See other 9/11 Articles
Title: DR. STEVEN JONES- PNAC-4/14/07- NEW 9/11 EVIDENCE
Source:
YouTube
URL Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bsp3DPTmiN0
Published: Apr 30, 2007
Author: Steven Jones
Post Date: 2007-04-30 23:57:52 by Critter
Ping List: *You Gotta Be Shitting Me* Subscribe to *You Gotta Be Shitting Me*
Keywords: 9/11, Truth, Thermate
Views: 6959
Comments: 150
Subscribe to *You Gotta Be Shitting Me*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Robin, Christine, Diana, Zipporah, Honway, kamala, Aristeides, Red Jones, Ferret Mike, skydrifter, Destro, BeALoser, I mean BeAChooser, all (#0)
(Edited)
Good shit from the good doctor.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#2. To: IndieTX, kiki, Jethro Tull, Fred Mertz, Brian S, Tauzero, gengis gandhi, ladybug, orangedog, arete, Paul Revere, imawit, Mekons4, rack42, Dakmar, RickyJ, Indrid Cold, Horse, Tom007, Lodwick, , All (#1) (Edited)
Did I miss anyone? hehehe
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#3. To: Neil McIver, Mind_Virus, noone222, Coral Snake, Axenolith, DeaconBenjamin, Simmering Frog, tzf90, a vast rightwing conspirator, (#2)
There, that should do it for now.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#4. To: Burkeman1 (#0)
I knew I forgot someone. You have to see these clips.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#5. To: Critter (#0)
This is very tough for me to listen to due to a hearing impairment. I wish someone had the presence of mind at the time to record the audio with a close mic on the speaker rather than from 60 feet away. :( Perhaps I can find a written transcript. Thanks for posting though.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
#6. To: Critter (#0) (Edited)
OK, if this dust was really from the WTC towers then I would have think it conclusively proves that thermate was used to bring the towers down. The spheres from the dust have almost the exact same composition as one would expect from thermate reactions. This is a big if however. Proving it was indeed dust from the WTC towers collapse might be nearly impossible today.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#7. To: RickyJ (#6)
Proving that this particular sample was from the WTC might be tough, yes, but I am sure that there are official samples all over the place that can be called in for testing. I wish I still had my baggie full of WTC dust that I gathered when I visited the site in October 01.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#8. To: Critter, *9-11* (#0)
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." ~George Washington
#9. To: IndieTX (#5)
There might be better video out there somewhere Indie. This was all I could find so far. I had same problem, so I just cranked the volume and suffered through it to get most of what he was saying.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#10. To: Critter, ALL (#1)
ROTFLOL! Jones is either a liar or a very sloppy researcher. For example, he claimed this: was a photo of slag from a pool of molten steel. It is not. It is a photo of a chunk of pancaked floors composed of sheet steel, reinforced concrete, rebar, wood and even paper debris with writing still legible on it. And there is photo after photo available proving this: And this is only one of many dishonesties that ex-professor Jones has promoted with respect to 9/11. Here are some more: He has claimed that "there is recorded eyewitness testimony of the molten metal pools under both Towers and WTC 7". That is absolutely false. Neither he or any in the 911 CT community have named an eyewitness who actually said there were "pools" of molten metal. And the source that Jones cited to back up his claim when he said that didn't name a single eyewitness. In fact, the word "pool" wasn't even mentioned in the article he cited. With regards to the metal observed falling from the South Tower a short while before the collapse, Jones once claimed "the falling liquid appears consistently orange, not just orange in spots and certainly not silvery." As has been proven with a video of that event several times here at 4um, that is patently false. The material falling in the video is at times quite silvery in appearance. He also said "this molten metal, after falling approximately 150 meters (or yards) still retained a reddish orange color". That too is false, as the video showed quite clearly. And to show how willing Jones is to alter his claimed evidence in order to prove his obsession, he recently switched to describing the falling material as follows: "yellow-white hot molten metal". He said "the molten aluminum would appear silvery due to high reflectivity combined with low emissivity, while molten iron would appear yellow (as seen in the video record.)" Notice that it is no longer orange or reddish-orange as he initially claimed. Now it's yellow or yellow-white. He changed the color because he learned that molten steel would have to be that color. Perhaps he learned this from Thomas Eager of MIT who has been quoted (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/04/steven-jones-to-appear-on-view.html ) saying "I think that the best way to refute the molten steel hypothesis is to inform people that molten metal is not the equal of molten steel. I have little doubt that some aluminum from the aircraft melted (about 1100 F for the alloys used and well within the capacity of the fires). As I noted in my article, some had suggested a thermite reaction and I indicated that the brilliant white light from burning Aluminum (about 4000 F) would have been unmistakable, but was not observed. The photos which I have seen by the conspiracy theorists which shows glowing metal, shows a red glow or a red orange glow. This is NOT molten steel. Anyone who has ever seen molten steel even in a small weld puddle knows that it it yellow white in color. As temperature increases we go from red (800-900 F) like a kitchen electric range heater (will not melt aluminum pots) to red orange (1100-1200 F- molten aluminum) to orange (1500-1800) to yellow (2000-2300) to yellow white (2500-2800- molten steel) to white (3000 F and above with increasing light intensity, like a tungsten incandescent light bulb.) If you put the temperatures into common sense colors that people know, then they can go back to Steven Jones' photos and anyone can conclude for themselves that the red or red orange glows that they say are molten steel is really just proof that they have never worked around molten metal. Welders, casters plumbers and many other professionals know the colors of molten metals and Prof Jones simply is an uninformed academic, who enjoys the attention that all of you are giving him." I think Mr Eager is correct. Steven Jones is a DISHONEST sub-atomic particle physicist who wants the lime light. He didn't get it with another research topic he was involved in at BYU ... another scam ... cold fusion. As to his claims about the composition of the dust (the 1.5 mm spheres) and that they prove thermite was used at the WTC site, I have the following comments. First, Jones has clearly lied before about 9/11 evidence so I don't think he is above fabricating data to "prove" his allegation about 9/11. He is that obsessed with proving this since he's staked his career and credibility on the allegation. Second ... there is NO chain of custody in that sample of dust he claims came from the WTC site. According to Jones, it came from Janette MacKinlay, a visual *artist*, who it turns out is also highly obsessed (http://www.communitycurrency.org/blog.html ) with this topic (and making money from it). MacKinlay is the *colorful* lady with the scarf to the right of Jones in the photo below at one of their recent conferences. Curiously enough, Jones also says she took and supplied the photo that Jones claimed showed slag from a pool of molten steel. So she must have known that wasn't true since she must have seen the item up close when she took the picture. Yet she has let Jones misrepresent what the object was in public forums and papers. So she too seems somewhat dishonest and not above fabricating evidence. Which seems to be typical of those running the *truth* movement. Third ... http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/01/and-now-for-some-science.html http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/01/steven-jones-is-experimenting.html http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/11/why-is-steven-jones-on-skids.html This is incredible! I love this guy!
Good shit from the good doctor.
"Large pieces of debris, likened to meteorites by preservationists, are actually several floors of the towers compressed together as the buildings collapsed. Furniture, twisted metal, pipes, cords and even papers with legible type are visible. The pieces are kept in a humidity-controlled tent in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport.
(Photo by Lane Johnson)" 
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#11. To: BeAChooser (#10) (Edited)
This one must really scare you. You broke out the monster spam post for this, eh? I do believe that the people holding that chunk of whatever it is are the ones that said it was the result of a molten mass. You might wish to check on that.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#12. To: BeAChooser (#10)
No, there is not, but hopefully this will lead to an examination of dust samples which do have a verifiable chain of custody. You getting nervous yet?
there is NO chain of custody in that sample of dust he claims came from the WTC site.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#13. To: Critter, ALL (#11)
I do believe that the people holding that chunk of whatever it is are the ones that said it was the result of a molten mass.
"People holding"? What in the world are you talking about, Critter? No one is holding that chunk of material that Steven Jones claimed in his viewgraph presentation was slag from a pool of molten steel. Are you experiencing the same eyesight problems that kept you from seeing that the hole in the Pentagon was more than 20 feet wide? ROTFLOL!
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#14. To: BeAChooser (#13)
They are not holding it anywhere? It has been tossed out in the trash? WTF is wrong with you? Are you that retarded? Really? I really can't wait til Christine has had enough of your bullshit. You are the biggest asshole I have ever had the displeasure of meeting on a forum.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#15. To: BeAChooser (#13)
Here asshole, choke on this you piece of shit:
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#16. To: BeAChooser (#13) (Edited)
Exposed to temperatures as hot as the earth's core
Bibliographic Entry Result
(w/surrounding text)Standardized
ResultHeath Earth Science. Heath, 1994: 22. "The inner core is probably no hotter than 7000 degrees Celsius." 7300 K The Worldbook Encyclopedia. Chicago: Worldbook, 1999: 20-21. "The temperature at the core maybe as high as 7000 degrees Celsius." 7300 K De Bremaecker, Jean-Claude. "Temperature in the core." Geophysics of the Earth's Interior. Canada, 1985: 296-297. "The temperature at the inner core boundary is probably between 3400 and 5700 degrees Celsius." 3700 - 6000 K Beiser, Arthur. The Earth. US: Time Life, 1969: 36. "It's temperature is somewhere between 2000 and 4500 degrees Celsius." 2300 - 4800 K Kubala, Bizy & Mahan Rao. Earth's Core Temperature. Byrdand Black, 1996. "Earth's core temperature is estimated at around 5000 to 7000 degrees Celsius." 5300 - 7300 K
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#17. To: BeAChooser (#13)
Who said this dipshit? Who? The people who are holding the artifacts of the WTC. Now get the frig out of here and go bother some other forum with your asinine bullshit. You make any decent human being want to puke.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#18. To: BeAChooser (#10)
AGRICULTURE - wearstrips, chain guides, flights, chain tensioners, spreaders and grain strippers FOOD PROCESSING - augers, bearings, guide rails, rollers, chutes, hopper liners deboning tables, spiral freezers, idler sprockets, mixer bushings, mixer paddles and trough liners
Materials such as TIVAR 1000 UHMW offer low-friction, impact strength, wear resistance, and corrosion resistance for:
''the messianic side of Americans can be tiresome.'' - Nicolas Sarkozy
#19. To: Critter, ALL (#14)
Actually, it was in a museum. Or didn't you know that either? I certainly hope that christine has a sense of humor.
They are not holding it anywhere? It has been tossed out in the trash?
I really can't wait til Christine has had enough of your bullshit.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#20. To: BeAChooser, Christine (#19)
When pathological liars are allowed to run around spamming every thread... well it's time for me to go.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#21. To: Critter (#20)
I'm really tired of this childish little game playing of his too.
#22. To: BeAChooser (#10)
So what do you think his real goal here is if it is not the truth of what happened on 9/11? Why would he risk his career and life over something that is false? Yes, he has received death threats over this. Who do you think is threatening his life? Do you even care, or does it only matter to you when certain people get killed such as Ron Brown?
I think Mr Eager is correct. Steven Jones is a DISHONEST sub-atomic particle physicist who wants the lime light. He didn't get it with another research topic he was involved in at BYU ... another scam ... cold fusion.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#23. To: IndieTX (#5) (Edited)
They have the full one piece version on google now and the sound is a bit better:
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#24. To: BeAChooser (#19)
OK, I let your dimness get under my skin tonight, and almost went to find a new home. But, I would miss beating the crap out of you on these threads too much, so... here's some more beating. hehehe The USGS has a Particle Atlas of world Trade Center dust: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/table_1.html It is basically a breakdown of the contents of dust samples. From the USGS spectra analysis of a couple of iron spheres found in the wtc dust samples: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/IRON-03.jpg http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/IRON-04.jpg You will notice (if you're not a US government black op shill of course) that they very closely match what Dr. Jones spectra analysis produced, if you watched the video. Spheres, that the USGS found in the dust. Spheres. How do you make an iron rich sphere Mr. genius? You must melt the iron and propel it through the air. Since NIST confirms that the fires were not hot enough to melt steel, how did they melt iron and keep it melted long enough for it to be propelled through the air during the collapse mechanism in order to cool in a sperical condition? Come on genius. Tell me.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#25. To: Critter (#23)
Thank you. I'll just enable Tor and Privoxy before I go to Google though...they love to keep records of IP's for the spooks. :))
THANK YOU!!!
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
#26. To: Critter (#24) (Edited)
I minored in geology and for iron, or magma, from volcanoes [for example] to take a spherical form before being ejected through the air, they would have already had to have been melted. :)))) Liquids form droplets. Solids ejecta would be irregular chunks and pieces. In order for this to have happened, extremely high temperatures would have been required..say maybe......THERMATE? :))
how did they melt iron and keep it melted long enough for it to be propelled through the air during the collapse mechanism in order to cool in a sperical condition?
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
#27. To: IndieTX, BeALoser I mean BeAChooser (#26)
Exactly. Melted and ejected in liquid form. Check mate on the Loser, I mean Chooser. :)
they would have already had to have been melted. :))))
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#28. To: IndieTX (#26)
The composition of the spheres Dr. Jones analyzed STRONGLY suggest that, if not prove that, and so does this sample done by USGS: In order for this to have happened, extremely high temperatures would have been required..say maybe......THERMATE? :))
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#29. To: Critter, ALL (#24)
Wow! The government sure went to a lot of effort to cover up this smoking gun, critter. ROTFLOL! But why do you assume the spheres were produced before/during the collapse rather than after ... when no one argues that molten steel wasn't present? Here's what a chemist/metallurgist (rather than a sub-atomic particle physicist ... he he he) has to say about the production of metal spheres: ************ http://www.mujca.com/procrustes.htm The Collapse of WTC 1 and 2: A New Theory F. R. Greening ... snip ... Remarkably, however, there is some crucial scientific evidence for the presence of molten iron or steel in the pulverized remains of WTC 1 & 2 that has apparently been completely ignored by 9/11 researchers. I am referring to the observation of micron-sized iron spherules that have been seen in many WTC dust samples. These spherical particles are direct physical evidence that the iron within the particle was molten at the time the particle formed. Each of the references below specifically mention the detection of iron spherules in WTC dust samples (and in most cases also provide electron micrographs of the particles in question). Reference 1 includes two such micrographs labeled IRON-03-IMAGE and IRON-04-IMAGE. Reference 2 discusses which WTC particles could best be used as signatures of WTC dust; iron spheres were considered and rejected only because they were not found in all indoor dust samples. In reference 3 we read on page 17: “Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles.” And finally in reference 4 we find a micrograph of a spherical iron particle and the comment that WTC dust contains evidence for “heat effected particles, including spherical particles.” 1. H. A. Lowers et al. “Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust.” USGS Open-File Report 2005-1165, (2005) 2. Various authors: “U.S. EPA Response to the Peer Review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Final Report on the World Trade Center Dust Screening Study.” Page 28, (December 2006) 3. R. J. Lee et al. “Damage Assessment 130 Liberty Street Property: WTC Dust Signature Report on Composition and Morphology.” Issued December 2003. 4. S. R. Badger et al. “World Trade Center Particulate Contamination Signature Based on Dust Composition and Morphology.” Microscopy and Microanalysis 10 (Supplement 2), 948, (2004). The formation of spherical iron particles has been well documented and researched for steel making processes, (See for example: Steel Research 64, 23, (1993) and Steel Research 72, 324 (2001)). Iron spheres in the 30 mm to sub-micron range are typically seen in the dust-laden off-gases produced by molten steel and are believed to be formed by the ejection of metal droplets when the liquid metal degasses. In seeking an explanation of the formation of iron spherules during the destruction of WTC 1 & 2 it is significant that samples of WTC dust have an additional chemical signature - an enrichment of zinc. Data for iron and zinc in WTC aerosol samples have been presented by S. Qureshi and co-workers in Atmospheric Environment 40, S238, (2006). We first note that concentrations of these elements in PM2.5 aerosol collected in New York City prior to 9/11 were about 100 ng/m3 for iron and less than 20 ng/m3 for zinc. Qureshi’s data show that on September13 2001 the PM2.5 iron concentration was 127 ng/m3 and the zinc concentration was 217 ng/m3, i.e. airborne zinc concentrations were about ten times higher than normal. Qureshi’s data also show that both iron and zinc concentrations in New York’s 2.5-micron dust peaked in early October 2001 with iron at 370 ng/m3 and zinc at a remarkable 1028 ng/m3. These observations are consistent with iron and zinc data reported by the EPA for WTC air monitoring samples collected in the same post-9/11 time period. Why was so much zinc dispersed into the air above Ground Zero? In order to answer this question we need to consider sources of zinc in the Twin Towers. A review of the construction materials in these buildings shows that the galvanized 22-gauge corrugated sheet steel, used for the decking that supported the floor concrete, was a major source of zinc. Given that 22-gauge galvanized steel has a coating of about 50 mm of zinc on a 1 mm sheet of metal comprised of ~ 98 % iron, we may use our previous estimate of 16 tonnes for the mass of steel decking per floor to conclude that there was about 1.6 tonnes of metallic zinc on every floor in WTC 1 & 2. We have shown in the first part of this article that if some of the thermal insulation that was applied to floor assemblies in the Twin Towers was spiked with 25 % by weight of ammonium perchlorate and subsequently exposed to jet-fuel fires, it would have heated the steel decking to ~ 1390 °C. Now, since the boiling point of zinc is 908 °C, this degree of heating of a floor assembly would have been sufficient to vaporize the zinc in the galvanized steel! To conclude: we have shown that an AP collapse theory accounts for all four processes that collectively led to the observed level of destruction to WTC 1 & 2, namely: the buckling and fracture of floor elements; the collapse of entire floor sections; explosive spalling and “powderizing” of the concrete; melting of the floor pans. As an aside, we note that the addition of ammonium perchlorate to the thermal insulation on the upper floors of the Twin Towers comes very close to being the perfect crime. The deadly AP-spiked concoction would have been almost identical to the un-spiked coating; it could have been sprayed on selected surfaces with impunity; it required no elaborate detonator devices to be activated – moderate heating worked just fine. And finally, because AP decomposes to gaseous products, it leaves no telltale residues. Of course, I haven’t proved that AP was used in the Twin Towers, but to end with a famous quote: “How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth……..” F.R. Greening, March 15th, 2007 ************** Or perhaps professional engineer, Dr. John Durkee, writing in Controlled Environments Magazine in December 2003 has the answer (http://www.cemag.us/articles.asp?pid=399 ): "In eleven seconds, the fall of each tower generated crushing mechanical forces and extreme heat .... Molten aluminum, iron and other molten metals expelled into the air by the force of the collapse formed into spherical balls as they cooled and fell back to the ground." *************** Also, the steel rebar in the concrete floors and steel members in the structure were scraped during the collapse producing tiny particles. The melting point of steel is lower in this form? Think along the lines of the glowing particles coming off a grinding wheel. Perhaps micron size particles formed their spherical shape at the elevated temperature in the falling debris itself just due to mechanical friction? ROTFLOL!
Spheres, that the USGS found in the dust. Spheres. How do you make an iron rich sphere Mr. genius? You must melt the iron and propel it through the air. Since NIST confirms that the fires were not hot enough to melt steel, how did they melt iron and keep it melted long enough for it to be propelled through the air during the collapse mechanism in order to cool in a sperical condition?
The Sign of Four by Arthur Conan Doyle
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#30. To: BeAChooser (#29)
More BS I see. None of that explains the presence of sulfer, manganese etc, in the sphere. Occams razor. Remember that one? You use it all the time. The simplest explanation for the makeup up the spheres is the use of thermate. Too many coincidental anomolies have to take place to produce thermate signature spheres without using thermate. Go chase yoruself.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#31. To: Critter, christine, Minerva (#30) (Edited)
The idiot's only motive is his desire for war. He doesn't shill because the facts are on his side, he just sees the war and oppression the Bush Administration pushes in the wake of these false flag operations as the sort of reality that appeals to him. He knows he just has to blur the picture to dampen the increasing awareness of the American People to what has happened. He goes for making it seem like a reasonable debate is occurring to discourge people's interest in piercing the psychological thrushhold of not wanting to deal with the horror of having the worst sort of criminals possible in charge of government. He has failed to make his case, and doesn't have the tools to even try. I say react to an attack on getting the truth out that Goldi's biker bar banishment with a quid pro quo banning of Bealiar. It's possible his banning there was contrived in order to send him here to put a damper on the efforts of Truthers here. I would be curious to see if he was suddenly reinstated at LP if banned here; I say he will.
#32. To: BeAChooser (#29)
More like a professional moron. Keep it up BAC your "professionals" are nothing more than a bunch of liars. Are you the one threatening Jones' life?
professional engineer, Dr. John Durkee, "In eleven seconds, the fall of each tower generated crushing mechanical forces and extreme heat .... Molten aluminum, iron and other molten metals expelled into the air by the force of the collapse formed into spherical balls as they cooled and fell back to the ground."
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#33. To: Ferret Mike (#31)
if the vile evil entity gets no replies, IT will self exile. i can't imagine IT wants to continue to talk only to ITself.
#34. To: RickyJ, BeALoser, I mean BeAChooser (#32)
So a professional engineer says the towers fell in 11 seconds? Is he right about that BeALoser? I may actually take the time now to rip your post into shreds. You contradict yourself all over it.
professional engineer, Dr. John Durkee, "In eleven seconds, the fall of each tower generated crushing mechanical forces and extreme heat ....
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#35. To: christine (#33)
LOL.
Mark
"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
#36. To: christine (#33)
The trouble is that if his spam posts are left unrefuted, it may seem to a lurker that he has posted fact and that we cannot dispute it. I have this debate with myself all the time. What is better? Refute and get another spam post as his response, or leave his lie unrefuted at the risk of it being mistaken for fact. Which is worse?
if the vile evil entity gets no replies, IT will self exile. i can't imagine IT wants to continue to talk only to ITself.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#37. To: Critter (#36)
I would say it would depend on how much time you want to waste.
Mark
"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
#38. To: Ferret Mike (#31)
Good analysis of BeachOoser. I like the tag also. ;0)
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
#39. To: Critter, christine (#36) (Edited)
I have long opposed arbritrary banning based on difference of opinion. But we have here a person who shows in his early posting history at LP to be open to promoting a very scetchy conspiracy on Ron Brown because it fits his political agenda to do so. He does not work based on what is likely to be true, but to squash what hurts his overall promotion of NeoCon wars under the scetchy and vague heading "The War on Terror." He is terrified that if the truth comes out on the false flage opperations, his precious 'war' and the further destruction of what control the people have of this government will be hurt or reversed. He is not working in good faith, and his presence here is suspicious and bizarre. He refuses to answer questions pertaining to his activities elsewhere to try to fight the truth movement, and I am of the opinion you give him the oppertunity to proof and test the net of lies trying to destroy the truth movement for cracks and troublesome inperfections. If he won't answer what motives he has in doing what he does which are obviously more then merely to argue the issue, I would ban him immediately. If he won't stop stonewalling and start involving himself with good faith give and take of a lively discussion on this issue, I would ban him with extreme and well deserved prejudice. He is poison, and adding nothing to the discussion. Banning him would not be censorship, it would be removal of someone who has this virtual community's worst interests at heart.
#40. To: christine, Ferret Mike (#39)
I concur with Mike, FWIW. I don't really care one way or the other though, since I have BeAGayLoser bozoed and can't see his worthless posts.
#41. To: Ferret Mike (#31)
Interesting theory - although I'm not sure goldi's that smart.
It's possible his banning there was contrived in order to send him here to put a damper on the efforts of Truthers here. I would be curious to see if he was suddenly reinstated at LP if banned here; I say he will.
#42. To: Esso (#40)
bozo & ignore thread bumps
#43. To: Critter, ALL (#30)
Gee ... do you know what contains sulfur? Gypsum board (3rd most widely used construction material in the WTC towers). Dr Greening estimated there was about 4 kg of sulfur per square meter of floor space. I've posted a link to his article on Sulfur at the WTC several times at 4um and many times at LP. The presence of sulfur isn't all that hard to explain, Critter. It doesn't have to come from thermite or from steel melted by thermite. And don't you think gypsum board is a much simpler explanation than thermite? As to the Manganese, many things contain it. Building materials, for one. The levels of many of the elements found in these samples are reportedly consistent with their presence in building materials, including chromium, magnesium, manganese, aluminum, and barium. The aluminum alloy in the planes was about 0.5% Mn. It could come from cutting operations during the cleanup. It could come from welding operations during the building. It doesn't have to come from thermite or from steel melted by thermite, if that is what you are suggesting. Funny thing, Critter ... I don't see any REAL chemists, metallurgists, materials engineers or experts in fire coming forward to join Jones' *truth* movement. Even with all the interest by environmentalists in the WTC dust, I see no REAL experts coming forward scratching their heads about the source of the compounds found in that dust. Are they all living in fear? No. A whole bunch are actively investigating what happened to the steels in the WTC structures. (e.g., http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html ). Surely you've heard of some of those investigations, being so well informed. So why hasn't a single one linked arms with Jones to proclaim *the truth*? Surely with all the *evidence* you folks have, you can convince at least ONE to join you?
None of that explains the presence of sulfer, manganese etc, in the sphere.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#44. To: Ferret Mike, Critter, ALL (#31)
The idiot's only motive is his desire for war. He doesn't shill because the facts are on his side, he just sees the war and oppression the Bush Administration pushes in the wake of these false flag operations as the sort of reality that appeals to him.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#45. To: BeAChooser (#43) (Edited)
Did you watch the video dipshit? It is obvious by your comments that you haven't. Shut up until you do. Funniest thing is he already defeated your arguments in the video. How it could not be cutting during cleanup, how it could not be welding during building, etc. He already planned for assholes like you. ROTFLOL!!!!
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#46. To: Critter, BeAChooser (#34)
Looky here government stooge, molten steel at the pile. 
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#47. To: BeAChooser (#43)
Gee, do you know the composition of thermate reactions on steel? Jones does and his WTC dust sample proves you and all the academic and so-called professional are really only professional liars.
Gee ... do you know what contains sulfur?
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#48. To: BeAChooser (#44)
Cartoons is all you have. Yeah, if you can't do any better than that then you might as well be banned.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#49. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#39)
ROTFLOL! There's nothing "scetchy" about the allegations surrounding Ron Brown. Unlike your WTC thermite/beam weapon/mini-nuke/or whatever conspiracy, that one actually has all the experts in the relevant disciplines who have made statements about the matter (that would be forensic pathologists and experts in gunshot) on the side of those saying there should have been an autopsy because the evidence suggests a possible bullet wound. You, on the other hand, don't have a SINGLE expert in the relevant disciplines supporting the theory that thermite brought down the towers. Even though there are tens of thousands available who could do so, many in other countries that are not even possibly controlled by the evil Bush cabal. Unlike your WTC thermite/whatever conspiracy, the Ron Brown allegation doesn't require a cast of thousands (or is it tens of thousands) be in on it or still helping to cover it up. Perhaps 20 people overall could have been part of the plot and in the positions needed to keep the lid on. One conspiracy is doable ... the other is not. Unlike your the WTC conspiracies, the Ron Brown case actually has a logical and reasonable motive for why someone(s) needed Ron Brown to die. You folks can't even decide whether Bush is brilliant, stupid, crafty or an idiot. Whether world domination, jews or oil is the reason. Unlike the WTC conspiracy theories, killing Ron Brown and disguising it as a plane crash has a certain understandable logic to it. What you folks claim Bush and his cabal were trying to achieve could have been achieved with a lot less trouble than hijacking and crashing 4 planes (several into buildings), then using bombs, missiles and thermite to bring down the buildings. One conspiracy makes sense, the other is nothing short of overkill for what the supposed objective was. Unlike members of the WTC CT community here at 4um, I haven't had to lie about or distort the facts. My experts haven't had to do the same (as compared to folks like Jones, Ryan, Griffith, etc). And unlike you folks, I haven't had to ignore criticisms of the Ron Brown theory. I've been able to address each and every one. And there is plenty more regarding Ron Brown where that came from, FM. The trouble is that folks like you never stick around to actually debate it. I post only on this forum. I have always posted as BeAChooser ... whereever I have posted. Beyond that, you don't really need to know anything else about me, FM. I have answered that question. Repeatedly. You just didn't listen. I've said there are good questions that deserve answers regarding 9/11. But I've also said, you will not find the truth if you start with a foundation of lies, misinformation and distortions. I'm trying to stop folks from doing that ... from muddying the water so we can't determine the truth. I've said you will not find the truth if you also fill your accusations with nonsense about bombs in towers and no flight 77. I said you will not find the truth if you refuse facts and logic which counter that nonsense. You will not find the truth if you follow the 9/11 Truther Credo. Other than a bunch of facts that you don't happen to like. But we have here a person who shows in his early posting history at LP to be open to promoting a very scetchy conspiracy on Ron Brown because it fits his political agenda to do so.
He refuses to answer questions pertaining to his activities elsewhere to try to fight the truth movement
If he won't answer what motives he has in doing what he does
He is poison, and adding nothing to the discussion.
Banning him would not be censorship, it would be removal of someone who has this virtual community's worst interests at heart.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#50. To: RickyJ, ALL (#48)
This isn't a cartoon, Ricky. It's proof that Jones is either a liar or a woefully sloppy researcher.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#51. To: BeAChooser (#49) (Edited)
All you do is lie. You lie about us lying, you lie about the "experts" not lying, you lie about who is paying you to post this crap. You are a total fraud that anyone with half a brain can see straight through. So, are you the one that is threatening to kill Dr. Stephen Jones?
Unlike members of the WTC CT community here at 4um, I haven't had to lie about or distort the facts.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#52. To: BeAChooser (#50)
It's proof that Jones is either a liar or a woefully sloppy researcher. It is proof of no such thing. The paper that you are so fond of in this slag could have very well blown there AFTER it was no longer molten metal. It proves nothing.
isn't a cartoon, Ricky.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#53. To: BeAChooser, christine, Minerva, lodwick, Jethro Tull, IndieTX, Skydrifter, RickyJ, all (#44) (Edited)
Your post merely proves my point. I can tolerate others with whom I disagree, but you refuse to let me. You ignore my questions and avoid elaborating along lines others and I inquire regarding to do a very focused set of tactics. You avoid developing human relationships and focus on various points more concerned about creating an atmosphere of derision and incredulous scorn anyone would advocate anything other then you advocate. You go for the atmosphere of destroying discussion on this issue, not adding to it I've seen enough of this 'swift boating' sort of modus to getting one's way politically. I am sick of it. Listen bub, I am an environmental activist in real life, but in spite of this I come in here and try to give people a little more then I get, and I listen to what others say and weigh the merits of their words and thoughts. I often pass up environmental threads to make a point I am not here solely to advance personal agendas. I talk of many things in here. But you focus on one issue like it is a job to do so, and you are utterly detached on the personal level from everyone else in forum. You need to do better then that and learn some respect of others as fellow interlocutors in a BBS, or you should leave, or be severed from this virtual community. I move you be terminated as a 'fuckwit,' banning fuckwits has always ben a sound forum management practice. From the source linked below: "Fuckwits park on pavements and in disabled parking spaces when they are not entitled to do so. Fuckwits always believe they have 'right of way'. Fuckwits drop litter in the street. Fuckwits only generally care about themselves and this is evident in their overall attitude toward everything and everyone else. Fuckwits always know absolutely everything in the history of everythingness. Fuckwits talk lots and listen little. Fuckwits never allow evidence to prevent them continuing to be a fuckwit. Fuckwits, basically, are fuckwits. There is no cure." http://www.fuckwit.info/whatis.htm
#54. To: Ferret Mike (#53)
classic - thanks
It's a sad fact of life and the Internet that this site is so very badly needed.
#55. To: lodwick, christine, Minerva (#54)
Thanks. That idiot just posted another long spam piece with scant words of his own. Most of them are quoted above. IT is the classic fuckwit response of ad hominem on top of scornful derision and using so much spam others don't bother reading and examining. Which he doesn't care occurs as he is not trying to win this discussion in the least bit. He just wants to give lurkers the appearence of the sort of argument where you can't tell the idiot from someone arguing ion good faith. His tactic is to stall the growth of knowledge about and interest in the false flag operations that occured on September 11th, 2001. He stonewalls and has respect for nobody here. I move he be denied posting privilages.
"Your problem is that you are just too lazy..."
#56. To: Ferret Mike (#53) (Edited)
Hell yeah! Way to Kick A**!!! :))))) [Of course I've had his spew filtered for some time on BOZO because I also to refuse to read his paste snow blow jobs] LOL
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
#57. To: RickyJ, ALL (#52)
Now that's a very serious thing to accuse someone of, Ricky. Now, for the record, I've done no such thing. I've simply pointed out on this little tiny forum that Jones is either a liar or a woefully sloppy researcher. The facts showing that he may be a liar you haven't even attempted to contest. No, your response has only been to get totally hysterical and make a completely unfounded and silly claims. And in so doing, further discredit the *truth* movement. Shame on you. And the rebar, concrete and metal beams in this closeup? Were those blown in, too? Is that why they didn't melt in that "pool" of molten steel, Ricky? ROTFLOL!
So, are you the one that is threatening to kill Dr. Stephen Jones?
