ludicrous for words. It is almost amusing, except it's already so boring.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#178. To: robin, ALL (#177)
What's the false assumption, robin? That the towers took 15 seconds, not 10 seconds as you previously claimed, to collapse and that a free fall collapse would take 10 seconds, not 15 seconds?
And then he brazenly uses a 9/11 truth website for timestamps and photos to make a false assumption
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest