ANZACs and war and stuff

[mashman]

And here I thought he meant you were in the business of bucket manufacturing or sand relocation, which in all honesty are related industries anyway.

He may well have. I guess I'll have to wait, all excited like, before I find out fo shizzle.

[Edbear]

Hey, if it's good enough for Ed.....

Once again you come very close to outright lying. The first quote has noththing whatsoever to do with any kind of conspiracy. It is a very public and freely acknowledged aim and opinion of the major powers that there needs to be one world government to effectively address the needs of society.

But typical of you never to allow facts and truth to influence your stupidity and mischievous agenda.

[Madness]

Once again you come very close to outright lying. The first quote has noththing whatsoever to do with any kind of conspiracy. It is a very public and freely acknowledged aim and opinion of the major powers that there needs to be one world government to effectively address the needs of society.

But typical of you never to allow facts and truth to influence your stupidity and mischievous agenda.

Ed can you please provide a link or otherwise to evidence where "world powers" freely acknowledge that they are working towards eliminating organised religion at a global level? I'd be keen to read that shit.

[bogan]

Once again you come very close to outright lying. The first quote has noththing whatsoever to do with any kind of conspiracy. It is a very public and freely acknowledged aim and opinion of the major powers that there needs to be one world government to effectively address the needs of society.

But typical of you never to allow facts and truth to influence your stupidity and mischievous agenda.

:laugh: Public and freely acknowledged aim to eliminate organised religion eh?

yup, sounds like a conspiracy theory to me...

While I cannot fathom why Katman dredges through so many of your posts to find such things, he does come up with some reasonably interesting stuff.

[Katman]

While I cannot fathom why Katman dredges through so many of your posts to find such things, he does come up with some reasonably interesting stuff.

I was actually going back through the thread to see how and when it became a thread about 9/11.

Certainly turned up some funny posts though.

[Edbear]

Ed can you please provide a link or otherwise to evidence where "world powers" freely acknowledge that they are working towards eliminating organised religion at a global level? I'd be keen to read that shit.

They aren't currently although they recognise the problem with religion, it is Bible pophecy for the not too distant future.

[Drew]

... mischievous agenda.So you know this, and bite like a rabbid dog anyway?

Yet here you are repeatedly bringing his intelect into question.

[Banditbandit]

You're right, I've done nothing for anyone. But I did hear a baaaaa, baaaaaa, coming from the bottom of the bucket and it sure as hell wasn't me. Anyway, haven't you got a past to live in.

"You must spread ... " That's telling the old curmudgeon !!!

[bogan]

They aren't currently although they recognise the problem with religion, it is Bible pophecy for the not too distant future.

Oh Ed, you're just too much sometimes. Call out others as conspiracy theorists then cite bible prophecy as a source for your own conspiracy theories. :killingme

[Edbear]

:laugh: Public and freely acknowledged aim to eliminate organised religion eh?

yup, sounds like a conspiracy theory to me...

While I cannot fathom why Katman dredges through so many of your posts to find such things, he does come up with some reasonably interesting stuff.

You don't read very well do you? Read it again properly.

[Banditbandit]

They aren't currently although they recognise the problem with religion, it is Bible pophecy for the not too distant future.

That's interesting ... how do you reach that conclusion ?? Most of such prophecies I know are not about the future but about what the Roman Empire was trying to do to the Jewish faith ...

[Madness]

They aren't currently although they recognise the problem with religion, it is Bible pophecy for the not too distant future.


Very close and it is what the world powers are working towards right now.

Yeah, see I'm having trouble keeping up with you here Ed. Are you sure these bible prophecies aren't clouding your views on reality? Maybe it's the drugs?

[Drew]

They aren't currently although they recognise the problem with religion, it is Bible pophecy for the not too distant future.

Can I become a pophet? Too easy, sorry.

Anyhoo, this thread is about to take a turn you're not gonna like Ed, and the blame lays squarely on your shoulders.

[Banditbandit]

Can I become a pophet? Too easy, sorry.



Oh .. Dangerous Profession ... many apocolyptic prophets get killed ... usually brutally ... John the Baptist, Jesus of Nazareth, David Koresh, Ali - nephew of Mohammed ... Heaps of the Saints ...

Not that I blame anyone ... Apocolyptic Prophets tend to get ordinary people killed .. I think they should be removed as quickly as possible ..

[Drew]

Oh .. Dangerous Profession ... many apocolyptic prophets get killed ... usually brutally ... John the Baptist, Jesus of Nazareth, David Koresh, Ali - nephew of Mohammed ... Heaps of the Saints ...

Not that I blame anyone ... Apocolyptic Prophets tend to get ordinary people killed .. I think they should be removed as quickly as possible ..

You are ignoring the spelling error...Mistakenly.

[oldrider]

Ed can you please provide a link or otherwise to evidence where "world powers" freely acknowledge that they are working towards eliminating organised religion at a global level? I'd be keen to read that shit.

The current world financial system allows (selected) bankers to load whosoever they (NWO) want rid of with debt and then simply squeeze the life out of them!

Please don't try to say that that is fantasy, just filter your way through history and simply look around the world today!

Religions are quite safe though as they are so useful a tool in creating wars and war is a perfect tool for establishing debt! :yes:

[Madness]

The current world financial system allows (selected) bankers to load whosoever they (NWO) want rid of with debt and then simply squeeze the life out of them!

Please don't try to say that that is fantasy, just filter your way through history and simply look around the world today!

Religions are quite safe though as they are so useful a tool in creating wars and war is a perfect tool for establishing debt! :yes:

Don't worry, I'm not about to claim what you're stating is fantasy. I am saying however that I'd be very keen to see exactly where & how TPTB are openly acknowledging they are working on the destruction of organised religion. That's not going to happen though it seems, it appears such open acknowledgement is just a figment of Eds drug & religion hazed imagination.

[Drew]

OK, I think we're just flogging a dead Ed now. Was an interesting bit of a laugh, now it's just kinda bullying.

[Madness]

... now it's just kinda bullying.

He loves it, in fact he's probably slamming his cock in the desk drawer as he reads this post.

[Edbear]

So you know this, and bite like a rabbid dog anyway?

Yet here you are repeatedly bringing his intelect into question.

I should perhaps ignore him and if I was sure everyone recognises he is using misinformation and false implications in an agenda against me and therefore will ignore him too, I would.

For reasons he can explain, he is obsessed with discrediting me and follows me everywhere on this forum. I couldn't care less what he thinks about me but I do care what others might.


That's interesting ... how do you reach that conclusion ?? Most of such prophecies I know are not about the future but about what the Roman Empire was trying to do to the Jewish faith ...

Some prophecies had a dual fulfilment and Rev. Ch. 17,18 are for our times. But that is really for RR.

[Oscar]

"You must spread ... " That's telling the old curmudgeon !!!

Oh yeah, it was a stinging rebuke.
At least I thought it was - my lefty gibberish to English translator is on the fritz.

[Oscar]

You're right, I've done nothing for anyone. But I did hear a baaaaa, baaaaaa, coming from the bottom of the bucket and it sure as hell wasn't me. Anyway, haven't you got a past to live in.

Do you often hear voices in buckets?

Do they tell you that you're full of shit....?

[Madness]

I couldn't care less what he thinks about me but I do care what others might.

Don't worry Ed, I think most of us have sussed you out for what you really are already :laugh:

[Drew]

I should perhaps ignore him and if I was sure everyone recognises he is using misinformation and false implications in an agenda against me and therefore will ignore him too, I would.

For reasons he can explain, he is obsessed with discrediting me and follows me everywhere on this forum. I couldn't care less what he thinks about me but I do care what others might.



Some prophecies had a dual fulfilment and Rev. Ch. 17,18 are for our times. But that is really for RR.Man, have a trike built for yourself.

That way you can have something to do with bikers in the real world app, instead of worrying about what we do and say in this friggin place.

[Katman]

Anyway Ed, have you watched those videos yet?

[Laava]

Can I become a pophet? Too easy, sorry.

Anyhoo, this thread is about to take a turn you're not gonna like Ed, and the blame lays squarely on your shoulders.

Aren't you already someones poppet?

[mashman]

Do you often hear voices in buckets?

Do they tell you that you're full of shit....?

Only bleating and only when you're around. Go figure.

Like I said, they bleat... and to be more specific, they bleat nonsense.

[Katman]

I should perhaps ignore him and if I was sure everyone recognises he is using misinformation and false implications in an agenda against me and therefore will ignore him too, I would.


Misinformation and false implications? They're your words Ed.

Anyway, have a look at those videos - I've got some physics questions for you.

[jonbuoy]

How much do you understand about freefall Ed?

Watch these videos and when you've done so I've got some questions for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw

Well most people have already made up their minds and won´t be changed but - the footage of the collapse in those videos you posted is quite poor but it does look like it happens from the base upwards but how about these two?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mz0_x7313I

The tower appears to collapse from the top to the bottom - here it collapses from the bottom to the top (skip to 55 for movement!)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJA5jKfn1u8

[Katman]

Well most people have already made up their minds and won´t be changed but - the footage of the collapse in those videos you posted is quite poor but it does look like it happens from the base upwards but how about these two?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mz0_x7313I

The tower appears to collapse from the top to the bottom - here it collapses from the bottom to the top (skip to 55 for movement!)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJA5jKfn1u8

Is that a serious rebuttal?

The links I've posted to are talking specifically about the collapse of Building 7 and the questions I have are specifically about the collapse of Building 7.

[jonbuoy]

Is that a serious rebuttal?

The links I've posted to are talking specifically about the collapse of Building 7 and the questions I have are specifically about the collapse of Building 7.

Yes - do you want to discuss it in an adult fashion or not? So you only think building 7 was brought down by explosives - not the twin towers?

[Drew]

Is that a serious rebuttal?

The links I've posted to are talking specifically about the collapse of Building 7 and the questions I have are specifically about the collapse of Building 7.

Wait. We were meant to be serious.

Fuck sakes you cunts, am I not on the goddamn memo list or summat?

[Katman]

Yes - do you want to discuss it in an adult fashion or not? So you only think building 7 was brought down by explosives - not the twin towers?

I don't know about the twin towers but if Building 7 was brought down by explosives why would you not suspect that explosives might be involved in the twin towers?

[jonbuoy]

I don't know about the twin towers but if Building 7 was brought down by explosives why would you not suspect that explosives might be involved in the twin towers?

Anything´s possible - but it doesn't look that way from the video? The big show for the public would have been the twin towers - the rest - incidental. Why bother to blow up a nearby building - to destroy evidence? You would think people capable of planning this would know how to wipe hard drives and shred papers.

[Katman]

Anything´s possible - but it doesn't look that way from the video? The big show for the public would have been the twin towers - the rest - incidental. Why bother to blow up a nearby building - to destroy evidence? You would think people capable of planning this would know how to wipe hard drives and shred papers.

Forget the twin towers for a moment.

Do you accept that there's a distinct possibility that Building 7 was brought down by explosives?

[jonbuoy]

Forget the twin towers for a moment.

Do you accept that there's a distinct possibility that Building 7 was brought down by explosives?

I don´t know - the building looks like it collapses from the lower levels what caused the damage - that argument will carry on for ever I expect. The twin towers however look like they collapse from the damaged areas downwards - most likely from the damage caused by the aircraft, fuel, fires.

Can you think of a logical reason to plant explosives and demolish the building in that way? If you wanted to destroy it and not raise questions - why not just use incendiary devices?

[puddytat]

This is as good a theory as any....

http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-references-protocols-full-text-folder.html

[mashman]

Fuck sakes you cunts, am I not on the goddamn memo list or summat?

Yer names not down. Get the fuck out of Ed's thread.

[Katman]

I don´t know - the building looks like it collapses from the lower levels what caused the damage - that argument will carry on for ever I expect. The twin towers however look like they collapse from the damaged areas downwards - most likely from the damage caused by the aircraft, fuel, fires.

Can you think of a logical reason to plant explosives and demolish the building in that way? If you wanted to destroy it and not raise questions - why not just use incendiary devices?

Stick with me here.

Building 7 clearly falls for a number of seconds in freefall. NIST originally denied the freefall theory until they were confronted with the laws of physics.

They now accept that the building did fall for a number of seconds in freefall.

Freefall is, by definition, subject to the forces of gravity - i.e. falling with zero resistance.

A building pancaking on itself floor by floor would not exhibit zero resistance.

[jonbuoy]

Stick with me here.

Building 7 clearly falls for a number of seconds in freefall. NIST originally denied the freefall theory until they were confronted with the laws of physics.

They now accept that the building did fall for a number of seconds in freefall.

Freefall is by definition subject to the forces of gravity - i.e. falling with zero resistance.

A building pancaking on itself floor by floor would not exhibit zero resistance.

No - but I assume heavily damaged foundations or structural damage on lower levels would have the same effect as explosives - pulling the rug out from underneath. I just cant see a reason for planting explosives in the building - or doing it in a way that would look suspicious - they would know how many cameras and eyewitnesses would be looking and sifting through the evidence.

[Katman]

.....and sifting through the evidence.

Are you not aware that the investigation was held up for a number of months while thousands of tons of 'evidence' was sent off for recycling in Asia?

[oldrider]

This is as good a theory as any....

http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-references-protocols-full-text-folder.html

Wow, that kinda came out of left field!

Those protocols could pertain to any number of people cults organisations etc, I used to have a few copies of it years ago.

Actually trying to disprove and disassociate the Zionists from them gets more and more difficult for no other reason but the way they behave! (the real 1%?)

The president of Iran is always quoting or rabbiting on about them ... they are an interesting read though. :yes:

[Katman]

I just cant see a reason for planting explosives in the building.....

Then you're not thinking hard enough.

[Kickaha]

Are you not aware that the investigation was held up for a number of months while thousands of tons of 'evidence' was sent off for recycling in Asia?
What kind of evidence?


There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team
has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently
been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the
scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this
point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World
Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of
the structures.

http://www.asce.org/uploadedFiles/Communications/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf

[Katman]

What kind of evidence?


Have you got any reference to why NIST didn't do any test for the presence of thermite in the rubble?

[Kickaha]

Have you got any reference to why NIST didn't do any test for the presence of thermite in the rubble?

http://www.webcitation.org/5pvOUTcar

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

[Katman]

http://www.webcitation.org/5pvOUTcar

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

So in other words, they chose not to test for it.

[scumdog]

So in other words, they chose not to test for it.

No flies on you sunshine!!:eek5:

[Katman]

No flies on you sunshine!!:eek5:

Not on NIST either by the sounds of it.

[puddytat]

Wow, that kinda came out of left field!

Those protocols could pertain to any number of people cults organisations etc, I used to have a few copies of it years ago.

Actually trying to disprove and disassociate the Zionists from them gets more and more difficult for no other reason but the way they behave! (the real 1%?)

The president of Iran is always quoting or rabbiting on about them ... they are an interesting read though. :yes:

They are arnt they!
You are right that these could pertain to any, and thats the rub as I see it. It is a dogma that fits all. And used by many
..Is it Human nature? Or conditioning....

[Road kill]

Nature has programed humans to compete so that's what we do.
Conditioning decides who wins.

[mashman]

Nature has programed humans to compete so that's what we do.
Conditioning decides who wins.

Bullshit...

[98tls]

Nature has programed humans to compete so that's what we do.
Conditioning decides who wins.

You old softy you...http://youtu.be/FmkRY6h0hJE

[Kickaha]

So in other words, they chose not to test for it.

Because they would have been wasting their time


He gave a range of numbers, based on lower and higher concentrations of the thermite formulation. His lowest figure amounted to 29,000 metric tons of thermitic explosive per tower
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/27/nanothermite-if-it-doesnt-fit-you-must-acquit/

[jonbuoy]

Then you're not thinking hard enough.

Have you come up with a good reason for destroying that particular building using a demolition technique?

[Katman]

Because they would have been wasting their time


That's not a very professional way to conduct an investigation into a tragedy of this magnitude though.

[Katman]

Have you come up with a good reason for destroying that particular building using a demolition technique?

There's been a number of theories put forward but maybe only Larry Silverstein knows for sure.

[Drew]

There's been a number of theories put forward but maybe only Larry Silverstein knows for sure.Did he own all three of the buildings that came down?

[Katman]

Did he own all three of the buildings that came down?

He was the owner/leaseholder of all 7 buildings in the WTC complex. All were destroyed or damaged beyond repair.

And he received a 4.5 billion dollar payout (he was claiming for 7 billion) on a policy that had been taken out only a couple of months prior to 9/11 which specifically named acts of terror as a clause in the policy.

[Akzle]

He was the owner/leaseholder of all 7 buildings in the WTC complex. All were destroyed or damaged beyond repair.

And he received a 4.5 billion dollar payout (he was claiming for 7 billion) on a policy that had been taken out only a couple of months prior to 9/11 which specifically named acts of terror as a clause in the policy.

asbestos, too.

[Katman]

asbestos, too.

Yes.

(What Akzle is alluding to is that Larry Silverstein was facing the prospect of an enormous bill to remove asbestos from the WTC buildings).

[Kickaha]

And he received a 4.5 billion dollar payout (he was claiming for 7 billion) on a policy that had been taken out only a couple of months prior to 9/11 which specifically named acts of terror as a clause in the policy.

He probably took out the policies when he took over the lease which was only a few months before 9/11, seems the sort of thing any landlord would be expected to do

[Akzle]

He probably took out the policies when he took over the lease which was only a few months before 9/11, seems the sort of thing any landlord would be expected to do

i take it you have comprehensive terrorist insurance for your house/car/bike then?

[Ocean1]

That's not a very professional way to conduct an investigation into a tragedy of this magnitude though.

Sounds to me like they did investigate it. They asked an expert about the quantities of explosives required to produce those results.

I'd say any professional that couldn't see that secretly placing over 30 thousand tons of thermite against clad steel beams, (and re-cladding and repainting them to their previous condition) exactly where some unrelated terrorists were eventually to crash some aircraft with pinpoint accuracy was ever so slightly unlikely probably wouldn't have been professionally qualified to comment in the first place.

That, and the fact that it wouldn't actually produce the observed results.

[Katman]

Sounds to me like they did investigate it. They asked an expert about the quantities of explosives required to produce those results.



Are you saying that an article written 10 years after 9/11 was used by the 9/11 Commission investigation?

[Hinny]

He probably took out the policies when he took over the lease which was only a few months before 9/11, seems the sort of thing any landlord would be expected to do


Got the lease at a lower price than competing bids. Suspicious?

What intrigues me is the people who discount the cries for answers proffer explanations that are implausible at best.
That they continue to trot out this 'evidence' long after it has been clearly debunked is illuminating as to their mindset and values.
Ed trotting out Popular Mechanics explanation for instance. Gullible much?

Others post stuff where they are clearly unaware of the details of the 'case'.
Lack of knowledge of the construction of the Twin towers and it's exo-skeleton with small windows. Ed and others rebuking my assertion of its construction.
No Drew, that building was not constructed with columns all over the place, getting in the way. The box within a box construction provided clear space between the inner and outer skeletons. A great selling point to potential lessees.
One would imagine that the building if damaged on one side and having the floors disconnect from the exterior walls, as per the NIST explanation, would result in a partial collapse on one side like the CCTV building in CH-CH.
I can't imagine how a fire that had virtually been extinguished, as survivors who walked past the the burning floors and firefighters have testified to, could make not just a floor collapse but the entire structure, damaged and undamaged sides and the inner core all being reduced to dust - concurrently. Like being shot in the foot and both legs falling off ... and ya dick.
jonboys video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mz0_x7313I from 0.10 shows what appears to be molten steel pouring down the side of the building.
Could this be because of thermite? Rusty iron and aluminium combining. The building was sheathed in Aluminium and the supporting skeleton was Steel. Electrolysis between these two metals is generally pretty vigorous. Could this be what caused the collapse? Clearly the official explanation does not have any legs so maybe this is the reason.

As the father of one victim said the idea that some Dude sitting in a cave in Afghanistan came up with a plan so cunning is beyond credulity.
He wanted to know who killed his son and I'm sure that if any of the believers could take the time and try and put themselves in that man's shoes they might not be so ready to accept the official story. The one that they didn't want questioned and fought to avoid any questioning of it. And are still doing so.
I would doubt that they would have to waterboard Dick Cheney 147 times before he cast light on what really happened. Hell, it wouldn't take that much for me to be the organiser of the plan.
Most believers don't bother with arguing the 'facts' of the case. They prefer to rely on the notion that any other explanation other than the official line is outside the realms of possibility. No questions need to be debated.
One merely has to believe.

[Kickaha]

i take it you have comprehensive terrorist insurance for your house/car/bike then?
I'm not dumb enough to live in Amercia

http://fic.wharton.upenn.edu/fic/papers/04/Smetters.pdf

The Insurance Industry Prior to September 11, 2001
It has often been noted that terrorism coverage was essentially provided for “free”
before September 11, 2001 as a part of standard commercial property-causality policies
since these policies did not contain specific terrorism exclusions.
1
This claim was
3
buttressed by Warren Buffet’s admission in a letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders
that he and management did not even priceterrorism losses into its premium structure.
2
It is not obvious, however, that major insurers, much less Mr. Buffet, failed so miserably. Indeed, Buffet already had some experience with large catastrophic (cat)
exposures in the past: Just five years earlier in 1996, he underwrote a $1.5 billion catbond that provided reinsurance to the Californian Earthquake Authority.
It is especially unimaginable that any insurer of the World Trade Center (WTC) itself would have never considered the possibility of another
attack. Just 8½ years earlier on February 26, 1993, a 1,200 pound bomb exploded inside of a rented Ryder van positioned in the WTC’s parking garage, producing about $550 million in insured losses. When the attack mastermind, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, was eventually captured in February, 1995, he announced his only regret: The 110-story tower did not collapse into its twin tower as planned. The entire WTC complex, therefore, was clearly a marked target for terrorists.

[Kickaha]

As the father of one victim said the idea that some Dude sitting in a cave in Afghanistan came up with a plan so cunning is beyond credulity.
That'd make a good Tui add, how long did it take to find him? they didn't have a clue where he was or what he had access to and it's not like it was planned on the day

Most conspiracy theorists don't bother with arguing the 'facts' of the case. They prefer to rely on the notion that any other explanation other than a conspiracy is outside the realms of possibility. No questions need to be debated.
One merely has to believe

[Ocean1]

Are you saying that an article written 10 years after 9/11 was used by the 9/11 Commission investigation?

Are you saying that the commission didn't review expert advice about the possible effect of explosives?

[Ocean1]

jonboys video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mz0_x7313I from 0.10 shows what appears to be molten steel pouring down the side of the building.
Could this be because of thermite? Rusty iron and aluminium combining. The building was sheathed in Aluminium and the supporting skeleton was Steel. Electrolysis between these two metals is generally pretty vigorous. Could this be what caused the collapse?

Melting what? Actually, with better video resolution you could tell exactly what was melting from the colour and the shape of the flares.

If there's aluminium cladding in the equation then that'll melt at 650c, way way before any steel in the area melts, at 1500c. Are those cladding panels I see there, still?

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html

As for galvanic issues, aluminium is sacrificial to steel. That's why they use it to protect steel boats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_anode

In direct contact with steel and an electrolyte the aluminium would be pretty much gone altogether before the steel began to corrode at all. So no, not likely to be a factor.

Edit: In fact if that was molten steel running from the building then how could it be still standing at that point? Steel at 750-800c is about the consistency of play-dough, given any possibly available energy source the thermal budget required to heat it to 1500c from that point would take hours to apply. So it stood for hours with it's main support columns as soft as warm toffee?

Don't really think so.

[Katman]

Are you saying that the commission didn't review expert advice about the possible effect of explosives?

The Commission report makes no mention whatsoever of the possibility of explosives being used in the building collapses nor of any investigation of that possibility.

[Hinny]

How did a thread of ANZACs become a debate about 911/
It is because 911, and 77 are in my opinion two recent examples of situations where govts. use circumstances to influence their citizens to the point of accepting the need to go to war.
War is what led to the formation of the ANZACs. The cannon fodder of the Imperial masters.
That the first war was fought because Archduke Franz Ferdinand was killed is unbelievable, and yet, that is the reason given for those millions of people to die.
Gullible elected officials are clearly ready to send our children off to war with as little regard to reason or logical discussion. Witness John Key's recent remarks regarding NZ going to war against North Korea and earlier remarks about being missing in the Invasion of Iraq.
Do we need to gain new RSA members by allowing people like him to commit our children to risk their lives in such or similar circumstances?
Some posters to this thread have stated they would be ready to stand up and fight to defend this country if we were invaded.
I would suggest that is clearly not true.
Looked around at the ethnicity of your fellow travelers on Godzone lately?
We have clearly been invaded and is anyone fighting this invasion? Winston Peters? Lianne Dalziell?
Liking the increase in the value of your house? How do you benefit from that? Rates go up, Insurance goes up. You can't afford to leave and enjoy your profit as the next house will cost you more unless you buy before you sell. (Like for like I'm clearly meaning). Av. house price going up $5,000 a week benefits foreign bankers more than it does home owners. Part of that debt creation that was referred to earlier. Putting us in their pocket deeper and deeper.
Re-allocation of the control and benefits of infrastructure. Some put it more bluntly as theft our assets.
I would suggest that these are the things that wars are fought over. Control of energy, control of money.
We could have control of both of these things very easily. That they are being taken away is treasonous.
Unfortunately the Australia and New Zealand Army Corps are not likely to be going rise against their political masters and so we sit and watch our heritage disappear.
What will be left as our legacy to our children and future generations?
Clearly it is not going to be more than what we inherited.

[Kickaha]

The Commission report makes no mention whatsoever of the possibility of explosives being used in the building collapses nor any investigation of that possibility.

http://www.webcitation.org/5pvOUTcar

2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
diagram of composit wtc floor system



NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

[Katman]

All you're doing is quoting a government agency Warwick.

Do you really consider them impartial?

[Katman]

The 911 Commission was supposed to be impartial but as I posted earlier, even the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of that Commission are on record as saying they believe the Commission was "set up to fail".

[Hinny]

Melting what? Actually, with better video resolution you could tell exactly what was melting from the colour and the shape of the flares.

If there's aluminium cladding in the equation then that'll melt at 650c, way way before any steel in the area melts, at 1500c. Are those cladding panels I see there, still?

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html

As for galvanic issues, aluminium is sacrificial to steel, that's why they use it to protect steel boats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_anode

In direct contact with steel the aluminium would be pretty much gone altogether before the steel began to corrode at all. So no, not likely to be a factor.

Edit: In fact if that was molten steel running from the building then how could it be still standing at that point? Steel at 750-800c is about the consistency of play-dough, given any possibly available energy source the thermal budget required to heat it to 1500c from that point would take hours to apply. So it stood for hours with it's main support columns as soft as warm toffee?

Don't really think so.

I was being facetious. Just trying to point out that in reality ludicrous explanations carry as much weight as the official story.
And Thermate will cut through steel faster than a hot knife through butter... as I suspect you know.
Oh! that's right, according to NIST the sulfur required to combine with Ferrous Oxide and Aluminium and thus create Thermate could have come from the gib. board of the wall linings.

If that was not molten steel, what was it?

How was there rivers of molten steel in the rubble weeks later?

In answer to your question - No, the towers did not stand for hours after impact let alone with their 'main support columns as soft as warm toffee'.

Why would the structure fail after the heat source diminished? There was a woman standing in the hole looking out. Can't have been too hot at that point.
Wouldn't the steel set up again once it cooled?
Wouldn't the 10,000 shock absorbers be able to take up the deflection? They were rated to absorb deflections of 3 foot or more and as we know from the video footage there was not that degree of deflection of the outer walls.

[Hinny]

I thought this was good infotainmant for a rainy day.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/QU961SGps8g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

[Hinny]

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse....

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Given their budget that seems extraordinarily good value service.
How much did the Clinton investigation cost? $40 million? to see if he did in fact have sexual relations with that young woman - Miss Lewinsky.
This one - $600,000. over three years - $200,000 a year -for 85 career experts and 125 private experts and academics. Great value!
Perhaps if they had spent a bit more they may have got a believable report.
Instead by reason of the of the financial and terms of reference restrictions, combined with 411 day delay for the start of the 'investigation', led to a report that has been condemned by academics and practitioners.
As has been stated earlier, even members of the commission said they had been set up to fail.

[Kickaha]

$600,000. over three years - $200,000 a year -for 85 career experts and 125 private experts and academics. Great value!


Where does that figure come from? $16 million is the figure most quoted over three years

These guys must be on the Merkins payroll to
http://www.911myths.com/html/view_from_abroad.html

[scumdog]

Who frikkin cares, I mean even IF there was this so-called govt conspiray re 9/11 &WTC what the hell is a bunch of ding-bats on KB ever going to do about it or make a difference?

You'ld get more traction on the waving thread...

[Hinny]

And Thermate will cut through steel faster than a hot knife through butter... as I suspect you know.
Oh! that's right, according to NIST the sulfur required to combine with Ferrous Oxide and Aluminium and thus create Thermate could have come from the gib. board of the wall linings.
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

If that was not molten steel, what was it?
a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower.
NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers

How was there rivers of molten steel in the rubble weeks later?

NIST investigators and experts who inspected the WTC steel
found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse
The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing

There was a woman standing in the hole looking out. Can't have been too hot at that point.

According to the International Standard ISO/TS 13571, people will be in severe pain within seconds if they are near the radiant heat level generated by a large fire. Thus, it is not surprising that none of the photographs show a person standing in those gaps where there also was a sizable fire.

Lol

excerpts from the NIST report.
I guess that answers all the questions.

[Hinny]

Who frikkin cares, I mean even IF there was this so-called govt conspiray re 9/11 &WTC what the hell is a bunch of ding-bats on KB ever going to do about it or make a difference?

You'ld get more traction on the waving thread...

If we don't question the reasons for war then our kids could be sent to war, on the basis of lies, by dingbats like John Key.
If there is no public debate then there will be no public dissension and they will feel free to do as they please.
I'm sure those hundreds of people , I presumed to be locals, we saw in the video footage of the rebels driving into Tripoli, would not thank John Key for supplying the rebels with our tax dollars to fund their escapades.

[scumdog]

If we don't question the reasons for war then our kids could be sent to war, on the basis of lies, by dingbats like John Key.
If there is no public debate then there will be no public dissension and they will feel free to do as they please.
I'm sure those hundreds of people , I presumed to be locals, we saw in the video footage of the rebels driving into Tripoli, would not thank John Key for supplying the rebels with our tax dollars to fund their escapades.


I seriously doubt pounding keyboards on KB will achieve anything, I'm out of here, happy meaningless posting y'all...:bye:

[Katman]

Who frikkin cares, I mean even IF there was this so-called govt conspiray re 9/11 &WTC what the hell is a bunch of ding-bats on KB ever going to do about it or make a difference?

You'ld get more traction on the waving thread...

Now see, that's scary as fuck.

To have a police officer say "so what if it's the biggest cover-up in the history of cover-ups" is mind blowingly fucked up.

You should be fucking ashamed of yourself.

[Akzle]

I seriously doubt pounding keyboards on KB will achieve anything, I'm out of here, happy meaningless posting y'all...:bye:

dont let the door hit ya on the way out...

[scissorhands]

If those honkie cunts gave us fellas better weed we wouldnt be complaining so much!

[Katman]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/QU961SGps8g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

Ed, I challenge you to watch this video and then come back and answer some questions.

[Hinny]

Now see, that's real fucking scary.

To have a police officer say "so what if it's the biggest cover-up in the history of cover-ups" is mind blowingly fucked up.

You should be fucking ashamed of yourself.

Is it only the Police in the USA who don't have a 'for Truth' organisation.
Started off with the engineers and demo guys who saw the official story as a load of bunkum and everybody else has climbed aboard with their own little groups.
For private people to fight the Govt., local Govt. or Corporations is extremely difficult.
Media advertising, hiring halls for public meetings etc. is extremely expensive. Especially so when the general populace is screwed to the wall.
Call from Greenpeace this week seeking funds to fight the govt. on Simon Bridges Anadarko bill making protest at sea illegal. It's easy to see the uphill struggle such organisations have to combat the actions, of people, that may be considered detrimental to the health and liberty of the citizens of NZ and indeed of the world.
The Police will follow the govt. line as is, I guess, their sworn duty. Without the voice of 'the opposition' the Corporations will be free to do as they like. .. or free to do what Simon Bridges has let them. ...which no doubt is 'as they like'. He seems to have consistently shown that he is not in Govt. to promote the interests of the citizens of NZ.

[Hinny]

Ed, I challenge you to watch this video and then come back and answer some questions.

Tell me, do you really expect a rational reply?

[Katman]

The Police will follow the govt. line as is, I guess, their sworn duty.

I would have no problem if Scumdog confined himself to the "I don't believe the conspiracy theories" line.

However, when he moves over to the "who cares if there's a conspiracy" line, he's overstepped any line that any reasonable person could tolerate.

If that's an indication of the level of the New Zealand Police's investigatory skills then we're well and truly fucked.

[scumdog]

I would have no problem if Scumdog confined himself to the "I don't believe the conspiracy theories" line.

However, when he moves over to the "who cares if there's a conspiracy" line, he's overstepped any line that any reasonable person could tolerate.

If that's an indication of the level of the New Zealand Police's investigatory skills then we're well and truly fucked.


'Seriously man, you are too fucking stupid for your own good'.

Mwahahahahah...joust on my man, joust on...:lol::rofl::D

[Katman]

'Seriously man, you are too fucking stupid for your own good'.

Mwahahahahah...joust on my man, joust on...:lol::rofl::D

You've hung yourself on your own words dickhead.

[Hinny]

You've hung yourself on your own words dickhead.

I can understand Scummy would have a dilemma if he had differing views to those he espoused on public forums given his job.
He could, of course, just shut-up.
But he does like winding people up.
In this case however I do believe he is offering his held opinion. Unsure of how much consideration he may have given it. Not much it would seem.
It is not the first time we have seen him back the wrong horse and no doubt it won't be the last.

[Hinny]

If those honkie cunts gave us fellas better weed we wouldnt be complaining so much!

The war on Drugs is as successful as the 'War on Poverty' (the Poor gave up) and the 'War on Terror'.
Al Qaeda (the terrorist database) has more names on it now than when we first heard the name. Their 'War on Terror' has actually become a War of Terror.
The World is a lot less safe after ten or twenty years of war waged by the Anglo/Americans than it was before they embarked on their 'Crusades' - to use a George Bush quotation.
I have no doubt the people of The United States of America and of Great Britain would have been a lot happier if their armed forces had stayed at home and done something to fix the chronic problems both countries have.
Their can be no argument the the people of Iraq would have been a lot happier.

[scissorhands]

Scummy cant always say what he wants to. Everyone has a job to lose.

maybe he is saying, I agree with you but whinging on kb will do fuck all except draw attention in a negative way...

Good intentions are great, but the end result is more commendable

Plenty of good intentions often look harsh at the time, such as tough love.

I could say: go and live your life away from all this shit, all this waffle will change nothing.... like Akzles approach: dont feed the system, withdraw and save yourself

Indeed, apathy can be a life saver in certain conditions

Hating on Scummy's remarks produces little benefit for anyone except inflame tensions between comrades in arms

JUST WHAT THE BEAST WANTS!
ANGER IS 1 LETTER SHORT OF DANGER

[scissorhands]

The war on Drugs is as successful as the 'War on Poverty' (the Poor gave up) and the 'War on Terror'.
Al Qaeda (the terrorist database) has more names on it now than when we first heard the name. Their 'War on Terror' has actually become a War of Terror.
The World is a lot less safe after ten or twenty years of war waged by the Anglo/Americans than it was before they embarked on their 'Crusades' - to use a George Bush quotation.
I have no doubt the people of The United States of America and of Great Britain would have been a lot happier if their armed forces had stayed at home and done something to fix the chronic problems both countries have.
Their can be no argument the the people of Iraq would have been a lot happier.

Fully agree, no argument from me.

[Katman]

Scummy cant always say what he wants to. Everyone has a job to lose.


Of course he can.

However, for a police officer to not give a fuck whether a conspiracy exists or not is a sad indictment on their commitment to their profession.

[Hinny]

Went to the Friday Jokes thread.
There's one there for Ed.


Jehovee Boy's crew
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=283054&d=1369097347

As 'King of the Jews' I can't imagine he would be happy with 'the Zionists' today and 'Born Again Christians' might wrinkle his Randy Travis Poster as well..
Probably wouldn't want to be found.

[scissorhands]

Of course he can.

However, for a police officer to not give a fuck whether a conspiracy exists or not is a sad indictment on their commitment to their profession.

I have made a personal protest against the medical system. I have challenged doctors and therapists constantly during consultations

Little has changed.

I would have been better off protesting in a different manner, to achieve what I intended.

Positive change.

I'm not going to butcher anyone like those English Nigerians, much like a verbal attack here on Scummy as a representative of the crown

I dont have the answers but your voice will carry further away from small forums like KB. If anything you are allowing the enemy to listen to your conversations, and could be just going backwards through your own efforts.

I dont have any answers

[oneofsix]

Of course he can.

However, for a police officer to not give a fuck whether a conspiracy exists or not is a sad indictment on their commitment to their profession.

This is so typical of the whole conspiracy thing, slightly mis-report the story and then hang an whole theory on it. Leave the key word IF out of Scummies post and make it sound like he doesn't care about conspiracies when in fact he was say this thread isn't going to affect TPTB. Scummy even shouted the if, I've dredged his post for you.


Who frikkin cares, I mean even IF there was this so-called govt conspiray re 9/11 &WTC what the hell is a bunch of ding-bats on KB ever going to do about it or make a difference?

You'ld get more traction on the waving thread...

The whole point of this thread was to challenge the waving thread for pointlessness, yes?

[Madness]

The whole point of this thread was to challenge the waving thread for pointlessness, yes?

Is that not the (only) point behind all the threads Ed starts?

[Hinny]

Another one for Ed since he quoted Popular Mechanics as 'Proof' of the official story.

"Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.
The insurmountable problem with this explanation of Silverstein's statement is that there were no firefighters inside WTC 7.
Dr. Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics (9/11: Debunking the Myths, March, 2005 (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y)) as saying: "There was no firefighting in WTC 7."
The FEMA report (http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm) on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."

[Katman]

This is so typical of the whole conspiracy thing, slightly mis-report the story and then hang an whole theory on it. Leave the key word IF out of Scummies post and make it sound like he doesn't care about conspiracies when in fact he was say this thread isn't going to affect TPTB. Scummy even shouted the if, I've dredged his post for you.


Dude, if you left the word if out of scumdog's post it wouldn't even make any sense, so of course I'm aware of the presence of the word if.

Doesn't change the meaning of his post though.

[mashman]

I would have no problem if Scumdog confined himself to the "I don't believe the conspiracy theories" line.

However, when he moves over to the "who cares if there's a conspiracy" line, he's overstepped any line that any reasonable person could tolerate.

If that's an indication of the level of the New Zealand Police's investigatory skills then we're well and truly fucked.

Why do you think retired cops come out with the shit they come out with when they've retired? Likely throughout their careers there have been a fuckload of silly things they've been asked to do that they disagree with. Judging by the look of Officer Dawg, he's due for retirement soon and I'll be first in line when that thread hits KB.

[oneofsix]

Dude, if you left the word if out of scumdog's post it wouldn't even make any sense, so of course I'm aware of the presence of the word if.

Doesn't change the meaning of his post though.

changes it totally from him saying he didn't give shit about there being a conspiracy to him saying he doesn't give a shit about this thread, no opinion on whether or not there is a conspiracy what so ever. I think you need to relax your jaw a bit on the old bane called Ed, and take a good breath, clear your head.

[Katman]

changes it totally from him saying he didn't give shit about there being a conspiracy to him saying he doesn't give a shit about this thread, no opinion on whether or not there is a conspiracy what so ever. I think you need to relax your jaw a bit on the old bane called Ed, and take a good breath, clear your head.

Are you serious?

Here's his post....

"Who frikkin cares, I mean even IF there was this so-called govt conspiray re 9/11 &WTC what the hell is a bunch of ding-bats on KB ever going to do about it or make a difference?"

It shows a complete disregard for whether a conspiracy exists or not.

[Kickaha]

Another one for Ed since he quoted Popular Mechanics as 'Proof' of the official story.

"Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.
The insurmountable problem with this explanation of Silverstein's statement is that there were no firefighters inside WTC 7.


No but there were firefighters/rescue in areas likely to have WTC7 end up on top of them if they didn't clear them

[Drew]

Are you serious?

Here's his post....

"Who frikkin cares, I mean even IF there was this so-called govt conspiray re 9/11 &WTC what the hell is a bunch of ding-bats on KB ever going to do about it or make a difference?"

It shows a complete disregard for whether a conspiracy exists or not.Read it again and be calm. Replace the apostrophe with a question mark after "Who frikkin cares", and I think you'll find the proper meaning of what that scummy cunt was saying.

[Kickaha]

Are you serious?

Here's his post....

"Who frikkin cares, I mean even IF there was this so-called govt conspiray re 9/11 &WTC what the hell is a bunch of ding-bats on KB ever going to do about it or make a difference?"

It shows a complete disregard for whether a conspiracy exists or not. :yawn::yawn::yawn: who gives a shit, have you been on the piss?

[Katman]

Read it again and be calm. Replace the apostrophe with a question mark after "Who frikkin cares", and I think you'll find the proper meaning of what that scummy cunt was saying.

No Drew, it makes no difference to the meaning.

[Drew]

No Drew, it makes no difference to the meaning.
I respectfully disagree.

Who frikkin cares? I mean even IF there was this so-called govt conspiray re 9/11 &WTC what the hell is a bunch of ding-bats on KB ever going to do about it or make a difference?

There is nothing in the quote I have added a question mark to, that implies he doesn't care if there was a conspiracy.

[_Shrek_]

Are you serious?.

Rant



Here's his post....It shows a complete disregard for whether a conspiracy exists or not.

Rave

:yes: this thread in da right place :blink:

[Katman]

I respectfully disagree.

Who frikkin cares? I mean even IF there was this so-called govt conspiray re 9/11 &WTC what the hell is a bunch of ding-bats on KB ever going to do about it or make a difference?

There is nothing in the quote I have added a question mark to, that implies he doesn't care if there was a conspiracy.

Bullshit Drew.

His "even if" is exactly what displays his indifference.

If there was even the slightest suggestion that the conspiracy theories had any substance (as indicate by his words "even if") then of course this thread would be of utmost importance and I would expect any police officer with any degree of integrity to recognise that fact.

[_Shrek_]

Bullshit Drew.

His "even if" is exactly what displays his indifference.

If there was even the slightest suggestion that the conspiracy theories had any substance (as indicate by his words "even if") then of course this thread would be of utmost importance and I would expect any police officer with any degree of integrity to recognise that fact.

WHY? this is KB!!! short for(key board warriors)nobody really gives a shit what you think Mr Troll god :not::not::not:

[Drew]

Bullshit Drew.

His "even if" is exactly what displays his indifference.

If there was even the slightest suggestion that the conspiracy theories had any substance (as indicate by his words "even if") then of course this thread would be of utmost importance and I would expect any police officer with any degree of integrity to recognise that fact.

Man, you're making the fatal error of thinking KB matters.

You think anything on here isn't on a million other websites. Fuck, everything you are trying to convince others with is a link to another site.

Just because he's five oh, doesn't mean he should investigate, or even give a fuck about anything said on here. Shit, I'd be well fucked if he did, since there have been three or four threads about nothing but the wheelies I do.

I think what the dirty copper was saying is, 'who give a fuck what a bunch of KB homos think? It would make no difference to anyone'.

[Katman]

WHY? this is KB!!! short for(key board warriors)nobody really gives a shit what you think Mr Troll god :not::not::not:

What the fuck does that mean?

All I can see is a classic example of a Kiwibiker who posts simply for the excuse to see his own voice in words.

[Drew]

who posts simply for the excuse to see his own voice in words.Back the truck UP! I think I've missed another memo.

I only post to marvel my own words later on. I mean really, they're always THERE man.

[Katman]

Man, you're making the fatal error of thinking KB matters.

You think anything on here isn't on a million other websites. Fuck, everything you are trying to convince others with is a link to another site.

Just because he's five oh, doesn't mean he should investigate, or even give a fuck about anything said on here. Shit, I'd be well fucked if he did, since there have been three or four threads about nothing but the wheelies I do.

I think what the dirty copper was saying is, 'who give a fuck what a bunch of KB homos think? It would make no difference to anyone'.

Drew, I'll say this slowly so you can understand.

Any normal idiot I could excuse for not recognising and being intrigued by anomalies in a story.

Any cop though should be interested in getting to the truth of a story.

"Even if" shows a total disinterest in finding out the truth.

[scissorhands]

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2007/06/373739.jpg

[Drew]

Drew, I'll say this slowly so you can understand.

Any normal idiot I could excuse for not recognising and being intrigued by anomalies in a story.

Any cop though should be interested in getting to the truth of a story.

"Even if" shows a total disinterest in finding out the truth.

Any cop? Really?

Even one in the middle of butt fuck nowhere, on the other side of the world?

C'mon man, you're over reaching a bit I think.

Why in God's good name would he care? He can do nothing about it. He has no access to actual evidence, just the crap to be found on the net. And most of all, it isn't his job!

[Katman]

Even one in the middle of butt fuck nowhere, on the other side of the world?



Even a cop in the middle of butt fuck nowhere could try convicting you on a charge that you thought was bullshit.

Would you be happy if that cop wasn't interested in finding out the truth?

[98tls]

C'mon man, you're over reaching a bit I think.

Na,surely not.Then again i just remembered Ks location.

[Drew]

Even a cop in the middle of butt fuck nowhere could try convicting you on a charge that you thought was bullshit.

Would you be happy if that cop wasn't interested in finding out the truth?Keh? He doesn't have to question something, that he is not charged with investigating does he?

Sorry man, you stopped making any sense to me a while ago. I'm off to bed.

[Katman]

Keh? He doesn't have to question something, that he is not charged with investigating does he?



As a cop then yes, I'd expect him to question any anomaly.

Forgive me but I thought cops were supposed to be interested in finding out the truth.

I must be old school.

[98tls]

I must be old school.

Is this Katmans bike posting again?Bikes say the darndest things dont they...

[Hinny]

...there have been three or four threads about nothing but the wheelies I do..

I hope you have been practicing so you can wheelie better than the pathetic attempt I saw posted on KB some time back.
That was embarrassing. :oi-grr:

Purely objective observation.

[Ocean1]

I was being facetious.

Well now that you can see that nobody can tell the difference between you being normal and you being silly you can stop it.

The number of facts required to explain any conclusion wrt the cause of the building collapses is very small: A couple of airliners crashed into a couple of buildings. An hour or so later they fell down.

Any other series of explanations rapidly requires many additional unknown suppositions. Like it or not Occam's razor wins this one hands down.

[Hinny]

Well now that you can see that nobody can tell the difference between you being normal and you being silly you can stop it.

The number of facts required to explain any conclusion wrt the cause of the building collapses is very small: A couple of airliners crashed into a couple of buildings. An hour or so later they fell down.

Any other series of explanations rapidly requires many additional unknown suppositions. Like it or not Occam's razor wins this one hands down.

Hardly a cause that is both true and sufficient to explain the occurrence of total collapse.

This simple explanation was, and still is apparently, sufficient for simple people. The American people are notorious for being dumb.
The dissemination of this cause in the immediate aftermath of the collapse raised warning flags to many people. That the information was later determined to have been promoted by actors must surely be cause for further conjecture.

The simple explanation of how they discovered the identity of the hijackers so quickly is in my opinion in the realms of fantasy.
To recap, that explanation was that someone walking past a pile of debris on the 12 of September picked up one of the hijacker's passport. From there the FBI was able to determine that the owner of the passport was worthy of investigation and a raid on their address revealed a list of his accomplices.
That was very fortunate; was it not? ... And unbelievable!
They have a new story out now... 'Mohamed Atta forgot his luggage when he boarded the plane and when his bag was searched they found his passport etc.'
- Fortunate the automatic blowing up of the bag policy was not in force.

What is the simple explanation for the damage to the Pentagon?
A 757 aeroplane is said to have crashed into the side of the building
:at a speed in excess of its rated terminal velocity,
:after being off the radar for 36 minutes,
:leaving one small 5m round hole through seven external walls of a building. Later to be revealed as recently receiving extra reinforcement.
:evading all air defences of the most protected airspace on the planet. - Intercept aircraft and surface to air anti aircraft missiles.
:evading 86 security cameras.
:leaving no trace of the engines. These apparently vapourised - when they hit the windows of the building - without breaking the glass.

Hardly an explanation that should satisfy the man on the Clapham omnibus.

[Kickaha]

What is the simple explanation for the damage to the Pentagon?
The simple explanation was a fuckoff big plane crashed into it as seen by a heap of people


A 757 aeroplane is said to have crashed into the side of the building
:at a speed in excess of its rated terminal velocity,
:after being off the radar for 36 minutes,
:leaving one small 5m round hole through seven external walls of a building. Later to be revealed as recently receiving extra reinforcement.
:evading all air defences of the most protected airspace on the planet. - Intercept aircraft and surface to air anti aircraft missiles.
:evading 86 security cameras.
:leaving no trace of the engines. These apparently vapourised - when they hit the windows of the building - without breaking the glass.

Hardly an explanation that should satisfy the man on the Clapham omnibus.

Oh noes they lost flight 77
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Losing_Flight_77
Photos of engine parts here but hey they were probably planted
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/
Protected airspace that's used all the time by the airport next door? :weird:
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Pentagon_Missile_Batteries
Small 5m hole? sounds like you're digging one for yourself
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html


Luckily I found the real story though so we can all sleep easy at night knowing what really happened


Flight 77 shot down in mountains of W. Virginia

I just listened to a radio interview with a controller from Boston Center (google video). He states clearly that three of the flights were tracked continuously on 9/11 - on radar - even after two had turned off their transponders. They were NEVER off radar. Flight 77 disappeared from radar over the mountains of W. Virginia. There is only one explanation for this. Flight 77 was SHOT DOWN over the mountains of West Virginia. This was part of the plan. What struck the Pentagon had only been picked up on radar for 60 miles or so as it approached - as evidenced by Norm Mineta's 9/11 Commission testimony, and reinforced by the air traffic controllers interview ("it popped up on radar").

What hit the Pentagon was in fact an A3 Skywarrior from Raytheon's inventory (check their inventory - they're missing one) - painted like an AA jet - powered by a Thiokol solid fuel rocket motor (thus the white smoke in the still frames released by the government), loaded with explosives (thus the smell of cordite evidenced by the hundreds of Pentagon employees present that morning).
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

[Kickaha]

Luckily I found the real story though so we can all sleep easy at night knowing what really happened
Changed my mind about that one, maybe it was a Bumble Plane
http://www.public-action.com/911/bumble.html

[scissorhands]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uv_WGEHr4I

[Drew]

I hope you have been practicing so you can wheelie better than the pathetic attempt I saw posted on KB some time back.
That was embarrassing. :oi-grr:

Purely objective observation.Watchu talkin bout Willis?

[Katman]

Watchu talkin bout Willis?

Meh, that could be anyone.

[Drew]

Meh, that could be anyone.This one is pretty clearly me.

[Kickaha]

This one is pretty clearly me.

Photoshopped

[Laava]

This one is pretty clearly me.

Is that a "Hello boys!"?

[Katman]

This one is pretty clearly me.

Clearly photoshopped. You're much uglier than that in real life.

[Drew]

Is that a "Hello boys!"?

Close. "Spreader" is the correct term.

[Drew]

Clearly photoshopped. You're much uglier than that in real life.No mirrors at your house fucker?

[Katman]

No mirrors at your house fucker?

Of course there is.

<img src="http://www.people-results.com/wp-content/uploads/lion-cat-in-mirror.jpg"/>

[Drew]

Of course there is.Dude, are you Azlam?

[Katman]

Dude, are you Azlam?

No, agnostic.

[Drew]

No, agnostic.

Fuckin fence sitter!

[mashman]

Fuckin fence sitter!

Prove him wrong then dipshit.

[Ocean1]

Hardly a cause that is both true and sufficient to explain the occurrence of total collapse.


The simple explanation was a fuckoff big plane crashed into it as seen by a heap of people


Hey! I didn't tag you! :laugh:


Hardly a cause that is both true and sufficient to explain the occurrence of total collapse.

No? So, 160 tons of aluminium and jetA1 traveling at a significant portion of the speed of sound applied to a few square metres of superstructure doesn't represent sufficient energy to explain the collapse to you?

Sure does it for me, but then, as you say I'm unsophisticated.

[Drew]

Prove him wrong then dipshit.

Well well, certainly doesn't take long for this thread to regress right back to name calling does it?

[mashman]

Well well, certainly doesn't take long for this thread to regress right back to name calling does it?

Awwwwwwwwwwwwww (http://www.kleenex.com.au/products/everyday-tissues/)

[paturoa]

How much do you understand about freefall Ed?

Watch these videos and when you've done so I've got some questions for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw

The building 7 myths should have been put to bed by now. There are numerous holes in those vids. Starting with the facts that the centre of building 7 collapsed first. The east penthouse collapses into the centre of building about 5 seconds before. To the question of the free fall speed the connections from the centre collapse to the outer frame pulled down on the exterior of the building causing it to fall faster than would otherwise be expected with a symetrical collapse.

Here is a good vid that talks to part of it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60A86cg16KQ

[Katman]

Here is a good vid that talks to part of it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60A86cg16KQ

Except that he starts his timer at the first moment of movement in the middle of the building.

Measuring the rate of fall requires using one single datum point as David Chandler used at the very corner of the right side of the building.

[paturoa]

Except that he starts his timer at the first moment of movement in the middle of the building.

Measuring the rate of fall requires using one single datum point as David Chandler used at the very corner of the right side of the building.

Nope, the middle of the building's first visible collapse is at the east penthouse, and that starts about 11 seconds. Something to consider here is that given that it wasn't on fire, then the collapse below it must have started some time even before that.

His timing is from the black facade at the top centre, and he used the same vid as NIST. So it is not surprising that his and NIST's 5.4 seconds pretty much align.

The Chandler guys timings are from an alternate distant shot that does not show that part of the collapse, not that Chandler mentions that in his vid. The key point here is that Chandler's vid shot doesn't show the other part of the collapse, visible in the NIST vid. This clearly doesn't make NIST wrong.

As an analogy, there are several vid clips that do NOT show the second plane going into the second tower. Clearly if we look only at that those clips, then was a conspiracy and there was no second plane. EDIT: now that I think of it there was one, remember the hologram conspiracy on the 2nd plane :weird:

He was not saying that when you measure a spot on the external wall (visible from another angle) as per the Chandler guy, that it didn't fall at g. One of the key arguements in Chandler's series of vids was the collapse time was less than the 5.4 NIST estimate. Opps wrong.

He, as is the Engineering community (with a capital E), are looking at as much of the evidence as they can (not just one clip) and there are simple and plauisable explanations for the way that building 7 failed. Most of them have the centre of the building collapsing first.

The NIST is like any bunch of humans, they make mistakes. Clearly they did, but that is not proof that there was a controlled demo of the building.

[Katman]

One of the key arguements in Chandler's series of vids was the collapse time was less than the 5.4 NIST estimate. Opps wrong.


Measuring the collapse time is only measuring how long a whole process takes.

Measuring the fall rate requires taking one single point and timing from the moment that single point starts moving downwards.

The movement in the middle of the building (i.e. the start of the collapse) has nothing to do with calculating the fall rate.

[paturoa]

Measuring the collapse time is only measuring how long a whole process takes.

Measuring the fall rate requires taking one single point and timing from the moment that single point starts moving downwards.

The movement in the middle of the building (i.e. the start of the collapse) has nothing to do with calculating the fall rate.

You've missed the point I'm trying to make.

And you've got the physics wrong. They weren't measuring the rate, they were measuing the accleration or change in rate. Both him and NIST (see 2nd graph) got similar results for that part of the fall.

Chandler says the 5.4 is bollocks when he uses just one video clip that cleary shows a different time. One sample is never good science. See my point regarding some vids that didn't have the second plane.

Getting back to the "facts" that Chandler forwards, he is saying is that the NIST 5.4 secs was bollocks when he views only his video. Clearly when the same vid that NIST used is examined, the bollocks appear to have moved to now be inside Chandler's mouth. That video does show 5.4 seconds so "they" weren't lying.

Chandler's point that "they" are lying, ergo a cover up, ergo a controlled demo, ergo a conspiracy, equals a big fat Fail.

There are simple and plausible mechanisms that explain that part of the structural fail that are supported by the evidence.

When all available vids / evidence are examined, not selective, Chandler's rethorical questions are shown to be selective and false. Move on there is nothing to see here.

[Katman]

Y
Getting back to the "facts" that Chandler forwards, he is saying is that the NIST 5.4 secs was bollocks when he views only his video. Clearly when the same vid that NIST used is examined, the bollocks appear to have moved to now be inside Chandler's mouth. That video does show 5.4 seconds so "they" weren't lying.


Why would anyone use a point somewhere along the front parapet when the point that Chandler used is at the very corner - a point so precise you could stick a pin into the exact spot.

From the time that precise spot starts to move downward until it disappears from view is not 5.4 seconds.

The mathematics show that that precise point moves almost exactly at freefall.

Here's another one for you to look at.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U

[paturoa]

Why would anyone use a point somewhere along the front parapet when the point that Chandler used is at the very corner - a point so precise you could stick a pin into the exact spot.

From the time that precise spot starts to move downward until it disappears from view is not 5.4 seconds.

The mathematics show that that precise point moves almost exactly at freefall.

OK, so you understand that they used:
- two different videos
- of two different points on the building
- that started collapsing at different times
- and got two different results?

Chandler's vid is NOT the same vid that DOES show 5.4 seconds. That does NOT make the 5.4 seconds wrong in the NIST report.

To your why question:
- The vid that NIST used shows a slow initial collapse starting from that point. So they say thats when the collapse started.

I have no idea why no-one is pointing out that they are all ignoring the even earlier collapse into the centre of the building of the east penthouse.

No-one is arguing against the rate of accleration for the mid part of the collapse in Chandler's video.

Edit: I watched the vid. What is the point?

[Katman]

To your why question:
- The vid that NIST used shows a slow initial collapse starting from that point. So they say thats when the collapse started.


To my question why:
- They used that point because it was easier to fudge the figures by doing so.

They initially claimed that the building fell at 40% slower than freefall but then had to change their story when the mathematics were pointed out to them. They could only make their initial claim by using a point where movement is first noticed some time before the corner of the building started dropping.

The three videos I posted earlier show one very nervous NIST 'specialist' when being questioned on their methods of calculating the rate of fall.

[Katman]

Edit: I watched the vid. What is the point?

The point is that the videos show conclusively that the building fell at almost exactly freefall.

A building pancaking one floor at a time would not have fallen that fast.

[Hinny]

The simple explanation was a fuckoff big plane crashed into it as seen by a heap of people

Network Error



A communication error occurred: "Operation timed out"
The Web Server may be down, too busy, or experiencing other problems preventing it from responding to requests. You may wish to try again at a later time.

Your IP Address: 222.155.169.127
Your Computer Name: 222-155-169-127.jetstream.xtra.co.nz
Your Request:http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages/planepiece.html
For support, please contact the CONUS-TNOSC
DSN: 879-6798
CML: (520) 538-6798
Toll Free: 1-800-305-3036
Fax DSN: 879-6809
Fax CML: (520)538-6809
Unable to get info on this point - locked out.


Oh noes they lost flight 77
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Losing_Flight_77
from the quoted Commission report
' American 77 traveled undetected for 36 minutes on a course heading due east for Washington, D.C.'
Isn't that what I said?

Photos of engine parts here but hey they were probably planted
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/
No parts of any plane have been identified by the serial nos for those parts corresponding with the aircraft they were alleged to have come from.

Small 5m hole? sounds like you're digging one for yourself
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html

The 'evidence' you supply here is from some Anonymous contributor saying by his calculations the hole and the damage was consistent with a large aircraft, not a 757, hitting the building. His analysis of photographs after the fires had died down etc.
Why not just look at the photographs of the small neat hole recorded before fire and firemen blocked the view and before the building collapsed?
Note the unbroken glass in the windows where the engines should have hit.

[scumdog]

Goodness gracious!

The vitriol fair flowed last night after I vacated the site!:eek5:

Never mind, as you were...

[Hinny]

The dude you keep quoting does contradict himself a lot.
for example

'April Gallop, who was working in the Pentagon on 9/11, has also been quoted as confirming the presence of these missile':
and a few lines down.
'... no past or current Pentagon employee has clearly confirmed their existence'.

Also makes lots of assertions without supporting evidence and deductions that are strange to say the least.

'... in the last part Gallop appears to be talking about using fighters, not missiles, which won’t “guide” the incoming aircraft anywhere'.
Well Dah????? What a brilliant deduction.

[paturoa]

To my question why:
- They used that point because it was easier to fudge the figures by doing so.


You're the only one fudging now. These are just two of a number of videos from different angles and they clearly show different start times.

When you look at the measurement point on drongo's vid it clearly takes a shorter time. The other takes longer. So what, that doesn't mean that either is wrong, it simply means the obvious that different parts of the building started falling at different times.


They initially claimed that the building fell at 40% slower than freefall but then had to change their story when the mathematics were pointed out to them.

Yeah they fucked up there, as clearly part of the building, for part of the collapse, does fall at g.


They could only make their initial claim by using a point where movement is first noticed some time before the corner of the building started dropping.

You're not getting it are you? Drongo's vid from the corner takes less than 5.4 seconds. Fine agree, that is what that part of the buidling took. I'm not, and I've seen no-one else arguing the contuary.

THE POINT HERE IS that the other vid, which I see that you are starting to conceed shows another part of the building that DOES start falling earlier.


The three videos I posted earlier show one very nervous NIST 'specialist' when being questioned on their methods of calculating the rate of fall.

So, he was nervous. I'm sure I would be too.

[Katman]

You're not getting it are you? Drongo's vid from the corner takes less than 5.4 seconds. Fine agree, that is what that part of the buidling took. I'm not, and I've seen no-one else arguing the contuary.


No, you're not getting it.

The whole point of the mathematics is to confirm the fact that the building fell at freefall.

NIST fudged their figures to try hiding that fact.

As I've said, a building pancaking one floor at a time would not fall at freefall speed.

[paturoa]

The point is that the videos show conclusively that the building fell at almost exactly freefall.

I can't be botherred going back to look, so if you want to, can you please have a look and tell me who is arguing that it didn't?


A building pancaking one floor at a time would not have fallen that fast.

Yeah that is correct, it wouldn't. No one is arguing that point either, though several ginger beers were initially surprised until they worked it out. I'm guessing your point here is that that is unusual, ergo a conspiracy.

The most plausible explanation so far that stands up to multiple peer reviews, is that the centre of the building collapsed first. This is supported by the evidence of the east penthouse collapsing several seconds before the outer shell and other evidence like the windows blowing out. No-one disputes that evidence.

This inner collapse maintained a number of connections to the outer shell and pulled it down as the load of the collapse came on. This force pulling down on the outer shell caused it to fall faster than a pancake scenario. There is multiple supporting evidence, and no contraditory, to this model. A key one being the remaining rubble pile shape.

[paturoa]

No, you're not getting it.

The whole point of the mathematics is to confirm the fact that the building fell at freefall.

NIST fudged their figures to try hiding that fact.

As I've said, a building pancaking one floor at a time would not fall at freefall speed.

Yes, I agree that part of the building fell at g for part of the collapse. Everyone agrees, drongo (aka Chandler was one that pointed it out), NIST agrees, I agree, you agree. So you're right Im not getting it, in particular, what are you actually arguing?

Some retard in NIST wrote some thing that was clearly wrong in the draft report which, when was pointed out was corrected.

I agree that a pancaking building logically would not fall at g. But this buidling did, so it wasn't a pancake fail scenario. See my other post.

[Katman]

This inner collapse maintained a number of connections to the outer shell and pulled it down as the load of the collapse came on. This force pulling down on the outer shell caused it to fall faster than a pancake scenario. There is multiple supporting evidence, and no contraditory, to this model. A key one being the remaining rubble pile shape.

The official story is pointing towards the failure of one or two columns on the east side of the building.

I certainly don't believe that a localised failure on that side of the building would cause the other side of the building to fall at freefall speed.

Furthermore, the west side of the building fell straight down - without any discernable falling in towards the centre.

[Katman]

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/683-debunking-the-real-911-myths-.html

[paturoa]

The official story is pointing towards the failure of one or two columns on the east side of the building.

I certainly don't believe that a localised failure on that side of the building would cause the other side of the building to fall at freefall speed.

Furthermore, the west side of the building fell straight down - without any discernable falling in towards the centre.

The NIST report is an interesting read. Go straight to section 24 on page 21. Your questions and doubts are answered there.

[Katman]

The NIST report is an interesting read. Go straight to section 24 on page 21. Your questions and doubts are answered there.

NIST are a government agency.

They'll say what they're told to say.

[paturoa]

NIST are a government agency.

They'll say what they're told to say.

But if you're saying that what they are saying is wrong, shouldn't you at least read what they are saying?

Is it your position that some ghost writer out there in merkin govt land told them what to write? There were quite a lot of people who worked on that report. I not heard of any whistle blowers or even mysterious deaths.

[Katman]

But if you're saying that what they are saying is wrong, shouldn't you at least read what they are saying?

Is it your position that some ghost writer out there in merkin govt land told them what to write? There were quite a lot of people who worked on that report. I not heard of any whistle blowers or even mysterious deaths.

Any agency that puts a bumbling nervous wreck in a position of acting as their 'specialist' is very hard to take seriously.

[scumdog]

Any agency that puts a bumbling nervous wreck in a position of acting as their 'specialist' is very hard to take seriously.

Yeah, you would have thought they'd be able to find at least ONE competent liar eh...<_<

[Crasherfromwayback]

Here's my take on it...

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kxig2AF1-gw?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Katman]

Yeah, you would have thought they'd be able to find at least ONE competent liar eh...<_<

Perhaps they're not as well trained as the police.

[scumdog]

Perhaps they're not as well trained as the police.

The police blew up the WTC???:eek5:

[Katman]

The police blew up the WTC???:eek5:

Dude, if you're going to try making a joke at least make it pertinent to the post you're quoting.

[paturoa]

The police blew up the WTC???:eek5:

Nah, I'm sure it was the firemen. They had backpacks on and left them in the building.

[SPman]

Why disinformation works......

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/05/23/why-disinformation-works-paul-craig-roberts/ (http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/05/23/why-disinformation-works-paul-craig-roberts/)

[Katman]

Why disinformation works......


One of the links provided in that article deserves it's own post.

http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/05/20/official-story-has-odd-wrinkles-a-pack-of-questions-about-the-boston-bombing-backpacks/

[Drew]

One of the links provided in that article deserves it's own post.

http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/05/20/official-story-has-odd-wrinkles-a-pack-of-questions-about-the-boston-bombing-backpacks/

Stopped reading where they say. "You can clearly see", when refering to a sketchy as fuck picture. Where nothing at all can be clearly seen.

[Akzle]

no. fuck this. i've had enough of this thread.
((lawd grant me a banhammer!))
http://sweetmotherlover.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/girls-burning.jpg?w=645

[Katman]

Stopped reading where they say. "You can clearly see", when refering to a sketchy as fuck picture. Where nothing at all can be clearly seen.

As I asked in the 'other thread', does the white bag beside the rubbish bin really look like the bag hanging over the younger brother's shoulder?

[Akzle]

As I asked in the 'other thread', does the white bag beside the rubbish bin really look like the bag hanging over the younger brother's shoulder?

give it up dude.
http://www.menassat.com/files/images/arab_lesbians.jpg

[Katman]

give it up dude.


I ain't keeping you here.

[Hinny]

SPman's posted link above also yielded this:
Referring to the fact that neither 911 nor the Boston Bombings have been officially investigated.

The only investigations have come from a physicist who proved that WTC 7 came down at free fall and was thus the result of controlled demolition, from a team of scientists who examined dust from the WTC towers and found nano-thermite, from high-rise architects and structural engineers with decades of experience, and from first responders and firefighters who were in the towers and experienced explosions throughout the towers, even in the sub-basements.
We have reached the point where evidence is no longer required. The government’s statements suffice. Only conspiracy kooks produce real evidence.

Like my sig about Atheism and Religion.
The believers of the official 911 story and those who question it are but two sides of the same coin.
One prefers to use its head and the other relies on tales.

[Hinny]

http://sweetmotherlover.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/girls-burning.jpg?w=645

Is that at Burning Man?





Note; no firemen went charging into the Pentagon looking for Burning Men.
Wonder why?

[Drew]

As I asked in the 'other thread', does the white bag beside the rubbish bin really look like the bag hanging over the younger brother's shoulder?

Dunno. Wasn't interested in reading the other thread. Think I only came in to this one because it was always either you, or Ed as the last poster in the new posts function.

[Hinny]

Watchu talkin bout Willis?

Oh! you have really come on.
You been practicing?

[Drew]

Oh! you have really come on.
You been practicing?
Had a purpose built bike in all.

To be honest, once I had the thou it was a forgone conclusion I'd get the hang of it, or have a closed casket funeral a bit soon.

[Hinny]

Any information on whether the peice of aeroplane recently found wedged between a building/s had a serial no on it?

If it did it this would be the first part of any of the, alledgedly recovered, aircraft parts associated with 911 to do so.
What would the odds of that be?
Four aircraft, all major parts with serial nos on them but not one single item is recovered with a serial no on it. Pretty good sanitising job.
Allegedly 90% of the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was recovered. The people claiming that showed a photo of a jumbo bin 3/4 full in support of that assertion.
This was offered up as proof, I believe, by an earlier poster. (Kickaha?)

[Hinny]

Had a purpose built bike in all.

To be honest, once I had the thou it was a forgone conclusion I'd get the hang of it, or have a closed casket funeral a bit soon.

Thought you would have been too busy riding something else.

[Drew]

Any information on whether the peice of aeroplane recently found wedged between a building/s had a serial no on it?

If it did it this would be the first part of any of the, alledgedly recovered, aircraft parts associated with 911 to do so.
What would the odds of that be?
Four aircraft, all major parts with serial nos on them but not one single item is recovered with a serial no on it. Pretty good sanitising job.
Allegedly 90% of the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was recovered. The people claiming that showed a photo of a jumbo bin 3/4 full in support of that assertion.
This was offered up as proof, I believe, by an earlier poster. (Kickaha?)The part between two building just found, had a serial number according to the news. No word since then though, so can't confirm 11/9 plane bit.

[mashman]

Is that at Burning Man?

No, it's a couple of smokin hotties :blip:

[Hinny]

Deaths at 911 was a drop in the bucket

Compared to the Four Million that died in Iraq.

A point that is lost on most people because they are not force fed it on a regular basis.
That's 2/3 of the no killed in the holocaust and yet it is simply ignored.
Hopefully somebody will set up the equivalent of the Simon Wiesenthaal institute and hunt the bastards down that were responsible in the same manner the SWI Jews hunt down Nazi War criminals.

What does this have to do with ANZACs?
We were pulled into their war by a thinly-veiled tissue of lies.
Once we went along with it as it had been sanctioned by the UN even though it appears they had been sold a bogus story.
George Bush Snr. addressed 'The World'. Said Iraq had failed to withdraw from Kuwait and so the US was going to go and make them leave.
His broadcast came after we witnessed a report from Peter Arnett on the Kuwait border, sending his feed out direct by satellite, showing the troops streaming over the border. I believe this was the first time this had been done. Broadcast live and direct and bypassing the US censors.
This is how his lie was exposed. Didn't stop them tho'.
Second time Jenny Shipley sent troops into a covert/ illegal invasion of Iraq. Who knows what story she had been told. Technically made every soldier who went a war criminal.
Third attempt Colon Powell went off to the UN with a big smile on his face trying to get approval to invade Iraq again because of the WMDs.
The majority of members were not convinced by his farcical stories. The Aussies were and so only half of the ANZACs went off to 'free those people' and become war criminals in the process.
Very soon after Hillary Clinton was asking "who are these people we are going to support in Libya" John Key was sending them money and encouragement.
The same sort of crimes Charles Taylor was recently convicted of.

Time and time again we get fed stories that are untrue and we are expected to 'do the honourable thing' and send our children off to kill and be killed.

Perhaps it is time for some of our troops to do some good for the world and hunt these lying tow rags down and bring them to justice.

[Hinny]

No, it's a couple of smokin hotties :blip:

Clearly not athletes.
I'd probably be keen to try and whip them into shape.

[mashman]

Clearly not athletes.
I'd probably be keen to try and whip them into shape.

Race ya....

[Hinny]

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/images/BP-Brown/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Hightower
He gave a range of numbers, based on lower and higher concentrations of the thermite formulation. His lowest figure amounted to 29,000 metric tons of thermitic explosive per tower




/ (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/27/nanothermite-if-it-doesnt-fit-you-must-acquit/)

I think you are wrong again.
It wasn't Hightower it was Niels Harrit (Chief author of the 2009 nanothermite paper)
and he gave a range of numbers based on lower and higher concentrations of the thermite formulation.
Lowest figure amounted to 29,000 metric tonnes of thermetic explosive per tower.
His conservative estimate was 143,000 tonnes that would have had to be placed in each tower.
Clearly he doesn't believe they were brought down with thermite.
What is abundantly clear is a plane load of kerosene was not going to do it.

[Hinny]

Interesting comments from Jim Fetzer, Editor of the VT (Veterans Today) earlier quoted by Kickaha.

'Observations by first responders of apparent molten metal – thought to be molten iron – could be explained by thermite reactions, which, in turn, could possibly explain the severing of steel columns through a process of melting.'

' It is true that military explosives’ research employs nanotechnology and that applications involving nanothermite are a subset of this research. (The military even connects nanotechnology with mini-nukes, stating that a mini-nuke device the size of a suitcase could destroy an entire building.)'

Few who have carefully watched video footage of the Twin Towers coming down could fail to notice what might appropriately be called “explosive effects” in the nature of the destruction.

The “destructive fragmentation effect” of an explosive is its detonation velocity, or the speed of the shock wave through the substance it is traveling in. To significantly fragment a substance, the detonation velocity of the explosive must equal or exceed the sonic velocity (the speed of sound) in the material. For example, the speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s. In steel, the speed of sound is 6,100 m/s. Conventional high explosives such as TNT and RDX have detonation velocities of 6,900 and 8,750 m/s respectively, and are therefore capable of fragmenting concrete and steel, because both 6,900 and 8,750 exceed the sonic velocities of 3,200 m/s required to shatter concrete and 6,100 m/s required to shatter steel.

Hightower has further calculated that if conventional explosives (such as TNT or RDX) acting alone were used to bring down the Twin Towers, the quantity necessary would have been hundreds of tons of explosives per tower.

Do you believers get his point?
Tens of Thousands of tonnes of Nanothermite or hundreds of tons of explosive such as TNT or RDX,per tower would be required to bring them down.
Not a few thousand litres of Kerosene,- most of which appeared to have blown out the side of the South tower
Do any Believers understand that Kerosene is not a high explosive capable shattering Concrete and Steel?
Not capable of hurling Huge Steel columns hundreds of metres laterally, with enough force to tear a twenty story gouge down the side of WTC7?

The NIST modeling and the 911 Commission it appears have simply restated the comments of the 'actors' at the scene immediately after the collapse. (The Official Story) and they are sticking to it.
Explosives were not considered.

[Hinny]

Another very valid point
is that the fifteen floors falling from above onto lower floors were constructed in the same manner and of the same materials.
As each floor hit they should have suffered the same damage - just as when one runs their car into a parked car - they both get wrecked.

Therefore: - for every floor below that was blown to Smithereens then one of the upper floors should have been blown to Smithereens as well.

By that reckoning by the fifteenth floor down there would have been no more floors to come crashing down. It appears the majority of the debris was thrown outside the building with much of it simply turned to dust.
As each floor collapsed and material was ejected outside the building ( some estimates put it at more than 50%) then lower floors would have had less and less to hold up and so the collapse would have slowed down. A level designed to hold up 900,000 tonnes suddenly only having to hold up 450,000 tonnes is not going to collapse at the same rate as floors above that had to hold up close to the same amount as they always had; even tho' it may have dropped 8 feet onto it.
Did the collapse slow? Answer - NO!
It appeared to fall without resistance - top to bottom.

[Edbear]

Somebody opined that this thread was now an insult to the OP and to the topic. It has become completely idiotic and I cannot believe how stupid the conspiracy theorists are.

Their opinions, no matter how farcical, over-ride any facts presented. Sadly I agree that the time has come to consign this thread to PD as truly the idiots now posting are spouting total crap that fits the description of POINTLESS DRIVEL to a 'T'

[Katman]

Somebody opined that this thread was now an insult to the OP.....

It's not all about you Ed.

Just because you're uncomfortable with a conversation doesn't give you any rights as chief censor.

[Drew]

It's not all about you Ed.

Just because you're uncomfortable with a conversation doesn't give you any rights as chief censor.

I don't see anything as a sign of discomfort here. The conversation has just taken a rather circular theme.

Believers keep posting links to their irrefutable proof, non believers notice holes and discount it. (Don't get me wrong, there are holes in the official story too).:(

[Katman]

I don't see anything as a sign of discomfort here. The conversation has just taken a rather circular theme.

Believers keep posting links to their irrefutable proof, non believers notice holes and discount it. (Don't get me wrong, there are holes in the official story too).:(

The truth will only be found by talking about it Drew - not by ignoring it.

[Drew]

The truth will only be found by talking about it Drew - not by ignoring it.I really don't think it will.

The shit all over the net is all heavily one eyed, and the sheer volume of said shit makes it impossible to find all the facts.

I am not ignoring anything, I just accept I will never know for sure, and have enough to worry about with out losing sleep over the implications of what you're saying.

[Katman]

I really don't think it will.

The shit all over the net is all heavily one eyed, and the sheer volume of said shit makes it impossible to find all the facts.

I am not ignoring anything, I just accept I will never know for sure, and have enough to worry about with out losing sleep over the implications of what you're saying.

Then why are you even in the thread Drew?

[Drew]

Then why are you even in the thread Drew?I thought I'd been pretty clear with my posts.

I certainly cannot be bothered going over it all again.

[oneofsix]

I thought I'd been pretty clear with my posts.

I certainly cannot be bothered going over it all again.

:lol: Looks like you achieved your aim Drew. :niceone:


Actually why hasn't this been consigned to PD. It has become just as pointless, if not more so, than the religious arguments.

[Edbear]

I really don't think it will.

The shit all over the net is all heavily one eyed, and the sheer volume of said shit makes it impossible to find all the facts.

I am not ignoring anything, I just accept I will never know for sure, and have enough to worry about with out losing sleep over the implications of what you're saying.

Enough clearly provable facts have been shown to discredit the conspiracy theories. Now they are clutching at silly straws in a pathetic attempt to justify their dogged ignorance.


:lol: Looks like you achieved your aim Drew. :niceone:


Actually why hasn't this been consigned to PD. It has become just as pointless, if not more so, than the religious arguments.

Yup! Long overdue for PD IMHO.

[Katman]

Enough clearly provable facts have been shown to discredit the conspiracy theories. Now they are clutching at silly straws in a pathetic attempt to justify their dogged ignorance.


Why did NIST try to cover up the fact that Building 7 fell at freefall speed Ed?

[Edbear]

Why did NIST try to cover up the fact that Building 7 fell at freefall speed Ed?

Bollocks! You have been shown enough evidence in this thread to prove how building 7 came down but as usual with you you simply dismiss anything actually proven and cling desperately to your idiotic conspiracy agenda. As I have often said and been proven right, conspiracy theorists will never accept any facts contrary to their theories. You are a copmplete waste of time and space.

[Katman]

Bollocks! You have been shown enough evidence in this thread to prove how building 7 came down but as usual with you you simply dismiss anything actually proven and cling desperately to your idiotic conspiracy agenda. As I have often said and been proven right, conspiracy theorists will never accept any facts contrary to their theories. You are a copmplete waste of time and space.

Bollocks to what Ed?

Bollocks that the building fell at freefall speed or bollocks that NIST tried to cover that fact up?

[Edbear]

Read my lips! THERE WERE NO EXPLOSIVES USED IN ANY OF THE BUILDINGS! FACT! PROVEN! BEYOND QUESTION!


THE PLANES THAT HIT THE TOWERS WERE 767'S, AND THE ONE THAT HIT THE PENTAGON WAS A 757 NOT A MISSILE AS SOME SO-CALLED EXPERTS HAVE TESTIFIED! PROVEN! FACT!

As with your silly Boston Bombing thread, IT WAS CAUSED BY TWO BOMBS PLACED BY THE TWO IDENTIFIED CAUSING THREE DEATHS AND MULTIPLE INJURIES! IT WAS NOT A GOVT. SPONSORED ACT!

As I said, enough facts are proven to show your conspiracies to be utter bunkum!

But of course you will never admith to being wrong about these two events, or pretty much anything else you have a bee in your bonnet about, will you? :weird:

[mashman]

If the plane had been fueled with thermite, would there have been enough to do the damage?

[Katman]

Read my lips! THERE WERE NO EXPLOSIVES USED IN ANY OF THE BUILDINGS! FACT! PROVEN! BEYOND QUESTION!


THE PLANES THAT HIT THE TOWERS WERE 767'S, AND THE ONE THAT HIT THE PENTAGON WAS A 757 NOT A MISSILE AS SOME SO-CALLED EXPERTS HAVE TESTIFIED! PROVEN! FACT!

As with your silly Boston Bombing thread, IT WAS CAUSED BY TWO BOMBS PLACED BY THE TWO IDENTIFIED CAUSING THREE DEATHS AND MULTIPLE INJURIES! IT WAS NOT A GOVT. SPONSORED ACT!

As I said, enough facts are proven to show your conspiracies to be utter bunkum!

But of course you will never admith to being wrong about these two events, or pretty much anything else you have a bee in your bonnet about, will you? :weird:

Why won't you answer the question Ed?

[Banditbandit]

Why did NIST try to cover up the fact that Building 7 fell at freefall speed Ed?

Huh ?? What ??? My understanding of the laws of Gravity is that everything falls at freefall speed ... that's the definitinon of freefall speed ..

The only exceptions are where it is affected by the air - such as a feather falling ...

But a building is too heavy for that - of course it's going to fal at freefall speed ...

(Oh shit .. I wasn't going to get sucked into this debate again ...)

[Katman]

Huh ?? What ??? My understanding of the laws of Gravity is that everything falls at freefall speed ... that's the definitinon of freefall speed ..

The only exceptions are where it is affected by the air - such as a feather falling ...

But a building is too heavy for that - of course it's going to fal at freefall speed ...

(Oh shit .. I wasn't going to get sucked into this debate again ...)

Freefall speed only occurs when there is no resistance to the downward motion.

For example, a building that pancakes down upon itself one floor at a time will most certainly not fall at freefall speed.

So why did NIST initially try to claim that Building 7 fell at about 40% slower than freefall speed?

[Banditbandit]

Freefall speed only occurs when there is no resistance to the downward motion.

A building that pancakes down upon itself one floor at a time will most certainly not fall at freefall speed.

So why did NIST initially try to claim that Building 7 fell at about 40% slower than freefall speed?

So hang on .. what you are suggesting is that a building will never fall at freefall speeds ... but you are saying that Building 7 did fall at freefall speeds ..

What you are suggesting is an impossibility - whether it was casued by deliberately planted exploasives or damaged caused by the neighboring building falling ... it's an impossibility ...

There's something screwy in your reasoning here ... (and all over the place .. but let's just deal with here right now ...)

[Edbear]

Why won't you answer the question Ed?

What part of, "There were no explosives" don't you understand?


So hang on .. what you are suggesting is that a building will never fall at freefall speeds ... but you are saying that Building 7 did fall at freefall speeds ..

What you are suggesting is an impossibility - whether it was casued by deliberately planted exploasives or damaged caused by the neighboring building falling ... it's an impossibility ...

There's something screwy in your reasoning here ... (and all over the place .. but let's just deal with here right now ...)

:( You see why I call him a waste of time and space. I'm beyond caring what he thinks.

[Katman]

So hang on .. what you are suggesting is that a building will never fall at freefall speeds ... but you are saying that Building 7 did fall at freefall speeds ..



I'm not saying that at all.

If you simultaneously remove/sever every supporting column across the floor area and over several levels, then that building is most certainly going to fall at almost exactly freefall speed.

That's precisely what demolition experts try to achieve.

[Katman]

What part of, "There were no explosives" don't you understand?


Why won't you answer the question Ed?

[Katman]

Is the question too hard?

[Edbear]

Is the question too hard?

The question is stupid of course. If no explosives were used it matters not how fast the building fell. Anyone can watch the building fall on several available vidoes and see for themselves how fast it fell down.

You should know by now, (among a host of other things...), that even eyewitnesses often disagree on events and reports change as more information comes to light. There is no evidence of any deliberate cover ups by any agencies. Only questions from conspiracy theorists who blithely ignore the actual facts as you do.

Nuff said!

[Banditbandit]

I'm beyond caring what he thinks.

Yeah .. I wasn't going to get sucked into this debate again ... I think I'll just walk away again ...

[Drew]

You realise, that the word implosion in no way actually describes what demolition experts to do a building aye? It is a series of EXplosions. They're loud, and make windows and other stuff blow OUT before shit starts falling DOWN.

Didn't notice any explosive forces until after shit started coming down.

Please explain to me Katman, how the managed that little marvel.

[bogan]

If no explosives were used it matters not how fast the building fell.

Just to point out the blindingly obvious. Katman is saying how fast the building fell determines whether explosives were used or not, which makes sense. You're then saying it doesn't matter how fast they fell because people have already told you there were no explosives used, which is just typical question dodging. Only one seems to be arguing with facts and sense, while the other just claims to use them.


You realise, that the word implosion in no way actually describes what demolition experts to do a building aye? It is a series of EXplosions. They're loud, and make windows and other stuff blow OUT before shit starts falling DOWN.

Didn't notice any explosive forces until after shit started coming down.

Please explain to me Katman, how the managed that little marvel.

See, this guy discusses with some sense. Explosions can be damped pretty well, like the cutting charges with water on the one side. Would take a lot of technical expertise though, and makes you wonder why such experts would then overlook other aspects such as the fall speed.

[Edbear]

You realise, that the word implosion in no way actually describes what demolition experts to do a building aye? It is a series of EXplosions. They're loud, and make windows and other stuff blow OUT before shit starts falling DOWN.

Didn't notice any explosive forces until after shit started coming down.

Please explain to me Katman, how the managed that little marvel.

Funny how the several thousand tonnes of explosives went off so quietly and unobtrusively in order to bring the buildings down.

Ever seen a buiding demolished using explosives? Lots of very loud bangs precede the collapse...

[Katman]

You realise, that the word implosion in no way actually describes what demolition experts to do a building aye? It is a series of EXplosions. They're loud, and make windows and other stuff blow OUT before shit starts falling DOWN.

Didn't notice any explosive forces until after shit started coming down.

Please explain to me Katman, how the managed that little marvel.

In the video footage of the building collapsing you don't get to see what is happening on the lower floors.

All you get to see is the top half of the building falling down into a seeming void.

[Edbear]

Just to point out the blindingly obvious. Katman is saying how fast the building fell determines whether explosives were used or not, which makes sense. You're then saying it doesn't matter how fast they fell because people have already told you there were no explosives used, which is just typical question dodging. Only one seems to be arguing with facts and sense, while the other just claims to use them.

See, this guy discusses with some sense. Explosions can be damped pretty well, like the cutting charges with water on the one side. Would take a lot of technical expertise though, and makes you wonder why such experts would then overlook other aspects such as the fall speed.

Ah, another one who ignores facts in favour of theories. It has been very clearly shown why and how the buildings collapsed, but as with Katman, you too have proven you don't like to ascertain anything for yourself, just blindly accept idiotic theories and keep asking the same dumb questions that have been already answered by more than just me on here.

[Katman]

Funny how the several thousand tonnes of explosives went off so quietly and unobtrusively in order to bring the buildings down.

Ever seen a buiding demolished using explosives? Lots of very loud bangs precede the collapse...

There are plenty of eye witness accounts of hearing explosions just prior to the collapse of Building 7 Ed.

[bogan]

Ah, another one who ignores facts in favour of theories. It has been very clearly shown why and how the buildings collapsed, but as with Katman, you too have proven you don't like to ascertain anything for yourself, just blindly accept idiotic theories and keep asking the same dumb questions that have been already answered by more than just me on here.

Ignores facts? As usual you seem incredibly reluctant to post any so what is there to ignore? well, apart from your vitriolic outbursts which don't deserve any replies anyway.

[Katman]

It has been very clearly shown why and how the buildings collapsed, but as with Katman, you too have proven you don't like to ascertain anything for yourself, just blindly accept idiotic theories....

And yet you're happy to believe that the failure of a single column can bring an entire building down uniformly at freefall speed?

[Drew]

In the video footage of the building collapsing you don't get to see what is happening on the lower floors.

All you get to see is the top half of the building falling down into a seeming void.Hang on, you only questioned building sevens collapse earlier.

The video of that which you posted a link to, was from ground level. It's the only one of that building I've seen, until then I didn't know it had even come down. There are no explosions at ground level, until the floors above start taking up the space too.

[oneofsix]

Just to point out the blindingly obvious. Katman is saying how fast the building fell determines whether explosives were used or not, which makes sense. You're then saying it doesn't matter how fast they fell because people have already told you there were no explosives used, which is just typical question dodging. Only one seems to be arguing with facts and sense, while the other just claims to use them.

Not really, how fast the building falls is determined by the failure scenario and this has been explained previously and in the official reports without the use of explosives, comes back to original design, plane type and fuel load. The speed of explosives would mean that the building could have been felled as soon as the plane hit rather than waiting until some of the potential victims had escaped the lower floors.


See, this guy discusses with some sense. Explosions can be damped pretty well, like the cutting charges with water on the one side. Would take a lot of technical expertise though, and makes you wonder why such experts would then overlook other aspects such as the fall speed.

Exactly. Start putting the lot together and the conspiracy fails.

Also over looked is the major re-editing and delay this event caused to the release of the first Spiderman movie, no way would Hollywood have let a Govt. conspiracy get in the way of a major movie release therefore no conspiracy can have occurred.

:jerry:

[Katman]

Hang on, you only questioned building sevens collapse earlier.

The video of that which you posted a link to, was from ground level.

Sorry Drew, you've lost me.

Which post was that?

[Katman]

Not really, how fast the building falls is determined by the failure scenario and this has been explained previously and in the official reports without the use of explosives, comes back to original design, plane type and fuel load. The speed of explosives would mean that the building could have been felled as soon as the plane hit rather than waiting until some of the potential victims had escaped the lower floors.


We're talking about Building 7 here.

Remember?

[Edbear]

As I said the evidence has been posted many times throughout both threads, but as I also said, the cnospiracy theorists will always ignore any proven facts to the contrary of what they want to believe.

Bogan if you want to have any more credibility than Katman, which is absolute zero, you will stop being an idiot and go and watch the videos yourself and comment on them specifically. I am not the only person here who thinks you guys are being dumb and ignoring facts.

Why not prove also that you are not merely obsessed with discrediting me personally and apply the same comments to the others? Attacking me does nothing for your arguments and only proves you are incapable of rational thought.

[Katman]

Why not prove also that you are not merely obsessed with discrediting me personally and apply the same comments to the others? Attacking me does nothing for your arguments and only proves you are incapable of rational thought.

You still haven't answered the question Ed.

Was it bollocks that the building fell at freefall speed or bollocks that NIST tried to hide that fact?

[Edbear]

And yet you're happy to believe that the failure of a single column can bring an entire building down uniformly at freefall speed?

Comments like that simply prove how dumb you are, sorry.

[bogan]

Exactly. Start putting the lot together and the conspiracy fails.

Unless the demo experts were backed by psych experts who knew that is how the public would think, so they went ahead regardless...

:corn: :jerry:

edit: Also, spiderman was shit, they should have just scrapped it and started again with Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson or Vin 'I can't spell his last name' Deisile as lead.

[bogan]

As I said the evidence has been posted many times throughout both threads, but as I also said, the cnospiracy theorists will always ignore any proven facts to the contrary of what they want to believe.

Bogan if you want to have any more credibility than Katman, which is absolute zero, you will stop being an idiot and go and watch the videos yourself and comment on them specifically. I am not the only person here who thinks you guys are being dumb and ignoring facts.

Why not prove also that you are not merely obsessed with discrediting me personally and apply the same comments to the others? Attacking me does nothing for your arguments and only proves you are incapable of rational thought.

You really can't maintain a discussion without resorting to insults can you? Not very christianly of you Ed.

Also, you don't seem to realise what my argument actually is, perhaps you need to go back through not only this thread, but the boston one to to find the post I remember making but expect you to do more work than I would need to to find it or just simply re-iterate it :rolleyes:

[Drew]

Sorry Drew, you've lost me.

Which post was that?How would I know? You are the one who seems to think posting endless links to other sites, is the best way to make your point.

I followed one, and watched a video of building seven coming down. In that clip we appear to be looking at a parking entrance that goes under the building. IF explosives were being used they would have been detonated down there FIRST, working from the center outwards and upwards. No debris comes from in there till the floors above come down on it.

There is audio also, but oddly what is prevalent from that, are people saying things like "They're gonna bring it down". Even as it falls, queerly quietly compared to the voices. Which are meant to be voiced at a distance of about 100 meters as far as I could tell. Ya know, where the blasts would be very audible.

You reckon they used that quiet shatter glass in building seven? Don't hear any of that in the clip, but can hear people talking quite well.

These are observations I made, after watching a video that is supposed to be "irrefutable proof".

If you are right in how you see the whole event, you can never win the argument. Simply put, more people have made up more bullshit to try and convince everyone of a conspiracy, than the conspirators did to start with.

[Katman]

Comments like that simply prove how dumb you are, sorry.

Really Ed?

NIST are the only ones who have put forward the theory that the building collapsed due to the failure of a single column.

They claimed to have proven this with a model yet refuse to release that model for public examination.

Why would that be?

[Katman]

How would I know? You are the one who seems to think posting endless links to other sites, is the best way to make your point.

I followed one, and watched a video of building seven coming down. In that clip we appear to be looking at a parking entrance that goes under the building. IF explosives were being used they would have been detonated down there FIRST, working from the center outwards and upwards. No debris comes from in there till the floors above come down on it.

There is audio also, but oddly what is prevalent from that, are people saying things like "They're gonna bring it down". Even as it falls, queerly quietly compared to the voices. Which are meant to be voiced at a distance of about 100 meters as far as I could tell. Ya know, where the blasts would be very audible.

You reckon they used that quiet shatter glass in building seven? Don't hear any of that in the clip, but can hear people talking quite well.

These are observations I made, after watching a video that is supposed to be "irrefutable proof".

If you are right in how you see the whole event, you can never win the argument. Simply put, more people have made up more bullshit to try and convince everyone of a conspiracy, than the conspirators did to start with.

You keep referring to this video Drew but I don't know which one you're talking about.

Help me out here.

[Edbear]

You really can't maintain a discussion without resorting to insults can you? Not very christianly of you Ed.

Also, you don't seem to realise what my argument actually is, perhaps you need to go back through not only this thread, but the boston one to to find the post I remember making but expect you to do more work than I would need to to find it or just simply re-iterate it :rolleyes:

Like I pointed out a long time ago, if you can't get off your lazy backside and go and look at the links I have posted, there is nothing more I can do or say.

[Drew]

You keep referring to this video Drew but I don't know which one you're talking about.

Help me out here.Sorry mate, it was fuckin pages ago. On a site that seemed to be an endless list of links. I clicked it at random, and stopped watching after about a minute once I had discounted it as rubbish.

I didn't know there would be a test later on.

[Edbear]

Really Ed?

NIST are the only ones who have put forward the theory that the building collapsed due to the failure of a single column.

They claimed to have proven this with a model yet refuse to release that model for public examination.

Why would that be?

Lets solve this once and for all. Do you believe that explosives were used in any of the buildings? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

[Drew]

Comments like that simply prove how dumb you are, sorry.You are not helping anyone with the name calling, and personal attacks Ed.


Just saying.

[bogan]

Like I pointed out a long time ago, if you can't get off your lazy backside and go and look at the links I have posted, there is nothing more I can do or say.

Why do you think I disagree with them? what point is it you think I'm trying to make? If you don't stay on your lazy backside (lets face it, getting out of one's chair just makes internet browsing less convenient) and check back through to what my point is, then you just look like a hypocrite with anger problems.

[Edbear]

You are not helping anyone with the name calling, and personal attacks Ed.

Just saying.

I guess I should quit this thread really, I get a bit short with people who cannot look at facts and objectively analyse links and who keep harping on about the very stuff that has already been discredited.

I could of course sink to their level and red rep them with the same vitriol and language they red rep me with...

The plain facts are that there were no explosives used in any of the buildings, so what kind of mentality does it take to keep on as these ones do?

[Edbear]

Why do you think I disagree with them? what point is it you think I'm trying to make? If you don't stay on your lazy backside (lets face it, getting out of one's chair just makes internet browsing less convenient) and check back through to what my point is, then you just look like a hypocrite with anger problems.

You wanted me to repost the same links in another thread so you didn't have to go to the thread I told you they were on. I clearly directed everyone to the links but that wasn't good enough for you. Now you tell me who is being petty here?

[bogan]

You wanted me to repost the same links in another thread so you didn't have to go to the thread I told you they were on. I clearly directed everyone to the links but that wasn't good enough for you. Now you tell me who is being petty here?

:lol: So why won't you do exactly the same as you are asking me to do, to correct yourself as to the point I am trying to make?

[Katman]

Lets solve this once and for all. Do you believe that explosives were used in any of the buildings? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

Yes, I'm going with the theory that explosives were used in Building 7.