The paper that you are so fond of in this slag could have very well blown there AFTER it was no longer molten metal. It proves nothing.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#58. To: Ferret Mike (#53)
Fuckwit bump!
#59. To: christine (#33)
See post 57.
"on this little tiny forum"
Mark
"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
#60. To: BeAChooser (#57) (Edited)
I have no idea what that blob is composed of. If there is concrete in there then it probably isn't what Jones thought it was. But I don't know what it is composed of and I don't think you do either. So you do acknowledge that someone is threatening Dr. Stephen Jones. At least that is a start. Why do you think someone would do this? Why is it that anyone that has a large audience that tells people about 9/11 is threatened? In the attacks against Rossie on Fox news you could almost sense that they wanted to kill her. They hated her for speaking out, it was so plainly obvious.
Were those blown in, too? Is that why they didn't melt in that "pool" of molten steel, Ricky?
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#61. To: IndieTX (#56)
Note the fuckwit goes from a condescending approach to complete derision of RickyJ's tongue in cheek question born more of exasperation derived from the difficulty of dealing with in incommunicable fuckwit. I note to he choses a picture from the one other source I did not query him concerning regarding his participation in it too curiously enough. This indirectly indicates he is reflexively covering a vulnerable flank. Fuckwits usually invite the person they talk top to wrestle in the mud with them, because as I said, the tactic is to leave the lurker wondering which of the two sides is the childish idiot and which isn't. Something they never bother to waste time trying to determine. As I said, his tactic is to stall and demoralize those involved in, or curious about the Truth Movement. He has no useful function in forum, fuckwits never do. David McLemore, the moderator of the old Time.Com /Politics forum used to give these guys all the rope they needed to prove they were an out to disrupt one issue with no personal association or desire to advance the discourse concerning it.
"No, your response has only been to get totally hysterical and make a completely unfounded and silly claims."
#62. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#53)
That statement, combined with your instant dismissal of the Ron Brown allegations makes me suspect you are a democRAT? Could I be right, FM? I think I must be right. Of course not. (sarcasm) Don't believe I've ever done something as uncouth as that. For all you know, I might even be disabled. No, I'm an extremely courteous driver. In fact, I ALWAYS drive defensively. And I usually give others the right of way in hallways, on sidewalks, when entering or exiting elevators ... and I never cut lines. Never. Why I've even been known to pick up other folks litter. People have been known to compliment my generousity. And I always say "you first". I don't pretend to know everything. That's why I never call myself an expert in any topic being discussed. I just do a little research and let others speak for me. I listen. Which is why I always respond to posts and often respond line by line to their content. That is getting more difficult to do around here since christine cut me back to 15 posts a day, though. ROTFLOL! I'm not the one refusing to discuss the facts in this thread. Tell me, FM, do you think this is slag from a pool of molten steel? That's what Ex-Professor Jones claimed. And by the way, does http://www.fuckwit.info/whatis.htm say anything about rudeness?
I've seen enough of this 'swift boating' sort of modus to getting one's way politically. I am sick of it.
I am an environmental activist in real life,
I am not here solely to advance personal agendas.
I move you be terminated as a 'fuckwit,' banning fuckwits has always ben a sound forum management practice.
From the source linked below:
"Fuckwits park on pavements and in disabled parking spaces when they are not entitled to do so.
Fuckwits always believe they have 'right of way'.
Fuckwits drop litter in the street.
Fuckwits only generally care about themselves and this is evident in their overall attitude toward everything and everyone else.
Fuckwits always know absolutely everything in the history of everythingness.
Fuckwits talk lots and listen little.
Fuckwits never allow evidence to prevent them continuing to be a fuckwit.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#63. To: Ferret Mike (#61)
Although I am a hard-core Freedom of Speech guy, you are correct. Once someone has been given a MULTITUDE of chances to prove themselves a value to a forum, once they have repeatedly proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are a waste of bandwidth, and that they are no longer constructive to discussion, and therefore, no longer of value to a forum, they should be terminated. [Freedom of NON-association]
the moderator of the old Time.Com /Politics forum used to give these guys all the rope they needed to prove they were an out to disrupt one issue with no personal association or desire to advance the discourse concerning it.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
#64. To: Ferret Mike (#61)
No, I was serious about that question. I don't expect a serious answer, but I am defintely serious about the question.
Note the fuckwit goes from a condescending approach to complete derision of RickyJ's tongue in cheek question born more of exasperation derived from the difficulty of dealing with in incommunicable fuckwit.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#65. To: BeAChooser (#62) (Edited)
Sherlock Holmes, you ain/t. I am from the Pacific Green Party. But it is fasinating youi try to paint me as a Democrat. You see, in all your early LP posts you made plain you serviced the agenda of destruction of the two party system as it is currently. You make plain that the "War on Terror" is your main advocacy, and in that you view the Truth Movement as a distraction from the atmosphere for "the War on Terror" the false flag operations were meant to enhance. Therefore you are not here to determine the truth of whether this is an inside job or not, you are here only to advance President Bush and Richard Cheney's "War on Terror." You don't honestly think I was a poster in good standing at Free Republic for three years as a Clintonite and a Democrat do ya booby? I can't stand the Clintons, and have a bit over 700 posts at DU though I first signed up there in 1998, just like I did at the Free Republic. Try again dear boy, perhaps you might draw blood if you try hard enough, but I doubt it. Thanks for sharing, I always appreciate it when you show yourself to be a fuckwit in interlocutor clothing by showing what you really care about attacking and show your real motives when you post in threads about 9 11.
"That statement, combined with your instant dismissal of the Ron Brown allegations makes me suspect you are a democRAT? Could I be right, FM?"
#66. To: RickyJ, ALL (#60)
Really? Yet you called all the real structural engineers in the world morons? But Jones is an expert, isn't he? And his source for the image of that chunk that he used saw the item close up. Surely she could tell the difference between concrete and slag. Surely almost anyone could. Well I'll just let the photos speak for themselves, Ricky. I'll just let the caption by the person who took the photos do my talking, Ricky. "Large pieces of debris, likened to meteorites by preservationists, are actually several floors of the towers compressed together as the buildings collapsed. Furniture, twisted metal, pipes, cords and even papers with legible type are visible. The pieces are kept in a humidity-controlled tent in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport. I acknowledged no such thing. In fact, this is the first I've heard about it. I simply stated that I have not threatened Dr Jones ... which is what you so basely accused me of doing, Ricky. Unfortunately, Ricky, the folks at Fox News aren't here to defend themselves from your base accusations ... like I am.
I have no idea what that blob is composed of.
If there is concrete in there then it probably isn't what Jones thought it was.
But I don't know what it is composed of and I don't think you do either.
(Photo by Lane Johnson)" So you do acknowledge that someone is threatening Dr. Stephen Jones.
In the attacks against Rossie on Fox news you could almost sense that they wanted to kill her.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#67. To: IndieTX (#63)
Thank you. This is very well articulated and I fully agree.
"Although I am a hard-core Freedom of Speech guy, you are correct. Once someone has been given a MULTITUDE of chances to prove themselves a value to a forum, once they have repeatedly proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are a waste of bandwidth, and that they are no longer constructive to discussion, and therefore, no longer of value to a forum, they should be terminated. [Freedom of NON-association]"
#68. To: BeAChooser (#62)
So what do you have to say about this video's claim that the "meteorite" is indeed the product of intense heat, as hot as the earth's core, and that the paper was carbonized? I've noticed that you avoided this question posed to you earlier. Or did you indeed shove the video up your ass as I requested?
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#69. To: Ferret Mike (#65) (Edited)
Someone has documented posts from another forum where Looser has posted to people like "DancingFairyBoy" and "BigButtBuddy" et al where he admits to spamming this forum with RNC talking points purposefully. That alone should be cause for removal. He is not here for intelligent discourse, merely to salt the internet with his paste jobs. This isn't a forum for BushCo advertising.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
#70. To: Critter (#68) (Edited)
I do notice...good vid by the way...that at the beginning he says "ALL" of the debris is at JFK...then later in the video he gives us the real story...people remember what they hear FIRST. Propaganda technique. Typical You know what I'm getting at right? You tell people that most of the evidence was destroyed and melted down and they say "No I heard on the news it's ALL at JFK. You are a liar!"
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
#71. To: BeAChooser (#62)
You claim the pressure for him to resign did not exist in your coy posts taunting others about how people are oft times allowed a measure of dign ity in how they leave, especially when those dooing the firing are wrong. The above quote is coy and sarcastic, meant to muddy the waters of the discussion, not out of a desire for a forthright answer from me much like this dig at Professor Jone's forced resignation. You have ignored much of what I have asked you or points I mentioned as you are doing the cores of a fuckwit -- which you demonstate adherence to by your taunting and derisive remarks answering material I quoted in my post because you think it is so much fun playing fuckwit in here. Without the spam, ad hominem attacks, circular logic meant to stall discussion, there is as much substance to your posts as a serving of cotton candy.
"Tell me, FM, do you think this is slag from a pool of molten steel? That's what Ex-Professor Jones claimed."
#72. To: IndieTX, Ferret Mike, ALL (#69)
Now surely you're not so naive as to think those posts that poster claimed I made were really by me. If you believe that, well then I have a bridge to sell you. I'll state again, for the record. I have ONLY posted at FreeRepublic, LibertyPost and here, and ALWAYS under the screenname BeAChooser. Any more ad hominem smears you want to try, IndieTX, in your defense of Jones? Someone has documented posts from another forum where Looser has posted to people like "DancingFairyBoy" and "BigButtBuddy" et al where he admits to spamming this forum with RNC talking points purposefully.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#73. To: IndieTX (#70)
If he doesn't address what is said in the video, I will have to vote for getting rid of his lying ass.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#74. To: BeAChooser (#72)
How long are you going to ignore this video?
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#75. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#71)
What can I tell you but that Dr Jones, himself, said he was NOT forced to resign. "I am electing to retire so that I can spend more time speaking and conducting research of my own choosing," Jones said in a statement released by the university. "I appreciate the wonderful opportunity I have had to teach and serve and do research at BYU for more than 21 years." You don't want to believe him? Fine with me. But believe this ... ********* Synopsis: Structural engineering faculty of BYU repudiate Jones Source: Ira A. Fulton College News Published: November 1, 2005 Author: BYU College of Engineering and Technology For Education and Discussion Only. Not for Commercial Use. Brigham Young University has a policy of academic freedom that supports the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge and ideas. Through the academic process, ideas should be advanced, challenged, and debated by peer-review in credible venues. We believe in the integrity of the academic review process and that, when it is followed properly, peer-review is valuable for evaluating the validity of ideas and conclusions. The University is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones. *************
The above quote is coy and sarcastic, meant to muddy the waters of the discussion, not out of a desire for a forthright answer from me much like this dig at Professor Jone's forced resignation.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#76. To: BeAChooser (#75)
You were lightning fast to caim that those posts IndieTX spoke of were not by you. Yet you will not indicate whether you are associated with the anti Truth Movement site you gleened illustrations from or any other debunk the debunkers sites. Why is that? Explain. Your activities here are like the part of the iceberg one sees, what is the rest of the story regarding what you do inline in regards to your advocacy and why this is so?
#77. To: BeAChooser (#66)
I asked you a question, I accused you of nothing but lying. The fact that you take it as more than that is very telling.
I simply stated that I have not threatened Dr Jones ... which is what you so basely accused me of doing, Ricky.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#78. To: BeAChooser (#75)
Because of my concern for college-age students I have taught and loved for decades, I am motivated to speak out emphatically against what I judge - after thorough study and reflection - to be terrible wars, wars of aggression, founded on deceptions. Steven E. Jones Physicist and Co-chair, Scholars for 9/11 Truth http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes;read=94829 Nobody with brains and common sense buys your bill of goods regardings Professor Jone's firing.
If another "9/11-like event" is "allowed to happen" in the near future, do you not suppose that it will be blamed this time on Iran or Syria, followed by a swift and deadly attack on the country blamed? Can you not imagine that a military draft will follow next, with college students constrained to enter the military, and handed rifles to go and kill people in the Middle East, by the tens of thousands?
#79. To: BeAChooser (#75)
Still looking through your "Shill for the State" manual to see how to deal with this video?
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#80. To: BeAChooser (#66)
No I didn't, that's just you lying again. I said those that truly think the WTC towers came down due to the planes hitting them and the resulting fires are morons.
Yet you called all the real structural engineers in the world morons?
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#81. To: Critter (#79)
They obviously have no credibility. As hot as the inner Earth? It could be that Jones was sold a bill of goods regarding this photo, I don't know. It doesn't matter though, his research into how it was impossible for the towers to come down in the time they did due to a progressive collapse is spot on.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#82. To: BeAChooser (#66)
I accused them of nothing either but attacking her verbally with quite visible rage.
Unfortunately, Ricky, the folks at Fox News aren't here to defend themselves from your base accusations ... like I am.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#83. To: RickyJ, BeALoser, I mean BeAChooser (#81) (Edited)
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#84. To: Critter, BeAChooser (#83)
"Everybody knows 9/11 was an inside job."
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#85. To: Critter, Kamala, ..., Minerva, Red Jones, RickyJ, Nostalgia, robin, HOUNDDAWG, Jethro Tull (#83) (Edited)
ping to critter's cartoon
#86. To: RickyJ, Artisan (#84)
here's one for you to post on LP to Goldi
#87. To: christine (#85)
It may become a daily continuing saga, if he doesn't respond. hehehe
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#88. To: Critter (#83)
Too perfect!
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." ~George Washington
#89. To: Critter, RickyJ, ALL (#87)
I don't know if you even noticed but about 6/10ths of the way through that video they show the chunk of material that your Dr Jones told his audiences was slag from a molten pool of steel. In the video, they say it is the pancaked remains of several floors of the building ... steel, concrete, rebar, furniture, etc. In other words, it is not from a molten pool of anything as Dr Jones claimed. Beyond that, I can't help it if the TV personality says it was "exposed to temperatures as hot as the inner earth". He was talking for effect ... nothing else. And besides, who is to say he was talking about the core temperatures. And the source that Jones used for his photo got to see that chunk of material first hand. And if nothing else, she let him go around claiming that was a chunk of slag from a molten pool of steel. You'd think he'd be angry with her for deceiving him (at the very least) but apparently he's not. They are still good buddies because she also supplied him with that vial of dust he's fallen in love with. Beyond that, I'm not really sure what you think that video proves, Critter. But if you think it irrefutably proves anything, by all means, take it to the media like you have all those other smoking guns the CT community has found. Oh wait ... that's right ... ROTFLOL!
It may become a daily continuing saga, if he doesn't respond. hehehe
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#90. To: BeAChooser (#89)
Obviously the people curating that "museum" are telling people that it was a product of intense heat as hot as the inner earth. Now, since they are holding all of this captive, out the public view, who is to say what it is really made of. That is my one and only point.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#91. To: Critter, ALL (#90)
You mean to say, that although you've in the past claimed some experience with buildings, you can't tell that chunk of material in the video and seen in the numerous still photos that I've posted is made of unmelted concrete, steel and rebar (the major components)? Really? Or maybe the truth is getting in the way of you seeing Dr Jones for what he really is? Is it just coincidence that you also couldn't see a hole in the Pentagon that was larger than 20 feet across (when the hole was clearly many times that size across in the photos I posted)? Maybe the truth just got in the way of your *it was a missile or small airplane* theory? Curious that you also couldn't see the sagging floors in those images of the WTC towers that I posted ... floors that were sagging many minutes before they collapsed. Maybe the truth gets in the way of your notion that ordinary fires aren't hot enough to deform steel so thermite bombs must be what brought down the towers. Curious that you couldn't see that the portions of the tower that stood for a moment after the collapse were core components (remember ... you said they were perimeter sections). Maybe the truth gets in the way of your pet theory once again. Curious that you couldn't see that the debris piles were high enough given that most of the towers was composed of air and debris from their collapse spread out over a much larger area than that defined by the tower's original perimeter. Maybe the truth got in the way of your hope that it was the government's fault. Curious that you couldn't see the many fires visibly burning in the towers before it collapsed. Don't you remember claiming there were only 2 isolated pockets of fire, Critter? But then I guess the truth threatened to lift the darkness from your belief that it's all one vast conspiracy involving Bush, his cabal and all the structural engineers, demolition experts, materials experts, experts in fire, and macro-world physicists in the world. Curious that you couldn't see the towers taking about 15 seconds to collapse rather than the 10 or 11 that you insist on because the 911 commission reported that. Of course, the truth would then get in the way of that neat CT claim about them falling at free-fall speeds which is impossible. Curious that you couldn't see that large hole in the south side of WTC 7 in the images I supplied ... a hole right where firemen said there was a hole. But then that would definitely have gotten in the way of your belief that Silverstein said "pull the building" - and they did. Curious that you couldn't see that the molten material seen falling from the South Tower was orange hot. Wait! You did see that. But then why is Dr Jones now trying to claim it was yellow or whitish yellow? In any case, I wonder if there isn't some sort of eyesight problem here?
Now, since they are holding all of this captive, out the public view, who is to say what it is really made of. That is my one and only point.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#92. To: BeAChooser (#91)
Still no comment about whether or not you engage in activities on other sites to promote governmental dis-information? Did the question touch a nerve?
#93. To: BeAChooser (#91)
''the messianic side of Americans can be tiresome.'' - Nicolas Sarkozy
#94. To: BeAChooser (#91)
Never seen a large hole in the south side of WTC7. Seen pictures of smoke, but no large hole. I guess maybe your eyesight is playing tricks on you chooser.
Curious that you couldn't see that large hole in the south side of WTC 7 in the images I supplied ... a hole right where firemen said there was a hole. But then that would definitely have gotten in the way of your belief that Silverstein said "pull the building" - and they did.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#95. To: christine (#33)
Some very good people take the time to post meaningful and important articles on freedom4um.com. Honest debate and serious discussion on these important matters should be welcome by all. BeAChooser has been exposed on every thread he has participated on. He is dishonest and has no interest in the truth, only his agenda. This cartoon phase appears to be a "suicide by cop" tactic. If BeAChooser is banned here, where does he go? No where. "BeAChooser" dies and he knows it. It is a tough call. I am glad I am not making it.
#96. To: , christine (#95)
BTW,if I was making the decision, either the cartoon spams would stop or BeAChooser would get his wish.
It is a tough call. I am glad I am not making it.
#97. To: honway (#95)
The sociopathic creep is sorry he is not on LP to rub in Goldi's latest step into the dark side of the force. We all know he is not happy here and bored with his role as wanker in any 9 11 discussion. He wants Christine to ban him as icing on the cake of his baitful dog and pony show. I can understand her reluctance to grant him his martyrdom but I would give it to him anyway. There are no winners and no one gains by him lingering where he has made zero friends and annoyed everybody. He claims he is not a returning bannee anywhere, but he is doing something somewhere online, and doesn't wish to be forthcoming about this. He is either working a swiftboat the Truth Movement site, is back at FR in a new nick or in other forums doing his crap. Ban him, let him declare victory and then leave. Enough is enough.
"This cartoon phase appears to be a "suicide by cop" tactic. If BeAChooser is banned here, where does he go? No where. "BeAChooser" dies and he knows it."
#98. To: Ferret Mike (#97)
He has invested nearly 10 years of his life into this internet persona. I suspect down deep the person knows the movement demanding a legitimate investigation into 9/11 is right. This "suicide by cop" tactic may be his attempt to acknowledge an inconvenient truth.
He claims he is not a returning bannee anywhere, but he is doing something somewhere online, and doesn't wish to be forthcoming about this. He is either working a swiftboat the Truth Movement site, is back at FR in a new nick or in other forums doing his crap.
#99. To: BeAChooser (#91)
Photographs can be deceiving. Until I see it in real life, before my eyes, I can't say what is in it. Until then, I will have to go by what the people say who have it in their custody, that it is 4 stories of WTC tower, copressed and heated to temperatures approaching those of the middle earth, like it said in that video. You keep posting a picture which does not "clearly" show anything. I have stated that I do not know what hit the Pentagon, and won't know until a real independent investigation takes place. Those are not sagging floors and I have proved that using NIST's own words and images. You are the one with the eyesight problem. Or is it just that the photos have deceived you? Yes, they were perimeter sections. Again I have proved it. Photos and video of the are IMMEDIATELY after the collapse show less debris in the footprint than out of the footprint, and no intact structure at all in the footprint that could be considered the driving mass of the collapse. You lose. Battalion Chief Palmer, a NYC Firefighter on the 78th at the time of the collapse agrees with me that there were only isolated pockets of fire at the time of the collapse. His radio transmissions to that effect are available on the web for all to hear. Curious that many of the very experts you quote state that it took 10 to 11 seconds. I think more like 15 seconds, personally. Superficial damage to the middle exterior does not collapse buildings symmetrically. Curious how NIST (your so called experts) got the SW corner damage all wrong. Did the photos deceive them or were they deliberately lying? Orange hot iron will flow as it it melted by thermate. You have an eyesight problem apparently. But worse than that, you have mental problems as well. But worst of all, you support the treasonous bastards that murdered your countrymen in order to persue their global agenda. May God have mercy on your soul.
You mean to say, that although you've in the past claimed some experience with buildings, you can't tell that chunk of material in the video and seen in the numerous still photos that I've posted is made of unmelted concrete, steel and rebar (the major components)? Really? Or maybe the truth is getting in the way of you seeing Dr Jones for what he really is?
Is it just coincidence that you also couldn't see a hole in the Pentagon that was larger than 20 feet across (when the hole was clearly many times that size across in the photos I posted)? Maybe the truth just got in the way of your *it was a missile or small airplane* theory?
Curious that you also couldn't see the sagging floors in those images of the WTC towers that I posted ... floors that were sagging many minutes before they collapsed. Maybe the truth gets in the way of your notion that ordinary fires aren't hot enough to deform steel so thermite bombs must be what brought down the towers.
Curious that you couldn't see that the portions of the tower that stood for a moment after the collapse were core components (remember ... you said they were perimeter sections). Maybe the truth gets in the way of your pet theory once again.
Curious that you couldn't see that the debris piles were high enough given that most of the towers was composed of air and debris from their collapse spread out over a much larger area than that defined by the tower's original perimeter. Maybe the truth got in the way of your hope that it was the government's fault.
Curious that you couldn't see the many fires visibly burning in the towers before it collapsed. Don't you remember claiming there were only 2 isolated pockets of fire, Critter? But then I guess the truth threatened to lift the darkness from your belief that it's all one vast conspiracy involving Bush, his cabal and all the structural engineers, demolition experts, materials experts, experts in fire, and macro-world physicists in the world.
Curious that you couldn't see the towers taking about 15 seconds to collapse rather than the 10 or 11 that you insist on because the 911 commission reported that. Of course, the truth would then get in the way of that neat CT claim about them falling at free-fall speeds which is impossible.
Curious that you couldn't see that large hole in the south side of WTC 7 in the images I supplied ... a hole right where firemen said there was a hole. But then that would definitely have gotten in the way of your belief that Silverstein said "pull the building" - and they did.
Curious that you couldn't see that the molten material seen falling from the South Tower was orange hot. Wait! You did see that. But then why is Dr Jones now trying to claim it was yellow or whitish yellow?
In any case, I wonder if there isn't some sort of eyesight problem here?
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#100. To: Ferret Mike, christine, critter, BeAChooser (#53)
You need to do better then that and learn some respect of others as fellow interlocutors in a BBS, or you should leave, or be severed from this virtual community. I think that is because he regards every single poster here as "the enemy". He is incapable of viewing any of us as living, breathing individuals with separate identities. He even puts down those who who stand up for him, which I've come to the conclusion is a waste of time and effort as he has nothing but contempt for each and every poster here, just because they post here. That is what I see.
I talk of many things in here. But you focus on one issue like it is a job to do so, and you are utterly detached on the personal level from everyone else in forum.
#101. To: Diana (#100)
(#39) Just go away. SKYDRIFTER, answer my two questions. PLEASE. PRETTY PLEASE. Are you saying that ALL THREE HOLES that you speak of did not exist in the building before 9/11. YES or NO? Are you saying that three holes were made in the C-Ring by *whatever* damaged the Pentagon. YES or NO? Don't run. Don't make more adhominem attacks on me. Just answer the two questions. Neil, I hope you are watching this. I've caught him in a deliberate lie here. One I can easily prove by posting photos and our past conversations on this topic. And he's knows it. That's how easy it is to find SKYDRIFTER lying. Why do you tolerate this sort of behavior on your forum? BeAChooser posted on 2004-05-07 14:25:10 ET He's also a whiner and views the casual snitch to the mod a useful tool. Good post, yes you describe him to a 'T'. He stereotypes everybody. In a BAC world ALL Democrats are evil. In a BAC world, all things that do not work to crush Islam and el Qaeda are evil. And the Truth Movement gets in the way of using 9 11 as the perpetrators meant for it to be used. If he came upon incontrovertible evidence that 9 11 was an inside job, he'd destroy it if he could. He is not concerned with the issue to find out the truth, he is annoyed because it is not being used to gain maximum effort in fighting and destroying those he loathes in that part of the world. If he had his druthers, he would be back on Free Republic, and Free Republic would be as big as it was in it's heyday. I have zero use for this meal worm.
40. To: Neil McIver, SKYDRIFTER, Goldi-Lox, Diana, all
#102. To: BeAChooser, Skydrifter, Diana (#91)
He's really tough on the women; Diana got his number - there. Neil, Goldi ... can you tell me how the above adhominin attack, baseless though it is, in any way has anything to do with this thread or honest debate? That sort of comment is aimed at nothing but disrupting your forum. If you don't want it disrupted further, then perhaps you should deal with this comment before I decide to deal with it myself. BeAChooser posted on 2004-04-21 19:18:04 ET Reply Trace -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 56. To: SKYDRIFTER (#52) Probation, Sky Neil McIver posted on 2004-04-21 20:01:07 ET Reply Trace Well blubber boy, here is an example where you got a sanction exacted on Sky, yet you have been ad homineming all over the place lately. You should ping Christine and have her give you probation. After all, if this is good enough to get done to Sky for his alleged 'crimes,' don't you think you deserve much the same for your ad hominem attacks?
55. To: Neil McIver, Goldi-Lox, SKYDRIFTER, Diana (#52)
#103. To: honway (#95)
I wouldn't count on that. He has to post somewhere and he will. He obviously isn't posting because he has nothing better to do.
if BeAChooser is banned here, where does he go? No where. "BeAChooser" dies and he knows it.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#104. To: honway, RickyJ, Ferret Mike, IndieTX, SKYDRIFTER, Critter, Kamala, Esso, Diana, christine, ALL (#96)
Given the strident calls for my banning on this thread, I shall use my first post of the day to respond to that. Why are you folks so fearful of me? You say I'm disruptive of the forum? But I only get 15 posts a day and sometimes I don't even use all of them. If just those I've pinged post 3 times each day, my message will be overwhelmed. Most 4um members, your audience, are behind a bozo filter and can't see me anyway. And no one else listens to anything I write (or so it's claimed by some of you). So why are you worried about what I post in the first place? Now I think I've been a model of debating decorum while at 4um. I haven't called posters names despite considerable provocation on your part. I haven't used obscenities although many have been directed at me. I've tried to respond logically and factually to what I've been asked. Indeed, most of my posts have contained sourced facts and (IMO) sound logic. I have never asked that anyone be banned. I am not posting under any other names on this or any other forum. Hence I'm not talking about Freedom4um behind it's back. And what I've said about Freedom4um here has been decidedly mild. I've contributed by posting an article or two from time to time. I'm not here representing anyone but myself. And I'm certainly not being paid to post (despite what some insist). I have a sense of humor ... as those cartoons surely prove. Maybe it's my laughing that disturbs you? I even find fault with a great many things Bush and his administration have done. So what about the above is sooooooooo disturbing that banning is demanded? My motives are clear. I've said from the beginning that you won't find the truth about 9/11 if you link legitimate questions ... questions that do indeed deserve answers ... to easily discredited allegations ... such as bombs in the towers and no-Flight 77. I've said that you won't find the truth about 9/11 (or any other topic) if the spokesperson for your cause (be it Jones, Ryan, Griffin, Les Roberts, or whoever) makes easily discredited claims, misrepresents the facts, is illogical or outright lies. I've said you won't get a legitimate investigation of 9/11 if your calls for one are based on disinformation spouted by dishonest, self-serving leaders and posters. I've said that I'm here to set the record straight on certain issues and leaders through honest, civil debate. I don't think I've veered from that mission or means. Because I actually want to see the "truth" movement succeed. Truth is good (although secrecy is sometimes advised). But to succeed, the movement must be based on facts, not disinformation. For it to be otherwise will in the end only harm the truth and those who seek it. How can any of that be so disturbing that you must demand my banning? That call seems counter to the very principles which you folks claim to support. Think about that. I'm actually trying to help you focus on what's important. The Truth. And the means of finding it. Don't you think your movement should be based on verifiable truth and sound logic, rather than lie filled videos like ... say ... Loose Change 2? Don't you think your movement should be led by leaders who don't misrepresent facts, distort the facts or lie? Rather than folks like Jones, Avery, Griffin, Roberts? By leaders who have no hidden agenda of their own? Now, of course, christine can do whatever she pleases. She is the forum owner. It is well within her right and power to ban me just as it was within her right to limit my posting privileges. But I respectfully suggest that banning me, given the record for honest and civil debate that I've now established on this forum, would make Freedom4um look very bad. Look at the criticisms you folks have leveled against Goldi for relegating threads involving 9/11 theories to her biker bar. Just because she disagrees with them. Yet you apparently want to completely ban someone just because he disagrees with you. The plain and simple truth is that if your theories and claims can't stand up to the criticisms of a single poster (one who even has limited posting privileges), do you really think they are all that sound? Maybe they need some refining. Think of me as someone who is trying to help you do that and we will get along fine. I really mean that ...
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#105. To: BeAChooser (#104)
If you were ever to present your official fairy tale arguments in the same way you presented this one, you wouldn't look like such a shill. All of those copy and paste same old spam posts just mess up the threads and no one reads them. In this one you state: "Because I actually want to see the "truth" movement succeed." That implies that the whole story isn't being told. What is missing from the official fairy tale?
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#106. To: Critter (#105)
That implies that the whole story isn't being told. What is missing from the official fairy tale? I think he means he wants the government theory to be accepted as truth by the "truth" movement, because he considers it the truth.
"Because I actually want to see the "truth" movement succeed."
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#107. To: RickyJ, Critter (#106)
BAC has stated this himself on at least one occasion.
I think he means he wants the government theory to be accepted as truth by the "truth" movement, because he considers it the truth.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
#108. To: BeAChooser (#104)
Nobody fears you, but we don't work for you like those who put up with Bush's
weird humor about imposing farts on others. We can retaliate where his lackeys
cannot. This is your tough luck, chum. You are not discussing, you are
spamming and dealing in ad hominem behavior despite your lame protestations.
You are a f**kwit because you ignore the evolution of a discussion to
stick with the Chinese water torture of repeating over and over highly
questionable and in many cases clearly debunked material. We don't come
here to trade advertising campaigns, this is a virtual community. And when you
engage in anti-social behavior in such a venue you make yourself unwelcome.
Much as an obnoxious guest at a party can wear thin until expelled. It is
in the vein of you being such a party pooper you are made unwelcome. You
don't like us, make that plain, and cry crocodile tears and wear a hair shirt
when your karma gets run over by your dogma. You seem unable to comprehend
or grasp any social nuance in here, so I am pleased the call for your banning
finally invoked a response from you. Ultimately all this you whine of is
self inflicted. So you'll have to forgive us if we don't tip the forum violin
soloist to play 'My Heart Bleeds for thee" any time soon.
"Why are you folks so fearful of me?"
#109. To: Critter, ALL (#99)
Not that deceiving, Critter. Especially since Jones's own photographer took a photo (that he published in one of his papers) that is quite clear and looks surprising like one of the photos posted earlier in this thread which were taken by someone else. BOTH photos very clearly show rebar and concrete and even steel members sticking out with relatively undeformed cross sections. And that video has images which also show those things. Now since Jones' knighted himself with the title *expert*, he show know what he was seeing in those photos. Then why not go by what all the real experts ... hundreds of structural engineers, demolition experts, materials engineers, seismologists, experts in fire and macro-world physicists have said? Why do you just discount them? And by the way, that media face didn't say "middle earth", he said "inner earth". There's a difference. That's simply false. Here are the photos again. They are quite clear. Readers should note that prior to the attack, the outer face of the Pentagon was a solid wall except for windows here and there. Now Critter, do you really want to go on claiming that you can't see a hole in that outer wall that is more than 20 feet across? Really? Again, you are being dishonest. I invite everyone to go visit this thread on LP where we discussed this topic: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=158333&Disp=All&#C28 Here's another thread where we discussed it: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=151407&Disp=212#C212 The truth is the experts at NIST have concluded those were sagging trusses in the images I showed you. "New York Times, December 3, 2003 ... snip ... S. Shyam Sunder, who is leading the investigation for the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the Commerce Department, said, "We are seeing evidence of floors appearing to be sagging — or that had been damaged — prior to collapse." ... snip ... Last spring, the standards institute found the first photographic evidence on the east face of the south tower that a single floor — with its lightweight support system, called a truss — had sagged in the minutes before it started collapsing. Now, detailed analysis of photos and videos has revealed at least three more sagging floors on that face, said William Pitts, a researcher at the institute's Building and Fire Research Laboratory. " And I haven't seen a quote from a single structural engineer anywhere claiming otherwise. Can you supply us with one? No??? I didn't think so. The following are from NIST report NCSTAR 1-6 "Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers", September 2005. (You can download it at http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-6index.htm) Now since the reports are in pdf form, I can't post images directly so readers will have to download the reports and look at the images and captions I note below. ********** "Figure 9-16. Floor sagging observed on the east wall of WTC2 at different stages" That caption happens to accompany what I posted earlier as a figure labeled Figure 9-81 (as it was apparently labeled in NIST media report). "Finding 37: Sagging at the floor edge was due to loss of vertical support at the truss seats. The loss of vertical support was caused in most cases by the reduction in vertical shear capacity of the truss seats due to elevated steel temperatures." "The fire resistance tests showed that the floors were capable of considerable sagging without collapse." "Floor sagging at the exterior edge was observed in photographs of the east exterior wall of WTC2, near the impact zone. Floor sagging along one edge would have a tendency to reduce the buckling strength of columns supported by that floor and would increase demand on other components of the floor." "Floor sagging was primarily caused by either buckling of truss web diagonals or disconnection of truss seats at the exterior wall or the core perimeter." *************** Now download and look at the report numbered NISTNCSTAR1-6D.PDF. It is titled "Global Structural Analysis of the Response of the World Trade Center Towers to Impact Damage and Fire", September 2005. It contains some of the same information plus other new items of interest. Check out Figure E-12 "Floor sagging observed on the east wall of WTC 2 at different times". It shows more of the images. It calls what is seen in the images FLOOR SAGGING both in the text and captions. It was written by REAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, not the wannabe engineers you use as your sources, Critter. And finally, I hope the readers of this thread will take a few minutes to visit http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm and see how willfully blind you are, Critter. Sure you did, critter. Just like you proved those weren't sagging trusses. I think this cartoon had your name on it. For anyone interested, here's the thread where you made your claim. http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=47596&Disp=All&#C87 See post #13 where you respond to innieway's post which has the following statement from NIST "From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse." Your response is this: "I have studied the videos of the so called core remaining standing. If you look at them VERY carefully, they are not core sections at all. They are perimeter sections." Well, folks, here are images of what was standing after the collapse. Decide for yourself if Critter's eyes and judgement are sound: Here is a video as it collapses (no, it didn't vaporize like some CT'ers claim): http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/video%20archive/collapse%2001_spire_clip.mpg Here is a very clear video of the towers collapse with the spire becoming visible near the end. Look carefully and you will easily conclude that is not perimeter columns because the edge of the building was over the lighter red tower in foreground but the spire is well to the left of that building: http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/tower_collapsing4web.qt You know what I think, Critter? I think the bastards who did that should pay the ultimate price ... but you are barking up the wrong tree. You and your friends are actually only making it more difficult to ensure that happens. And you think that logic helps you? That there is less debris in the footprint than out of the footprint? Two points. First, the fact that there is more debris outside the footprint than in it, means the height of the debris pile in the foot print (what you were complaining about) can be less. That only helps my side, Critter. Second, your admission totally demolishes the claim of some of your movement's *experts* that it had to be a demolition because the towers fell vertically inside the footprint. Now one last chance. Think for a moment. The towers were about 95 percent AIR. And what were they ... about 110 stories high? So take all the air away and even if all the debris lands only in the footprint, the pile is 5 stories high ... about 75 feet. But it didn't all land in the footprint. It was scattered all over the place as the images show and you admit. In fact, imaged during the collapse show debris actually coming down on the other side of WTC7 and on many adjacent buildings. In fact, it looks to me like its spread over an area at least 3 or 4 times the area defined by the outer dimensions of the tower. So I don't think the height of the pile as seen from this perspective is indicative of a conspiracy. But it does suggest an inability by you to accept what your eyes see and what logic tells you. Those radio transmissions, if you'd bothered to listen to them, indicated that Palmer was TRAPPED IN A STAIRWELL by two small fires and never got a chance to get out and see what the rest of the floor he was on at the time looked like. And again, videos and photos taken about that time show there were scattered fires all over the building ... a fact your eyes or mind just refuse to see. Do you? Then at least in this one case you've changed your mind. Because previously when confronted with evidence showing a 15 second collapse you wrote "Looking at video I say 10 seconds maybe 11." So maybe there is still hope for you. And you know this because ... ? If that's true, why has only a single demolition expert and 2 structural engineers in the whole world come forward? And none of them have claimed that the WTC towers were demolitions. And your reply avoids the point I was making, anyway. There was clearly a big hole there. The photos show it and the firemen (who I hope we can trust) said it was there. Yet, you seem to have denied it's existance on other threads. Eyesight or just stubborn? Hey, I've not said NIST can't make mistakes. They are human. But at least they had a reason to be fooled by that image we are talking about. It does "look" like there is a hole missing in the corner. Well I certainly hope so.
"You mean to say, that although you've in the past claimed some experience with buildings, you can't tell that chunk of material in the video and seen in the numerous still photos that I've posted is made of unmelted concrete, steel and rebar (the major components)? Really? ... snip ..."
Photographs can be deceiving.
Until then, I will have to go by what the people say who have it in their custody, that it is 4 stories of WTC tower, copressed and heated to temperatures approaching those of the middle earth, like it said in that video.
"Is it just coincidence that you also couldn't see a hole in the Pentagon that was larger than 20 feet across (when the hole was clearly many times that size across in the photos I posted)? ... snip ..."
You keep posting a picture which does not "clearly" show anything.
Left side and center hole damage 
Right side damage. 
Collage of what the damage looked like pre-collapse "Curious that you also couldn't see the sagging floors in those images of the WTC towers that I posted ... floors that were sagging many minutes before they collapsed. ... snip ..."
Those are not sagging floors and I have proved that using NIST's own words and images.
"Curious that you couldn't see that the portions of the tower that stood for a moment after the collapse were core components (remember ... you said they were perimeter sections)."
Yes, they were perimeter sections. Again I have proved it.
The object to the right in the smoke is what remained of the South Tower (WTC2) for a few seconds after it collapsed. Core or Perimeter? You decide. 
This is the spire that stood for ten to twenty seconds after the collapse of the North Tower. It is CLEARLY one corner of the interior box column group. Perimeter columns didn't look like that. Photos and video of the are IMMEDIATELY after the collapse show less debris in the footprint than out of the footprint, and no intact structure at all in the footprint that could be considered the driving mass of the collapse. You lose.
"Curious that you couldn't see the many fires visibly burning in the towers before it collapsed. Don't you remember claiming there were only 2 isolated pockets of fire, Critter? ... snip ..."
Battalion Chief Palmer, a NYC Firefighter on the 78th at the time of the collapse agrees with me that there were only isolated pockets of fire at the time of the collapse. His radio transmissions to that effect are available on the web for all to hear.
"Curious that you couldn't see the towers taking about 15 seconds to collapse rather than the 10 or 11 that you insist on because the 911 commission reported that. ... snip ..."
Curious that many of the very experts you quote state that it took 10 to 11 seconds. I think more like 15 seconds, personally.
"Curious that you couldn't see that large hole in the south side of WTC 7 in the images I supplied ... a hole right where firemen said there was a hole. ... snip ...
Superficial damage to the middle exterior does not collapse buildings symmetrically.
Curious how NIST (your so called experts) got the SW corner damage all wrong. Did the photos deceive them or were they deliberately lying?
May God have mercy on your soul.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#110. To: Ferret Mike, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#102)
BAC's gotta go. He didn't cut anyone any slack at ElPee; he deserves no further consideration here. He's a forum parasite, nothing more. All he does is compel the good-guys to refute his Bush-bot postings, while taking down the quality of the forum, between the garbage he posts and the vitriol which he inspires; I'm not alone in that.
#111. To: beachooser, Critter, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#104)
No one is afraid of you, BAC, you're incredibly disgusting AND disruptive with all your spamming of convoluted Bush-bottery. It's long past time for you to go.
#112. To: Ferret Mike, SKYDRIFTER, BeAChooser (#102)
BeAChooser posted on 2004-04-21 19:18:04 ET Reply Trace 56. To: SKYDRIFTER (#52) Probation, Sky Neil McIver posted on 2004-04-21 20:01:07 ET Reply Trace I remember that. I don't however remember the part where BAC said if they don't deal with the comment, he will deal with it himself. What was that suppose to mean? After SKYDRIFTER got put on probation, I got put on probation for a few days by Goldi who admonished me for talking about it further which I did. Then she warned everyone to quit talking about it, but BeAChooser brought it up again, then HE was put on probation for a few days.
Neil, Goldi ... can you tell me how the above adhominin attack, baseless though it is, in any way has anything to do with this thread or honest debate? That sort of comment is aimed at nothing but disrupting your forum. If you don't want it disrupted further, then perhaps you should deal with this comment before I decide to deal with it myself.
#113. To: Diana (#112)
It's up to Christine, now. BAC forgets his back-stabbing of me at ElPee. When, BAC is gone, I'll return.
#114. To: Diana, SKYDRIFTER, christine (#112)
Thanks for fleshing that out. I also have to say I agree with Skydrifter, there is no need for his crap in this forum. He is a cold fish socially, and sociopathically hateful of all others in here. He is one of the only people in here who has ever earned my utter unqualified distain. Getting rid of him would not hurt free speech, it would encourage others who argued his side of the only issue he covers to fill the niche he is in now, people who would be valuble community members. People whom though we disagreed with some of what they say, we could respect them and form reasonable relationships socially with them.
#115. To: BeAChooser, Ferret Mike, christine, Ricky J, IndieTX, critter, tom007, honway, Red Jones, All (#104)
What would you do if the truth came out, without a doubt, that 9/11 did not happen the way you claim it did, with full evidence, that indeed it was some plot not carried out by Osama from his cave but was in fact a sophisticated intelligence operation involving govt officials? What would you say if this was proven to be the case beyond the shadow of a doubt? Can you PLEASE answer that? I don't interact with you as much as some of the other posters do because I tend to not post on 9/11 threads as much. However I know you have the ability to be insulting without actually calling names, and you refuse to ever be wrong about anything, even when it's pointed out to you. No one can be right 100% of the time, not even you, yet you refuse to accept when you are wrong. I'm not calling for your banning as I believe you have the right to your opinions, but it would help greatly if you would not view everyone here as beneath you. Perhaps you can't help it, maybe it was the way you were brought up or just your inherent personality, in which case I feel sorry for you, but you have to try to get along better with the other posters. I don't like other posters calling you bad names and cussing at you, that accomplishes nothing and is rude, plus you aren't allowed to fight back. I admit there is a huge double-standard there, as they can call you all sorts of vile names but if you fight back you end up in hot water. To avoid all this, and calls for your being banned, it would really help if you would stop being so insulting to other posters and accept them as full-fledged human beings.
I've said that I'm here to set the record straight on certain issues and leaders through honest, civil debate. I don't think I've veered from that mission or means.
#116. To: BeAChooser (#109)
I'm not going to pick apart your entire spam post once again, but I will say this: Last year it was: "If that's true, why has not one demolition expert or structural engineer in the whole world come forward?" Next year, maybe you'll be saying: "If that's true, why have only 6 demolition experts and 120 structural engineers in the whole world come forward?"
If that's true, why has only a single demolition expert and 2 structural engineers in the whole world come forward?
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#117. To: Diana, SKYDRIFTER, Ferret Mike, ALL (#112)
Diana, you will note that neither Ferret Mike or SKYDRIFTER had the guts to post a link to the LP thread where they got that little snippet. You want to know why? Because you would find that at that time SKYDRIFTER was spending much of his time harassing me with the vilest of comments. He was angry because in late 2003 or early 2004 I caught him pretending to be ZEEGIRL and another poster on the forum when he supposed to be on probation. So he was banned for a time. Then Goldi relented and let him back on. But he came with a grudge to settle. Now I'd basically tried to ignore him during that period. But he wouldn't let go of it. But I finally had enough. So to answer your question, I was telling Neil and Goldi that if they didn't do something to stop his behavior, I was going to start responding in kind and they'd have no excuse to punish me since they would already have let SKYDRIFTER do what he was doing. So instead they decided to give him a rest. Actually, I don't think you have your facts right. Tell you what, why don't you or Ferret Mike or SKYDRIFTER post a link to that thread and let's see all that transpired.
I remember that. I don't however remember the part where BAC said if they don't deal with the comment, he will deal with it himself. What was that suppose to mean?
After SKYDRIFTER got put on probation, I got put on probation for a few days by Goldi who admonished me for talking about it further which I did.
Then she warned everyone to quit talking about it, but BeAChooser brought it up again, then HE was put on probation for a few days.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#118. To: SKYDRIFTER (#113) (Edited)
What are you talking about? If you hate him so much just ignore him, put him on bozo. He was a jerk to me too on LP but maybe that's just the way he his, maybe he can work on toning it down. Look at how many people here admonish him, and call him bad names, he brings this behavior on himself, maybe, possibly he can try to disagree in a more polite way, but I wouldn't give him so much power, leaving because of him. Just ignore him!!
It's up to Christine, now. BAC forgets his back-stabbing of me at ElPee. When, BAC is gone, I'll return.
#119. To: Diana, christine (#115)
I recently lost my temper and did insult BAC. But I have had it with the disregard for dialog and the hatred of others in here that he exudes. I agree he has cultivated a more subtle manner of insulting, but this too is part of his persona of "I am better then y'all, sorry about your bad luck." He also won't answer what other 9 11 Internet activities he does which would be interesting to know as it would help explain his bizarre incommunicative warpath he runs along. He doesn't care about the feelings or any social intercourse with others in here. Concurrently with the insults, I gave up trying to talk to him and reach him to dialog with him. He is bad for this forum and people are tired of him as they always become with any fuckwit. Fuckwit became an Internet term in BBS and USENET worlds because people like him are a genuine and serious problem. I urge Christine to send him no his way, he is nothing but pure poison.
#120. To: BeAChooser (#117) (Edited)
I thought about doing that bub, but do a search, FROM: Beachooser TO: Diana and they are right damn there. Unlike the posts where I provided because they were from your 375 long pages of mostly spam posts just using a FROM: Beachooser search only, you can find those nuggets with a more specific 'FROM/TO' search.
"Diana, you will note that neither Ferret Mike or SKYDRIFTER had the guts to post a link to the LP thread where they got that little snippet."
#121. To: Ferret Mike, SKYDRIFTER, BeAChooser, critter, christine (#114)
He can be the designated forum problem-child, which he is. Personally I have a hard time with the concept of banning anyone unless they are threatening or dangerous, of which he is neither, but that's just me. He's been around for a long time and for better or worse he has become a part of this little group. And where would he go? There have been times where I have been so angry with him, furious in fact, but he is lacking in some social skills and he has some blind spots. I'm against banning him, but that is my opinion.
He is a cold fish socially, and sociopathically hateful of all others in here.
#122. To: Diana (#121)
I have rarely seen anyone leave Cafe Paranoia (FR) due to banning and not achieved insight and growth from the process. He is one of those rareties. He is just as two dimentional an ideologue as he was when a FReeper now years later, and after so many years, he ain't gonna change my dear. I had your identical opinion on banning and expressed exactly the same thing in regards to banning TLBSHOW. And I am of the opinion I was wrong. TLBSHOW is the kiss of death and a fuckwit in any forum setting, and it is much the same in regard to this guy.
"There have been times where I have been so angry with him, furious in fact, but he is lacking in some social skills and he has some blind spots. I'm against banning him, but that is my opinion."
#123. To: BeAChooser (#117)
I thought it was from another thread, not the one you are talking about. I was thinking of a different thread where all three of us got put on probation.
Actually, I don't think you have your facts right.
#124. To: Ferret Mike (#120)
I was thinking of a different thread, it sounded similar to that one. I know he does not care about the feelings of others, but that is like a handicap for him. I know he is maddening, but somehow I just don't think he should be banned, he can be entertaining and there are probably people out there who like to read threads he is on, his attitude comes across well so it would be difficult to mistake him for the good guy, so he damages his case without even meaning to.
"Diana, you will note that neither Ferret Mike or SKYDRIFTER had the guts to post a link to the LP thread where they got that little snippet." I thought about doing that bub, but do a search, FROM: Beachooser TO: Diana and they are right damn there.
#125. To: Diana (#124)
I see your point and admire how you hold your own on this point. But his tactic is to create a climate where the casual lurker is not drawn into 9 11 threads to learn -- often for the first time -- about the criminal acts perpitrated by NeoCons generally and the Bush Administration specifically. He strives to create a climate that wards off momentum and growth in the Truth Movement in the micro 4UM level, and likely uses what he learns from practice in here to effect things on the macro level of other sites he works on geared to more globally 'Swift boat' the Truth Movement. He is coy, smug, antisocial and savvy enough about programming and other computer and Internet skills to do more harm then is apparent here. I see and have seen people who piss on people's feet and claim it's raining and who keep the discussion on an issue stalled and running in circles banned as fuckwits many times. It is a sound management tactic to weed out the bad to make room to seed in people who are more honest, social and less agenda ridden as BAC. I wish him all the luck in the world elsewhere, but my experiance and strong gut instincts say ban him. And with all due respect to your very admirable compassion and desire for fairness, you are wrong in regards to a banning of him I would agree with you if things with him were as face value as you make the leap of faith that it is. But my spider sense is screaming, it says, "let him go, let him be free to fly away. And I never ignore such strong gut instincts, as it took just too long and too much experiance sharpening them. I am usually very sorry when I do, and so I am loathe to do so here.
#126. To: Diana, ALL (#115)
Diana, how many times do I have to say that there are good questions that can be asked about 9/11? I think there are some things the government hasn't told us. They may have good reasons. Or they may not. I do not rule out the possibility that someone(s) within the government might have taken advantage of the situation around that time to further their own foreign policy (or other objectives) or even allowed it to happen. That is a possibility. I certainly think that mistakes were made and that some people involved in making those mistakes should have been punished and were not. We do not have all the answers to what transpired before, during and after the event. But I will say that I have absolutely no doubt that impact and fire is what brought down the WTC structures and Flight 77 did the damage at the Pentagon. The fact that the CT community can not let go of the claim that bombs, energy beams or nukes brought down the towers and Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon is symptomatic of what's wrong with the community and why they may never find out the truth about anything else. Sad. Well what do you have to say about the fact that Loose Change and Griffin claim the hole in the Pentagon was no more than 20 feet wide and I've proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that's untrue? What do you have to say now that it has been proven that WTC7 did NOT collapse in 6.5 seconds like all those in the CT community have been claiming for so long? If you don't believe me, look at that video clip I linked a few posts back. It seems to me that if you folks can't honestly deal with those facts, you are in no position to challenge me about what I would say if it were proven that 9/11 was a sophisticated intelligence operation involving government officials. Which hasn't been proven, by the way. How? By posting sourced material that disproves the lies being spread by some? If that is insulting, so be it. I don't view folks that way. I've been nothing but civil since coming to 4um. If anyone views anyone as beneath them, it is those who are unwilling to discuss the facts but instead choose to label those they disagree with as evil, Bush bots, morons, or worse. You need not feel sorry for me. I'm quite happy and content. And how exactly am I supposed to do that. By agreeing with everything they claim? I appreciate that side of you. But I have been fighting back. Most effectively. Hence the calls to ban me. Again, how exactly am I to do that? By agreeing with them that bombs brought down the WTC towers, Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, and that a philosopher and theologian is just as much an expert as anyone else when it comes to structures, materials, fire, demolition and macro-world physics? Really, Diana, I'd like to know.
What would you do if the truth came out, without a doubt, that 9/11 did not happen the way you claim it did, with full evidence, that indeed it was some plot not carried out by Osama from his cave but was in fact a sophisticated intelligence operation involving govt officials?
What would you say if this was proven to be the case beyond the shadow of a doubt? Can you PLEASE answer that?
However I know you have the ability to be insulting without actually calling names,
I'm not calling for your banning as I believe you have the right to your opinions, but it would help greatly if you would not view everyone here as beneath you.
in which case I feel sorry for you
but you have to try to get along better with the other posters
I don't like other posters calling you bad names and cussing at you
plus you aren't allowed to fight back.
it would really help if you would stop being so insulting to other posters and accept them as full-fledged human beings.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#127. To: Critter, ALL (#116)
Tell you what, Critter. Why don't you tell us what you think of that video I linked that proves the WTC 7 collapse actually took more than 13 seconds, rather than the 6.5 seconds that the video shown to the one demolition expert and the 2 structural engineers indicated? Why don't you tell us what you think about the photos that show WTC 7 didn't collapse vertically as the one demolition expert and two structural engineers were led to believe but fell to one side (the side away from the camera in the video shown to those individuals. If they knew that, I wonder if they'd still be so sure WTC 7 was a demolition. And don't forget to tell them the building was on fire for about 7 hours and that firemen noticed the building starting to lean well before the actual collapse. If you did that, perhaps next year I'd be saying: "If that's true, why doesn't a single demolition expert of structural engineer anywhere in the world support your cause?"
I'm not going to pick apart your entire spam post once again, but I will say this:
Last year it was: "If that's true, why has not one demolition expert or structural engineer in the whole world come forward?"
Next year, maybe you'll be saying: "If that's true, why have only 6 demolition experts and 120 structural engineers in the whole world come forward?"
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#128. To: Ferret Mike, Diana, ALL (#119)
Actually I did, you just didn't listen. Diana ... should I be insulted by that term? Or is that what Ferret Mike means by social intercourse?
He also won't answer what other 9 11 Internet activities he does
Fuckwit became an Internet term in BBS and USENET worlds because people like him are a genuine and serious problem.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#129. To: BeAChooser (#126)
This whole 9/11 argument has morphed, maybe purposely, into steel beams, thermite, rates of collapes, melting points, sizes of holes and other technical side issues when the real topic should be why/how/who/what was all involved in the planning and what the real purpose of it all was. However I see little now on this topic, all people seem to want to address is at what rate the buildings collapsed and so on, that's why I don't post much to those threads anymore, plus I don't have the technical background as I not a physicist or engineer like many of the other posters appear to be. But my main point is that people have slowly but surely been led away from the topic of trying to find out exactly who was responsible, instead focusing on nit-picky details which really don't give pertinent information. Planes hit buildings, the buildings fell down, and wars resulted. As far as "you folks" honestly dealing with facts, those posters who don't agree with you are being honest and sincere I might add. They are trying to dig for the truth to determine what happened, at least from a technical standpoint. So, I would still like to know what your reaction would be if it were found out that it did not occur like you claim it did.
It seems to me that if you folks can't honestly deal with those facts, you are in no position to challenge me about what I would say if it were proven that 9/11 was a sophisticated intelligence operation involving government officials. Which hasn't been proven, by the way.
#130. To: BeAChooser (#126)
That's a good example of that attitude. You are basically calling the posters on this forum liars, you are accusing them of not wanting to deal honestly with facts, when they have spent lots of time and effort researching facts. Their only agenda is the truth, they just want to know what happened regarding 911 and why. Nothing has been proven, I didn't say it was, but I asked you what your reaction would be if a truth not to your liking came out and WAS proved. You are in effect saying I'm not worthy of an answer from you, that's the whole basic problem with you. That is how you treat posters here, and people don't like to be insulted.
It seems to me that if you folks can't honestly deal with those facts, you are in no position to challenge me about what I would say if it were proven that 9/11 was a sophisticated intelligence operation involving government officials. Which hasn't been proven, by the way.
#131. To: BeAChooser (#127)
What is that called, not seeing the forest through the trees?
Why don't you tell us what you think about the photos that show WTC 7 didn't collapse vertically as the one demolition expert and two structural engineers were led to believe but fell to one side (the side away from the camera in the video shown to those individuals. If they knew that, I wonder if they'd still be so sure WTC 7 was a demolition. And don't forget to tell them the building was on fire for about 7 hours and that firemen noticed the building starting to lean well before the actual collapse.
#132. To: Diana, Ferret Mike, SKYDRIFTER, Neil McIver, christine, ALL (#125)
You see, Diana, Ferret Mike is still afraid to provide a link to the thread he quoted. Instead he insults ME by suggesting I don't know how to search posts at LP. Well I had no intention of dredging up the old dispute with SKYDRIFTER but he seems to want it so just to prove he's wrong and show you and everyone else who might encounter this thread the whole story behind the quote Ferret Mike and he took out of context, here is the thread in question (btw, I suspect Ferret Mike was posting as ferret on that thread): http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46273&Disp=All&#C59 First, look at the context of the thread. Neil McIver was expressing angst at painting Muslims with a broad brush. So I asked Neil about that and here is what followed: ************* 49. To: Neil McIver, Red Jones (#47) If you support Bush, then you accept everything the nazis stood for, period. Neil, I note your angst at Muslims being painted with a broad brush. You have any problem with this statement by Red Jones? Or is that "OK" in your mind? BeAChooser posted on 2004-04-21 13:43:39 ET Reply Trace ---------------- 50. To: Red Jones (#47) Granted, Bush (his gang) are not openly using the term "Nazi," but other than that, they are, so far, following the Nazi model, less the obvious mistakes. Reichstag Fire, Enabling Acts, Blitzkreig invasions, etc. Secret detentions, political prisoner camps, extra-judicial punishments, Gestapo powers, War Crime invasions, etc. The "Emergency Health Powers Acts" are clearly a pretext for private property confiscation and concentration camps. Next-Generation Nazism, for damned sure. SKYDRIFTER posted on 2004-04-21 13:51:24 ET Reply Trace -------------- 51. To: BeAChooser (#49) I see BAC has his little list of acceptable views. and is seeking censorship. Red Jones posted on 2004-04-21 15:12:41 ET Reply Trace ----------------- 52. To: Red Jones (#51) Be-A-Crybaby is a little bit famous for the sob routine. A "real" man, there. ("Goldi! Goldi!") He's really tough on the women; Diana got his number - there. SKYDRIFTER posted on 2004-04-21 15:17:13 ET Reply Trace ----------------------- 53. To: Red Jones (#51) I see BAC has his little list of acceptable views. The notion that anyone who supports Bush accepts everything the nazis stood for is neither an acceptable or rational form of debate. But then I no longer expect anything rational from you, SKYClone. As to me trying to censure you, no ... I justed want some clarification why one set of dogmatic statements isn't criticized by forum management but another is. BeAChooser posted on 2004-04-21 19:07:58 ET Reply Trace ------------------------ 54. To: Red Jones (#47) If you support Bush, then you accept everything the nazis stood for, period. That's BS Red and you know it. Marine Inspector posted on 2004-04-21 19:12:51 ET Reply Trace ------------------------ 55. To: Neil McIver, Goldi-Lox, SKYDRIFTER, Diana (#52) He's really tough on the women; Diana got his number - there. Neil, Goldi ... can you tell me how the above adhominin attack, baseless though it is, in any way has anything to do with this thread or honest debate? That sort of comment is aimed at nothing but disrupting your forum. If you don't want it disrupted further, then perhaps you should deal with this comment before I decide to deal with it myself. BeAChooser posted on 2004-04-21 19:18:04 ET Reply Trace ------------------------ 56. To: SKYDRIFTER (#52) Probation, Sky Neil McIver posted on 2004-04-21 20:01:07 ET Reply Trace ******************* You see, the context matters. What Ferret Mike and SKYDRIFTER didn't tell you is that SKYDRIFTER got in even more trouble the very next day in this thread: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46534&Disp=All&#C67 Notice that SKYDRIFTER joins the thread at #50. Here's his post and my reply, followed by Neil's reply: ************** 50. To: rotten (#21) Don't forget to remind Be-A-Crybaby that the 50% who have stayed (in theory) won't fight. So that leaves the entire effort approaching zero - as Vinnel, Dyncorp, MPRI, etc. walk away with millions at a time, for having produced nearly zilch. Be-A-Crybaby seems pleased with all that. All being in the realm of War Crimes. SKYDRIFTER posted on 2004-04-22 14:37:42 ET Reply Trace ------------------- 51. To: Neil McIver, Goldi-Lox, SKYDRIFTER (#50) So that leaves the entire effort approaching zero - as Vinnel, Dyncorp, MPRI, etc. walk away with millions at a time, for having produced nearly zilch. Be-A-Crybaby seems pleased with all that. Neil ... a while back you dumped Badeye in part for supposedly deliberately mischaracterizing the views of another. SKYDRIFTER is doing the same here. And he didn't even bother to ping me so you could hardly call his an attempt at debate. It is disruption, plain and simple ... another reason you gave for booting a convervative poster in the past. Perhaps a caution to "sky" is in order? BeAChooser posted on 2004-04-22 15:27:03 ET Reply Trace ---------------- 56. To: SKYDRIFTER (#50) Sky, I'm shutting down your account indefinitely. Neil McIver posted on 2004-04-22 20:09:24 ET Reply Trace ------------ 63. To: Neil McIver, SKYDRIFTER (#56) Sky, I'm shutting down your account indefinitely. Neil, I would ask that you not go to this extreme for this particular offense. Limit (really limit as in 3 per day or 5 per day) his posting privileges if you deem it deserving, but don't prohibit him from posting at all. That was not my intent. BeAChooser posted on 2004-04-23 15:13:58 ET Reply Trace ********************** So not only did SKYDRIFTER do it to himself, I even fought to keep him from being banned. I told you that Ferret Mike and SKYDRIFTER had a reason for not posting the URL to the thread they took the quote from. And just for the heck of it, what follows are some posts from threads that followed SKYDRIFTER's return on 5/1/2004 from what turned out to be a week long suspension (which is what Neil changed the indefinite banning into because I told him I didn't want that ... he said that on a thread later). You see, on returning SKYDRIFTER couldn't help himself. He immediately set about provoking me. Here's the first of many highly uncivil and provoking posts he aimed at me on a thread just two days after his return (that thread is filled with such posts): ************* http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=48018&Disp=All&#C220 108. To: Diana (#38) Along with his other NGN positions, BAC obviously approves of these War Crimes. The prison is illegal, the interrogations are illegal and there is zero effort to rectify the situation. With MI running the prison, it's a GESTAPO operation, pure and By-God simple. BAC obviously approves; no surprise! SKYDRIFTER posted on 2004-05-03 01:55:34 ET Reply Trace ************* And it didn't stop. Finally, I began to complain to Neil. For example: ************** http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=48337&Disp=7#C7 7. To: Neil McIver, Goldi-Lox, SKYDRIFTER (#4) BAC is losing it; his arguments are getting weaker. He didn't resort to lies, for the longest time. That was the evidence of his being a trained disinformationist. Then he got busted for lying a couple of times. I think that was when his handlers cut him loose. It's okay to hit a dead end; it's not okay to lie. Lately, he keeps calling for help. His handlers have apparently cut him loose. He used to present good logic, however perverted it was; he can't even manage that now. But, slime is what slime does. Strictly a disposable utility function. Given enough time, slime just dries up & fades away. Even the smell stops. We wait! Neil, Goldi, how much longer must I be subjected to nothing but bogus, adhominem abuse from SKYDRIFTER? As you can see in thread after thread since returning, he isn't joining the threads to debate me since he doesn't even bother to ping me. He doesn't even discuss the topic really. It's just about *me*. A vendetta, I suppose, for thinking I had him thrown off the forum last time. Now you have thrown folks off the forum in the pass for HARASSMENT and for being DISRUPTIVE. Do you wish to tell me that the current behavior of SKYDRIFTER isn't? Where do you draw the line now? BeAChooser posted on 2004-05-05 14:26:47 ET Reply Trace ------------------ 15. To: BeAChooser (#7) You started the name calling with your "liar," "America Hater," etc. Be a man, for Crissake! Quit your damned whining. Goldi & Neil are tired of it - judge the message in their silence. You want it to stop; quit the provocation with your own name-calling, labelling Etc. That's all it takes. Oh yeah, quit lying, while you're at it. Nobody has a problem with a "different" perspective. You're the only one whining to Goldi & Neil. Notice that one has to stand in line to tell you to be a man. On occasion somebody goes over the line with language, graphic postings, etc. That's the time to ping the moderators; not when you get caught distorting information, get caught in blatant deceit - or a lie, or just start to lose a debate. You used to be good at debating; what happened? SKYDRIFTER posted on 2004-05-05 18:10:00 ET Reply Trace ----------------- 16. To: Neil McIver, Goldi-Lox, SKYDRIFTER (#15) Neil, I'm asking you to tell SKYDRIFTER to cease and desist. I've tried to ignore him since you allowed him, at my request, back on the forum, posting to him only when he's made a comment that I found particularly distasteful or when commenting on a specific statement he made about the topic of that thread. I've stayed on topic and tried to be civil. But I wouldn't have asked you to reinstate SKYDRIFTER if I'd known the result would be non-stop behavior like this. And that's not all. He's also posting this garbage on FU where I'm not even allowed to defend my self or my views. I've had it. Now is this or is this not going to be a forum for civil debate of issues with facts and opinions? He says I started this. Not ever and certainly not this time. When I've have called him a liar in the past, in every case I've always been able to offer sourced proof to back up my charge. He never does. Asking people whether they really care about American troops when they show no concern that CBS posted photos sure to incite more violence against Americans is not being uncivil. It is getting at the core of the issue and consistency of the opposition. But engaging in the sort of childish behavior SKYDRIFTER is now doing, is uncivil and very disruptive. So do you want civil debate on this forum or not? BeAChooser posted on 2004-05-05 18:35:14 ET Reply Trace **************** But Neil didn't do anything and SKYDRIFTER continued his disruptive tactics. And again I appealed to Neil and Goldi. **************** http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=47857&Disp=All&#C359 You'll note starting in post 90 that SKYDRIFTER joins the thread and begins to provoke me. Pay particular attention to my posts #311, #316, #334, #336 and #338. Especially the last two because they show the extent of his rude and uncivil behavior. In fact, why don't I just repost #336 and #338 to remind you what was going on at that time. ************** 336. To: Neil McIver, Goldi-lox, Mark_Felton, Diana, SKYDRIFTER, all (#335) Neil, ... knowing that your time is precious, I thought I might help you out by showing you the sort of verbal assault I've been subjected to by SKYDRIFTER here and at FU since you let him back on the forum. You tell me that this doesn't qualify as harassment ... something you've booted people from this forum for doing previously ... or at least warned them not to do. These are all phrases directed at me that were extracted from SKYDRIFTER's recent flurry of posts. And, by the way, only in a fraction of the cases was I pinged. .............. "limp-wristed" "whining" "Maybe he's in the closet, come to think of it." That implies something rather uncivil, wouldn't you say, Neil? "Mossad asset" "Maybe his own have been given the word to cull him from their litter" "insane" "He's one slimey piece of ####" Neil, to spare your sensitivities, I masked the foul word he used. "He came up with some stuff in sealed records (client-attorney information)" That's not just nonsense, but an outright LIE, Neil. Ask him to prove it. "Next-Generation Nazi" "So, I took on the added task of using BAC as an example of the resurrected Nazism." Doesn't that indicate a plan to stalk me, Neil? "not an original American" "In essence, I spent the day calling him everything short of "#####." He boasts at FU of being able to say virtually anything he likes, right under your nose, Neil. "slime' "You regularly wet yourself behind Goldi's skirts" He sure doesn't seem to hold the co-owner of this forum in much regard, Neil. "Slimey SOB" "disinformationist" "institutionalized disinformationist" "woman- hating" "BAC obviously approves of these War Crimes" "You don't command the respect of a "ping." "Or, in your usual disinformationist logic distortion, typical of the argument that child molestation can be re-classified as child "love," Is this sort of analogy ok with you, Neil? I just need to know for future purposes. "Do you even believe in God, for example? Christianity, per chance?" How would you like your faith questioned, Neil, when that isn't even remotely the topic of the thread? "Slither on up to the microphone" "persistent fool" "You and your slime!" "That's BAC's job, to rationalize why the Next-Generation Nazism is okay. Maybe for slime such as himself" "BAC can't cite any kind of honorable position (stand)" "His rationalization of the mercs, is additional testimony as to his sleaziness." Not sure I've even said something about mercs, Neil. "Mercs are the extreme male version of the street whore; BAC seems to think they are okay people." Really, Neil, is this sort of debating tactic ok with you? Be honest. "BAC's got this courage problem" "It's time for BAC to fight like a man - or quit." "The torture is just icing on the Next-Generation Nazi cake. BAC does love it, though." What was that you told Badeye before you kicked him off, Neil? Something about misrepresenting others opinions? Right?" "A 'good' person would evade the prison torture issue & focus on that 'bad' media coverage." "I can't quite make up my mind whether his handlers are CIA or Mossad." And yours, Neil, are the ADL or *whoever* got to Jim Robinson. At least that's what SKYDRIFTER said. "A long time ago, BAC very quickly posted some information which could only have come from a government computer - evidenced by the correct formatting of the material." Another outright lie, Neil. Ask SKYDRIFTER to prove this. Bet he can't. ""It's not murder - it was 'euthanasia." ( Is that your style? )" "Gestapo, Inc., are you proud of that?" "The records don't go back that far" Neil, here he is trying to spin his way out of another lie, but do the *records* really not go back to his first interchange with me? "Go ahead, BAC show your steamy brown colors!" "Let's see if BAC has such a fine sense of manhood & decency as to open up a can of "Goldi Goldi! Woop- ass" on you." "There you go with your lying bullsh*t again." And you call this a *family* forum, Neil? "You're a shameless liar!" Cite a lie I've made, Neil? Go ahead. You too, Goldi. Now look me in the eye and tell me you don't think SKYDRIFTER has lied on this forum. Ask ANYONE on this forum to look *you* in the eye and claim that. "Are your socks gettin a bit damp & yellow? No skirt for you to hold onto?" "You're less than sincere - PHONY!" "You're only worried - obviously - about the American Gestapo Prison System being exposed." etc. etc. etc. ************ That's only a FRACTION of what's he's posted since returning. He's repeatedly distorted my stated positions. Isn't that a bootable offense? And he's distorted and lied repeatedly about historical events. Isn't it wonderful knowing your forum is being used to spread misinformation? That's just what we need in these troubled times. Right, Neil? And what have I called SKYDRIFTER in return during this period, Neil? Why don't you make a list and we'll compare them. Ok? Let's see how fair you are in your characterization of whose to blame. Fair enough? And even before April, what "names" have I really called him EVER, Neil? Liar? Yes. But never not without proving it with sources and his own statements. Anti-American. Yes. IN CONTEXT. There are people whose combined works mark them as such. Fool? Yes. After *you* suggested that would be more appropriate. But have I EVER engaged in the sort of attacks listed above. NO. Have I ever used foul language? NO. And while I'm at it, let me remind you that the first thing that SKYDRIFTER posted on being let back on your forum was "Thank you Neil; I'll try to control my temper." Do you think he has succeeded, Neil? Or was he just lying to you too, while talking about *your* handlers and the source of the money supporting *your* forum behind your back? And do you think he meant this "To BAC, thanks for your support; it is sincerely appreciated" when he said it that day? And here's one more challenge to you Neil. Identify what caused SKYDRIFTER to begin this assault. As far as I can tell, it began here: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=47916&Disp=61#C61 . Do you think my response in post #65, that the CBS bears some responsibility for harming our troops unnecessarily, merited this sort of rampage? YES OR NO? Because your answer will tell us a lot about whether you and Goldi are really serious about this being a place for honest debate of current events and political issues in a civil manner. Or was the reason SKYDRIFTER lost his temper this post http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=47857&Disp=90#C90 ? Is his *real* anger, not about my position on the issues, but the fact that I asked you to reign in bluedot30 for making a comment that was WAY overboard (but not that far from some SKYDRIFTER himself has made in the past)? Did I really deserve this assault for asking you to do *something* about bluedot30 (and mind you, bluedot's statement to me wasn't the only reason you dumped him). Why don't you ask SKYDRIFTER why this started when it did. It certainly wasn't any name I called him after he returned. Because I hadn't called him a name. And in case you haven't noticed. SKYDRIFTER has already turned his attention on others. Using the same tactics. Mark_Felton, for instance. Is that ok with you too? This isn't going away until it is resolved, Neil. The questions I'm asking are valid and deserve an answer. BeAChooser posted on 2004-05-07 13:38:13 ET Reply Trace -------------------- 338. To: Neil McIver, Goldi-lox, SKYDRIFTER (#337) Neil let me add these to the list "You're the master of disinformation and deceit." "You're the one who originated the "disinformation wolfpack." "You're now famous for your whining" "Check FU if you want to see where all that's gotten you." That's right, Neil, the place where I get talked about regularly without being able to post. But I'm not the only one whose considered a joke over there, Neil. YOu and Goldi get your fair share of barbs too. Did SKYDRIFTER mention that? "your attack style - or deceit style" "You're the censor-monster" "You never contribute" Now Neil, you and I both know that isn't true, don't we? "you're famous for your negativity - unless cheering the clearly Nazi operations is somehow positive in your obviously distorted mindset" And that's from just one post. When is this going to end, Neil? Have you been reading the other thread and the saga of the three "holes"? And what about my observations on that thread concerning your stance on Badeye? You going to respond? BeAChooser posted on 2004-05-07 16:39:37 ET Reply Trace ***************** And because of the provoking SKYDRIFTER was doing and my response (above) to it, Goldi decided to limit our posts to 5/day for a while (see post #363). And you'll note that in the end I did NOT use the bozo filter (I refused to) but I got my full posting rights back. And in the end, SKYDRIFTER couldn't help himself and got kicked off LibertyPost permanently. But Ferret Mike and SKYDRIFTER weren't going to mention that. Now I'm perfectly willing to let sleeping dogs lie and not bring this subject up again. But that really depends on Ferret Mike and SKYDRIFTER, not me. And perhaps you, since you always seemed to be in the thick of things in these threads.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#133. To: BeAChooser (#132)
Heehee, ferret is my longtime and openly FReeper handle. I was a poster in good standing at FR for three years as ferret. Infact, I made some posts today as ferret on FreedomUnderground. As for the link crap, do your own work. Stop whining, it's lame. It's easy to use the search feature. You only reveal how much of a fussbudget you are.
"(btw, I suspect Ferret Mike was posting as ferret on that thread):"
#134. To: BeAChooser (#127)
I'm very sure that the reluctance of certified structural engineers coming forward with their doubts has NOTHING to do with the fact that it takes many years of hard work to earn their degrees and achieve any sort of recognition in their fields, and that it could all be taken away in a moment by a phone call from some administration official threatening their employer with all kinds of government provoked hassles, red tape and investigations. Hell, just a threat to sic the IRS on any given company is enough to scare most CEO's into submission. I'm sure their silence has nothing to do with the certain knowledge that their careers would be utterly destroyed in a moment should they be so foolish as to use their credentials to shoot down the official government story. You claim that the silence of engineers proves your claims. I think it only proves what a horrible and vile police state we've become.
If you did that, perhaps next year I'd be saying: "If that's true, why doesn't a single demolition expert of structural engineer anywhere in the world support your cause?"
 | Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#135. To: (#129) (Edited)
bac will not answer your question Diana. which is why ferret mike and I think he should be gone. He isn't here for debate, merely to spam the forum with paste jobs. He has admitted he is doing so on other forums and has slammed 4UM as KOOKS. He doesn;t want to be here for any reason other than to disrupt.
So, I would still like to know what your reaction would be if it were found out that it did not occur like you claim it did.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
#136. To: Elliott Jackalope, ALL (#134)
By that logic, the forensic pathologists who spent even more years of hard work than structural engineers earning their degrees and licenses in the Ron Brown case should not have come forward to blow the whistle. Yet ALL of them (except the boss at AFIP) eventually did. Despite the threatening gestures from the Administration which included gag orders, threats of prosecution, loss of privileges such as attending conferences, searches of their offices and homes, confiscation of materials, and loss of their jobs. And that was in a case involving the Clinton administration which actually did have a record of using the IRS against their enemies. They had the certain knowledge that their careers would be utterly destroyed (and in some cases they were), yet they still came forward. So explain what makes forensic pathologists and a military photographer so different from engineers and scientists? Sorry, but the assertion that fear is what is keeping thousands and thousands of professionals in disciplines like structural engineering, materials science, fire engineering, seismology, and physics quiet is simply silly. Especially when many of those professionals live and work in countries whose governments are openly hostile to the Bush administration. Now here is what characterizes YOUR side's whistleblowers (like Griffin): I'm very sure that the reluctance of certified structural engineers coming forward with their doubts has NOTHING to do with the fact that it takes many years of hard work to earn their degrees and achieve any sort of recognition in their fields, and that it could all be taken away in a moment by a phone call from some administration official threatening their employer with all kinds of government provoked hassles, red tape and investigations. Hell, just a threat to sic the IRS on any given company is enough to scare most CEO's into submission. I'm sure their silence has nothing to do with the certain knowledge that their careers would be utterly destroyed in a moment should they be so foolish as to use their credentials to shoot down the official government story.
You claim that the silence of engineers proves your claims. I think it only proves what a horrible and vile police state we've become.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#137. To: Diana, Ferret Mike, SKYDRIFTER, IndieTX, critter, christine, ALL (#129)
There are good questions to ask about 9/11. But you won't get answers to those questions as long as your side insists on making issues of steel beams, thermite, rates of collapse, melting points and sizes of holes. You are the ones doing that. Not me. And doing that, when your side is obviously wrong about those things, only discredits the good questions that might be asked. It has to do with credibility. If your side is claiming evidence shows that someone(s) within the government allowed the hijackers to successfully attack the US and at the same time claiming things that are counter to verifible facts (such as collapse rates of structures which were filmed collapsing) and counter to what ALL the professional in a multitude of technical disciplines seem to think about the physics of those collapses, then I have good reason to doubt the credibility of your assertions about the government and hijackers. If someone your side calls an expert makes claims that turn out to be verifiably false and its something that person should have known as an expert, and when told this you ignore the criticism and continue to insist he's an expert and what he said is true, then I have reason to doubt not only your judgment but any other people you bring forth as experts on any subject. It has to do with credibility, Diana, and this insistence on promoting theories that run counter to a mountain of well established and verifiable facts, and the opinions of the entire technical community that might reasonably be considered experts in the areas under discussion, only hurts the willingness of people like me to listen to anything else you have to say. Especially when the response to my posting facts counter to their theories is to be subjected to a variety of nasty adhominim attacks on my honesty, my sincerity, my character, my motives, my sexuality, my intelligence, my education, my compassion ... not to mention calling for my banning in order to silence me. That doesn't do much to convince me that your theories about government involvement in 9/11 have any merit. But we wouldn't be discussing the notion of bombs in towers and no Flight 77 if YOUR side didn't keep raising it. And what is discrediting your side are those nit-picky details which prove the leaders of your *truth* movement are lying to you. Some of the worst mass murderers in history have been very sincere. And they "honestly" believed in what they said and were doing. Honesty and sincerity go a lot further when backed up by truth. It's the truth component I'm trying to add to the mix here at LP. But apparently few are interested. Then why won't they face the truth about collapse times, the size of the Pentagon hole, sagging floors, and that chunk of WTC debris? Just to start with ... Why should I answer your question when you won't answer mine? I've already proven that some of the claims made by leaders of this truth movement and some posters here at 4um are false. Yet that doesn't appear to have altered yours views or your behavior. Why is that, Diana? And the answer to your question is that I'd be just as persistent and vocal as I have been about other issues where I decided the government was acting improperly. The Ron Brown case is a good example. I did more than just speak out on internet forums. I wrote letters and spoke to various people in the news media including folks like Larry Elder. You are undoubtedly aware that even today I continue to remind folks of that topic and my insistence that the Bush administration is complicit in helping cover up what was likely a crime (as well as a number of other crimes committed during the Clinton years). Vocalizing that belief is what ultimately got me kicked off Free Republic. The irony, now, is that certain members of Freedom4um have tried to use my fact based beliefs about the Ron Brown case as a means of discrediting me here. They ridiculed the notion and even called me a kook for my assertions on the subject. A further irony is that only SKYDRIFTER stepped forward at 4um to support my views when that happened. And note that none of those doing the ridiculing actually wanted to debate the facts of the matter. They ran from that. In any case, I think I have a track record that shows what might happen were I to be convinced of government complicity in 9/11. But so far, you haven't demonstrated that nor have you demonstrated you can face the truth about the physics of what destroyed the towers and the Pentagon. Do the later, and you'll stand a better chance of the former. They aren't honestly dealing with the facts. They are trying to get me banned to avoid facing the facts that I've so carefully sourced. Do you notice that no one has tried to counter the video I posted yesterday that indicates the WTC 7 collapse took more than 13 seconds rather than the 6.5 seconds everyone has been claiming? Why do you think that is? I'm not saying you are unworthy of an answer. I'm asking for equal treatment. I want to be treated with civility rather than insulted in the manner I have been. I want to have MY questions answered rather than just ignored. Do you think that's possible around here?
This whole 9/11 argument has morphed, maybe purposely, into steel beams, thermite, rates of collapes, melting points, sizes of holes and other technical side issues when the real topic should be why/how/who/what was all involved in the planning and what the real purpose of it all was.
However I see little now on this topic, all people seem to want to address is at what rate the buildings collapsed
But my main point is that people have slowly but surely been led away from the topic of trying to find out exactly who was responsible, instead focusing on nit-picky details which really don't give pertinent information.
As far as "you folks" honestly dealing with facts, those posters who don't agree with you are being honest and sincere I might add.
They are trying to dig for the truth to determine what happened, at least from a technical standpoint.
So, I would still like to know what your reaction would be if it were found out that it did not occur like you claim it did.
You are basically calling the posters on this forum liars, you are accusing them of not wanting to deal honestly with facts, when they have spent lots of time and effort researching facts.
You are in effect saying I'm not worthy of an answer from you, that's the whole basic problem with you. That is how you treat posters here, and people don't like to be insulted.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#138. To: BeAChooser (#137)
your side your side your side You have turned this into such an us against them thing. We do not all think exactly the same.
those questions as long as your side
#139. To: Diana, BeAChooser, BeARecycler (#138)
heh heh, Notice this part of his post? He he either senile, or recycling verbiage from LP posts. He needs to make up his mind whether he is on 4Um or LP.
"Some of the worst mass murderers in history have been very sincere. And they "honestly" believed in what they said and were doing. Honesty and sincerity go a lot further when backed up by truth. It's the truth component I'm trying to add to the mix here at LP. But apparently few are interested."
#140. To: BeAChooser (#137)
But so far, you haven't demonstrated that nor have you demonstrated you can face the truth about the physics of what destroyed the towers and the Pentagon. Do the later, and you'll stand a better chance of the former. I don't feel I have a good enough background in physics to be able to make any real decisions on the rate of collapse, I don't think I've commented much if at all on that aspect. I have an open mind, a lot of the technical stuff goes over my head, yet it's my belief people are focusing too much on those details instead of looking into who was behind it all. We all know the basic facts, but there is no proof of how the whole thing was orchestrated and put together, or by whom. I would like to know very much who was really responsible, but at the present time I don't know. All I do know is that I highly doubt it was done the way the govt said it was because their story is just too fantastic and implausible with too many "facts" having come out almost immediately. I know the insults and attacks are bad, but posters tend to lose their tempers because of you, like SKYDRIFTER.
Especially when the response to my posting facts counter to their theories is to be subjected to a variety of nasty adhominim attacks on my honesty, my sincerity, my character, my motives, my sexuality, my intelligence, my education, my compassion ... not to mention calling for my banning in order to silence me. That doesn't do much to convince me that your theories about government involvement in 9/11 have any merit.
#141. To: Diana, Ferret Mike, all (#140)
You have eyes, don't you? You have a watch? Then you can look at that WTC7 video and time it. It doesn't take a background in physics to see that the collapse started long before the point that the CT advocates have been showing as the beginning of the collapse in their videos. And if you have eyes you can also watch videos that show the WTC towers took 15 seconds to collapse rather than the 9 or 11 seconds that some here still insist. And if you eyes and have a just a little worldly experience, you can look at photos of Pentagon and easily see that the hole in the outer wall was much larger than the 16 to 20 feet claimed by certain truth movement leaders and some here at the 4um. And notice that Ferret Mike would rather focus on my inadvertently saying LP than addressing any of these facts. That should tell you something Diana even if you don't have a physics/engineering background. Now I don't intend to respond further on this subject today. My limited number of posts makes them too precious to waste going around in circles on this. I've said my piece and believe that any rational reader will see my point.
I don't feel I have a good enough background in physics to be able to make any real decisions on the rate of collapse,
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#142. To: BeAChooser (#141)
We have eyes and ears, which is why we know there is so much evidence torpedoing the official story of 9 11. I do not buy you version of the collapse times, and I do not find your strange version of the Pentagon explosion which relies on denial of the facts that the evidence of what happened there has largely been kept from us and that the pictures of the missile impact do not reflect what you claim that they do. As far as your "inadvertently saying LP," just respond saying that's what happened and that suffices. Why are you so defensive? Knowing you have been scanning old LP posts and knowing your propensity to cut and past, it is unreasonable not to be suspicious you cut and pasted old LP verbiage here to make new posts. However, if you say you didn't, I have to accept in good faith this assertation on face value. But this is not so concerning your selective shell game concerning evidence to prove something you obviously have a vested interest in proving. You do not respond to much of inquiry or comments to you and you are hard to talk to in general. You ignore the areas of withheld and destroyed evidence, and your Ron Brown conspiracy theory acceptance and 9 11 conspiracy evidence denial serve a consistent political agenda that creates natural suspision of your motives. I came into the topic a couple of years ago convinced 9 11 was not an inside job and studied the evidence to help argue the case the Truth Movement was wrong. However, even with a critical and suspicious eye and ear to it, I realized with a sinking heart that they were very much on the money. The existing evidence shows the official story is a lie. The destruction and withholding of evidence does too. The coverup and sweep things under the rug tone and nature of the official report of the 9-11 Commission makes their findings not credible. You are a biased and deceptive operator with a hidden agenda at work. You can rehash verbiage and pictures trying to re-invent what is there all you want, but your words do not match what you show and the words you write and cut and paste. You can be clever and coy, but people are smarter then you think. And until you converse with people instead of haughtily preaching at them in a manner indicative you look down on them, you will get nowhere in here.
#143. To: Diana (#140)
There is no proof of who did it, but there sure the heck is a lot of incriminating evidence of who did it. Dancing Mossad agents, NORAD stand down, Bush sitting in a classroom for a good 7 to 17 minutes AFTER hearing about the second plane hitting he towers and that the nation was now under attack. He was way too comfortable sitting there. The secret service failed to do their jobs properly by removing him from a public building that was announced days in advance that he would be there. This is not normal procedure at all. Anyone that thinks Bush didn't have foreknowledge of this attack is crazy. He knew about it, but I doubt he had much to do with it, he was just the "lucky" president that got to see it implemented. This was an attacked helped, and more than likely carried out by top leaders in our military and Pentagon. BTW, it is very important to keep emphasizing the speed at which the towers fell and their symterical collapse despite having asymmetrical damage. This is the smoking gun that will eventually bury them, that's one of the reasons Chooser would rather talk about less sure evidence. WTC7 is the smoking gun that should convince even sheeple that our government was in on it. If it doesn't wake people up nothing will, so yes, that's why chooser desperately wants to change the subject. He might lose his job soon.
We all know the basic facts, but there is no proof of how the whole thing was orchestrated and put together, or by whom.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#144. To: BeAChooser (#141)
It's obvious your job is on the line. I see your fellow employees getting desperate at other sites. Something is about to hit the fan, that's for sure.
Now I don't intend to respond further on this subject today. My limited number of posts makes them too precious to waste going around in circles on this. I've said my piece and believe that any rational reader will see my point.
God is always good!
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#145. To: RickyJ (#143)
Funny you should say that. The night of 9/11 when Bush addressed congress, Bill and Hill were both present. Bill, the marvelous actor that he is was pretty much himself, but Hillary... did she put on a side show of rolling eyes and sighs. I could not help but think I was looking at a woman who was thinking, "This was supposed to happen on our watch! Now this asshole is going to get all the glory!" Slick was too slick to let his feelings show, but not Hillary. Not only did Bush know it was coming but Slick knew it was coming and it was probably supposed to happen on Bill's watch. Remember a peculiar occurrence sometime around April in Bill's last year? Bill signed an exec order which would transfer FEMA emergency powers from the Secretary of State to the attorney general and the transfer was supposed to happen in October. It led a lot of us to believe that something was coming in October, because it made no sense to anyone with a brain. Why do that in your last year, sign the order like that, in April and have it carried out in October, unless you wanted the butcher of Waco to preside of something really nasty? He had to know that the next prez would want his own Atty General in there, 4 months later, no? There was a freeper who I highly respected, Harpseal. He was a career navy guy and he told me confidetially, a few times, that a source of his told him something big was coming that October. Harpseal is gone now, God rest his soul, but I sure would like to know if he knew any more. I never did get a chance to ask him.
he was just the "lucky" president that got to see it implemented.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#146. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#142)
My version? Just watch the video of the WTC7 collapse, Ferret. You will see that members of the CT community who have posted videos of the collapse forgot to mention that the penthouse began to collapse about 8 seconds before their videos even start. Yes, over at LP you started out by posting this: ************** 394. To: malador (#393) I believe the rivets heated up to the point of being white hot. I believe the structural stress was sufficient to remove rivet from hole in enough places to bring down these buildings. I read about the architecture of these buildings from the get go when I was a boy watching them rise into the sky in nearby New York. I have also read how when you remove the connectivity of steel between the inner and outer structures - which most of the structural strength of the building was - you had a domino effect as some floors pancaking on others created the force and weight needed to destroy not so heat effected parts of the building. There were many strange things about that day, but no, I do not for a minute believe the government deliberately destroyed the WTC. ferret posted on 2005-01-08 16:06:02 ET ************* Then you didn't post on any LP thread related to collapse of the towers or the damage of the pentagon until post this, likely a link (no longer working) to an article advocating it was a controlled demolition: ************* 4. To: honway (#0) http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/060705controlleddemolition.htm ferret posted on 2005-07-06 12:20:32 ET Reply Trace ************* Your next post on the subject was this: *********** 16. To: honway (#0) Great video, thanks for the link to it. I believe Seven World Trade Center was pulled, and I believe Silverstein got caught telling the truth more literally then the official line had meant him to when he said they decided to pull this building. As for the twin towers, too many questions need to be answered before I'll buy the 'pancake theory' of the official story concerning the collapse. I was near Mount Saint Helens when it erupted planting trees. I saw the lightning in the air from the static electricity of the material in the pyroclastic flows and from the huge plume of material as the uncapped explosive power of this eruption occurred. We could feel the air temperature suddenly changing and the small clouds melt from Mt. Saint Helens. It takes an incredible amount of energy to create pyroclastic flows. The analogy between volcanic pyroclastic flows and those from these building connected the dots for me and I do believe that they must have been created by more then just the collapse of the buildings. ferret posted on 2006-04-12 22:38:27 ET ************** That's quite a transformation with nothing to connect the dots. So what changed your mind between those dates? It certainly wasn't participatory debate on the subject. Was it just your dislike of Bush and company? Was it just your dislike of the war? Or just your dislike of posters like me? Was it peer pressure to conform with the rest of the Kerry voting community? And is this the way you reach all your conclusions?
I do not buy you version of the collapse times,
I came into the topic a couple of years ago convinced 9 11 was not an inside job and studied the evidence to help argue the case the Truth Movement was wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#147. To: BeAChooser (#104)
Your contorted defenses of the WOT, and the Bush policies in general, show you have no intellectual honesty and are therefore not deserving of any special consideration or respect. When you say things - over and over - like Saddam moved his WMD's to Syria, when Rumsfeld himself said "We know" they were in Tikrit which is in Iraq, or that a degraded chemical warhead qualifies as a WMD, or that there were hundreds of thousands of "missing death certificates" when there was never any such thing, you reveal yourself as someone who cannot accept any truth that contradicts your preconceived versions of events. So don't try to pass yourself off as someone who is fighting a lonely battle for truth. You're a liar, who both makes up your own lies and repeats the lies of others, and not even a very good one.
#148. To: AGAviator, ALL (#147)
So you want to join this conversation? Does insisting that WTC 7 only took 6.5 seconds to collapse, when I just linked a video proving that the collapse began more than 7 seconds BEFORE the CT community has been saying it began, show intellectual honesty? Does insisting that WTC 7 collapsed straight down, when photographic proof exists that it didn't, show intellectual honesty? Does insisting that the WTC towers collapsed in 9-11 seconds, when there are videos that prove the collapse took 15 seconds, indicate intellectual honesty? Does insisting that the hole in the Pentagon was only 16 to 20 feet wide and therefore a 757 couldn't possibly have crashed into the building show intellectual honesty when in fact photos clearly show the hole was much, much larger? Is intellectual honesty claiming a chunk of debris came from a pool of molten steel show intellectual honesty when intact rebar, steel members, pipes and concrete are obvious components of that chuck? Does claiming a stream of molten material was reddish-orange but switching to claim it was yellow-white after one learns that color would indicate molten steel show intellectual honesty? Does quote mining show intellectual honesty? Does ignoring the illogic of a conspiracy of thousands show intellectual honesty? First of all, if you check back you will find that I said the ISG said they had a credible expert who told them WMD material were moved to Syria. That certainly leaves open the possibility of WMD being moved to Syria. Especially when the ISG also said that the Iraqis went to extraordinary lengths to sanitize computers, files and facilities that they thought related to WMD before, during and even after the invasion. They were hiding *something* related to WMD. And if you can't tell the difference between Rumsfeld making claims on the basis of intel (which is always incomplete and half a guess) and a *truth* movement member claiming something when photographic evidence that contradicts what is claimed is staring that *truth* movement member in the face, you again show you don't know the meaning of intellectual dishonesty. Intellectual dishonesty is claiming the shell was degraded when the ISG said it contained 40 percent potent sarin. Intellectual dishonesty is ignoring the fact that Saddam's government told the UN inspectors they had destroyed all such shells. Intellectual dishonesty is ignoring the fact that it doesn't matter whether the shell would work on a battlefield since it was fear that the CONTENTS of shells like it might end up in the hands of terrorists that was a large part of the justification of the invasion. Experts have stated that the amount of 40 percent sarin in that one shell could kill thousands if properly dispersed by terrorists. Intellectual dishonesty is ignoring that fact. Intellectual dishonesty is ignoring the fact that al-Zarqawi (a terrorist) was actively plotting a WMD attack while he was in BAGHDAD before Iraq was ever invaded. And Saddam was basically ignoring his group of terrorists as proven by the fact that when one of them was picked up by his security apparatus he was released on orders from Saddam. Intellectual dishonesty is blindly accepting a multiply flawed study written by researchers who openly admitted their bias against the war and Bush, who hired people in Iraq to do the leg work who they admit "hated" Americans, who don't seem to know exactly how their own study was conducted when queried about it and who published their report in a journal that rushed the peer review process admitting that it too wanted to affect the outcome of Bush's reelection. And I'll let IraqBodyWatch, an organization that is definitely not pro-war or in the Bush camp, respond to your claim that there are no missing death certificates: **************** From http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php A new study has been released by the Lancet medical journal estimating over 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq. The Iraqi mortality estimates published in the Lancet in October 2006 imply, among other things, that: 1. On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms; 2. Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment; 3. Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq; 4. Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued; 5. The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja. And this: If these assertions are true, they further imply: * incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation began; * bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis; * the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas; * an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international, to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month for over a year. In the light of such extreme and improbable implications, a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data. In addition, totals of the magnitude generated by this study are unnecessary to brand the invasion and occupation of Iraq a human and strategic tragedy. ************ http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/0.php http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/1.php http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/2.php http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/3.php http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/4.php http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/5.php http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/6.php ************ And Intellectual dishonesty is simply ignoring in debate the more than dozen other serious flaws in the John Hopkins studies that were pointed out. The fact of the matter is that there is NO physical evidence whatsoever to support the claim that 655,000 Iraqis died from the beginning of the war to mid 2006. There are no killing fields filled with bodies or mass graves. There are no photos of these mountains of bodies. There are no videos of this slaughter or the funerals afterwords. There are no reporters, of ANY nationality, saying they saw these bodies or the slaughter. There are no US or foreign soldiers providing evidence of such a slaughter. There is NO physical evidence. And how can that be in a country which has according to the researchers seen 2.5 percent of its population killed (a percentage greater than the percentage of Germany's and Japan's population killed in World War 2 where there was plenty of physical evidence that such a slaughter had occurred).
Your contorted defenses of the WOT, and the Bush policies in general, show you have no intellectual honesty
When you say things - over and over - like Saddam moved his WMD's to Syria, when Rumsfeld himself said "We know" they were in Tikrit which is in Iraq,
or that a degraded chemical warhead qualifies as a WMD,
or that there were hundreds of thousands of "missing death certificates" when there was never any such thing,
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#149. To: BeAChooser (#148)
How is the Log Cabin Convention so far? Are you going to stay until the 6th?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#150. To: BeAChooser (#148)
Intellectual dishonesty is ignoring the fact that Saddam's government told the UN inspectors they had destroyed all such shells. Intellectual dishonesty is ignoring the fact that it doesn't matter whether the shell would work on a battlefield since it was fear that the CONTENTS of shells like it might end up in the hands of terrorists that was a large part of the justification of the invasion. Intellectual dishonesty is blindly accepting a multiply flawed study written by researchers who openly admitted their bias against the war and Bush, who hired people in Iraq to do the leg work who they admit "hated" Americans, who don't seem to know exactly how their own study was conducted when queried about it and who published their report in a journal that rushed the peer review process admitting that it too wanted to affect the outcome of Bush's reelection. I guess if you really are one of those disinfo guys you'd never admit to it. The above part reminded me of Jesse Jackson when he goes on a rampage.
Intellectual dishonesty is claiming the shell was degraded when the ISG said it contained 40 percent potent sarin.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest