911 Truth Movement

[AngryAnt]

:rofl

Hilarious I know, but I'm still waiting for any evidence at all on the thermite/controlled demolition theories. Is the Jones paper really all you have on that?

Yet there are inconsistent and seemingly forged confessions predating the 2004 one. Why? The Bush's, Cheney's, Rumsfeld's and Bin Laden's were friends right?

If they were and the Bin Ladens were "in on it", that further supports Bin Laden's involvement. You don't appear to be thinking straight.

Then there's the peculiar reports of funding from Pakistan. Where's your definitive proof?

http://www.911myths.com/html/pakistan_s_isi_link_to_9_11_fu.html

Dude, you've linked to a 9/11 debunking site by mistake.

 

[Disco08]

Hilarious I know, but I'm still waiting for any evidence at all on the thermite/controlled demolition theories. Is the Jones paper really all you have on that?

If they were and the Bin Ladens were "in on it", that further supports Bin Laden's involvement. You don't appear to be thinking straight.

Dude, you've linked to a 9/11 debunking site by mistake.

No. That was on purpose ant.

OBL would hardly have been the mastermind if all those people were in cahoots, would he?

What's hilarious is you asserting that the 9/11 commission not investigating something is proof that that something doesn't exist or didn't happen. LMFAO ant.

Thermite has been used in controlled demolitions for decades (even if you say otherwise). Telltale signs of it (molten metal, bevelled cuts) were evident at ground zero. WTC7 falls exactly as a controlled demolition would have. Lots of eyewitness reports exist of explosions within all 3 buildings. Surely that's enough to properly investigate the possible use of thermite or other explosives.

 

[AngryAnt]

No. That was on purpose ant.

OBL would hardly have been the mastermind if all those people were in cahoots, would he?

What's hilarious is you asserting that the 9/11 commission not investigating something is proof that that something doesn't exist or didn't happen. LMFAO ant.

Not at all my good Disco - what I am saying is that there is no physical evidence and the cause of the destruction of the buildings is clear. As you say, Truthers are fixated on what the inquiry did or didn't do/say, rather than what actually occurred and what physical evidence actually exists. As I've said, I haven't even read the NIST report - I base my position on what physical evidence was found and what chain of events was observed. The NIST inquiry may have had flaws, but this isn't one of them. Why investigate something for which no physical evidence exists? (of course, you think that paint chips/rust proofing/sulphates is evidence of thermite - as maintained by Jones in a paper that was flawed methodologically, from which he eventually backtracked, in between researching Jesus visiting the Mayans. ROFL.

As for Bin Laden not being the mastermind because other people where in cahoots - well duh. Al Qaeda gets funding from many murky sources - wouldn't surprise me if some came from ISI, some from rich Islamicist Saudi princes, and a range of other illegal fronts and sources. Now you and I could waffle on and argue about how much OBL was a figurehead vs a CEO - but it's all by-the-by really. What I'm reasonably certain of is that good ol' George Dubya and his mates had nothing to do with the genesis, planning, management and operation of.

It's the typical Truther strawman - OBL wasn't solely responsible because other people were involved besides him (what a shock) therefore it was Bush, Jim Jones, and a strange cabal of Russian generals, folks stealing Marcos' gold, the CIA, the Nugan Hand bank and Uncle Tom Cobbelly and all. LMAO

Thermite has been used in controlled demolitions for decades (even if you say otherwise). Telltale signs of it (molten metal, bevelled cuts) were evident at ground zero. WTC7 falls exactly as a controlled demolition would have. Lots of eyewitness reports exist of explosions within all 3 buildings. Surely that's enough to properly investigate the possible use of thermite or other explosives.

All these claims have been comprehensively debunked. I know that they are accepted wisdom for Truthers, but they have all been trashed.

But lets look at one of your points. Eyewitnesses report "explosions" in all buildings. OK - but we know that certainly WTC 1 and 2 were not "demolished" in a controlled way. You concede this right? They look nothing like a controlled demolition. Right Disco? I've already pointed out how implausible a demolition of WTC1 and 2 are - how could you time charges/thermite to blow or cut girders precisely below collapsing floors that were already collapsing due to tonnes of rubble falling on them anyway? Am I right? LMAO

Of course, we have the seismographic evidence that no demolition explosions occurred on 9/11 either. Of course, Truthers would just say this evidence has been faked or hidden. I'm sure you've got some internet "expert" somewhere who has an explanation for this though. ROFL

Anyways I'll get around to debunking the WTC7 demolition/free fall BS later, CBF right now.

kthnxbi

 

[Disco08]

Not at all my good Disco - what I am saying is that there is no physical evidence and the cause of the destruction of the buildings is clear. As you say, Truthers are fixated on what the inquiry did or didn't do/say, rather than what actually occurred and what physical evidence actually exists. As I've said, I haven't even read the NIST report - I base my position on what physical evidence was found and what chain of events was observed. The NIST inquiry may have had flaws, but this isn't one of them. Why investigate something for which no physical evidence exists? (of course, you think that paint chips/rust proofing/sulphates is evidence of thermite - as maintained by Jones in a paper that was flawed methodologically, from which he eventually backtracked, in between researching Jesus visiting the Mayans. ROFL.

If you haven't read the NIST reports how do you know what its flaws are or are not?

Molten metal didn't exist in the rubble? How was it explained?

Paint chips/rust proofing/sulphates don't match thermite. Their components do but that doesn't explain the way the components were fused together exactly as thermite is in its unignited state.

What physical evidence to you base your position on? Aside from the obvious what chain of events is so convinvcing to you?

As for Bin Laden not being the mastermind because other people where in cahoots - well duh. Al Qaeda gets funding from many murky sources - wouldn't surprise me if some came from ISI, some from rich Islamicist Saudi princes, and a range of other illegal fronts and sources. Now you and I could waffle on and argue about how much OBL was a figurehead vs a CEO - but it's all by-the-by really. What I'm reasonably certain of is that good ol' George Dubya and his mates had nothing to do with the genesis, planning, management and operation of.

Yet OBL's family - great mates and partners with all these Vulcans are most definitely innocent even though the vulcans not only had plenty of motive and opportunity - they had openly stated an event the magnitude of 9/11 was just what they needed to achieve their goals. How much murkier do you want?

It's the typical Truther strawman - OBL wasn't solely responsible because other people were involved besides him (what a shock) therefore it was Bush, Jim Jones, and a strange cabal of Russian generals, folks stealing Marcos' gold, the CIA, the Nugan Hand bank and Uncle Tom Cobbelly and all. LMAO

And this is typical apologist misunderstanding.

All these claims have been comprehensively debunked. I know that they are accepted wisdom for Truthers, but they have all been trashed.

But lets look at one of your points. Eyewitnesses report "explosions" in all buildings. OK - but we know that certainly WTC 1 and 2 were not "demolished" in a controlled way. You concede this right? They look nothing like a controlled demolition. Right Disco? I've already pointed out how implausible a demolition of WTC1 and 2 are - how could you time charges/thermite to blow or cut girders precisely below collapsing floors that were already collapsing due to tonnes of rubble falling on them anyway? Am I right? LMAO

How do we know that certainly? From the official reports? LOL. They look like controlled demolition to me. Straight down into their own footprint. When has a high rise not brought down by controlled demolition ever collapsed like that?

Surely if you're setting charges off remotely (existing technology) you can time them to go off whenever you want. You seem to be hung up in the sixties.

Comprehensively debunked eh? By who?

Of course, we have the seismographic evidence that no demolition explosions occurred on 9/11 either. Of course, Truthers would just say this evidence has been faked or hidden. I'm sure you've got some internet "expert" somewhere who has an explanation for this though. ROFL

Anyways I'll get around to debunking the WTC7 demolition/free fall BS later, CBF right now.

Can't wait. Should be very entertaining.

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&q=9/11+seismology+explosions&spell=1&sa=X&ei=n5E-Ua3xFY7RlAXC4IGwDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CCwQvwUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=72b9c73243d0bb8d&biw=1366&bih=619

 

[AngryAnt]

If you haven't read the NIST reports how do you know what its flaws are or are not?

It doesn't mention thermite, you told me as much. Were you wrong? Don't say you've been misleading me dude.

Molten metal didn't exist in the rubble? How was it explained?

Something resembling molten metal was observed by some people. What was it? You tell me.

Paint chips/rust proofing/sulphates don't match thermite. Their components do but that doesn't explain the way the components were fused together exactly as thermite is in its unignited state.

According to Jones' paper. Debunked.

What physical evidence to you base your position on? Aside from the obvious what chain of events is so convinvcing to you?

A total lack of verifyable physical evidence, a lack of motive and opportunity to wire up the buildings, a lack of any evidence that the buildings were wired up, the fact that the buildings fell down after being hit by planes and burning for several hours, and the all the physical evidence and expert opionion.

Yet OBL's family - great mates and partners with all these Vulcans are most definitely innocent even though the vulcans not only had plenty of motive and opportunity - they had openly stated an event the magnitude of 9/11 was just what they needed to achieve their goals. How much murkier do you want?

And this is typical apologist misunderstanding.

The Bin Ladens have little to do with Al Qaeda, they are too busy making billions from oil ventures. OBL was very much the black sheep of the family. Be smarter, the Vulcans didn't need the Bin Ladens.

How do we know that certainly? From the official reports? LOL. They look like controlled demolition to me. Straight down into their own footprint. When has a high rise not brought down by controlled demolition ever collapsed like that?

How would you expect 100 plus storey building to collapse if a floor hit by a plane collapses? From the level of the floor up, then down. Exactly what happened. On the other hand show me a controlled demolition that starts 80 floors up and then progressively works its way down as each floor collapses. Typically controlled demolitions start at the bottom don't they?

Anyway, until there is any evidence of explosions (none - except what you might expect in a burning and collapsing building), any evidence of wiring or detonators, or explosives, sorry, I just can't buy a demolition scenario. The Truther axiom that "they looked like controlled demolitions is just wrong".

By the way, good work on sucking me into even discussing the moronic thermite/demolition theories for which no physical evidence has ever been found. It's a great time waster, kudos to you.

Surely if you're setting charges off remotely (existing technology) you can time them to go off whenever you want. You seem to be hung up in the sixties.

Charges now, not thermite? Which is it? How long would it take thermite to burn through a steel girder? how could you time a chaotic burn so it neatly destroys one floor at time in precise order.

Crap, there I go again, humouring your grand delusions...

Comprehensively debunked eh? By who?

Can't wait. Should be very entertaining.

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&q=9/11+seismology+explosions&spell=1&sa=X&ei=n5E-Ua3xFY7RlAXC4IGwDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CCwQvwUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=72b9c73243d0bb8d&biw=1366&bih=619

Wow, a list of 9/11 truth sites? gee whiz, that's convincing. The best link in the list is http://www.911myths.com/html/seismic_proof_.html about halfway down the page.

You got nothin, dude.

 

[Disco08]

What makes that page the best one ant? The expert writing it? Who is that exactly mate? Do you think it addresses all the seismic evidence noted by other researchers?

Not sure how long a thermite cutter takes to cut through a steel girder. Maybe you could ask the people who used them to bring down the Reichstag in 1954.

It doesn't mention thermite, you told me as much. Were you wrong? Don't say you've been misleading me dude.
Something resembling molten metal was observed by some people. What was it? You tell me.

Molten metal.

The 9/11CR paper doesn't mention thermite because it didn't test for it based on false pretenses. This is what upsets so many people. Why you get into this debate confuses me because you honestly seem to know *smile* all about it.

According to Jones' paper. Debunked.

How?

A total lack of verifyable physical evidence, a lack of motive and opportunity to wire up the buildings, a lack of any evidence that the buildings were wired up, the fact that the buildings fell down after being hit by planes and burning for several hours, and the all the physical evidence and expert opionion.

The only part of that that's remotely true is the assertion that the buildings were hit by planes. WTC2 didn't burn for hours. WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane. Free fall collapse speeds are evidence of no resistance below the falling upper section. Only demolilition explains that. There was plenty of motive and opportunity. There's physical evidence. There's video evidence. There's photographic evidence. There's expert opinion.

But by all means ignore all that and just keep your head in the sand.

The Bin Ladens have little to do with Al Qaeda, they are too busy making billions from oil ventures. OBL was very much the black sheep of the family. Be smarter, the Vulcans didn't need the Bin Ladens.

Be smarter. That's so rich coming from you.

You know all about OBL and his ostracisation from his family now too eh? Geez you must have spent some time researching him. These would be fairly secretive matters presumably.

How would you expect 100 plus storey building to collapse if a floor hit by a plane collapses? From the level of the floor up, then down. Exactly what happened. On the other hand show me a controlled demolition that starts 80 floors up and then progressively works its way down as each floor collapses. Typically controlled demolitions start at the bottom don't they?

Anyway, until there is any evidence of explosions (none - except what you might expect in a burning and collapsing building), any evidence of wiring or detonators, or explosives, sorry, I just can't buy a demolition scenario. The Truther axiom that "they looked like controlled demolitions is just wrong".

There's evidence of explosions beyond what you'd expect in a burning building. What exactly makes such loud explosive noises during an office fire anyway? Charges don't need wiring so expecting evidence of them is just dumb. They do need igniters but of course they'd be pulverised during the explosions just like everything else.

What's wrong with saying they looked like controlled demolitions exactly? A couple of the world's leading demilition experts said as much. Why wouldn't that encourage you to investigate the possibility that that is how the buildings collapsed?

Try reading this basic FAQ page at architects and engineers for 9/11 truth if you can't understand how the twin towers' collapse resembles a controlled demolition.

I know it's a "truther" site but surely even you can acknowledge that it's got some credibility given the number of experts who support their position.

 

[Baloo]

The final report describes how debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7 at the western half of the south face. Fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 burned out of control, because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system had failed. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply. Those water lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. These uncontrolled fires in WTC 7 eventually spread to the northeast part of the building, where the collapse began.

After 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, a steel girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to one of the 81 columns supporting the building. Floor 13 collapsed, beginning a cascade of floor failures to Floor 5. Column 79, no longer supported by a girder, buckled, triggering a rapid succession of structural failures that moved from east to west. All 23 central columns, followed by the exterior columns, failed in what's known as a "progressive collapse"--that is, local damage that spreads from one structural element to another, eventually resulting in the collapse of the entire structure.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874

What part of the NIST report into the collapse of WTC7 has been proven to be false ?

 

[Soda]

The final report describes how debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7 at the western half of the south face. Fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 burned out of control, because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system had failed. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply. Those water lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. These uncontrolled fires in WTC 7 eventually spread to the northeast part of the building, where the collapse began.

After 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, a steel girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to one of the 81 columns supporting the building. Floor 13 collapsed, beginning a cascade of floor failures to Floor 5. Column 79, no longer supported by a girder, buckled, triggering a rapid succession of structural failures that moved from east to west. All 23 central columns, followed by the exterior columns, failed in what's known as a "progressive collapse"--that is, local damage that spreads from one structural element to another, eventually resulting in the collapse of the entire structure.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874

What part of the NIST report into the collapse of WTC7 has been proven to be false ?

None of it.....but it could be....maybe.....if we could just have a proper investigation.....

 

[Disco08]

LOL. Good one Soda.

There's plenty of material on the net about the problems with NST's report on WTC7.

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&q=problems+wIth+Nist+report+wtc+7&spell=1&sa=X&ei=Jbw-UeyJAYPCkwXy0YHwBA&ved=0CCwQvwUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=72b9c73243d0bb8d&biw=1366&bih=619

 

[Disco08]

just to point it out - defending NIST's WTC7 report is about as irrationally apologist as you can get where 9/11 is concerned.

 

[Baloo]

just to point it out - defending NIST's WTC7 report is about as irrationally apologist as you can get where 9/11 is concerned.

I just picked one of your facts to look deeper into, totally at random. The last time I did that I discovered a "throw away line", this time apparently I've picked on the one fact that proves I am irrationally apologist as I can get. What are the odds. I should have played tattslotto with this hit rate.

I didn't ask for some peoples perceived problems with the NIST report, I asked what part of the NIST report, in relation to the WTC7 collapse, has been proven false.

 

[Disco08]

I'm not going to do your research for you. If you genuinely want to know go and find it for yourself.

 

[Soda]

just to point it out - defending NIST's WTC7 report is about as irrationally apologist as you can get where 9/11 is concerned.

None of this remotely explains it IYO?

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

 

[Baloo]

I'm not going to do your research for you. If you genuinely want to know go and find it for yourself.

LOL. I thought as much. At least you didn't scamper behind the "throw away line" excuse this time.

 

[Disco08]

What's funny about it? You want to know - go and learn.

None of this remotely explains it IYO?

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

I'm not engineer. Are you? Should we just have a link war to sort it out?

 

[Disco08]

You guys seem to love and put a lot of faith in debunking911 and 911myths. What do you know about these pages and the authors?

 

[Soda]

What's funny about it? You want to know - go and learn.

I'm not engineer. Are you? Should we just have a link war to sort it out?

Have you read any of it?

Link war - lets go - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBiLNN1NhQ

 

[Disco08]

You win.

I've read that entire page before more than once.

 

[AngryAnt]

Not sure how long a thermite cutter takes to cut through a steel girder. Maybe you could ask the people who used them to bring down the Reichstag in 1954.

Is that the most recent example you can come up with? :hihi

Molten metal.

What kind of molten metal?

The 9/11CR paper doesn't mention thermite because it didn't test for it based on false pretenses. This is what upsets so many people. Why you get into this debate confuses me because you honestly seem to know *smile* all about it.

What were these false pretenses? And yeah, I do notice that peoples jimmies are being rustled. Also, I freely concede that I am not totally obsessed with 9/11 and have read far fewer 9/11 websites than you. Does that make me someone who knows *smile* all about it? Or just someone who doesn't swallow the Truther line?

But by all means ignore all that and just keep your head in the sand.

Livers? Is that you?

You know all about OBL and his ostracisation from his family now too eh? Geez you must have spent some time researching him. These would be fairly secretive matters presumably.

I can google along with the best of them pal.

As an outspoken critic of the royal family, bin Laden gained a reputation as a troublemaker. For a time, he was placed under house arrest in Jedda. His siblings, who had strong ties to the monarchy, vehemently opposed his antics and severed all ties - familial and economic - with their upstart brother. "He was totally ostracized by the family and by the kingdom," Daniel Uman, who worked with the Binladin Group, told an interviewer for the New York Times. The Saudi government, ever watchful of bin Laden, caught him smuggling weapons from Yemen and revoked his passport. No longer a Saudi citizen, he was asked to leave the country.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/osama-bin-laden#ixzz2NIvcPliy

Do you really mean to tell me you didn't know this? FOR SHAME DISCO

Will have to get back to the rest of this later.

 

[Disco08]

With those Googling talents you must have come across the OBL CIA asset controversy. The web gets more complex the more you look it seems.

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=obl+cia+asset&oq=obl+cia+asset&gs_l=hp.3..0i22i30.541.3638.0.4831.13.11.0.2.2.0.328.3098.2-9j2.11.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.5.psy-ab.kxAiqX0KkWQ&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43287494,d.dGY&fp=72b9c73243d0bb8d&biw=1366&bih=619

Is that the most recent example you can come up with? :hihi

What kind of molten metal?

Steel presumably.

The Reichstag is an early example to show how inane some of the points you've been making are.

What were these false pretenses? And yeah, I do notice that peoples jimmies are being rustled. Also, I freely concede that I am not totally obsessed with 9/11 and have read far fewer 9/11 websites than you. Does that make me someone who knows *smile* all about it? Or just someone who doesn't swallow the Truther line?

You don't need to be totally obsessed to know some of the things you seem totally ignorant about. Actually you'd only need to be a casual observer. The failings of the 9/11 commission are very well documented. You'd have to really have your head buried in the sand to be unaware. That seems about right though I guess.

The main false pretense that NIST used to excuse not investigating scientifically was that there was no evidence of explosions at all on 9/11. The other whopper was the assumption that no one in the US knew the attacks were imminent.