PDA

View Full Version : 911 Was an Inside Job by US Government CIA and Israeli Mossad agents



TheForgiven
09-07-2014, 08:47 PM
Hi folks! It's me again! I'd like anyone to discuss what you believe about 911. I know this topic has been a hot issue for some for quite some time now. But it's about time that the American people get hold of their thoughts, and realize that they have been sleeping in a lying world. It's time for you to know the truth folks.

Rather than bore you with excessive evidences and detail from the start, let me first simply share my position, and we'll start from there.

In short, September 11th was based on a 1960's CIA False Flag plot to plunge the US into war with Cuba. The CIA called this, "Operation Northwoods". In this scenario, two hijacked planes would slam into the WTC buildings and Castro would be blamed for it. September 11th happened nearly identically as Operation Northwoods was supposed to happen. But thanks be to God, John F. Kennedy would not go through with this. In fact, JFK knew who the enemies were (Rothschild Jews) and signed executive order to remove control of the printing of money from them (false Jews) and return Constitutional control of money printing to the Government. A few months later, he was assassinated by the CIA with Oswald as a Patsy who took the fall for it. His own CIA boss assassinated him to keep him quiet so as not to expose the truth.

Sadly, some 40 years later, the group responsible for the murder of JFK, was also responsible for 911 using Operation Northwoods as their bases. The goal was to get the United States into another war by staging a false-flag attack as "the New Pearl Harbor" the Illuminati needed to justify war.

Summary:

911 was based on Operation Northwoods from the 1960 involving hijacked planes to be smashed into the WTC buildings, and blamed on CUBA, except in our day it was blamed on Osama Ben Laden (Patsy towards the Bush family). The total plan included the complete take over of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iran by 2005. Fortunately, many of us who are awake have been exposing their plot. But now (fearing they are running out of time) they are in a hurry to complete their mission, and have been using ISIS and our government (bot political parties) to assist Israel in its genocide against Christian's, Muslims, and Orthodox Jews.

Joe

David M
09-08-2014, 02:41 AM
Hi folks! It's me again! I'd like anyone to discuss what you believe about 911. I know this topic has been a hot issue for some for quite some time now. But it's about time that the American people get hold of their thoughts, and realize that they have been sleeping in a lying world. It's time for you to know the truth folks.

Rather than bore you with excessive evidences and detail from the start, let me first simply share my position, and we'll start from there.

In short, September 11th was based on a 1960's CIA False Flag plot to plunge the US into war with Cuba. The CIA called this, "Operation Northwoods". In this scenario, two hijacked planes would slam into the WTC buildings and Castro would be blamed for it. September 11th happened nearly identically as Operation Northwoods was supposed to happen. But thanks be to God, John F. Kennedy would not go through with this. In fact, JFK knew who the enemies were (Rothschild Jews) and signed executive order to remove control of the printing of money from them (false Jews) and return Constitutional control of money printing to the Government. A few months later, he was assassinated by the CIA with Oswald as a Patsy who took the fall for it. His own CIA boss assassinated him to keep him quiet so as not to expose the truth.

Sadly, some 40 years later, the group responsible for the murder of JFK, was also responsible for 911 using Operation Northwoods as their bases. The goal was to get the United States into another war by staging a false-flag attack as "the New Pearl Harbor" the Illuminati needed to justify war.

Summary:

911 was based on Operation Northwoods from the 1960 involving hijacked planes to be smashed into the WTC buildings, and blamed on CUBA, except in our day it was blamed on Osama Ben Laden (Patsy towards the Bush family). The total plan included the complete take over of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iran by 2005. Fortunately, many of us who are awake have been exposing their plot. But now (fearing they are running out of time) they are in a hurry to complete their mission, and have been using ISIS and our government (bot political parties) to assist Israel in its genocide against Christian's, Muslims, and Orthodox Jews.

Joe
Hello Joe
There was a tv program on late last night, but I was too tired to see it through to the end. It was to do with lost tapes concerning 911. I have heard the various conspiracy theories and like many things to do with the Bible, there is a mass of confusion created by all the different interpretations and opinions. Can we ever get to know the truth behind 911? Lost tapes, or destroyed evidence, there is ONE who knows.

It would seem like the great wealth owners (the banks in private hands) have control behind the scenes. Maybe WW3 is the bankers eventual goal to bring about a major reduction in the world's population. This is the only way these wealth owners can see how to maintain control and retain their wealth. Practically all the major economies around the world are on the verge of collapse. A massive population cannot be sustained and capitalism needs a major realignment. Capitalism cannot continue as it has done in the past. Capitalism is doomed to fail if it continues without realignment. Instead of collapsing where everything gets lost, the bankers can fund all sides in war such that whoever wins, the bankers come out on top by profiting from their funding of the winning side. The bankers win whoever wins or loses. It is history repeating itself, but on a grander scale than ever uncovered before.

What the great wealth owners fail to realize is that God has his own New World Order in store and God's plan will succeed where the bankers' plan will fail. God is alive and active and is working in the kingdoms of men. It is fascinating to watch these things unfolding and I am reassured of God's promises.

All the best
David

TheForgiven
09-08-2014, 07:57 AM
Hello Joe
There was a tv program on late last night, but I was too tired to see it through to the end. It was to do with lost tapes concerning 911. I have heard the various conspiracy theories and like many things to do with the Bible, there is a mass of confusion created by all the different interpretations and opinions. Can we ever get to know the truth behind 911? Lost tapes, or destroyed evidence, there is ONE who knows.

It would seem like the great wealth owners (the banks in private hands) have control behind the scenes. Maybe WW3 is the bankers eventual goal to bring about a major reduction in the world's population. This is the only way these wealth owners can see how to maintain control and retain their wealth. Practically all the major economies around the world are on the verge of collapse. A massive population cannot be sustained and capitalism needs a major realignment. Capitalism cannot continue as it has done in the past. Capitalism is doomed to fail if it continues without realignment. Instead of collapsing where everything gets lost, the bankers can fund all sides in war such that whoever wins, the bankers come out on top by profiting from their funding of the winning side. The bankers win whoever wins or loses. It is history repeating itself, but on a grander scale than ever uncovered before.

What the great wealth owners fail to realize is that God has his own New World Order in store and God's plan will succeed where the bankers' plan will fail. God is alive and active and is working in the kingdoms of men. It is fascinating to watch these things unfolding and I am reassured of God's promises.

All the best
David

Hi David:

I'm glad you've elected to participate on this very important discussion. You are quite right about the bankers; they control and fund all wars and they choose who they want to win. I won't mention it right now, but I know the identity of these global bankers, and I'm willing to expose them; but not right now. The important issue is that these bankers have also taken control of our media (Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc.); they control all media that is released to the public. So be careful on what you watch on television. National Geographic aired a series of 911 conspiracies yesterday, and it was all a big joke. They twisted nearly every fact we truthers have on 911.

For starters, let us focus on the 2 world trade center buildings. How many buildings came down? Most are only familiar with towers 1 and 2. Most do not know that buildings 5, 6, and 7 came down as well, yet none of them were struck by airplanes. I'll get to those later. For now, let's look at the science behind the collapse of the buildings.

WTC BUILDINGS


Folks we are told that jet fuel and furniture fires caused both towers to fall at zero resistance from any lower structure. Yet both fell at gravity speed (meaning there was no resistance).

FACT 1 - Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steal. The fires SHOULD have only been limited to the upper floors (110th give or take). Yet several of the first respondance tried to testify to the 911 commissioners that the basement had exploded and there were dead bodies there as well. One of the janitors testified that he heard an loud explosion in the basement before the first plane even hit. It was when he exited the building, he looked up and saw the first plane strike the tower. This janitor is no longer alive; he SUPPOSEDLY committed suicide a few years later; this holds true to hundreds of other eyewitnesses who are no longer with us today. Additionally, several first responders (firemen and police officers) heard subsequent controlled explosions in the towers as the towers collapsed. This is indicative of a controlled detonation.

Susan Landora, a former CIA asset, blew the whistle on this a few years ago, and has informed the public of about 15 white vans recorded on video, with people entering the towers between the hours of 0300 - 0530 hours. What were they doing? And why was the security systems turned off? Jeb Bush (brother of George Bush) owned the security systems of the WTC buildings. Interesting?

Now who was driving the white vans? Take a look at this photo:

12591260

These vans were seen on the day of 911; roughly 15 or so. These vans were assigned to a moving company known as "Urban Moving Company". Who owned these vans? Mossad Israeli intelligence agents, of which five were seen "high fiving" each other when the first plane hit. About 70 Israeli Mossad agents were arrested shortly after 911, but the FBI secretly released all of them. The five Israeli's who were arrested told CNN reporters that their mission was to document and record the incident. HOW did they know about it? And why didn't they warn the United States seeing how they knew the EXACT day and time. Watch the video below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97ImPcb4keY

Now getting back to the buildings, it is impossible for two massive sky scrapers to simply collapse because of office fires some 100 floors above. If anything, only that section of the building should have fallen, if at all. However, the WTC buildings were specifically designed to withstand aircraft impacts, as well as tolerate fires. Ever wonder why the fire suppression system was turned off? *clears throat* Think Jeb Bush might have had something to do with that? Or perhaps the CIA? Or what about the owner of the towers, David Rockefeller? It's no secret that David Rockefeller is part of the Illuminati and the Bilderberg group. Interestingly enough, Larry Steinberg, Zionist support and dual citizen Israeli/American citizen, leased the buildings six months prior to 911, and just happened to have started in insurance policy that specifically covers TERRORIST ATTACKS. He profited by $4,000,000,000 billion dollars after the 911 attacks.

Summary:

The towers were designed to withstand airplane collisions and fires, but for some odd reason, the suppression system was turned off, as well as its security systems. Several explosions were heard by eyewitnesses before and after the first place strikes. Jet fuel only burns for about 15 to 20 minutes at a maximum temperature of about 1,200 degrees; it takes more than 2,000 degrees to melt steal thereby weakening its structure. Demolition charges containing a substance known as nano-thermite (or Thermate) was used in conjunction with the detonation charges. The charges were installed months prior to 911 by suspects driving confirmed white vans owned by an Urban Moving Company, which is owned by Israel. Several of the eyewitnesses who have tried testifying as to what they saw, have all died mysterious deaths, yet their video's remain in circle on the internet.

Conclusion? Obviously this was NOT the work of Osama Ben Laden, especially considering he had close ties with the Bush family.

Joe

L67
09-08-2014, 08:21 PM
Hi David:

I'm glad you've elected to participate on this very important discussion. You are quite right about the bankers; they control and fund all wars and they choose who they want to win. I won't mention it right now, but I know the identity of these global bankers, and I'm willing to expose them; but not right now. The important issue is that these bankers have also taken control of our media (Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc.); they control all media that is released to the public. So be careful on what you watch on television. National Geographic aired a series of 911 conspiracies yesterday, and it was all a big joke. They twisted nearly every fact we truthers have on 911.

Hey Joe,

Please don't take any offense to my comments because I'm not trying to insult you. I believe in speaking directly and I encourage anyone else to do the same.

The 911 truther movement is one rooted in ignorance. The things you call facts are not really facts as I will discuss below.


For starters, let us focus on the 2 world trade center buildings. How many buildings came down? Most are only familiar with towers 1 and 2. Most do not know that buildings 5, 6, and 7 came down as well, yet none of them were struck by airplanes. I'll get to those later. For now, let's look at the science behind the collapse of the buildings.

Building 7 was struck by debris that caused it to catch fire. This video proves that. People knew the building would come down because they even say it in the video.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U#t=49



The NIST concluded: the failure of structural “connections that were designed to resist gravity loads, but not thermally induced lateral loads."

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

This was because the uncontrolled fire caused upward thermal expansion(heat rises) and buckled the floor tiles causing the building to come straight down.

And I know people say they heard explosions, but there is a perfectly good explanation for that. WTC 7 had massive diesel generators with large tanks of fuel that were to be used when the power went out. With uncontrolled fires, it's not a stretch to say the generators ignited.

Here is a very thorough debunking of the WTC 7 controlled demolition nonsense. http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

WTC BUILDINGS



Folks we are told that jet fuel and furniture fires caused both towers to fall at zero resistance from any lower structure. Yet both fell at gravity speed (meaning there was no resistance).

Total nonsense. If you watch any video you can clearly see the columns falling faster than the building itself. This video debunks that claim. The math doesn't lie.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4#t=132



FACT 1 - Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steal. The fires SHOULD have only been limited to the upper floors (110th give or take). Yet several of the first respondance tried to testify to the 911 commissioners that the basement had exploded and there were dead bodies there as well. One of the janitors testified that he heard an loud explosion in the basement before the first plane even hit. It was when he exited the building, he looked up and saw the first plane strike the tower. This janitor is no longer alive; he SUPPOSEDLY committed suicide a few years later; this holds true to hundreds of other eyewitnesses who are no longer with us today. Additionally, several first responders (firemen and police officers) heard subsequent controlled explosions in the towers as the towers collapsed. This is indicative of a controlled detonation.

The jet fuel doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt the steel. It just has to burn hot enough to affect the load bearing capability of the steel before it collapses. The fires burned plenty long for that very thing to happen.

There is no evidence of any controlled demolition. And the rest of your claims are just hearsay.


Susan Landora, a former CIA asset, blew the whistle on this a few years ago, and has informed the public of about 15 white vans recorded on video, with people entering the towers between the hours of 0300 - 0530 hours. What were they doing? And why was the security systems turned off? Jeb Bush (brother of George Bush) owned the security systems of the WTC buildings. Interesting?

She's a crackpot. So what? Read this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Lindauer

n 2005 she was incarcerated at Carswell Air Force Base in Fort Worth, Texas, for psychological evaluation. She was then moved to the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan.[14] In 2006, she was released on bail prison after judge Michael B. Mukasey ruled that Lindauer was unfit to stand trial and would not order her to be forcibly administered antipsychotic medication to make her competent to stand trial.[1][14] He noted that the severity of Lindauer's mental illness, which he described as a "lengthy delusional history", weakened the prosecution's case. In his decision he wrote, "Lindauer ... could not act successfully as an agent of the Iraqi government without in some way influencing normal people .... There is no indication that Lindauer ever came close to influencing anyone, or could have. The indictment charges only what it describes as an unsuccessful attempt to influence an unnamed government official, and the record shows that even lay people recognize that she is seriously disturbed."[15]




These vans were seen on the day of 911; roughly 15 or so. These vans were assigned to a moving company known as "Urban Moving Company". Who owned these vans? Mossad Israeli intelligence agents, of which five were seen "high fiving" each other when the first plane hit. About 70 Israeli Mossad agents were arrested shortly after 911, but the FBI secretly released all of them. The five Israeli's who were arrested told CNN reporters that their mission was to document and record the incident. HOW did they know about it? And why didn't they warn the United States seeing how they knew the EXACT day and time. Watch the video below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97ImPcb4keY

That's it? You actually believe this conspiracy nonsense on that silly video? There was NOT single thing in that video that would allow the wild claims you are making.


Now getting back to the buildings, it is impossible for two massive sky scrapers to simply collapse because of office fires some 100 floors above. If anything, only that section of the building should have fallen, if at all. However, the WTC buildings were specifically designed to withstand aircraft impacts, as well as tolerate fires. Ever wonder why the fire suppression system was turned off? *clears throat*

Absolute nonsense. Not only is it possible, but it happened. Your comments indicate a gross ignorance of the science behind the WTC's falling. You have filled your head with garbage. No offense.



Think Jeb Bush might have had something to do with that? Or perhaps the CIA? Or what about the owner of the towers, David Rockefeller? It's no secret that David Rockefeller is part of the Illuminati and the Bilderberg group. Interestingly enough, Larry Steinberg, Zionist support and dual citizen Israeli/American citizen, leased the buildings six months prior to 911, and just happened to have started in insurance policy that specifically covers TERRORIST ATTACKS. He profited by $4,000,000,000 billion dollars after the 911 attacks.

More nonsense.

Larry Silverstein didn't profit 4 billion from 9/11. That is what he was paid for the destruction. The value of the WTC was quite a bit higher. And let's not forget what it's going to cost to replace the WTC. It is much higher than 4 billion.

Also, considering the WTC was attacked in 93 it's perfectly logical to have a anti terrorism policy.

Summary:


The towers were designed to withstand airplane collisions and fires, but for some odd reason, the suppression system was turned off, as well as its security systems. Several explosions were heard by eyewitnesses before and after the first place strikes. Jet fuel only burns for about 15 to 20 minutes at a maximum temperature of about 1,200 degrees; it takes more than 2,000 degrees to melt steal thereby weakening its structure. Demolition charges containing a substance known as nano-thermite (or Thermate) was used in conjunction with the detonation charges. The charges were installed months prior to 911 by suspects driving confirmed white vans owned by an Urban Moving Company, which is owned by Israel. Several of the eyewitnesses who have tried testifying as to what they saw, have all died mysterious deaths, yet their video's remain in circle on the internet.

Conclusion? Obviously this was NOT the work of Osama Ben Laden, especially considering he had close ties with the Bush family.

Joe


Conclusion? The whole 9/11 truther movement is just plain nonsense.

Snakeboy
09-08-2014, 09:20 PM
Tell you what I never see discussed in these conversations, is the 3M visco-elastic mass damping system the World Trade Towers had

First of it's kind in the world, in a high-rise, plus they were retrofitted with roughly 10K more of them after the first attack in the 90's

After they would have melted, the wind torquing the building ( like normal ) might have easily caused some failures

TheForgiven
09-09-2014, 07:52 PM
Watch World Trade Center 7 being brought down through Demolition charges.....CAUGHT ON CAMERA!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0wZ3Gm0s5c

If they rigged WTC 7 for demolition, then obviously the same owner (Larry Steinberg - Rothschild Zionist) had the rest of them rigged as well.

Joe

TheForgiven
09-09-2014, 08:27 PM
Hey Joe,

Please don't take any offense to my comments because I'm not trying to insult you. I believe in speaking directly and I encourage anyone else to do the same.

The 911 truther movement is one rooted in ignorance. The things you call facts are not really facts as I will discuss below.

You know, I find it rather bizarre when someone asks another not to be offended when they use offensive language? That's like asking someone not to doge a bullet if it is fired at them. :lol: But worry not my friend as I enjoy discussing the 911 conspiracy based on Operation Northwood’s from the 1960's...Are you familiar with that? Operation Northwood’s was a CIA exercise involving the hijacking of commercial airplanes to be slammed into the WTC buildings, and blamed on Cuba. Thank God that John F. Kennedy refused to comply. Unfortunately, the Zionists killed him for that, along with him signing executive order removing control of the printing of money from the Zionists Jews (Rothschild). A few months later...execution squad complements of the Bay of Pigs. Poor Oswald, who was a Patsy for the CIA, had no idea that he would be setup as the scapegoat.

Of course, I hope you're not one of those "magic bullet" believers who actually believes that a single bullet can penetrate four to five different boned places of the human body, make sharp turns and exits, and come out at its end unscathed? :lol: The bullet the Warren Commission provided barely had a mark on it. Yet the same type of bullet was fired on a single boned creature, and the bullet was nearly bent in half.


Building 7 was struck by debris that caused it to catch fire. This video proves that. People knew the building would come down because they even say it in the video.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U#t=49

Impossible! Are you suggesting that simple office furniture fires is enough to cause the complete cataclysmic collapse of an entire solid steel and concrete structure, and yet fall at gravity speed? :lol: Perhaps in Science Fiction this might be possible. But you know what? Let's say for the sake of argument, in the land of make believe, that you are correct. This means that corporate owners will no longer have to pay millions of dollars to have their buildings demised. Just light a few fires and BAM! The building will come down. :lol: Sorry but those who believe that fires could bring down sky scrapers are either delusional, or liars supporting 911 Liars instead of 911 Truthers.

Now here's a video of WTC 7 collapsing during demolition charges. And since one was rigged; they ALL were rigged.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0wZ3Gm0s5c


The NIST concluded: the failure of structural “connections that were designed to resist gravity loads, but not thermally induced lateral loads."

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

NIST is a Zionist funded group that conjures up silly lies that they know the uneducated will believe. Unless I'm mistaken, NIST later reported that they have no idea how or why WTC 7 collapsed...or 5, or 6. Sorry my friend, but NIST is intentionally lying as they are supported and composed of AIPAC members...you know, the satanic Zionists.
Once again, the fires were limited to the upper levels of all WTC buildings; especially towers 1 and 2. And the beams, aka structural supports, COULD NOT have weakened since they were not subjected to burning jet fuel or office fires. Therefore, ONLY THE EFFECTED floors that were burning would have the POTENTIAL for structural failure, thus causing a collapse of that section alone; NOT the entire building. Their conclusion violates the natural laws of physics, and is a fictional theory with no evidence to support its bazar claim.


This was because the uncontrolled fire caused upward thermal expansion(heat rises) and buckled the floor tiles causing the building to come straight down.

Incredible! And this has never been proven, nor has this ever occurred on a sky scraper! :lol: Do you know how much negative pressure would be required to cause a complete catastrophic failure of the lower structures as the heat rises, for the building to fall? That's more wind or pressure produced by an F5 tornado. What you are reading, and they are proposing is complete Fiction. Negative pressure WILL NOT cause that kind of failure in the structural beams, and office fires do not burn hot enough for that to happen. And again, watch the video and you'll see for yourself, the demolition charges leading up to a Physical Science calculation in demising a building.


And I know people say they heard explosions, but there is a perfectly good explanation for that. WTC 7 had massive diesel generators with large tanks of fuel that were to be used when the power went out. With uncontrolled fires, it's not a stretch to say the generators ignited.

Wrong again my friend. The janitors who worked that day all reported that the generators were turned off. This is routine when they are conducting maintenance, and especially during shutdown. Don't you find it interesting the most of the employees were gone that day? Was there a holiday or something? Why were most of the employees at home, most of whom were government agents or Israeli's?
Besides, Diesel is a non-flammable liquid unless it is mixed with air and COMPRESSED high enough to detonate. Unlike gasoline, diesel fuel will not ignite. AND the generators are located on the bottom floor basement. How would COMPRESSION (required for an explosion) happen when the airplanes struck more than 100 floors above?


Here is a very thorough debunking of the WTC 7 controlled demolition nonsense. http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

WTC BUILDINGS


And here's a better one that SHOWS WTC being destroyed by demolition charges: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0wZ3Gm0s5c




Total nonsense. If you watch any video you can clearly see the columns falling faster than the building itself. This video debunks that claim. The math doesn't lie.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4#t=132

What math? :lol: Look. The fires were limited to the top floors of towers 1 and 2. Yet the janitor and several fire fighters all testified that the basement had been completely destroyed, with dead bodies nearly everywhere. Now how in the world would such an explosion from diesel engines take place like that? And for the record, Diesel does not explode as it is not a flammable liquid; it must be compressed before it will ignite. Don't believe me? Try it. Take a napkin or paper towel, and soak it in diesel and see if it will explode or ignite. It won't! :lol: Diesel must be mixed with air and compressed which leads to detonation.

THEREFORE, true science just disproved the NIST theory of diesel engines blowing up...must have been one heck of an explosion to bring down 10+ stories of buildings. Gee, now we know how to save money and bring down buildings. Just light a few fires, and use Diesel as our catalyst. :lol:


The jet fuel doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt the steel. It just has to burn hot enough to affect the load bearing capability of the steel before it collapses. The fires burned plenty long for that very thing to happen.

There is no evidence of any controlled demolition. And the rest of your claims are just hearsay.

Wrong again! I'm an aircraft mechanic of 20 years’ experience, and jet fuel only burns for 15 minutes. That's not long nor hot enough to bend thick steel beams. PLUS, only the top floors were inflamed, while the rest were not affected by fire. So how were those beams weakened as the exact same time for the top floors to begin collapsing, thereby enabling a complete collapse WITHOUT RESISTANCE?

Newton's Law of Force basically explains that a force is consistent until it is opposed by an equal and opposite force. So we have the top floors of the towers collapsing into each subsequent lower section, and each lower section, and each lower section. This means as the upper collapsing buildings are falling, the lower undamaged floors SHOULD HAVE caused an equal opposing force to STOP the collapsing process, or at least divert the upper level collapsing towards the side. This did not happen! The entire structure fell from top to bottom and nearly FULL GRAVITY speed (meaning no resistance or opposing forces).

As for no evidence, take a look at this thermite residue...and notice also the steel beam that's melted as though someone took a blow torch. Office fires and jet fuel cannot do that. PLUS if its separation were a result of fatigue or failure, the appearance would denote a tear or rip, and not melted ends as though it were torch-cut.

12671268


She's a crackpot. So what? Read this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Lindauer

n 2005 she was incarcerated at Carswell Air Force Base in Fort Worth, Texas, for psychological evaluation. She was then moved to the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan.[14] In 2006, she was released on bail prison after judge Michael B. Mukasey ruled that Lindauer was unfit to stand trial and would not order her to be forcibly administered antipsychotic medication to make her competent to stand trial.[1][14] He noted that the severity of Lindauer's mental illness, which he described as a "lengthy delusional history", weakened the prosecution's case. In his decision he wrote, "Lindauer ... could not act successfully as an agent of the Iraqi government without in some way influencing normal people .... There is no indication that Lindauer ever came close to influencing anyone, or could have. The indictment charges only what it describes as an unsuccessful attempt to influence an unnamed government official, and the record shows that even lay people recognize that she is seriously disturbed."[15]

And how do you know she's a crack pot? Yes, she was unlawfully arrested and detained without a search warrant (Thanks to the Zionist Paul Wolfowitz's Patriot ACT) and held on a base for more than a year before a judge finally agreed to her release. And apparently, you haven't heard the NYPD radio transmission during the arrest of the Mossad agents driving the white van containing demolition charges, of which who all high-fived each other when the first plane hit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Huf2Kz7bV2k


That's it? You actually believe this conspiracy nonsense on that silly video? There was NOT single thing in that video that would allow the wild claims you are making.

Absolute nonsense. Not only is it possible, but it happened. Your comments indicate a gross ignorance of the science behind the WTC's falling. You have filled your head with garbage. No offense.

No science? :lol: FACT! For a building to collapse at full gravity, all opposing forces must be eliminated or else the collapse will fail, or else tilt to the side. There was no damage possible by single airplanes to WTC 1 or 2 to the lower floors. I believe the science you embrace is called, "Science Fiction".

Science forensic evidence also proves the existence of thermite. Now where did that come from? Why or how did the paint on the cars be completely burned off? Concrete doesn't do that!


More nonsense.

Larry Silverstein didn't profit 4 billion from 9/11. That is what he was paid for the destruction. The value of the WTC was quite a bit higher. And let's not forget what it's going to cost to replace the WTC. It is much higher than 4 billion.


Also, considering the WTC was attacked in 93 it's perfectly logical to have an anti-terrorism policy.

Attacked by who? And why would Larry pen in his insurance agreement to be specifically covered for airplane strikes? And how convenient is it when a person purchases a policy and yet PAID 6 months later for buildings he leased?

Summary:

Larry Steinberg leased (not purchased) the WTC buildings; he did not buy them. And his LEASE agreement included an insurance policy that specifically covered airplane strikes. How coincidental, especially considering the policy was started 6 months prior to 911. Only a fool would believe this was just mere coincidence.



Conclusion? The whole 9/11 truther movement is just plain nonsense.

Says the men in black. :lol: I've just smashed your theories to peices...Do you have anymore NIST Sci-Fictional explanations? :lol:

Your move.

Joe

dpenn
09-12-2014, 09:54 AM
Hey Joe, can you use a little support from the Canadian front?

You obviously have been working for some time on amassing much of your detailed material. There may be mixed reactions to the source of some of my video clips, but if you don't buy them, prove them wrong. Before bringing a few more details to bear, here is a recent interview of a 1st responder NY Fireman just a couple days ago:

Lee Ann McAdoo on Infowars – 911 Firefighter Blows WTC 7 Cover Up Wide Open
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQrpLp-X0ws&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

A few more points to insist that 911 was an inside job (Joe covered WTC 7 already):

1. A mock terrorist attack was being executed that day by NORAD, mimicking ongoing terrorist attacks, so that anything observed as real terrorism could be chalked up to a training exercise.

2. How could the US Defense possibly not have activated jet fighters the minute the so-called hijacked jets went off radar course, and especially after the first Tower was struck?

3. How could the Pentagon be struck by a large jet liner, making a looping 270 degree steep turn, to spiral down to ground level for the strike? The presumed hijack pilot couldn’t even handle a Sesna in his training. There were even experienced jet pilots who said they couldn’t navigate the aircraft to that precision.

4. There was no initial aircraft debris from the crash site at the Pentagon. There was just one circular hole through the 5 layers of super reinforced concrete. This is surprising since the weakest part of the aircraft is the pilot cone and fuselage. What happened to the engines? Why no engine holes in the Pentagon wall? A presumed engine that miraculously appeared on the scene a little later was a total mismatch for the jet liner

5. Why was there no discernable parts from the jet that was presumably downed over Shanksville? Why no bodies? Why no landing gear, engine parts, or tail section?

6. Why was WTC 7 completely left out of the 911 Report?

7. Why were all witnesses with a different story line ignored in the 911 Report?

8. Why do so many of the anniversaries of 911 refuse to admit first responders? You would think they would be given front row seats and heralded as heroes. Could it be because so many of them know that the official story line is a treasonous lie?

9. Why do so many professional architects, structural engineers, and demolition experts insist that a complete investigation needs to be carried out on 911 because they just don’t buy the existing official story line? What do they have to gain?

10. How did the terrorist passports survive these horrific explosive sites, when all else was just vaporized?

11. What about the evidence that 5 of the 19 terrorists have been found to be still living, with 2 of them even being interviewed, and yet the official story is cast in stone?

12. Why, when 15 of the 19 supposed terrorists were Saudi’s, would you attack Afghanistan and then Iraq?

13. Why has no one ever forced the gov’t to explain why they used fake Bin Laden video? The dummy fake Bin Laden doesn’t even look like the real one, plus he is right handed, not left handed, and he is wearing a ring and a watch, something a Taliban would never do.

What is the fruit of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan?

1. Devastation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq is a powder keg of instability, and Afghanistan has been turned into the world’s number 1 opium producing nation of the world, with US troops forced to oversee the poppy fields. Plus ongoing drone strikes into Pakistan, on who knows what targets?

2. Extended destabilization of Libya and Egypt, funding and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in pulling off political coups, overthrowing the govt’s of Khadaffi and Mubaraq, dictators, but choir boys compared to the current regimes.

3. Why the attempted military overthrow of Assad in Syria? Why would the US and allies fund and provide military support and weaponry to rebels that are 100 times more vile than a secular Islamic dictator like Assad?

4. Why the Benghazi stand-down? Who ordered it and why? Keep in mind it cost the life of an American Ambassador. What of all the high level stories of a Fast and Furious like arming of the Sunni rebels, to overthrow Assad’s regime? Recall Joe Biden even visiting the rebels fighting in Syria.

5. How could ISIL, ISIS, IS, Al Qaeda, Al CIAda, or whatever their current name is, get the money and weapons to do what they are doing? Especially since there is strong evidence that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Turkey and Jordan are supporting them from the Arab side, and strong evidence that US, Britain, France, and Israel are funding them from the NATO side. Not to mention, high level leaks that it all came from Benghazi.

6. Why was ISSIS not dealt with in the open desert, when they could have obliterated them? Surely with their beheading of 300,000 Christians, Muslims, and many other relatively innocent people in their wake, they were a greater threat than Khadaffi, Mubaraq, or Assad. Yet these were the chosen answer to all of NATO’s desire to overthrow Assad. Why was NATO and the US just shadow boxing with ISIS, but now suddenly, they are prepared to attack them in Syria? Will they "accidentally" attack Assad, by missiles that fly over their cuckoo’s nest? If they turn this into an Assad coup, from an ISIS strike gone bad, what then? A new central bank in Syria? Will the Zionists celebrate a fulfillment of Isaiah 17:1 and how Damascus is destroyed and uninhabitable? Are we really sure this is a futurist prophesy that the US is ordained by God to fulfill?

7. Why would Ukraine suddenly overthrow their duly elected President, after they voted to not enter the EU? Why would Obama say he was replaced with a legitimate replacement, when he was merely an appointed banker for the EU? Only later did they have a seemingly legitimately elected President.

8. Why is it so wrong for Russia to have naval bases in the Crimea, but it is ok for the US to have a base at Guantanamo?

9. What about MH17? Why was it given orders to fly through a war zone? Why did it drop its flight altitude from 35,000 ft to 32-33,000 ft, to then be in range to be hit by a ground missile? Who really fired the missile?

10. Why do so many US survivors of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty still insist that they were intentionally attacked by Israeli Air Force and Navy in the 1967 war? Many Americans lost their lives on that day. And why did Pres Johnson and McNamara order any response to stand-down, not coming to their rescue for many hours, all the while the USS Liberty was flying a huge American flag? It had all the appearance of making it look like the USS Liberty was being attacked by Egyptian fighter jets to draw the US into the conflict. But at the cost of one of her own ships, and even more valuable, her own men?

11. Why are the US borders left open for almost anybody and their dog to cross, while at the same time ISIS terrorist alerts are at an all-time high? Why are Americans being fined if they cross the border, but illegal aliens are given a blind eye, and even flown at tax payer expense to locations around the US, with children even being admitted to schools without a physical to make sure they are not carrying some contagious disease. All of this when the ebola threat is epidemic world-wise. And why can illegal aliens enter US at will, but US citizens are forced to undergo embarrassing and time-consuming body searches?

12. What will Russia do if Syria is attacked by US? Why is the Sunni coalition so willing to fund and attack the Shia Muslims, including their strategic partner, Syria? I realize that there are great threats to Israel, but Assad has been at peace with Israel. Is it really Israel, or is it something more financial or business oriented?

13. Is it possible these are advanced steps required to maneuver a NWO on a traumatized world? What happens if the lid blows off, and it unleashes WWIII? For certain, some would welcome such a population reduction and an elite money jackpot, but have the world leaders really counted the cost? And what if the Zionists have misread Scripture? What then?

Well, for the Gematria driven hordes, I have listed two sets of baker’s dozen, of why we should be very concerned about what is transpiring before our very eyes in the wake of 911. I am a Canadian, but I am a thinking, conscientious Canadian, and one who would love to, as much as is possible, live at peace with all people.

In conclusion, consider a few videos that Alex Jones and Infowars have posted:

Lee Ann McAdoo on Alex Jones – America Mercenaries Threaten War with Russia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAn6qHfdyvw&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg&index=75

Alex Jones – A Brief History of ISIS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EotykLKuouw&index=67&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

Lee Ann McAdoo on Alex Jones – Obama Wants $500 million to Arm ISIS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCWpDsaabmM&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

Lt Col Tony Shaffer on Alex Jones – Secrets of the 28 page 911 Report Released
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO6xwmNXeZI&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

Jerome Corsi on Alex Jones – Historical Foundation of ISIS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5-BpJ0fi1k&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

Alex Jones Breakdown of the ISIS Threat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnuh1l5Qcxk&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

PS. Now if you could only get your doctrine on the Trinity as clear as your 911 investigation ...

dp

dpenn
09-12-2014, 11:26 AM
Hey Joe, here are a couple more 911 related videos (leading to ISIS,ISIL,IS,akaAlQaeda,AlCIAda):

Jakari Jackson on Alex Jones - Most Overlooked Facts of 911
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJEBGKFrSB0&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

Fast-track … connect the dots from Bush to Clinton to Bush to Obama …

President’s Speech Shows Obama is an ISIS Collaborator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTfGyzRLLNs&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

Alex interviews Geopolitical analyst Mimi Al-Laham, AKA Syrian Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YvrsBPWniU&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg


And in case anyone thinks I am a disciple of Alex Jones, I actually find him rather repulsive at times, maybe even most of the time, but at least he is willing to cover issues that are swept under the rug on the mainline media. I know, he will never directly accuse Israel or the Vatican of any involvement in much of the evil, but that will, for now, have to remain another investigation.

dp

L67
09-12-2014, 08:48 PM
Impossible! Are you suggesting that simple office furniture fires is enough to cause the complete cataclysmic collapse of an entire solid steel and concrete structure, and yet fall at gravity speed? :lol: Perhaps in Science Fiction this might be possible. But you know what? Let's say for the sake of argument, in the land of make believe, that you are correct. This means that corporate owners will no longer have to pay millions of dollars to have their buildings demised. Just light a few fires and BAM! The building will come down. :lol: Sorry but those who believe that fires could bring down sky scrapers are either delusional, or liars supporting 911 Liars instead of 911 Truthers.

Impossible? I don't think so. Professor Colin Bailey, University of Manchester proved that very thing. http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/Design/performance/fireModelling/nominalFireCurves/default.htm

shows the various nominal fire curves for comparison. It can be seen that, over a period of 2 hours, the hydrocarbon fire is the most severe followed by the standard fire, with the external fire being the least severe fire although the slow heating fire represents the lowest temperature up to 30 minutes. It is noteworthy that for standard and smouldering fires, the temperature continuously increases with increasing time. For the external fire, the temperature remains constant at 680°C after approximate 22 minutes. Whereas for the hydrocarbon fires, the temperatures remain constant at 1100°C and 1120°C after approximate 40 minutes.

1100c is 2012f. That is more than enough temperature to collapse the towers. And the towers did NOT fall at gravity speed. If they did it would have taken roughly 9 seconds to fall. They took far longer than that to fall. There goes your other nonsense claim.

If you want to imply that I'm delusional, then I suggest you take a look in the mirror.



Now here's a video of WTC 7 collapsing during demolition charges. And since one was rigged; they ALL were rigged.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0wZ3Gm0s5c

More nonsense. I already posted a scientific study that PROVES office fires can reach 2000f. Let's also not forget that after WTC 7 was hit from debris earlier in the day and the fires were uncontrolled until its collapse.

These fires were far worse than you or the rest of the conspiracy crowd lets on. You haven't posted anything credible to corroborate your ridiculous claims.




NIST is a Zionist funded group that conjures up silly lies that they know the uneducated will believe. Unless I'm mistaken, NIST later reported that they have no idea how or why WTC 7 collapsed...or 5, or 6. Sorry my friend, but NIST is intentionally lying as they are supported and composed of AIPAC members...you know, the satanic Zionists.

Get real dude. They are far more believable than any of the crap you have posted.


Once again, the fires were limited to the upper levels of all WTC buildings; especially towers 1 and 2. And the beams, aka structural supports, COULD NOT have weakened since they were not subjected to burning jet fuel or office fires. Therefore, ONLY THE EFFECTED floors that were burning would have the POTENTIAL for structural failure, thus causing a collapse of that section alone; NOT the entire building. Their conclusion violates the natural laws of physics, and is a fictional theory with no evidence to support its bazar claim.


What? Complete BS! The support columns were constructed on the outer wall that were then connected to floor trusses.





Here is a nice video that deconstructs the layout of the towers. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/minutes/q_2907.html

The trusses would have expanded as they heated and then contracted as they cooled. As they cooled, the trusses would have pulled the support columns inward thus causing the collapse. There was NOTHING to stop it once it started. You can call the NIST whatever you like but they actually have REAL science behind their conclusion.

If you look at any pics of the towers on fire you can clearly see they were burning severely on the out core of the building.


Incredible! And this has never been proven, nor has this ever occurred on a sky scraper! :lol: Do you know how much negative pressure would be required to cause a complete catastrophic failure of the lower structures as the heat rises, for the building to fall? That's more wind or pressure produced by an F5 tornado. What you are reading, and they are proposing is complete Fiction. Negative pressure WILL NOT cause that kind of failure in the structural beams, and office fires do not burn hot enough for that to happen. And again, watch the video and you'll see for yourself, the demolition charges leading up to a Physical Science calculation in demising a building.


More BS! Office fires certainly DO burn hot enough to cause exactly what I said. The study above PROVES that. The study also proves that it only took roughly 40 mins to reach 2000f. The fires in WTC 7 raged on all day until the building finally collapsed.

Your video doesn't prove squat. This video along with the NIST combined with REAL science debunks your ludicrous assertions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8#t=34


Wrong again my friend. The janitors who worked that day all reported that the generators were turned off. This is routine when they are conducting maintenance, and especially during shutdown. Don't you find it interesting the most of the employees were gone that day? Was there a holiday or something? Why were most of the employees at home, most of whom were government agents or Israeli's?

So what? This doesn't lend any truth to your conspiracy theories.


Besides, Diesel is a non-flammable liquid unless it is mixed with air and COMPRESSED high enough to detonate. Unlike gasoline, diesel fuel will not ignite. AND the generators are located on the bottom floor basement. How would COMPRESSION (required for an explosion) happen when the airplanes struck more than 100 floors above?

Complete and utter nonsense. Diesel most certainly will ignite. It just has a higher flash point than gasoline. Here is a video that shows that diesel will ignite with a lousy little match.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nL10C7FSbE

Gee, I wonder if it would ignite when the fire is roughly 2000f+. Here is one such incident of diesel exploding. http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/diesel-tank-explosion-in-mussaffah-leaves-workers-stranded

And here is another. http://www.wlox.com/story/24516296/explosion-at-bio-diesel-facility-no-injuries-reported

Also, the generators were NOT in the basement. Nine diesel generators were installed on the 5th floor. And it's not hard to believe since the entire building was on fire at least 5-6 hours.

It's also funny that engineers early on suspected diesel played a role in the fire.


http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/29TOWE.html




And here's a better one that SHOWS WTC being destroyed by demolition charges: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0wZ3Gm0s5c

That video shows NOTHING of the sort.

In this clear video you don't hear any explosions going off. This video is very telling. If you look at the top you can clearly see the roof collapsing before the rest of the building. And the roof is certainly collapsing before the so called "charges" in your video. If the building was brought down by "charges" then why is the roof collapsing on its own? The answer is obvious. Your theory is bunk.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrzeN-wvHD4





What math? :lol: Look. The fires were limited to the top floors of towers 1 and 2. Yet the janitor and several fire fighters all testified that the basement had been completely destroyed, with dead bodies nearly everywhere. Now how in the world would such an explosion from diesel engines take place like that? And for the record, Diesel does not explode as it is not a flammable liquid; it must be compressed before it will ignite. Don't believe me? Try it. Take a napkin or paper towel, and soak it in diesel and see if it will explode or ignite. It won't! :lol: Diesel must be mixed with air and compressed which leads to detonation.

What math? You made this erroneous claim: Folks we are told that jet fuel and furniture fires caused both towers to fall at zero resistance from any lower structure. Yet both fell at gravity speed (meaning there was no resistance).

I posted a video that PROVES they didn't fall at gravity speed. That would take roughly 9 seconds. They took considerably longer to fall. That is why the math doesn't lie. Your claims are meaningless.

Also, you erroneously claim again that diesel won't ignite. It certainly will. I proved that above.


THEREFORE, true science just disproved the NIST theory of diesel engines blowing up...must have been one heck of an explosion to bring down 10+ stories of buildings. Gee, now we know how to save money and bring down buildings. Just light a few fires, and use Diesel as our catalyst. :lol:

No it didn't. True science proves you don't know what you are talking about.

Here is a video of diesel exploding. Guess what? The operator says the same thing you do. "Don't worry diesel won't explode". :lol:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2BbiUwE9VM


You're right though, a 2000 degree fire isn't enough to ignite diesel tanks.:lol: Thanks for the laugh.






Wrong again! I'm an aircraft mechanic of 20 years’ experience, and jet fuel only burns for 15 minutes. That's not long nor hot enough to bend thick steel beams. PLUS, only the top floors were inflamed, while the rest were not affected by fire. So how were those beams weakened as the exact same time for the top floors to begin collapsing, thereby enabling a complete collapse WITHOUT RESISTANCE?

Already debunked this nonsense earlier.


Newton's Law of Force basically explains that a force is consistent until it is opposed by an equal and opposite force. So we have the top floors of the towers collapsing into each subsequent lower section, and each lower section, and each lower section. This means as the upper collapsing buildings are falling, the lower undamaged floors SHOULD HAVE caused an equal opposing force to STOP the collapsing process, or at least divert the upper level collapsing towards the side. This did not happen! The entire structure fell from top to bottom and nearly FULL GRAVITY speed (meaning no resistance or opposing forces).

Wrong! None of Newtons laws were broken on 9/11. I have a degree in BA in ME so I know a thing or two about Newtons law. The WTC was a mostly hollow shell with support columns on the outer edges connected to trussels on every level. Your comments do not account for the actual chaotic interactions that were involved as hundreds of THOUSANDS of separate and individual connections reached their over-stress to breaking points....and BROKE. The floors connect the shell to the core, and thus the system is falling apart. With the shell gone the core has lost the lateral support, and the core will collapse as seen falling apart 10 to 20 seconds after the floors and shell have fallen away.

For the last time, the towers did not fall at gravity speed. Please educate yourself.


As for no evidence, take a look at this thermite residue...and notice also the steel beam that's melted as though someone took a blow torch. Office fires and jet fuel cannot do that. PLUS if its separation were a result of fatigue or failure, the appearance would denote a tear or rip, and not melted ends as though it were torch-cut.

12671268




That is NOT evidence for thermite residue. What you fail to realize is this. FRICTION is enough to melt steel. When the towers collapsed just think of all the metals colliding. That is more than enough to give some pieces of steel the "melted" appearance or torch cut.

Here is welding by friction.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NIVUnk2kyw

The second pic of the iron rich sphere was analyzed by the USGS and NOTHING suspicious was found. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html#heading03

http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp.pdf


And it's not hard to make iron rich microspheres.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLyYv5Y2YSM#t=105







And how do you know she's a crack pot? Yes, she was unlawfully arrested and detained without a search warrant (Thanks to the Zionist Paul Wolfowitz's Patriot ACT) and held on a base for more than a year before a judge finally agreed to her release. And apparently, you haven't heard the NYPD radio transmission during the arrest of the Mossad agents driving the white van containing demolition charges, of which who all high-fived each other when the first plane hit.



Big deal. That was a garbles mess. This audio does NOT lend credibility to your claims.

And I already posted why Lindauer is a crackpot. She is mentally unstable.



No science? :lol: FACT! For a building to collapse at full gravity, all opposing forces must be eliminated or else the collapse will fail, or else tilt to the side. There was no damage possible by single airplanes to WTC 1 or 2 to the lower floors. I believe the science you embrace is called, "Science Fiction".

For the umpteenth time, the towers did NOT fall at gravity speed.



Newtons third law does not say all opposing forces must be eliminated or else the collapse will fail. That is complete BS . Your comments indicate a profound ignorance of the laws of physics. No surprise coming from a so called truther.




Science forensic evidence also proves the existence of thermite. Now where did that come from? Why or how did the paint on the cars be completely burned off? Concrete doesn't do that!

No forensic evidence proves thermite existence. It proves the opposite like the links I gave above.




Larry Steinberg leased (not purchased) the WTC buildings; he did not buy them. And his LEASE agreement included an insurance policy that specifically covered airplane strikes. How coincidental, especially considering the policy was started 6 months prior to 911. Only a fool would believe this was just mere coincidence.

:rolleyes:





Says the men in black. :lol: I've just smashed your theories to peices...Do you have anymore NIST Sci-Fictional explanations? :lol:

Your move.

Joe

Really? I must have missed that because all I saw you do is assert your conspiratorial nonsense. I am compelled by logic and facts. I don't find your arguments convincing, nor do I find them credible.

TheForgiven
09-13-2014, 04:41 PM
Really? I must have missed that because all I saw you do is assert your conspiratorial nonsense. I am compelled by logic and facts. I don't find your arguments convincing, nor do I find them credible.

You've got to be kidding me. This is so typical of MIB to dismiss logic and sound reasoning. Just as the warren commission of JFK insisted that the magic bullet theory was scientifically possible, yet never provided any REAL evidence to prove it; just theories, as you've done here.

So instead of replying to each of your factless points, I'll concentrate on a single topic.

You claimed that the TWC took 9 seconds to fall. Have you considered that its height would have something to do with the amount of time. When I say, "Gravity Speed", I am referring to the unrestricted collapse of each floor from top-to-bottom. And when you observe the buildings collapse, you get the sense that the buildings fell at full speed with very little resistance. PLUS you never disproved the video of WTC 7 collapsing from obvious detonation charges.

Now, if I understand your position about towers 1 and 2, you insist that the jet fuel on the top floors nearly 100 floors high burned hot enough to weaken the steel beams which torgued them so hot they eventually collapsed and caused those floors to begin its descent. BUT this DOES NOT explain the 90+ floors below which:

1. WERE NOT SUBJECTED TO HEAT
2. WERE NOT DAMAGED BY IMPACT
3. WERE NOT DAMAGED BY AN IMPOSSIBLE EXPLOSION OF DIESEL FUEL FROM THE BASEMENT
4. WERE NOT SUBJECTED TO ANY TYPE OF CONDITION WHEREBY STRUCTURAL FAILURE WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE UNRESTRICTED COLLAPSE OF IMPENDING FLOORS FROM ABOVE

I do recall you suggesting that negative pressure from the fires of the 110th floor created such a high pressures so as to cause the complete collapse of the lower floors. But as I soundly pointed out, the amount of pressure required for this condition to take place would be far larger than the negative pressures of an F5 tornado. But this would have been visible as windows on all sides of the building would have imploded inward, as well as debris would have been seen rushing inward. None of this happened. Besides, this has NEVER happened in architectural history, and thus this point is the most ridiculously absurd explanation I've ever heard. And more than 10,000 architectures disagree with you on this point, and rightly so.

SO, let's recap before I take on the next items of discussion.

Per your position, WTC buildings 1 and 2 collapsed because jet fuel burned so damn hot that the affected beams were weakened enough to collapse. In the meantime, the hot fires from the upper floors created a magical vacuum which somehow mysteriously caused the complete failure of the 90+ floors below the burning sections, thereby contributing to the gravity-speed (or near) collapse of the complete structure. And what's important to note is that the concrete was nearly pulverized, and every car sitting nearby had its paint completely burned off. Let's just add this to Chloe's Wall of Weird! :Date_Setting:

DID I MENTION THE CONTINUED MOLTEN STEAL FLOWING A WEEK AFTER THE COLLAPSE? THought I'd throw that in there.

SO, I'd like to give you the chance to summarize from start to finish why/how towers 1 and 2 collapsed....in your own words.

Joe

dpenn
09-13-2014, 04:55 PM
Hey Joe,

Did you get a chance to read my points for 911 being an inside job and beyond?

dp

TheForgiven
09-13-2014, 05:27 PM
Hey Joe, can you use a little support from the Canadian front?

You obviously have been working for some time on amassing much of your detailed material. There may be mixed reactions to the source of some of my video clips, but if you don't buy them, prove them wrong. Before bringing a few more details to bear, here is a recent interview of a 1st responder NY Fireman just a couple days ago:

Lee Ann McAdoo on Infowars – 911 Firefighter Blows WTC 7 Cover Up Wide Open
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQrpLp-X0ws&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

A few more points to insist that 911 was an inside job (Joe covered WTC 7 already):

1. A mock terrorist attack was being executed that day by NORAD, mimicking ongoing terrorist attacks, so that anything observed as real terrorism could be chalked up to a training exercise.

2. How could the US Defense possibly not have activated jet fighters the minute the so-called hijacked jets went off radar course, and especially after the first Tower was struck?

3. How could the Pentagon be struck by a large jet liner, making a looping 270 degree steep turn, to spiral down to ground level for the strike? The presumed hijack pilot couldn’t even handle a Sesna in his training. There were even experienced jet pilots who said they couldn’t navigate the aircraft to that precision.

4. There was no initial aircraft debris from the crash site at the Pentagon. There was just one circular hole through the 5 layers of super reinforced concrete. This is surprising since the weakest part of the aircraft is the pilot cone and fuselage. What happened to the engines? Why no engine holes in the Pentagon wall? A presumed engine that miraculously appeared on the scene a little later was a total mismatch for the jet liner

5. Why was there no discernable parts from the jet that was presumably downed over Shanksville? Why no bodies? Why no landing gear, engine parts, or tail section?

6. Why was WTC 7 completely left out of the 911 Report?

7. Why were all witnesses with a different story line ignored in the 911 Report?

8. Why do so many of the anniversaries of 911 refuse to admit first responders? You would think they would be given front row seats and heralded as heroes. Could it be because so many of them know that the official story line is a treasonous lie?

9. Why do so many professional architects, structural engineers, and demolition experts insist that a complete investigation needs to be carried out on 911 because they just don’t buy the existing official story line? What do they have to gain?

10. How did the terrorist passports survive these horrific explosive sites, when all else was just vaporized?

11. What about the evidence that 5 of the 19 terrorists have been found to be still living, with 2 of them even being interviewed, and yet the official story is cast in stone?

12. Why, when 15 of the 19 supposed terrorists were Saudi’s, would you attack Afghanistan and then Iraq?

13. Why has no one ever forced the gov’t to explain why they used fake Bin Laden video? The dummy fake Bin Laden doesn’t even look like the real one, plus he is right handed, not left handed, and he is wearing a ring and a watch, something a Taliban would never do.

What is the fruit of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan?

1. Devastation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq is a powder keg of instability, and Afghanistan has been turned into the world’s number 1 opium producing nation of the world, with US troops forced to oversee the poppy fields. Plus ongoing drone strikes into Pakistan, on who knows what targets?

2. Extended destabilization of Libya and Egypt, funding and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in pulling off political coups, overthrowing the govt’s of Khadaffi and Mubaraq, dictators, but choir boys compared to the current regimes.

3. Why the attempted military overthrow of Assad in Syria? Why would the US and allies fund and provide military support and weaponry to rebels that are 100 times more vile than a secular Islamic dictator like Assad?

4. Why the Benghazi stand-down? Who ordered it and why? Keep in mind it cost the life of an American Ambassador. What of all the high level stories of a Fast and Furious like arming of the Sunni rebels, to overthrow Assad’s regime? Recall Joe Biden even visiting the rebels fighting in Syria.

5. How could ISIL, ISIS, IS, Al Qaeda, Al CIAda, or whatever their current name is, get the money and weapons to do what they are doing? Especially since there is strong evidence that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Turkey and Jordan are supporting them from the Arab side, and strong evidence that US, Britain, France, and Israel are funding them from the NATO side. Not to mention, high level leaks that it all came from Benghazi.

6. Why was ISSIS not dealt with in the open desert, when they could have obliterated them? Surely with their beheading of 300,000 Christians, Muslims, and many other relatively innocent people in their wake, they were a greater threat than Khadaffi, Mubaraq, or Assad. Yet these were the chosen answer to all of NATO’s desire to overthrow Assad. Why was NATO and the US just shadow boxing with ISIS, but now suddenly, they are prepared to attack them in Syria? Will they "accidentally" attack Assad, by missiles that fly over their cuckoo’s nest? If they turn this into an Assad coup, from an ISIS strike gone bad, what then? A new central bank in Syria? Will the Zionists celebrate a fulfillment of Isaiah 17:1 and how Damascus is destroyed and uninhabitable? Are we really sure this is a futurist prophesy that the US is ordained by God to fulfill?

7. Why would Ukraine suddenly overthrow their duly elected President, after they voted to not enter the EU? Why would Obama say he was replaced with a legitimate replacement, when he was merely an appointed banker for the EU? Only later did they have a seemingly legitimately elected President.

8. Why is it so wrong for Russia to have naval bases in the Crimea, but it is ok for the US to have a base at Guantanamo?

9. What about MH17? Why was it given orders to fly through a war zone? Why did it drop its flight altitude from 35,000 ft to 32-33,000 ft, to then be in range to be hit by a ground missile? Who really fired the missile?

10. Why do so many US survivors of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty still insist that they were intentionally attacked by Israeli Air Force and Navy in the 1967 war? Many Americans lost their lives on that day. And why did Pres Johnson and McNamara order any response to stand-down, not coming to their rescue for many hours, all the while the USS Liberty was flying a huge American flag? It had all the appearance of making it look like the USS Liberty was being attacked by Egyptian fighter jets to draw the US into the conflict. But at the cost of one of her own ships, and even more valuable, her own men?

11. Why are the US borders left open for almost anybody and their dog to cross, while at the same time ISIS terrorist alerts are at an all-time high? Why are Americans being fined if they cross the border, but illegal aliens are given a blind eye, and even flown at tax payer expense to locations around the US, with children even being admitted to schools without a physical to make sure they are not carrying some contagious disease. All of this when the ebola threat is epidemic world-wise. And why can illegal aliens enter US at will, but US citizens are forced to undergo embarrassing and time-consuming body searches?

12. What will Russia do if Syria is attacked by US? Why is the Sunni coalition so willing to fund and attack the Shia Muslims, including their strategic partner, Syria? I realize that there are great threats to Israel, but Assad has been at peace with Israel. Is it really Israel, or is it something more financial or business oriented?

13. Is it possible these are advanced steps required to maneuver a NWO on a traumatized world? What happens if the lid blows off, and it unleashes WWIII? For certain, some would welcome such a population reduction and an elite money jackpot, but have the world leaders really counted the cost? And what if the Zionists have misread Scripture? What then?

Well, for the Gematria driven hordes, I have listed two sets of baker’s dozen, of why we should be very concerned about what is transpiring before our very eyes in the wake of 911. I am a Canadian, but I am a thinking, conscientious Canadian, and one who would love to, as much as is possible, live at peace with all people.

In conclusion, consider a few videos that Alex Jones and Infowars have posted:

Lee Ann McAdoo on Alex Jones – America Mercenaries Threaten War with Russia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAn6qHfdyvw&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg&index=75

Alex Jones – A Brief History of ISIS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EotykLKuouw&index=67&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

Lee Ann McAdoo on Alex Jones – Obama Wants $500 million to Arm ISIS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCWpDsaabmM&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

Lt Col Tony Shaffer on Alex Jones – Secrets of the 28 page 911 Report Released
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO6xwmNXeZI&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

Jerome Corsi on Alex Jones – Historical Foundation of ISIS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5-BpJ0fi1k&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

Alex Jones Breakdown of the ISIS Threat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnuh1l5Qcxk&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

PS. Now if you could only get your doctrine on the Trinity as clear as your 911 investigation ...

dp

VERY GOOD INFORMATION! You've covered nearly the entire truther-movement complex, but I didn't want to over do it. LOL I've found if you take one topic at a time, and debate the science and evidences of that particular aspect (Towers 1 and 2), and move progressively from there, more ground can be covered logically until the MIB (or other liars of the 911 Commission Report) will eventually find themselves looking pretty stupid with all of their weird-science explanations. :lol: Take LD67 for example. He seems to buy into the NIST reports (mixed with a few of his own I suspect) that towers 1 and 2 came down because:

1. Jet fuel burned too hot which:
a) Weakened the upper beams and dominoed down from there
b) Jet Fuel apparently burned hot enough, in conjunction with material fires, which created a super-strong F5+ tornado like negative vacuum which somehow managed to cause lower-floor stuctural failure: Contributed to zero-gravity collapse
2. A diesel engine on the basement somehow EXPLODED in conjunction with the IMPLOSION OF THE NEGATIVE PRESSURE (two opposing forces I might add), which contributed to near zero-gravity collapse.

As you pointed out, thousands of architects and engineers are questioning this non-sense and demanding proof; not just scientific experiments conducted on a misleading bases.

I've been debating a few nuts on the web and it's getting easier to sniff out the MIB (Men in Black) working for the alpha-agencies. When they don't have the knowledge to debunk the truth movement, they rely on insults and youtube videos. LOL

Your post is fantastic, but we'd have to take each of your points and discuss them one-by-one. Otherwise we end up in a confused discussion.

One of my strongest points (thanks to my aircraft experience of 20 years) is the engine recovered from WTC 1. The engine found was not a Pratt & Whitney engine, but a General Electric engine based on its turbine cooling manifold. Flight United and American Airlines use Pratt & Whitney engines; NOT General Electric.

Now a few years ago, some information came out that a former Pratt & Whitney engineer teamed up with NASA to help improve fuel efficiency on their planes. So SUPPOSEDLY they took the cooling duct manifold and joined it with a Pratt & Whitney, which became a new model comprised of both GE and Pratt & Whitney technology. Conveniently, a photo appeared with an older 747 using this so-called newer engine. But a total lack of proof that Flight United or American Airliners were never contracted for the so called "improved design" of the 747 engines. And why would they take older 747 engines and install them on new 767's? :lol:

The CIA has tried very hard to debunk the WRONG ENGINE at the WTC so they've been relying on false photo's and unreal designs. I did, however, learn that NASA and the United States Air Force have been using General Electric engines in their 767's, although some models did have Pratt's. So the question remains. WE KNOW, based on the engine evidence, that neither Flight United or American Airlines used GE or composite GE/Pratt engines. So, who's planes were they?

MY ANSWER? I believe those were remote-piloted planes out of Montgomery AB, Alabama (where the flight paths cris-crossed) (or was it Andrews Air Force Base), and they were controlled by the CIA and Mossad (Israeli Intelligence Agency), leaving the military out of the loop in a nation-wide EXERCISE involving HI-JACKED airplanes. I was active duty Air Force at the time, and we were in the middle of a phase2 chemical warefare exercise when the planes hit. I new something was wrong about the buildings collapsing.

Anyways, great post buddy! And here's the picture of the WRONG engine recovered at the WTC's.

1272

See the cooling tubes denoted by the red arrow? Pratt & Whitney engines do not use turbine-blade coolers as denoted in the picture. This could only be a General Electric engine. Unless of course we buy into the theory that a Pratt employee teamed up with NASA to improve OLDER MODEL 747 Pratt & Whitney engines. But why fit new 767's with old 747 engines from the 1970's? No logic at all..

Watch this video...explains better than me:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPO3TqQyZsU

Joe

dpenn
09-13-2014, 06:08 PM
VERY GOOD INFORMATION! You've covered nearly the entire truther-movement complex, but I didn't want to over do it.


Thanks for the feedback, and I am aware that I probably overdid it. But I at least wanted to let people know that there are many many points in support of the overall 911 agenda, and sadly, what has developed from it. I didn't even attempt to deal with the London 7/7/2005 Subway bombings, or the Madrid bombings of 3/11/2004, not to mention the Arab Spring, initiated on 2/11/2011. Some of these dates and numbers should be a little alarming.

And now almost everything and anything is being done to get NATO, and a Sunni Coalition, into Syria through the back door, since they failed getting to go to war via the front door.

A couple of months ago, I asked a group of Sunni Muslims at the coffee shop, why they weren't concerned about credible reports that the Saudi govt was funding ISIS, along with other Sunni nations of Qatar, Kuwait, and Turkey, with further evidence given by WorldNetDaily that US, Britain, France, and Israel were also funding the rebel fighters in Syria. These were smart intellectuals, two working on PhD's in AI and Math, with one in Petroleum Engineering. One wanted to debate my Christianity, so we had a very thorough discussion on historic biblical Christianity vs Islam, and also vs Roman Catholicism and vs Judaism. But they wanted to shy away from any knowledge of what might be going on from Jordan as well (their home), since training bases for ISIS were exposed there, as well as Turkey.

After a while, you get to see what is coming down, so I went out on a limb and said to them, just wait and see, it won't be long before these ISIS jihadiis (aka ISIL, IS, AlQaeda, AlCIAda) will be the tip of NATO's spear to come back and eventually be used to attack Syria, plan B. I hardly saw them for a couple of months, being embarrassed over the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. But a couple of nights ago I asked the AI man if he remembered what I had predicted in Syria, and he said yes he did. I told him, if someone throws a rattlesnake into a bed and it bites someone, it was the rattlesnake that did the biting, but the person who threw it there is the real reason for the bite. Obviously, these insane jihadis are doing this evil, they are the rattlesnake, but they are being controlled, either willingly at the top, or mindlessly at the bottom.

I then asked this Sunni, you know the Sunni's probably like this opportunity to wipe out the Shia's, but do you think for a second that the Sunni's aren't next? And they know that I do not like the teaching of Islam, and that I believe Mohammed is a false prophet. They also know that I do not like their Sheria law, or their desire for world conquest. And they definitely know, that, as evil as the west is acting now, Islam is just as evil, if not worse. But we were able to reason together for awhile, even though they act like they think I am a spy or something. I have tried to show them my care for them as people, just like I hope the best for all in the west.

So, Joe, this is my reason for giving the eagle's eye view first. Maybe, as you say, it is necessary to give the worm's eye view, at the individual item level.

dp

L67
09-13-2014, 07:29 PM
You've got to be kidding me. This is so typical of MIB to dismiss logic and sound reasoning. Just as the warren commission of JFK insisted that the magic bullet theory was scientifically possible, yet never provided any REAL evidence to prove it; just theories, as you've done here.

Thank you for proving my point. All you have is conspiratorial nonsense. You are the one who is positing wild "theories". I posted many irrefutable FACTS and you ignore them in your pathetic attempt to assert your theories yet again. You have NOT posted one credible fact to represent your argument. And you totally misrepresented my argument.


o instead of replying to each of your factless points, I'll concentrate on a single topic.

LMAO! What a crock. Nice dodge. Tell us again how diesel won't explode. :lol:




You claimed that the TWC took 9 seconds to fall. Have you considered that its height would have something to do with the amount of time. When I say, "Gravity Speed", I am referring to the unrestricted collapse of each floor from top-to-bottom. And when you observe the buildings collapse, you get the sense that the buildings fell at full speed with very little resistance. PLUS you never disproved the video of WTC 7 collapsing from obvious detonation charges.


No, I didn't. You made this erroneous claim:
Folks we are told that jet fuel and furniture fires caused both towers to fall at zero resistance from any lower structure. Yet both fell at gravity speed (meaning there was no resistance).


Here was my reply.
Total nonsense. If you watch any video you can clearly see the columns falling faster than the building itself. This video debunks that claim. The math doesn't lie.
[
Then here was your reply:
What math?

It was obvious you avoided the video on purpose. No surprise.

Here was my reply:
What math? You made this erroneous claim: Folks we are told that jet fuel and furniture fires caused both towers to fall at zero resistance from any lower structure. Yet both fell at gravity speed (meaning there was no resistance).

I posted a video that PROVES they didn't fall at gravity speed. That would take roughly 9 seconds. They took considerably longer to fall. That is why the math doesn't lie. Your claims are meaningless.

You asked what math. You know this math that you ignored.

Towers= 417 meters(1368)
417=0.5gt^2
9.22 seconds.

YOU are the one claiming 9.22 seconds by IGNORANTLY asserting that the towers fell at gravity.



If the towers really fell at gravity speed it would take roughly 9.22 seconds to fall. This video shows they took much longer than 9.22 seconds to fall. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4

Your demolition charge theory is rendered bunk. Thanks for playing.



Now, if I understand your position about towers 1 and 2, you insist that the jet fuel on the top floors nearly 100 floors high burned hot enough to weaken the steel beams which torgued them so hot they eventually collapsed and caused those floors to begin its descent. BUT this DOES NOT explain the 90+ floors below which:



1. WERE NOT SUBJECTED TO HEAT
2. WERE NOT DAMAGED BY IMPACT
3. WERE NOT DAMAGED BY AN IMPOSSIBLE EXPLOSION OF DIESEL FUEL FROM THE BASEMENT
4. WERE NOT SUBJECTED TO ANY TYPE OF CONDITION WHEREBY STRUCTURAL FAILURE WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE UNRESTRICTED COLLAPSE OF IMPENDING FLOORS FROM ABOVE

No, I NEVER said any such thing.

Here is what I said:
The jet fuel doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt the steel. It just has to burn hot enough to affect the load bearing capability of the steel before it collapses. The fires burned plenty long for that very thing to happen.

And then you responded with this:
Once again, the fires were limited to the upper levels of all WTC buildings; especially towers 1 and 2. And the beams, aka structural supports, COULD NOT have weakened since they were not subjected to burning jet fuel or office fires. Therefore, ONLY THE EFFECTED floors that were burning would have the POTENTIAL for structural failure, thus causing a collapse of that section alone; NOT the entire building. Their conclusion violates the natural laws of physics, and is a fictional theory with no evidence to support its bazar claim.

And then I clarified it:
The trusses would have expanded as they heated and then contracted as they cooled. As they cooled, the trusses would have pulled the support columns inward thus causing the collapse. There was NOTHING to stop it once it started. You can call the NIST whatever you like but they actually have REAL science behind their conclusion


And this is corroborated by the NIST. I know you claim that can't be trusted because.... Wait for it.... Another conspiracy, thus proving my point that that is all you have.


Here are your four points.

1. WERE NOT SUBJECTED TO HEAT They do not have to be.
2. WERE NOT DAMAGED BY IMPACT They do not have to be.
3. WERE NOT DAMAGED BY AN IMPOSSIBLE EXPLOSION OF DIESEL FUEL FROM THE BASEMENT You're confused, because I never said diesel played a role in WTC 1 OR 2.
4. WERE NOT SUBJECTED TO ANY TYPE OF CONDITION WHEREBY STRUCTURAL FAILURE WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE UNRESTRICTED COLLAPSE OF IMPENDING FLOORS FROM ABOVE WHAT? Are you nuts? They had 20-30 floors collapse onto trusses that were NEVER designed to with stand that kind of force. Your comments are beyond freaking stupid. They indicate a profound IGNORANCE of the forces involved in the collapse of the building.


I do recall you suggesting that negative pressure from the fires of the 110th floor created such a high pressures so as to cause the complete collapse of the lower floors. But as I soundly pointed out, the amount of pressure required for this condition to take place would be far larger than the negative pressures of an F5 tornado. But this would have been visible as windows on all sides of the building would have imploded inward, as well as debris would have been seen rushing inward. None of this happened. Besides, this has NEVER happened in architectural history, and thus this point is the most ridiculously absurd explanation I've ever heard. And more than 10,000 architectures disagree with you on this point, and rightly so.

You're confused again. I NEVER said any such thing relating to towers 1 and 2. I said it regarding WTC 7.

Here are my comments:
This was because the uncontrolled fire caused upward thermal expansion(heat rises) and buckled the floor tiles causing the building to come straight down.

Here was your reply:
Incredible! And this has never been proven, nor has this ever occurred on a sky scraper! Do you know how much negative pressure would be required to cause a complete catastrophic failure of the lower structures as the heat rises, for the building to fall? That's more wind or pressure produced by an F5 tornado. What you are reading, and they are proposing is complete Fiction. Negative pressure WILL NOT cause that kind of failure in the structural beams, and office fires do not burn hot enough for that to happen. And again, watch the video and you'll see for yourself, the demolition charges leading up to a Physical Science calculation in demising a building.

I replied with this video that PROVED my point as does the NIST.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8#t=34





SO, let's recap before I take on the next items of discussion.

Per your position, WTC buildings 1 and 2 collapsed because jet fuel burned so damn hot that the affected beams were weakened enough to collapse. In the meantime, the hot fires from the upper floors created a magical vacuum which somehow mysteriously caused the complete failure of the 90+ floors below the burning sections, thereby contributing to the gravity-speed (or near) collapse of the complete structure. And what's important to note is that the concrete was nearly pulverized, and every car sitting nearby had its paint completely burned off. Let's just add this to Chloe's Wall of Weird! :Date_Setting:

You misrepresent me as I have shown above. You simply don't understand any of the science of WHY the towers collapse. And worse you could care less to educate yourself about it either. You are just set on your preconceived conspiracy theories that you can't see reality for what it is.

Also, towers NEVER fell at gravity speed. Debunk this math and video while you are at it. Don't worry I won't hold my breath.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4



DID I MENTION THE CONTINUED MOLTEN STEAL FLOWING A WEEK AFTER THE COLLAPSE? THought I'd throw that in there.

Wow. Look at all the evidence you provided. I am truly impressed. Go ahead and post your evidence so I can debunk that to.


SO, I'd like to give you the chance to summarize from start to finish why/how towers 1 and 2 collapsed....in your own words.

There is no need. I have already stated what I think with FACTS supporting my argument. You conveniently ignored the facts that debunk your claims. You have provided NOTHING but assertions about conspiracy theories with NOTHING of any substance supporting your arguments.

L67
09-13-2014, 07:51 PM
VERY GOOD INFORMATION! You've covered nearly the entire truther-movement complex, but I didn't want to over do it. LOL I've found if you take one topic at a time, and debate the science and evidences of that particular aspect (Towers 1 and 2), and move progressively from there, more ground can be covered logically until the MIB (or other liars of the 911 Commission Report) will eventually find themselves looking pretty stupid with all of their weird-science explanations. :lol: Take LD67 for example. He seems to buy into the NIST reports (mixed with a few of his own I suspect) that towers 1 and 2 came down because:

1. Jet fuel burned too hot which:
a) Weakened the upper beams and dominoed down from there
b) Jet Fuel apparently burned hot enough, in conjunction with material fires, which created a super-strong F5+ tornado like negative vacuum which somehow managed to cause lower-floor stuctural failure: Contributed to zero-gravity collapse
2. A diesel engine on the basement somehow EXPLODED in conjunction with the IMPLOSION OF THE NEGATIVE PRESSURE (two opposing forces I might add), which contributed to near zero-gravity collapse.

Joe,

You're telling lies again. I would appreciate it if you would get your head out of your ass and actually quote me in context.




I've been debating a few nuts on the web and it's getting easier to sniff out the MIB (Men in Black) working for the alpha-agencies. When they don't have the knowledge to debunk the truth movement, they rely on insults and youtube videos. LOL

OMG. LMAO!

Let me go ahead and point out what a hypocritical whacko you are.


Post number 3 you responded to David. You rambled on about nothing and then you supply your first piece of evidence. What were they? Wait for it... Two crappy pictures and a YOUTUBE video.:lol:


hese vans were seen on the day of 911; roughly 15 or so. These vans were assigned to a moving company known as "Urban Moving Company". Who owned these vans? Mossad Israeli intelligence agents, of which five were seen "high fiving" each other when the first plane hit. About 70 Israeli Mossad agents were arrested shortly after 911, but the FBI secretly released all of them. The five Israeli's who were arrested told CNN reporters that their mission was to document and record the incident. HOW did they know about it? And why didn't they warn the United States seeing how they knew the EXACT day and time. Watch the video below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97ImPcb4keY

And then in post 6 another freaking youtube video as evidence.:lol:


Watch World Trade Center 7 being brought down through Demolition charges.....CAUGHT ON CAMERA!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0wZ3Gm0s5c

If they rigged WTC 7 for demolition, then obviously the same owner (Larry Steinberg - Rothschild Zionist) had the rest of them rigged as well.

Joe

Bravo Joe!

After I called you on your bullshit, then in post 7 what did you do?

You reposted the same youtube video again.:lol:


Impossible! Are you suggesting that simple office furniture fires is enough to cause the complete cataclysmic collapse of an entire solid steel and concrete structure, and yet fall at gravity speed? Perhaps in Science Fiction this might be possible. But you know what? Let's say for the sake of argument, in the land of make believe, that you are correct. This means that corporate owners will no longer have to pay millions of dollars to have their buildings demised. Just light a few fires and BAM! The building will come down. Sorry but those who believe that fires could bring down sky scrapers are either delusional, or liars supporting 911 Liars instead of 911 Truthers.

Now here's a video of WTC 7 collapsing during demolition charges. And since one was rigged; they ALL were rigged.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0wZ3Gm0s5c

Go on Joe tell us more.

Here you post the same youtube video for a third time.:lol:


And here's a better one that SHOWS WTC being destroyed by demolition charges: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0wZ3Gm0s5c

Ok, now your going to really give us the scoop.

Oh wait.. still on post 7 you post another crappy youtube video.:lol:


And how do you know she's a crack pot? Yes, she was unlawfully arrested and detained without a search warrant (Thanks to the Zionist Paul Wolfowitz's Patriot ACT) and held on a base for more than a year before a judge finally agreed to her release. And apparently, you haven't heard the NYPD radio transmission during the arrest of the Mossad agents driving the white van containing demolition charges, of which who all high-fived each other when the first plane hit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Huf2Kz7bV2k

And now in post 13 you're really going to show proof of fake jet engines. Sigh.... ANother youtube video.:lol:

Let's recap. All you have is conspiratorial nonsense from other lunatics, and crappy youtube videos that show precisely NOTHING.

dpenn
09-14-2014, 09:54 AM
dp ... In the future, I hope to show the worm's eye view, or detailed look, at some of my points in my eagle's overview of the work of 911, leading up to the consequential state of the world today.

It seems to me that we are all fiddling around while the world is burning. Or to put it another way, it is much easier to be caught up with our secular versions of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin"?, than to address the more heart wrenching real issues of our day. Or, maybe as Jesus put it, "we love to strain out a gnat, only to be guilty of swallowing a camel".

L67
09-14-2014, 07:09 PM
Y PLUS you never disproved the video of WTC 7 collapsing from obvious detonation charges.


Another truther conspiracy bites the dust. Joe thinks this youtube video shows the WTC7 collapsing from "obvious" detonation charges. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0wZ3Gm0s5c


What he FAILED to realize is that the video was a hoax and he fell for it. :lol: :hysterical::rofl::lmbo:

It was a video created to show how nutty and gullible truthers really are. And boy does it ever show that.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8VAsoVuShM




Here is what we know. The towers NEVER fell at gravity speed and there is no evidence for controlled demolition. His video is BUNK.


As time permits, I will get around to debunking the ridiculous thermite claims.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-14-2014, 07:39 PM
Another truther conspiracy bites the dust. Joe thinks this youtube video shows the WTC7 collapsing from "obvious" detonation charges. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0wZ3Gm0s5c


What he FAILED to realize is that the video was a hoax and he fell for it. :lol: :hysterical::rofl::lmbo:

It was a video created to show how nutty and gullible truthers really are. And boy does it ever show that.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8VAsoVuShM


Here is what we know. The towers NEVER fell at gravity speed and there is no evidence for controlled demolition. His video is BUNK.


As time permits, I will get around to debunking the ridiculous thermite claims.
Thanks for the good sleuthing L67. It is an excellent example of how easy it is for folks to fall into confirmation bias, which is common to all humans. That's what the scientific method, with things like double blind experiments, is designed to avoid and correct. It's a big interest of mine right now, since it explains how I fell into the delusion that there was a "supernatural design" in the Bible. The really interesting thing is that I quit the faith over three years ago, but have only recently begun to be able to see how selection bias created a false sense of "confirmation" of the Bible Wheel pattern. That shows how difficult it is to see your own blind spots.

TheForgiven
09-14-2014, 07:44 PM
Another truther conspiracy bites the dust. Joe thinks this youtube video shows the WTC7 collapsing from "obvious" detonation charges. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0wZ3Gm0s5c


What he FAILED to realize is that the video was a hoax and he fell for it. :lol: :hysterical::rofl::lmbo:

It was a video created to show how nutty and gullible truthers really are. And boy does it ever show that.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8VAsoVuShM




Here is what we know. The towers NEVER fell at gravity speed and there is no evidence for controlled demolition. His video is BUNK.


As time permits, I will get around to debunking the ridiculous thermite claims.

Nice job! And it's interesting about the guy who claims to have made a fake video. While he was successful in fooling some truthers (such as myself), this was nothing more than "muddying the waters". In other words, to hide the truth, you must shame the truth with alternate truths which are nothing more than lies. The purpose is to PRETEND a truth as been debunked.

Now the reason why I chose to stay on one topic and move to each new topic progressively is to reduce the amount of time it takes to discuss the points. Otherwise we end up replying with very long posts.

It's obvious the man who made the fake video had his own agenda, and it was NOT to find out the truth. He likely works for an Alpha agency or some other government affiliation and is trying to flood the truth with lies mimicked to be the truth; this is typical CIA practice.

And you have not proven anything with facts. You keep saying that but I'm not sure if you're aware or not, but your posts are being read by a few of my associates, and I'm sure they find your responses quite humorous. :lol: So, let's try this again.

TOWERS 1 and 2

You seem to believe that intense fires on the upper floors weakened the steal beams, while at the same time created some type of Star Trek universe negative pressure as the heat from the fire rises; some of your buddies refer to this as the "Implosion" theory, despite the fact that this has never happened in Architectural history. You also claim that the diesel engines located in the lower basement exploded (for reasons undetermined) and somehow caused the deaths which the first responders reported on (of which the 911 Zionist commission refused to accept), and that oddly, you believe diesel fuel is flammable. :lol: Yes it will burn, but not as a liquid, but as a gas. Diesel will not explode UNLESS it is mixed with air and compressed. This is the reason why diesel engines do not use spark plugs; ignition occurs from compression.

So summing your points together, you are suggesting to all of us that BOTH TOWERS obviously suffered the same fate for the same reasons: Burning jet fuel and office furniture fatiguing the beams and generating intense heat (must have been more than 3,000 degree fahrenheit) while at the same time drawing air from the lower surface which created a negative vacuum due to the extremely air-tight windows and doors :lol:, and all in conjunction with its diesel engine explodes, resulting in the final demise of BOTH towers.

So are we to assume that both buildings suffered the same fate in the VERY same ways? :lol:

Now I've given you your chance to offer a short summary of how towers 1 and 2 collapsed. But it appears you (like the other whack jobs I've debated with) try focussing on arguing the merits and the posts. Notice how I didn't fall for it? Experience helps, and you're certainly not the exception.

And don't worry; we've got plenty of time to debate each aspect of 911.

So what's next? You find someone else who made a fake molten-steel video to ambush the truthers? :eek:

Joe

TheForgiven
09-14-2014, 07:55 PM
I did a little research on this Eddie Current guy, and all you have to do is look at his YouTube homepage, and you can see he clearly is a nut job. For someone who makes so many videos trying to debunk or ridicule different topics and aspects pertaining to religion or whatever else is controversial, I'd say he's an insider getting paid to create fake truths. Take a look at his YouTube page folks....

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC20U2rjFhakOCOlvJn0MAGg

It's no secret that these trolls crawl through the web to try and "muddy the waters" in order to confuse those who have not yet learned the truth. I find it ironic that they refer to us as "truthers". The opposite of "truth" is "lie", so shall we conclude that these anti-truthers are liars? :lol:

I haven't met a single CIA agent, or any other overpaid drug addict agent who could logically explain 911 events without resorting to impossible false-science explanations. I mean, geez...negative pressure, exploding diesel fuel, towers 1,3,5,6 and 7 all came down under the most unique unscientific circumstances that are so impossible, yet the uneducated mind will believe it; ESPECIALLY the magic bullet theory.

Oh wait, I forgot that LD actually believes a bullet can penetrate two human bodies and multiple locations and exit the last wound unscaved! :lol: Apparently he's never seen what happens to a bullet after it strikes bone. Anyways, I'll get into the JFK assassination later; I want to focus on weird science...

So let's have it LD...tells us in a short summary how towers 1 and 2 (giving you a break by not having to explain the other buildings).

Joe

TheForgiven
09-14-2014, 08:03 PM
Thanks for the feedback, and I am aware that I probably overdid it. But I at least wanted to let people know that there are many many points in support of the overall 911 agenda, and sadly, what has developed from it. I didn't even attempt to deal with the London 7/7/2005 Subway bombings, or the Madrid bombings of 3/11/2004, not to mention the Arab Spring, initiated on 2/11/2011. Some of these dates and numbers should be a little alarming.

And now almost everything and anything is being done to get NATO, and a Sunni Coalition, into Syria through the back door, since they failed getting to go to war via the front door.

A couple of months ago, I asked a group of Sunni Muslims at the coffee shop, why they weren't concerned about credible reports that the Saudi govt was funding ISIS, along with other Sunni nations of Qatar, Kuwait, and Turkey, with further evidence given by WorldNetDaily that US, Britain, France, and Israel were also funding the rebel fighters in Syria. These were smart intellectuals, two working on PhD's in AI and Math, with one in Petroleum Engineering. One wanted to debate my Christianity, so we had a very thorough discussion on historic biblical Christianity vs Islam, and also vs Roman Catholicism and vs Judaism. But they wanted to shy away from any knowledge of what might be going on from Jordan as well (their home), since training bases for ISIS were exposed there, as well as Turkey.

After a while, you get to see what is coming down, so I went out on a limb and said to them, just wait and see, it won't be long before these ISIS jihadiis (aka ISIL, IS, AlQaeda, AlCIAda) will be the tip of NATO's spear to come back and eventually be used to attack Syria, plan B. I hardly saw them for a couple of months, being embarrassed over the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. But a couple of nights ago I asked the AI man if he remembered what I had predicted in Syria, and he said yes he did. I told him, if someone throws a rattlesnake into a bed and it bites someone, it was the rattlesnake that did the biting, but the person who threw it there is the real reason for the bite. Obviously, these insane jihadis are doing this evil, they are the rattlesnake, but they are being controlled, either willingly at the top, or mindlessly at the bottom.

I then asked this Sunni, you know the Sunni's probably like this opportunity to wipe out the Shia's, but do you think for a second that the Sunni's aren't next? And they know that I do not like the teaching of Islam, and that I believe Mohammed is a false prophet. They also know that I do not like their Sheria law, or their desire for world conquest. And they definitely know, that, as evil as the west is acting now, Islam is just as evil, if not worse. But we were able to reason together for awhile, even though they act like they think I am a spy or something. I have tried to show them my care for them as people, just like I hope the best for all in the west.

So, Joe, this is my reason for giving the eagle's eye view first. Maybe, as you say, it is necessary to give the worm's eye view, at the individual item level.

dp

I'm curious. Where are you stationed, if you don't mind me asking?

As for ISIS, I don't believe they are all Islamic. I believe they are CIA assets trained by Mossad terrorists and the CIA. Their mission of course is to stir up troubles for the Zionists agenda, mostly out of Europe.

Here is what concerns me, and it baffles me that so many Americans will sell out their own country for money and drugs. I'm sure there are good CIA agents currently in service, but the bad ones in key positions; that's got to be dealt with. Anyways, what concerns me is the large amount of dual-citizen Israeli holding key positions in Congress. Our Supreme court possesses 5 out of 9 Israeli Justices. And what the heck is Chertoff doing working as the leader for the Department of Homeland Security? And I for one do not believe they are truly Israeli; I believe they are descendants of ancient Khazari, and currently mixed with French, German, and Britain blood lines. This explains why these so-called Isareli's appear to be Nazi's with their Marxist's agenda, and their attempts to destroy our Bill of Rights.

Anyways, ISIS consists of volunteers all around the world and are working for Mossad and the CIA.

Joe

TheForgiven
09-14-2014, 08:29 PM
Did more research on this "Eddie Current" fella, and it's quite obvious that he's not some private employee, or business owner. In my opinion, he is being paid to attack 911 truthers.

LD67 showed a video that I used to defend the WTC7 demolition, only to learn that it was faked by the guy Eddie Current. Well apparently Eddie has been trying to debunk 911 truthers for sometime, despite a video of his CLAIMING to be a FORMER 911 truther, who supposedly now accepts the "Official Report" of the Zionist Commissioners.

HERE is a video of Eddie explaining how WTC7 collapsed.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI

Now a first timer with very little to no physical science knowledge would believe his video, which I'm sure he was paid quite well to make, considering the large amount of care and graphics used in the video. If I were to guess, I'd say he is a CIA asset, because one of his video's appears to be flooded with CIA potty mouths. :lol:

Anyways, here is Eddie's explanation of WTC7 being, "the only tall skyscraper to collapse".

1. Fires burned between 1,200 to 2,000 degrees (per his own words) which caused the beams to weaken. He shows a short clip of a video denoting a steel beam bending from simple fuel fires. What he didn't show you is I've seen that video, and it was NOT jet fuel that they used. The same testers could not cause the beam to fail using jet fuel, so they used another heat source. Jet fuel only burns at 1,200 degrees, and for no longer than 10 to 15 minutes. It took nearly 45 minutes of the fire source denoted in the video to bend the steel beam. Eddie was using a clip in an untruthful way to fool his audience. But heck, for several hundred, if not a few thousand dollars, I'd make a video proving to you that an elephant could hang from a treat limp by its tail. :lol:

2. WTC7 did not collapse at free-fall speed - That is not correct as the video clearly shows the building collapsing. Now it is true that the top portion began collapsing, but even that should not have collapse from simple office fires. And to date, Eddie nor anyone else, has been able to provide a single video of a giant skyscraper collapsing from office fires.

That's about it folks. So Eddie the architectural expert who spends much of his days debunking 911 truthers, believes that WTC7 collapsed because it got too hot for the beams to support the building.

Joe

IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO BIZARRE EXPLANATIONS TO EXPLAIN EVEN THE SIMPLEST INCIDENT, EVENT, OR THING, CHANCES ARE THE BIZARRE EXPLANATION IS JUST THAT....BIZAR...AND IS LIKELY A LIE!

L67
09-15-2014, 05:52 AM
Nice job! And it's interesting about the guy who claims to have made a fake video. While he was successful in fooling some truthers (such as myself), this was nothing more than "muddying the waters". In other words, to hide the truth, you must shame the truth with alternate truths which are nothing more than lies. The purpose is to PRETEND a truth as been debunked.

Now the reason why I chose to stay on one topic and move to each new topic progressively is to reduce the amount of time it takes to discuss the points. Otherwise we end up replying with very long posts.

It's obvious the man who made the fake video had his own agenda, and it was NOT to find out the truth. He likely works for an Alpha agency or some other government affiliation and is trying to flood the truth with lies mimicked to be the truth; this is typical CIA practice.

And you have not proven anything with facts. You keep saying that but I'm not sure if you're aware or not, but your posts are being read by a few of my associates, and I'm sure they find your responses quite humorous. :lol: So, let's try this again.

Dude, get real. It only muddied the waters for YOU, because you built your whole bullshit demolition theory on that video. You didn't do any due diligence as to whether the video was legit or not. You had THREE freaking years to find that out. It wasn't until I debunked your precious video. Who is the actual "truther" again?

And if you are so easily fooled by such bullshit, then how could anyone trust you have nailed it on anything else? Yes, he had an agenda. It was to show how gullible and nutty people like you are. Mission accomplished.



TOWERS 1 and 2

You seem to believe that intense fires on the upper floors weakened the steal beams, while at the same time created some type of Star Trek universe negative pressure as the heat from the fire rises; some of your buddies refer to this as the "Implosion" theory, despite the fact that this has never happened in Architectural history. You also claim that the diesel engines located in the lower basement exploded (for reasons undetermined) and somehow caused the deaths which the first responders reported on (of which the 911 Zionist commission refused to accept), and that oddly, you believe diesel fuel is flammable. :lol: Yes it will burn, but not as a liquid, but as a gas. Diesel will not explode UNLESS it is mixed with air and compressed. This is the reason why diesel engines do not use spark plugs; ignition occurs from compression.

Way to go Joe! You misrepresented me for the THIRD freaking time. Does your brain even work? Why don't you quote me in context and then we'll talk? I haven't even scratched the surface here because you won't be rational.


So summing your points together, you are suggesting to all of us that BOTH TOWERS obviously suffered the same fate for the same reasons: Burning jet fuel and office furniture fatiguing the beams and generating intense heat (must have been more than 3,000 degree fahrenheit) while at the same time drawing air from the lower surface which created a negative vacuum due to the extremely air-tight windows and doors :lol:, and all in conjunction with its diesel engine explodes, resulting in the final demise of BOTH towers.

And now we have a fourth time that you quoted me out of context. Congratulations!




Now I've given you your chance to offer a short summary of how towers 1 and 2 collapsed. But it appears you (like the other whack jobs I've debated with) try focussing on arguing the merits and the posts. Notice how I didn't fall for it? Experience helps, and you're certainly not the exception.

I did give you a short summary.. You chose to IGNORE it and instead you write gibberish that I never said. That is your problem.

It's ironic you call me a whack job, because I'm not the one who "hitched" my wagon to a hoax video. And it's painfully obvious you have cowardly ignored my posts.


And don't worry; we've got plenty of time to debate each aspect of 911.

No, we don't. My time is more valuable than trying to debate someone who IGNORES what I actually write. I'll just continue to debunk your claims one by one like I have with two of your claims so far.

If you want to engage me in an intelligent matter, then quote me accurately and we'll talk.


So what's next? You find someone else who made a fake molten-steel video to ambush the truthers? :eek:

Joe

Yea, molten steel that you NEVER provided evidence for. Just like all your other claims.

L67
09-15-2014, 06:23 AM
I haven't met a single CIA agent, or any other overpaid drug addict agent who could logically explain 911 events without resorting to impossible false-science explanations. I mean, geez...negative pressure, exploding diesel fuel, towers 1,3,5,6 and 7 all came down under the most unique unscientific circumstances that are so impossible, yet the uneducated mind will believe it; ESPECIALLY the magic bullet theory.


And you misquote me for the fifth time. Way to go Joe!

Actually, the towers DID NOT come down under unique circumstances. Well, they were unique in the fact that jets have never been used as missiles before.

You are ignorant of how the WTC 1& 2 were actually constructed. They were brilliantly designed in their day, but they were NOT impenetrable fortress's. You ignore the fact a jet traveling 500mph slammed through the core and damaged key supports, thus weakening the whole structure. Plus, fires raged for almost an hour causing the steel to expand as it heated and contract as it cooled. Certain parts of the tower were then forced to receive loads they were never designed to withstand. The towers were designed to withstand static loads. It means each and every support was designed to withstand a certain amount of weight as a whole. It does not mean when supports gave way and 20-30 stories gain momentum the bottom portion would stop it. The opposite is true.

You have ZERO idea what you are talking about.

It's also hilarious you mention the uneducated mind, when you fell for a hoax video. Only someone uneducated, would believe the towers were brought down by controlled demolition.

L67
09-15-2014, 07:58 AM
Did more research on this "Eddie Current" fella, and it's quite obvious that he's not some private employee, or business owner. In my opinion, he is being paid to attack 911 truthers.

LD67 showed a video that I used to defend the WTC7 demolition, only to learn that it was faked by the guy Eddie Current. Well apparently Eddie has been trying to debunk 911 truthers for sometime, despite a video of his CLAIMING to be a FORMER 911 truther, who supposedly now accepts the "Official Report" of the Zionist Commissioners.

Truthers debunk themselves. They provide nothing but bare assertion. Are any of the theories you hold to peer reviewed? No! Have any of theories you hold to been replicated time and again? No!


HERE is a video of Eddie explaining how WTC7 collapsed.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI

Now a first timer with very little to no physical science knowledge would believe his video, which I'm sure he was paid quite well to make, considering the large amount of care and graphics used in the video. If I were to guess, I'd say he is a CIA asset, because one of his video's appears to be flooded with CIA potty mouths. :lol:

No, it's more like anyone who has the proper qualifications know the video is spot on.


Anyways, here is Eddie's explanation of WTC7 being, "the only tall skyscraper to collapse".

1. Fires burned between 1,200 to 2,000 degrees (per his own words) which caused the beams to weaken. He shows a short clip of a video denoting a steel beam bending from simple fuel fires. What he didn't show you is I've seen that video, and it was NOT jet fuel that they used. The same testers could not cause the beam to fail using jet fuel, so they used another heat source. Jet fuel only burns at 1,200 degrees, and for no longer than 10 to 15 minutes. It took nearly 45 minutes of the fire source denoted in the video to bend the steel beam. Eddie was using a clip in an untruthful way to fool his audience. But heck, for several hundred, if not a few thousand dollars, I'd make a video proving to you that an elephant could hang from a treat limp by its tail. :lol:

WOW. You are clueless. Eddie didn't used the video in an untruthful way. It wasn't jet fuel in WTC 7. There was 6,000 gallons of diesel in WTC7 and the fire in WTC 7 burned for nearly 7 hours. Roughly six hours fifteen minutes longer than the video Eddie used. That is more than enough time to weaken the steel beams. Plus, how many tons of steel landed on the roof from the collapse of WTC 2? Something you seem oblivious to.

And the engineers suspected diesel early on in the investigation. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/29TOWE.html


Also, I posted a study that PROVES it only takes 40 mins for a hydrocarbon fire to remain at a steady 1100°C and 1120°C. What a surprise that you ignored it the first time.

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/Design/performance/fireModelling/nominalFireCurves/default.htm

shows the various nominal fire curves for comparison. It can be seen that, over a period of 2 hours, the hydrocarbon fire is the most severe followed by the standard fire, with the external fire being the least severe fire although the slow heating fire represents the lowest temperature up to 30 minutes. It is noteworthy that for standard and smouldering fires, the temperature continuously increases with increasing time. For the external fire, the temperature remains constant at 680°C after approximate 22 minutes. Whereas for the hydrocarbon fires, the temperatures remain constant at 1100°C and 1120°C after approximate 40 minutes.




2. WTC7 did not collapse at free-fall speed - That is not correct as the video clearly shows the building collapsing. Now it is true that the top portion began collapsing, but even that should not have collapse from simple office fires. And to date, Eddie nor anyone else, has been able to provide a single video of a giant skyscraper collapsing from office fires.

He NEVER said it collapsed at free fall speed. He said NEAR free fall speed.

How can you be so dense? The building collapsed because of severe structural damage from debris and fires burning for nearly 7 hours. Good grief.

Here is a giant building collapsing from fire alone. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff1_1210707903

Now ram two jets into each trade tower at 500mph and let fires burn for an hour. You're right. No damage should have occurred to the integrity of the construction from that catastrophe. It definitely had to be a controlled demolition.:lol:



That's about it folks. So Eddie the architectural expert who spends much of his days debunking 911 truthers, believes that WTC7 collapsed because it got too hot for the beams to support the building.


That is about it for you. You have offered NOTHING but bare assertion. WtC 7 collapsed because of structural damage on top of the fires. The burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate why the towers couldn't have collapsed because of structural damage and fires. I won't hold my breath for that one.



IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO BIZARRE EXPLANATIONS TO EXPLAIN EVEN THE SIMPLEST INCIDENT, EVENT, OR THING, CHANCES ARE THE BIZARRE EXPLANATION IS JUST THAT....BIZAR...AND IS LIKELY A LIE!

That is EXACTLY what you are resorting to. Remember your bullshit demolition video? Like that isn't a bizarre explanation of the know facts.

TheForgiven
09-15-2014, 10:12 PM
Dude, get real. It only muddied the waters for YOU, because you built your whole bullshit demolition theory on that video. You didn't do any due diligence as to whether the video was legit or not. You had THREE freaking years to find that out. It wasn't until I debunked your precious video. Who is the actual "truther" again?

And if you are so easily fooled by such bullshit, then how could anyone trust you have nailed it on anything else? Yes, he had an agenda. It was to show how gullible and nutty people like you are. Mission accomplished.


Yes I was fooled by the fact that Eddie doctored a video of WTC 7 collapsing and added the special effects sounds and imagery. But no matter how you look at it, the video shows WTC 7 falling when it SHOULD NOT have fallen. Fires on the upper floors will not cause weakness of the lower floors, thus causing a COMPLETE collapse of the building. If I recorded a video of a plane crashing, and added a few special sound effects and perhaps a larger explosion upon impact, is the video suddenly a faked plane crash? No, the plane still crashed; I merely altered its attributes. It is the same with Eddie's video; the building still collapses at gravity speed when compared to other buildings of similar height, and both fall at nearly the same amount of time, give or take a few seconds, although not enough to make a total distinction. Here's a video comparing the different demolitions to WTC 7:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk

You posted a video of another building SUPPOSEDLY collapsing, in another later post (which I'll get to when I arrive at that part), and it DID NOT collapse "totally" from fires. Only the applicable section collapsed; that is, the section that suffered fire damage; the rest remained intact. Now why didn't this happen to WTC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7? How is it that all of these buildings conveniently TOTALLY collapsed despite the fact that less than 50% percent of the buildings suffered from fire?


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

Note how ONLY the fired-damaged section collapses; the rest remains intact. Huh oh! I guess that's why the 911 liars needed more excuses to explain how the undamaged sections collapsed. Unless I'm mistaken again, you claimed in another post that the lower columns collapsed because they were weakened by the extreme impact of the jets, and also they were unable to withstand different forces from the upper collapsing floors. Funny how the video you provided disproves that theory.


Way to go Joe! You misrepresented me for the THIRD freaking time. Does your brain even work? Why don't you quote me in context and then we'll talk? I haven't even scratched the surface here because you won't be rational.



And now we have a fourth time that you quoted me out of context. Congratulations!





I did give you a short summary.. You chose to IGNORE it and instead you write gibberish that I never said. That is your problem.

It's ironic you call me a whack job, because I'm not the one who "hitched" my wagon to a hoax video. And it's painfully obvious you have cowardly ignored my posts.

I did not misrepresent you. You gave explanations in a bloated response, and I summarized it for you for other readers. If I errored in my response, then why didn't you correct it instead of merely replying negatively? Could it be you are using the "how to debunk a 911 truther" playbook? So far, you're replies are proving this. And the result is a garbled long response that others will not be inclined to read due to its length.

There are three main tactics used by debunkers (both paid and unpaid). These are:

1. Be rude - ridicule the truther movement by using harsh language, profanity, insults (which I've slung a few at you myself), as well as keyword names such as tinfoil, dreamers, delusional, etc. You know?

2. Use faulty science that SOUNDS plausible (such as burning diesel fuel or negative vacuum of an implosion) and confuse the newbies interested in learn the truth

3. Never debate the facts; only pretend you provide facts and pretend that your time is too valuable (sound familiar) and that you don't have time to argue with "twoofers" as they like to say.

There are more, but I want to see how many more you might be inclined to use.



No, we don't. My time is more valuable than trying to debate someone who IGNORES what I actually write. I'll just continue to debunk your claims one by one like I have with two of your claims so far.

If you want to engage me in an intelligent matter, then quote me accurately and we'll talk.

I believe the "time issue" is rule number 5 out of the "how to debunk a 911 truther handbook". :lol:

You haven't debunked anything. :lol: You said diesel fuel burns, and I've explained that it does not burn; I've tried it, and I've even tried burning JP-8 aircraft fuel (I was a Crew Chief on the F-16 in the Air Force). JP-8 does not burn unless it is vaporized and THEN it will burn, but very slowly. IT MUST BE COMPRESSED with air before detonation. However, fumes (if heavy enough) will in fact burn; but not so with diesel. Diesel must be compressed with air before it will ignite. Thus, diesel fuel is a combustible, which means it will not combust or detonate unless it is compressed at high pressures with air. Poor a few ounces into a cup and drop a match. Don't worry, as it won't detonate...it must be compressed. I'll tell you what. I'm a video editor as well, so I'd be delighted to prove this point to you ON VIDEO and I'll upload the recording onto YouTube, and paste here. That should solve the diesel mystery, and thus thwart any attempt to explain the demise of either buildings because of diesel fuel.


Yea, molten steel that you NEVER provided evidence for. Just like all your other claims.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE

Or was this video faked too?

Now below is a video of professional first responders who were at 911..their testimony was completely ignored by the 911 liars


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3Ot1JxNdE

Conclusion:

While much of this was nothing more than bouncing words back and forth, I've explained (and intend to prove via video) that diesel fuel is a combustible, and not ignitable as a liquid, which will disprove the claim of an explosive deisel generator, or supposedly 6,000 gallons (however many it was) of diesel fuel. The obvious attempt by the 911 liars is they must have a catalyst to explain the complete demise of WTC7 since it was not struck by planes; neither were buildings 3, 5, or 6, so those must have been caused by another catalyst.

Joseph

TheForgiven
09-15-2014, 10:39 PM
And you misquote me for the fifth time. Way to go Joe!

Actually, the towers DID NOT come down under unique circumstances. Well, they were unique in the fact that jets have never been used as missiles before.

You are ignorant of how the WTC 1& 2 were actually constructed. They were brilliantly designed in their day, but they were NOT impenetrable fortress's. You ignore the fact a jet traveling 500mph slammed through the core and damaged key supports, thus weakening the whole structure. Plus, fires raged for almost an hour causing the steel to expand as it heated and contract as it cooled. Certain parts of the tower were then forced to receive loads they were never designed to withstand. The towers were designed to withstand static loads. It means each and every support was designed to withstand a certain amount of weight as a whole. It does not mean when supports gave way and 20-30 stories gain momentum the bottom portion would stop it. The opposite is true.

You have ZERO idea what you are talking about.

It's also hilarious you mention the uneducated mind, when you fell for a hoax video. Only someone uneducated, would believe the towers were brought down by controlled demolition.

The video was not a hoax; it was altered, but not a hoax. Determining the authenticity of a video does not require an education, but training and software. What's interesting is how a few hoaxers will spend so much time trying to debunk 911 truthers. Why? If we are all just a bunch of crazy people, then why does the Department of Defense waste billions of dollars trying to debunk us? Why waste money on crazy people? If you and your Dick Cheney and Bush conspirators have nothing to hide, then let the truthers die out. But no...the secret is so damning to the elitists that they MUST do all that they can to ensure the public does not know the truth. Now I don't know (nor do I care) if you are a free-lance debunker, or if you are being paid. And quite frankly, I do not care. I asked for a one-on-one debate, and I will do my best to be polite so as not to chase you away. I do have a question for you though.

Let's assume that the 911 truthers are correct (and I'm 100% percent convinced that we are), and you are trying to hid the truth. Why in God's name would you want a government that would perpetrate such a heinous crime against it's own citizens? I'm assuming you are an American. Are you willing to sell out your own country, our freedoms, our Bill of Rights to protect those who could care less about even you? You don't have to answer this; it's something I'd like you to consider.

Now to your points from this post. The WTC towers 1 and 2 were designed to withstand aircraft impacts.

Here is an exerpt explaining why the impact of the planes could not have caused the towers to collapse....

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.

In designing the towers to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the designers would have assumed that the aircraft was operated normally. So they would have assumed that the aircraft was traveling at its cruise speed (i.e., not at faster speeds perhaps flown by suicide pilots). With this in mind, we can calculate the energy that the plane would impart to the towers in any accidental collision.

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174
= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).

From this, we see that under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. That is, under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.

So what can be said about the actual impacts?

The speed of impact of AA Flight 11 was 470 mph = 689 ft/s.
The speed of impact of UA Flight 175 was 590 mph = 865 ft/s.

The kinetic energy released by the impact of AA Flight 11 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (689)^2/32.174
= 2.914 billion ft lbs force (3,950,950 Kilojoules).

This is well within limits that the towers were built to survive. So why did the North tower fall?

The kinetic energy released by the impact of UA Flight 175 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (865)^2/32.174
= 4.593 billion ft lbs force (6,227,270 Kilojoules).

This is within 10 percent of the energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed. So, it would be also a surprise for the 767 impact to have caused the South tower to fall.
When interviewed in 1993, Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times:

Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling was rightfully confident that neither the impact of a large passenger jet nor the ensuing office fires was capable of bringing down the Twin Towers
“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”

In 2001, Leslie Robertson, a WTC structural engineer who worked as a subordinate to Skilling, claimed that the Twin Towers were only able to withstand the impact of jet airplanes going no faster than 180 mph. However, not only are these statements contradicted by the design test results, they also contradict statements made by Robertson in 1984/1985, when he said that there was “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.”
Robertson also claimed that the fires caused by a jet impact were not incorporated into the WTC design analysis. “To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance,” he stated in 2002. However, not only is this statement contradicted by Skilling, but it also lacks common sense, according to 9/11 researcher Kevin Ryan. “That’s kind of crazy… I don’t know how the planes would get to the buildings without jet fuel,” Ryan explains in a video presentation titled The NIST World Trade Center Report: A New Standard for Deception. “Who would design these buildings for jet plane impacts but not fuel fires?”
Not only were the towers designed to survive crashes of large jet aircraft, but they were designed to potentially survive multiple plane crashes. This assertion is supported by Frank A. Demartini, the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, who said on January 25, 2001:

“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”

Demartini appeared to be so confident that the towers would not collapse that he stayed behind, after the airplane impacts, to help save at least 50 people. As a result of his actions, he lost his life on 9/11.
Like the firefighters who perished in the WTC buildings, Demartini may very well have risked his life to save others, but the evidence suggests that he did not think he was endangering himself by simply going back into the building.
In addition, investigators from NIST who examined the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers told The New York Times in 2007 that newly disclosed documents from the 1960s show that the new York Port Authority, the original owners of Twin Towers, also considered aircraft moving at 600 mph,slightly faster and therefore more destructive than the ones that did hit the towers.
The information detailed in 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out demonstrates clearly that pre-planted explosives – not jet plane impacts and fires – destroyed the Twin Towers. The WTC designers seemed to be correct in their analysis in the 1960s, and the evidence that these buildings were brought down by controlled demolition corroborates their conclusions.

Reference: http://www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html

TheForgiven
09-15-2014, 11:07 PM
WOW. You are clueless. Eddie didn't used the video in an untruthful way. It wasn't jet fuel in WTC 7. There was 6,000 gallons of diesel in WTC7 and the fire in WTC 7 burned for nearly 7 hours. Roughly six hours fifteen minutes longer than the video Eddie used. That is more than enough time to weaken the steel beams. Plus, how many tons of steel landed on the roof from the collapse of WTC 2? Something you seem oblivious to.


BS! Now where's the evidence that "6,000 gallons" of diesel fuel burned? :lol: My Lord, it's as though you have a catalyst explanation for all of the buildings. Jet fuel for towers 1 and 2, and now 6,000 gallons of diesel fuel (combustable diesel fuel) for WTC 7. What about the other buildings? Gasoline for their emergency power generators? Female hair spray for the hot Italian secretaries? Soul-Glow hair moisturizers? :lol:

Show me evidence that there were 6,000 gallons of diesel fuel burning in WTC 7, and the applicable floor(s). And we will go from there.


And the engineers suspected diesel early on in the investigation. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/29TOWE.html


Also, I posted a study that PROVES it only takes 40 mins for a hydrocarbon fire to remain at a steady 1100°C and 1120°C. What a surprise that you ignored it the first time.

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pro...es/default.htm

Sorry LD67 but the link you provided does not PROVE diesel fuel was the catalyst that caused the complete demise of WTC7. The article was posted on November 2001 where it said:

Engineers and other experts have already uncovered evidence at the collapse site suggesting that some type of fuel played a significant role in the building's demise, but they expect to spend months piecing together the picture of what remains a disturbing puzzle.

Now here's a video of a man who is trying to light diesel with a fire.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMm06tpKho4

Nope....will not burn.

It's as I've stated...diesel fuel MUST be compressed WITH AIR (not by itself) before it ignites. So unless somehow the diesel fuel tanks each containing thousands of gallons, was mixed with sufficient air AND HIGHLY compressed, you get no ignition. And do date, I haven't found a single source which proves that diesel caused the demise of WTC 7.

Now here's the debunked report of the NIST report on WTC 7


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


shows the various nominal fire curves for comparison. It can be seen that, over a period of 2 hours, the hydrocarbon fire is the most severe followed by the standard fire, with the external fire being the least severe fire although the slow heating fire represents the lowest temperature up to 30 minutes. It is noteworthy that for standard and smouldering fires, the temperature continuously increases with increasing time. For the external fire, the temperature remains constant at 680°C after approximate 22 minutes. Whereas for the hydrocarbon fires, the temperatures remain constant at 1100°C and 1120°C after approximate 40 minutes.

Hydrocarbon fire? Standard fire? Just for the other readers who might be confused by this, LD67 is trying to explain the difference between a fire burning from a type of fuel (such as diesel or Jet fuel), while the "standard fire" are fires from common furniture, wood, etc. He's suggesting that the "standard fires" burned at a lower constant temperature for 22 minutes, while the fuel-based fires burned much hotter for 40 minutes. So I suppose he's trying to say that the fuel-based fires, having burned much longer, led to the weakening of the beams. The problem is, JP-8 fuel does not burn for 40 minutes, and diesel fuel does not burn at all....unless it is compressed. As an experienced aircraft technician, JP-8 will only burn for about 15 to 20 minutes, depending on the amount. And as JP-8 fuel burns out, black smoke will be emitted, indicating the accelerants have been diminished and the fire is cooling down.

Sorry my friend, but the explanation you've provided will not work. Here's what many airline pilots (as well as aircraft maintainers such as myself) know about jet fuel:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t28.html


Quote Originally Posted by TheForgiven View Post
2. WTC7 did not collapse at free-fall speed - That is not correct as the video clearly shows the building collapsing. Now it is true that the top portion began collapsing, but even that should not have collapse from simple office fires. And to date, Eddie nor anyone else, has been able to provide a single video of a giant skyscraper collapsing from office fires.
He NEVER said it collapsed at free fall speed. He said NEAR free fall speed.

How can you be so dense? The building collapsed because of severe structural damage from debris and fires burning for nearly 7 hours. Good grief.

And here we go again. WTC7 collapsed because of falling debris from the tower, and furniture fires that burned for 7 hours (unless he wants to add diesel to the mix). As I've proved already, there is no record of a building completely collapsing due to furniture or structural fires that is made of steal or concrete. The only evidence LD67 provided is a failed attempt to prove his point, as only the damaged section collapsed; the rest remained intact. But I supposed we have to believe that debris from WTC contributed to the weakening of WTC 7 beams, and thus caused a free-fall at gravity speed.

I'm sorry my friend, but the physical science will not support your theory. The amount of weight/impact required to cause lower beams to fail would be tremendous. Furthermore, you are proving that standard practices of demolition a building are no longer required. All you need is fuel, fire, and a few heavy balls, and presto! Collapse! Why waste money on demolition experts anymore. Especially when all of the buildings came down (straight down) without flopping to the sides, or rolling over on its back, and all without the use of explosives.


Here is a giant building collapsing from fire alone. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff1_1210707903

Now ram two jets into each trade tower at 500mph and let fires burn for an hour. You're right. No damage should have occurred to the integrity of the construction from that catastrophe. It definitely had to be a controlled demolition.

I've already explained the video above so no further comment is necessary; the entire building did not collapse, so this offers no proof. And the architects who designed the WTC to withstand the impact of 707 aircraft which travel as much faster speeds than 767 and their total weight doesn't make enough different to cause the kind of damage you're suggesting. I've provided the explanation in a previous post, so please refer back to that.

Joe

dpenn
09-15-2014, 11:40 PM
dp:



I haven't met a single CIA agent, or any other overpaid drug addict agent who could logically explain 911 events without resorting to impossible false-science explanations.

What about videos from WTC1 and WTC2 showing a woman (even identified) waving out the gaping hole in the building, and she somehow is alive before the collapse, and yet we are to believe that the fires from the plane that entered that hole where she was waving from, melted the steel to cause the towers to collapse.

dp

Silence
09-16-2014, 07:19 AM
Anyone here ever heard of the Ace elevator company? No reason to look into them Mr. 9/11 investigation commissioner! And the thermite found all around the site in the debris was created when the aluminum plane smacked into rusted steel beams with high force. As for also finding nano-thermite with just the right proportions of aluminum and iron that is used to melt steel very quickly, that was created totally by chance. It's all co-incidence. And there was no time to save the debris to do a proper investigation (which should have been done by law). We have to start doing something right away so the world doesn't look on us as weak and pull their money out of the markets on Wall Street. Let's show 'em how fast we can get it done and get those markets back open! We can investigate later.

L67
09-16-2014, 07:07 PM
Yes I was fooled by the fact that Eddie doctored a video of WTC 7 collapsing and added the special effects sounds and imagery. But no matter how you look at it, the video shows WTC 7 falling when it SHOULD NOT have fallen. Fires on the upper floors will not cause weakness of the lower floors, thus causing a COMPLETE collapse of the building. If I recorded a video of a plane crashing, and added a few special sound effects and perhaps a larger explosion upon impact, is the video suddenly a faked plane crash? No, the plane still crashed; I merely altered its attributes. It is the same with Eddie's video; the building still collapses at gravity speed when compared to other buildings of similar height, and both fall at nearly the same amount of time, give or take a few seconds, although not enough to make a total distinction. Here's a video comparing the different demolitions to WTC 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk

That's not all you have been fooled by. You believe the erroneous propaganda by your fellow conspiracy theorists on why WTC 7 never should have fallen. They can't prove it and neither can you. All you have is bare assertion that WTC 7 shouldn't have fallen.

You are also grossly ignorant of the intimate details concerning WTC7. Guess what? The fire didn't just affect the upper floors. WTC 7 was 47 stories high. Floors 7-9 and 11-13 burned out of control for nearly 7 hours. That is hardly the upper floors.

And that video is bullshit. The narrator claims the fires were extinguished by 5:20. They were not. The sprinkler system didn't work and firefighters had stopped fighting the fire long before 5:20pm because they knew could collapse. Also, the guy wouldn't shut up long enough so one could here what controlled demolition sounds like. I have witnessed a controlled demolition in person and it is freaking loud. It's very peculiar with all the cameras on building 7 that day, that NOT one captured any sound of charges exploding. Controlled demolition is impossible not to be recorded.

This video shows how loud a controlled demolition really is.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMpJQgbKsms#t=39


This video shows just how bad WTC 7 was damaged and how bad the fire really was. Look at all that dark black smoke( I wonder what caused all the black smoke). Just a few upper floor fires, right Joe?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U


I could post a lot more pictures that show it was much worse that you claim.


You posted a video of another building SUPPOSEDLY collapsing, in another later post (which I'll get to when I arrive at that part), and it DID NOT collapse "totally" from fires. Only the applicable section collapsed; that is, the section that suffered fire damage; the rest remained intact. Now why didn't this happen to WTC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7? How is it that all of these buildings conveniently TOTALLY collapsed despite the fact that less than 50% percent of the buildings suffered from fire?



Note how ONLY the fired-damaged section collapses; the rest remains intact. Huh oh! I guess that's why the 911 liars needed more excuses to explain how the undamaged sections collapsed. Unless I'm mistaken again, you claimed in another post that the lower columns collapsed because they were weakened by the extreme impact of the jets, and also they were unable to withstand different forces from the upper collapsing floors. Funny how the video you provided disproves that theory.

Do you know why only one section collapsed? Because the fire fighters were actively fighting the fire. DUH! Read up on it. Something that NEVER happened to WTC 1,2 and 7, along with the sprinkler system failing.

I guess truthers don't bother to do their homework before replying.

And you are mistaken about what I said. What is so hard about reading what I actually say? Please engage your brain Joe. This is getting ridiculous.


I did not misrepresent you. You gave explanations in a bloated response, and I summarized it for you for other readers. If I errored in my response, then why didn't you correct it instead of merely replying negatively? Could it be you are using the "how to debunk a 911 truther" playbook? So far, you're replies are proving this. And the result is a garbled long response that others will not be inclined to read due to its length.

I did correct you. What is has infected your brain? This is full on raving lunacy. I corrected you on post 15 here http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6092-911-Was-an-Inside-Job-by-US-Government-CIA-and-Israeli-Mossad-agents&p=66704#post66704

And did you respond to anything I said? No! You IGNORED everything I said.

There are three main tactics used by debunkers (both paid and unpaid). These are:


1. Be rude - ridicule the truther movement by using harsh language, profanity, insults (which I've slung a few at you myself), as well as keyword names such as tinfoil, dreamers, delusional, etc. You know?

2. Use faulty science that SOUNDS plausible (such as burning diesel fuel or negative vacuum of an implosion) and confuse the newbies interested in learn the truth

3. Never debate the facts; only pretend you provide facts and pretend that your time is too valuable (sound familiar) and that you don't have time to argue with "twoofers" as they like to say.

There are more, but I want to see how many more you might be inclined to use.

1: You get ridiculed because you wont engage your brain and I get tired of correcting you misrepresenting me. Want me to stop? Simple. Engage your brain and quote me accurately and then we can discuss it.

2: You haven't shown I have used faulty science, other than your bare assertion.

3 Here is a prime example of why I said my time is too valuable. I gave you a very specific reason. Post 24 I said this No, we don't. My time is more valuable than trying to debate someone who IGNORES what I actually write.

I just got done proving you misquote me and ignore what I right. So there you have it.






You haven't debunked anything. :lol: You said diesel fuel burns, and I've explained that it does not burn; I've tried it, and I've even tried burning JP-8 aircraft fuel (I was a Crew Chief on the F-16 in the Air Force). JP-8 does not burn unless it is vaporized and THEN it will burn, but very slowly. IT MUST BE COMPRESSED with air before detonation. However, fumes (if heavy enough) will in fact burn; but not so with diesel. Diesel must be compressed with air before it will ignite. Thus, diesel fuel is a combustible, which means it will not combust or detonate unless it is compressed at high pressures with air. Poor a few ounces into a cup and drop a match. Don't worry, as it won't detonate...it must be compressed. I'll tell you what. I'm a video editor as well, so I'd be delighted to prove this point to you ON VIDEO and I'll upload the recording onto YouTube, and paste here. That should solve the diesel mystery, and thus thwart any attempt to explain the demise of either buildings because of diesel fuel.

Sure, I did. I PROVED towers 1 & 2 didn't fall at gravity. Because guess what? You ignored the math that PROVES it NEVER happened. Debunk this please.

Towers= 417 meters(1368)
417=0.5gt^2
9.22 seconds.

And then watch this video and tell me they fell at gravity. You like to say your the only true science presenter. Well, now is your chance show me where I have erred. Don't worry I know the answer to this. You can't and you know it because you ignore it every time I present. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4

I also debunked your ridiculous demolition charge nonsense.

And your diesel claim is bullshit. I know all about diesel. Diesel has a higher flash point than gasoline. It need a lot more heat. A match on a puddle of diesel will not ignite. SO what? We're not talking about a measily match here. Watch what happens when this person tries to light diesel with a match. It goes out. Now, when he uses a propane torch with a lot more heat it ignites. Now don't you think an office fire has more than enough heat to ignite diesel? Hell yes it does. Only an idiot would claim other wise.

I posted this video on the first page and you ignored it. What a shocker. around the 4:00 mark.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nL10C7FSbE#t=257


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE

Or was this video faked too?

That video is real. But that is NOT molten steel. That is the aluminum from the plane melting. The fuselage of the plane entered the 81st floor and this molten aluminum is seen dripping from the 80th floor. It's not hard to figure out what happened. The floor trusses were beginning to sag and the melted aluminum made it's way to the nearest opening. There was no melted steel. Period.

Everybody but the truthers admits this.

Look at the sag of the floors in this picture.1275






Now below is a video of professional first responders who were at 911..their testimony was completely ignored by the 911 liars

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3Ot1JxNdE


That video isn't proof of anything. Do you even know what molten means? In that video, you clearly machines picking up steel that was red hot and not molten. If it was truly molten it would have been liquefied and there certainly wouldn't have been guys walking around in boots. Steel glows red hot around 1,000F. Notice how there was NOT picture or actual video of molten steel? There is a reason for that.

Try to post something from EXPERTS who know what real molten steel looks like. Hint. All the EXPERTS know there was no molten steel at 9/11 other than the so called truthers.





Conclusion:

While much of this was nothing more than bouncing words back and forth, I've explained (and intend to prove via video) that diesel fuel is a combustible, and not ignitable as a liquid, which will disprove the claim of an explosive deisel generator, or supposedly 6,000 gallons (however many it was) of diesel fuel. The obvious attempt by the 911 liars is they must have a catalyst to explain the complete demise of WTC7 since it was not struck by planes; neither were buildings 3, 5, or 6, so those must have been caused by another catalyst.

No, it's really not bouncing words back and forth. I have smashed many of your claims to pieces. You failed miserably to prove diesel won't ignite with the right amount of heat. Posting videos of people trying to light diesel with matches is meaningless when were talking about uncontrolled office fires.

L67
09-16-2014, 08:17 PM
The video was not a hoax; it was altered, but not a hoax. Determining the authenticity of a video does not require an education, but training and software. What's interesting is how a few hoaxers will spend so much time trying to debunk 911 truthers. Why? If we are all just a bunch of crazy people, then why does the Department of Defense waste billions of dollars trying to debunk us? Why waste money on crazy people? If you and your Dick Cheney and Bush conspirators have nothing to hide, then let the truthers die out. But no...the secret is so damning to the elitists that they MUST do all that they can to ensure the public does not know the truth. Now I don't know (nor do I care) if you are a free-lance debunker, or if you are being paid. And quite frankly, I do not care. I asked for a one-on-one debate, and I will do my best to be polite so as not to chase you away. I do have a question for you though.

You give yourself way to much credit. The truther movement isn't as big as you make it out to be. Let's see some proof of the DOD spending billions to debunk you guys. As far as I can tell, they already have.





Let's assume that the 911 truthers are correct (and I'm 100% percent convinced that we are), and you are trying to hid the truth. Why in God's name would you want a government that would perpetrate such a heinous crime against it's own citizens? I'm assuming you are an American. Are you willing to sell out your own country, our freedoms, our Bill of Rights to protect those who could care less about even you? You don't have to answer this; it's something I'd like you to consider.

You're not. You have no smoking gun. The stuff you call evidence is easily debunked.

I am an American and I don't support governments who would perpetrate such things on its own citizens. The fact of the matter is, there is no evidence this occurred on 9/11. If there was I would be the first one saying it. I'm not arguing with you because I have something to hide. I'm arguing with you because I a have background that tells me you're wrong. I don't work for any alpha agency or any other such nonsense that you conjure up. I'm just an ordinary person like the vast majority of Americans.



Now to your points from this post. The WTC towers 1 and 2 were designed to withstand aircraft impacts.

Here is an exerpt explaining why the impact of the planes could not have caused the towers to collapse....


Those calculations tell you NOTHING. Do you know why? Because the designers didn't have to state of the art technology to test this or even simulate.

Here is what one designer even said. A previous analysis [by WTC building designers], carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing”

What kind of calculations do you think those amounted to in 1964? The Titanic wasn't suppose to sink but it had a weakness as well.

Here is what John Skilling also said: [Building designer] John Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.”

What analysis could have told them in 1964 the building would have survive? They sure as hell didn't test. They calculated it.

This is within 10 percent of the energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed. So, it would be also a surprise for the 767 impact to have caused the South tower to fall.
When interviewed in 1993, Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times:


Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling was rightfully confident that neither the impact of a large passenger jet nor the ensuing office fires was capable of bringing down the Twin Towers
“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”

Right there says it all. They accounted for the plane hitting the side of the building. They never planned for a jet traveling almost 600mph to be rammed right through the center damaging the core support as well as the trusses and dumping jet fuel everywhere.

And Leslie Robertson admits they had to way of testing the affects that a fire with jet fuel in it would have. There is not way they could have know. It's just plain foolish to think they could by 1964 standards.

L67
09-16-2014, 09:12 PM
BS! Now where's the evidence that "6,000 gallons" of diesel fuel burned? :lol: My Lord, it's as though you have a catalyst explanation for all of the buildings. Jet fuel for towers 1 and 2, and now 6,000 gallons of diesel fuel (combustable diesel fuel) for WTC 7. What about the other buildings? Gasoline for their emergency power generators? Female hair spray for the hot Italian secretaries? Soul-Glow hair moisturizers? :lol:

Show me evidence that there were 6,000 gallons of diesel fuel burning in WTC 7, and the applicable floor(s). And we will go from there.

Could you please read a little slower next time. I didn't say there was 6,000 gallons of diesel burned.

Here is what you said in post 23:
Anyways, here is Eddie's explanation of WTC7 being, "the only tall skyscraper to collapse".

1. Fires burned between 1,200 to 2,000 degrees (per his own words) which caused the beams to weaken. He shows a short clip of a video denoting a steel beam bending from simple fuel fires. What he didn't show you is I've seen that video, and it was NOT jet fuel that they used. The same testers could not cause the beam to fail using jet fuel, so they used another heat source. Jet fuel only burns at 1,200 degrees, and for no longer than 10 to 15 minutes. It took nearly 45 minutes of the fire source denoted in the video to bend the steel beam. Eddie was using a clip in an untruthful way to fool his audience. But heck, for several hundred, if not a few thousand dollars, I'd make a video proving to you that an elephant could hang from a treat limp by its tail.

Here was my reply: WOW. You are clueless. Eddie didn't used the video in an untruthful way. It wasn't jet fuel in WTC 7. There was 6,000 gallons of diesel in WTC7 and the fire in WTC 7 burned for nearly 7 hours. Roughly six hours fifteen minutes longer than the video Eddie used. That is more than enough time to weaken the steel beams. Plus, how many tons of steel landed on the roof from the collapse of WTC 2? Something you seem oblivious to.

Notice how I said there wasn't jet fuel in WTC 7? Then I said there was 6,000 gallons in WTC7 and the fire burned for nearly 7 hours. I never once outright said the diesel was burning explicitly. I was making a correction to you for saying Eddie as being untruthful about the 45 min video he cited.

However, the official NIST report says this : The two 6,000 gallon tanks supplying the 5th floor generators through a pressurized piping system were always kept full for emergencies and were full that day.

Both tanks were found to be damaged by debris and empty several months after the collapse. Some fuel contamination was found in the gravel below the tanks and sand below the slab on which the tanks were mounted, but no contamination was found in the organic marine silt/clay layer underneath.

Where did all the diesel go?



Sorry LD67 but the link you provided does not PROVE diesel fuel was the catalyst that caused the complete demise of WTC7. The article was posted on November 2001 where it said:

Engineers and other experts have already uncovered evidence at the collapse site suggesting that some type of fuel played a significant role in the building's demise, but they expect to spend months piecing together the picture of what remains a disturbing puzzle.

I never said the link PROVED that diesel caused the demise of WTC 7. I said engineers SUSPECT it played a role. Please read slower.




Now here's a video of a man who is trying to light diesel with a fire.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMm06tpKho4

Nope....will not burn.

t's as I've stated...diesel fuel MUST be compressed WITH AIR (not by itself) before it ignites. So unless somehow the diesel fuel tanks each containing thousands of gallons, was mixed with sufficient air AND HIGHLY compressed, you get no ignition. And do date, I haven't found a single source which proves that diesel caused the demise of WTC 7.



You're right. My bad. The diesel wouldn't light through the first part of the video you watched. I watched the video until the end where he LIT the diesel on a piece of wood. :lol::lmbo::hysterical::rofl:

And from the description of the video: In this test the diesel fuel did not ignite from an open flame, but if the temperature of the diesel fuel is high enough than it will ignite and burn.

Gee, do you think an office fire would qualify as hot enough to burn? :lol:

Bravo Joe!


Now here's the debunked report of the NIST report on WTC 7

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

No, try again.




Hydrocarbon fire? Standard fire? Just for the other readers who might be confused by this, LD67 is trying to explain the difference between a fire burning from a type of fuel (such as diesel or Jet fuel), while the "standard fire" are fires from common furniture, wood, etc. He's suggesting that the "standard fires" burned at a lower constant temperature for 22 minutes, while the fuel-based fires burned much hotter for 40 minutes. So I suppose he's trying to say that the fuel-based fires, having burned much longer, led to the weakening of the beams. The problem is, JP-8 fuel does not burn for 40 minutes, and diesel fuel does not burn at all....unless it is compressed. As an experienced aircraft technician, JP-8 will only burn for about 15 to 20 minutes, depending on the amount. And as JP-8 fuel burns out, black smoke will be emitted, indicating the accelerants have been diminished and the fire is cooling down.

Sorry my friend, but the explanation you've provided will not work. Here's what many airline pilots (as well as aircraft maintainers such as myself) know about jet fuel:

There you go making assumptions again. You didn't even quote my post correctly. You were incorrectly comparing jet fuel with WTC7.

It went like this:
Anyways, here is Eddie's explanation of WTC7 being, "the only tall skyscraper to collapse".

1. Fires burned between 1,200 to 2,000 degrees (per his own words) which caused the beams to weaken. He shows a short clip of a video denoting a steel beam bending from simple fuel fires. What he didn't show you is I've seen that video, and it was NOT jet fuel that they used. The same testers could not cause the beam to fail using jet fuel, so they used another heat source. Jet fuel only burns at 1,200 degrees, and for no longer than 10 to 15 minutes. It took nearly 45 minutes of the fire source denoted in the video to bend the steel beam. Eddie was using a clip in an untruthful way to fool his audience. But heck, for several hundred, if not a few thousand dollars, I'd make a video proving to you that an elephant could hang from a treat limp by its tail.


Here was my reply: WOW. You are clueless. Eddie didn't used the video in an untruthful way. It wasn't jet fuel in WTC 7. There was 6,000 gallons of diesel in WTC7 and the fire in WTC 7 burned for nearly 7 hours. Roughly six hours fifteen minutes longer than the video Eddie used. That is more than enough time to weaken the steel beams. Plus, how many tons of steel landed on the roof from the collapse of WTC 2? Something you seem oblivious to.

And the engineers suspected diesel early on in the investigation. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/29TOWE.html


Also, I posted a study that PROVES it only takes 40 mins for a hydrocarbon fire to remain at a steady 1100°C and 1120°C. What a surprise that you ignored it the first time.

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pro...es/default.htm

shows the various nominal fire curves for comparison. It can be seen that, over a period of 2 hours, the hydrocarbon fire is the most severe followed by the standard fire, with the external fire being the least severe fire although the slow heating fire represents the lowest temperature up to 30 minutes. It is noteworthy that for standard and smouldering fires, the temperature continuously increases with increasing time. For the external fire, the temperature remains constant at 680°C after approximate 22 minutes. Whereas for the hydrocarbon fires, the temperatures remain constant at 1100°C and 1120°C after approximate 40 minutes.

I was making the point that IF 6,000 gallons of diesel played a role then nearly 7 hours if enough to weaken steel beams.

This is getting very tiresome. Please try and read and quote me accurately.



And here we go again. WTC7 collapsed because of falling debris from the tower, and furniture fires that burned for 7 hours (unless he wants to add diesel to the mix). As I've proved already, there is no record of a building completely collapsing due to furniture or structural fires that is made of steal or concrete. The only evidence LD67 provided is a failed attempt to prove his point, as only the damaged section collapsed; the rest remained intact. But I supposed we have to believe that debris from WTC contributed to the weakening of WTC 7 beams, and thus caused a free-fall at gravity speed.

Diesel *POSSIBLY* played a role. I already went over this in another post just how misinformed you are. I suggest you study it.


I'm sorry my friend, but the physical science will not support your theory. The amount of weight/impact required to cause lower beams to fail would be tremendous. Furthermore, you are proving that standard practices of demolition a building are no longer required. All you need is fuel, fire, and a few heavy balls, and presto! Collapse! Why waste money on demolition experts anymore. Especially when all of the buildings came down (straight down) without flopping to the sides, or rolling over on its back, and all without the use of explosives.

Except you haven't demonstrated why I'm in error. All you do is post bare assertion. I have corrected you on countless things and debunked many of your claims in the last three posts.

If you want to say I'm in error then you need to demonstrate that.



I've already explained the video above so no further comment is necessary; the entire building did not collapse, so this offers no proof. And the architects who designed the WTC to withstand the impact of 707 aircraft which travel as much faster speeds than 767 and their total weight doesn't make enough different to cause the kind of damage you're suggesting. I've provided the explanation in a previous post, so please refer back to that.

Actually it does for reasons I have already stated.

Matthjar
09-17-2014, 01:06 AM
Hey Joe, can you use a little support from the Canadian front?

You obviously have been working for some time on amassing much of your detailed material. There may be mixed reactions to the source of some of my video clips, but if you don't buy them, prove them wrong. Before bringing a few more details to bear, here is a recent interview of a 1st responder NY Fireman just a couple days ago:

Lee Ann McAdoo on Infowars – 911 Firefighter Blows WTC 7 Cover Up Wide Open
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQrpLp-X0ws&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

A few more points to insist that 911 was an inside job (Joe covered WTC 7 already):

1. A mock terrorist attack was being executed that day by NORAD, mimicking ongoing terrorist attacks, so that anything observed as real terrorism could be chalked up to a training exercise.

2. How could the US Defense possibly not have activated jet fighters the minute the so-called hijacked jets went off radar course, and especially after the first Tower was struck?

3. How could the Pentagon be struck by a large jet liner, making a looping 270 degree steep turn, to spiral down to ground level for the strike? The presumed hijack pilot couldn’t even handle a Sesna in his training. There were even experienced jet pilots who said they couldn’t navigate the aircraft to that precision.

4. There was no initial aircraft debris from the crash site at the Pentagon. There was just one circular hole through the 5 layers of super reinforced concrete. This is surprising since the weakest part of the aircraft is the pilot cone and fuselage. What happened to the engines? Why no engine holes in the Pentagon wall? A presumed engine that miraculously appeared on the scene a little later was a total mismatch for the jet liner

5. Why was there no discernable parts from the jet that was presumably downed over Shanksville? Why no bodies? Why no landing gear, engine parts, or tail section?

6. Why was WTC 7 completely left out of the 911 Report?

7. Why were all witnesses with a different story line ignored in the 911 Report?

8. Why do so many of the anniversaries of 911 refuse to admit first responders? You would think they would be given front row seats and heralded as heroes. Could it be because so many of them know that the official story line is a treasonous lie?

9. Why do so many professional architects, structural engineers, and demolition experts insist that a complete investigation needs to be carried out on 911 because they just don’t buy the existing official story line? What do they have to gain?

10. How did the terrorist passports survive these horrific explosive sites, when all else was just vaporized?

11. What about the evidence that 5 of the 19 terrorists have been found to be still living, with 2 of them even being interviewed, and yet the official story is cast in stone?

12. Why, when 15 of the 19 supposed terrorists were Saudi’s, would you attack Afghanistan and then Iraq?

13. Why has no one ever forced the gov’t to explain why they used fake Bin Laden video? The dummy fake Bin Laden doesn’t even look like the real one, plus he is right handed, not left handed, and he is wearing a ring and a watch, something a Taliban would never do.

What is the fruit of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan?

1. Devastation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq is a powder keg of instability, and Afghanistan has been turned into the world’s number 1 opium producing nation of the world, with US troops forced to oversee the poppy fields. Plus ongoing drone strikes into Pakistan, on who knows what targets?

2. Extended destabilization of Libya and Egypt, funding and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in pulling off political coups, overthrowing the govt’s of Khadaffi and Mubaraq, dictators, but choir boys compared to the current regimes.

3. Why the attempted military overthrow of Assad in Syria? Why would the US and allies fund and provide military support and weaponry to rebels that are 100 times more vile than a secular Islamic dictator like Assad?

4. Why the Benghazi stand-down? Who ordered it and why? Keep in mind it cost the life of an American Ambassador. What of all the high level stories of a Fast and Furious like arming of the Sunni rebels, to overthrow Assad’s regime? Recall Joe Biden even visiting the rebels fighting in Syria.

5. How could ISIL, ISIS, IS, Al Qaeda, Al CIAda, or whatever their current name is, get the money and weapons to do what they are doing? Especially since there is strong evidence that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Turkey and Jordan are supporting them from the Arab side, and strong evidence that US, Britain, France, and Israel are funding them from the NATO side. Not to mention, high level leaks that it all came from Benghazi.

6. Why was ISSIS not dealt with in the open desert, when they could have obliterated them? Surely with their beheading of 300,000 Christians, Muslims, and many other relatively innocent people in their wake, they were a greater threat than Khadaffi, Mubaraq, or Assad. Yet these were the chosen answer to all of NATO’s desire to overthrow Assad. Why was NATO and the US just shadow boxing with ISIS, but now suddenly, they are prepared to attack them in Syria? Will they "accidentally" attack Assad, by missiles that fly over their cuckoo’s nest? If they turn this into an Assad coup, from an ISIS strike gone bad, what then? A new central bank in Syria? Will the Zionists celebrate a fulfillment of Isaiah 17:1 and how Damascus is destroyed and uninhabitable? Are we really sure this is a futurist prophesy that the US is ordained by God to fulfill?

7. Why would Ukraine suddenly overthrow their duly elected President, after they voted to not enter the EU? Why would Obama say he was replaced with a legitimate replacement, when he was merely an appointed banker for the EU? Only later did they have a seemingly legitimately elected President.

8. Why is it so wrong for Russia to have naval bases in the Crimea, but it is ok for the US to have a base at Guantanamo?

9. What about MH17? Why was it given orders to fly through a war zone? Why did it drop its flight altitude from 35,000 ft to 32-33,000 ft, to then be in range to be hit by a ground missile? Who really fired the missile?

10. Why do so many US survivors of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty still insist that they were intentionally attacked by Israeli Air Force and Navy in the 1967 war? Many Americans lost their lives on that day. And why did Pres Johnson and McNamara order any response to stand-down, not coming to their rescue for many hours, all the while the USS Liberty was flying a huge American flag? It had all the appearance of making it look like the USS Liberty was being attacked by Egyptian fighter jets to draw the US into the conflict. But at the cost of one of her own ships, and even more valuable, her own men?

11. Why are the US borders left open for almost anybody and their dog to cross, while at the same time ISIS terrorist alerts are at an all-time high? Why are Americans being fined if they cross the border, but illegal aliens are given a blind eye, and even flown at tax payer expense to locations around the US, with children even being admitted to schools without a physical to make sure they are not carrying some contagious disease. All of this when the ebola threat is epidemic world-wise. And why can illegal aliens enter US at will, but US citizens are forced to undergo embarrassing and time-consuming body searches?

12. What will Russia do if Syria is attacked by US? Why is the Sunni coalition so willing to fund and attack the Shia Muslims, including their strategic partner, Syria? I realize that there are great threats to Israel, but Assad has been at peace with Israel. Is it really Israel, or is it something more financial or business oriented?

13. Is it possible these are advanced steps required to maneuver a NWO on a traumatized world? What happens if the lid blows off, and it unleashes WWIII? For certain, some would welcome such a population reduction and an elite money jackpot, but have the world leaders really counted the cost? And what if the Zionists have misread Scripture? What then?

Well, for the Gematria driven hordes, I have listed two sets of baker’s dozen, of why we should be very concerned about what is transpiring before our very eyes in the wake of 911. I am a Canadian, but I am a thinking, conscientious Canadian, and one who would love to, as much as is possible, live at peace with all people.

In conclusion, consider a few videos that Alex Jones and Infowars have posted:

Lee Ann McAdoo on Alex Jones – America Mercenaries Threaten War with Russia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAn6qHfdyvw&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg&index=75

Alex Jones – A Brief History of ISIS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EotykLKuouw&index=67&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

Lee Ann McAdoo on Alex Jones – Obama Wants $500 million to Arm ISIS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCWpDsaabmM&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

Lt Col Tony Shaffer on Alex Jones – Secrets of the 28 page 911 Report Released
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO6xwmNXeZI&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

Jerome Corsi on Alex Jones – Historical Foundation of ISIS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5-BpJ0fi1k&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

Alex Jones Breakdown of the ISIS Threat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnuh1l5Qcxk&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

PS. Now if you could only get your doctrine on the Trinity as clear as your 911 investigation ...

dp

Awesome QUESTIONS DPENN..... and so many more....... I distinctly get the intuition that American Mass Media could be re-labeled as the American Propaganda machine.

It would seem that something very Fishy is going on with ISIS..... After reviewing the "evidence" of the James Foley "beheading" i have been able to make a few observations.

1. Even the smallest head wound will produce massive amounts of bleeding in a human whose heart is pressurizing the cardiovascular system. In the James Foley story no blood at all materializes when the headed is being removed from the body.... Due to the size of main artery and vein in the neck it should have been a gushing fountain.(Apparently his heart was already stopped or his head was NOT actually being removed from his body).

2. The close up of James Foleys face during the supposed act conveyed no emotion or reaction whatsoever...... not even the slightest change of facial muscle tension, squinting, and no movement at all. (Possibly he was already dead, drugged, or in DEEP meditation?)

3. The Families reaction in media stories are very suspect for the brutal nature of the supposed act. His Sister shows very pronounced signs of "Duping Delight." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDIG7AkaLds (Family Interview) This is the pleasure that an individual will show when they believe that their falsified account has been "accepted" as truth, none of the family showed much grief or mourning at all for such a barbaric heinous act. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_6vDLq64gE (Ted Talk on Duping Delight at approx 00:15:00.)

The bottom line is there is much more to this "story" then meets the eye, It is also possible that ISIS makes a nice comfortable barrier separating Shiite Iran from Israel and Western Friendly Sunni's in the South, is this just a convenient happening or does it show "Intelligent Design"?

IF you care to research the Boston Bombings(Practice for Martial Law in a Major metropolitan area?) and Sandy Hook School and Aurora CO shootings more fully you may also get the impression that there is more to those "stories" then the official story provided to us by the major news outlets. One thing is fairly apparent that the risk of interviewing a "real" bystander is much less desirable than interviewing a "paid actor" that will say all the right things, and give the correct version of the story you want to portray, or maybe it is just better for ratings and "emotional impact" for the network?

This wikipedia Entry on "Perception Management" is very enlightening.

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

Originally coined by the US military and DOD, I am planning on starting an new thread which will try to equate this practice to the ultimate Anti-Christ behavior, that states that the truth is not as important as public perception of reality.

Here is a small excerpt just to give you a feel for it.

There are nine strategies for perception management. These include:

Preparation — Having clear goals and knowing the ideal position you want people to hold.
Credibility — Make sure all of your information is consistent, often using prejudices or expectations to increase credibility.
Multichannel support — Have multiple arguments and fabricated facts to reinforce your information.
Centralized control — Employing entities such as propaganda ministries or bureaus.
Security — The nature of the deception campaign is known by few.
Flexibility — The deception campaign adapts and changes over time as needs change.
Coordination — The organization or propaganda ministry is organized in a hierarchical pattern in order to maintain consistent and synchronized distribution of information.
Concealment — Contradicting information is destroyed. (Can you say George Orwell's "Memory Holes" from 1984?)
Untruthful statements — Fabricate the truth.


All in All it seems that in this Modern Age the intelligent and discerning mind is constantly left with more questions then answers.

Here is another question that would be interesting to know the answer too....

Why are all the governmental agencies that are meant to regulate different aspects of American Life run by Executives of the Corporations they are meant to be regulating? Why do their actions seem to "Help" the BIG Corps but drive the little competitor out of business? Why does protecting the American public(original intent) seem to be lower on the priority list?

It is kind of like putting the Fox in charge of the Hen house.

It is really quite ingenious move by the Big Boys and so maybe they are not as much to blame as the general American public that seems fine with the arrangement.

Monsanto's take over of the FDA is the most glaring example of this "new" process in action.

As always receptive to any countering viewpoints and evidence to the contrary or alternative interpretations to consider.

With Utter devotion to Love and Truth,
Matthjar.

Silence
09-17-2014, 07:08 AM
עַד־אָ֧נָה יְהוָ֛ה שִׁוַּ֖עְתִּי וְלֹ֣א תִשְׁמָ֑ע אֶזְעַ֥ק אֵלֶ֛יךָ חָמָ֖ס וְלֹ֥א תֹושִֽׁיעַ׃
לָ֣מָּה תַרְאֵ֤נִי אָ֙וֶן֙ וְעָמָ֣ל תַּבִּ֔יט וְשֹׁ֥ד וְחָמָ֖ס לְנֶגְדִּ֑י וַיְהִ֧י רִ֦יב וּמָדֹ֖ון יִשָּֽׂא׃
עַל־כֵּן֙ תָּפ֣וּג תֹּורָ֔ה וְלֹֽא־יֵצֵ֥א לָנֶ֖צַח מִשְׁפָּ֑ט כִּ֤י רָשָׁע֙ מַכְתִּ֣יר אֶת־הַצַּדִּ֔יק עַל־כֵּ֛ן יֵצֵ֥א מִשְׁפָּ֖ט מְעֻקָּֽל׃

אִם־עֹ֣שֶׁק רָ֠שׁ וְגֵ֨זֶל מִשְׁפָּ֤ט וָצֶ֙דֶק֙ תִּרְאֶ֣ה בַמְּדִינָ֔ה אַל־תִּתְמַ֖הּ עַל־הַחֵ֑פֶץ כִּ֣י גָבֹ֜הַּ מֵעַ֤ל גָּבֹ֙הַּ֙ שֹׁמֵ֔ר וּגְבֹהִ֖ים עֲלֵיהֶֽם׃

Once something like 9/11 takes place, there is no way a government can afford to do a careful investigation, and follow up on all possible lines of evidence, since public opinion can be very fickle. Rumors and suspicion can easily "get out of hand". Who would want to even think that something like that could have been planned? What would happen if a significant percentage of people decided it was even possible?

On the other hand, how many are willing to deny that the desire which people have for stability in their lives is not taken advantage of by those with the means to do it? This desire to maintain the status quo by most of the population opens up a lot more options for designing "plausible deniability" into an operation. Uncomfortable evidence can more easily be brushed aside, ignored, or explained away.

There are a ton of things that seem fishy about this whole thing, but in this lifetime I don't expect to see definite proof of what actually happened, or to discover why. Like no discussion about the background and security procedures to keep tabs on the company that was hired to do the elevator renovations in 1 & 2.

L67
09-17-2014, 07:21 AM
Anyone here ever heard of the Ace elevator company? No reason to look into them Mr. 9/11 investigation commissioner! And the thermite found all around the site in the debris was created when the aluminum plane smacked into rusted steel beams with high force. As for also finding nano-thermite with just the right proportions of aluminum and iron that is used to melt steel very quickly, that was created totally by chance. It's all co-incidence. And there was no time to save the debris to do a proper investigation (which should have been done by law). We have to start doing something right away so the world doesn't look on us as weak and pull their money out of the markets on Wall Street. Let's show 'em how fast we can get it done and get those markets back open! We can investigate later.

Oh really? Do you have any proof of that? I KNOW the answer to this, but I want to see if you have anything besides bare assertion.

TheForgiven
09-17-2014, 11:46 AM
That's not all you have been fooled by. You believe the erroneous propaganda by your fellow conspiracy theorists on why WTC 7 never should have fallen. They can't prove it and neither can you. All you have is bare assertion that WTC 7 shouldn't have fallen.

You are also grossly ignorant of the intimate details concerning WTC7. Guess what? The fire didn't just affect the upper floors. WTC 7 was 47 stories high. Floors 7-9 and 11-13 burned out of control for nearly 7 hours. That is hardly the upper floors.

Fires are fires, and although I believe many like you who defends the conspiracy with false-truths (more like exaggerations) continue to insist that fires are all that's required to bring down a building. And you grossly ignore the fact that ONLY the affected parts that were on fire would have the POTENTIAL to fall; NOT the entire facility. The dilemma you and the 911 conspirators keep ignoring is that face that the ENTIRE building would have to be engulfed in flames (NOT just a few sections or floors) for a building to collapse at gravity (or near gravity) speed. I'll get to your collapse speed later in this post.

No matter how you look at it, the ENTIRE building collapses and it is IMPOSSIBLE for an ENTIRE building to collapse if only a FEW floors (or even half) were on fire. If this were as scientifically accurate as you claim it is, then why have companies spent/wasted so much money paying professional demolition teams to bring down a building? Do you know that the ONLY buildings to ever collapse as though it were demolished by professionals are the WTC buildings? No other building in human history has ever collapsed because of fires. NEVER! Why? Because it is scientifically improbable for this to happen, unless the building is of poor design.

Have you seen the video of the guy who yells, "RUN FOR YOUR LIVES" when he claimed that WTC7 was about to fall, and yet it did not fall until they managed to clear the area? Do you know why its tennant, Larry Steinberg, gave the order to "Pull it"? I'll cover more on that when we get to those details.


And that video is bullshit. The narrator claims the fires were extinguished by 5:20. They were not. The sprinkler system didn't work and firefighters had stopped fighting the fire long before 5:20pm because they knew could collapse. Also, the guy wouldn't shut up long enough so one could here what controlled demolition sounds like. I have witnessed a controlled demolition in person and it is freaking loud. It's very peculiar with all the cameras on building 7 that day, that NOT one captured any sound of charges exploding. Controlled demolition is impossible not to be recorded.

You must first PROVE that it's BS before this can be considered a valid argument. Create a narrative yourself, and debunk all of his points. As for the sprinkler system not working, my brother-in-law resides in Michigan and he designs those emergency systems. Even HE stated that what NIST is reporting about the sprinkler systems is total BS. Once the sensors detect heat, the sprinkler system should have been activated EVEN if some of the systems were damaged. SOMEONE turned off those systems, and we already know who it was (group of people that is), but we're not going to talk about that now.

Fire supression systems DO NOT fail unless it has been severely damaged. And since the main controllers are in the lower parts of the building, and the debris falling from the WTC towers struck the top of WTC7, it is therefore IMPOSSIBLE that the system would fail; it was therefore deactivated, as was the rest of the buildings.

This is what's so insane about you people. You expect these failures to happen to 5 or 7 different buildings to occur. But only an idiot would or a conspirator (or conspiracy supporter) would conjure up every ridiculous excuse you can come up with. NIST had 8 years to conjure up their BS, and the author of the video in question is just as irritated at the BS you (and those like you) keep insisting. We are to believe that two airplanes, its fuel, and apparently now diesel fuel (which NIST never supported by the way), caused severe fires which led to the TOTAL structural fatigue of all WTC buildings and yet conveniently ignore the IMPOSSIBLE coincidence of the fire suppression systems failing. Sounds like Larry Steinberg (or David Rockefeller) should sue the fire suppression company.

In fact! Why not sue the designers for all of these convenient failures that the conspirators seem to use as a defense? Why not change the design of future buildings if these buildings were such a complete failure? You could almost get away with towers 1 and 2 since they were struck by airplanes. But the rest of the buildings are quite improbable to explain away without having to resort to exaggerated data; fires, diesel fuel, 100% percent structural failure because of fires.

Fire suppression system failed on all the buildings? Then sue them, and ask companies to redesign them. Premature structural failures? Then sue the designers. But as you probably already know, nothing like this happened. Dude, if your engine blew up in your car, would you simply try to explain it away despite the fact it is warranted or insured? Heck no! You'd take action and demand an explanation. Yet not one architect was questions on the designs weakness (to this day!), and not one fire suppression systems designer was questioned!

Now here's what is so interesting about this entire argument. NO REAL investigation was EVER done. So how in the world could NIST (mostly bankers) provide the truth as the reasons these towers collapse? The debris was hauled off before anyone had the chance to to a real investigation. As you know, tampering with the crime scene is illegal. And guess where all of that steal went? To China for melting. Does that represent an agenda to get to the bottom of what REALLY happened? I seriously doubt it! Now if it was important to get the debris out of there (some of which was STILL BURNING in the form of "molten steal" as reported by the cleanup crew), they could have hauled the debris to a secured location, and examine the evidence from there. But no! Absolutely not! We can't have the world know what REALLY happen.


This video shows how loud a controlled demolition really is.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMpJQgbKsms#t=39


Eye witnesses testified on camera that they heard several loud explosions before WTC7 collapsed; the same with towers 1 and 2. But according to you and your fellow conspirators, it was all in their mind, and it never happened. SOME of them mysteriously died from siucide (as it's been reported) or car accidents. Get that? Key witnesses of the crime scene who reported what was contrary to the 911 commissioners died. Here's a video of those who have died by trying to tell the truth. Berry Jennings is perhaps one of the most important witnesses...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suQitX2GmTU


This video shows just how bad WTC 7 was damaged and how bad the fire really was. Look at all that dark black smoke( I wonder what caused all the black smoke). Just a few upper floor fires, right Joe?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U

Sorry my friend, but that is not the ENTIRE building. You can't explain away this level of fire as the cause of structural failure of every single beam in the building. The science does not permit it. You must PROVE that every single beam failed as a result of these fires.


I could post a lot more pictures that show it was much worse that you claim.



Do you know why only one section collapsed? Because the fire fighters were actively fighting the fire. DUH! Read up on it. Something that NEVER happened to WTC 1,2 and 7, along with the sprinkler system failing.

I guess truthers don't bother to do their homework before replying.

And you are mistaken about what I said. What is so hard about reading what I actually say? Please engage your brain Joe. This is getting ridiculous.


Yes, they were fighting the fires on the bottom floors....from outside...I watched the entire thing. And as with 911, the fire fighters were doing the same thing.

Now check out this video of Mr. Jennings (who's now dead) explaining the explosions heard before debris from the towers fell on WTC7. Jennings and his associate were inside WTC7. NIST never provided an explanation of this.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kYs4fWaMO4

Explosion heard in WTC7 on the 8th floor. Fire fighters see molten steel flowing like lava. I know you claim aluminum from the airplane melted...but I'll get to that assertion in a few.

Continued on next post...

TheForgiven
09-17-2014, 11:46 AM
Continued from previous post:


There are three main tactics used by debunkers (both paid and unpaid). These are:



1: You get ridiculed because you wont engage your brain and I get tired of correcting you misrepresenting me. Want me to stop? Simple. Engage your brain and quote me accurately and then we can discuss it.

2: You haven't shown I have used faulty science, other than your bare assertion.

3 Here is a prime example of why I said my time is too valuable. I gave you a very specific reason. Post 24 I said this No, we don't. My time is more valuable than trying to debate someone who IGNORES what I actually write.

I just got done proving you misquote me and ignore what I right. So there you have it.

I'll deal with your accusations of me misquoting you in another post, in an effort to keep this correspondence short.


Sure, I did. I PROVED towers 1 & 2 didn't fall at gravity. Because guess what? You ignored the math that PROVES it NEVER happened. Debunk this please.

Towers= 417 meters(1368)
417=0.5gt^2
9.22 seconds.

9.22 seconds is near gravity speed.1281

Source: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/speed.html

Examining the chart above, we can denote a rapid acceleration of the collapsing process from start to finish. The fact that its collapse occurs rapidly and accelerates during the fall, this means that there was very little, to no resistance from each lower-uncollapsed floors. 911 liars need the public to believe that burning office furniture was NOT so hot enough to melt steel, but to weaken it enough to cause a "near gravity" speed. But the chart clearly shows a rapid acceleration during the collapsing process. That can only mean that EVERY lower beam on the lower floors were mysteriously weakened but a partial burning of the entire building. LD67 is treating this scenario as though (meaning speculative) the ENTIRE building caught fire, thereby causing the weakening of the lower beams. LD67 also adds that the downward collapse of the upper floors was so chaotic that the lower beams (yet to collapse) could no longer handle the stress, and so gave way as the upper floors tumbled straight down. But even a child with common sense knows that what he is suggesting is impossible, and has never been done.

Science truth: WTC 7 accelerated as it collapsed, thus indicating that the subsequent collapses of each lower level were given way before the upper floors even reached them. There is only one kind of incident that MUST occur to cause this kind of neat collapsing, and that's demolition of the building. And yes, EXPLOSIONS WERE HEARD as eyewitnessed by two gentlemen inside of WTC7 BEFORE any debris landed atop of the building. Of course, he is dead.


And then watch this video and tell me they fell at gravity. You like to say your the only true science presenter. Well, now is your chance show me where I have erred. Don't worry I know the answer to this. You can't and you know it because you ignore it every time I present. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4

What a waste of a video. That wasn't even worth my time! :lol: No unbroken scenes were used to calculate the free fall times of the buildings. For WTC7, no video was used; just an audio graph. For Tower 1, two or three video segments were used. But as stated earlier, towers 1 and 2 could be argued both ways, but there are many other facts not yet pointed out (which we will get to) which will make your theories and excuses impossible.


I also debunked your ridiculous demolition charge nonsense.

You did??? How?


And your diesel claim is bullshit. I know all about diesel. Diesel has a higher flash point than gasoline. It need a lot more heat. A match on a puddle of diesel will not ignite. SO what? We're not talking about a measily match here. Watch what happens when this person tries to light diesel with a match. It goes out. Now, when he uses a propane torch with a lot more heat it ignites. Now don't you think an office fire has more than enough heat to ignite diesel? Hell yes it does. Only an idiot would claim other wise.

I posted this video on the first page and you ignored it. What a shocker. around the 4:00 mark.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nL10C7FSbE#t=257


You've got to be joking! :lol: First the JP-8 didn't even light; not even with a torch. Now realistically, JP-8 fuel WILL burn if it has been atomized. This is the reason why an airplane with partial fuel will explode as it hits the ground. That's because the fuel tanks are pressurized and the sudden release of vapors ignites; the rest of the fuel that remains a liquid will only burn as the heat vaporizes the puddles. And before you know it, usually within 20 to 30 minutes, the aircraft fuel is gone.

Now the diesel test did produce a small enough flame after it was torched. But as I've stated, those fuel tanks would not be located in the upper floors of WTC7. That's against company code and fuel tanks must be positioned 50 to 125 away from a facility, and labeled with a HAZMAT and FLAMMABLE tag. But again, one more important fact you are ignoring. NIST NEVER ACKNOWLEDGED the that diesel fuel served as a catalyst. In 2001 they considered it, but for some reason decided not to go that route as you are doing. Even in the 2010 report (unless I'm in error), diesel was never mentioned as the cause of additional fires. NIST claims it was the office materials, furniture, and other related catalysts that caused the 7 hour fires; NOT diesel. So unless you've got solid evidence (NOT THEORIES) that diesel fuel contributed to WTC7's demise, you've got no leg to stand on my friend.


That video is real. But that is NOT molten steel. That is the aluminum from the plane melting. The fuselage of the plane entered the 81st floor and this molten aluminum is seen dripping from the 80th floor. It's not hard to figure out what happened. The floor trusses were beginning to sag and the melted aluminum made it's way to the nearest opening. There was no melted steel. Period.

Everybody but the truthers admits this.

NOW we get to my favorite part. Are you suggesting that the Aluminum was melting and rolling out of the sides? Did you not hear the first responders telling us about the molten steel flowing? Did you not watch the video of the cleanup crew seeing molten steel DAYS after the buildings collapsed? Are you going to tell me that those airplanes were still burning? :lol: Get the heck out of my forum with that kind of BS. There's not enough aluminum on an aircraft for molten aluminum to flow like that. Trust me, I know about aircraft; I'm a 20 year Veteran of the USAF as an F-16 Mechanic, and I know what airplanes are made out of. ONLY THE OUTSIDE skins are made from Aluminum. The rest is a titanium based metal, mixed with other metals such as steel (very small amount), composite material (cancer causing fibers and glue), and so forth. A 767 mostly contains aluminum on the outside, with some on the inside; the rest is other dissimilar metals, most of which do not melt. In fact, Titanium is capable of withstanding very high temperatures. This is the reason why titanium is used on the engines fan/turbine blades and combustion chambers.

Try again LD...not enough Aluminum to cause molten lava flows for days.


Look at the sag of the floors in this picture.1275

I'll have to respond to this one later...need to examine the photo's closer.


That video isn't proof of anything. Do you even know what molten means? In that video, you clearly machines picking up steel that was red hot and not molten. If it was truly molten it would have been liquefied and there certainly wouldn't have been guys walking around in boots. Steel glows red hot around 1,000F. Notice how there was NOT picture or actual video of molten steel? There is a reason for that.

Try to post something from EXPERTS who know what real molten steel looks like. Hint. All the EXPERTS know there was no molten steel at 9/11 other than the so called truthers.


Dude, you live in complete denial...watch this video


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6ZxYU3A

This Professor acknowledges that even molten metal (likely steal) was found under the debris of WTC7, which was never struck by planes...must have been molten diesel. :lol:


No, it's really not bouncing words back and forth. I have smashed many of your claims to pieces. You failed miserably to prove diesel won't ignite with the right amount of heat. Posting videos of people trying to light diesel with matches is meaningless when were talking about uncontrolled office fires.

:lol:You remind me of a drunkard at the bowling alley who swears up and down you got a strike, but failed to realize you were looking at the wrong bowling lane. :lol: You haven't smashed a thing. In fact, you didn't provide much data at all, except on the time the building collapsed. You claimed aluminium is what flowed, yet provided no truth or data proving this; especially for days and weeks after the collapse of the buildings. How can science support this bizarre idea?

Keep trying...

Joe

TheForgiven
09-17-2014, 12:00 PM
Why are all the governmental agencies that are meant to regulate different aspects of American Life run by Executives of the Corporations they are meant to be regulating? Why do their actions seem to "Help" the BIG Corps but drive the little competitor out of business? Why does protecting the American public(original intent) seem to be lower on the priority list?

BINGO! :congrats: It's all about the New World Order where the Khazarian descendants in Britain and all throughout Europe (to also include the fake Zionist jews) can control the world. And it's about the PETRODOLLAR...purchase of oil using American collars.

I've been trying to find out why the CIA and the FBI are protecting these people. The only thing I can guess is it has to do with money, drugs (Afghanistan), oil, and corruption. We know that the FBI was created to help the IRS and not really fight crimes. But the CIA is an organization that isn't supposed to be in the United States; their job is to gather foriegn intelligence, yet many of them remain here illegally in the United States. As Jesse Ventura once asked them when he was governor, "Why are you here in this country? You're not even supposed to be here!"

Corporations are owned and controlled by the private bankers of the Federal Reserves...aka, the Rothschild's who claim to be Jews, but are a synagogue of Satan.

The chaos in the Ukraines and Syria is directly caused by the CIA and Israeli Mossad agents in an effort to gain total banking control of the entire world and manipulate their currency. These fat cats are stealing trillions of dollars from the world in the form of debt. This debt comes from money they print out of thin air, with no gold or silver to back it up. They launder the worthless money in the form of oil-sells (by selling American dollars), drug sells, or by labor (working class). Yet THEY (Rothschild Zionists) collect interest payments from the taxes we pay (Unconstitutional taxes I might add) for loaning money that didn't cost them a thing. It's not as though they dug into their pockets or bank accounts to provide loans to the government; they simply print it. That's like me printing out $100 dollars from my home printer, loaning you the money, and charging you interest.

Here's a test question: IF I printed $100 dollars and loaned you this money free of charge (no interest), and you pay me back $100 dollars a week later, did I make or lose money? Think carefully...:winking0071:

Joe

TheForgiven
09-17-2014, 12:09 PM
Hydrocarbon fire? Standard fire? Just for the other readers who might be confused by this, LD67 is trying to explain the difference between a fire burning from a type of fuel (such as diesel or Jet fuel), while the "standard fire" are fires from common furniture, wood, etc. He's suggesting that the "standard fires" burned at a lower constant temperature for 22 minutes, while the fuel-based fires burned much hotter for 40 minutes. So I suppose he's trying to say that the fuel-based fires, having burned much longer, led to the weakening of the beams. The problem is, JP-8 fuel does not burn for 40 minutes, and diesel fuel does not burn at all....unless it is compressed. As an experienced aircraft technician, JP-8 will only burn for about 15 to 20 minutes, depending on the amount. And as JP-8 fuel burns out, black smoke will be emitted, indicating the accelerants have been diminished and the fire is cooling down.

Sorry my friend, but the explanation you've provided will not work. Here's what many airline pilots (as well as aircraft maintainers such as myself) know about jet fuel:
There you go making assumptions again. You didn't even quote my post correctly. You were incorrectly comparing jet fuel with WTC7.

Do you even read? I let this slide on the posts before because I know what you're trying to do. What you stated is highlighted in red; mine in blue.

You are implying that I somehow incorrectly attributed burning jet fuel with WTC7. That is not true at all. I was explaining to other readers what you meant by "hydrocarbon fires" vs. "standard fires", by my statement, "LD67 is trying to explain the difference between a fire burning from A TYPE OF FUEL (SUCH AS diesel or Jet Fuel)". I was not implying you believe WTC7 was burning because of jet fuel. I stated you were were implying that WTC7 burned BECAUSE of "a type of fuel", aka diesel or jet fuel; in this case, diesel.

And once again, NIST does not acknowledge diesel fuel from WTC7 as having been a contributing factor...not according to their 2010 report. It was considered in 2001, but later rejected; smart move on their part as we truthers would have called them out on that. :lol:

Learn to read more carefully before accusing me of misquoting you...this isn't the first time you've accused me of that, but I chose not to argue your accusations, in an effort to keep our correspondences short...unless you're intentionally trying to extend them, thereby chasing other potential readers off....this would be one of the "how to debunk a 911 truther" rules.

Joe

TheForgiven
09-17-2014, 12:45 PM
Anyone here ever heard of the Ace elevator company? No reason to look into them Mr. 9/11 investigation commissioner! And the thermite found all around the site in the debris was created when the aluminum plane smacked into rusted steel beams with high force. As for also finding nano-thermite with just the right proportions of aluminum and iron that is used to melt steel very quickly, that was created totally by chance. It's all co-incidence. And there was no time to save the debris to do a proper investigation (which should have been done by law). We have to start doing something right away so the world doesn't look on us as weak and pull their money out of the markets on Wall Street. Let's show 'em how fast we can get it done and get those markets back open! We can investigate later.

Hello Silence. You hit a very critical nail in what SHOULD have been the coffin for the political conspirators of the most horrendous crime ever committed on the American people. They tampered with evidence (or removed the evidence) from the crime scene in an effort to prevent a more thorough investigation. Notice how the media had already began blaming Osama Ben Laden as the 911 attacks occurred. No evidence to support this; it was all about Islamic terrorists right off the bat. Some try to suggest that Governor Giuliani simply wanted to get the toxic debris out of the area. Granted, I think we could accept that. Well why didn't they move the evidence to a containment area? Instead, they shipped most of the debris to China for melting and re-use. Wow! How convenient! :lol: That to me resembles a murderer trying to cleanup the crime scene so as to destroy any potential evidence that could incriminate the perpetrator.

What most do not know is that 911 was a repeat of a 1960's conspiracy to plunge the United States into a war with Cuba. The plan was known as Operation Northwood's. In this scenario, two hijacked planes were to be slammed into the WTC buildings, and blamed on Cuba. 911 was nearly the exact same scenario, except they blamed it on Osama Ben Laden. Funny how the Bush family, along with Cheney, had close ties with the Ben Laden family. Funny also how the US let Ben Laden's family go home via airplane, while the rest of the country was grounded. :eek: Ben Laden was a CIA asset staged to be the boss of the Islamic terrorists....which of course they were not Islamic terrorists; not pork eating, whore sexing Islamic's. LOL True Muslims do not consume alcohol, sleep with whores, or consume pork. Yet some of the so called Al-Qaeda terrorists were arrested in Turkey, and were seen eating pork while in prison. One such prisoner was ridiculed for eating pork, and he laughed, and exclaimed, "That's just a lie designed to cause tension in the world..."

I'm beginning to believe that the CIA is more a harm than an agency for good. Their mission is to help the bankers (who also run our government) create wars by causing tension in regions they want to control. They will use terrorism and staged humanitarian efforts by the United States to eventually start wars. And the bankers are the ones profiting big time by these wars. It's about the Petrodollar (oil for purchase with American dollars).

Joe

TheForgiven
09-17-2014, 01:04 PM
You give yourself way to much credit. The truther movement isn't as big as you make it out to be. Let's see some proof of the DOD spending billions to debunk you guys. As far as I can tell, they already have.






You're not. You have no smoking gun. The stuff you call evidence is easily debunked.

I am an American and I don't support governments who would perpetrate such things on its own citizens. The fact of the matter is, there is no evidence this occurred on 9/11. If there was I would be the first one saying it. I'm not arguing with you because I have something to hide. I'm arguing with you because I a have background that tells me you're wrong. I don't work for any alpha agency or any other such nonsense that you conjure up. I'm just an ordinary person like the vast majority of Americans.





Those calculations tell you NOTHING. Do you know why? Because the designers didn't have to state of the art technology to test this or even simulate.

Here is what one designer even said. A previous analysis [by WTC building designers], carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing”

What kind of calculations do you think those amounted to in 1964? The Titanic wasn't suppose to sink but it had a weakness as well.

Here is what John Skilling also said: [Building designer] John Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.”

What analysis could have told them in 1964 the building would have survive? They sure as hell didn't test. They calculated it.

This is within 10 percent of the energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed. So, it would be also a surprise for the 767 impact to have caused the South tower to fall.
When interviewed in 1993, Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times:



Right there says it all. They accounted for the plane hitting the side of the building. They never planned for a jet traveling almost 600mph to be rammed right through the center damaging the core support as well as the trusses and dumping jet fuel everywhere.

And Leslie Robertson admits they had to way of testing the affects that a fire with jet fuel in it would have. There is not way they could have know. It's just plain foolish to think they could by 1964 standards.

The 707 travels faster than the 767, as it is SLIGHTLY smaller in size; not enough to make a difference. And I know that you're not providing us with the actual speed of the 767. Even so, if you read the information provided, the differences between a 707 and 767 are small. So there's not enough solid evidence to support the hypotheses of a 767 flying faster (when in fact it's slower), and heavier than a 707, and thus contributed to the eventual collapse of the WTC buildings.

I can live with the fact that they might have erred in their calculations. But as you noticed yourself, the impact did not cause the buildings to fall. Eyewitnesses within the building stated the tower rocked side-to-side, as it was designed to do.

Now observe the engineers comments:

"There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.”

He admits that the burning jet fuel would lead to many deaths, but he still did not acknowledge (or believe) that jet fuel could cause the complete demise of the structure. And rightly so because burning jet fuel doesn't burn long enough, nor hot enough to melt or weaken steel. NO TEST has proven this....well except the video from Nation Geographic where they used another type of steel beam smaller than the ones used on the world trade center, and nearly 100 times more fuel exposure than what the WTC actually experienced. The amount of fuel the planes carried was not enough in comparison to what a single beam faced on the National Geographic channel episode. And as stated before, the WTC buildings only suffered fires from around the 100th floor. This does not account for the hundreds of beams on the 90th and below floors which were never exposed to fires; there was no catalyst for them to weaken, and were not subjected to fires.

Now in speaking of the fires, let's take a look at this photo:

1282

Lord please forgive me for showing this picture. :pray::pray::pray:

Taking a careful look at this photo, we can see that fires were raging inside the building as these people were trying to get away from the white smoke (indicating high temperatures), and heat. We hear the 911 liars exclaiming that fires were so hot that the beams began to warp. I've worked in a Bosche plant that makes battery terminals using melted Aluminum, and it's VERY hot. And here in the photo are people subjected to intense heat and smoke, and so they creep and hang outside of the windows for air.

QUESTION: If the fires were so hot so as to bend or weaken steel, should not these people (who are much weaker than steel) have been burned alive?

Joe

L67
09-17-2014, 07:40 PM
Fires are fires, and although I believe many like you who defends the conspiracy with false-truths (more like exaggerations) continue to insist that fires are all that's required to bring down a building. And you grossly ignore the fact that ONLY the affected parts that were on fire would have the POTENTIAL to fall; NOT the entire facility. The dilemma you and the 911 conspirators keep ignoring is that face that the ENTIRE building would have to be engulfed in flames (NOT just a few sections or floors) for a building to collapse at gravity (or near gravity) speed. I'll get to your collapse speed later in this post.

Joe,

I am not the one defending a conspiracy. That is you. We have the official story that is corroborated by mountains of evidence. You are the ONE who is responsible for proving your conspiracy true. You can't do that with any physical evidence. All you have is bare assertion from hearsay.

What I highlighted in red is nothing but bare assertion on your part. You are grossly ignorant of buckling theory and potential energy. You're obviously not an engineer by the silly statements that you make. It doesn't matter if only certain sections are on fire. Once part of the building collapses, then other parts of the building are forced to receive dynamic loads they were NEVER designed to withstand. You can't prove otherwise so there is no reason to continue on.

You also ignore that steel doesn't have to melt to be greatly weakened by fire.


No matter how you look at it, the ENTIRE building collapses and it is IMPOSSIBLE for an ENTIRE building to collapse if only a FEW floors (or even half) were on fire. If this were as scientifically accurate as you claim it is, then why have companies spent/wasted so much money paying professional demolition teams to bring down a building? Do you know that the ONLY buildings to ever collapse as though it were demolished by professionals are the WTC buildings? No other building in human history has ever collapsed because of fires. NEVER! Why? Because it is scientifically improbable for this to happen, unless the building is of poor design.

Yea, if only just a "few" floors were on fire. It is as scientifically accurate as I and the NIST say it is. It is you who is scientifically ignorant of the relevant sciences. Yea, some new professional demolition with the new whisper charges. Not one camera has ever recorded any charges going off on any of the building.

You conspiracy theorist always like to show WTC 7 from the North. You guys conveniently IGNORE the south side that shows the vast majority of the building charred. Like this video. Just a "few" floors, right Joe?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfhA_XsYUbk&list=UUeWXHma8GQvbfPy9zxWdRfA


Have you seen the video of the guy who yells, "RUN FOR YOUR LIVES" when he claimed that WTC7 was about to fall, and yet it did not fall until they managed to clear the area? Do you know why its tennant, Larry Steinberg, gave the order to "Pull it"? I'll cover more on that when we get to those details.

Another steaming pile of dung.


You must first PROVE that it's BS before this can be considered a valid argument. Create a narrative yourself, and debunk all of his points. As for the sprinkler system not working, my brother-in-law resides in Michigan and he designs those emergency systems. Even HE stated that what NIST is reporting about the sprinkler systems is total BS. Once the sensors detect heat, the sprinkler system should have been activated EVEN if some of the systems were damaged. SOMEONE turned off those systems, and we already know who it was (group of people that is), but we're not going to talk about that now.

No, it is up to YOU to prove the story correct. You are the one offering a different view point from the official story.

Besides, the video debunks itself. There are no recordings of any demolition charges anywhere. Period. If there was really demolition going on, it would have been recorded.

And your last comment is more hearsay that you can't prove.

Fire supression systems DO NOT fail unless it has been severely damaged. And since the main controllers are in the lower parts of the building, and the debris falling from the WTC towers struck the top of WTC7, it is therefore IMPOSSIBLE that the system would fail; it was therefore deactivated, as was the rest of the buildings.

The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. If you bothered to actually read something other than conspiracy garbage you would know this.



This is what's so insane about you people. You expect these failures to happen to 5 or 7 different buildings to occur. But only an idiot would or a conspirator (or conspiracy supporter) would conjure up every ridiculous excuse you can come up with. NIST had 8 years to conjure up their BS, and the author of the video in question is just as irritated at the BS you (and those like you) keep insisting. We are to believe that two airplanes, its fuel, and apparently now diesel fuel (which NIST never supported by the way), caused severe fires which led to the TOTAL structural fatigue of all WTC buildings and yet conveniently ignore the IMPOSSIBLE coincidence of the fire suppression systems failing. Sounds like Larry Steinberg (or David Rockefeller) should sue the fire suppression company.

No, what is insane is your arguments have nothing but empty assertions backed by hearsay.




Now here's what is so interesting about this entire argument. NO REAL investigation was EVER done. So how in the world could NIST (mostly bankers) provide the truth as the reasons these towers collapse? The debris was hauled off before anyone had the chance to to a real investigation. As you know, tampering with the crime scene is illegal. And guess where all of that steal went? To China for melting. Does that represent an agenda to get to the bottom of what REALLY happened? I seriously doubt it! Now if it was important to get the debris out of there (some of which was STILL BURNING in the form of "molten steal" as reported by the cleanup crew), they could have hauled the debris to a secured location, and examine the evidence from there. But no! Absolutely not! We can't have the world know what REALLY happen.

WRONG! Mindless conspirators like yourself don't understand any of the science behind the investigation. In fact, your whole life revolves around conspiracies. You even tried to posit some bullshit conspiracy about me here on this forum.




Eye witnesses testified on camera that they heard several loud explosions before WTC7 collapsed; the same with towers 1 and 2. But according to you and your fellow conspirators, it was all in their mind, and it never happened. SOME of them mysteriously died from siucide (as it's been reported) or car accidents. Get that? Key witnesses of the crime scene who reported what was contrary to the 911 commissioners died. Here's a video of those who have died by trying to tell the truth. Berry Jennings is perhaps one of the most important witnesses...

And miraculously NOT one of the explosions ended up on camera that day. It must be those new whisper bombs.





Sorry my friend, but that is not the ENTIRE building. You can't explain away this level of fire as the cause of structural failure of every single beam in the building. The science does not permit it. You must PROVE that every single beam failed as a result of these fires.

Actually, it is. Here is an even better video that shows the building was structurally comprised by the roof and that the cast majority of the south side is charred. Unlike you, I can actually show evidence for my claims. This building is in FAR worse shape than you or any of the truthers ever admit. Just a little fire and very little debris damage, right Joe?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaoXMx4pSFE&list=UUeWXHma8GQvbfPy9zxWdRfA&index=20




Yes, they were fighting the fires on the bottom floors....from outside...I watched the entire thing. And as with 911, the fire fighters were doing the same thing.

Now check out this video of Mr. Jennings (who's now dead) explaining the explosions heard before debris from the towers fell on WTC7. Jennings and his associate were inside WTC7. NIST never provided an explanation of this.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kYs4fWaMO4

Explosion heard in WTC7 on the 8th floor. Fire fighters see molten steel flowing like lava. I know you claim aluminum from the airplane melted...but I'll get to that assertion in a few.

Boy, those whisper bombs sure are getting more and more stealthy. Real demolition would have been recorded. Sorry, all you have is hearsay again.

L67
09-17-2014, 09:16 PM
9.22 seconds is near gravity speed.

Source: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/speed.html

Examining the chart above, we can denote a rapid acceleration of the collapsing process from start to finish. The fact that its collapse occurs rapidly and accelerates during the fall, this means that there was very little, to no resistance from each lower-uncollapsed floors. 911 liars need the public to believe that burning office furniture was NOT so hot enough to melt steel, but to weaken it enough to cause a "near gravity" speed. But the chart clearly shows a rapid acceleration during the collapsing process. That can only mean that EVERY lower beam on the lower floors were mysteriously weakened but a partial burning of the entire building. LD67 is treating this scenario as though (meaning speculative) the ENTIRE building caught fire, thereby causing the weakening of the lower beams. LD67 also adds that the downward collapse of the upper floors was so chaotic that the lower beams (yet to collapse) could no longer handle the stress, and so gave way as the upper floors tumbled straight down. But even a child with common sense knows that what he is suggesting is impossible, and has never been done.

Wow, just wow. Proof positive you have no idea what you are talking about. 9.22 seconds pertains ONLY to WTC 1 & 2 because the equation assumes a height of 1,368 feet. That does not factor in WTC 7. You just PROVED my point that you can't debunk it and that you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Thanks for playing Joe.


Science truth: WTC 7 accelerated as it collapsed, thus indicating that the subsequent collapses of each lower level were given way before the upper floors even reached them. There is only one kind of incident that MUST occur to cause this kind of neat collapsing, and that's demolition of the building. And yes, EXPLOSIONS WERE HEARD as eyewitnessed by two gentlemen inside of WTC7 BEFORE any debris landed atop of the building. Of course, he is dead.

WRONG! The collapse starts at the roof of the penthouse suite. It didn't start from the bottom. In this video, you can clearly see that the penthouse collapses first. If you pause it at the 3 second mark you can clearly see about 3-4 floors from the top fail first because you can see daylight through the windows as it collapses. You can see it never originates from the bottom. Your demolition charge is nonsense.

What do have for evidence of demolition charges? Nothing but hearsay. Unlike you , I can support my argument with actual evidence. It's not my fault you ignore it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whW4WTX0DKQ&list=UUSvrNB1pHmW4C5vpv-1BgUA


What a waste of a video. That wasn't even worth my time! :lol: No unbroken scenes were used to calculate the free fall times of the buildings. For WTC7, no video was used; just an audio graph. For Tower 1, two or three video segments were used. But as stated earlier, towers 1 and 2 could be argued both ways, but there are many other facts not yet pointed out (which we will get to) which will make your theories and excuses impossible.

Nice try. The very first tower collapse was an unbroken scene. Try again. In order to collapse at gravity speed, the towers had to fall in 9.22 seconds. Pick any video and time it. Never happened.




You did??? How?

I debunked the ONLY source for demolition you had. You have no recordings of it( which is impossible not to catch on tape) and all you have is hearsay. Period. My argument stands until you post something concrete.




You've got to be joking! :lol: First the JP-8 didn't even light; not even with a torch. Now realistically, JP-8 fuel WILL burn if it has been atomized. This is the reason why an airplane with partial fuel will explode as it hits the ground. That's because the fuel tanks are pressurized and the sudden release of vapors ignites; the rest of the fuel that remains a liquid will only burn as the heat vaporizes the puddles. And before you know it, usually within 20 to 30 minutes, the aircraft fuel is gone.

We weren't talking about jet fuel. We were talking about diesel. You made the erroneous claim that it won't ignite. My video proves that as does the video you posted. It's not my fault you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.


Now the diesel test did produce a small enough flame after it was torched. But as I've stated, those fuel tanks would not be located in the upper floors of WTC7. That's against company code and fuel tanks must be positioned 50 to 125 away from a facility, and labeled with a HAZMAT and FLAMMABLE tag. But again, one more important fact you are ignoring. NIST NEVER ACKNOWLEDGED the that diesel fuel served as a catalyst. In 2001 they considered it, but for some reason decided not to go that route as you are doing. Even in the 2010 report (unless I'm in error), diesel was never mentioned as the cause of additional fires. NIST claims it was the office materials, furniture, and other related catalysts that caused the 7 hour fires; NOT diesel. So unless you've got solid evidence (NOT THEORIES) that diesel fuel contributed to WTC7's demise, you've got no leg to stand on my friend.

You have repeated this same error many times now. There were tanks on the 5th floor. And I never said definitively that diesel was a catalyst. I said it was a possibility. You never answered me. Where did all the diesel go from the two 6,000 gallon tanks?






NOW we get to my favorite part. Are you suggesting that the Aluminum was melting and rolling out of the sides? Did you not hear the first responders telling us about the molten steel flowing? Did you not watch the video of the cleanup crew seeing molten steel DAYS after the buildings collapsed? Are you going to tell me that those airplanes were still burning? :lol: Get the heck out of my forum with that kind of BS. There's not enough aluminum on an aircraft for molten aluminum to flow like that. Trust me, I know about aircraft; I'm a 20 year Veteran of the USAF as an F-16 Mechanic, and I know what airplanes are made out of. ONLY THE OUTSIDE skins are made from Aluminum. The rest is a titanium based metal, mixed with other metals such as steel (very small amount), composite material (cancer causing fibers and glue), and so forth. A 767 mostly contains aluminum on the outside, with some on the inside; the rest is other dissimilar metals, most of which do not melt. In fact, Titanium is capable of withstanding very high temperatures. This is the reason why titanium is used on the engines fan/turbine blades and combustion chambers.

What is wrong with your brain?

I asked you to post evidence for molten steel. What did you post? You posted this video that supposedly contains molten steel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE#t=53

Here is more proof that you again take my comments out of context. My comments pertained ONLY to the video as seen here. That video is real. But that is NOT molten steel. That is the aluminum from the plane melting. The fuselage of the plane entered the 81st floor and this molten aluminum is seen dripping from the 80th floor. It's not hard to figure out what happened. The floor trusses were beginning to sag and the melted aluminum made it's way to the nearest opening. There was no melted steel. Period.

Everybody but the truthers admits this.

Your comments are dancing all over the place.

I know the plane would NOT have flowed aluminum for days. DUH! If you would have understood my comments to begin with, then I wouldn't have to correct you all the time.

You can't show any error in my comments. All you can do is laughably refer to hearsay yet again.

I saw the video and saw no molten steel. I saw steel that was glowing red hot, but that is NOT molten steel. Try again.






Dude, you live in complete denial...watch this video


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6ZxYU3A

This Professor acknowledges that even molten metal (likely steal) was found under the debris of WTC7, which was never struck by planes...must have been molten diesel. :lol:

OMG! You have proven beyond all doubt how freaking gullible you are. You also prove that you do absolutely no due dilligence of any kind. You swallow the bullshit without any critical thinking.

I can debunk that video easily. At 19 seconds the machine is picking up burning steel. Just so you know steel will burn long before it melts. If it was true molten steel the machines would not be able to pick it up.

At 1:18 there is a picture of firemen supposedly leaning over molten steel. Guess what? Who could possibly put there face over 2000f+ temps and not have there face melt off? Nobody. Please use some logic dude. The reason this is true is because the picture is bullshit. Steven Jones doctored the image to support his case. This picture is a fraud. After the two minute mark it talks about true molten steel. Where are the pictures of that at ground zero? Oh, there are none. Sorry you have been duped once again.

Here is the original picture that was doctored. The firemen were using flashlights.

1284


:lol:You remind me of a drunkard at the bowling alley who swears up and down you got a strike, but failed to realize you were looking at the wrong bowling lane. :lol: You haven't smashed a thing. In fact, you didn't provide much data at all, except on the time the building collapsed. You claimed aluminium is what flowed, yet provided no truth or data proving this; especially for days and weeks after the collapse of the buildings. How can science support this bizarre idea?

LMAO! I just smashed another one of your fraudulent claims with that doctored picture.

It is you who needs to keep trying. Your bullshit is getting out of hand.

It's not rocket science that the plane smashed into floor 81 and with the sagging floors the melted aluminum flower out the hole. It's much more factual than thermite nonsense. Stay tuned because I'm going to debunk that nonsense real soon.

L67
09-17-2014, 09:37 PM
The 707 travels faster than the 767, as it is SLIGHTLY smaller in size; not enough to make a difference. And I know that you're not providing us with the actual speed of the 767. Even so, if you read the information provided, the differences between a 707 and 767 are small. So there's not enough solid evidence to support the hypotheses of a 767 flying faster (when in fact it's slower), and heavier than a 707, and thus contributed to the eventual collapse of the WTC buildings.

I can live with the fact that they might have erred in their calculations. But as you noticed yourself, the impact did not cause the buildings to fall. Eyewitnesses within the building stated the tower rocked side-to-side, as it was designed to do.

Now observe the engineers comments:

We agree here.


"There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.”

And the titanic couldn't sink, right? His comments mean nothing because the tower did fall.


He admits that the burning jet fuel would lead to many deaths, but he still did not acknowledge (or believe) that jet fuel could cause the complete demise of the structure. And rightly so because burning jet fuel doesn't burn long enough, nor hot enough to melt or weaken steel. NO TEST has proven this....well except the video from Nation Geographic where they used another type of steel beam smaller than the ones used on the world trade center, and nearly 100 times more fuel exposure than what the WTC actually experienced. The amount of fuel the planes carried was not enough in comparison to what a single beam faced on the National Geographic channel episode. And as stated before, the WTC buildings only suffered fires from around the 100th floor. This does not account for the hundreds of beams on the 90th and below floors which were never exposed to fires; there was no catalyst for them to weaken, and were not subjected to fires.

I will show you below.



Now in speaking of the fires, let's take a look at this photo:

1282

Lord please forgive me for showing this picture. :pray::pray::pray:

Taking a careful look at this photo, we can see that fires were raging inside the building as these people were trying to get away from the white smoke (indicating high temperatures), and heat. We hear the 911 liars exclaiming that fires were so hot that the beams began to warp. I've worked in a Bosche plant that makes battery terminals using melted Aluminum, and it's VERY hot. And here in the photo are people subjected to intense heat and smoke, and so they creep and hang outside of the windows for air.

QUESTION: If the fires were so hot so as to bend or weaken steel, should not these people (who are much weaker than steel) have been burned alive?

Joe

The beams did begin to warp as I will show below. And to answer your question, it obviously was not as hot in that area as you make it out to be.

I made this claim on page 1: The trusses would have expanded as they heated and then contracted as they cooled. As they cooled, the trusses would have pulled the support columns inward thus causing the collapse. There was NOTHING to stop it once it started. You can call the NIST whatever you like but they actually have REAL science behind their conclusion

This is supported by the NIST and any other engineer who isn't looney.

Notice how the building is starting to bow inward on the right hand side?

1285



Again, notice the columns being pulled inward?


1286

And here is what it looks like as it starts to collapse up close. What's happening here? Are the demolition charges sucking the life out of the building or what?


http://i42.tinypic.com/9jha1u.gif



Here is the full length video.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJJPYTVjxug&index=2&list=UUeWXHma8GQvbfPy9zxWdRfA

Here is another video that shows the the WTC 2 didn't come straight down. The top actually tilted before it fell.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2I1UMuBWRE&list=UUeWXHma8GQvbfPy9zxWdRfA&index=3

I know you say that the melted airliner couldn't possibly be was is flowing out of the building. This picture demonstrates this nicely. It's not a stretch to think this is what happened. Especially since we have evidence for it, unlike the thermite nonsense.

1287


I know the nutjobs like to say that thermite is responsible for this. Complete nonsense and I will get to that in my next post.

L67
09-18-2014, 11:07 AM
Before I move on to debunking the thermite claim, I wanted to set the stage of the kind of intelligence we are dealing with here. Richard Gage is the founder of http://www.ae911truth.org/. They are one of the big time players in the conspiracy movement. Let's all pay attention to Richard Gage proving why the towers couldn't have collapsed from a jet crash and fire. Yes, this is actually him comparing cardboard boxes to the twin towers.:lol: Makes sense to me.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM

Charisma
09-18-2014, 01:01 PM
Has anyone in this thread seen this video before? I'm not offering an opinion, but the speaker does. There's also a talk called 'Connecting the dots'.


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

dpenn
09-18-2014, 03:38 PM
dp:


Has anyone in this thread seen this video before? I'm not offering an opinion, but the speaker does. There's also a talk called 'Connecting the dots'.


Charisma, good thought-provoking video. Have you been able to come up with anything more current that answers scientifically some of his unproven suspicions from June 6 2007?

I have since found a video of another Physics Prof from BYU, Dr Steven Jones, who was let go for his research. You might find it interesting and supplementary to the Dr Bill Deagle. You can view this at:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkaX5n3pfZE


or a more recent presentation by Dr Steven Jones in Sydney Austrailia,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKQchK4X8r0


dp

L67
09-18-2014, 08:02 PM
Ok, the the central claim for the 9/11 conspiracy theorists is this:

1: The towers could not have fallen from the plane crash and fire.

2: The towers were brought down by demo charges and thermite.

There is ZERO evidence to support any demolition charges. With all the cameras on the trade towers that day, not one of them captured any sounds of demolition charges occurring. Had there been actual demo charges that day, there would would be absolutely no doubt they would have been recorded.

That brings us to thermite. The truthers like to claim that iron rich microspheres prove there was thermite present. Does it really? No.They're an interesting byproduct of combustion of many substances. You do not need to reach the melting point of steel to make microspheres. They were expected to be there. It was no surprise. The USGS analyzed some of the iron microspheres and found nothing suspicious. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html


So, a bunch of truthers got together in 2009 to test some red/gray chips found in the dust at ground zero. We'll forget the fact that it wasn't peer reviewed in a credible journal.

Here is their conclusion. http://benthamopen.com/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen Pp 7-31

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

However, an expert named Dr. Millette was hired IN 2012 to take the guesswork out of the above conclusion. Unlike Harrit and Jones, Millette is actually an expert at this type of study. He used FTIR, for one thing. He isolated each chemical compound and here is his conclusion. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf

'In summary, red/gray chips with the same morphological characteristics, elemental spectra and magnetic attraction as those shown in Harrit et al.1 were found in WTC dust samples from four different locations than those examined by Harrit, et al.1 The gray side is consistent with carbon steel. The red side contains the elements: C, O, Al, Si, and Fe with small amounts of other elements such as Ti and Ca. Based on the infrared absorption (FTIR) data, the C/O matrix material is an epoxy resin. Based on the optical and electron microscopy data, the Fe/O particles are an iron oxide pigment consisting of crystalline grains in the 100-200 nm range and the Al/Si particles are kaolin clay plates that are less than a micrometer thick. There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles detected by PLM, SEM-EDS, or TEM-SAED-EDS, during the analyses of the red layers in their original form or after sample preparation by ashing, thin sectioning or following MEK treatment.'

'
Conclusions
The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.
There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.'

His conclusion is that there is no evidence of therimite or nano-thermite. The truthers still deny the truth of this study by Millete. However, now that the chemical makeup is known, then why have Harrit and Jones not mixed up a batch to show it's magical ability to destroy steel? It's been 5 years since that paper and NOTHING. Why have they not presented it at a scientific conference for peer discussion and evaulation? Hmmm.. I wonder.

In Harris and Jones paper under further test they say this.

We observe that the total energy released from some of
the red chips exceeds the theoretical limit for thermite alone
(3.9 kJ/g). One possibility is that the organic material in the
red layer is itself energetic. Determination of the chemical
compound(s) involved in the organic component of the red
material would promote understanding. Further studies of the
red material (separated from the gray material) compared to
known super-thermite variants using DSC, TGA, FTIR (etc.)
analyses would certainly be in order. In particular, NMR and
GC-mass spectroscopy and related studies are urged to identify the organic material

Here is another quote from the paper. The Gash report describes FTIR spectra which characterize this energetic material. We have performed these same tests and will report the results elsewhere'

Where are the tests they said are certainly in order to identify the chemicals? 5 years and NOTHING. No demonstrations and no test results. The answer is obvious. It's because their results confirm Dr. Millete's and they KNOW it. There is no thermite or nano-thermite on the planet that contains 80% of Epoxy and Iron Oxide with Kaolin. Why have they also not compare the chemicals found to that of REAL thermite?

It's obvious why Jones never produced the results of test he said are in order. Because then they would have to admit they were wrong and then they couldn't get money from books, DVD's, lecture tour and their gullible followers. AE911TRUTH takes in a lot of money every year.

Here is the bottom line. There is NOT one credible test or results from the truthers that confirm thermite. They FAILED to deliver on the test they said were needed to identify the chemicals. All the credible tests have been conducted and the conclusion is always the same. No thermite. Period.

TheForgiven
09-18-2014, 08:24 PM
LD67 may not know this, but I do appreciate him sacrificing his time to discuss one of the most important events in American history. I haven't yet read your posts, and I'll read them tomorrow. It's been a very long day for me, and so I'm going to say good night, and I hope all is well.

HOWEVER, I would like to leave you with a YouTube video of a firefighter who was there on 911, mostly on WTC7.

I won't tell you what he says; listen for yourself.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQrpLp-X0ws

God bless!

Joe

Matthjar
09-18-2014, 11:12 PM
dp:



Charisma, good thought-provoking video. Have you been able to come up with anything more current that answers scientifically some of his unproven suspicions from June 6 2007?

I have since found a video of another Physics Prof from BYU, Dr Steven Jones, who was let go for his research. You might find it interesting and supplementary to the Dr Bill Deagle. You can view this at:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkaX5n3pfZE


or a more recent presentation by Dr Steven Jones in Sydney Austrailia,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKQchK4X8r0


dp

It is interesting to me that the NIST "found" a way that steel could melt at lower temperatures causing the collapse of steel frame concrete buildings; however, they will not submit such "research" or "computer models" of such to be peer reviewed by other experts in the field. I suppose they would not want to have steel frame buildings that are impervious to low temperature fires? They are scared that Arsonists would rapidly engage to take down numerous skyscrapers with burning paper? Or possibly the most likely explanation is that it is not a credible model or theory? I sure most of you would agree that scientific research that does not stand up to peer review or even allowed to be peer reviewed should be given any credence whatsoever.

I am also sure that we could all agree that we were very lucky that all those buildings came down in a relatively small footprint. Regardless if you believe that the Boeing Jet's brought the WTC complex down or explosives did (or possibly a little of both) that is could have been much worse if the tops had leaned and ripped off or even if the Whole tower itself tipped over, resulting in mass carnage. I have reviewed many videos of demolitions "gone wrong" where even with the express intent of "imploding" a building did not produce the desired result. I find in incredulous that 2 jets hitting the towers in such a random and chaotic manner would cause so many buildings to come down in such a nice neat and well controlled manner.

Buildings coming down as intended (mostly) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drWJ-liZMLM

Buildings coming down NOT as intended or not at all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDuUR7l3bgc

Which category do you think the buildings of the WTC complex should be in? WTC7 is the most obvious...... possibly the most exquisite, smooth, demolition of a building i have yet to witness.... very orderly and not at all random and chaotic.

If buildings do not come down as intended then it becomes a HUGE problem for public safety... also how do you send people in to finish the demolition when portions are still standing but weakened? Explosive Demolition is a very precise and accurate science... if the team messes up on a string of charges.. or even the timing involved you can get some very strange results indeed. Turns out we have been going about it ALL wrong.... no need to mess with all the charges and the timing issues.... just burn some paper and office furniture around the main structural supports for 3.5 to 4 hours and WAALAA WTC7 coming down simultaneously and smoothly.... who knew randomness and chaos could produce such orderly results???

Is is possible all those buildings would have been pre-wired to be brought down in an orderly manner after the failed attempts by radicals to do so in the past. Is it probable? Is it certain? If so then why try to cover it up? Insurance policy? Because there were still multitudes of people and firefighters still inside? At some point they would have to weigh the risk of it coming down bad with the reward of it coming down good. Perhaps the most disturbing thought of all is that they may not have come down at all? Or even that they wanted to bring them down while alot of people were still inside;thereby, exchanging lives for political capital... a virtual Pearl Harbor? It is almost as if the discussion about the right time to pull should not be allowed at all or even acknowledged.

With Utter devotion to Truth and Love,
Matthjar.

The Truth shall set you Free...

dpenn
09-19-2014, 12:00 AM
dp:


It is interesting to me that the NIST "found" a way that steel could melt at lower temperatures causing the collapse of steel frame concrete buildings; however, they will not submit such "research" or "computer models" of such to be peer reviewed by other experts in the field. I suppose they would not want to have steel frame buildings that are impervious to low temperature fires? They are scared that Arsonists would rapidly engage to take down numerous skyscrapers with burning paper? Or possibly the most likely explanation is that it is not a credible model or theory? I sure most of you would agree that scientific research that does not stand up to peer review or even allowed to be peer reviewed should be given any credence whatsoever.


Matthjar,

in the 2nd video of Dr Steven Jones, from Sydney, a link from my previous post, he made a remark that I will try to reproduce in my own words (his words are very similar):

Imagine you have an old iron or steel pot belly stove, that burns wood, paper, coal, all day long, but the steel doesn't melt.

Now consider WTC7, which the NIST report says had a paper and office furniture fire that lasted 3-4 hours.

Remember the pot belly stove doesn't melt, although burning those same materials, almost indefinitely.

Now, somehow we are to believe that these huge steel beams in WTC7, not only melted uniformly, and symmetrically, and that the building just collapsed, evenly, symmetrically, into its own footprint, with an accelerating free g fall rate.

Now expand this line of reasoning to WTC1 and WTC2. Yes, different factors, but the same bottom line issue.

What happened to real science?

dp

L67
09-19-2014, 05:27 AM
dp:



Matthjar,

in the 2nd video of Dr Steven Jones, from Sydney, a link from my previous post, he made a remark that I will try to reproduce in my own words (his words are very similar):

Imagine you have an old iron or steel pot belly stove, that burns wood, paper, coal, all day long, but the steel doesn't melt.

Now consider WTC7, which the NIST report says had a paper and office furniture fire that lasted 3-4 hours.

Remember the pot belly stove doesn't melt, although burning those same materials, almost indefinitely.

Now, somehow we are to believe that these huge steel beams in WTC7, not only melted uniformly, and symmetrically, and that the building just collapsed, evenly, symmetrically, into its own footprint, with an accelerating free g fall rate.

Now expand this line of reasoning to WTC1 and WTC2. Yes, different factors, but the same bottom line issue.

What happened to real science?

dp


You mean the same Steven Jones who got caught doctoring photos to prove molten steel? The same Steven Jones who has been lying that thermite caused the collapse? The same Steven Jones who won't publish the test results he said he would 5 years ago? Let's get real here.


I highlighted in red your grossly ignorant statement. Are you aware that steel doesn't have to melt to be severely weakened? No steel beams melted causing the collapse. You have filled your head with garbage. Now let me deal with your ignorant claim that WTC7 just collapsed, evenly, symmetrically, into its own footprint, with an accelerating free g fall rate.

The building did NONE of what you claim as see here.

1288

And the following shows the debris pile fallen across the North street (Barclay) between the two buildings:

1289

1290


Ooopss... Sorry, to burst your bubble. Do you have anything to support your bare assertion? No, so your done.


You asked this: What happened to real science? Real science was done, but the problem is you have listened to nuts instead of the experts.

L67
09-19-2014, 05:43 AM
It is interesting to me that the NIST "found" a way that steel could melt at lower temperatures causing the collapse of steel frame concrete buildings; however, they will not submit such "research" or "computer models" of such to be peer reviewed by other experts in the field. I suppose they would not want to have steel frame buildings that are impervious to low temperature fires? They are scared that Arsonists would rapidly engage to take down numerous skyscrapers with burning paper? Or possibly the most likely explanation is that it is not a credible model or theory? I sure most of you would agree that scientific research that does not stand up to peer review or even allowed to be peer reviewed should be given any credence whatsoever.

They did? Prove it.




I am also sure that we could all agree that we were very lucky that all those buildings came down in a relatively small footprint. Regardless if you believe that the Boeing Jet's brought the WTC complex down or explosives did (or possibly a little of both) that is could have been much worse if the tops had leaned and ripped off or even if the Whole tower itself tipped over, resulting in mass carnage. I have reviewed many videos of demolitions "gone wrong" where even with the express intent of "imploding" a building did not produce the desired result. I find in incredulous that 2 jets hitting the towers in such a random and chaotic manner would cause so many buildings to come down in such a nice neat and well controlled manner.

Buildings coming down as intended (mostly) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drWJ-liZMLM

Buildings coming down NOT as intended or not at all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDuUR7l3bgc

Which category do you think the buildings of the WTC complex should be in? WTC7 is the most obvious...... possibly the most exquisite, smooth, demolition of a building i have yet to witness.... very orderly and not at all random and chaotic.

And yet no evidence has been provided for controlled demolition. Why were no explosions ever caught on camera? You do realize explosives emit incredibly loud noise don't you?


If buildings do not come down as intended then it becomes a HUGE problem for public safety... also how do you send people in to finish the demolition when portions are still standing but weakened? Explosive Demolition is a very precise and accurate science... if the team messes up on a string of charges.. or even the timing involved you can get some very strange results indeed. Turns out we have been going about it ALL wrong.... no need to mess with all the charges and the timing issues.... just burn some paper and office furniture around the main structural supports for 3.5 to 4 hours and WAALAA WTC7 coming down simultaneously and smoothly.... who knew randomness and chaos could produce such orderly results???

I suppose falling debris from WTC 1 AND 2 didn't cause damage to WTC7? It sure did. Take a look at the huge rip in WTC 7 starting at the roof. You're right, That played no role in the structural integrity of the building on top of the fires, right?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaoXMx4pSFE





With Utter devotion to Truth and Love,
Matthjar.

The Truth shall set you Free...

If you really mean this, then stop filling your head with conspiratorial nonsense.

L67
09-19-2014, 05:54 AM
LD67 may not know this, but I do appreciate him sacrificing his time to discuss one of the most important events in American history. I haven't yet read your posts, and I'll read them tomorrow. It's been a very long day for me, and so I'm going to say good night, and I hope all is well.

HOWEVER, I would like to leave you with a YouTube video of a firefighter who was there on 911, mostly on WTC7.

I won't tell you what he says; listen for yourself.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQrpLp-X0ws

God bless!

Joe


I have already seen that video. At 1:23 he said it come down in its own footprint. Never happened. See my post above to dpenn.


1291

12921293

And the rest of the video is just hearsay. Where is the proof of controlled demolition? There isn't any? Proof of true molten steel? There isn't any. That video is a waste of time to anyone willing to open their eyes.

dpenn
09-19-2014, 09:44 AM
dp:


You mean the same Steven Jones who got caught doctoring photos to prove molten steel? The same Steven Jones who has been lying that thermite caused the collapse? The same Steven Jones who won't publish the test results he said he would 5 years ago? Let's get real here.


L67, If you want to see real science, I challenge you and all others to watch Steven Jones entire video in Sydney. There he shows that he has presented scientific peer-reviewed papers denouncing the official NIST 911 Report.

btw, what happens if you weaken the steel of the pot bellied stove, while burning firewood, paper and coal (equivalent to any office fire)? Does the old pot belly melt before your eyes, and collapse into its footprint on the floor, while you are cooking weenies?

Have you got photos and some way to spin this actually happening too?

Didn't you find it touching, that after Jones was fired from BYU in 2007, following his exposure of the false science of the NIST Report, Dick Cheney was awarded an Honourary Doctorate at BYU?

Once again, watch the video and the real science of Jones, don't just look at pictures from the Debunkers, void of science.


dp

TheForgiven
09-19-2014, 12:22 PM
I have already seen that video. At 1:23 he said it come down in its own footprint. Never happened. See my post above to dpenn.


1291

12921293

And the rest of the video is just hearsay. Where is the proof of controlled demolition? There isn't any? Proof of true molten steel? There isn't any. That video is a waste of time to anyone willing to open their eyes.

LD67 doesn't seem to realize the gravity of his situation. Do you not know that video or tape recordings are not the only sources of "evidence" courts use in adjudicating a case? Eye-witnesses are just as reliable, and there are scores of eye-witnesses (some of whom have died since 911) who were willing to testify to the 911 Commissioners that they heard loud explosions. Yet, to no surprise, the 911 commissioners had no intentions of conducting a thorough investigation; they simply wanted to rubber-stamp what the government wanted, just as they did with JFK.

Firefighters are considered to be very reliable sources of information when it comes to examining the causes of fires, or the destruction of a building. Many firefighters lost their lives that day, and those who survived and were part of the post 911 efforts, nearly all stated the same thing, "we heard loud explosions...boom..boom...boom, like when a building is being demolished". THAT sir is stronger than any video, witness, or report from NIST and especially YOU! And I'll gladly take their words over any video you try using; and especially your words. YOU sir were not there and so are a witness only to yourself! And quite frankly, it saddens (and angers) me that you question their integrity, and are in essence accusing them of being mistaken, or perhaps even lying! Of course I know you won't go so far as to call our firefighting heroes liars; probably just mistaken; right? So more than 100 first responders mention explosions, and you question their integrity and validity, just as you did with the retired firefighter who was there on WTC7?

I'll get to your previous posts...they're too long and much of what you said was nothing but insinuating opinions. So I'll respond to our previous posts in an essay format. But I especially liked the short clip (not sure where you got it) of the upper tower collapsing as the DAMAGED (note that I said damaged) beams buckled under the stress and heat; this part I agree with. But the LOWER beams were not subjected to fires, heat, or damage. What ever happened to towers 1 and 2, happened inside of the building, likely the center core which serves as the strength of the overall structure. Without the buildings core, the outer beams would not be able to withstand the gross weight/height of the building. The Empire State building was limited in height because it was not designed as towers 1 and 2 were (with a central core).

Joe

TheForgiven
09-19-2014, 12:36 PM
Greetings everyone!

Larry Silverstein, a rich Zionist false-Jew, leased the WTC complex some 6 to 9 months before 9/11, and even started an insurance policy which specifically covered, "Terrorist Attacks". There are currently thousands of people part of the truth-movement are demanding our government to take responsibility for either their failure to protect Americans, or their arrests for committing treason against the American people (deserving execution under the law). To-date, not a single lawsuit has been filed for their (Bush administration) failures, nor has their been a single arrest of ANY government official for ignoring the massive amounts of intelligence forewarning 9/11. What disturbs me even more is how 70 Mossad (Israeli Intelligence) were in proximity of the 9/11 attacks, some of whom video taped the planes striking the building. Yet months later, the FBI secretly let everyone one of them go. PER THEIR OWN WORDS, "we were sent their to document the event..." LD67 apparently thinks this information (about the Mossad agents) was either bogus, or irrelevant.

I've been trying to prove to everyone that WTC7 did NOT collapse because of fires, but that it was demolished. In his own words, Larry Silverstein gives the order to "pull it" when talking to the lead firefighter on the scene. Here are his words:

Firefighter: "I don't believe we will be able to contain these fires...."

Larry: "You know we have had such massive losses of life, we might better off just to pull it....so Pull it".....and again, "And then we watched the building fall...."

Now some of the 911 Liar conspiracy will razzle dazzle you by claiming Larry wasn't given an order to demolish the building, but to pull the firefighting efforts; something no firemen/woman is familiar with EXCEPT when demolishing a building. And here is PROOF from a demolishen team recommending to "pull" building 6 due to its extensive damage:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v2yud3aCGQ

Ground crew says, "Hello.....Yea, we're gett'n ready to PULL building 6..."

So what did Larry mean when he said to the firefighters, "better off to pull it [WTC7]"? Well, unless Larry was speaking an unfamiliar language to the fire chief, it's quite clear what Larry meant. To think otherwise is futile.

Joe

L67
09-19-2014, 12:49 PM
dp:



L67, If you want to see real science, I challenge you and all others to watch Steven Jones entire video in Sydney. There he shows that he has presented scientific peer-reviewed papers denouncing the official NIST 911 Report.

Wow. This whole post is full of errors. I challenge you to show me one paper published in a credible journal about his work on 9/11. I know for a FACT he has NONE.

Steven Jones and his group don't actually have any science to back them up. They have a lot of speculation, however, and rely on debunked 9/11 conspiracy websites.

They have never been able to refute the world's structural engineers, physicists, chemists, and forensic scientists, much less the scientific investigations like NIST. They would like you to believe they have, however.

History has always had it's snake-oils salesmen and charlatans

You have no clue what real science is. The scientific method is about repeatability. None of Jones work has been demonstrated, nor has it been repeated. Period. After his paper in 2009, which claims there was thermite, it has been 5 years and NOTHING has been published, nor has anything been demonstrated. He is doing NOTHING but presenting bunk science to ignorant gullible people.

Bury your head in the sand and pretend that is real science.



btw, what happens if you weaken the steel of the pot bellied stove, while burning firewood, paper and coal (equivalent to any office fire)? Does the old pot belly melt before your eyes, and collapse into its footprint on the floor, while you are cooking weenies?

Unbelievable. Are you really comparing an old stove to that of WTC7? WOW. And you call this REAL science? Good grief.

The steel beams didn't melt. Steel doesn't have to melt to be structurally weakened. You ignored me the first time I told you that. No surprise.

The only way Steven Jones can claim the steel was melted is because of thermite. He has been thoroughly debunked on that issue. And he has FAILED to follow through and publish the test results he said he would through FITR test. No surprise.

WTC 7 also didn't collapse into its own footprint. The pictures prove that.




Didn't you find it touching, that after Jones was fired from BYU in 2007, following his exposure of the false science of the NIST Report, Dick Cheney was awarded an Honourary Doctorate at BYU?

Get real! Jones NEVER once exposed anything of the NIST report. His science is bunk. Do you know what the scientific method is? If you do, then you know it's not real science. That is why it has never been demonstrated, nor repeated.


Once again, watch the video and the real science of Jones, don't just look at pictures from the Debunkers, void of science.


dp

That video showed nothing of the sort. The pictures PROVE the towers didn't fall in their own footprint. So, keep on pretending the pictures don't prove this point.:lol:

L67
09-19-2014, 01:18 PM
LD67 doesn't seem to realize the gravity of his situation. Do you not know that video or tape recordings are not the only sources of "evidence" courts use in adjudicating a case? Eye-witnesses are just as reliable, and there are scores of eye-witnesses (some of whom have died since 911) who were willing to testify to the 911 Commissioners that they heard loud explosions. Yet, to no surprise, the 911 commissioners had no intentions of conducting a thorough investigation; they simply wanted to rubber-stamp what the government wanted, just as they did with JFK.

No, I don't think you understand the situation. Rudy Dent spouts the same old tired arguments from you truthers, such as the WTC7 fell in it's own footprint. That NEVER happened. He mentions Richard Gage. He brings NOTHING new to the table. The only thing he witnessed was WTC7 fall.




Firefighters are considered to be very reliable sources of information when it comes to examining the causes of fires, or the destruction of a building. Many firefighters lost their lives that day, and those who survived and were part of the post 911 efforts, nearly all stated the same thing, "we heard loud explosions...boom..boom...boom, like when a building is being demolished". THAT sir is stronger than any video, witness, or report from NIST and especially YOU! And I'll gladly take their words over any video you try using; and especially your words. YOU sir were not there and so are a witness only to yourself! And quite frankly, it saddens (and angers) me that you question their integrity, and are in essence accusing them of being mistaken, or perhaps even lying! Of course I know you won't go so far as to call our firefighting heroes liars; probably just mistaken; right? So more than 100 first responders mention explosions, and you question their integrity and validity, just as you did with the retired firefighter who was there on WTC7?

Yea, boom.. boom.. boom... and NOTHING was recorded on video. It is impossible to not have it recorded. You can only ignore this so many times.

I'll tell you what angers me. Is you truthers posit all this bullshit without a shred of physical proof that has been demonstrated or repeated.

Also, you wonder why I am so dismissive of the so called "eyewitnesses" that you present? Because they are easily debunked or have no credibility. Take Rudy Dent for example. He denies the holocaust ever happened and actually defends Hitler. Is that the best the truthers can come up with for proof?

The man is a freaking hardcore nutjob.

http://m.topix.com/forum/city/croton-on-hudson-ny/TE364ODMO3NJG36HC/p2

Not a shred of evidence exists that any Jews or anyone else for that matter was gassed by the Germans. It's a ludicrous and impossible myth perpetuated by International Jewry to get sympathy for getting their own State and as a psychological weapon to shield them from any legitimate criticism in the future. And not to forget, collect billions of dollars in extortion money from Germany in the 70 years since. One day when the Holohoax is universally exposed and done away with we should build statues in her honor and see to it that our children know the story of her courage, loyalty and integrity. “Truth fears no question”
A spirit from a Higher Power is here to help take on the Trillion Dollar Holocaust Lie! Ernst Zundel, a courageous Holocaust Denier; refused to be intimidated and shut up in Court and served 3 and a half years in Jail, for not backing down. He was carried out of the court still presenting evidence defending her client! With no prior record he was immediately put in prison to serve his term. I feel nothing but love, admiration and inspiration for this man’s show of courage, character and loyalty. He is a true hero and I love him dearly! HE DISMANTLES THE SACRED NUREMBERG TRIAL TACTICS AND EXPOSES WHAT THEY ILLEGALLY DID, ARE DOING AND ARE STILL STANDING ON. THEY VIOLATED THE INTERNATIONAL RULES OF LAW TO REACH THEIR ZIONIST ROTHSCHILD LIES.There is I have observed the fact of truth. Truth is permanent and forever, no matter how many contrived lies people may create Truth needs no support because it is constant, perfect and forever. I am a Black Hispanic American Veteran, Police Officer NYC for 4 years, FireFighter for 32 years FDNY- New York City and yes I was there on 911, yes it was a false flag operation. Now you may wonder why would a Black Hispanic Decorated man stand up for Hitler? Hitler showed the world how to survive and thrive without the usury debt slavery of the Rothschild Central Banks. The instigation, orchestration, demonisation and destruction of Germany was a desperate all out move to kill this working model before the rest of the world woke up to its phenomenal success! The Rothschild family now estimated at 500 trillion dollars would have been left with no one to exploit! Please do the research on this because when you see this many other things will become clear!


This proves for about the fifth time that you NEVER do any due dilligence as to who you are believing. You just believe these nuts because it confirms what you want to believe.


I'll get to your previous posts...they're too long and much of what you said was nothing but insinuating opinions. So I'll respond to our previous posts in an essay format. But I especially liked the short clip (not sure where you got it) of the upper tower collapsing as the DAMAGED (note that I said damaged) beams buckled under the stress and heat; this part I agree with. But the LOWER beams were not subjected to fires, heat, or damage. What ever happened to towers 1 and 2, happened inside of the building, likely the center core which serves as the strength of the overall structure. Without the buildings core, the outer beams would not be able to withstand the gross weight/height of the building. The Empire State building was limited in height because it was not designed as towers 1 and 2 were (with a central core).

You need to educate yourself about buckling theory and potential energy. The building were simply not designed to withstand the dynamic load placed on them when part of it collapses.

None of my posts are insinuating opinions. That would be YOU. My posts are backed my actual evidence.

TheForgiven
09-19-2014, 01:21 PM
Testimony from Firefighters were ignored by the 911 Commissioners endovouring to protect and hide the lies of a government conspiracy. I believe the 911 conspiracy was based on a previous plan from the 1960's, known as Operation Northwood's. For more information on ONW, please visit this site: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html

L67 doesn't accept the LEGAL testimony of countless first responder firefighters who all testified of hearing multiple explosions within towers 1 and 2. Their testimony is considered legal evidence, yet the 911 Conspiritors of the fake-jew 911 Commissions intentionally ignored and rejected their testimony.

Were their explosions heard in towers 1 and 2 well before the collapse? You be the judge!

Edmund McNally phoned his wife Liz twice following the
[WTC 2] aircraft impact. Mr McNally said in his second phone call "Liz, this was a terrorist attack. I can hear explosions below me."

Tom Elliott, WTC 2 survivor: They saw only two firemen going up. They told them there had been an explosion near the 60th floor.

Kim White, WTC 1 survivor: "We got down as far as the 74th floor ... Then there was another explosion, so we left again by the stairwell."

"There's a bomb in the building - start clearing out"..."We got a secondary device in the building"

"Luckily, we weren't caught between floors and were able to pry open the doors [stuck elevator after another explosion]. People were going crazy, yelling and screaming. And all the time, I am crawling low and making my way in the dark with a flashlight to the staircase and thinking Tommy is right behind me. "I somehow got into the stairwell and there were more people there. When I began to try and direct down, another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later, although it's hard to tell, but I'm thinking, 'Oh. My God, these bastards put bombs in here like they did in 1993!'

"I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions." [Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)]

'Just before the collapses, a series of deep, below ground explosions, then numerous explosions in the buildings upper floors ...We felt the same deep explosions before the second collapse."

"At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as I got outside I heard a second explosion ... And then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last."

"...and then all of a sudden it started like... it sounded like gunfire... you know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, and then all of a sudden three big explosions."

"There's the third ... down it went."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fNLz8zWwaM#t=44

Source: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_firefighters.html

Many more witnesses to hearing explosions....

And L67 claims there is no evidence? I think what he means to say is no OFFICIALLY ACCEPTED evidence by the 911 Commissioners....forgetting that eyewitness accounts, especially from so many people who were there on 9/11, legally constitutes evidence; especially from professional firefighters...

Joe

L67
09-19-2014, 01:23 PM
1260

These vans were seen on the day of 911; roughly 15 or so. These vans were assigned to a moving company known as "Urban Moving Company". Who owned these vans? Mossad Israeli intelligence agents, of which five were seen "high fiving" each other when the first plane hit. About 70 Israeli Mossad agents were arrested shortly after 911, but the FBI secretly released all of them. The five Israeli's who were arrested told CNN reporters that their mission was to document and record the incident. HOW did they know about it? And why didn't they warn the United States seeing how they knew the EXACT day and time. Watch the video below:

This photo is a fake. It was made for a conspiracy movie "Core of Corruption". 1:26 mark.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIhdReD6MAo


Also, this report says the van was innocent. http://transweb.sjsu.edu/MTIportal/research/publications/documents/Sept11.book.htm

"A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post. It proved to be rented to a group of ethnic Middle Eastern people who did not speak English. Fearing that it might be a truck bomb, the NYPD immediately evacuated the area, called out the bomb squad, and detained the occupants until a thorough search was made. The vehicle was found to be an innocent delivery truck.”

Another claim bites the dust.

dpenn
09-19-2014, 01:23 PM
dp:



The steel beams didn't melt. Steel doesn't have to melt to be structurally weakened. You ignored me the first time I told you that. No surprise.

The only way Steven Jones can claim the steel was melted is because of thermite. He has been thoroughly debunked on that issue. And he has FAILED to follow through and publish the test results he said he would through FITR test. No surprise.

WTC 7 also didn't collapse into its own footprint. The pictures prove that.

Get real! Jones NEVER once exposed anything of the NIST report. His science is bunk. Do you know what the scientific method is? If you do, then you know it's not real science. That is why it has never been demonstrated, nor repeated.



L67, you say Jones never once exposed anything of the NIST report, I challenge you and anyone else, to watch his video from Sydney. You might be enlightened.

You say the steel beams didn't melt, yet there were reports of burning infernos at ground zero months after the collapse/demolition. And, as far as WTC7 not falling into its own footprint at accelerated, next to free fall speed, just watch almost any video of the event, including some posted earlier.

Further, if it is all bunk, then why have a strong contingency of more than 1500 professional scientists, including, architects, physicists, structural engineers, demolition experts, among many others, met in Toronto, Canada, to hold a conference to publicly show their lack of belief that the NIST report spoke the truth.

In the Sydney film, Jones demonstrates the content of the small thermite flakes, which are actually nano-thermite, and when exposed to fire or electricity, explode or flare up with intense energy released. It isn't normal for nano-thermite to be found in the 911 dust. The composition of nano-thermite is very difficult to make, even in very advanced laboratories. But again, at least watch the video for Jones' account, then disprove it via the scientific method, if you can.

Back to the steel pot bellied stove: it not only doesn't melt, it doesn't weaken. You can burn furniture, paper, and even coal, or any other combustible fuel, like jet fuel or kerosene, all day long, and never have to fear it will collapse into its own footprint. Nor should the people have had to worry about WTC7 collapsing, or even WTC1, or WTC2, for that matter. Something very sinister had to be added to the mix to supplement exploding Boeing 767's.

dp

TheForgiven
09-19-2014, 01:25 PM
No, I don't think you understand the situation. Rudy Dent spouts the same old tired arguments from you truthers, such as the WTC7 fell in it's own footprint. That NEVER happened. He mentions Richard Gage. He brings NOTHING new to the table. The only thing he witnessed was WTC7 fall.





Yea, boom.. boom.. boom... and NOTHING was recorded on video. It is impossible to not have it recorded. You can only ignore this so many times.

I'll tell you what angers me. Is you truthers posit all this bullshit without a shred of physical proof that has been demonstrated or repeated.

Also, you wonder why I am so dismissive of the so called "eyewitnesses" that you present? Because they are easily debunked or have no credibility. Take Rudy Dent for example. He denies the holocaust ever happened and actually defends Hitler. Is that the best the truthers can come up with for proof?

The man is a freaking hardcore nutjob.

http://m.topix.com/forum/city/croton-on-hudson-ny/TE364ODMO3NJG36HC/p2

Not a shred of evidence exists that any Jews or anyone else for that matter was gassed by the Germans. It's a ludicrous and impossible myth perpetuated by International Jewry to get sympathy for getting their own State and as a psychological weapon to shield them from any legitimate criticism in the future. And not to forget, collect billions of dollars in extortion money from Germany in the 70 years since. One day when the Holohoax is universally exposed and done away with we should build statues in her honor and see to it that our children know the story of her courage, loyalty and integrity. “Truth fears no question”
A spirit from a Higher Power is here to help take on the Trillion Dollar Holocaust Lie! Ernst Zundel, a courageous Holocaust Denier; refused to be intimidated and shut up in Court and served 3 and a half years in Jail, for not backing down. He was carried out of the court still presenting evidence defending her client! With no prior record he was immediately put in prison to serve his term. I feel nothing but love, admiration and inspiration for this man’s show of courage, character and loyalty. He is a true hero and I love him dearly! HE DISMANTLES THE SACRED NUREMBERG TRIAL TACTICS AND EXPOSES WHAT THEY ILLEGALLY DID, ARE DOING AND ARE STILL STANDING ON. THEY VIOLATED THE INTERNATIONAL RULES OF LAW TO REACH THEIR ZIONIST ROTHSCHILD LIES.There is I have observed the fact of truth. Truth is permanent and forever, no matter how many contrived lies people may create Truth needs no support because it is constant, perfect and forever. I am a Black Hispanic American Veteran, Police Officer NYC for 4 years, FireFighter for 32 years FDNY- New York City and yes I was there on 911, yes it was a false flag operation. Now you may wonder why would a Black Hispanic Decorated man stand up for Hitler? Hitler showed the world how to survive and thrive without the usury debt slavery of the Rothschild Central Banks. The instigation, orchestration, demonisation and destruction of Germany was a desperate all out move to kill this working model before the rest of the world woke up to its phenomenal success! The Rothschild family now estimated at 500 trillion dollars would have been left with no one to exploit! Please do the research on this because when you see this many other things will become clear!


This proves for about the fifth time that you NEVER do any due dilligence as to who you are believing. You just believe these nuts because it confirms what you want to believe.



You need to educate yourself about buckling theory and potential energy. The building were simply not designed to withstand the dynamic load placed on them when part of it collapses.

None of my posts are insinuating opinions. That would be YOU. My posts are backed my actual evidence.

What evidence? What did you get your degree in? Basket weaving? :lol: You've provided us with a few photo's and diagrams, and even a few video's, some of which are not available on YouTube. I'm still trying to find the video of the buckling beams (caused from the planes impact zones), and heat.

On every single point, you don't prove a damn thing. All you do is criticize or reject both myself and the authors I present without even trying to debunk their theories. How in the world does that make you a science major? Man you're such a loser. And you still reject the firefighters....as though ONLY VIDEO evidence is what it will take to convince you. Why?

Joe

TheForgiven
09-19-2014, 01:32 PM
This photo is a fake. It was made for a conspiracy movie "Core of Corruption". 1:26 mark.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIhdReD6MAo


Also, this report says the van was innocent. http://transweb.sjsu.edu/MTIportal/research/publications/documents/Sept11.book.htm

"A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post. It proved to be rented to a group of ethnic Middle Eastern people who did not speak English. Fearing that it might be a truck bomb, the NYPD immediately evacuated the area, called out the bomb squad, and detained the occupants until a thorough search was made. The vehicle was found to be an innocent delivery truck.”

Another claim bites the dust.

WRONG! Let's hear from the Israeli's themselves...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw

"and at that point, we were taken for another round of questioning.....Our purpose was to document the event..."

They were detained for 10 weeks and released by the FBI.

RECORD WHAT? HOW DID THEY KNOW 911 WAS ABOUT TO HAPPEN?

L67 is obviously beginning to show himself as being part of the conspirators to help protect our government treason; This makes you guilty as well my friend.

Just out of curiosity, what "Background" are you affiliated with?

Joe

L67
09-19-2014, 01:37 PM
dp:



L67, you say Jones never once exposed anything of the NIST report, I challenge you and anyone else, to watch his video from Sydney. You might be enlightened.

Nice dodge dpenn. Where are Jones peer reviews papers by credible journals?


You say the steel beams didn't melt, yet there were reports of burning infernos at ground zero months after the collapse/demolition. And, as far as WTC7 not falling into its own footprint at accelerated, next to free fall speed, just watch almost any video of the event, including some posted earlier.

They didn't.


Further, if it is all bunk, then why have more than 1500 professional scientists, including, architects, physicists, structural engineers, demolition experts, among many others, met in Toronto, Canada, to hold a conference to publicly show their lack of belief that the NIST report spoke the truth.

So what? There are 2,000,000 million practicing engineers in the US alone. I'll let you figure out the math.


In the Sydney film, Jones demonstrates the content of the small thermite flakes, which are actually nano-thermite, and when exposed to fire or electricity, explode or flare up with intense energy released. It isn't normal for nano-thermite to be found in the 911 dust. The composition of nano-thermite is very difficult to make, even in very advanced laboratories. But again, at least watch the video for Jones' account, then disprove it via the scientific method, if you can.

He demonstrates no such thing. You ignorantly lap up his bullshit. The chemical compounds were identified and they were found to not be thermite through FITR test. Which is a test Jone never did the first time and he later said needed to be done. 5 years and NOTHING?

Also, it's not up to me to disprove it. It's up to Jones to prove his claims. Something he has never presented for scientific evaluation. But the study done by Dr. Millette thoroughly rules out Jones claims. I know facts don't mean much to you obviously. But that's your problem.


Back to the steel pot bellied stove: it not only doesn't melt, it doesn't weaken. You can burn furniture, paper, and even coal, or any other combustible fuel, like jet fuel or kerosene, all day long, and never have to fear it will collapse into its own footprint. Nor should the people have had to worry about WTC7 collapsing, or even WTC1, or WTC2, for that matter. Something very sinister had to be introduced to the equation made public.

Wow, your ignorance is overwhelming. You have removed all doubt that you have no understanding of the science behind the collapses. Conversation with you is pointless because you're not interested in learning.

TheForgiven
09-19-2014, 01:37 PM
L67...is this video a fake too?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXgmAc6_MPQ

Here's a picture of a white van believed to be owned by Mossad agents working in America and this was scene on the day of 911:

1294

I suppose this was from another movie, or some other misinformation. I'm sure you'll find a way to say it was fake.

Joe

TheForgiven
09-19-2014, 01:41 PM
L67 claims in an earlier post that the Israeli's arrested on 911 was fake or untrustworthy. I showed him an audio clip of NYPD making the arrest and requesting backup. L67 blasts that as not valid evidence.

OK, so let's show him a video of the news report that aired that day, but later taken off the air and never shown again:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMkX5uemLyk

So I suppose L67 will now say that the video is faked, the NYPD audio report is faked, and the ladies testimony of the five dancing Israeli's was faked...probably from a movie right? :lol:

You're sinking fast L67. :rofl:

Joe

L67
09-19-2014, 01:44 PM
WRONG! Let's hear from the Israeli's themselves...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw

"and at that point, we were taken for another round of questioning.....Our purpose was to document the event..."

They were detained for 10 weeks and released by the FBI.

RECORD WHAT? HOW DID THEY KNOW 911 WAS ABOUT TO HAPPEN?

L67 is obviously beginning to show himself as being part of the conspirators to help protect our government treason; This makes you guilty as well my friend.

Just out of curiosity, what "Background" are you affiliated with?

Joe

You're a worthless sack of shit Joe. I can't believe you have the nerve to insinuate I am covering up the tragedy on 9/11. That implies I am covering for the murder of 3,000+ people. You have proven you are a stark raving lunatic. No wonder you find Rudy Dent so believable.

That video proves nothing again. "Our purpose was to document the event". And so was everyone else that had a camera that day.

TheForgiven
09-19-2014, 01:45 PM
Fox News reports Mossad Israeli's are STILL within the United States, even since 9/11:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJyCAZGRpf8

So is Mossad working in private without our BIG intelligence agencies knowing about it?

"Evidence linking Israeli's to 911 IS CLASSIFIED....I CANNOT TELL YOU ABOUT IT....IT'S CLASSIFIED"

So wait a minute! We're sending our boys off to war to kill Arabs (Non-Israeli's) who were never truly connected to 9/11, but the evidence that could convict Mossad agents is CLASSIFIED?

What a bunch of BS!

Joe

L67
09-19-2014, 01:47 PM
L67...is this video a fake too?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXgmAc6_MPQ

Here's a picture of a white van believed to be owned by Mossad agents working in America and this was scene on the day of 911:

1294

I suppose this was from another movie, or some other misinformation. I'm sure you'll find a way to say it was fake.

Joe


Nope, not fake. But it was later found to be an innocent delivery truck.

TheForgiven
09-19-2014, 01:48 PM
You're a worthless sack of shit Joe. I can't believe you have the nerve to insinuate I am covering up the tragedy on 9/11. That implies I am covering for the murder of 3,000+ people. You have proven you are a stark raving lunatic. No wonder you find Rudy Dent so believable.

That video proves nothing again. "Our purpose was to document the event". And so was everyone else that had a camera that day.

Well this "worthless sack of shit" served my country in the military, deployed on multiple locations in support of the war [in ignorance of course not knowing we were helping the conspirators], and sacrificed a great deal.

I'm sorry you dislike me so much.

Joe

TheForgiven
09-19-2014, 01:48 PM
Nope, not fake. But it was later found to be an innocent delivery truck.

Evidence?

JOe

L67
09-19-2014, 01:50 PM
L67 claims in an earlier post that the Israeli's arrested on 911 was fake or untrustworthy. I showed him an audio clip of NYPD making the arrest and requesting backup. L67 blasts that as not valid evidence.

OK, so let's show him a video of the news report that aired that day, but later taken off the air and never shown again:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMkX5uemLyk

So I suppose L67 will now say that the video is faked, the NYPD audio report is faked, and the ladies testimony of the five dancing Israeli's was faked...probably from a movie right? :lol:

You're sinking fast L67. :rofl:

Joe

Yea, because when new information comes that the info was wrong, it's not good to report false news.

Why don't you grow a brain Joe. I never said the story was fake. I said the PICTURE was a fake. And it was.

L67
09-19-2014, 01:53 PM
Well this "worthless sack of shit" served my country in the military, deployed on multiple locations in support of the war [in ignorance of course not knowing we were helping the conspirators], and sacrificed a great deal.

I'm sorry you dislike me so much.

Joe


I don't dislike you. That is what you have proven yourself to be by implying I am covering up the murder of 3,000+ people. Why don't you stop and think before you speak?

L67
09-19-2014, 01:53 PM
Evidence?

JOe

Also, this report says the van was innocent. http://transweb.sjsu.edu/MTIportal/r...ept11.book.htm

"A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post. It proved to be rented to a group of ethnic Middle Eastern people who did not speak English. Fearing that it might be a truck bomb, the NYPD immediately evacuated the area, called out the bomb squad, and detained the occupants until a thorough search was made. The vehicle was found to be an innocent delivery truck.”

L67
09-19-2014, 01:59 PM
Testimony from Firefighters were ignored by the 911 Commissioners endovouring to protect and hide the lies of a government conspiracy. I believe the 911 conspiracy was based on a previous plan from the 1960's, known as Operation Northwood's. For more information on ONW, please visit this site: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html

L67 doesn't accept the LEGAL testimony of countless first responder firefighters who all testified of hearing multiple explosions within towers 1 and 2. Their testimony is considered legal evidence, yet the 911 Conspiritors of the fake-jew 911 Commissions intentionally ignored and rejected their testimony.

Were their explosions heard in towers 1 and 2 well before the collapse? You be the judge!

Edmund McNally phoned his wife Liz twice following the
[WTC 2] aircraft impact. Mr McNally said in his second phone call "Liz, this was a terrorist attack. I can hear explosions below me."

Tom Elliott, WTC 2 survivor: They saw only two firemen going up. They told them there had been an explosion near the 60th floor.

Kim White, WTC 1 survivor: "We got down as far as the 74th floor ... Then there was another explosion, so we left again by the stairwell."

"There's a bomb in the building - start clearing out"..."We got a secondary device in the building"

"Luckily, we weren't caught between floors and were able to pry open the doors [stuck elevator after another explosion]. People were going crazy, yelling and screaming. And all the time, I am crawling low and making my way in the dark with a flashlight to the staircase and thinking Tommy is right behind me. "I somehow got into the stairwell and there were more people there. When I began to try and direct down, another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later, although it's hard to tell, but I'm thinking, 'Oh. My God, these bastards put bombs in here like they did in 1993!'

"I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions." [Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)]

'Just before the collapses, a series of deep, below ground explosions, then numerous explosions in the buildings upper floors ...We felt the same deep explosions before the second collapse."

"At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as I got outside I heard a second explosion ... And then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last."

"...and then all of a sudden it started like... it sounded like gunfire... you know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, and then all of a sudden three big explosions."

"There's the third ... down it went."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fNLz8zWwaM#t=44

Source: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_firefighters.html

Many more witnesses to hearing explosions....

And L67 claims there is no evidence? I think what he means to say is no OFFICIALLY ACCEPTED evidence by the 911 Commissioners....forgetting that eyewitness accounts, especially from so many people who were there on 9/11, legally constitutes evidence; especially from professional firefighters...

Joe

Good grief. That's not an explosion. That is noise from the tower collapsing. REAL demolition is 10 times louder than that.

dpenn
09-19-2014, 03:45 PM
dp:


Good grief. That's not an explosion. That is noise from the tower collapsing. REAL demolition is 10 times louder than that.

L67, if the towers just show the sounds of their collapsing, why are so many professional demolition people convinced that 911 consisted of 3 demolitions, WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7? Are you trying to say that you know more than specialists in the trade?

dp

L67
09-19-2014, 03:50 PM
dp:



L67, if the towers just show the sounds of their collapsing, why are so many professional demolition people convinced that 911 consisted of 3 demolitions, WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7? Are you trying to say that you know more than specialists in the trade?

dp


I don't know that they are. You have offered no evidence to support that conclusion, just like you provided no credible peer reviewed papers by Jones. Post proof of all the demolition experts.

Are these demo charges the new whisper charges or what?

L67
09-19-2014, 04:05 PM
Back to the steel pot bellied stove: it not only doesn't melt, it doesn't weaken. You can burn furniture, paper, and even coal, or any other combustible fuel, like jet fuel or kerosene, all day long, and never have to fear it will collapse into its own footprint. Nor should the people have had to worry about WTC7 collapsing, or even WTC1, or WTC2, for that matter. Something very sinister had to be added to the mix to supplement exploding Boeing 767's.

dp

dpenn,

I wanted to come back to this comment before Joe started posting.

Do you know why this isn't a good comparison and Jones is misleading his gullible audience?

Simple.

Ovens are specifically designed to withstand temperatures expected to be encountered, over and over again. They are designed with air flow, heat shielding, heat resistant materials and coatings etc. Plus, the oven is never expected or designed to be under any load other than its own.

You have misled. Comparing carbon based steel to oven temperatures is irrelevant. If you think steel beams can't weaken because of fire then I suggest you read this report about the overpass on I580. Take a good look at those pictures. http://www.wmsym.org/archives/2012/papers/12476.pdf

dpenn
09-19-2014, 04:16 PM
dp:


I don't know that they are. You have offered no evidence to support that conclusion, just like you provided no credible peer reviewed papers by Jones. Post proof of all the demolition experts.

Are these demo charges the new whisper charges or what?

L67, in Jones' lecture in Sydney, he mentions his peer-reviewed scientific papers. As if I am going to post the proof of ALL the demolition experts. Many of them are embedded in larger research videos. I know that a vast array of scientists and other trade specialists were present at the Toronto, Canada, Conference. And this was just a good sampling of the depth and breadth of the architects, engineers, physicists, demolition experts, and many others that make up this group of professionals demanding the truth of 911.

Here, watch just one of them yourself:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fmseAai4Is


There are many others.

Have you considered my questions about 911, and what it has led to today?

dp

L67
09-19-2014, 04:31 PM
dp:



L67, in Jones' lecture in Sydney, he mentions his peer-reviewed scientific papers. As if I am going to post the proof of ALL the demolition experts. Many of them are embedded in larger research videos. I know that a vast array of scientists and other trade specialists were present at the Toronto, Canada, Conference. And this was just a good sampling of the depth and breadth of the architects, engineers, physicists, demolition experts, and many others that make up this group of professionals demanding the truth of 911.

Here, watch just one of them yourself:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fmseAai4Is


There are many others.

Have you considered my questions about 911, and what it has led to today?

dp


Bare assertion noted. There really ISN'T that many so called experts behind the so called truth movement. AE911 truth has 2,267 architect and engineers on board that have signed their petition. How many are actually experts in the field of demolition? And contrast that paltry number of experts to the 2,000,000 practicing engineers and you really don't have that many experts support the cause.

And Steve Jones used to have his work published in many credible journals, until he became a quack. He has NOT had anything published by any credible journal relating to his work about 9/11.

Which questions?

dpenn
09-19-2014, 04:37 PM
dp:


Bare assertion noted. There really ISN'T that many so called experts behind the so called truth movement. AE911 truth has 2,267 architect and engineers on board that have signed their petition. How many are actually experts in the field of demolition? And contrast that paltry number of experts to the 2,000,000 practicing engineers and you really don't have that many experts support the cause.

And Steve Jones used to have his work published in many credible journals, until he became a quack. He has NOT had anything published by any credible journal relating to his work about 9/11.

Which questions?

L67, can you prove that these 2,000,000 experts support the NIST report? Is it possible that most of them would be afraid, for career reasons, to challenge the official report? 2,000+ coming out in a career threatening challenge to the official report is very significant.

Steven Jones speaks of his current running peer reviews regarding 911 in this video I keep requesting you to watch.

Earlier in this thread, I put forward two sets of 13 questions, only some 911 related, but all in some way or another related.

dp

L67
09-19-2014, 04:40 PM
dp:



L67, can you prove that these 2,000,000 experts support the NIST report? Is it possible that most of them would be afraid, for career reasons, to challenge the official report? 2,000+ coming out in a career threatening challenge to the official report is very significant.

No, I can't. Neither can you prove most of the 2267 are experts in the relevant fields.


Steven Jones speaks of his current running peer reviews regarding 911 in this video I keep requesting you to watch.



Earlier in this thread, I put forward two sets of 13 questions, only some 911 related, but all in some way or another related.

dp[/QUOTE]

I look it over again.

dpenn
09-19-2014, 05:21 PM
dp:


No, I can't. Neither can you prove most of the 2267 are experts in the relevant fields.



L67, I don't have to prove they were experts. The AE911 documentary video I posted gives the credentials for each contributing speaker throughout. And you can check out any membership's credentials you choose. I have noticed that you have many photos, but not too much evidence presented yourself.

btw, at about the 45 min mark, there is one example of a demolitions expert giving his analysis. You might want to watch that, that is, unless your mind is already made up, and you don't want them to be confused with the facts.

dp

dpenn
09-19-2014, 05:55 PM
dp:

Here is the original 911 forensic science investigative video put out by AE911:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o


This is the video that persuaded a number of the contributors in the 2nd video for AE911, posted earlier.

dp

dpenn
09-19-2014, 06:29 PM
dp:


Good grief. That's not an explosion. That is noise from the tower collapsing. REAL demolition is 10 times louder than that.

L67, the same demolition expert on AE911, that I referenced for you earlier, discusses how when thermite is used, you don't hear the loud explosions, typical of other types of demolitions.

You can find this at about the 1 h 30 min mark.

dp

L67
09-19-2014, 06:40 PM
dp:



L67, I don't have to prove they were experts. The AE911 documentary video I posted gives the credentials for each contributing speaker throughout. And you can check out any membership's credentials you choose. I have noticed that you have many photos, but not too much evidence presented yourself.

btw, at about the 45 min mark, there is one example of a demolitions expert giving his analysis. You might want to watch that, that is, unless your mind is already made up, and you don't want them to be confused with the facts.

dp


You haven't presented any FACTS. You have posted video of conspiracy theorists citing other conspiracy theorists. That is of know interest to me because their theories have not been tested or demonstrated. They have had 13 years to demonstrate this and so far nothing.

L67
09-19-2014, 06:48 PM
dp:



L67, the same demolition expert on AE911, that I referenced for you earlier, discusses how when thermite is used, you don't hear the loud explosions, typical of other types of demolitions.

You can find this at about the 1 h 30 min mark.

dp

I don't care what he has to say. The thermite claims have been debunked. Jones and others have analyzed red/gray chips that they claim contain thermitic material. There tests were not thorough enough. So a real expert was hired to identify the chemical compounds and there was no thermite found. You asked me to watch Jones video. I will do that. Now I ask you to answer my post that you ignored the first time. Here it is again.

Ok, the the central claim for the 9/11 conspiracy theorists is this:

1: The towers could not have fallen from the plane crash and fire.

2: The towers were brought down by demo charges and thermite.

There is ZERO evidence to support any demolition charges. With all the cameras on the trade towers that day, not one of them captured any sounds of demolition charges occurring. Had there been actual demo charges that day, there would would be absolutely no doubt they would have been recorded.

That brings us to thermite. The truthers like to claim that iron rich microspheres prove there was thermite present. Does it really? No.They're an interesting byproduct of combustion of many substances. You do not need to reach the melting point of steel to make microspheres. They were expected to be there. It was no surprise. The USGS analyzed some of the iron microspheres and found nothing suspicious. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html


So, a bunch of truthers got together in 2009 to test some red/gray chips found in the dust at ground zero. We'll forget the fact that it wasn't peer reviewed in a credible journal.

Here is their conclusion. http://benthamopen.com/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen Pp 7-31

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

However, an expert named Dr. Millette was hired IN 2012 to take the guesswork out of the above conclusion. Unlike Harrit and Jones, Millette is actually an expert at this type of study. He used FTIR, for one thing. He isolated each chemical compound and here is his conclusion. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf

'In summary, red/gray chips with the same morphological characteristics, elemental spectra and magnetic attraction as those shown in Harrit et al.1 were found in WTC dust samples from four different locations than those examined by Harrit, et al.1 The gray side is consistent with carbon steel. The red side contains the elements: C, O, Al, Si, and Fe with small amounts of other elements such as Ti and Ca. Based on the infrared absorption (FTIR) data, the C/O matrix material is an epoxy resin. Based on the optical and electron microscopy data, the Fe/O particles are an iron oxide pigment consisting of crystalline grains in the 100-200 nm range and the Al/Si particles are kaolin clay plates that are less than a micrometer thick. There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles detected by PLM, SEM-EDS, or TEM-SAED-EDS, during the analyses of the red layers in their original form or after sample preparation by ashing, thin sectioning or following MEK treatment.'

'
Conclusions
The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.
There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.'

His conclusion is that there is no evidence of therimite or nano-thermite. The truthers still deny the truth of this study by Millete. However, now that the chemical makeup is known, then why have Harrit and Jones not mixed up a batch to show it's magical ability to destroy steel? It's been 5 years since that paper and NOTHING. Why have they not presented it at a scientific conference for peer discussion and evaulation? Hmmm.. I wonder.

In Harris and Jones paper under further test they say this.

We observe that the total energy released from some of
the red chips exceeds the theoretical limit for thermite alone
(3.9 kJ/g). One possibility is that the organic material in the
red layer is itself energetic. Determination of the chemical
compound(s) involved in the organic component of the red
material would promote understanding. Further studies of the
red material (separated from the gray material) compared to
known super-thermite variants using DSC, TGA, FTIR (etc.)
analyses would certainly be in order. In particular, NMR and
GC-mass spectroscopy and related studies are urged to identify the organic material

Here is another quote from the paper. The Gash report describes FTIR spectra which characterize this energetic material. We have performed these same tests and will report the results elsewhere'

Where are the tests they said are certainly in order to identify the chemicals? 5 years and NOTHING. No demonstrations and no test results. The answer is obvious. It's because their results confirm Dr. Millete's and they KNOW it. There is no thermite or nano-thermite on the planet that contains 80% of Epoxy and Iron Oxide with Kaolin. Why have they also not compare the chemicals found to that of REAL thermite?

It's obvious why Jones never produced the results of test he said are in order. Because then they would have to admit they were wrong and then they couldn't get money from books, DVD's, lecture tour and their gullible followers. AE911TRUTH takes in a lot of money every year.

Here is the bottom line. There is NOT one credible test or results from the truthers that confirm thermite. They FAILED to deliver on the test they said were needed to identify the chemicals. All the credible tests have been conducted and the conclusion is always the same. No thermite. Period.

L67
09-19-2014, 07:11 PM
Ok, I finished the video. Just like I thought. He has no papers peer reviewed by any credible journal. His paper was published in the "journal of 911 studies". That is not credible. It is a pseudo-science journal where truthers can present their garbage.

Also, he references his paper that has been debunked already. The red/gray chips have been thoroughly analyzed and there was no thermitic material present. Just like I posted above. Where are the FITR results Jones said would be forthcoming? That was 5 years ago.

There is no revelations from Jones. He's just appealing to his gullible supporters.

dpenn
09-19-2014, 07:20 PM
dp:


I don't care what he has to say. The thermite claims have been debunked. Jones and others have analyzed red/gray chips that they claim contain thermitic material. There tests were not thorough enough. So a real expert was hired to identify the chemical compounds and there was no thermite found. You asked me to watch Jones video. I will do that. Now I ask you to answer my post that you ignored the first time. Here it is again.

Ok, the the central claim for the 9/11 conspiracy theorists is this:

1: The towers could not have fallen from the plane crash and fire.

2: The towers were brought down by demo charges and thermite.

There is ZERO evidence to support any demolition charges. With all the cameras on the trade towers that day, not one of them captured any sounds of demolition charges occurring. Had there been actual demo charges that day, there would would be absolutely no doubt they would have been recorded.



L67, there is almost 2 h 20 m of numerous experts on the video, Architects and Engineers for 9/11,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fmseAai4Is

and there is almost 1 h 50 m of numerous experts on the video, 9/11: Blueprint for Truth,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o

They address many of your objections, with common sense answers that even a high school physics student can understand and see the clear logic. I took a number of physics classes at university myself, and spent many hours doing problem solving in statics and dynamics, working through the forces on trusses, to the point of nausea. This is the type of basic knowledge of physics that is required to understand their arguments. It doesn't take rocket science. Although, the experts at the structural level, including thermite, do take it to a whole new level.

The unwillingness for NIST or anyone else to do investigation into potential explosive material in the towers is a breach in standard protocol for all other types of disasters on buildings.

Why?

I highly recommend that inquiring minds hear them out, as their consistency with Newtonian force physics is very compelling. And even if you don't understand Newtons' laws of physics, common sense alone will help you realise these men and women are not just blowing hot air. They are practising the very scientific method any rational mind should appreciate and desire to emulate.

dp

dpenn
09-19-2014, 07:22 PM
Ok, I finished the video. Just like I thought. He has no papers peer reviewed by any credible journal. His paper was published in the "journal of 911 studies". That is not credible. It is a pseudo-science journal where truthers can present their garbage.

Also, he references his paper that has been debunked already. The red/gray chips have been thoroughly analyzed and there was no thermitic material present. Just like I posted above. Where are the FITR results Jones said would be forthcoming? That was 5 years ago.

There is no revelations from Jones. He's just appealing to his gullible supporters.

Which video did you finish?

dp

L67
09-19-2014, 07:27 PM
dp:



L67, there is almost 2 h 20 m of numerous experts on the video, Architects and Engineers for 9/11,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fmseAai4Is

and there is almost 1 h 50 m of numerous experts on the video, 9/11: Blueprint for Truth,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o

They address many of your objections, with common sense answers that even a high school physics student can understand and see the clear logic. I took a number of physics classes at university myself, and spent many hours doing problem solving in statics and dynamics, working through the forces on trusses, to the point of nausea. This is the type of basic knowledge of physics that is required to understand their arguments. It doesn't take rocket science. Although, the experts at the structural level, including thermite, do take it to a whole new level.

The unwillingness for NIST or anyone else to do investigation into potential explosive material in the towers is a breach in standard protocol for all other types of disasters on buildings.

Why?

I highly recommend that inquiring minds hear them out, as their consistency with Newtonian force physics is very compelling. And even if you don't understand Newtons' laws of physics, common sense alone will help you realise these men and women are not just blowing hot air. They are practising the very scientific method any rational mind should appreciate and desire to emulate.

dp

I like how you completely ignored the whole of my post and then post more conspiracy garbage. That is a nice dodge you did there. When are you going to answer my whole post?

Also, you don't get to ask me questions, while you ignore mine. Answer mine first.

The so called "experts" you referenced is irrelevant because the thermite claim has been debunked. You obviously know it because you ignored it. That's fine. That tells me everything I need to know about you.

Btw, I do have a BA in ME.

L67
09-19-2014, 07:30 PM
Which video did you finish?

dp

The one from Sydney. It's one big steaming pile of dung.

His papers weren't peer reviewed by anyone credible and his claims have been debunked. He hasn't demonstrated this magic thermite destroying steel beams. He should be able to do this since the red/gray chips are known.

Jones is everything I said he was. So, you're done.

David M
09-20-2014, 01:30 AM
Maybe there was no inside job, but the rumor is spread that has the same effect as if 911 had been an inside job.

What if the whole of America were to believe 911 was an inside job, what would result? Would the government be toppled by the people? Who would step in and take over? Those who started the rumor?

Talk about defeating the enemy from within.

dpenn
09-20-2014, 07:09 AM
dp:


Maybe there was no inside job, but the rumor is spread that has the same effect as if 911 had been an inside job.

What if the whole of America were to believe 911 was an inside job, what would result? Would the government be toppled by the people? Who would step in and take over? Those who started the rumor?

Talk about defeating the enemy from within.

David, what matters is the truth in general, but also the truth of science that everyone likes to pretend they believe in, Christian and non-Christian. What ever difficulties arise out of that should be secondary. America used to be a country of Constitutional Law, with checks and balances, where the guilty are brought to justice, and the innocent are protected and defended. Would you substitute that for rule of the jungle?

dp

dpenn
09-20-2014, 08:00 AM
dp:

I have included individual YouTube links and titles for most of the Toronto Hearings for 911:

* of special interest

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 - James Gourley & Lorie Van – Day 1
Introduction to the Hearings and the Panel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOLCb8Vx4_c

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 - Lance deHaven-Smith - Day 1
9/11 & State Crimes Against Democracy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UYPziSx4fM

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut - David Ray Griffin - Day 1 *
Inadequacies of the 9/11 Commission’s Report *
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xzGOG_D4bs

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut - Kevin Ryan - Day 1 *
Inadequacies of the Reports by the National Institute of Standards and Technology *
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltgJLzMtbyM

or more thoroughly with screen displays: *
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lu8VAjYa6Q

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut - Jay Kolar - Day 2
The Alleged 9/11 Hijackers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IXSq9OioHg

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut - Paul Zarembka - Day 2
Evidence of Insider Trading Before 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smHeU_gX5Mg

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11- B. Honegger, R. Gage, & M. Chossudovsky Day 2
Eyewitnesses and Evidence of Explosions at the Pentagon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2YrUq2Y_C4

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11- Michel Chossudovsky Day 2 *
Global Consequences of 9/11 *
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPIfgmuN4ns

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 - Rep. Cynthia McKinney – Day 2
Attempts to Raise Questions about 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7ROidNMj_A

The Toronto Hearings 9//11 - Graeme MacQueen – Day 3
Eyewitness Evidence of Explosions at WTC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UPwJGZfHbo

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut - David Chandler – Day 3
WTC 7: A Refutation of the Official Account
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An2GCp-VWXs

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut - Jonathan Cole – Day 3
The Official Account and the Experimental Method
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhlrqyIIbO8

The Toronto Hearings 9/11 - Kevin Ryan – Day 3
Extreme Temperatures
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZmXY6IT9Jw

The Toronto Hearings - 9/11 - Niels Harrit – Day 3
Incendiary/Explosive Residue in the WTC Dust
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNPeMvsSbl4

The Toronto Hearings - 9/11 - David Ray Griffin – Day 4
Anomalies of Flights 77 and 93
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZMO-a8YRFs

The Toronto Hearings - 9/11 - Peter Dale Scott – Day 4
Peter Dale Scott: 9/11 and Deep State Politics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Iv6aqnIJNQ

The Toronto Hearings - 9/11 - Laurie Manwell – Day 4
SCADs and Psychological Resistance to Alternative Accounts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCY_vopQbRk

The Toronto Hearings - 09/11/11 - Senator Mike Gravel – Day 4
State Deception in the Past and Today
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQDgp742bcQ

dp

L67
09-20-2014, 01:46 PM
Firefighters are considered to be very reliable sources of information when it comes to examining the causes of fires, or the destruction of a building. Many firefighters lost their lives that day, and those who survived and were part of the post 911 efforts, nearly all stated the same thing, "we heard loud explosions...boom..boom...boom, like when a building is being demolished". THAT sir is stronger than any video, witness, or report from NIST and especially YOU! And I'll gladly take their words over any video you try using; and especially your words. YOU sir were not there and so are a witness only to yourself! And quite frankly, it saddens (and angers) me that you question their integrity, and are in essence accusing them of being mistaken, or perhaps even lying! Of course I know you won't go so far as to call our firefighting heroes liars; probably just mistaken; right? So more than 100 first responders mention explosions, and you question their integrity and validity, just as you did with the retired firefighter who was there on WTC7?

Yes, let's see what roughly 20 firefighters have to say about WTC7. They witnessed the building was NOT structurally sound and that it was going to collapse. Let's look at this pic first to see how bad the rip was on the south side of WTC 7. The rip was huge as is the whole side of the building charred.


1295


Now let's see what the firefighters had to say. https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage

1. The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. –FDNY Chief Frank Fellini

2. At that time, other firefighters started showing up, Deputy Battalion Chief Paul Ferran of the 41 Battalion, and James Savastano of the First Division assigned to the Second Battalion showed up and we attempted to search and extinguish, at the time which was small pockets of fire in 7 World Trade Center. We were unaware of the damage in the front of 7, because we were entering from the northeast entrance. We weren't aware of the magnitude of the damage in the front of the building. – FDNY Captain Anthony Varriale http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110313.PDF

3. [Shortly after the tower collapses] I don’t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side. I looked up at the building and I saw smoke in it, but I really didn't see any fire at that time. Deputy ––Chief Nick Visconti http://tinyurl.com/paqux

4. A few minutes after that a police officer came up to me and told me that the façade in front of Seven World Trade Center was gone and they thought there was an imminent collapse of Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Lieutenant William Melarango http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110045.PDF

5. I think they said they had seven to ten floors that were freestanding and they weren't going to send anyone in. –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110055.PDF

6. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too.

Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandeis came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse Magazine: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. – Capt. Chris Boyle http://tinyurl.com/e7bzp

7. After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion [the collapse of the north tower]. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said. http://www.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htm

8. Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. With all of the smoke and the debris pile, I couldn’t exactly tell what was going on, but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said “That building is going to come down, we better get out of here.” So we did. –M.J., Employed at 45 Broadway, in a letter to me.

9. So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did. – FDNY Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110462.PDF

10. Just moments before the south tower collapsed and, you know, when it happened we didn't know it was the south tower. We thought it was the north tower. There was a reporter of some sort, female with blond hair and her cameraman, an oriental fellow. They were setting up outside 7 World Trade Center, just east of the pedestrian bridge. I told them it would probably be better off to be set up under the bridge. At least it was protected. I was just about to enter a dialogue with her when I heard a sound I never heard before. I looked up and saw this huge cloud. I told him run. I grabbed the female, I threw her through the revolving doors of number 7.

We were proceeding inside. She fell to the ground. I helped her out, I pushed her towards the direction of where we were all in the south corner and there was a little doorway behind that desk which led into the loading bays. Everybody started to run through that. Never made it to that door. The next thing that I remember was that I was covered in some glass and some debris. Everything came crashing through the front of number 7. It was totally pitch black.

Q. Were you injured?

A. Yes, I saw some stuff had fallen on me. I didn't believe that I was injured at that time. I discovered later on I was injured. I had some shards of glass impaled in my head, but once I was able to get all this debris and rubble off of me and cover my face with my jacket so that I could breathe, it was very thick dust, you couldn't see. We heard some sounds. We reached out and felt our way around. I managed to find some other people in this lower lobby. We crawled over towards the direction where we thought the door was and as we approached it the door cracked open a little, so we had the lights from the loading bay. We made our way over there. The loading bay doors were 3-fourths of the way shut when this happened, so they took a lot of dust in there, but everyone in those bays was safe and secure. We had face to face contact with Chief Maggio and Captain Nahmod. They told me – I said do whatever you need to do, get these people out of here. Go, go towards the water. –EMS Division Chief Jon Peruggia
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110160.PDF

11. You could see the damage at 7 World Trade Center, the damage into the AT&T building.
–FDNY Firefighter Vincent Palmieri http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110258.PDF

12. At this point, 7, which is right there on Vesey, the whole corner of the building was missing. I was thinking to myself we are in a bad place, because it was the corner facing us. –Fred Marsilla, FDNY
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110399.PDF

13. The way we got into the loading dock [of WTC 7] was not the way we were getting out. It was obstructed.

Q. The door was blocked?

A. Yeah, and we found our way -- we walked across the loading dock area, and we found there was another door. We went in that door, and from there we were directed to -- I really guess it was like a basement area of the building, but we were directed to an opposite door. –Dr. Michael Guttenberg , NYC Office of Medical Affairs http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110005.PDF

14. We eventually ended up meeting after the second explosion, three of us met up here, but I didn't see a lot of the people that were with me until two, three days later. I got word that they were okay. For instance, Dr. Guttenberg and Dr. Asaeda, who were at 7 World Trade Center, they got trapped in there and had to like climb in and out and get out because that building also became very damaged supposedly and they were there. We thought they were dead. I guess he was in an area where Commissioner Tierney might have been, I believe. I think she was in 7 also. –Paramedic Manuel Delgado http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110004.PDF

(After collapse of south tower)
15. The decision was either to go left or right and we ended up going right, between the two buildings, in the alleyway on the north, which turned out to be the right direction because apparently there was a lot of debris and part of 7 down already. Also, I did notice as I was making my exit the sound of the firefighters' alarms indicating that they were down. I did remember that as well but just could not see anything. –Dr. Glenn Asaeda http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/sept11_fdny_transcripts/9110062.PDF

16. I saw the firefighter. There were people screaming out of one of these two buildings over here saying they couldn't get out, and my partner took one straggler fireman, the one that we had with us, and was trying to break the door because the door obviously had shifted or something. They couldn't get the door open.

Q: That was 7 World Trade Center?

A: I believe it was 7. Maybe it was 5. It was at the back end of it because I do remember the telephone company [which is next to building 7]. So I think it was the back end of 7, I think right over here at that point, and they couldn't get out. Then I had ran down the block and I flagged a ladder company and they brought the ladder, which they had like a vestibule that you couldn't like really reach the people because the ladder wouldn't reach. So they went and got other resources, they went inside the building, and I told my partner that it wasn't safe and that we need to go because everything around us was like falling apart. –EMT Nicole Ferrell http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110304.PDF

17. The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower. – Fire Captain Brenda Berkman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 213)

18. At that point, they said that Seven World Trade had no face and it was ready to collapse. – EMT Mercedes Rivera: (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 29)

19. You see the white smoke, you see the thing leaning like this? It's definitely going. There's no way to stop it. 'Cause you have to go up in there to put it out, and it's already, the structural integrity is not there. –Unidentified firefighter in this video.

20. As far as I was concerned, we were still trapped. I was hopeful. things were looking a whole lot better now than they were just a few minutes earlier, but we were a long way from safe and sound. Five World Trade Center was fully involved, Six World Trade Center was roaring pretty good, and behind them Seven World Trade Center was teetering on collapse.
The buildings just behind him and to his left were looking like they too might collapse at any time, and there were whole chunks of concrete falling to both sides. Flames dancing everywhere. The small-arms detonations were kicking up a notch or two, and it sounded like this poor guy was being fired at, by snipers or unseen terrorists, at close range. (Last Man Down by Richard Picciotto, FDNY Battalion Commander Penguin Books, 2002. page 191)

L67
09-20-2014, 02:13 PM
I've been trying to prove to everyone that WTC7 did NOT collapse because of fires, but that it was demolished. In his own words, Larry Silverstein gives the order to "pull it" when talking to the lead firefighter on the scene. Here are his words:

Firefighter: "I don't believe we will be able to contain these fires...."

Larry: "You know we have had such massive losses of life, we might better off just to pull it....so Pull it".....and again, "And then we watched the building fall...."

Now some of the 911 Liar conspiracy will razzle dazzle you by claiming Larry wasn't given an order to demolish the building, but to pull the firefighting efforts; something no firemen/woman is familiar with EXCEPT when demolishing a building. And here is PROOF from a demolishen team recommending to "pull" building 6 due to its extensive damage:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v2yud3aCGQ

Ground crew says, "Hello.....Yea, we're gett'n ready to PULL building 6..."

So what did Larry mean when he said to the firefighters, "better off to pull it [WTC7]"? Well, unless Larry was speaking an unfamiliar language to the fire chief, it's quite clear what Larry meant. To think otherwise is futile.

Joe


Except there is one MAJOR problem that the phrase "pull it" here doesn't mean demolition. In that video, it means to pull down with cables, not demolition. DUH! And the FACT that you quoted Larry Silverstein out of context. He NEVER said what you claim.

Here is what he actually said. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43F54hR0NW8"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

THEY made that decision. Larry Never made that decision.

Here is what LARRY'S spokesperson said: "In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

And that is corroborated my many other statements.

Chief Dan Nigro is the one who give the order to "pull it". Unless you want to call the Chief of the fire department a liar. https://sites.google.com/site/911guide/danielnigro

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.


And here is many others who testified to being "pulled". https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/%22pull%22%3Dwithdrawfirefightersfromdanger


I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain." FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro, "Report from the Chief of Department," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)

I do remember us being pulled off the pile. ...We were down by the pile to search or looking around. 7 World Trade Center was roaring. I remember being pulled off the pile like just before. It wasn't just before. It was probably an hour before 7 came down. –Firefighter Kevin Howe

Hayden: By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to col-lapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. 



Firehouse Magazine: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety. 



Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. –Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse.

Q. It was on fire, correct, Captain?

A. Yes, it was on fire at that time. Then they said it suffered some form of structural damage. These things were going on at the same time. The fact that we thought we found Ganci and Feehan and his place at 7 World Trade Center. Made the decision to back everybody away, took all the units and moved them all the way back toward North End Avenue, which is as far I guess west as you could get on Vesey Street, to keep them out of the way. –Captain Ray Goldbach

So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. 
–Capt. Chris Boyle

Someone gave a Mayday. I guess it was someone trapped under one of the pedestrian bridges. We started to go under there to look. One of the Chiefs pulled us out of there. He said don't go under there. ..We searched that building and then we started making another move in and we got pulled out again, because I guess the Chiefs were getting more in control of the situation. They pulled everybody out of there. ...that was probably like four or five o'clock before we stopped. –Firefighter Todd Fredrickson

When the third building came down that's where we were (Stuyvesant High School). We were actually -- they pulled us all back. Actually they pulled us all the way back that far at the point because they didn't want any -- they didn't want us anywhere near it. Everyone was just running around. When the third building came down, we were on that corner in front of the school, and everybody just stood back.

They pulled us all back at that time, almost an hour before it, because they were sure -- they knew it was going to come down, but they weren't sure. So they pulled everyone back, and everybody stood there and we actually just waited and waited until it went down, because it was unsafe. They wouldn't let anyone next to I guess the two piles, we would call them, where one and two was. We stood back. We waited. –EMT Joseph Fortis

After that they decided to pull everybody out and I know -- what building was it? Building 5, I believe [sic], the other tall building there, the third building that came down, they were evacuating people. So everyone just pushed up West Street all the way up towards the high school there. I forget the name of the high school. –Firefighter Brian Russo

Then approximately I guess maybe two hours before number 7 came down, we went into Ground Zero and helped dig around and was there when they located Chief Feehan and one of the chiefs pulled us all out because they said 7 was going to come down. –Firefighter Kevin Quinn

So then they aborted us from setting up the tower ladder because they were worried about now Seven coming down. So then they pulled us away. This is where I kind of start remembering a lot.

We came around, I think we took Murray Street down the west side, and we stopped the rig and pulled over to the side and we all got out of the rig. We were standing, waiting for Seven to come down. We were there for quite a while, a couple hours.

During that time a couple of the members felt like we were being useless just standing around. We wanted to do something. So we started trying to walk down, trying to get into the pile. We kept on being turned around from chiefs, because they didn't want us near Seven.

As we were walking, we had to actually get a little closer to Seven. So we turned and looked at Seven, and that's when all the marble siding started popping off the side because it was starting to go down.

We worked our way putting out the car fires, which I don't know if there was ammunition, because there was a lot of cop cars, but there was explosions. Tires were exploding. There had to be about 15 or 20 car fires. We put them out as we worked our way down. –Firefighter Thomas Donato

They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on.

Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there.

Finally it did come down. From there -- this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down. That's when they let the guys go on. I just remember we started searching around all the rigs. –Firefighter Richard Banaciski

Then we were instructed to search through two or three buildings to make sure they were stable, and then they pulled everybody out because of the pink building. Was it 7 World Trade, that was going?
Q: Right. –Firefighter Adrienne Walsh

We operated until they finally started pulling people back. ...They pulled us back, I think it was like probably between 4 and 6, because of Seven. Seven was the concern at the time. –Firefighter Fred Marsilla

They put another engine company in there which augmented us. And the stream was even good enough to almost reach Tower 7. And then what happened was, we heard this rumbling sound and my father pulled us all back and then with that Tower 7 came down. –Firefighter Peter Blaich

At that point, Seven World Trade had 12 stories of fire in it. They were afraid it was going to collapse on us, so they pulled everybody out. We couldn't do anything. – Firefighter Maureen McArdle-Schulman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 17)

These firefighters mention being withdrawn from a different part of the WTC site because other buildings were believed to be in danger of collapse:
So we were in there just for a few minutes maybe and the chiefs pulled us out. They told us we had to get out, so we got out, and then later on we went back in again, and they pulled us out once more, and that was it. –Firefighter Peter Giammarino

We proceeded to go back one block to that post then slowly but surely every two minutes or so
when we started to regroup we were pulled back further and further and further until we were behind – until we were past Stuyvesant High School –Firefighter Dean Beltrami

While we were searching, that's when 7 World Trade Center was pretty much on fire, so after awhile, they -- we left, and they pulled a lot of people out of the rubble, because they were worried about 7 coming down, so we went back up Vesey, sat by the rig, because -- we kind of sat there for a long time, because they had pulled people back, because they were worried about 7 coming down.

...Q. So before 7 came down, they just verbally told to get out, and the radios weren't up then, right?

A. Yeah, I think our lieutenant said, "Look, we're going to take a break," and then just as we were leaving, they were moving everybody out anyway.

They were just saying, all right, just waving people out by signal, and that's pretty much it. We sat up by the rig which was being fed by the marine unit, and there was a line from us stretched to one of the tower ladders on Vesey, which had to also pull back, too, because of 7 coming down, and we just kind of stayed with the rig until 7 came down and kind of awaited orders and really didn't -- you know, really didn't get any assignments.

I guess they were worried about the stability of everything. –Firefighter Kevin McGovern

In this video of smoke billowing from WTC 7, several men (presumably firemen judging from their conversation, their proximity to the site, and their radio calls) speak about WTC 7:
"It's hot enough for the [Inaudible]"
"That's why he's pulled everybody outta here."
"That building's 50 stories, definitely reaching over here."
"[Inaudible] get everybody outta there, that's for sure."

dpenn
09-20-2014, 02:59 PM
dp:



7. After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion [the collapse of the north tower]. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said. http://www.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htm


L67, I have to take this a few bites at a time, as it is quite wordy.

So I will skip to the Jennings comment first, as your account is debatable.

First, your link for that comes up with in error.

But, more seriously, if it is not known, Barry Jennings, after saying things that conflicted with the official 911 story, died or disappeared in very mysterious circumstances. He was quoted on a couple truther 911 videos, but then he became frightened and would not say any more. But what he did say implied something very different. First, when he entered WTC7, he noticed that there were drinks and uneaten sandwiches in the cafeteria. Then they proceeded to the 23rd floor, at which time the 2nd plane hit the South Tower. Jennings then called several people, one of whom told him to "leave the building right away". He and Michael Hess began climbing down the stairwell, and when they reached the 6th floor, a huge explosion knocked out the stairwell below him. He managed to scramble to the 8th floor, where he called for help, and waited for it to arrive. It was from the 8th floor that he heard additional explosions below him in WTC7.

It was after he reached the 8th floor that WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed. Later, when he and Hess were rescued from WTC7, he was stepping over dead bodies, amidst massive destruction in the lobby. Just hours earlier, he had passed through this same lobby, which at that time, was untouched by destruction.

Note, that at the time of the collapse of the stairwell, the lobby of WTC7 was separated by Vesey Street, WTC6, and almost 80 floors of WTC1,2. But the huge explosion he heard below him was the cause of this devastation. Also, if Jennings story about stepping over dead bodies was accurate, it means that the official story that no lives were lost in WTC7 is not true.


btw, did you know that Rumsfeld and Cheney were on the Board of a company that had offices on every floor of WTC7 before 911? It also had CIA offices, and Mayor Rudi Julianni's office. It was also said to house the investigative files of many ongoing Wall Street cases, like Enron, etc.


dp

L67
09-20-2014, 05:59 PM
dp:



L67, I have to take this a few bites at a time, as it is quite wordy.

So I will skip to the Jennings comment first, as your account is debatable.

First, your link for that comes up with in error.

But, more seriously, if it is not known, Barry Jennings, after saying things that conflicted with the official 911 story, died or disappeared in very mysterious circumstances. He was quoted on a couple truther 911 videos, but then he became frightened and would not say any more. But what he did say implied something very different. First, when he entered WTC7, he noticed that there were drinks and uneaten sandwiches in the cafeteria. Then they proceeded to the 23rd floor, at which time the 2nd plane hit the South Tower. Jennings then called several people, one of whom told him to "leave the building right away". He and Michael Hess began climbing down the stairwell, and when they reached the 6th floor, a huge explosion knocked out the stairwell below him. He managed to scramble to the 8th floor, where he called for help, and waited for it to arrive. It was from the 8th floor that he heard additional explosions below him in WTC7.

It was after he reached the 8th floor that WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed. Later, when he and Hess were rescued from WTC7, he was stepping over dead bodies, amidst massive destruction in the lobby. Just hours earlier, he had passed through this same lobby, which at that time, was untouched by destruction.

Note, that at the time of the collapse of the stairwell, the lobby of WTC7 was separated by Vesey Street, WTC6, and almost 80 floors of WTC1,2. But the huge explosion he heard below him was the cause of this devastation. Also, if Jennings story about stepping over dead bodies was accurate, it means that the official story that no lives were lost in WTC7 is not true.


btw, did you know that Rumsfeld and Cheney were on the Board of a company that had offices on every floor of WTC7 before 911? It also had CIA offices, and Mayor Rudi Julianni's office. It was also said to house the investigative files of many ongoing Wall Street cases, like Enron, etc.


dp

dpenn,

I like how you give a link for all your sources. You have posted nothing more than conspiracy nonsense. You conspiracy nuts do nothing but make a mockery out of people like Jennings. He never subscribed to any conspiracy bullshit.

Your comment that Jennings mysteriously died after saying conflicting things about the official story is nonsense. His account is in the official NIST report.

Here is the timeline Jennings gave. It's listed here starting on page 109 http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101049

1- Deputy OEM Commissioner ordered the complete evacuation of WTC 7 at 9:44 AM INCLUDING the 23rd flr. OEM Center.

2- Jennings arrives at the 23rd floor to an abandoned OEM center. Makea a few calls and then is told to evacuate.

3- I have yet to find a time as to when he arrived at the 23rd floor. But lets assume it took at least 5 minutes to evacuate the OEM center at 9:44. We are now looking at about 10 minutes to 10. 9:50AM

4- So Lets say Jennings arrived EXACTLY 5 minutes after OEM evacuated. That puts us at 9:55.

6- Jenning makes a few calls and is told to evacuate. approx.1-2 Minutes. That puts us at 9:57

7- Jennings then heads to the elevator and is waiting, 9:59AM WTC2 collapses the lights flicker inside WTC-7

8- Jennings was waiting for an unspecified amount of time, learned that the elevator did not work so headed for the staircase.

9- When Jennings got down to the 6th floor it was 10:28am. WTC1 collapsed. Jennings and the gentleman he was with were stuck.

So, although we don't have a conclusive time as to how long Jennings was waiting for the elevator or how long it took him to get down the stairs...the fact is. Jennings explosions he heard were WTC2 collapsing.

Even IF Jennings remembered anything different from when he did his counltess interviews and his testimony to NIST...he claims it was AFTER he reached the empty OEM, and AFTER he made a couple phone calls. This time line puts him right at the collapse time of WTC2. explaining the explosions he heard.


And this meshes with everything else we know. There is NOT one shred of audio or video proof of explosive charges going off.

And Barry Jennings NEVER saw dead bodies. Conspiracy nuts took him out of context and that is what he told the BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7434230.stm

The writer and director of Loose Change, Dylan Avery, told The Conspiracy Files: "The amount of detail that Barry gave us in this interview was unreal. He says he was stepping over dead bodies in the lobby."

Barry Jennings himself disagrees with their interpretation of his words. Barry Jennings told the BBC: "I didn't like the way you know I was portrayed. They portrayed me as seeing dead bodies. I never saw dead bodies"

Dylan Avery is adamant that he didn't take anything out of context. He played The Conspiracy Files a recording of Barry Jennings words: "The fire fighter who took us down kept saying do not look down. And I kept saying why.

"He said do not look down. And we're stepping over people and you know you could feel when you're stepping over people."

However, Barry Jennings told the BBC: "I said it felt like I was stepping over them but I never saw any.

"And you know that's the way they portrayed me and I didn't appreciate that so I told them to pull my interview."


Plus, Michael Hess himself later said the explosions were from the tower collapsing. He recanted his story AFTER he realized he was mistaken. The towers had already collapse when Hess and Jennings became trapped. Here is a video of Michael Hess calling for help.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZduP7HTM3cg

dpenn
09-20-2014, 06:31 PM
dp:


dpenn,

I like how you give a link for all your sources. You have posted nothing more than conspiracy nonsense. You conspiracy nuts do nothing but make a mockery out of people like Jennings. He never subscribed to any conspiracy bullshit.

Your comment that Jennings mysteriously died after saying conflicting things about the official story is nonsense. His account is in the official NIST report.

Here is the timeline Jennings gave. It's listed here starting on page 109 http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101049

1- Deputy OEM Commissioner ordered the complete evacuation of WTC 7 at 9:44 AM INCLUDING the 23rd flr. OEM Center.

2- Jennings arrives at the 23rd floor to an abandoned OEM center. Makea a few calls and then is told to evacuate.

3- I have yet to find a time as to when he arrived at the 23rd floor. But lets assume it took at least 5 minutes to evacuate the OEM center at 9:44. We are now looking at about 10 minutes to 10. 9:50AM

4- So Lets say Jennings arrived EXACTLY 5 minutes after OEM evacuated. That puts us at 9:55.

6- Jenning makes a few calls and is told to evacuate. approx.1-2 Minutes. That puts us at 9:57

7- Jennings then heads to the elevator and is waiting, 9:59AM WTC2 collapses the lights flicker inside WTC-7

8- Jennings was waiting for an unspecified amount of time, learned that the elevator did not work so headed for the staircase.

9- When Jennings got down to the 6th floor it was 10:28am. WTC1 collapsed. Jennings and the gentleman he was with were stuck.

So, although we don't have a conclusive time as to how long Jennings was waiting for the elevator or how long it took him to get down the stairs...the fact is. Jennings explosions he heard were WTC2 collapsing.

Even IF Jennings remembered anything different from when he did his counltess interviews and his testimony to NIST...he claims it was AFTER he reached the empty OEM, and AFTER he made a couple phone calls. This time line puts him right at the collapse time of WTC2. explaining the explosions he heard.


And this meshes with everything else we know. There is NOT one shred of audio or video proof of explosive charges going off.

And Barry Jennings NEVER saw dead bodies. Conspiracy nuts took him out of context and that is what he told the BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7434230.stm

The writer and director of Loose Change, Dylan Avery, told The Conspiracy Files: "The amount of detail that Barry gave us in this interview was unreal. He says he was stepping over dead bodies in the lobby."

Barry Jennings himself disagrees with their interpretation of his words. Barry Jennings told the BBC: "I didn't like the way you know I was portrayed. They portrayed me as seeing dead bodies. I never saw dead bodies"

Dylan Avery is adamant that he didn't take anything out of context. He played The Conspiracy Files a recording of Barry Jennings words: "The fire fighter who took us down kept saying do not look down. And I kept saying why.

"He said do not look down. And we're stepping over people and you know you could feel when you're stepping over people."

However, Barry Jennings told the BBC: "I said it felt like I was stepping over them but I never saw any.

"And you know that's the way they portrayed me and I didn't appreciate that so I told them to pull my interview."


Plus, Michael Hess himself later said the explosions were from the tower collapsing. He recanted his story AFTER he realized he was mistaken. The towers had already collapse when Hess and Jennings became trapped.

L67, you reported most of that accurately, but Jennings also said that he was certain that explosions came from below, and this was before the WTC1,2 collapsed. And yes, he did say that he was told not to look down, but he could tell he was stepping over dead bodies. Plus it was dark, but he knew full well what it was. Later, he began to panic, as they obviously got to him, and didn't want anything to do with Dylan Avery and Loose Change. Maybe he was just a little too wise that he might be facing de-resolution if he didn't play ball with the official story. Who knows what else went into this, and I guess we will never know now. I have to refrain from trying to imagine the worst myself. But you are assuming quite a bit yourself.

It is obvious that anyone that had a contrary report outside of the official report was either ostracized, fired, or possibly much worse. And it wouldn't be the first time that criminal elements very high up in govt, military, and intelligence, had their way with a disaster. Maybe Hess was all too aware of this, and was later bought off or chose to play dumb. Especially since many other first responders spoke of multiple explosions going on all over the place, and especially during the collapse.

Fortunately, Newtonian laws of motion, and how they apply to demolitions and building free-falls from fire alone, give the most convincing evidence. Laws of science and honest testimonial will, over time, win the day.

dp

L67
09-20-2014, 07:20 PM
dp:



L67, you reported most of that accurately, but Jennings also said that he was certain that explosions came from below, and this was before the WTC1,2 collapsed. And yes, he did say that he was told not to look down, but he could tell he was stepping over dead bodies. Plus it was dark, but he knew full well what it was. Later, he began to panic, as they obviously got to him, and didn't want anything to do with Dylan Avery and Loose Change. Maybe he was just a little too wise that he might be facing de-resolution if he didn't play ball with the official story. Who knows what else went into this, and I guess we will never know now. I have to refrain from trying to imagine the worst myself. But you are assuming quite a bit yourself.

Dude, get real. Jennings himself said never stepped over any dead bodies. You're positing another stupid conspiracy. If we go by your logic, that means Jennings isn't credible at all because he contradicts himself. Who is going to believe a contradictory witness? None other than conspiracy nuts like you. Plus, his testimony corroborates the NIST report.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm posting the things we KNOW to be true by verification. You certainly aren't.


It is obvious that anyone that had a contrary report outside of the official report was either ostracized, fired, or possibly much worse. And it wouldn't be the first time that criminal elements very high up in govt, military, and intelligence, had their way with a disaster. Maybe Hess was all too aware of this, and was later bought off or chose to play dumb. Especially since many other first responders spoke of multiple explosions going on all over the place, and especially during the collapse.

And another freaking conspiracy. You can't prove your baseless assertions. The video I posted PROVES Hess and Jennings were calling for help AFTER the towers fell. Good grief.


Fortunately, Newtonian laws of motion, and how they apply to demolitions and building free-falls from fire alone, give the most convincing evidence. Laws of science and honest testimonial will, over time, win the day.

dp


Oh... now your down to Newtons laws of motion. Why don't you stop lying dpenn? There were more than just fires that day. Good grief.

I'm sorry, but you have no idea how the the laws of motion pertain to the collapse. Take the third law for example. Moronic conspiracy theorist assert the third law says the buildings shouldn't have collapsed once they reached a force of equal resistance. FALSE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion

Newton's laws are applied to objects which are idealised as single point masses,[6] in the sense that the size and shape of the object's body are neglected to focus on its motion more easily. This can be done when the object is small compared to the distances involved in its analysis, or the deformation and rotation of the body are of no importance. In this way, even a planet can be idealised as a particle for analysis of its orbital motion around a star.

In their original form, Newton's laws of motion are not adequate to characterise the motion of rigid bodies and deformable bodies

And they certainly weren't violated that day because they don't perfectly apply to the towers.


Do you understand buckling? No! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling

Do you understand potential energy? No! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy

Do you you understand that once the floors collapsed more potential energy was converted (due to height) to kinetic energy? No! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

These are all things truthers are IGNORANT of.

Nothing is as you say it is.

What happened to you magic thermite theory? I noticed you dropped that argument once I demolished it.

dpenn
09-20-2014, 10:40 PM
dp:



Dude, get real. Jennings himself said never stepped over any dead bodies. You're positing another stupid conspiracy.


L67, yes Jennings did say that.



If we go by your logic, that means Jennings isn't credible at all because he contradicts himself. Who is going to believe a contradictory witness? None other than conspiracy nuts like you. Plus, his testimony corroborates the NIST report.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm posting the things we KNOW to be true by verification. You certainly aren't.


Well, whether or not he is trustworthy or not, we will never know now. But when you say you aren't assuming anything, I just showed you how he initially said that he was stepping over dead bodies.



And another freaking conspiracy. You can't prove your baseless assertions. The video I posted PROVES Hess and Jennings were calling for help AFTER the towers fell. Good grief.


Hess maybe never said that, but Jennings did.



Oh... now your down to Newtons laws of motion. Why don't you stop lying dpenn? There were more than just fires that day. Good grief.

I'm sorry, but you have no idea how the the laws of motion pertain to the collapse. Take the third law for example. Moronic conspiracy theorist assert the third law says the buildings shouldn't have collapsed once they reached a force of equal resistance. FALSE.


Of course I am bringing up Newton's laws of motion. This whole thing is all about those laws.




Newton's laws are applied to objects which are idealised as single point masses,[6] in the sense that the size and shape of the object's body are neglected to focus on its motion more easily. This can be done when the object is small compared to the distances involved in its analysis, or the deformation and rotation of the body are of no importance. In this way, even a planet can be idealised as a particle for analysis of its orbital motion around a star.

In their original form, Newton's laws of motion are not adequate to characterise the motion of rigid bodies and deformable bodies


Of course idealistically physics incorporates the idea of a dimensionless point, but Newton's laws of motion are valid and real for all classical observations.




And they certainly weren't violated that day because they don't perfectly apply to the towers.


Are you kidding me, of course they apply perfectly to these towers.



Do you understand buckling? No! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling

Do you understand potential energy? No! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy

Do you you understand that once the floors collapsed more potential energy was converted (due to height) to kinetic energy? No! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

These are all things truthers are IGNORANT of.

Nothing is as you say it is.


It has been many years, but of course I understand that PE is transferred to KE so that there is conservation of momentum and energy. This is basic elementary physics. As for buckling, I understand that it obeys Newton's laws perfectly too, even if the calculations become more difficult. Fortunately, I am not the one doing the calculations, but men like a number of the physicists in the truther movement, working in labs, and doing calculations based on Newton's laws of motion, once again.

But one type of calculation in problem solving I did in statics and dynamics classes in physics, was on trusses, and the 3d moments at each joint throughout, and how to determine the forces exerted on each section and at each joint. And this is exactly what is required at the grid system level. So I guess if given the forces in the grid, I probably could laboriously determine the forces along the whole grid system, and what would be the result if portions of the grid were knocked out. All of the steel beams were interconnected, bolted in at joints, connecting all girders, horizontal and vertical to a super mesh grid for the whole building. Just like a screen, if a projectile pierced it and damaged or destroyed part of it, the screen would still remain intact. And so would the grid system of WTC1,2,7.




What happened to you magic thermite theory? I noticed you dropped that argument once I demolished it.

I don't know what is going on behind the scenes in the challenges between men like Kevin Ryan, Niels Harrit, and Steven Jones. But they present arguments, based on the scientific method. Of course, NIST in the compiling of their report, refused to look for any explosive evidence in their tests. Can you imagine that? This was criminal. You normally always consider such components of disasters, especially where there is high suspicions of a organised and planned demolition.

They did many and varied, repeatable, experiments on the gray-red particles, and the explosive nature of these particles, substantially present in all of the dust samples from the towers. And the energy released from these particles was in the range of thermite, and even beyond, to nano-thermite. So someone might have surfaced to try and debunk their findings, but their results are scientifically provable and repeatable. You don't just pick up dust material and have it ignite with thermite and nano-thermite properties. If you could, there might be a lot more terrorists running around today. In addition, presence of sulfur and carbon in the thermite, transforms it into thermate, a more explosive product. And sulfur and carbon were also present to suggest thermate.

Add to that 5.87% iron sphere particles found in the dust, which is extremely high, and not normal of free-fall buildings. It takes extremely high temperatures to cause steel to vaporize into spheres. This occurs when you use thermite or nano-thermite with an energy spike of 4,500 degrees F. Even NIST said that the heat of the fires did not exceed 700 degrees F, and the air did not exceed 1,000 degrees F, both too low to create these iron spheres. So where did these iron spheres come from?

dp

L67
09-21-2014, 12:22 PM
dp:



L67, yes Jennings did say that.



Well, whether or not he is trustworthy or not, we will never know now. But when you say you aren't assuming anything, I just showed you how he initially said that he was stepping over dead bodies.

Actually, we do know. The claim that he saw dead bodies comes from a highly edited version of his interview. Where is the FULL uncut 20 min version of the interview? That is what Jennings was upset about. They portrayed him as seeing dead bodies from a highly edited version of the interview.

If you want to ignore that, then fine. Barry Jennings isn't credible so his personal accounts are irrelevant.




Hess maybe never said that, but Jennings did.

Proof?




Of course I am bringing up Newton's laws of motion. This whole thing is all about those laws.




Of course idealistically physics incorporates the idea of a dimensionless point, but Newton's laws of motion are valid and real for all classical observations.





Are you kidding me, of course they apply perfectly to these towers.

Go on. Tell me how. I'm not saying they don't apply at all. I'm saying in their ORIGINAL form they aren't adequate enough. That is something truthers erroneously misinterpret.




It has been many years, but of course I understand that PE is transferred to KE so that there is conservation of momentum and energy. This is basic elementary physics. As for buckling, I understand that it obeys Newton's laws perfectly too, even if the calculations become more difficult. Fortunately, I am not the one doing the calculations, but men like a number of the physicists in the truther movement, working in labs, and doing calculations based on Newton's laws of motion, once again.

Right, so you don't really understand it. You just blindly accept what the truther movement says.


But one type of calculation in problem solving I did in statics and dynamics classes in physics, was on trusses, and the 3d moments at each joint throughout, and how to determine the forces exerted on each section and at each joint. And this is exactly what is required at the grid system level. So I guess if given the forces in the grid, I probably could laboriously determine the forces along the whole grid system, and what would be the result if portions of the grid were knocked out. All of the steel beams were interconnected, bolted in at joints, connecting all girders, horizontal and vertical to a super mesh grid for the whole building. Just like a screen, if a projectile pierced it and damaged or destroyed part of it, the screen would still remain intact. And so would the grid system of WTC1,2,7.


So you don't think a few grids being knocked out means anything? You don't think sagging floor trusses would pull the steel columns inward? We know they did, because we have evidence of it. Those grids weren't responsible for stability of the tower? And you don't think gravity plays a role in this? Remember potential energy? Please get real.

Now your comparing screens to the WTCS? Brilliant. Just like pot bellied stoves? Wow. Ubelievable.

When the grids are knocked out the towers lose keep points of stability. On top of all the fire damage.

This is what buckling looks like. And this is exactly what happened to the towers.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGhTTUBuMYo



I don't know what is going on behind the scenes in the challenges between men like Kevin Ryan, Niels Harrit, and Steven Jones. But they present arguments, based on the scientific method. Of course, NIST in the compiling of their report, refused to look for any explosive evidence in their tests. Can you imagine that? This was criminal. You normally always consider such components of disasters, especially where there is high suspicions of a organised and planned demolition.

Really? The scientific method? Where did they demonstrate this magic thermite destroying steel columns? They didn't? When did they do the FITR test that they said needed to be done? They didn't. FITR tests are the only way to islolate the chemicals. It's been five years and nothing.

NIST didn't investigate explosives because there was no evidence of it. It's been 13 years and NOT one truther has presented any credible source for explosives.


They did many and varied, repeatable, experiments on the gray-red particles, and the explosive nature of these particles, substantially present in all of the dust samples from the towers. And the energy released from these particles was in the range of thermite, and even beyond, to nano-thermite. So someone might have surfaced to try and debunk their findings, but their results are scientifically provable and repeatable. You don't just pick up dust material and have it ignite with thermite and nano-thermite properties. If you could, there might be a lot more terrorists running around today. In addition, presence of sulfur and carbon in the thermite, transforms it into thermate, a more explosive product. And sulfur and carbon were also present to suggest thermate.

Bullshit. Jones found that the substance they found ignited at 430C(806f). That is much lower than actual thermite. Jones attempted to prove that the aluminum present was elemental, but they didn't use a definitive test to prove this. Dr. Millite did and it was found not to be elemental. Dr. Millete also identified the presence of epoxy, iron oxide, and kaolin. There isn't any nano-thermite that contains epoxy. Period. It's primer paint.

All Jones has to do is whip up a batch and show it destroying steel. Why haven't they done it? Because they KNOW their claims are bullshit. I suggest you real Millete's paper.

Please show examples of a material which is primarily organic, with less than 5% any possible thermitic materials, that can behave like real thermite. (Drum roll, followed by sound of crickets)
Please show us an epoxy-based Iron Oxide primer paint that doesn't have epoxy and Iron Oxide - you can't
Please show us a verified, as in real, sample of nanothermite which is made 80% of Epoxy and Iron Oxide with Kaolin - you can't.

If you really want to take this further, I would love for you to do that.


Add to that 5.87% iron sphere particles found in the dust, which is extremely high, and not normal of free-fall buildings. It takes extremely high temperatures to cause steel to vaporize into spheres. This occurs when you use thermite or nano-thermite with an energy spike of 4,500 degrees F. Even NIST said that the heat of the fires did not exceed 700 degrees F, and the air did not exceed 1,000 degrees F, both too low to create these iron spheres. So where did these iron spheres come from?

dp

WRONG! Iron microsphere are NOT proof of any thermite. All you need is a flame and oxygen. Watch what happens when you light steel wool

1297

Watch what happens when you light steel wool. Every orange circular flame is a microsphere. Pause it at 2 seconds and pay attention to the circular flame furtherest left. What did it turn in to? Microsphere.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfNZGexAJmc


Here is someone burning steel in a barrel and producing micro spheres. No thermite needed. You have been misled.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLyYv5Y2YSM#t=38


You also say that a building falling can't produce that kind of heat? Are you nuts? Ever heard of friction? Apparently not.

So dry loaded and unlubricated steel surfaces sliding past each other at great speeds couldn't do it? LMAO! There was more than a million square feet of frictional area. That couldn't produce any mircospheres? Please come back to reality. You have no idea the amount of HEAT friction can generate. I suggest you study because you are grossly ignorant of it.

dpenn
09-21-2014, 01:59 PM
dp:



Actually, we do know. The claim that he saw dead bodies comes from a highly edited version of his interview. Where is the FULL uncut 20 min version of the interview? That is what Jennings was upset about. They portrayed him as seeing dead bodies from a highly edited version of the interview.

If you want to ignore that, then fine. Barry Jennings isn't credible so his personal accounts are irrelevant.


L67, I never said that he "said" he saw the bodies. I said that he was told not to look down, and he was well aware that he was stepping over dead bodies. You can doubt what he said to Loose Change, but it seems highly improbable that never occurred. Plus, there are numerous examples of witnesses that were not just coerced into following the scripted story, but threats to go along with that.

Then there is a short clip of Barry Jennings in the Richard Gage presentation in the Toronto Architects and Engineers 911 hearings, shortly after the 1h 18 min mark, shown here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2YrUq2Y_C4

We can play ping pong with this all day long, but we have different opinions on this, and for who knows what reasons.

I then said, Hess maybe never said that, but Jennings did.



Proof?


I am talking about Hess never talked to Loose Change like Jennings. I am not going to try and prove what isn't on record.



Go on. Tell me how. I'm not saying they don't apply at all. I'm saying in their ORIGINAL form they aren't adequate enough. That is something truthers erroneously misinterpret.


Of course I am bringing up Newton's laws of motion. This whole thing is all about those laws.

Of course idealistically physics incorporates the idea of a dimensionless point, but Newton's laws of motion are valid and real for all classical observations.

Are you kidding me, of course they apply perfectly to these towers.



Of course there was expansion and contraction going on because of thermal conditions, but that is all a part of the tests done, first, for the approval rating, then by scientist (including PhD level physicists). These types of expansion and contraction are part of all fires in concrete reinforced steel buildings, and not once in the history of the world, did even one such building collapse symmetrically into its own footprint. Yet we are to believe that WTC1 and WTC2 became the first such case in the world. Then, WTC7, not even struck by a jet, became the 3rd? Come on, who are you working for man?



Right, so you don't really understand it. You just blindly accept what the truther movement says.


It has been many years, but of course I understand that PE is transferred to KE so that there is conservation of momentum and energy. This is basic elementary physics. As for buckling, I understand that it obeys Newton's laws perfectly too, even if the calculations become more difficult. Fortunately, I am not the one doing the calculations, but men like a number of the physicists in the truther movement, working in labs, and doing calculations based on Newton's laws of motion, once again.



Are you kidding me, I told you that I have done many calculations on component forces on trusses, for numerous problem solving exercises in physics. I understand enough to know when I am being conned and when I am not. Of course I don't understand all the components of the calculations involved. Neither do you, unless of course there is something you are not telling me. Most of the professional scientists involved in the AE911 Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth come across with nothing to gain from such accusations and investigations. Whereas, NIST, and the parties aligned with them, have harassed and threatened anyone who opposes, or questions their storyline ... much like what you have been doing here.



So you don't think a few grids being knocked out means anything? You don't think sagging floor trusses would pull the steel columns inward? We know they did, because we have evidence of it. Those grids weren't responsible for stability of the tower? And you don't think gravity plays a role in this? Remember potential energy? Please get real.


I never once said that a few grids being knocked out doesn't mean anything. It means exactly what it means, namely that it was incapable for explaining how a fire induced collapse could cause such an explosive imploding of, not just one, but three buildings on 911.

And what's with your childish questioning of "don't you think gravity plays a role in this"? What's with that? Any high school student knows that the force of gravity enters into Newton's laws. Have you gone delirious? Why should I be the one not to remember PE? I know full well the interrelationship between PE and KE in the conservation of momentum, or energy. If your ideal of getting real means submitting to the most outrageous claims of NIST and their false claims at real science, no thanks. I will stick to real science, thank you.



Now your comparing screens to the WTCS? Brilliant. Just like pot bellied stoves? Wow. Ubelievable.


Both are relevant. Screens form up a grid that, if punctured, will not collapse in on itself, just like the grid of steel beams in WTC1,2,7, that is why they need to be demolished for them to collapse at accelerating free fall of gravity. And pot bellied stoves can burn furniture, paper, and kerosene all day long without weakening and falling into their footprint in your house or cottage, just like fires burning furniture, paper, and kerosene or jet fuel, isn't going to cause these 3 buildings to collapse, without the aid of explosive devices.



When the grids are knocked out the towers lose keep points of stability. On top of all the fire damage.

This is what buckling looks like. And this is exactly what happened to the towers.


No, the stress tests done at the time of construction of these buildings, showed that you could knock out 25% of the grid (that is one complete side), and the remaining grid could handle the additional loads, even in 100 mph winds. And there were much less than 25% of the grid knocked out by the jets, at the most 12-13%.



Really? The scientific method? Where did they demonstrate this magic thermite destroying steel columns? They didn't? When did they do the FITR test that they said needed to be done? They didn't. FITR tests are the only way to islolate the chemicals. It's been five years and nothing.


Yes, they demonstrate from their videos, for example, Jon Cole (lecture on scientific method), Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, and David Chandler at the AE911 Toronto hearings in 2011, and Steven Jones, a physicist who did all kinds of various tests to isolate the components of thermite, nano-thermite, and thermate, not to mention testing energy release testing to show that they within the range of thermite, nano-thermite and thermate.



NIST didn't investigate explosives because there was no evidence of it. It's been 13 years and NOT one truther has presented any credible source for explosives.


I can't believe you could even say such a thing. Law requires that these tests be done at disasters like this. It is a criminal act to suppress such tests. It is standard procedure.



Bullshit. Jones found that the substance they found ignited at 430C(806f). That is much lower than actual thermite. Jones attempted to prove that the aluminum present was elemental, but they didn't use a definitive test to prove this. Dr. Millite did and it was found not to be elemental. Dr. Millete also identified the presence of epoxy, iron oxide, and kaolin. There isn't any nano-thermite that contains epoxy. Period. It's primer paint.

All Jones has to do is whip up a batch and show it destroying steel. Why haven't they done it? Because they KNOW their claims are bullshit. I suggest you real Millete's paper.

Please show examples of a material which is primarily organic, with less than 5% any possible thermitic materials, that can behave like real thermite. (Drum roll, followed by sound of crickets)
Please show us an epoxy-based Iron Oxide primer paint that doesn't have epoxy and Iron Oxide - you can't
Please show us a verified, as in real, sample of nanothermite which is made 80% of Epoxy and Iron Oxide with Kaolin - you can't.


In his tests, Jones compared it to primer paint. I am surprised you are saying this, as he clearly says this in his videos, which you said you watched. There is no comparison, not by chemistry, and not by thermal properties upon testing. The only similarity is that it is red on one side and grey on the other. Is that what you are referring to?

Yes, the activation energy required to cause the dramatic exothermic reaction is low, but the results of the reaction behave like thermite and its cognates mentioned.

Further, you don't just mix this stuff up in a lab. This is a highly complex compound, and only a few specialised labs in the US make it. For a small particle of this, around 1.0 mm by 0.5 mm to have such explosive properties, is proof positive it is not paint. If it was, then I would think a few paint companies around the US are in danger of massive law suits.

I don't know if you caught it or not, from an earlier post, but thermate contains extra elements to thermite, including sulfur and carbon. And this was found proportionately in the soil samples they have. The carbon creates a violent gaseous component to the explosion, causing the thermate to blast through solid steel much more effectively.



WRONG! Iron microsphere are NOT proof of any thermite. All you need is a flame and oxygen. Watch what happens when you light steel wool


Watch what happens when you light steel wool. Every orange circular flame is a microsphere. Pause it at 2 seconds and pay attention to the circular flame furtherest left. What did it turn in to? Microsphere.


Don't you think there is a bit of difference between steel wool, designed to burn explosively, and massive steel beams, that would require at least 2,500 degrees to atomise into iron spheres?



You also say that a building falling can't produce that kind of heat? Are you nuts? Ever heard of friction? Apparently not.

So dry loaded and unlubricated steel surfaces sliding past each other at great speeds couldn't do it? LMAO! There was more than a million square feet of frictional area. That couldn't produce any mircospheres? Please come back to reality. You have no idea the amount of HEAT friction can generate. I suggest you study because you are grossly ignorant of it.


Then why aren't iron spheres found regularly at other sites of steel buildings imploding by fire? Oh, I forgot, this has never happened before. So you don't have the proof either. The only way you get iron spheres is if you recover it from a thermite demolished steel building. Oh yea, that is exactly what this is all about.

Questions:

1. Why in watching the twin towers collapsing, do we see the top sections exploding above the point where the planes crashed, with the north tower falling freely in the middle, the place of strongest core resistance, and away from the point of entry of the jets, at the edge of the building?

2. Why do we see horizontal expulsions of steel beams at such high velocities?

3. Why are there pools of molten steel, that some workers said were, "like pools of flowing lava"? NIST said that liquid steel was not created.

4. And if liquid steel was not created, what created the iron spheres?

I could go on and on, with question after question, but let's just leave at this.

dp

L67
09-21-2014, 05:20 PM
dp:



L67, I never said that he "said" he saw the bodies. I said that he was told not to look down, and he was well aware that he was stepping over dead bodies. You can doubt what he said to Loose Change, but it seems highly improbable that never occurred. Plus, there are numerous examples of witnesses that were not just coerced into following the scripted story, but threats to go along with that.

We can play ping pong with this all day long, but we have different opinions on this, and for who knows what reasons.

dpenn,

Do you remember this? You certainly did say Jennings was stepping over dead bodies. Post 101.

It was after he reached the 8th floor that WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed. Later, when he and Hess were rescued from WTC7, he was stepping over dead bodies, amidst massive destruction in the lobby. Just hours earlier, he had passed through this same lobby, which at that time, was untouched by destruction.





Of course there was expansion and contraction going on because of thermal conditions, but that is all a part of the tests done, first, for the approval rating, then by scientist (including PhD level physicists). These types of expansion and contraction are part of all fires in concrete reinforced steel buildings, and not once in the history of the world, did even one such building collapse symmetrically into its own footprint. Yet we are to believe that WTC1 and WTC2 became the first such case in the world. Then, WTC7, not even struck by a jet, became the 3rd? Come on, who are you working for man?

And could you name just one instance where two jetliners were rammed into buildings going 500mph? There hasn't been any situations like this because there hasn't been any circumstances like this. PLus, they didn't collapse into their own footprint.

Piss on you and conspiracy about who I'm working for. That's just a bullshit distraction. I'm just a regular person who knows an ignorant deluded person when I see one.



Are you kidding me, I told you that I have done many calculations on component forces on trusses, for numerous problem solving exercises in physics. I understand enough to know when I am being conned and when I am not. Of course I don't understand all the components of the calculations involved. Neither do you, unless of course there is something you are not telling me. Most of the professional scientists involved in the AE911 Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth come across with nothing to gain from such accusations and investigations. Whereas, NIST, and the parties aligned with them, have harassed and threatened anyone who opposes, or questions their storyline ... much like what you have been doing here.

No, I'm not kidding you. Your deflection PROVES you don't know what you are talking about. All you do is cite AE911 for reference. I am asking YOU to explain it. If you can't explain it, then how do you know their right?






I never once said that a few grids being knocked out doesn't mean anything. It means exactly what it means, namely that it was incapable for explaining how a fire induced collapse could cause such an explosive imploding of, not just one, but three buildings on 911.

Bare assertion noted.



And what's with your childish questioning of "don't you think gravity plays a role in this"? What's with that? Any high school student knows that the force of gravity enters into Newton's laws. Have you gone delirious? Why should I be the one not to remember PE? I know full well the interrelationship between PE and KE in the conservation of momentum, or energy. If your ideal of getting real means submitting to the most outrageous claims of NIST and their false claims at real science, no thanks. I will stick to real science, thank you.

Because your comments indicate a GROSS misconception of the most fundamentals to science. You can't tell me in your own words why the towers couldn't have collapsed. You simply regurgitate AE911 with no way of knowing if it's true or not. You only believe AE911 because it confirms your cognitive bias.




Both are relevant. Screens form up a grid that, if punctured, will not collapse in on itself, just like the grid of steel beams in WTC1,2,7, that is why they need to be demolished for them to collapse at accelerating free fall of gravity. And pot bellied stoves can burn furniture, paper, and kerosene all day long without weakening and falling into their footprint in your house or cottage, just like fires burning furniture, paper, and kerosene or jet fuel, isn't going to cause these 3 buildings to collapse, without the aid of explosive devices.

No, they are not. Do you think before you speak?


Do screens have thousands of tons of weight to withstand? No.

Do screens rely on core supports and floor trusses to stay intact? No.

Do screens have to bear more weight due to failure of other key supports? No.

Now tell me what happens when you put enough weight that has gained momentum on a punctured screen. It's going to collapse. A screen was NEVER designed to withstand weight. Your comparison of a screen to the twin towers is beyond freaking moronic because the floor trusses on the towers were used to STABILIZE the support beams.

And you again compare the towers to a stove. WOW.

Stoves are specifically designed to withstand temperatures expected to be encountered, over and over again. They are designed with air flow, heat shielding, heat resistant materials and coatings etc. Plus, the oven is never expected or designed to be under any load other than its own.

It's a stupid comparison from Jones to appease the stupidity of the gullible.







No, the stress tests done at the time of construction of these buildings, showed that you could knock out 25% of the grid (that is one complete side), and the remaining grid could handle the additional loads, even in 100 mph winds. And there were much less than 25% of the grid knocked out by the jets, at the most 12-13%.

What stress tests? As far as I am aware, there are no records left. Please cite your source.





Yes, they demonstrate from their videos, for example, Kevin Ryan and David Chandler at the AE911 Toronto hearings in 2011, and Steven Jones, a physicist who did all kinds of various tests to isolate the components of thermite, nano-thermite, and thermate, not to mention testing energy release testing to show that they within the range of thermite, nano-thermite and thermate.

They did NOTHING of the sort. I'll get to that below.




I can't believe you could even say such a thing. Law requires that these tests be done at disasters like this. It is a criminal act to suppress such tests. It is standard procedure.

They did consider the explosive hypothesis. How much is anyones guess.




In his tests, Jones compared it to primer paint. I am surprised you are saying this, as he clearly says this in his videos, which you said you watched. There is no comparison, not by chemistry, and not by thermal properties upon testing. The only similarity is that it is red on one side and grey on the other. Is that what you are referring to?

WRONG! FITR tests are the only test that can isolate the chemical compounds. Jones said it needed to be done and that they had the results. Where are they? They were guessing at the chemicals in those chips. Dr Millete's paper is much more thorough and PROVES the chips aren't thermitic. READ IT!

You CANNOT identify thermite using a DSC scan. That is what Jones claims identifies thermite. BULLSHIT! The only way you can determine whether thermite is present is to do a number of tests which show elemental Aluminum in a stoichiometric ratio with Iron Oxide. The Harrit team didn't do that, they've said they would do so, but haven't. That was 5 years ago. When half a million tons of primer-coated steelwork collapses, one might expect a proportion of the ensuing dust to contain chips of primer paint, and be prepared to distinguish these from any other types of material. Jones NEVER did the appropiate test to confirm true thermite.The DSC can't show you whether something is explosive or not. That's not what it does. This is a common thermitist misunderstanding.It just gives you the decomp of the material as it's heated. You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.


Did you know Dr Millette presented this report to a conference of forensic experts? Has Jones and company every done the same? Hell no!


Yes, the activation energy required to cause the dramatic exothermic reaction is low, but the results of the reaction behave like thermite and its cognates mentioned.

No it doesn't. A true thermitic reaction is much much higher than 430c. You have been duped.


Further, you don't just mix this stuff up in a lab. This is a highly complex compound, and only a few specialised labs in the US make it. For a small particle of this, around 1.0 mm by 0.5 mm to have such explosive properties, is proof positive it is not paint. If it was, then I would think a few paint companies around the US are in danger of massive law suits.

I see. So it's super secret stuff? lol. Nope. The chemicals have been identified by an EXPERT and there is no thermite present Period. Then it's quite erroneous for Jones to claim its thermite, when he hasn't done the relevant test, nor has he demonstrated it.


I don't know if you caught it or not, from an earlier post, but thermate contains extra elements to thermite, including sulfur and carbon. And this was found proportionately in the soil samples they have. The carbon creates a violent gaseous component to the explosion, causing the thermate to blast through solid steel much more effectively.

No, that's the horseshit they have led you to believe. You won't read Millette's paper because you have no interest in the truth.

You never explained how epoxy, iron oxide, and kaolin could thermite. I'll wait for that one.




Don't you think there is a bit of difference between steel wool, designed to burn explosively, and massive steel beams, that would require at least 2,500 degrees to atomise into iron spheres?

No. It simply demonstrates that small pieces of iron produced by rusting and friction can turn into microspheres at normal fire temperatures. The other video of steel burning in a barrel proves that as well. Something you ignored.

Friction of massive steel beams can and do cause microspheres. There would literally be TONS of them. I suggest you study friction.





Then why aren't iron spheres found regularly at other sites of steel buildings imploding by fire? Oh, I forgot, this has never happened before. So you don't have the proof either. The only way you get iron spheres is if you recover it from a thermite demolished steel building. Oh yea, that is exactly what this is all about.

How do you know there isn't?

And you have demonstrated your ignorance on how microspheres are formed.

Questions:


1. Why in watching the twin towers collapsing, do we see the top sections exploding above the point where the planes crashed, with the north tower falling freely in the middle, the place of strongest core resistance, and away from the point of entry of the jets, at the edge of the building?

Yea, cores that were destroyed when a jet rammed through the middle at 500mph. We don't see anything like you describe. The north tower collapses right at the point of entry by the jet.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yLydfiKbBo&list=UUeWXHma8GQvbfPy9zxWdRfA&index=23


2. Why do we see horizontal expulsions of steel beams at such high velocities?

Gravity and an average (negative) force caused by a succession of impacts from beneath as it was both destroying, and being destroyed by, the building it was falling into.


3. Why are there pools of molten steel, that some workers said were, "like pools of flowing lava"? NIST said that liquid steel was not created.

No evidence of that. So it's moot.


4. And if liquid steel was not created, what created the iron spheres?

Friction.

Friction on steel itself creates microspheres. Every time you have seen a bright spark it has been a whole bunch of microspheres you have been looking at.

And how many thousands of square feet of steel were subjected to friction when 106 floors slid down 250 (was it?) columns for 1350 feet??

Work it out. It ball-parks out to between 10 and 100 tons of scraped-off steel microspheres. (As a Fermi calculation).


I could go on and on, with question after question, but let's just leave at this.

dp

There is no need to go any further. Your arguments nonsense.

dpenn
09-21-2014, 05:41 PM
I have included individual YouTube links and titles for most of the Toronto Hearings for 911:

* of special interest

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 - James Gourley & Lorie Van – Day 1
Introduction to the Hearings and the Panel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOLCb8Vx4_c

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 - Lance deHaven-Smith - Day 1
9/11 & State Crimes Against Democracy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UYPziSx4fM

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut - David Ray Griffin - Day 1 *
Inadequacies of the 9/11 Commission’s Report *
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xzGOG_D4bs

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut - Kevin Ryan - Day 1 *
Inadequacies of the Reports by the National Institute of Standards and Technology *
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltgJLzMtbyM

or more thoroughly with screen displays: *
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lu8VAjYa6Q

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut - Jay Kolar - Day 2
The Alleged 9/11 Hijackers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IXSq9OioHg

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut - Paul Zarembka - Day 2
Evidence of Insider Trading Before 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smHeU_gX5Mg

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11- B. Honegger, R. Gage, & M. Chossudovsky Day 2
Eyewitnesses and Evidence of Explosions at the Pentagon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2YrUq2Y_C4

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11- Barbara Honegger Day 2 *
Eyewitnesses and Evidence of Explosions at the Pentagon *
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQguLmOEGYM

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11- Michel Chossudovsky Day 2 *
Global Consequences of 9/11 *
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPIfgmuN4ns

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 - Rep. Cynthia McKinney – Day 2
Attempts to Raise Questions about 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tkh7AepJoQg
then
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7ROidNMj_A

The Toronto Hearings - 09/11 – Q&A – Day 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UW8zC8BN2sk

The Toronto Hearings 9//11 - Graeme MacQueen – Day 3
Eyewitness Evidence of Explosions at WTC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UPwJGZfHbo
* (see esp. 44m50s mark for female Port Authority testimony of bombs)

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut - David Chandler – Day 3 *
WTC 7: A Refutation of the Official Account *
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An2GCp-VWXs

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut - Jonathan Cole – Day 3 *
The Official Account and the Experimental Method *
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhlrqyIIbO8

The Toronto Hearings 9/11 - Kevin Ryan – Day 3 *
Extreme Temperatures *
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYWE2QKjerg
or this one, inferior quality, but with slides:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7G3LMdg4IY

The Toronto Hearings - 9/11 - Niels Harrit – Day 3 *
Incendiary/Explosive Residue in the WTC Dust *
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNPeMvsSbl4

The Toronto Hearings - 09/11 – Q&A – Day 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuBM4pAfUq0

The Toronto Hearings - 9/11 - David Ray Griffin – Day 4 *
Anomalies of Flights 77 and 93 *
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZMO-a8YRFs

The Toronto Hearings - 9/11 - Peter Dale Scott – Day 4
9/11 and Deep State Politics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Iv6aqnIJNQ

The Toronto Hearings - 9/11 - Laurie Manwell – Day 4
SCADs and Psychological Resistance to Alternative Accounts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCY_vopQbRk

The Toronto Hearings - 09/11 - Senator Mike Gravel – Day 4
State Deception in the Past and Today
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQDgp742bcQ

The Toronto Hearings - 09/11 – Q&A – Day 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMe-tn1S0RQ

dp

I have updated a few videos in the Toronto AE911 hearings list, so I have re-posted it.

dp

dpenn
09-21-2014, 06:49 PM
dp:



dpenn,

Do you remember this? You certainly did say Jennings was stepping over dead bodies. Post 101.

It was after he reached the 8th floor that WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed. Later, when he and Hess were rescued from WTC7, he was stepping over dead bodies, amidst massive destruction in the lobby. Just hours earlier, he had passed through this same lobby, which at that time, was untouched by destruction.


I don't know when they re-entered the building, or how many. I only know he said this. Your beef is with him, and he isn't alive or around anymore.



You only believe AE911 because it confirms your cognitive bias.


For a number of years following 911, I bought into the scripted storyline, hook, line and sinker. It was a slow process for me to come to the convictions that would overturn my earlier opinions. It took disciplined research and objective openness. And you are right, I only believe AE911 because it confirms my cognitive bias. As if you don't have a bias in this discussion.



Now tell me what happens when you put enough weight that has gained momentum on a punctured screen. It's going to collapse. A screen was NEVER designed to withstand weight. Your comparison of a screen to the twin towers is beyond freaking moronic because the floor trusses on the towers were used to STABILIZE the support beams.

And you again compare the towers to a stove. WOW.

Stoves are specifically designed to withstand temperatures expected to be encountered, over and over again. They are designed with air flow, heat shielding, heat resistant materials and coatings etc. Plus, the oven is never expected or designed to be under any load other than its own.

It's a stupid comparison from Jones to appease the stupidity of the gullible.


It should be obvious that these are analogies. But the principle in both is real. It is as absurd to think that jets and jet fuel and office furniture could bring down 3 concrete reinforced steel buildings on 911. Add to this, that they imploded symmetrically, downward, rather than toppling over to the side, to the path of least resistance, and it is unthinkable, scientifically.



What stress tests? As far as I am aware, there are no records left. Please cite your source.


All high rise buildings have to demonstrate that their buildings can withstand stress loads of various kinds, in order for them to pass inspection.



They did consider the explosive hypothesis. How much is anyones guess.


They did not. They flatly said they were not going to test for that.



FITR tests are the only test that can isolate the chemical compounds. Jones said it needed to be done and that they had the results. Where are they? They were guessing at the chemicals in those chips. Dr Millete's paper is much more thorough and PROVES the chips aren't thermitic. READ IT!

You CANNOT identify thermite using a DSC scan. That is what Jones claims identifies thermite. BULLSHIT! The only way you can determine whether thermite is present is to do a number of tests which show elemental Aluminum in a stoichiometric ratio with Iron Oxide. The Harrit team didn't do that, they've said they would do so, but haven't. That was 5 years ago. When half a million tons of primer-coated steelwork collapses, one might expect a proportion of the ensuing dust to contain chips of primer paint, and be prepared to distinguish these from any other types of material. Jones NEVER did the appropiate test to confirm true thermite.The DSC can't show you whether something is explosive or not. That's not what it does. This is a common thermitist misunderstanding.It just gives you the decomp of the material as it's heated. You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

Did you know Dr Millette presented this report to a conference of forensic experts? Has Jones and company every done the same? Hell no!


Jones was able to show that the red-grey chips produced exothermic reactions in the range of thermite. I don't know why he has not done the FITR tests yet, but his tests demonstrate that it had to be something of the thermite family. And the evidence of the videos of the imploding buildings corroborates that.

Why would they refuse to do the explosives testing, and why did they ship all of the steel away immediately? How convenient.



You never explained how epoxy, iron oxide, and kaolin could thermite. I'll wait for that one.


Jones did a complete elemental analysis of the dust, and the thermite material showed up in the red-grey particles. I don't know where you get your mixing of the ingredients you suggest. Jones is a physics teacher, and he even lost his job for standing up to the convictions he held. I don't buy what you say at all.

And I think the reason you have to try almost anything to answer for the iron spheres present at a quantity of 5.87%, quite a high percentage, because all demolition savvy scientists know that thermite demolitions leave this kind of residue of iron spheres.




The north tower collapses right at the point of entry by the jet.


Why doesn't that surprise me, in light of what occurred on 911 and beyond, up to the present?




And how many thousands of square feet of steel were subjected to friction when 106 floors slid down 250 (was it?) columns for 1350 feet??

Work it out. It ball-parks out to between 10 and 100 tons of scraped-off steel microspheres. (As a Fermi calculation).


I know AE911 scientists calculate that there were in the neighbourhood of 100,000 tons of solid, integrated, grid bound steel below the point of collision on each tower. Gage, in his talk, shows how this is like a vokeswagon running into a semi. Picture a little volkswagon suspended above the semi, both placed on end, and then imagine that little volkswagon falling at free fall through the full length of the semi, imploding into powder and pools of melted steel.

You see, in a demolition, you blast away the central cores, first, then the centre implosion draws in the sides, to prevent them from falling outward, all timed for a perfectly symmetrical collapse into its footprint. Of course, secondary thermite charges have to be set, timely, in order for the whole collapse to work in unison, using falling force of material to set off a chain reaction, using above energy to continue to implode downward, floor by floor. This is exactly what you observe on all 3 buildings on 911. There have been massively worse fires on steel framed buildings around the world, that have burned hotter and much longer, and not one of them fell, let alone imploded symmetrically, like a designed demolition.




There is no need to go any further. Your arguments nonsense.


You're right ... thanks for coming out. Hopefully anyone reading these posts, if they are not convinced already, will begin a quest of their own, to try and make some sense out of all of this.

I am glad of one thing, you have given me a good set of arguments, and I will have to follow up on some of your suggestions. But at this point, the evidence is just too overwhelming to even think it is not as the AE911 scientists say. I am not an expert, so I refer to the arguments of those who are, as do you.

But I have studied many other aspects of this, which brings us to the world scene today. I know most Americans love their country, but that can't be at the expense of truth and dignity. If truth falls in the streets, then the US and its allies are really no different than a tyrannical N Korea. I appreciate the freedoms that I have experienced in Canada throughout my life, and no doubt some of those have been acquired by very evil means. And although I am thankful that I don't live in the chaos of so many other countries, I could never accept criminal action to maintain our civilities. We are countries of laws. And only as we maintain the checks and balances of the legal systems that gave us such a heritage, will we continue to function in those capacities. We are in danger of being led into a world conflict that may very well strip that away.

dp

dpenn
09-23-2014, 11:59 AM
dp:

Seeing that my predictions came true, it might be fitting for me to re-post the questions that got this ball rolling in the first place. After all, it is the 1st day of THE FALL, I mean the 1st day of Fall. I think I see clearly now why Obama supposedly withdrew troops from Iraq. It enabled them to stage their new Al Qaeda foot soldiers, now called ISIS/ISIL/IS, to march across the Levant to Iraq, photo-shoot some beheadings, then chase some Kurds up a mountain, take over a damn site, only to return like a yoyo to Syria, just in time for their MASTER, I mean, US/NATO and 5 Arab puppet states to pretend to take them out. They sure have gotten a lot of mileage out of these Jihadists over the past few decades. We all know what happens next ... they just won't be able to resist going all the way to take out Assad. But wasn't that there original plan all along? I guess the world is a stage, and the West needs more action reality TV.

Let me repeat, I don't like the teaching of Islam: I believe Mohammad was a false prophet; I don't like the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church: I believe the Vatican has twisted the Scriptures heretically, and the pope is a usurper of the office of Apostle; I don't like the teaching of Talmudist, Kabbalistic, Gematria driven Judaism: I believe the Scriptures have a very plain and straight-forward interpretation, open and clear to all, and that this hidden, mystery teaching contradicts the authoritative teaching of Jesus Christ.

I am a believer in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour of the world, presented in the historic, biblical interpretation of the Bible, the Scriptures being our only standard for faith and practise. So I don't have a war pony in this fight. But as much as I hate the evil and sinful actions of the Jihadists, I also despise their western masters, along with their Arabic pay masters. To say that you are against terrorism, and then to use terrorists numerous times to expand your NWO is itself an act of terrorism.

I don't know where this all leads, but it sure makes me wonder who the Beast of Revelation really is. May God have mercy on our deluded and misguided souls.



There may be mixed reactions to the source of some of my video clips, but if you don't buy them, prove them wrong. Before bringing a few more details to bear, here is a recent interview of a 1st responder NY Fireman just a couple days ago:

Lee Ann McAdoo on Infowars – 911 Firefighter Blows WTC 7 Cover Up Wide Open
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQrpLp-X0ws&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

A few more points to insist that 911 was an inside job (Joe covered WTC 7 already):

1. A mock terrorist attack was being executed that day by NORAD, mimicking ongoing terrorist attacks, so that anything observed as real terrorism could be chalked up to a training exercise.

2. How could the US Defense possibly not have activated jet fighters the minute the so-called hijacked jets went off radar course, and especially after the first Tower was struck?

3. How could the Pentagon be struck by a large jet liner, making a looping 270 degree steep turn, to spiral down to ground level for the strike? The presumed hijack pilot couldn’t even handle a Sesna in his training. There were even experienced jet pilots who said they couldn’t navigate the aircraft to that precision.

4. There was no initial aircraft debris from the crash site at the Pentagon. There was just one circular hole through the 5 (correct that to the outer 3) layers of super reinforced concrete. This is surprising since the weakest part of the aircraft is the pilot cone and fuselage. What happened to the engines? Why no engine holes in the Pentagon wall? A presumed engine that miraculously appeared on the scene a little later was a total mismatch for the jet liner.

5. Why was there no discernable parts from the jet that was presumably downed over Shanksville? Why no bodies? Why no landing gear, engine parts, or tail section?

6. Why was WTC 7 completely left out of the 911 Report?

7. Why were all witnesses with a different story line ignored in the 911 Report?

8. Why do so many of the anniversaries of 911 refuse to admit first responders? You would think they would be given front row seats and heralded as heroes. Could it be because so many of them know that the official story line is a treasonous lie?

9. Why do so many professional architects, structural engineers, and demolition experts insist that a complete investigation needs to be carried out on 911 because they just don’t buy the existing official story line? What do they have to gain?

10. How did the terrorist passports survive these horrific explosive sites, when all else was just vaporized?

11. What about the evidence that 5 of the 19 terrorists have been found to be still living, with 2 of them even being interviewed, and yet the official story is cast in stone?

12. Why, when 15 of the 19 supposed terrorists were Saudi’s, would you attack Afghanistan and then Iraq?

13. Why has no one ever forced the gov’t to explain why they used fake Bin Laden video? The dummy fake Bin Laden doesn’t even look like the real one, plus he is right handed, not left handed, and he is wearing a ring and a watch, something a Taliban would never do.

What is the fruit of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan?

1. Devastation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq is a powder keg of instability, and Afghanistan has been turned into the world’s number 1 opium producing nation of the world, with US troops forced to oversee the poppy fields. Plus ongoing drone strikes into Pakistan, on who knows what targets?

2. Extended destabilization of Libya and Egypt, funding and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in pulling off political coups, overthrowing the govt’s of Khadaffi and Mubaraq, dictators, but choir boys compared to the current regimes.

3. Why the attempted military overthrow of Assad in Syria? Why would the US and allies fund and provide military support and weaponry to rebels that are 100 times more vile than a secular Islamic dictator like Assad?

4. Why the Benghazi stand-down? Who ordered it and why? Keep in mind it cost the life of an American Ambassador. What of all the high level stories of a Fast and Furious like arming of the Sunni rebels, to overthrow Assad’s regime? Recall Joe Biden even visiting the rebels fighting in Syria.

5. How could ISIL, ISIS, IS, Al Qaeda, Al CIAda, or whatever their current name is, get the money and weapons to do what they are doing? Especially since there is strong evidence that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Turkey and Jordan are supporting them from the Arab side, and strong evidence that US, Britain, France, and Israel are funding them from the NATO side. Not to mention, high level leaks that it all came from Benghazi.

6. Why was ISSIS not dealt with in the open desert, when they could have obliterated them? Surely with their beheading of 300,000 Christians, Muslims, and many other relatively innocent people in their wake, they were a greater threat than Khadaffi, Mubaraq, or Assad. Yet these were the chosen answer to all of NATO’s desire to overthrow Assad. Why was NATO and the US just shadow boxing with ISIS, but now suddenly, they are prepared to attack them in Syria? Will they "accidentally" attack Assad, by missiles that fly over their cuckoo’s nest? If they turn this into an Assad coup, from an ISIS strike gone bad, what then? A new central bank in Syria? Will the Zionists celebrate a fulfillment of Isaiah 17:1 and how Damascus is destroyed and uninhabitable? Are we really sure this is a futurist prophesy that the US is ordained by God to fulfill?

7. Why would Ukraine suddenly overthrow their duly elected President, after they voted to not enter the EU? Why would Obama say he was replaced with a legitimate replacement, when he was merely an appointed banker for the EU? Only later did they have a seemingly legitimately elected President.

8. Why is it so wrong for Russia to have naval bases in the Crimea, but it is ok for the US to have a base at Guantanamo?

9. What about MH17? Why was it given orders to fly through a war zone? Why did it drop its flight altitude from 35,000 ft to 32-33,000 ft, to then be in range to be hit by a ground missile? Who really fired the missile?

10. Why do so many US survivors of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty still insist that they were intentionally attacked by Israeli Air Force and Navy in the 1967 war? Many Americans lost their lives on that day. And why did Pres Johnson and McNamara order any response to stand-down, not coming to their rescue for many hours, all the while the USS Liberty was flying a huge American flag? It had all the appearance of making it look like the USS Liberty was being attacked by Egyptian fighter jets to draw the US into the conflict. But at the cost of one of her own ships, and even more valuable, her own men?

11. Why are the US borders left open for almost anybody and their dog to cross, while at the same time ISIS terrorist alerts are at an all-time high? Why are Americans being fined if they cross the border, but illegal aliens are given a blind eye, and even flown at tax payer expense to locations around the US, with children even being admitted to schools without a physical to make sure they are not carrying some contagious disease. All of this when the ebola threat is epidemic world-wise. And why can illegal aliens enter US at will, but US citizens are forced to undergo embarrassing and time-consuming body searches?

12. What will Russia do if Syria is attacked by US? Why is the Sunni coalition so willing to fund and attack the Shia Muslims, including their strategic partner, Syria? I realize that there are great threats to Israel, but Assad has been at peace with Israel. Is it really Israel, or is it something more financial or business oriented?

13. Is it possible these are advanced steps required to maneuver a NWO on a traumatized world? What happens if the lid blows off, and it unleashes WWIII? For certain, some would welcome such a population reduction and an elite money jackpot, but have the world leaders really counted the cost? And what if the Zionists have misread Scripture? What then?

Well, for the Gematria driven hordes, I have listed two sets of baker’s dozen, of why we should be very concerned about what is transpiring before our very eyes in the wake of 911. I am a Canadian, but I am a thinking, conscientious Canadian, and one who would love to, as much as is possible, live at peace with all people.

In conclusion, consider a few videos that Alex Jones and Infowars have posted:

Lee Ann McAdoo on Alex Jones – America Mercenaries Threaten War with Russia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAn6qHfdyvw&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg&index=75

Alex Jones – A Brief History of ISIS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EotykLKuouw&index=67&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

Lee Ann McAdoo on Alex Jones – Obama Wants $500 million to Arm ISIS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCWpDsaabmM&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

Lt Col Tony Shaffer on Alex Jones – Secrets of the 28 page 911 Report Released
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO6xwmNXeZI&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

Jerome Corsi on Alex Jones – Historical Foundation of ISIS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5-BpJ0fi1k&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

Alex Jones Breakdown of the ISIS Threat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnuh1l5Qcxk&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

dpenn
09-23-2014, 01:33 PM
dp:


dp:

Seeing that my predictions came true (newly added: that is, NATO attacking ISIS in Syria) ... After all, it is the 1st day of THE FALL, I mean the 1st day of Fall. I think I see clearly now why Obama supposedly withdrew troops from Iraq. It enabled them to stage their new Al Qaeda foot soldiers, now called ISIS/ISIL/IS, to march across the Levant to Iraq, photo-shoot some beheadings, then chase some Kurds up a mountain, take over a damn site, only to return like a yoyo to Syria, just in time for their MASTER, I mean, US/NATO and 5 Arab puppet states to pretend to take them out. They sure have gotten a lot of mileage out of these Jihadists over the past few decades. We all know what happens next ... they just won't be able to resist going all the way to take out Assad. But wasn't that there original plan all along? I guess the world is a stage, and the West needs more action reality TV.



Have you heard the most recent? Turkey who sat out of the attacks on ISIS, is being accused of supplying ISIS (aka ISIL, IS, Al qaeda, Al CIAda) their war oil via the black market. NATO and allies sure have been covering their bases, as so many questions have been leveled against their attack force. Is this another case of plausible denial? After all, one might not only ask, who is providing the funds and weaponry to ISIS, but also who is supplying all the oil necessary for their war engine?

Another suspicious event occurred when Syria was attempting to take out an ISIS threat, and Israel shot down Syria's jet, unprecedented in 30+ years. You'd think that Israel would want to see ISIS defeated ... or would they? Keep in mind, the 50 moderate rebel fighters in Syria, known by Saudi Arabia, meeting to devise a war strategy to take out ISIS, suddenly had their building blown up, killing all leaders ... suspicious?

dp

David M
09-24-2014, 04:37 AM
Had anyone expected the twin towers to collapse at all? If they were not expected to collapse in the way that they did as a result of the plane crashing into them, then it could be that others might have had some plans to cause more chaos and trauma at the scene. A multiple attack in different ways could have been planned. Whether it was inside job by the US government seems unlikely.


Looking at the construction of the lift arrangement and the fact that the plane's fuel would have leaked into the lift shafts, it is not surprising fires were seen starting below the floors where the plane entered the building. According to the plan I have just looked at, there is no one central contiguous core. The main lifts are split into three sections and the majority of lifts begin at the same floor levels.

I have been trying to find out quickly what the weight of the mast/spire on top of the building was. Once that began to fall and accelerate, it would be like a spear thrust through the center of the building. The spire in retrospect appears to be like the 'Sword of Damaclees' hanging over the tower. From the footage of the second tower falling, the collapse begins where the plane entered. There is no apparent falling below where the plane struck (before of after) the building collapses at the top. Given the plane had weakened the upper third core of lifts, and core below also weakened by possible fires, once the spire came crashing down, the force of that on the second core of lifts below offered very little resistance and that transmitted to the core of the lowest third of the building, meant that had to collapse as well by he shear weight and momentum of all the material above. Since both buildings collapsed similarly and only one had the mast/spire on top, the mast/spire might not have been so contributory to the collapse because of the construction of the building in the way that it was designed.

To have had such a spectacular collapse of both twin towers was not what was expected by anyone; not even those who flew the planes into the building. At least those people who flew the planes only had a vision of what damage they thought might happen and are not alive to glory in what they would consider to be an exceptional result.

dpenn
09-24-2014, 10:19 AM
dp:



Had anyone expected the twin towers to collapse at all? If they were not expected to collapse in the way that they did as a result of the plane crashing into them, then it could be that others might have had some plans to cause more chaos and trauma at the scene. A multiple attack in different ways could have been planned. Whether it was inside job by the US government seems unlikely.


David, not only does an inside job by the US govt seem unlikely, it seems insane, criminal, unbelievable. But it didn't have to be the whole govt, it could just have been rogue elements in the govt, military, and intelligence sectors. It would still be evil, treasonous action, beyond comprehension. But the evidence demands it.



Looking at the construction of the lift arrangement and the fact that the plane's fuel would have leaked into the lift shafts, it is not surprising fires were seen starting below the floors where the plane entered the building. According to the plan I have just looked at, there is no one central contiguous core. The main lifts are split into three sections and the majority of lifts begin at the same floor levels.


We are back again to the jet fuel being the cause for the weakening of the steel. When jets from either twin tower struck the buildings, at least 1/3 of their fuel exploded in massive fireballs outside, 1/3 probably burned up on the floors, at kerosene level heat, well below the temperature to even threaten the structure of steel, and at the most, the last 1/3 might have leaked down the elevator shafts in the centre core, not much fuel left to be dispersed over the remaining 70+ floors below, that is assuming it would even ignite down there. And even if it did ignite, you are left with a small dispersed amount of fuel trying to damage an even more massive inner core.



I have been trying to find out quickly what the weight of the mast/spire on top of the building was. Once that began to fall and accelerate, it would be like a spear thrust through the center of the building. The spire in retrospect appears to be like the 'Sword of Damaclees' hanging over the tower. From the footage of the second tower falling, the collapse begins where the plane entered. There is no apparent falling below where the plane struck (before of after) the building collapses at the top. Given the plane had weakened the upper third core of lifts, and core below also weakened by possible fires, once the spire came crashing down, the force of that on the second core of lifts below offered very little resistance and that transmitted to the core of the lowest third of the building, meant that had to collapse as well by he shear weight and momentum of all the material above. Since both buildings collapsed similarly and only one had the mast/spire on top, the mast/spire might not have been so contributory to the collapse because of the construction of the building in the way that it was designed.


David, I think you must have been reading too many comics to come up with this 'Sword of Damaclees' version of the destruction of the inner core. If you watch any of the videos of the collapses of the towers, you will notice that the top block of floors were literally exploding into disintegration as they were descending, even before they hit the much more massive and resistant block of floors below the jet entry points. All of the floor below still retained all of their resistant grid structure to withstand much more force than the shattered, reduced mass that hit them. And this should have prevented an accelerating collapsing implosion of the buildings.

btw, your 'Sword of Damaclees' wasn't present in the other tower. What caused that inner core collapse, as both were seen to fall at symmetrical, near free-fall, accelerating velocities. And what ever happened to WTC7? A jet never even hit that building.



To have had such a spectacular collapse of both twin towers was not what was expected by anyone; not even those who flew the planes into the building. At least those people who flew the planes only had a vision of what damage they thought might happen and are not alive to glory in what they would consider to be an exceptional result.

What if those who flew the planes into the buildings were the rogue military element, steering and maneuvering the planes electronically. They have had this technology for more than 20 years. It has been talked about publicly for decades. If this is true, and the evidence toward it is overwhelming, then sadly, I think those people are probably still alive to "glory" in the outcome of their sick and perverted, and treasonous actions.

Watch the following videos from a few lectures at the Toronto Hearings for 911 Truth:

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut - Kevin Ryan - Day 1
Inadequacies of the Reports by the National Institute of Standards and Technology
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lu8VAjYa6Q

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut - Jonathan Cole – Day 3
The Official Account and the Experimental Method
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhlrqyIIbO8

btw, if you are just interested in a consolidated "home-brew" of thermite experiment by Cole, watch:

Jonathan Cole - 911 Thermate Debate - AE911Truth.org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkC_efCQCb8

The Toronto Hearings 9/11 - Kevin Ryan – Day 3
Extreme Temperatures
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYWE2QKjerg
or this one, inferior quality, but with slides:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7G3LMdg4IY

The Toronto Hearings - 9/11 - Niels Harrit – Day 3
Incendiary/Explosive Residue in the WTC Dust
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNPeMvsSbl4

btw, almost everyone has ignored what happened at the Pentagon. You might want to watch the following video:

- this video is not as clear as her stand alone one (2nd link below), but it shows the accompanying displays:

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11- B. Honegger, R. Gage, & M. Chossudovsky Day 2
Eyewitnesses and Evidence of Explosions at the Pentagon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2YrUq2Y_C4

- this video is complete, and superior in quality, but doesn't have the accompanying slide show:

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11- Barbara Honegger Day 2
Eyewitnesses and Evidence of Explosions at the Pentagon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQguLmOEGYM

The Toronto Hearings - 9/11 - David Ray Griffin – Day 4
Anomalies of Flights 77 and 93
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZMO-a8YRFs


dp

Silence
09-25-2014, 05:52 AM
Of all the theories I have heard about WHY the towers were blown up, the one put forward here- http://911justicehalifax.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/conspiracy-of-the-chinese-gold-taken-by-the-us/ makes the most sense. Below is an excerpt in italics.

1938 China. The Japanese are invading China and plundering their newly conquered territory (and doing a lot of other bad things as well). The Chinese Banker elites and secret societies (i.e., the Dragon Family) have control of most of the gold and wealth of the nation and want to put most of it somewhere safe. The United States elites have stepped up to assist them, and the stock of gold is loaded about 6 US Naval Ships bound for safety in America. The US Federal Reserve criminal organization provides the Chinese with bonds as collateral for the gold, and the US criminal agency promises to return the gold to China in sixty years.

Late 1970′s and Early 1980’s Recognition of Mao’s government by the US government. Nixon met with the Chinese government, which was touted later as Nixon’s “Opening Up” of China for world trade. At that time, the Mao government demanded the return of the gold given in 1938. The Nixon government was somewhat firm since the 60 year term was not completed yet. Some gold was returned (I have heard numbers of around 200 million dollars worth — but this was when gold was worth less than $100 per ounce).

1998 – The Agreement Time has been completed. China demands the return of the gold since the 60 year term has been completed. The US says that they gave enough of the gold back in the early ’80’s to the Mao government. The matter goes to US Federal Courts, and the US loses the argument. The US government is told they must return the gold on September 12, 2001. (Check that date.)

2001 – The transaction for the return of the gold to China is being handled by Cantor Fitzgerald Securities, a brokerage firm with offices in the World Trade Center, North building. The gold that is to go back to China is secure in vaults located in the basement of the World Trade Center, North Building.

9-11-2001 – The World Trade Center is attacked. Every employee of the firm Cantor Fitzgerald Securities is killed, which is a total of about 600 people. The gold that was secure in basement of the World Trade Center is missing, and no one knows where it went.

Some theories have emerged with a little evidence that the gold was taken by train to California, and from there shipped to Paraguay, where it was securely stored.

June 8, 2009 – Two Japanese businessmen were pick up as they crossed the border from Italy to Switzerland carrying $1.5 Billion in US bonds issued by the US Treasury in 1934. There is a debate if the bonds are authentic or forgeries (with no conclusion). The US Treasury refused to make any determination on the authenticity of the bonds, or even comment about them in any way. The two Japanese businessmen were released by Italian authorities and disappeared. The bonds, real or fake, were given to the US Treasury.

2011 – As some facts of this conspiracy emerge and are made public, third parties file a lawsuit in US Federal Court about this series of events. That lawsuit is pending. Main stream news media is not reporting much about this, if at all.

There are lots of places on the internet to learn more about this story, but it does take some investigation to locate them. If you have an interest in this, a good place to start would be here: http://divinecosmos.com/start-here/davids-blog/995-lawsuit-end-tyranny

And please check out my website: http://americanexpatchiangmai.com

As to HOW it was done, when you have access to the amount of wealth hoarded by the banking elite who create money out of thin air, and have the whole world using that currency to transact the purchase of physical necessities of life, you can set up any number of enterprises you want and cover it up.

dpenn
09-25-2014, 08:44 AM
dp:


Of all the theories I have heard about WHY the towers were blown up, the one put forward here- http://911justicehalifax.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/conspiracy-of-the-chinese-gold-taken-by-the-us/ makes the most sense.


David, that has absolutely no connection with what has transpired as a result of 911, and I consider this to be either delusional or willful deception by the perpetrators ... and then the cow jumped over the moon.

Silence
09-25-2014, 11:12 AM
What "things that have transpired" are you talking about?

dpenn
09-25-2014, 11:20 AM
dp:


What "things that have transpired" are you talking about?

The easiest way is to show my list of questions we should ask, related to 911:

Note: I posted these questions Sep 12, 2014, originally before NATO attacked ISIL in Syria (but for some reason, the emphasis seems to be on attacking a small sub-group called Khorasan, with not much talk of ISIL/ISIS/IS/AlQaeda/AlCIAda).

btw, this prediction was made simply by observing the events that grew out of 911, and studying the facts.


1. A mock terrorist attack was being executed that day by NORAD, mimicking ongoing terrorist attacks, so that anything observed as real terrorism could be chalked up to a training exercise.

2. How could the US Defense possibly not have activated jet fighters the minute the so-called hijacked jets went off radar course, and especially after the first Tower was struck?

3. How could the Pentagon be struck by a large jet liner, making a looping 270 degree steep turn, to spiral down to ground level for the strike? The presumed hijack pilot couldn’t even handle a Sesna in his training. There were even experienced jet pilots who said they couldn’t navigate the aircraft to that precision.

4. There was no initial aircraft debris from the crash site at the Pentagon. There was just one circular hole through the 5 layers of super reinforced concrete. This is surprising since the weakest part of the aircraft is the pilot cone and fuselage. What happened to the engines? Why no engine holes in the Pentagon wall? A presumed engine that miraculously appeared on the scene a little later was a total mismatch for the jet liner

5. Why was there no discernable parts from the jet that was presumably downed over Shanksville? Why no bodies? Why no landing gear, engine parts, or tail section?

6. Why was WTC 7 completely left out of the 911 Report?

7. Why were all witnesses with a different story line ignored in the 911 Report?

8. Why do so many of the anniversaries of 911 refuse to admit first responders? You would think they would be given front row seats and heralded as heroes. Could it be because so many of them know that the official story line is a treasonous lie?

9. Why do so many professional architects, structural engineers, and demolition experts insist that a complete investigation needs to be carried out on 911 because they just don’t buy the existing official story line? What do they have to gain?

10. How did the terrorist passports survive these horrific explosive sites, when all else was just vaporized?

11. What about the evidence that 5 of the 19 terrorists have been found to be still living, with 2 of them even being interviewed, and yet the official story is cast in stone?

12. Why, when 15 of the 19 supposed terrorists were Saudi’s, would you attack Afghanistan and then Iraq?

13. Why has no one ever forced the gov’t to explain why they used fake Bin Laden video? The dummy fake Bin Laden doesn’t even look like the real one, plus he is right handed, not left handed, and he is wearing a ring and a watch, something a Taliban would never do.

What is the fruit of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan?

1. Devastation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq is a powder keg of instability, and Afghanistan has been turned into the world’s number 1 opium producing nation of the world, with US troops forced to oversee the poppy fields. Plus ongoing drone strikes into Pakistan, on who knows what targets?

2. Extended destabilization of Libya and Egypt, funding and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in pulling off political coups, overthrowing the govt’s of Khadaffi and Mubaraq, dictators, but choir boys compared to the current regimes.

3. Why the attempted military overthrow of Assad in Syria? Why would the US and allies fund and provide military support and weaponry to rebels that are 100 times more vile than a secular Islamic dictator like Assad?

4. Why the Benghazi stand-down? Who ordered it and why? Keep in mind it cost the life of an American Ambassador. What of all the high level stories of a Fast and Furious like arming of the Sunni rebels, to overthrow Assad’s regime? Recall Joe Biden even visiting the rebels fighting in Syria.

5. How could ISIL, ISIS, IS, Al Qaeda, Al CIAda, or whatever their current name is, get the money and weapons to do what they are doing? Especially since there is strong evidence that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Turkey and Jordan are supporting them from the Arab side, and strong evidence that US, Britain, France, and Israel are funding them from the NATO side. Not to mention, high level leaks that it all came from Benghazi.

6. Why was ISSIS not dealt with in the open desert, when they could have obliterated them? Surely with their beheading of 300,000 Christians, Muslims, and many other relatively innocent people in their wake, they were a greater threat than Khadaffi, Mubaraq, or Assad. Yet these were the chosen answer to all of NATO’s desire to overthrow Assad. Why is NATO was the US just shadow boxing with ISIS, but now suddenly, they are prepared to attack them in Syria? Will accidentally attack Assad, by missiles that flew over the cuckoo’s nest? If they turn this into an Assad coup, from a ISIS strike gone bad, what then? A new central bank in Syria? Will the Zionists celebrate a fulfillment of Isaiah 17:1 and how Damascus is destroyed and uninhabitable? Are we really sure this is a futurist prophesy that the US is ordained by God to fulfill?

7. Why would Ukraine suddenly overthrow their duly elected President, after they voted to not enter the EU? Why would Obama say he was replaced with a legitimate replacement, when he was merely a banker for the EU? Only later did they have a seemingly legitimately elected President.

8. Why is it so wrong for Russia to have naval bases in the Crimea, but it is ok for the US to have a base at Guantanamo?

9. What about MH17? Why was it given orders to fly through a war zone? Why did it drop its flight altitude from 35,000 ft to 32-33,000 ft, to then be in range to be hit by a ground missile? Who really fired the missile?

10. Why do so many US survivors of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty still insist that they were intentionally attacked by Israeli Air Force and Navy in the 1973 war? Many Americans lost their lives on that day. And why did Pres Johnson and McNamara order any response to stand-down, not coming to their rescue for many hours, all the while the USS Liberty was flying a huge American flag? It had all the appearance of making it look like the USS Liberty was being attacked by Egyptian fighter jets to draw the US into the conflict. But at the cost of one of her own ships, and even more valuable, her own men?

11. Why are the US borders left open for almost anybody and their dog to cross, while at the same time ISIS terrorist alerts are at an all-time high? Why are Americans being fined if they cross the border, but illegal aliens are given a blind eye, and even flown at tax payer expense to locations around the US, with children even being admitted to schools without a physical to make sure they are not carrying some contagious disease. All of this when the ebola threat is epidemic world-wise. And why can illegal aliens enter US at will, but US citizens are forced to undergo embarrassing and time-consuming body searches?

12. What will Russia do if Syria is attacked by US? Why is the Sunni coalition so willing to fund and attack the Shia Muslims, including their strategic partner, Syria? I realize that there are great threats to Israel, but Assad has been at peace with Israel. Is it really Israel, or is it something more financial or business oriented?

13. Is it possible these are advanced steps required to maneuver a NWO on a traumatized world? What happens if the lid blows off, and it unleashes WWIII? For certain, some would welcome such a population reduction and an elite money jackpot, but have the world leaders really counted the cost? And what if the Zionists have misread Scripture? What then?

Unregistered
09-25-2014, 12:12 PM
dp:



The easiest way is to show my list of questions we should ask, related to 911:

Note: I posted these questions Sep 12, 2014, originally before NATO attacked ISIL in Syria (but for some reason, the emphasis seems to be on attacking a small sub-group called Khorasan, with not much talk of ISIL/ISIS/IS/AlQaeda/AlCIAda).

btw, this prediction was made simply by observing the events that grew out of 911, and studying the facts.


1. A mock terrorist attack was being executed that day by NORAD, mimicking ongoing terrorist attacks, so that anything observed as real terrorism could be chalked up to a training exercise.

2. How could the US Defense possibly not have activated jet fighters the minute the so-called hijacked jets went off radar course, and especially after the first Tower was struck?

3. How could the Pentagon be struck by a large jet liner, making a looping 270 degree steep turn, to spiral down to ground level for the strike? The presumed hijack pilot couldn’t even handle a Sesna in his training. There were even experienced jet pilots who said they couldn’t navigate the aircraft to that precision.

4. There was no initial aircraft debris from the crash site at the Pentagon. There was just one circular hole through the 5 layers of super reinforced concrete. This is surprising since the weakest part of the aircraft is the pilot cone and fuselage. What happened to the engines? Why no engine holes in the Pentagon wall? A presumed engine that miraculously appeared on the scene a little later was a total mismatch for the jet liner

5. Why was there no discernable parts from the jet that was presumably downed over Shanksville? Why no bodies? Why no landing gear, engine parts, or tail section?

6. Why was WTC 7 completely left out of the 911 Report?

7. Why were all witnesses with a different story line ignored in the 911 Report?

8. Why do so many of the anniversaries of 911 refuse to admit first responders? You would think they would be given front row seats and heralded as heroes. Could it be because so many of them know that the official story line is a treasonous lie?

9. Why do so many professional architects, structural engineers, and demolition experts insist that a complete investigation needs to be carried out on 911 because they just don’t buy the existing official story line? What do they have to gain?

10. How did the terrorist passports survive these horrific explosive sites, when all else was just vaporized?

11. What about the evidence that 5 of the 19 terrorists have been found to be still living, with 2 of them even being interviewed, and yet the official story is cast in stone?

12. Why, when 15 of the 19 supposed terrorists were Saudi’s, would you attack Afghanistan and then Iraq?

13. Why has no one ever forced the gov’t to explain why they used fake Bin Laden video? The dummy fake Bin Laden doesn’t even look like the real one, plus he is right handed, not left handed, and he is wearing a ring and a watch, something a Taliban would never do.

What is the fruit of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan?

1. Devastation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq is a powder keg of instability, and Afghanistan has been turned into the world’s number 1 opium producing nation of the world, with US troops forced to oversee the poppy fields. Plus ongoing drone strikes into Pakistan, on who knows what targets?

2. Extended destabilization of Libya and Egypt, funding and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in pulling off political coups, overthrowing the govt’s of Khadaffi and Mubaraq, dictators, but choir boys compared to the current regimes.

3. Why the attempted military overthrow of Assad in Syria? Why would the US and allies fund and provide military support and weaponry to rebels that are 100 times more vile than a secular Islamic dictator like Assad?

4. Why the Benghazi stand-down? Who ordered it and why? Keep in mind it cost the life of an American Ambassador. What of all the high level stories of a Fast and Furious like arming of the Sunni rebels, to overthrow Assad’s regime? Recall Joe Biden even visiting the rebels fighting in Syria.

5. How could ISIL, ISIS, IS, Al Qaeda, Al CIAda, or whatever their current name is, get the money and weapons to do what they are doing? Especially since there is strong evidence that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Turkey and Jordan are supporting them from the Arab side, and strong evidence that US, Britain, France, and Israel are funding them from the NATO side. Not to mention, high level leaks that it all came from Benghazi.

6. Why was ISSIS not dealt with in the open desert, when they could have obliterated them? Surely with their beheading of 300,000 Christians, Muslims, and many other relatively innocent people in their wake, they were a greater threat than Khadaffi, Mubaraq, or Assad. Yet these were the chosen answer to all of NATO’s desire to overthrow Assad. Why is NATO was the US just shadow boxing with ISIS, but now suddenly, they are prepared to attack them in Syria? Will accidentally attack Assad, by missiles that flew over the cuckoo’s nest? If they turn this into an Assad coup, from a ISIS strike gone bad, what then? A new central bank in Syria? Will the Zionists celebrate a fulfillment of Isaiah 17:1 and how Damascus is destroyed and uninhabitable? Are we really sure this is a futurist prophesy that the US is ordained by God to fulfill?

7. Why would Ukraine suddenly overthrow their duly elected President, after they voted to not enter the EU? Why would Obama say he was replaced with a legitimate replacement, when he was merely a banker for the EU? Only later did they have a seemingly legitimately elected President.

8. Why is it so wrong for Russia to have naval bases in the Crimea, but it is ok for the US to have a base at Guantanamo?

9. What about MH17? Why was it given orders to fly through a war zone? Why did it drop its flight altitude from 35,000 ft to 32-33,000 ft, to then be in range to be hit by a ground missile? Who really fired the missile?

10. Why do so many US survivors of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty still insist that they were intentionally attacked by Israeli Air Force and Navy in the 1973 war? Many Americans lost their lives on that day. And why did Pres Johnson and McNamara order any response to stand-down, not coming to their rescue for many hours, all the while the USS Liberty was flying a huge American flag? It had all the appearance of making it look like the USS Liberty was being attacked by Egyptian fighter jets to draw the US into the conflict. But at the cost of one of her own ships, and even more valuable, her own men?

11. Why are the US borders left open for almost anybody and their dog to cross, while at the same time ISIS terrorist alerts are at an all-time high? Why are Americans being fined if they cross the border, but illegal aliens are given a blind eye, and even flown at tax payer expense to locations around the US, with children even being admitted to schools without a physical to make sure they are not carrying some contagious disease. All of this when the ebola threat is epidemic world-wise. And why can illegal aliens enter US at will, but US citizens are forced to undergo embarrassing and time-consuming body searches?

12. What will Russia do if Syria is attacked by US? Why is the Sunni coalition so willing to fund and attack the Shia Muslims, including their strategic partner, Syria? I realize that there are great threats to Israel, but Assad has been at peace with Israel. Is it really Israel, or is it something more financial or business oriented?

13. Is it possible these are advanced steps required to maneuver a NWO on a traumatized world? What happens if the lid blows off, and it unleashes WWIII? For certain, some would welcome such a population reduction and an elite money jackpot, but have the world leaders really counted the cost? And what if the Zionists have misread Scripture? What then?

I'm at a different computer and don't want to use my password to log in. Who benefits the most from all of the "activies" our government has been carrying out? Those who finance the whole 20 ring circus with money backed by others (the people working to pay taxes). Currency controls the military, the govenrment, and the economy. That is not delusional. Ask Polybius.

dpenn
09-25-2014, 06:07 PM
dp:

For the number buffs out there, consider the following 11's:


You might think this far-fetched, but I think I know why 9:37:46. It is obvious that 911 has some very suspicious repeating 11's. I am not into this, but the masons and occult sure are:

911
2 towers 110 stories = 11*10
flight 11 flying into one tower
flight 77 flying into Pentagon on the 77th meridian 7*11
Sept 11 is 254th day of year, 2+5+4=11 and 365-254=111

Now, 9+37=46, and 46+46=92, where 9+2=11

You may write this off, put the perpetrators of 911 were beside themselves to manipulate number sequences of 11. And it is obvious from what follows, they would even lie about the time to accomplish this insanity.

Barbara Honegger's testimony at the Toronto 911 Hearings, left you with a puzzle. Two Pentagon wall clocks quit, fried at 9:30 to 9:32 AM, and April Gallop's wrist-watch, quit working at the same time (she has it in a safety deposit box). She was within 100 ft of the explosion, and lived to talk about it. Yet, for some strange reason, the Pentagon officially insists that the attack occurred at 9:37 and 46 seconds (see 11's above).

You can see her overall lecture at the following link:

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11- B. Honegger, R. Gage, & M. Chossudovsky Day 2
Eyewitnesses and Evidence of Explosions at the Pentagon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2YrUq2Y_C4

dp

duxrow
09-26-2014, 06:37 AM
ELEVENS! but diff POV.. Joseph was 11th son!

1. Book of Ruth portrays two sons in exchange for one daughter.

2. The Joseph son of Jacob in Egypt had 2 sons--no daughters.

3. The Joseph son of Jacob in Mt1:16 (maybe) had just one daughter? You think? :huhsign:

1298

dpenn
09-26-2014, 09:26 AM
dp:


ELEVENS! but diff POV.. Joseph was 11th son!

1. Book of Ruth portrays two sons in exchange for one daughter.

2. The Joseph son of Jacob in Egypt had 2 sons--no daughters.

3. The Joseph son of Jacob in Mt1:16 (maybe) had just one daughter? You think? :huhsign:

1298

dux, are you saying that it is ok and biblically acceptable to demolish 2 trade towers, which made an 11, and replace them with a freedom tower, or that the twin towers were male and the new tower is female? How can you possibly turn a subject so evil into a study in biblical gematria and number systems?

duxrow
09-26-2014, 09:40 AM
aargh! dp.. More likely IMO that WTC towers were a harbinger because Obama America has thumbed the nose at our One Nation under GOD. No way would I get near the New Tower! :sEm_ImSorry:

dpenn
09-26-2014, 10:25 AM
dp:



aargh! dp.. More likely IMO that WTC towers were a harbinger because Obama America has thumbed the nose at our One Nation under GOD. No way would I get near the New Tower! :sEm_ImSorry:

dux, I am with you on that one 100%, that is except as a harbinger. I believe that God is sovereign over all the affairs of the world, including the actions of satan. Yet, I refuse to accept this whole harbinger teaching of Jonathan Cahn, and the Zionists that hold the world for ransom, if ever they dare say anything against the evil actions of Israel.

I am all for Israel turning to God and Jesus Christ as their Messiah, being incorporated into His only body in this world, the Church, where the wall of partition between both groups is broken down in Christ. So please do not think for one moment that I am against Jews as Jews. That would be a terrible evil on my part. But I do stand against any evil they do, or any evil I or anyone else might do as well.

I would rejoice in Israel's salvation, but I don't hold a gun to America's head based on how they hold Israel accountable for evil actions in this world. As I also wouldn't hold a gun of threat to anyone's head just because they called sinful actions, sinful actions.

dp

duxrow
09-26-2014, 11:34 AM
dp, does sovereign mean that America deserved Pearl Harbor or 9/11 ? Did GOD allow just because we'd been 'bad' during the Roaring Twenties?

oops! dp: So some Jews follow the Law and still look for Messiah--could be ? Following the evil King Jehoiakim, the Judah Kingdom was delivered to Babylon for 70 yrs. NOT a harbinger, you say? :confused2:

"Strong Tower" a biblical theme beginning at Babel -- now Dubai and world is full of 'em.

Concur about Evil being Evil. hah. and speaking of Hamas, UncircumPhilistines(sp), Al Qaeda, and lying quran Islams who should settle in Arab lands: Sinai Penisula maybe, if Egypt won't take 'em.

dpenn
09-26-2014, 11:57 AM
dp:


dp, does sovereign mean that America deserved Pearl Harbor or 9/11 ? Did GOD allow just because we'd been 'bad' during the Roaring Twenties?

oops! dp: So some Jews follow the Law and still look for Messiah--could be ? Following the evil King Jehoiakim, the Judah Kingdom was delivered to Babylon for 70 yrs. NOT a harbinger, you say? :confused2:

"Strong Tower" a biblical theme beginning at Babel -- now Dubai and world is full of 'em.

Concur about Evil being Evil. hah. and speaking of Hamas, UncircumPhilistines(sp), Al Qaeda, and lying quran Islams who should settle in Arab lands: Sinai Penisula maybe, if Egypt won't take 'em.


dux, from your posts, it seems quite obvious to me that you are knowledgeable to Jonathan Cahn's "Harbinger" teaching. That is why I question the use of this word "harbinger", TODAY. There is just too much staged in this video, making US 911 attacks a fulfillment of their foreign policy toward Israel. And this when the evidence is overwhelming that 911 was a planned demolition carried out by very powerful and evil elements of the US govt, CIA, FBI, Military, along with Israeli Mossad.

You have never once seen me post any acceptance of the evil of Islam, and the atrocities of them. But the extended evil of this is even more troubling, when it is evident that US and its NATO allies, have funded ISIS/ISIL/IS/AlQaeda/AlCIAda to take down Assad. Throw into the mix, the whole Al Qaeda storyline in 911, when it is so obviously a demolition after the fact. How can you do all the evil of terrorists and then claim to be against the terrorists?

NATO can take out Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Yugoslavia, all with the use of Al Qaeda, and now, almost amazingly, they just can't take out ISIL. So, rather than attacking ISIL, they attack a lesser Khorasan, blow up a Syrian oil refinery, nothing to do with ISIL, since they are already getting their fuel from Turkey. Now, Free Syrian Army, FSA, is being funded and armed further, so that they can change hats with ISIL and finish the Assad job, all the while ISIL goes free to do more destabilization in the world.

You'd better believe that I have trouble seeing the sovereignty of God in all of this. But I know that there is a difference between the perfect will of God, and His permissive will, even though all things are ordained by God. Otherwise prophecy would not be possible, as it sometimes reveals real evil.

The best example of this is the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Evil sinful men put Him to death, yet it was foreordained by God, and prophesied to be certain. Isaiah 53 also says that it pleased the Father to put Him to death, because through His atoning sacrifice, salvation was made certain to the world. Yet, these evil sinful people that put Him to death, will be held accountable at the Throne of Judgement of God.

Never does God ever condone evil, and neither do I condone the evil of the 3 demolitions of 911 and NATO's use of terrorist ISIL/AL QAEDA to accomplish its demonic lust for its NWO.

dp

duxrow
09-26-2014, 12:59 PM
Harbinger: Not a Bible word. Cahn uses as "warning"; like Enoch warned of Noah event. Jude14
1. a person who goes ahead and makes known the approach of another; herald.
2. anything that foreshadows a future event; omen; sign: "Frost is a harbinger of winter."
3. NAVY: 'Shot across the bow'..

Cahn connects the Sycamore Tree of Isa 9:10 to the Sycamore at St.Paul Chapel near ground zero in NYC. Comparing the 'weak' bricks and sycamore, to the 'hewn stone and cedar'.
Isa9:9 "that say in the pride and stoutness of heart" (an "I'll show You!" attitude).

dpenn
09-26-2014, 01:36 PM
Harbinger: Not a Bible word. Cahn uses as "warning"; like Enoch warned of Noah event. Jude14
1. a person who goes ahead and makes known the approach of another; herald.
2. anything that foreshadows a future event; omen; sign: "Frost is a harbinger of winter."
3. NAVY: 'Shot across the bow'..

Cahn connects the Sycamore Tree of Isa 9:10 to the Sycamore at St.Paul Chapel near ground zero in NYC. Comparing the 'weak' bricks and sycamore, to the 'hewn stone and cedar'.
Isa9:9 "that say in the pride and stoutness of heart" (an "I'll show You!" attitude).

dux, I know what Cahn teaches, and I think there is some serious deception in his harbinger story. Personally, I don't buy into the Cahn con sycamore fig scam, especially as it gains momentum with the incredibly staged Tom Daschle quote of the very Scripture needed to promote this staged event.

I am convinced there is some major high level deception going on here, and the majority of charismatic, pentecostal, and overall evangelical Christians have swallowed this, hook, line, and sinker. It's Zionist threat on the Church is very revealing. It does warn, rightly, that anyone sinning is in danger of judgement, including the US or Canada, or any other country in the world. But the main thrust is always, if you say or do anything against Israel, you will definitely experience the harbinger judgement of God (or is that the secret judgement of the Zionists?). It is almost as if Israel can do no wrong, and if you question that, you are in danger of being destroyed.

dp

duxrow
09-26-2014, 01:59 PM
dux, I know what Cahn teaches, and I think there is some serious deception in his harbinger story. Personally, I don't buy into the Cahn con sycamore fig scam, especially as it gains momentum with the incredibly staged Tom Daschle quote of the very Scripture needed to promote this staged event.

I am convinced there is some major high level deception going on here, and the majority of charismatic, pentecostal, and overall evangelical Christians have swallowed this, hook, line, and sinker. It's Zionist threat on the Church is very revealing. It does warn, rightly, that anyone sinning is in danger of judgement, including the US or Canada, or any other country in the world. But the main thrust is always, if you say or do anything against Israel, you will definitely experience the harbinger judgement of God (or is that the secret judgement of the Zionists?). It is almost as if Israel can do no wrong, and if you question that, you are in danger of being destroyed.

dpNo, dpenn, I don't agree with your main thrust, and have no desire to harm Israel or do that country any wrong. It's the conduct of Hamas that I consider despicable, the way they are waging war..
Cahn doesn't go far enough IMO, to disclose how America is a "Far Country" that has been blessed ever since the 'publishing' of the KJV. Ps68:11.

dpenn
09-26-2014, 02:08 PM
No, dpenn, I don't agree with your main thrust, and have no desire to harm Israel or do that country any wrong. It's the conduct of Hamas that I consider despicable, the way they are waging war..
Cahn doesn't go far enough IMO, to disclose how America is a "Far Country" that has been blessed ever since the 'publishing' of the KJV. Ps68:11.

Dux, but Cahn buys into the complete 911 storyline, and then milks it. If he has prophetic insight, why is he going along with the official 911 storyline, when the evidence is overwhelming that it is an inside job, ending in 3 explosive demolitions to bring down WTC1,2,7, and then leading to wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and to the ends of the world? And if the US is so against terrorists, why are they arming and using terrorists to do their dirty work?

dp

duxrow
09-26-2014, 02:57 PM
Milks it? No, and 'prophetic insight' not a given, either. He never mentions "The Light and the Glory" by Peter Marshall, and I don't applaud EVERYTHING they say. But neither have I bought into the Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy or your WTC1,2,7 -- not high on my priority list; maybe cuz nothin I can do about it.. hah.

The TIMING of hijacked planes, i.e. their arrival at Ground Zero, seems suspect to me.. Their coordination with a ground crew would be dubious IMO.

dpenn
09-26-2014, 03:36 PM
dp:



Milks it? No, and 'prophetic insight' not a given, either. He never mentions "The Light and the Glory" by Peter Marshall, and I don't applaud EVERYTHING they say. But neither have I bought into the Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy or your WTC1,2,7 -- not high on my priority list; maybe cuz nothin I can do about it.. hah.


dux, when you say "your WTC1,2,7", it almost sounds like it is my conspiracy, when it wasn't me that conspired together against the American citizens in those buildings. Well, there is always something we can do about it, even if it just means being awakened to what actually happened, and calling upon the Name of the Lord, asking for His sovereign intervention on our behalf, and especially on behalf of those who lost loved ones, at the expense of a greater plan for world dominance. They might really think they are making the world safer for everyone in the process, but I just find that too hard to believe in that they show no regard for innocent human life in getting there.



The TIMING of hijacked planes, i.e. their arrival at Ground Zero, seems suspect to me.. Their coordination with a ground crew would be dubious IMO.


I am not quite sure what you mean by these sentences.

btw, I come from an agricultural area of Canada, where "milks it" is a common term. I probably could have used a better choice of words to explain how Cahn seemed to be an after phase of the 911 attacks. It just reminds me too much of the role that Kim Clement is playing for the globalists.

dp

duxrow
09-26-2014, 03:54 PM
dp: dux, when you say "your WTC1,2,7", it almost sounds like it is my conspiracy, when it wasn't me that conspired together against the American citizens in those buildings. Well, there is always something we can do about it, even if it just means being awakened to what actually happened, and calling upon the Name of the Lord, asking for His sovereign intervention on our behalf, and especially on behalf of those who lost loved ones, at the expense of a greater plan for world dominance. They might really think they are making the world safer for everyone in the process, but I just find that too hard to believe in that they show no regard for innocent human life in getting there.

I am not quite sure what you mean by these sentences.

btw, I come from an agricultural area of Canada, where "milks it" is a common term. I probably could have used a better choice of words to explain how Cahn seemed to be an after phase of the 911 attacks. It just reminds me too much of the role that Kim Clement is playing for the globalists. dp:sEm_oops: Not 'your' WTC1,2,7 Mybad.choice of word. As for "milks it", no problem; a common expression everywhere USA, seems to me.

Don't know of Kim Clement -- should I ? But will have to keep -- gotta go now. Nice chatting. /s/ dux

TheForgiven
09-29-2014, 12:58 PM
Greetings my fellow Biblewheel buddies! :signthankspin:

I apologize for my absence these past few days as I've been very busy handling homeside affairs. I've been trying to find new homes for a few of my lame horses (horses with permanent injuries) and I finally found a home for one of them. I'm also knee-deep in my Bachelor's Degree program and homework has been a little tense. The good news is that I'm almost done with this term, so I'll have a few days to tinker around with L67 and you all.

I've a lot of catch-up reading and replying to do with L67, and it's definitely a lot of reading. Some of what L67 has fair points, although its validity could be disputed; the same could be said about my points as well, especially considering much of my opposition to the "government does and says no wrong" theory is far beyond my desire to believe or accept; ESPECIALLY considering our governments notorious history of engaging in false flag events just to start wars for the big bankers. 9/11 is based on the 1960's CIA false-flag plan to start a war with Cuba, known as Operation Northwoods.

Thus far, we've spent a great deal of time arguing about the physics and science behind the collapse of the WTC buildings. L67 has offered a FEW good points, with firefighter testimony supporting his side, but I have to say much of his so-called science is fictional with no true evidence to support the total collapse of all WTC buildings. I've provided more than ample firefighter testimony of the actual respondents who went inside towers 1 and 2, and more importantly, Mr. Jennings who was inside WT7, and who also witnessed the multiple explosions from AROUND the 6th to 8th floors (not sure exactly which ones); not to forget about the many bodies reported by him AFTER his descension; NOT before. Even so, since we lack of pictures or video to prove the eyewitness accounts, L67 gets to pretend he has the leverage to deny truthers. Thus all we can do is shake the dust from our feet and move on.

While I am no expert in building demolitions, I am a professional when it comes to aircraft and its engines. And so I will start this new discussion about the planes that struck the WTC buildings. One in particular is the 767 which supposedly struck the second tower. This was reputed to be United Airlines Flight 175 carrying about 81 passengers (we will get to the so-called passengers later).

THE DILEMMA?

American Airlines and Flight United have been using Pratt and Whitney engines since the 1970's; NOT General Electric (GE) engines. Taking a look at a photo of an aircraft engine recovered from the WTC attacks, it is not readily easy to identify the specific engine:

1301

We're told that this was one of the engines from Flight United 175, being a 767 engine. But is this correct? The answer will be quite obvious. Take a very close look at the cooling ducts with small tubes near the end of the combustor. Can you see it? If not, look at this particular cooling duct which fits the engine recovered from the WTC's:

1302

Now see if you can find it on the engine; it should be obvious.

The cooling duct you see in the picture is designed to fit the JT9D-7A/7F/7 engines, NONE of which were installed on 767's. The JT9D-7A (and above) were older engines which were installed on 747's from the 1970's. None of the JT9D engines were large enough to provide sufficient thrust for the 767, except the JT9D-7R4 engines installed on some late 80's 767's. However, the cooling duct for the JT9D-7R4 engine is PN 801123 (the flat round cooling duct), which is not installed on the engine recovered from Murray Street. [Note: Since the 90's, all 767's were fitted with the PW4000 series engines, which are totally different from the JT9D-7R4 series, or the much older 747 engines].[/B].

Here is the duct commonly used by 767's:

1303

And yet none of the engines recovered from the WTC attacks were identified (as of yet) as possessing PN 769316, 781765, or 786692.

So this leaves us with a very important question. I know for a fact that American Airlines and Flight United use strictly Pratt and Whitney engines (although some of their smaller planes use the CFM-56 engines), and not GE engines. THEREFORE, what planes hit towers 1 and 2 since they are clearly not from Flight United nor from American Airlines?

Some 911 Liars claimed that Flight United 175 used an old 747 engine (JT9D-7A/7F/7J), and cross fitted these technological designs into a more fuel efficient engine JT9D-7R4 engine. But as you can NOW SEE, the cooling duct for the JT9D-7R4 engine DOES NOT MATCH the cooling duct from the recovered engine. So we now know they are lying their butts off!

Furthermore, it is not common practice to install outdated engines (especially older engines) on newer airframes; not from any airline company, much less the Air Force. Something we never did was remove F110-PW200 engines from older 1970's model F-16's, and install them into 1990 F-16's, which are powered either by the F110-PW220 or the F110-GE129 engine.

In conclusion, it should be clear that the planes which struck the towers were not part of American Airline or Flight United since the recovered engine does not identify with current use, as denoted by the turbine cooling duct installed on the recovered engine. Thus, the planes belonged to another agency.

What's my theory? I believe the planes belonged to the CIA or the Air Force, but I can neither confirm, nor deny who owned those planes.

And since neither airlines use the recovered engine, the question remains again, "WHO'S PLANES WERE THEY?"

Joseph

dpenn
09-29-2014, 01:47 PM
dp:


Greetings my fellow Biblewheel buddies! :signthankspin:

...

In conclusion, it should be clear that the planes which struck the towers were not part of American Airline or Flight United since the recovered engine does not identify with current use. Thus, it is clear the planes belonged to another agency.

What's my theory? I believe the planes belonged to the CIA or perhaps NASA, but I can neither confirm, nor deny who owned those planes. But I do know the do not belong to either airline company.

Joseph

Hey Joe, good to hear from you again!

I thought you went AWOL.

While you were gone, I watched the entire Toronto Hearings for 911 Truth, back in 2011. It was quite time consuming, as there were 4 days of lectures by chosen experts, and panel interaction, overseen by a panel of four. But it was well worth the time spent. I have included the lecture links and Q&A's for this 911 Hearing on an earlier post. There were some weaknesses, but overall a good overview.

Your presentation covers material completely untouched by those lectures. Although I must admit, this is far from my area of expertise or insight. So I have to let it ride for now.

dp

TheForgiven
09-29-2014, 05:10 PM
dp:



Hey Joe, good to hear from you again!

I thought you went AWOL.

While you were gone, I watched the entire Toronto Hearings for 911 Truth, back in 2011. It was quite time consuming, as there were 4 days of lectures by chosen experts, and panel interaction, overseen by a panel of four. But it was well worth the time spent. I have included the lecture links and Q&A's for this 911 Hearing on an earlier post. There were some weaknesses, but overall a good overview.

Your presentation covers material completely untouched by those lectures. Although I must admit, this is far from my area of expertise or insight. So I have to let it ride for now.

dp

Greetings dpenn:

Yea I apologize for my absence. I had some important issues to deal with involving my horses. I'm trying to find new homes for a few of them, and it's been tough. So far, I only found a home for one of them; two more to go.

I'll take a look at the video. I must say that I'm a little shocked that the speakers didn't mention the aircraft engines. Seems to me that'd be a slam-dunk case. But it's not as though Flight United or American Airlines didn't know about the conspiracy, considering the "Stock Options" both airlines used the day before 9/11, which tells me they knew about the coming attacks (False Flag). And let's not forget about AIG and several other companies who transferred money electronically hours before 9/11. And even in my "Criminal Investigation" text book for my IT course, it mentions the Stock Options from other companies hours before 9/11, thus giving the impression they culprits were all part of the conspiracy. And considering Wall-Street is owned and controlled by fake-jews, that doesn't surprise me. If you ask me, I say we are fighting the wrong enemy....

Ever wonder why no jews have yet to be beheaded by Al-Qaeda, ISIS, or ISIL, what ever you want to call these CIA assets? If these so-called terrorists are Islamic fundamentalists, and Israel (secular Israel) are our allies, then why hasn't these guys gone after them who are right down their alley? :lol: And notice how the main-stream press just bombards us with all of this ISIS BS? :lol:

Anyways, thanks for welcoming me back my friend.

Joe

dpenn
10-03-2014, 02:00 PM
dp:



... notice how the main-stream press just bombards us with all of this ISIS BS? :lol:


Joe,

Over the past few months, my local TV cable provider in Canada, added Al Jazeera to its base package of stations, along with the other Canadian and US News stations. I had always thought of this station as pro-Arabic, but having watched it for awhile, out of curiosity, it is so obviously run by British intelligence, it is laughable.

You have probably seen the US comedy flick of news flashes jumping from one News release to another (quite a few of them), with the exact wording done by all. Now, I see the same scripting picked up by Al Jazeera ... i-n-t-e-r-e-s-t-i-n-g! :eek:

dpenn
10-08-2014, 10:59 AM
dp:

New - Ebola Questions (Sequel to 911 Questions):

1. Why were the govt doors opened to treat Ebola back in the US, when constitutional law forbids that?

2. Why was the first Liberian Ebola patient in Dallas treated so carelessly, knowing the extreme danger?

3. Why were 6 police officers ordered by the higher authorities to remove the Liberian patient from his apartment, in compliance with the Centre for Disease Control (CDC)?

4. Why were they sent in with no masks or any protective gear, when they were being sent into a major threat area?

5. Why were 2 paramedics put in life-threatening way, being ordered to pick up this sick ebola patient, with no warning of extreme danger?

6. Why was this ambulance, left in service for a few more days?

7. Why did they NOT send specially trained CDC teams to totally cleanse the apartment (sheets and towels with sweat, blood, and other body excrements)?

8. Why were the children that were in contact with this ebola patient, sent to school, only after some 6 days, or so, when the incubation period is known to be 22 days (and some remain undetected)?

9. Why are the borders left open for flooding in Mexicans, or other latinos, or who knows, maybe even ISIL?

10. Why has not Pres Obama (aka Pres Obola) taken measures to prevent flights from the infected areas of Africa (esp. Liberia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Nigeria)?

11. Why would US set up a military base in Liberia to deal with ebola, and to be in contact with the ebola victims, while not rather setting up a special medical clinic?

12. Why would the ebola patients in US NOT be quarantined in level 4 facilities, underground, knowing the death rate of ebola?

13. Why is there not necessary ebola testing being done at airports, but only humiliating ongoing hands down the pants of US citizens, looking for terrorists?

Previous posts:

911 Questions and Videos:

#8- http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6092-911-Was-an-Inside-Job-by-US-Government-CIA-and-Israeli-Mossad-agents&p=66658#post66658

#9 - http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6092-911-Was-an-Inside-Job-by-US-Government-CIA-and-Israeli-Mossad-agents&p=66662#post66662

Toronto Hearings for 911 Truth:

#98 - http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6092-911-Was-an-Inside-Job-by-US-Government-CIA-and-Israeli-Mossad-agents&p=66917#post66917

dpenn
10-08-2014, 05:56 PM
dp:

... sadly the Dallas Ebola patient has died ...


New - Ebola Questions (Sequel to 911 Questions):

1. Why were the govt doors opened to treat Ebola back in the US, when constitutional law forbids that?

2. Why was the first Liberian Ebola patient in Dallas treated so carelessly, knowing the extreme danger?

3. Why were 6 police officers ordered by the higher authorities to remove the Liberian patient from his apartment, in compliance with the Centre for Disease Control (CDC)?

4. Why were they sent in with no masks or any protective gear, when they were being sent into a major threat area?

5. Why were 2 paramedics put in life-threatening way, being ordered to pick up this sick ebola patient, with no warning of extreme danger?

6. Why was this ambulance, left in service for a few more days?

7. Why did they NOT send specially trained CDC teams to totally cleanse the apartment (sheets and towels with sweat, blood, and other body excrements)?

8. Why were the children that were in contact with this ebola patient, sent to school, only after some 6 days, or so, when the incubation period is known to be 22 days (and some remain undetected)?

9. Why are the borders left open for flooding in Mexicans, or other latinos, or who knows, maybe even ISIL?

10. Why has not Pres Obama (aka Pres Obola) taken measures to prevent flights from the infected areas of Africa (esp. Liberia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Nigeria)?

11. Why would US set up a military base in Liberia to deal with ebola, and to be in contact with the ebola victims, while not rather setting up a special medical clinic?

12. Why would the ebola patients in US NOT be quarantined in level 4 facilities, underground, knowing the death rate of ebola?

13. Why is there not necessary ebola testing being done at airports, but only humiliating ongoing hands down the pants of US citizens, looking for terrorists?

Previous posts:

911 Questions and Videos:

#8- http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6092-911-Was-an-Inside-Job-by-US-Government-CIA-and-Israeli-Mossad-agents&p=66658#post66658

#9 - http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6092-911-Was-an-Inside-Job-by-US-Government-CIA-and-Israeli-Mossad-agents&p=66662#post66662

Toronto Hearings for 911 Truth:

#98 - http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6092-911-Was-an-Inside-Job-by-US-Government-CIA-and-Israeli-Mossad-agents&p=66917#post66917

dpenn
10-09-2014, 09:55 AM
dp:




... sadly the Dallas Ebola patient has died ...


New - Ebola Questions (Sequel to 911 Questions):

1. Why were the govt doors opened to treat Ebola back in the US, when constitutional law forbids that?

2. Why was the first Liberian Ebola patient in Dallas treated so carelessly, knowing the extreme danger?

3. Why were 6 police officers ordered by the higher authorities to remove the Liberian patient from his apartment, in compliance with the Centre for Disease Control (CDC)?

4. Why were they sent in with no masks or any protective gear, when they were being sent into a major threat area?

5. Why were 2 paramedics put in life-threatening way, being ordered to pick up this sick ebola patient, with no warning of extreme danger?

6. Why was this ambulance, left in service for a few more days?

7. Why did they NOT send specially trained CDC teams to totally cleanse the apartment (sheets and towels with sweat, blood, and other body excrements)?

8. Why were the children that were in contact with this ebola patient, sent to school, only after some 6 days, or so, when the incubation period is known to be 22 days (and some remain undetected)?

9. Why are the borders left open for flooding in Mexicans, or other latinos, or who knows, maybe even ISIL?

10. Why has not Pres Obama (aka Pres Obola) taken measures to prevent flights from the infected areas of Africa (esp. Liberia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Nigeria)?

11. Why would US set up a military base in Liberia to deal with ebola, and to be in contact with the ebola victims, while not rather setting up a special medical clinic?

12. Why would the ebola patients in US NOT be quarantined in level 4 facilities, underground, knowing the death rate of ebola?

13. Why is there not necessary ebola testing being done at airports, but only humiliating ongoing hands down the pants of US citizens, looking for terrorists?

Previous posts:

911 Questions and Videos:

#8- http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6092-911-Was-an-Inside-Job-by-US-Government-CIA-and-Israeli-Mossad-agents&p=66658#post66658

#9 - http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6092-911-Was-an-Inside-Job-by-US-Government-CIA-and-Israeli-Mossad-agents&p=66662#post66662

Toronto Hearings for 911 Truth:

#98 - http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6092-911-Was-an-Inside-Job-by-US-Government-CIA-and-Israeli-Mossad-agents&p=66917#post66917

Surprise, surprise, now 1 of the 6 police (or whatever you call them in the US, we call them police in Canada) has been admitted to the hospital to check for Ebola. What a sad series of events.

TheForgiven
10-09-2014, 11:44 AM
dp:



Surprise, surprise, now 1 of the 6 police (or whatever you call them in the US, we call them police in Canada) has been admitted to the hospital to check for Ebola. What a sad series of events.


Greetings Dpenn! :yo: You might want to watch this video. Is Eboloa an accident, or another False Flag attack on the American people?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgTDp6Gmcs8

dpenn
10-09-2014, 03:53 PM
dp:


Greetings Dpenn! :yo: You might want to watch this video. Is Eboloa an accident, or another False Flag attack on the American people?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgTDp6Gmcs8

Joe,

yes, as stated also in my ebola questions, there is definitely something extremely fishy about all of this. Either the threat isn't as real as they pretend it is, or else someone is playing with the lives of millions of people, throwing caution to the wind. Both are alarming.

Maybe they are trying to get the public to be preoccupied with this while they finish bringing down Assad with their ISIS allies, that is, after they change hats with the friendly Free Syrian Army rebels. I predicted this months ago, not because I am a great visionary, but because any half intelligent person following what is going on, would have to be either blind, or willfully ignorant not to acknowledge this.

In case anyone missed the ebola questions, you can view them here:

#138 - http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6092-911-Was-an-Inside-Job-by-US-Government-CIA-and-Israeli-Mossad-agents&p=67169#post67169

dpenn
10-10-2014, 10:29 AM
dp:




New - Ebola Questions (Sequel to 911 Questions):

1. Why were the govt doors opened to treat Ebola back in the US, when constitutional law forbids that?

2. Why was the first Liberian Ebola patient in Dallas treated so carelessly, knowing the extreme danger?

3. Why were 6 police officers ordered by the higher authorities to remove the Liberian patient from his apartment, in compliance with the Centre for Disease Control (CDC)?

4. Why were they sent in with no masks or any protective gear, when they were being sent into a major threat area?

5. Why were 2 paramedics put in life-threatening way, being ordered to pick up this sick ebola patient, with no warning of extreme danger?

6. Why was this ambulance, left in service for a few more days?

7. Why did they NOT send specially trained CDC teams to totally cleanse the apartment (sheets and towels with sweat, blood, and other body excrements)?

8. Why were the children that were in contact with this ebola patient, sent to school, only after some 6 days, or so, when the incubation period is known to be 22 days (and some remain undetected)?

9. Why are the borders left open for flooding in Mexicans, or other latinos, or who knows, maybe even ISIL?

10. Why has not Pres Obama (aka Pres Obola) taken measures to prevent flights from the infected areas of Africa (esp. Liberia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Nigeria)?

11. Why would US set up a military base in Liberia to deal with ebola, and to be in contact with the ebola victims, while not rather setting up a special medical clinic?

12. Why would the ebola patients in US NOT be quarantined in level 4 facilities, underground, knowing the death rate of ebola?

13. Why is there not necessary ebola testing being done at airports, but only humiliating ongoing hands down the pants of US citizens, looking for terrorists?

Previous posts:

911 Questions and Videos:

#8- http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6092-911-Was-an-Inside-Job-by-US-Government-CIA-and-Israeli-Mossad-agents&p=66658#post66658

#9 - http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6092-911-Was-an-Inside-Job-by-US-Government-CIA-and-Israeli-Mossad-agents&p=66662#post66662

Toronto Hearings for 911 Truth:

#98 - http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6092-911-Was-an-Inside-Job-by-US-Government-CIA-and-Israeli-Mossad-agents&p=66917#post66917

Here is another video exposing the Ebola false flag:

Michael Savage breaks down Ebola, ED68, ISIS and more

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrU4sFUzYKg&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

L67
10-10-2014, 12:48 PM
dp:



Here is another video exposing the Ebola false flag:

Michael Savage breaks down Ebola, ED68, ISIS and more

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrU4sFUzYKg&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg



Wow. Another Alex Jones video. Alex Jones is a total buffoon. He sells nothing but fear to his gullible audience. He makes wild assertions that never almost never come true and his idiotic audience never call him on his bullshit. Jones makes a ton of money off of his sheep.

If anyone cares to see just how silly Alex Jones is just needs to watch this video. I could post a ton more stuff that shows what a lunatic Jones is.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwURLwd8pEA

dpenn
10-10-2014, 01:05 PM
Wow. Another Alex Jones video. Alex Jones is a total buffoon. He sells nothing but fear to his gullible audience. He makes wild assertions that never almost never come true and his idiotic audience never call him on his bullshit. Jones makes a ton of money off of his sheep.



L67, actually it is not an Alex Jones video, it is an Alex Jones interviewing Michael Savage video, and I have said elsewhere that I don't like Alex Jones' style, nor many things he spins. But he covers many things that are supported and supplemented by many other contributors from all walks of life. What he and Savage discuss here is very relevant to what is happening today, even if he hypes it to the nth degree. And I could care less about the product line he sells to fund his media show.

And while the rest of US has there head in the sand regarding Ebola and ISIS, he has been centre stage trying to wake up a public in denial to the treasonous things going on in the US and globalising efforts around the world. As a matter of fact, just this week, my beloved Canada signed on to the pseudo-anti-ISIS pseudo-bombing alliance, to eventually reach their real end goal, Assad regime change.

I won't lose any sleep if Assad is ultimately brought down, but I sure don't like it when the US-Canada-NATO-Sunni Arab alliance engages in league with ISIS to accomplish this. Isn't that ironic, you have to out-terrorist the terrorists by being in bed with them, assuring everyone that you are a moral civilization.

dpenn
10-10-2014, 01:32 PM
dp:



I could post a ton more stuff that shows what a lunatic Jones is.


L67, I could post a ton of videos to show what a baffoon Alex Jones is too, but I could also post a ton of videos to show when he hits the nail on the head, and how accurate he is regarding much exposure of ebola, ISIS, and 911.

Richard Amiel McGough
10-10-2014, 01:36 PM
Wow. Another Alex Jones video. Alex Jones is a total buffoon. He sells nothing but fear to his gullible audience. He makes wild assertions that never almost never come true and his idiotic audience never call him on his bullshit. Jones makes a ton of money off of his sheep.

If anyone cares to see just how silly Alex Jones is just needs to watch this video. I could post a ton more stuff that shows what a lunatic Jones is.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwURLwd8pEA
Excellent find L67. It provides more than enough evidence to convince any rational person that Alex Jones is an utterly insane raving lunatic who has been making blatantly absurd false predictions for decades.

dpenn
10-10-2014, 01:46 PM
Excellent find L67. It provides more than enough evidence to convince any rational person that Alex Jones is an utterly insane raving lunatic who has been making blatantly absurd false predictions for decades.

Richard, why don't you interact with the videos and links I have provided. Why find some outdated lunatic video that has nothing to do with what I have posted? Why not respond to what I have posted?

#8- http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6092-911-Was-an-Inside-Job-by-US-Government-CIA-and-Israeli-Mossad-agents&p=66658#post66658

#9 - http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6092-911-Was-an-Inside-Job-by-US-Government-CIA-and-Israeli-Mossad-agents&p=66662#post66662

#143 - http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6092-911-Was-an-Inside-Job-by-US-Government-CIA-and-Israeli-Mossad-agents&p=67263#post67263

Richard Amiel McGough
10-10-2014, 01:52 PM
Richard, why don't you interact with the videos and links I have provided. Why find some outdated lunatic video that has nothing to do with what I have posted? Why not respond to what I have posted?

#8- http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6092-911-Was-an-Inside-Job-by-US-Government-CIA-and-Israeli-Mossad-agents&p=66658#post66658

#9 - http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6092-911-Was-an-Inside-Job-by-US-Government-CIA-and-Israeli-Mossad-agents&p=66662#post66662

#143 - http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6092-911-Was-an-Inside-Job-by-US-Government-CIA-and-Israeli-Mossad-agents&p=67263#post67263
I agree he's a lunatic, but unfortunately, he is not outdated. He is currently spewing out his mindless crap this very day, and conspiracy theorists suck it up as much as ever.

I will look at those videos and get back to you. In the mean time, I would like to know how you determine the difference between the ravings of a lunatic conspiracy theorist like Alex Jones and legitimate evidence for a real conspiracy. The most important question is this: Has any REAL conspiracy been exposed by the methods you use? If so, please provide the information.

dpenn
10-10-2014, 02:46 PM
I agree he's a lunatic, but unfortunately, he is not outdated. He is currently spewing out his mindless crap this very day, and conspiracy theorists suck it up as much as ever.

I will look at those videos and get back to you. In the mean time, I would like to know how you determine the difference between the ravings of a lunatic conspiracy theorist like Alex Jones and legitimate evidence for a real conspiracy. The most important question is this: Has any REAL conspiracy been exposed by the methods you use? If so, please provide the information.

Richard, to begin with, if you knew some of my friends, you would know that I always thought that Alex Jones was a nut job, and still say that to this day, to many of them. But, even a broken clock is right twice a day, and recently, he has begun putting out much more relevant material and has had begun to interview a few more informed guests. Now having said that, he still does have his psycho rants and wild contributors on his radio talk show, much like the diversity on your blogsite. I will be the first to denounce much of what he says, when it is clear it is garbage, but I also will be the first to give credit where credit is due. That is the way I operate in all areas of life.

Richard, I am as prone to fall prey to deception and even self-deception, as you are. And I am not trying to say that I am equal to your perceptions in that area, but generally, that is a battle we all face, and I have, likewise, spent a lifetime dealing with it.

For example, Alex Jones has almost nothing to say against the Zionist movement or the Jesuits and the Masonic Lodges, and various Intelligence agencies, whereas I would point the finger at them much more readily. That does not mean that I want to make trouble for anyone. I seek peace with all. But I am a man who pursues truth in all areas of life I am confronted with.

From my studies, I became quite suspect that the next pope would be a Jesuit, and I told a number of my friends that. I am not a visionary or a prophet, but the evidence strongly leaned in that direction. So it didn't surprise me when that actually happened.

On another occasion, from my studies of what was transpiring in the Middle East, following the Arab Spring, the stand-down at Bengazi and subsequent death of a US Ambassador, the formation of ISIS at the time of the US and NATO and certain Sunni Arab countries attempt to oust Assad, much like Gadaffi and Mubaraq, it became obvious to me that ISIS would grow stronger and stronger. They would not be taken out by NATO, when they were in the habit of taking out all other lesser gods. It became obvious that there was a NATO/Sunni Arab strategy in the formation of ISIS (who had to be connected with Al Qaeda/Al CIAda and Muslim Brotherhood). They soon did a predicted yoyo return to Syria, after becoming publicly popular, by chasing some frightened Kurds up a mountain. As a result, this new NATO/Arab alliance could very conveniently, attack them in Syria, taking out Assad at the same time. What they failed to do in the front door assault on Syria, they are doing through the back door ISIS pseudo-threat.

I told my prediction to Sunni Masters and PhD students at a local university, mostly from Jordan and Saudi Arabia. When it actually happened, they were somewhat surprised, but subsequently, have grown to despise my questioning of Sunni plans. I don't think there is one other person in the coffee shop we frequent, who would have more insight to Middle East affairs, than I, yet it is obvious they despise my insights, having also accepted the ways of their NATO alliance. I was trying to wake them up too, but once they found out that I was a solid Bible believing Christian, I guess I am off limits now (probably for the better). I had asked them: if the Sunni's were willing to be used to eventually take out the Suffi's (mostly Kurds) and the Shia's, (mostly Iranians), then what would they do when the day would come when they would also be taken out? I think that for now, they don't mind the trade-off, just like most in US and Canada don't mind the trade-off, in the name of change. But, the future may be painful for them, as I am sure it is soon going to be for many Americans, and undoubtedly, Canadians too.


Sometimes I wish that I could go back to my more uninformed days, but that seems to be impossible now. So, rather, in all of this, my goal is, in all things, to try to speak the truth in love, and as much as possible, live in peace with all people:

Ephesians 4:14-16,

"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love."

Richard Amiel McGough
10-10-2014, 03:28 PM
Richard, to begin with, if you knew some of my friends, you would know that I always thought that Alex Jones was a nut job, and still say that to this day, to many of them. But, even a broken clock is right twice a day, and recently, he has begun putting out much more relevant material and has had begun to interview a few more informed guests. Now having said that, he still does have his psycho rants and wild contributors on his radio talk show, much like the diversity on your blogsite. I will be the first to denounce much of what he says, when it is clear it is garbage, but I also will be the first to give credit where credit is due. That is the way I operate in all areas of life.

Hey there dp,

It is true that a broken clock is right twice a day, but would that give anyone a reason to look to the broken clock to determine the correct time? If course not. A broken clock is absolutely unreliable as a source for determining the correct time. The same goes for lunatics like Alex Jones. He has been RAVING INSANELY for over a decade. He is the last person anyone should look to for any information.

This is what seems so crazy to me. You claim to believe Bible. Jesus clearly taught his followers to beware of false teachers and to be "wise as serpents." Alex Jones is one of the most obvious false teachers out there. Why are you ignoring such a central teaching? I could not imagine anything more foolish than believing a word Alex Jones says. Why drink from such a polluted source?

This is the problem I have with your belief in conspiracy theories. I don't see any discernment. You appear to grab random headlines from the daily news and interpret them as more evidence of your conspiracies. I can't see any difference between your conspiracy theories and those of the average garden-variety lunatic. Please take no offense. I am just trying to help you see what things look like from outside of your head.



Richard, I am as prone to fall prey to deception and even self-deception, as you are. And I am not trying to say that I am equal to your perceptions in that area, but generally, that is a battle we all face, and I have, likewise, spent a lifetime dealing with it.

I totally agree. Believe me, I am quite aware that we all are subject to delusion. But there are ways to become free. That's what motivates me now. Clear, self-critical thinking is the path to freedom. Your mind is an amazing thing. It has a built in defense mechanism to help keep you free from delusion. It's called "cognitive dissonance." It is to the mind what pain is to the body. Have you heard of children who don't feel pain? Their bodies quickly disintegrate, because they smash them about. The same thing happens to a mind that suppresses the pain of cognitive dissonance. It causes a literal disintegration of their mind. I wrote about this in my article The Art of Rationalization: A Case Study of Christian Apologist Rich Deem (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/06/the-art-of-rationalization-a-case-study-of-christian-apologist-rich-deem/).



From my studies, I became quite suspect that the next pope would be a Jesuit, and I told a number of my friends that. I am not a visionary or a prophet, but the evidence strongly leaned in that direction. So it didn't surprise me when that actually happened.

Two questions:

1) Was there any objective evidence that gave you that conviction, or was it just a feeling, or perhaps a mystical vision?

2) So what? The Jesuits are simply the enemies of the human tradition you follow! How do you know that your opinion is true? How do you know that they Jesuits have not been slandered by their Protestant political enemies? Is it ever wise to invent a magical mystical conspiratorial explanation when a simple truth like "politics" suffices to explain all the facts?



On another occasion, from my studies of what was transpiring in the Middle East, following the Arab Spring, the stand-down at Bengazi and subsequent death of a US Ambassador, the formation of ISIS at the time of the US and NATO and certain Sunni Arab countries attempt to oust Assad, much like Gadaffi and Mubaraq, it became obvious to me that ISIS would grow stronger and stronger, not being taken out by NATO, when they were taking out all other lesser gods, that ISIS (who had to be connected with Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood) would do a yoyo return to Syria, after becoming publicly popular, so that, this new NATO/Arab alliance could very conveniently, attack them in Syria, mysteriously taking out Assad at the same time.

I told my prediction to Sunni Masters and PhD students at a local university, mostly from Jordan and Saudi Arabia. When it actually happened, they were somewhat surprised, but subsequently, have grown to despise me. Rather strange behaviour, I would say. I don't think there is one other person in the coffee shop we frequent, who would have more insight to Middle East affairs, than I, yet it is obvious they despise my insights. I was trying to wake them up too, but once they found out that I was a solid Bible believing Christian, I guess I am off limits now (probably for the better). I had asked them, that if the Sunni's were willing to be used to eventually take out the Suffi's (mostly Kurds) and the Shia's, (mostly Iranians), then the day would come when they would also be taken out. I think that for now, they don't mind the trade-off. But, the future may be painful for them, as I am sure it is soon going to be for many Americans, and undoubtedly, Canadians too.

That's an interesting story, but you failed to mention how many of your hunches, predictions, suspicions, etc. have proven false. If you only count the hits and ignore the misses, you will begin to believe that you have a great track record. That's how confirmation bias leads to delusion. That video with Alex Jones is full of stuff like that. He was wrong about 97% of the time, but claims to have a great record because he only remembers the 3% he got right by dumb luck.

I'm really glad you are willing to dig down deep into this topic.

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard

dpenn
10-10-2014, 03:47 PM
Hey there dp,

It is true that a broken clock is right twice a day, but would that give anyone a reason to look to the broken clock to determine the correct time? If course not. A broken clock is absolutely unreliable as a source for determining the correct time. The same goes for lunatics like Alex Jones. He has been RAVING INSANELY for over a decade. He is the last person anyone should look to for any information.

This is what seems so crazy to me. You claim to believe Bible. Jesus clearly taught his followers to beware of false teachers and to be "wise as serpents." Alex Jones is one of the most obvious false teachers out there. Why are you ignoring such a central teaching? I could not imagine anything more foolish than believing a word Alex Jones says. Why drink from such a polluted source?

This is the problem I have with your belief in conspiracy theories. I don't see any discernment. You appear to grab random headlines from the daily news and interpret them as more evidence of your conspiracies. I can't see any difference between your conspiracy theories and those of the average garden-variety lunatic. Please take no offense. I am just trying to help you see what things look like from outside of your head.


I totally agree. Believe me, I am quite aware that we all are subject to delusion. But there are ways to become free. That's what motivates me now. Clear, self-critical thinking is the path to freedom. Your mind is an amazing thing. It has a built in defense mechanism to help keep you free from delusion. It's called "cognitive dissonance." It is to the mind what pain is to the body. Have you heard of children who don't feel pain? Their bodies quickly disintegrate, because they smash them about. The same thing happens to a mind that suppresses the pain of cognitive dissonance. It causes a literal disintegration of their mind. I wrote about this in my article The Art of Rationalization: A Case Study of Christian Apologist Rich Deem (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/06/the-art-of-rationalization-a-case-study-of-christian-apologist-rich-deem/).


Two questions:

1) Was there any objective evidence that gave you that conviction, or was it just a feeling, or perhaps a mystical vision?

2) So what? The Jesuits are simply the enemies of the human tradition you follow! How do you know that your opinion is true? How do you know that they Jesuits have not been slandered by their Protestant political enemies? Is it ever wise to invent a magical mystical conspiratorial explanation when a simple truth like "politics" suffices to explain all the facts?


That's an interesting story, but you failed to mention how many of your hunches, predictions, suspicions, etc. have proven false. If you only count the hits and ignore the misses, you will begin to believe that you have a great track record. That's how confirmation bias leads to delusion. That video with Alex Jones is full of stuff like that. He was wrong about 97% of the time, but claims to have a great record because he only remembers the 3% he got right by dumb luck.

I'm really glad you are willing to dig down deep into this topic.

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard

dpenn
10-10-2014, 04:16 PM
dp:


Hey there dp,

It is true that a broken clock is right twice a day, but would that give anyone a reason to look to the broken clock to determine the correct time? If course not. A broken clock is absolutely unreliable as a source for determining the correct time. The same goes for lunatics like Alex Jones. He has been RAVING INSANELY for over a decade. He is the last person anyone should look to for any information.



I knew I shouldn't have used that broken clock analogy, and that you were going to exploit it. And I never look to his predictions. I only consider the interactive discussions with some of his more proven guests.



This is what seems so crazy to me. You claim to believe Bible. Jesus clearly taught his followers to beware of false teachers and to be "wise as serpents." Alex Jones is one of the most obvious false teachers out there. Why are you ignoring such a central teaching? I could not imagine anything more foolish than believing a word Alex Jones says. Why drink from such a polluted source?


I repeat, most of what he says is hogwash. But, surprisingly, some of it is true and proves to be true. So maybe he is a master dis-info agent that works the globalist system. That doesn't change the fact that, over the past year, or so, he has been more right than wrong.



This is the problem I have with your belief in conspiracy theories. I don't see any discernment. You appear to grab random headlines from the daily news and interpret them as more evidence of your conspiracies. I can't see any difference between your conspiracy theories and those of the average garden-variety lunatic. Please take no offense. I am just trying to help you see what things look like from outside of your head.


Richard, you attacked my conspiracy theories long before Alex Jones was used as a video reference. I think you are confusing me with Mel Gibson, in his movie, Conspiracy Theory (I think his best show, I might add, as he really seems to fit the part :lol:).

And yes, I read about your "cognitive dissonance", and soon realised, what is good for the goose, is good for the gander. We both sit facing that reality, although I will not bow down to any such system. We continue to need to prove all things, and to hold fast to that which is true.



Two questions:

1) Was there any objective evidence that gave you that conviction, or was it just a feeling, or perhaps a mystical vision?

2) So what? The Jesuits are simply the enemies of the human tradition you follow! How do you know that your opinion is true? How do you know that they Jesuits have not been slandered by their Protestant political enemies? Is it ever wise to invent a magical mystical conspiratorial explanation when a simple truth like "politics" suffices to explain all the facts?


1. There are always feelings associated with all objective evidences, but all of my developing conclusions were formed by diligent study and observation, along with occasional intuition (which I consider to be a type of fast-tracked logic).

2. The Jesuits may be enemies of biblical Christianity, but they are not my personal enemies. Did I once say how I derived at that conclusion? Are you now making an emotional or mystical evaluation?




That's an interesting story, but you failed to mention how many of your hunches, predictions, suspicions, etc. have proven false. If you only count the hits and ignore the misses, you will begin to believe that you have a great track record. That's how confirmation bias leads to delusion. That video with Alex Jones is full of stuff like that. He was wrong about 97% of the time, but claims to have a great record because he only remembers the 3% he got right by dumb luck.

I'm really glad you are willing to dig down deep into this topic.


There are very few things I have ever said that I really thought were coming to pass. So the hits and misses are easily realised. If my homework is limited and I make hasty judgements, my chance of deception is great. If I do good analysis, and study hard not to be deceived, I am rewarded with predictable insight, like a scientific experiment, using the scientific method.

Oh, I have had numerous occurrences of intuitively thinking on things that came true, but I never ever predicted those events. They were just pleasant surprises along the way. They lie in the realm of the providence and sovereignty of God, whereby He is able to do above and beyond all that we can ask or think, by His Holy Spirit Who works within us. And this is something that can be laid hold of by all Christians, as long as they are keeping His commandments and doing those things that are pleasing in His sight.

The two areas stated, that you are referring to, required diligent historical studies, viewing or reading many informed insights, and very patient watching the flow of developments, demonstrating the accuracy of my perceptions.

Above all, and in addition to all, I pray daily, if possible, for God to grant me the wisdom, knowledge, understanding, protection, and discernment I will require to meet my daily encounters and challenges. And I try to make a habit of asking God to fill me with the fruit of the Holy Spirit and help me to live at peace with all men, if at all possible, and be always willing to say the truth in love.

I often fail, but I press on.

In conclusion, that is why it is important that you only hold me accountable to the videos or links that I post, and not tie me to others that I would never associate myself with.

L67
10-10-2014, 07:49 PM
L67, actually it is not an Alex Jones video, it is an Alex Jones interviewing Michael Savage video, and I have said elsewhere that I don't like Alex Jones' style, nor many things he spins. But he covers many things that are supported and supplemented by many other contributors from all walks of life. What he and Savage discuss here is very relevant to what is happening today, even if he hypes it to the nth degree. And I could care less about the product line he sells to fund his media show.

dpenn,


I know what the video is. It's Alex Jones interviewing another stark raving lunatic. Savage is another blowhard pundit on the air who spreads fear mongering. You obviously don't know how the game works. Their job is to sell as much ad airtime as possible. They do this by whipping the audience into a frenzy so they will continually tune in, which means more money for sponsors. If you think they aren't driven solely by money you are sadly mistaken. They have all learned from the master Rush Limbaugh. Watch Rush explain how talk radio works, yet idiots quote him as gospel. If you really think Savage and Jones are any different then I have some swamp land for you...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELRmgJw8muw


And while the rest of US has there head in the sand regarding Ebola and ISIS, he has been centre stage trying to wake up a public in denial to the treasonous things going on in the US and globalising efforts around the world. As a matter of fact, just this week, my beloved Canada signed on to the pseudo-anti-ISIS pseudo-bombing alliance, to eventually reach their real end goal, Assad regime change.

Bullshit. The treasonous things are coming out of the mouths of people like Jones and Savage. Jones makes wild assertions with no evidence to back his claims.

Savage just lies about his credentials in order to play expert about ebola. He is FEAR mongering. Check this out. On this page Savage has an article. http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/ebola-madness-is-epidemic/

Here is the editors note. Editor’s note: This is the first of a series of columns on the Ebola epidemic by radio talk-show host Michael Savage, who has a Ph.D. in epidemiology.

Guess what? He doesn't have a Ph.D in epidemiology. Here is his Ph.D thesis. Nutritional ethnomedicine in Fiji http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3287378

He's a glorified anthropologist.

You can read the article here. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43689_Michael_Savage_Lies_About_His_Academic_Crede ntials_to_Spread_Fear_About_Ebola/comments/#ctop

Savages opinion on ebola is worthless and so is Jones. Neither one are experts on the subject.

L67
10-10-2014, 08:33 PM
Excellent find L67. It provides more than enough evidence to convince any rational person that Alex Jones is an utterly insane raving lunatic who has been making blatantly absurd false predictions for decades.

Thanks Richard. You said it all right there. Check out nutjob Glenn Beck telling how conspiracy theorists sell lies. He actually nails it. This is how Beck, Jones and Savage all sell their nonsense. How anyone could get sucked into believing these crackpots is beyond me.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26M0bJut-RI

dpenn
10-10-2014, 11:31 PM
dpenn,


I know what the video is. It's Alex Jones interviewing another stark raving lunatic. Savage is another blowhard pundit on the air who spreads fear mongering. You obviously don't know how the game works. Their job is to sell as much ad airtime as possible. They do this by whipping the audience into a frenzy so they will continually tune in, which means more money for sponsors. If you think they aren't driven solely by money you are sadly mistaken. They have all learned from the master Rush Limbaugh. Watch Rush explain how talk radio works, yet idiots quote him as gospel. If you really think Savage and Jones are any different then I have some swamp land for you...

The treasonous things are coming out of the mouths of people like Jones and Savage. Jones makes wild assertions with no evidence to back his claims.

Savage just lies about his credentials in order to play expert about ebola. He is FEAR mongering. Check this out. On this page Savage has an article. http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/ebola-madness-is-epidemic/

Here is the editors note. Editor’s note: This is the first of a series of columns on the Ebola epidemic by radio talk-show host Michael Savage, who has a Ph.D. in epidemiology.

Guess what? He doesn't have a Ph.D in epidemiology. Here is his Ph.D thesis. Nutritional ethnomedicine in Fiji http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3287378

He's a glorified anthropologist.

You can read the article here. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/43689_Michael_Savage_Lies_About_His_Academic_Crede ntials_to_Spread_Fear_About_Ebola/comments/#ctop

Savages opinion on ebola is worthless and so is Jones. Neither one are experts on the subject.

L67, you can dance around this all you want, have you considered my ebola questions here?

New: Ebola Questions

#138 - http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6092-911-Was-an-Inside-Job-by-US-Government-CIA-and-Israeli-Mossad-agents&p=67169#post67169

How do you explain this incompetence from experts in the field?

dpenn
10-10-2014, 11:36 PM
Thanks Richard. You said it all right there. Check out nutjob Glenn Beck telling how conspiracy theorists sell lies. He actually nails it. This is how Beck, Jones and Savage all sell their nonsense. How anyone could get sucked into believing these crackpots is beyond me.



L67, I don't follow Beck at all. He has been shown to be untrustworthy and playing the system. Jones, in the past year has changed quite a bit. And his guests often have some very interesting things to say. As for Jones himself, I take him with a grain of salt, just like I take you with a grain of salt.

L67
10-11-2014, 06:54 AM
L67, you can dance around this all you want, have you considered my ebola questions here?

New: Ebola Questions

#138 - http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6092-911-Was-an-Inside-Job-by-US-Government-CIA-and-Israeli-Mossad-agents&p=67169#post67169

How do you explain this incompetence from experts in the field?

Nice dodge dpenn.

I haven't danced around anything. It is you who has continually danced around anything that exposes your corrupt sources.

I just shredded your Michael Savage video. Savage isn't an expert on ebola. He lied about his credentials to play an expert. You obviously believe this stupidity because you posted that video with ridiculous headlines such as: Here is another video exposing the Ebola false flag:

Your questions are based on silly conspiracy theorists info. Like the gross fear mongering of phony Savage and Jones. Neither one are experts in the respective fields.

If I'm wrong, then please post the sources for your questions.

L67
10-11-2014, 07:19 AM
L67, I don't follow Beck at all. He has been shown to be untrustworthy and playing the system. Jones, in the past year has changed quite a bit. And his guests often have some very interesting things to say. As for Jones himself, I take him with a grain of salt, just like I take you with a grain of salt.


Please come back to reality dpenn. Jones is as untrustworthy as it gets. Could you please show me how Jones has PROVEN himself to be more reliable than Beck? Could you also show me Alex Jones predicting anything with consistency? If you swing for the fences enough, then eventually you will get a homerun.

You don't take Jones with a grain of salt. You unequivocally lap up his bullshit when it suits your narrative. If you actually took him with a grain of salt, then you wouldn't be using his empty rhetoric to support your conspiracies. I know you keep saying your skeptical but your actions say the opposite is true. You have defended him every step of the way.

And Jones has not changed in the least over the last year. He is the same lunatic getting richer off the same formula every year.

I'm also glad you take me with a grain of salt because it shows how deluded you really are. You don't care about the truth you claim to love. After I exposed your Savage video, you accused me of dancing around the issue. You obviously didn't care that Savage is a liar. Instead, you wanted to attack me. I'm the only one who is actually doing any due diligence as to whether someone is credible. I'm sorry, I can't mindlessly believe proven liars.

TheForgiven
10-14-2014, 03:18 PM
Well it's interesting to see L67 back. I find it quite interesting that anyone would blast Alex Jones for some of his worst times. Come on guys! Some people worship George Bush Junior as though he were the best President in the United States. :lol: of course he has no chance of claiming the status quo to that farce. :lol: But if I were to show you pictures or videos of George Bush Junior smoking crack, driving a sword into the skull of an old buried indian, or jerking his meat in a Wal-Mart parking lot, would that somehow discredit him for any accomplishments he might have?

L67 you are no secret. Your kind (yes your kind) does nothing but troll the web to find people who oppose your beliefs, and the only defenses you use are:

1. Discredit the author of information
2. Use phrases such as "crackpot" or "insane" or "tinfoil" etc. to label them as nutty.

Now you are either flat out stupid with absolutely no intellect at all! Or you know the truth but are part of the agenda to hide it.

Alex Jones is a ravening guy at times, and he knows that this sometimes discredits him. But his team is brilliant. Sure he makes a living on selling fear. But what if that fear is true?

Do YOU believe that the Ebola cases are real? I do and I don't; it all depends on how you view it. But I'll get into that later. But don't tell me you're actually one of those who believes that this was all just an accident. I suggest you read the Agenda 21 pamplet and you'll find more than enough "coincidences" to satisfy your curiosity. Of course you could always say that the Agenda 21 is all a bunch of bunk...yea, bunk written by who?

Everything is a conspiracy theory to the conspirators who have something to hide.

BTW, I noticed your lack of response to the 911 attacks with regards to the jet engines. Kind of hard to argue against an aircraft mechanic right? :lol:

Even so, it's a pleasure seeing you again...look forward to smashing more of your Men-in-Black tactics.

Joe

P.S. Sorry I left you hanging DPenn....I won't do that again.:highfive:

And Richard? Wow my friend. I never thought you would not question the Ebola cases. Do you not find it curious that the CDC totally disregarded all protocols involving entrance of infected people into the United States? I'd ask you to take a look at my Facebook account, as I've presented some very valuable information. I'll share it on here as well, but we need to start another post so that the 911 thread doesn't get detracted.

Joe

TheForgiven
10-14-2014, 03:26 PM
Please come back to reality dpenn. Jones is as untrustworthy as it gets. Could you please show me how Jones has PROVEN himself to be more reliable than Beck? Could you also show me Alex Jones predicting anything with consistency? If you swing for the fences enough, then eventually you will get a homerun.

You don't take Jones with a grain of salt. You unequivocally lap up his bullshit when it suits your narrative. If you actually took him with a grain of salt, then you wouldn't be using his empty rhetoric to support your conspiracies. I know you keep saying your skeptical but your actions say the opposite is true. You have defended him every step of the way.

And Jones has not changed in the least over the last year. He is the same lunatic getting richer off the same formula every year.

I'm also glad you take me with a grain of salt because it shows how deluded you really are. You don't care about the truth you claim to love. After I exposed your Savage video, you accused me of dancing around the issue. You obviously didn't care that Savage is a liar. Instead, you wanted to attack me. I'm the only one who is actually doing any due diligence as to whether someone is credible. I'm sorry, I can't mindlessly believe proven liars.

And there we go again....the call to reality. I just love the typical MIB tactics. Label all truthers as crazy and psychotic. What the hell are you? Some kind of "government does not wrong" supporter? :hysterical: I'm curious. How was the United States dragged into WWI and WWII? How about the Korean War? Or the Vietnam War? Better yet, what about the Gulf War, and the War on Iraq? And finally, how was the United States dragged into a non-congressional-approved war against ISIS? And are you part of the stupid minority that actually believes ISIS to be a threat?

Leave the darkside L67 (what ever your real name is; fake name indicating something to hide); come back to the light....step away from the dark side, and leave the Emperor. :hysterical: Ok then, I'll stop teasing if you do. Enough of calling people crazy, nutty, or any other slanderous word. Or is that the reason why you choose not to post your real name.

Alex Jones has a great staff working for him, and I know one who served 10 years in the military in the Bioenvironmental department. She confirmed that the USAF has been spraying the American people with Aluminum Oxide, Barium, Sulfur, and other chemicals. She left the AF upon learning this, as she was the one signing for the unauthorized use of hazards. She brought this to her commanders attention, and she was threatened jail time if she exposed any of this. This all took place in Warner Robbins, Ga. Now, as a civilian, she has been campaigning around the country about the Air Force's Chemtrail programs, and she's joined the Infowars to help spread the word.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nx47GxKXv6U

Now are you going to discredit her too as a nut job? :lol:

Come back to reality L67....leave the MIB office, and return to "We the People". Leave the realm of the Talmudist's..


Joe

Joe

Base12
10-14-2014, 07:19 PM
I created an animation of flight 77...


http://youtu.be/YVDdjLQkUV8

Richard Amiel McGough
10-14-2014, 08:27 PM
I created an animation of flight 77...


http://youtu.be/YVDdjLQkUV8
Hey there Base12,

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

Thanks for that very informative video. Well done! :thumb:

Richard

dpenn
10-14-2014, 10:01 PM
dp:


I created an animation of flight 77...


http://youtu.be/YVDdjLQkUV8

Base12, Now watch Barbara's presentation:

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11- Barbara Honegger Day 2
* Eyewitnesses and Evidence of Explosions at the Pentagon *


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2YrUq2Y_C4


and you be the judge between the two presentations.


911 Toronto Hearings:

#98 - http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6092-911-Was-an-Inside-Job-by-US-Government-CIA-and-Israeli-Mossad-agents&p=66917#post66917

It sure is interesting how the animation doesn't even show the circular hole created from the fuselage, with no penetration by the engines. And then on Ring C of the Pentagon, there are three holes, after outer Ring E, followed by Ring D, have a single circular hole. It wasn't until more than 30 minutes that the full outer wall caved down.

dpenn
10-15-2014, 08:37 AM
dp:


Please come back to reality dpenn. Jones is as untrustworthy as it gets. Could you please show me how Jones has PROVEN himself to be more reliable than Beck? Could you also show me Alex Jones predicting anything with consistency? If you swing for the fences enough, then eventually you will get a homerun.

You don't take Jones with a grain of salt. You unequivocally lap up his bullshit when it suits your narrative. If you actually took him with a grain of salt, then you wouldn't be using his empty rhetoric to support your conspiracies. I know you keep saying your skeptical but your actions say the opposite is true. You have defended him every step of the way.

And Jones has not changed in the least over the last year. He is the same lunatic getting richer off the same formula every year.

I'm also glad you take me with a grain of salt because it shows how deluded you really are. You don't care about the truth you claim to love. After I exposed your Savage video, you accused me of dancing around the issue. You obviously didn't care that Savage is a liar. Instead, you wanted to attack me. I'm the only one who is actually doing any due diligence as to whether someone is credible. I'm sorry, I can't mindlessly believe proven liars.

L67, I simply ask you to debunk what I post, not some generalisation of what I do not post. I could spend all day exposing what I don't agree with about Jones too. As you said yourself, if he swings for the fences enough times, eventually he will get a homerun. Well, I have tried to post his home runs.

And from my own lips, to my own written word, I have told you that I don't buy into much of what he says. So if you can't accept that, I guess you have a bit of an agenda too. I don't like his hype and his fear mongering. I said that. But somehow it just doesn't matter what I say, you have already got me cased. The same applies with Savage. The video I posted says some very credible things. Whatever else you are talking about, is just that, something else. I will always give credit where credit is due, including what you say, if it is credible.

Any half-intelligent being has to know there is something very crazy about this whole ebola crisis, and the unbelievable CDC handling. I just can't believe it is anything other than willful incompetence. What I can't determine is, whether it really isn't as fatal as they say, that is, they are just using it to take another step in their march to a NWO, or it is a clear cut false flag to release an epidemic, intended to kill people in cold blood, but again, to reach their objective. If you deny that there is something extremely fishy about how CDC has handled this ebola crisis, you should not be taken, even with a grain of salt.

I will join you in debunking anything that is unverifiable, or unfalsifiable, or contrary to common sense in either Jones or Savage. For you to paint me with a broad brush, to trash my credibility, is itself, an intentional ad hominem. Any one who knows the rules of logic, knows full well that you haven't addressed what I posted, other than to look for other crazy things said in the past, regarding Jones and Savage.

L67
10-15-2014, 01:20 PM
Please come back to reality dpenn. Jones is as untrustworthy as it gets. Could you please show me how Jones has PROVEN himself to be more reliable than Beck? Could you also show me Alex Jones predicting anything with consistency? If you swing for the fences enough, then eventually you will get a homerun.

You don't take Jones with a grain of salt. You unequivocally lap up his bullshit when it suits your narrative. If you actually took him with a grain of salt, then you wouldn't be using his empty rhetoric to support your conspiracies. I know you keep saying your skeptical but your actions say the opposite is true. You have defended him every step of the way.

And Jones has not changed in the least over the last year. He is the same lunatic getting richer off the same formula every year.

I'm also glad you take me with a grain of salt because it shows how deluded you really are. You don't care about the truth you claim to love. After I exposed your Savage video, you accused me of dancing around the issue. You obviously didn't care that Savage is a liar. Instead, you wanted to attack me. I'm the only one who is actually doing any due diligence as to whether someone is credible. I'm sorry, I can't mindlessly believe proven liars.


dp:



L67, I simply ask you to debunk what I post, not some generalisation of what I do not post. I could spend all day exposing what I don't agree with about Jones too. As you said yourself, if he swings for the fences enough times, eventually he will get a homerun. Well, I have tried to post his home runs.

dpenn,

You just proved my point with these comments. . You ignore every other time Jones is wrong and you unequivocally lap up his comments when it suits your narrative. This is how people delude themselves. And you have not only admitted that's what you do, but you have just proven that you have deluded yourself. You cherry pick what you want to believe. This is what Richard spent a great deal of time on debunking his own book. Nobody is immune to this behavior. The real test is what are you going to do about it when someone points it out to you.




And from my own lips, to my own written word, I have told you that I don't buy into much of what he says. So if you can't accept that, I guess you have a bit of an agenda too. I don't like his hype and his fear mongering. I said that. But somehow it just doesn't matter what I say, you have already got me cased. The same applies with Savage. The video I posted says some very credible things. Whatever else you are talking about, is just that, something else. I will always give credit where credit is due, including what you say, if it is credible.

My comments about Savage are not something else. They very much pertain to the video you posted. Why should I listen to someone who LIES about their credentials? No rational thinking person would listen to such an individual. I do my due diligence about who I am listening to. I don't listen to liars or someone who is wrong the vast majority of the time.


Any half-intelligent being has to know there is something very crazy about this whole ebola crisis, and the unbelievable CDC handling. I just can't believe it is anything other than willful incompetence. What I can't determine is, whether it really isn't as fatal as they say, that is, they are just using it to take another step in their march to a NWO, or it is a clear cut false flag to release an epidemic, intended to kill people in cold blood, but again, to reach their objective. If you deny that there is something extremely fishy about how CDC has handled this ebola crisis, you should not be taken, even with a grain of salt.

That's your OPINION. You haven't given a rational person any reason to believe anything you say. You post videos of people who are NOT experts and who have been wrong the vast majority of the time.



I will join you in debunking anything that is unverifiable, or unfalsifiable, or contrary to common sense in either Jones or Savage. For you to paint me with a broad brush, to trash my credibility, is itself, an intentional ad hominem. Any one who knows the rules of logic, knows full well that you haven't addressed what I posted, other than to look for other crazy things said in the past, regarding Jones and Savage.


I didn't trash your credibility. Could you show me one thing in my post that wasn't true? Your credibility is YOUR responsibility. It's NOT my fault you align yourself with these lunatics.

And Jones is everything I said he was. You can't trust anything he says because his job is to say the most outrageous things to draw people in. This is what ALL the pundits on the air do.That is why ALL the media do it. Controversy sells. Jones is a smart business man and nothing more. He is making millions off of the gullible people who listen to him. I can PROVE it.

Check this out. http://www.salon.com/2013/05/02/alex_jones_conspiracy_inc/

And make no mistake, it is a business. That’s not to say that Jones isn’t a believer — there are easier ways to make money — but Jones has built a multi-platform new media empire in his Austin, Texas, Free Speech Systems LLC that reaches millions of believers and promises advertisers that it will “direct lucrative buyers to you from our daily audience of active enthusiasts.” And all told, Jones is very likely raking in millions.

This is from Alex Jones own media kit here. http://static.infowars.com/ads/mediakit_public.pdf

Do you really think Jones would even have the audience he has by saying non controversial things? Hell no! I'm sorry, all pundits operate this way, and NONE of them are believable when there is big money at stake.

He has also been caught pitching an MLM scam to his listeners. http://www.incomeathomeexposed.com/2012020430/blog-updates/alex-jones-joins-the-wall-of-shame.html

Pundits are for entertainment only. Period.

dpenn
10-15-2014, 01:57 PM
dp:


dpenn,

You just proved my point with these comments. . You ignore every other time Jones is wrong and you unequivocally lap up his comments when it suits your narrative. This is how people delude themselves. And you have not only admitted that's what you do, but you have just proven that you have deluded yourself. You cherry pick what you want to believe. This is what Richard spent a great deal of time on debunking his own book. Nobody is immune to this behavior. The real test is what are you going to do about it when someone points it out to you.



L67, exactly, I only choose what I believe is credible, or at least what demands more indepth study. He has a radio talk show, I disagree with much of it. So will you please deal with only what I am posting? Disprove the videos I post, then feel freely to attack Jones or Savage. I am fully aware of what I don't believe coming from the mouth of Alex Jones, from the beginning, and you know it. So don't give me this line about, what will I do about it when someone points it out to me. You are dishonestly editing that out of my posts.

These posts include,

Lt Col Tony Shaffer on Alex Jones – Secrets of the 28 page 911 Report Released
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO6xwmNXeZI&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

Jerome Corsi on Alex Jones – Historical Foundation of ISIS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5-BpJ0fi1k&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

Why not answer?

911 questions and videos:

#8- http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6092-911-Was-an-Inside-Job-by-US-Government-CIA-and-Israeli-Mossad-agents&p=66658#post66658

#9 - http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6092-911-Was-an-Inside-Job-by-US-Government-CIA-and-Israeli-Mossad-agents&p=66662#post66662

New: Ebola Questions

#138 - http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6092-911-Was-an-Inside-Job-by-US-Government-CIA-and-Israeli-Mossad-agents&p=67169#post67169

New: Ebola Videos

#143 - http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6092-911-Was-an-Inside-Job-by-US-Government-CIA-and-Israeli-Mossad-agents&p=67263#post67263

TheForgiven
10-19-2014, 12:26 PM
I created an animation of flight 77...


http://youtu.be/YVDdjLQkUV8

Greetings Base12! Welcome to the forum! :signthankspin:

When you watch this video, you are viewing nothing more than a graphic theoretical simulation on what the "Official Story" from the 911 Commissioners (all bankers I might add) wants the American people to believe. But here's the truth.

No plane struck the Pentagon. What you see in the aftermath of the incident from photo's of the Pentagon was a result of several bombs designed to destroy one of the most important sections of the Pentagon; the archived financial records of the DoD. First, this video the day before 911:


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

$2.3 TRILLION dollars in transactions. Do you know how much money that is? It's hard to scale exactly how much a trillion dollars would like like. But it's soooo large that if you were to take an average sized subdivision or neighborhood, and begin stacking crates of printed $1,000 bills, you'd have an entire neighborhood of crates stacked some 100 feet high and more than 10 times larger than a football field. Now HOW does one of the most important agencies in the United States (Pentagon) lose that amount of money?

THEN, the very next day, the financial records just HAPPENED to be conveniently destroyed by the so-called hijacked 757 (Flight 77). The timing of Rumsfeld's announcement is enough to bring suspicion to anyone's mind. What's even more interesting is building 7, leased by Larry Steinberg (Jewish Patsi of the New World Order movement, and friend to owner David Rockefeller), contained secondary archived records of the Pentagon, which were also destroyed despite never having been struck by an airplane. So as all crooks do, erase any evidence in order to claim plausible deniability.

Next, several witnesses (One Colonel and a SSgt) both heard multiple explosions from within the building as soon as they booted up their computers; one witness appeared on the Jesse Ventura Conspiracy Theory TV program that was taken off the air. Both the Colonel and a Pentagon employee walked out of the area where the hole was created, and both tried testifying that there was no aircraft of any kind in the area. Their testimonies were ignored.

BOOM happened when the Pentagon employee turned on her PC:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIy9hjB3DGk

"While I was coming out of the Pentagon, I didn't see any evidence of metal, airplane seats, luggage...nothing that would give me an indication of an airplane hitting the building......" and again, "I didn't have jet fuel on my body, and no one else had jet fuel on their body...."

God bless this very brave woman who worked at the Pentagon to tell what she believes to be the truth. Sadly, the conspirators of the CIA (or other agency) may have killed her, as they've done other witnesses. THIS is the reason why I believe the CIA and the FBI (both agencies created to protect the Jewish bankers since 1913) should be terminated immediately; there's no reason for these agencies accept to give power to the mafia.

FLIGHT 77

One can logically see from pictures of the Pentagon that no major aircraft structures appeared near ground-zero (Pentagon debris), and there's nothing that matches the impact of a 757 flying at over 500mph. Now, in speaking of the aircraft, we're told that these untrained hijackers skillfully piloted a 757 at over 500 miles per hour, executed a sharp 390 spiraled descent (WITHOUT STALLING), and managed to ACCURATELY maneuver the plane into an impact position where the engines NEVER dragged on the ground, and yet struck the Pentagon at such a height that the engines SHOULD have dragged on the ground. What's even more illogical is the fact that the 911 Bankers (Commissioners) seem to forget one of the most important damning pieces of information involving flight: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A 757 TO FLY AT VERY LOW ALTITUDE, ROUGHLY 1,000 FEET AGL AT 500MPH, AND ESPECIALLY WHILE EXECUTING A 390 DEGREE SPIRAL TURN WITHOUT STALLING. No pilot to date has been able to duplicate what the so-called terrorist hijackers did. Keep in mind we're talking about hijackers with less than 6 weeks of training in small cessna aircraft. And yet pilots with a lifetime of experience have not been able to make a 757 or larger aircraft perform such a fantastic and nearly impossible thing.

A 757 flying at 500 mph below 1,000 feet (if even possible) would stall the moment the pilot tried to execute such a sharp spiral turn. The air over the wing surfaces would begin to coil-over and spiral, thus causing the plane to stall and thus freefall from equal, if not higher air pressures on the top surface of the wing, thus creating a stall (no lift of the wing). Even in computer simulations, pilots have not been able to duplicate what these untrained hijackers managed to do. Moreover, at 500 mph, it is very difficult to navigate the aircraft towards a specific target on the ground; especially while turning. A great deal of practice would be necessary to maneuver such a large aircraft, at a high rate of speed without stalling during a 390 degree spiral descent, and yet strike the target with precision so as to avoid the engines being driven into the ground (and there were no indications or evidence of an engine striking the ground).

In conclusion, it was not a 757 that struck the Pentagon, but possibly a small RC rocket as denoted by the turbine found at the Pentagon; a turbine that is too small for use on a 757. But I won't get into that now. The pilots lacked the necessary experience and skills to maneuver a large aircraft at such a high rate of speed below 1,000 feet AGL and execute an impossible turn which would lead to a major stall, and yet maneuver so precisely so as to avoid the aircrafts engines from striking the ground and luckily hit one of the most important sections of the Pentagon, which contained all financial records of the DoD, and thus would help explain the missing $2.3 TRILLION Dollars.

The 911 Bankers report is one of the most fictitious and impossible theories ever proposed, next to the magic bullet theory of the JKF assassination.

Joe

L67
10-19-2014, 01:46 PM
Greetings Base12! Welcome to the forum! :signthankspin:

When you watch this video, you are viewing nothing more than a graphic theoretical simulation on what the "Official Story" from the 911 Commissioners (all bankers I might add) wants the American people to believe. But here's the truth.

No plane struck the Pentagon. What you see in the aftermath of the incident from photo's of the Pentagon was a result of several bombs designed to destroy one of the most important sections of the Pentagon; the archived financial records of the DoD. First, this video the day before 911:


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

$2.3 TRILLION dollars in transactions. Do you know how much money that is? It's hard to scale exactly how much a trillion dollars would like like. But it's soooo large that if you were to take an average sized subdivision or neighborhood, and begin stacking crates of printed $1,000 bills, you'd have an entire neighborhood of crates stacked some 100 feet high and more than 10 times larger than a football field. Now HOW does one of the most important agencies in the United States (Pentagon) lose that amount of money?

THEN, the very next day, the financial records just HAPPENED to be conveniently destroyed by the so-called hijacked 757 (Flight 77). The timing of Rumsfeld's announcement is enough to bring suspicion to anyone's mind. What's even more interesting is building 7, leased by Larry Steinberg (Jewish Patsi of the New World Order movement, and friend to owner David Rockefeller), contained secondary archived records of the Pentagon, which were also destroyed despite never having been struck by an airplane. So as all crooks do, erase any evidence in order to claim plausible deniability.

Next, several witnesses (One Colonel and a SSgt) both heard multiple explosions from within the building as soon as they booted up their computers; one witness appeared on the Jesse Ventura Conspiracy Theory TV program that was taken off the air. Both the Colonel and a Pentagon employee walked out of the area where the hole was created, and both tried testifying that there was no aircraft of any kind in the area. Their testimonies were ignored.

BOOM happened when the Pentagon employee turned on her PC:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIy9hjB3DGk

"While I was coming out of the Pentagon, I didn't see any evidence of metal, airplane seats, luggage...nothing that would give me an indication of an airplane hitting the building......" and again, "I didn't have jet fuel on my body, and no one else had jet fuel on their body...."

God bless this very brave woman who worked at the Pentagon to tell what she believes to be the truth. Sadly, the conspirators of the CIA (or other agency) may have killed her, as they've done other witnesses. THIS is the reason why I believe the CIA and the FBI (both agencies created to protect the Jewish bankers since 1913) should be terminated immediately; there's no reason for these agencies accept to give power to the mafia.

FLIGHT 77

One can logically see from pictures of the Pentagon that no major aircraft structures appeared near ground-zero (Pentagon debris), and there's nothing that matches the impact of a 757 flying at over 500mph. Now, in speaking of the aircraft, we're told that these untrained hijackers skillfully piloted a 757 at over 500 miles per hour, executed a sharp 390 spiraled descent (WITHOUT STALLING), and managed to ACCURATELY maneuver the plane into an impact position where the engines NEVER dragged on the ground, and yet struck the Pentagon at such a height that the engines SHOULD have dragged on the ground. What's even more illogical is the fact that the 911 Bankers (Commissioners) seem to forget one of the most important damning pieces of information involving flight: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A 757 TO FLY AT VERY LOW ALTITUDE, ROUGHLY 1,000 FEET AGL AT 500MPH, AND ESPECIALLY WHILE EXECUTING A 390 DEGREE SPIRAL TURN WITHOUT STALLING. No pilot to date has been able to duplicate what the so-called terrorist hijackers did. Keep in mind we're talking about hijackers with less than 6 weeks of training in small cessna aircraft. And yet pilots with a lifetime of experience have not been able to make a 757 or larger aircraft perform such a fantastic and nearly impossible thing.

A 757 flying at 500 mph below 1,000 feet (if even possible) would stall the moment the pilot tried to execute such a sharp spiral turn. The air over the wing surfaces would begin to coil-over and spiral, thus causing the plane to stall and thus freefall from equal, if not higher air pressures on the top surface of the wing, thus creating a stall (no lift of the wing). Even in computer simulations, pilots have not been able to duplicate what these untrained hijackers managed to do. Moreover, at 500 mph, it is very difficult to navigate the aircraft towards a specific target on the ground; especially while turning. A great deal of practice would be necessary to maneuver such a large aircraft, at a high rate of speed without stalling during a 390 degree spiral descent, and yet strike the target with precision so as to avoid the engines being driven into the ground (and there were no indications or evidence of an engine striking the ground).

In conclusion, it was not a 757 that struck the Pentagon, but possibly a small RC rocket as denoted by the turbine found at the Pentagon; a turbine that is too small for use on a 757. But I won't get into that now. The pilots lacked the necessary experience and skills to maneuver a large aircraft at such a high rate of speed below 1,000 feet AGL and execute an impossible turn which would lead to a major stall, and yet maneuver so precisely so as to avoid the aircrafts engines from striking the ground and luckily hit one of the most important sections of the Pentagon, which contained all financial records of the DoD, and thus would help explain the missing $2.3 TRILLION Dollars.

The 911 Bankers report is one of the most fictitious and impossible theories ever proposed, next to the magic bullet theory of the JKF assassination.

Joe


And we can see yet again just how nutty twoofers really are.

If you want to actually support your lame conspiracies then you could at least post factual information.

Here is what Rumsfeld ACTUALLY said. Rumsfeld is simply asking for more money to improve the accounting systems, because the DOD is working with very outdated systems.

Read all about it here. http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=430

He said: The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.


"we cannot track" does not mean that the money went missing. It means that their systems are so out of date and not compatible with each other that they can't track (by computer) transactions across departments. In order to do that, they would have to do it manually. The money is not missing, money went into the pentagon, and products and services came out - it's just too complicated to follow the trail of exactly how that happened up to acceptable accounting practices.

Here another bit that PROVES the 2.3 trillion in transactions never were really missing. They were accounted for if you actually READ the whole thing.http://www.defense.gov/news/Jul2001/d20010710finmngt.pdf

In the current environment, DoD has a serious credibility problem in financial management. On January 11, 2001, in the confirmation hearing of the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF), Senator Byrd questioned the Defense Department’s inability “to receive a clean audit opinion in its financial statements”. He went on to say, “I seriously question an increase in the Pentagon’s budget in the face of the department’s recent (inspector general) report. How can we seriously consider a $50 billion increase in the Defense Department’s budget when the (Department of Defense’s) own auditors–when DoD’s own auditors–say the department cannot account for $2.3 trillion in transactions…”

In subsequent Senate testimony of February 13, 2001, Senator Grassley referenced these questions and continued, “…these reports show that DoD has lost control of the money at the transaction level. With no control at the transaction level, it is physically impossible to roll up the numbers into a top-line financial statement that can stand up to scrutiny and, most importantly, audit.”

While DoD may debate some of the criticisms of its financial statements and the size and components of the $2.3 trillion issue, we think that corrective action requires radical financial management transformation. For the FY 1999 financial statements, the auditors concluded that $2.3 trillion transactions of the $7.6 trillion entries to the financial statements were “unsupported”. DoD notes that many of these entries included end-of- period estimates for such items as military pension actuarial liabilities and contingent liabilities, and manual entries for such items as contract accounts payable and property and equipment values. DoD would further note that the “unsupported” entries are “not necessarily improper” and that documentation does exist in many cases, albeit, not adequate for the auditing standards imposed.

2.3 trillion was never missing, it was just unaccounted for because of antiquated technology.


Also, a plain hitting the Pentagon is easily debunked as well. There is tons of evidence to support that.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTNRkb7AaQk

Richard Amiel McGough
10-19-2014, 02:01 PM
And we can see yet again just how nutty twoofers really are.

If you want to actually support your lame conspiracies then you could at least post factual information.

Here is what Rumsfeld ACTUALLY said. Rumsfeld is simply asking for more money to improve the accounting systems, because the DOD is working with very outdated systems.

Read all about it here. http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=430

He said: The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.


"we cannot track" does not mean that the money went missing. It means that their systems are so out of date and not compatible with each other that they can't track (by computer) transactions across departments. In order to do that, they would have to do it manually. The money is not missing, money went into the pentagon, and products and services came out - it's just too complicated to follow the trail of exactly how that happened up to acceptable accounting practices.

Here another bit that PROVES the 2.3 trillion in transactions never were really missing. They were accounted for if you actually READ the whole thing.http://www.defense.gov/news/Jul2001/d20010710finmngt.pdf

In the current environment, DoD has a serious credibility problem in financial management. On January 11, 2001, in the confirmation hearing of the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF), Senator Byrd questioned the Defense Department’s inability “to receive a clean audit opinion in its financial statements”. He went on to say, “I seriously question an increase in the Pentagon’s budget in the face of the department’s recent (inspector general) report. How can we seriously consider a $50 billion increase in the Defense Department’s budget when the (Department of Defense’s) own auditors–when DoD’s own auditors–say the department cannot account for $2.3 trillion in transactions…”

Excellent work L67! That's a stunning example of how people delude themselves with confirmation bias, and spread their delusion to others.

1) The video was deliberately edited to exclude the data that would have made it clear what Rumsfeld was actually talking about.

2) Deluded conspiracy theorists accept whatever they think "confirms" their delusion without checking the facts and then spread the deception to other deluded conspiracy theorists.

Good work! :thumb:

dpenn
10-19-2014, 03:11 PM
dp:


Excellent work L67! That's a stunning example of how people delude themselves with confirmation bias, and spread their delusion to others.

1) The video was deliberately edited to exclude the data that would have made it clear what Rumsfeld was actually talking about.

2) Deluded conspiracy theorists accept whatever they think "confirms" their delusion without checking the facts and then spread the deception to other deluded conspiracy theorists.

Good work! :thumb:

Richard, why do you always expose whenever a conspiracy theorist is proven false, but never address any of the proven accusations? Barbara Honegger lectured on how she interviewed this lady at the Pentagon for 2 hours, under oath:

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11- Barbara. Honegger Day 2
Eyewitnesses and Evidence of Explosions at the Pentagon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2YrUq2Y_C4

She also shows how two different Pentagon clocks, and this lady's wrist watch, all fried at the time of the explosion at the Pentagon, 9:31-32 AM (not the official 9:37:46). How would a jet do that? She also said that when she hit her on button for her computer, the computers in her area, all burst into flames.

What about the skilled air pilots that say they couldn't pull off what this bad Sessna trained pilot presumably succeeded in doing? Why not question the inability to fly a Boeing 757 at that altitude, or how it didn't rip up the grass with the underside of the jet? Why do you ignore all this, but seem all to ready to rally around a false video, as though that was the only fact under scrutiny?

Richard Amiel McGough
10-19-2014, 03:43 PM
Richard, why do you always expose whenever a conspiracy theorist is proven false, but never address any of the proven accusations? Barbara Honegger lectured on how she interviewed this lady at the Pentagon for 2 hours, under oath:

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11- Barbara. Honegger Day 2
Eyewitnesses and Evidence of Explosions at the Pentagon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2YrUq2Y_C4

She also shows how two different Pentagon clocks, and this lady's wrist watch, all fried at the time of the explosion at the Pentagon, 9:31-32 AM (not the official 9:37:46). How would a jet do that? She also said that when she hit her on button for her computer, the computers in her area, all burst into flames.

What about the skilled air pilots that say they couldn't pull off what this bad Sessna trained pilot presumably succeeded in doing? Why not question the inability to fly a Boeing 757 at that altitude, or how it didn't rip up the grass with the underside of the jet? Why do you ignore all this, but seem all to ready to rally around a false video, as though that was the only fact under scrutiny?
The video that TheForgiven shared is a blatant deception that is immediately easy to PROVE is a deception. The stuff you post is not like that. It's mostly just ambiguity and innuendo. The video you posted is three freaking hours long! I'm not going to waste my time with that. If you have EVIDENCE that is easily demonstrated like the video that L67 debunked, then please present it. You don't have anything like that. You pose loaded questions like "how could those untrained terrorist turn that big plane?" You can't prove anything with questions like that.

So again, I have asked you many times to present the BEST EVIDENCE you have that exposes the conspiracy, and you have not even tried. I'm sorry to say that I'm not surprised. I cannot find any difference between your claims and those of the classic conspiracy theorists who deny that we landed on the moon. Sorry, but your adamant refusal to present objectively verifiable evidence leaves me no other option.

Richard

L67
10-19-2014, 05:08 PM
American Airlines and Flight United have been using Pratt and Whitney engines since the 1970's; NOT General Electric (GE) engines. Taking a look at a photo of an aircraft engine recovered from the WTC attacks, it is not readily easy to identify the specific engine:

Correct. However, it's NOT a GE engine. Period.




We're told that this was one of the engines from Flight United 175, being a 767 engine. But is this correct? The answer will be quite obvious. Take a very close look at the cooling ducts with small tubes near the end of the combustor. Can you see it? If not, look at this particular cooling duct which fits the engine recovered from the WTC's:

Yes, it's correct. Radar data PROVES it was flight 175 that crashed into the south tower. We have it on radar from take off to crash. Plus, all the videos and eyewitness's that prove it was flight 175.


1302

Now see if you can find it on the engine; it should be obvious.

The cooling duct you see in the picture is designed to fit the JT9D-7A/7F/7 engines, NONE of which were installed on 767's. The JT9D-7A (and above) were older engines which were installed on 747's from the 1970's. None of the JT9D engines were large enough to provide sufficient thrust for the 767, except the JT9D-7R4 engines installed on some late 80's 767's. However, the cooling duct for the JT9D-7R4 engine is PN 801123 (the flat round cooling duct), which is not installed on the engine recovered from Murray Street. [Note: Since the 90's, all 767's were fitted with the PW4000 series engines, which are totally different from the JT9D-7R4 series, or the much older 747 engines].[/B].


Here is the duct commonly used by 767's:

1303



The JTD9-7R4D uses aderated and modified version of the basic JT9D fitted to United's 747s. The same engine family will share a lot of common features.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1978/1978%20-%201306.html?search=%22Tangential%20on%20board%22% 20JT9D


Also, those two piece parts are part of an assembly, not independent of one another.

HPT Stage 1 Cooling Duct Assembly has 24 holes on the outer flange. The part has to be photographed that way because of the TOBI tubes.

The HPT Stage 1 Cooling Duct (TOBI Configuration 2) is NOT an assembly and therefore cannot be considered to do the same job as the assembly, it is simply a partof an assembly.

Notice it also has 24 holes, which means it bolts to the same section as the assembly. Now what do you notice about the photo compared to the first? That's right the holes are on top whereas the first photo the holes are on the bottom. Therefore this part is photogarphed "upside down" relative to the first part. Therefore it's impossible to see if it has TOBI tubes or whether another part with TOBI tubes is attached to this (and may be others) to form a full assembly.

You can't demonstrate why the 7R4D couldn't have either one of the two pieces or both. You are making unfounded claims based on nonsense.





And yet none of the engines recovered from the WTC attacks were identified (as of yet) as possessing PN 769316, 781765, or 786692.

Those parts aren't even OEM. You have no freaking idea whether a 7R4D could or did have the above parts.


So this leaves us with a very important question. I know for a fact that American Airlines and Flight United use strictly Pratt and Whitney engines (although some of their smaller planes use the CFM-56 engines), and not GE engines. THEREFORE, what planes hit towers 1 and 2 since they are clearly not from Flight United nor from American Airlines?

They did strictly use Pratt and Whitney engines, but there is no question the engines are from flight 175. It's time to lay waste to your idiotic claims.

Here is United Airlines "flight 175" a month before it crashed.

1322

There is no question those are 7R4D engines.

Now all we have to do is examine these pictures of flight 175 before it crashed into the south tower.

1323

1324

1325

There is no question that this is flight 175.





Some 911 Liars claimed that Flight United 175 used an old 747 engine (JT9D-7A/7F/7J), and cross fitted these technological designs into a more fuel efficient engine JT9D-7R4 engine. But as you can NOW SEE, the cooling duct for the JT9D-7R4 engine DOES NOT MATCH the cooling duct from the recovered engine. So we now know they are lying their butts off!

The liars are the so called "truthers".

Also, Pratt and Whitney worked with NASA to come up with the 7R4D. You said this on post #13 Now a few years ago, some information came out that a former Pratt & Whitney engineer teamed up with NASA to help improve fuel efficiency on their planes. So SUPPOSEDLY they took the cooling duct manifold and joined it with a Pratt & Whitney, which became a new model comprised of both GE and Pratt & Whitney technology. Conveniently, a photo appeared with an older 747 using this so-called newer engine. But a total lack of proof that Flight United or American Airliners were never contracted for the so called "improved design" of the 747 engines. And why would they take older 747 engines and install them on new 767's?

Unless of course we buy into the theory that a Pratt employee teamed up with NASA to improve OLDER MODEL 747 Pratt & Whitney engines.

Well, you're wrong again. Read it for yourself. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19840020708_1984020708.pdf




In conclusion, it should be clear that the planes which struck the towers were not part of American Airline or Flight United since the recovered engine does not identify with current use, as denoted by the turbine cooling duct installed on the recovered engine. [B]Thus, the planes belonged to another agency.

You're a freaking nutjob.

Have you told the passengers of United 175 yet? They'll be so glad to hear that their plane didn't crash. I know that for the past 13 years, most of them have been operating under the assumption that they were dead.

They'll be so glad to hear they're not.


What's my theory? I believe the planes belonged to the CIA or the Air Force, but I can neither confirm, nor deny who owned those planes.

And since neither airlines use the recovered engine, the question remains again, "WHO'S PLANES WERE THEY?"

As for the engine, you have never proved what engine was on Flight 175. Amazingly, RADAR debunks your CLAIMS on all counts. 175 was tracked by multiple RADAR sites from takeoff to impact. How do you explain that? You don't, you move on to the next silly claim so stupid it hurts, never thinking about what proves what 175 was. But you can't do the physics, the logic, the evidence, RADAR, etc to keep you from falling for lies based on ignorance and fantasy.

dpenn
10-19-2014, 05:10 PM
dp:



So again, I have asked you many times to present the BEST EVIDENCE you have that exposes the conspiracy, and you have not even tried. I'm sorry to say that I'm not surprised. I cannot find any difference between your claims and those of the classic conspiracy theorists who deny that we landed on the moon. Sorry, but your adamant refusal to present objectively verifiable evidence leaves me no other option.

Richard

Richard, I haven't even tried? Are you kidding me? Do you just brush aside all of my questions and videos and challenges for people to question 911 (I could have added to that the July 7, 2005 subway bombing ... much the same, and the March 11, 2003 Madrid bombing ... much the same), Iraq, Afghanistan, the Arab Spring, Ukraine, Syria, Benghazi, ISIL/ISIS/IS/AlQaeda/AlCIAda/ and the current back door take-down in Syria, probably all eventually leading to taking out Iran? Add to that, my days spent in viewing and posting the 2011 Toronto Hearings for 911 Truth.

And all you can say is that I haven't even tried to present the BEST EVIDENCE. I guess you can qualify your BEST EVIDENCE with blatant denial of what I have presented.

Richard Amiel McGough
10-19-2014, 05:25 PM
Richard, I haven't even tried? Are you kidding me? Do you just brush aside all of my questions and videos and challenges for people to question 911 (I could have added to that the July 7, 2005 subway bombing ... much the same, and the March 11, 2003 Madrid bombing ... much the same), Iraq, Afghanistan, the Arab Spring, Ukraine, Syria, Benghazi, ISIL/ISIS/IS/AlQaeda/AlCIAda/ and the current back door take-down in Syria, probably all eventually leading to taking out Iran? Add to that, my days spent in viewing and posting the 2011 Toronto Hearings for 911 Truth.

And all you can say is that I haven't even tried to present the BEST EVIDENCE. I guess you can qualify your BEST EVIDENCE with blatant denial of what I have presented.
Your "questions" are not objectively verifiable evidence. I asked for evidence, and you presented questions.

I gave you an example of what would constitute evidence. The video that TheForgiven posted was designed to deceive. L67 proved that. Have you presented any evidence that can be proven? If so, please remind me of it.

The fact that you see "conspiracies" in essentially every event that hits the news does not help your case. It is exactly what I would expect from a deluded conspiracy theorist. Do you also include the Boston bombing and the Sandy Hook shooting? Is there no end to the "conspiracies" you see?

Bottom line: Do you have any PRINCIPLES by which do discern between true conspiracies and delusions? If so, please explain them, and give examples of some famous conspiracy theories you have debunked using your principles.

L67
10-19-2014, 05:28 PM
Excellent work L67! That's a stunning example of how people delude themselves with confirmation bias, and spread their delusion to others.

1) The video was deliberately edited to exclude the data that would have made it clear what Rumsfeld was actually talking about.

2) Deluded conspiracy theorists accept whatever they think "confirms" their delusion without checking the facts and then spread the deception to other deluded conspiracy theorists.

Good work! :thumb:

:yo: Richard,

You're exactly right. It's almost painful to watch the conspiracy theorists go off the deep end. It's no different than the poor suckers who follow the likes of Harold Camping.

But, it's no surprise they think this way when they listen to people like this. This is the founder of AE911 truth. They are one of the big time pushers of this nonsense.

He's pretty convincing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM

Richard Amiel McGough
10-19-2014, 05:42 PM
:yo: Richard,

You're exactly right. It's almost painful to watch the conspiracy theorists go off the deep end. It's no different than the poor suckers who follow the likes of Harold Camping.

But, it's no surprise they think this way when they listen to people like this. This is the founder of AE911 truth. They are one of the big time pushers of this nonsense.

He's pretty convincing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM
I wouldn't use the word "almost."

Wow. The dude in that video is a total nutjob. A cardboard box is supposed to simulate the collapse of the top 15 stories of a 110 story skyscraper? Does he have any concept of the load that structure bears just sitting there, let alone when it's been compromised by the impact of 80,000 KG of mass moving at 590 mph???

The thing that is most telling fact is the lack of skepticism displayed by the conspiracy theorists which makes them very gullible and vulnerable to every variety of deception. Nothing could be more absurd than for them to call themselves "truthers."