What is a conspiracy theorist?

[R.Mackey]

Link to a non-nazi, less biased "source" please?
If the above are indeed true, they will appear in more than 1 place

The above are indeed false. Follow this thread for discussion.

Paul Isaac Jr. was known here as poster Sentinel prior to his banning. He was rarely coherent, but expressed outrage at being misquoted by the Troothers. He quite justly considered any such attack on the FDNY as reprehensible.

Cacchioli, similarly, was misquoted.

Next!

 

[uk_dave]

Web joists 80 cm tall connected the core to the perimeter at each story. Concrete slabs were poured over these joists to form the floors. The concrete had steel running through it, bombs could be used to blast this concrete away from the steel joists.

You'd be wasting your time.

The concrete served no other purpose than to give a flat, level surface upon which to lay carpet or fixings for the partition walls.

The concrete was 4" (100mm) thick and had a mesh reinforcement to reduce cracking from thermal expansion.

The steel decking which was laid over the tops of the floor trusses and was corrugated, supported the concrete.

You could take all of the concrete floors out of the towers and they would still stand.

You COULD NOT take out the floor trusses, which were the only structural component of the floor and provided support to the metal deck and lateral restraint to the vertical columns.

 

[rwguinn]

The above are indeed false. Follow this thread for discussion.

Paul Isaac Jr. was known here as poster Sentinel prior to his banning. He was rarely coherent, but expressed outrage at being misquoted by the Troothers. He quite justly considered any such attack on the FDNY as reprehensible.

Cacchioli, similarly, was misquoted.

Next!

I knew Paul Isaacwas here, and figured the misquote/quote out-of-context stuff. Just wanted to point out that single source stuff is a bad thing, esp when it comes from a site with "American","free", and "press" in the name.
Kinda like you knew what kind of government they had whe the country called itself "the ... Democratic Republic"

 

[R.Mackey]

... or "Truth Movement."

Exactly. Newspeak at its finest.

 

[Without Rights]

"could be Used"
You know, we could have soume soup, if we had a pot. And if anybody has some water. And if somebody could come up with some ingredients.

All I ever said is it is possible that the buildings could of have been brought down with bombs. I never said that they were. Pay attention to the argument before you respond.

Title: [SIZE=+1]Thermite charge[/SIZE] Document Type and Number: United States Application 20060266204 Link to this Page: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20060266204.html Abstract: The present invention provides for cutting operations using linear thermite charges; the charges cut one dimensional or two dimensional geometric shapes; the invention is useful for structure entry or demolition.

already debunked-use the search function

This is a patent filed with the US patent office, please debunk it for me.

Sorry, but "linear"= first order equation--a straight line.
It doesn't have to be horizontal, and frequently isn't
submitted for "Stundie"

Here's another quote from the patent

[0005] Until this time, one-shot thermite-based devices have been used primarily to make point like, circular holes in materials. Sustained thermite cutting technologies, such as burning bars, achieve linear-shaped cuts by expanding on the initial penetrated area and moving away from the initial point of penetration in a line (similar to a conventional cutting torch). By configuring a single-use apparatus and its associated nozzle into a linear or curvilinear arrangement, the shape of the penetration would be lengthened dramatically. Connecting segments of these devices into a desired shape would allow users to determine the dimensions of a breach area or linear cut.

So as you can see, these thermite charges can be shaped to the desired shape, not like the thermite of the old days.

Link to a non-nazi, less biased "source" please?
If the above are indeed true, they will appear in more than 1 place

http://www.ny911truth.org/media/paul_isaac.htm
This is a video of Paul Isaac.

 

[Without Rights]

Paul Isaac Jr. was known here as poster Sentinel prior to his banning. He was rarely coherent, but expressed outrage at being misquoted by the Troothers. He quite justly considered any such attack on the FDNY as reprehensible.

Do you have any proof that P.I Jr is Sentinel besides Sentinel saying he is P.I. Jr?

Cacchioli, similarly, was misquoted.

Do you have a source for the proper context?

 

[Horatius]

This is a patent filed with the US patent office, please debunk it for me.

It's a patent application. Not a patent.

Also: Filing Date: 2006-03-08. So, use on 9/11: Not so much.


I'll leave it to you to read the rest of the application, with particular note as to what materials the device is made out of, and then ask how many such devices would have been found in the rubble, if they had been used.

 

[Without Rights]

Oh, you can prove a negative?

I have an invisable pink elephant that lives in my basement.

How would you go about proving I'm wrong?

Or how about proving there is a God?

Let us rehash the argument once again, since somehow it has been taken to beyond obsured (by design I can imagine).

My post;

Perhaps you have info that can prove that it is impossible to bring down a building with explosives at close to freefall speeds.

I can prove that it is not impossible to bring down a building with controlled demolition by doing it. I can blow the s*** out of a building and prove that it can be done. If you want to take a flimsy law of logic that has been refuted for years and exagerate it into the subject then at least know what the hell you are talking about.

 

[The Almond]

If you want to take a flimsy law of logic that has been refuted for years and exagerate it into the subject then at least know what the hell you are talking about.

Who refuted that law? Any word on which logical textbook tells you that you can prove a negative?

 

[Without Rights]

It's a patent application. Not a patent.

Ok, that still doesn't make my answer to the question "How did they cut horizontally?" wrong. They could of used this technology and cut horizontally

Also: Filing Date: 2006-03-08. So, use on 9/11: Not so much.

This technology existed before a patent was filed. How long before, who knows? Also the US has many military and CIA weapons experts and are very intelligent.


I'll leave it to you to read the rest of the application, with particular note as to what materials the device is made out of, and then ask how many such devices would have been found in the rubble, if they had been used.[/quote]

It would be hard to distinguish the ceramic housing from mega tons of other debris. All (or at least most) the rest of the material would burn with the reaction.

 

[Without Rights]

Who refuted that law? Any word on which logical textbook tells you that you can prove a negative?

This is a argument that athiests use to refute God. If you wanted to use the actual logical law as quoted by wikipedia then it does not apply to what we are saying.

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

Ok, so how does this law apply to the fact that I can prove you can demolish a building with explosives and it will fall at freefall speed? This is the most obsured time wasting argument I have ever been in. I can absolutely, without a doubt prove that bombs can take a building down at freefall speed. This is not proving a negative per se. It is proving a positive, I can prove that I can destroy a building with demolition and it will fall at freefall speed.

 

[rwguinn]

All I ever said is it is possible that the buildings could of have been brought down with bombs. I never said that they were. Pay attention to the argument before you respond.



This is a patent filed with the US patent office, please debunk it for me.



Here's another quote from the patent


So as you can see, these thermite charges can be shaped to the desired shape, not like the thermite of the old days.


http://www.ny911truth.org/media/paul_isaac.htm
This is a video of Paul Isaac.

Circular quotes- This site uses americanfreepress.com as a source.
Site 1 references site 2, which claims site 1 as its source.
The old self-chasing tail. Not a dog in sight.
And Paul was less than stellar as an engineering critic.
First of all--the device is large and obvious--go look it up. Therm ite/ate will inded cut shapes from steel, if properly applied and ignighted. But, it burns following gravitational potential.
It requires a device to cut horizontally--and there is absolutely no evidence that the device (which was discussed at length elsewhere in these threads) can be used to cut vertical steel as thick and as wide as was used in the tower main structure...

 

[T.A.M.]

Ok, that still doesn't make my answer to the question "How did they cut horizontally?" wrong. They could of used this technology and cut horizontally

This technology existed before a patent was filed. How long before, who knows? Also the US has many military and CIA weapons experts and are very intelligent.


I'll leave it to you to read the rest of the application, with particular note as to what materials the device is made out of, and then ask how many such devices would have been found in the rubble, if they had been used.

It would be hard to distinguish the ceramic housing from mega tons of other debris. All (or at least most) the rest of the material would burn with the reaction.

So are you insinuating that the USG, rather than using conventional explosives (still a very remote, almost laughable assumption), went out of their way to use something that was at best experimental, with no patent, no company producing it, to bring down the WTCs? Really, is this what you are insinuating? Come on. This is one step from Judy Woods and high energy Star Wars beams from outerspace.

No wait, I will go into CT mode for a moment....no you will say they used convetional explosives AND the never seen before linear THERMITE Charges.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

...It is proving a positive, I can prove that I can destroy a building with demolition and it will fall at freefall speed.

1. No such thing as free fall speed, as falling includes acceleration due to gravity, and hence the SPEED will change over time.

2. Unless your buliding is built within a vacuum, and offers NO resistance at all, you cannot bring a building to FALL in Freefall time.

Try again.

TAM

 

[Brainache]

Ok, that still doesn't make my answer to the question "How did they cut horizontally?" wrong. They could of used this technology and cut horizontally

This technology existed before a patent was filed. How long before, who knows? Also the US has many military and CIA weapons experts and are very intelligent.


I'll leave it to you to read the rest of the application, with particular note as to what materials the device is made out of, and then ask how many such devices would have been found in the rubble, if they had been used.

It would be hard to distinguish the ceramic housing from mega tons of other debris. All (or at least most) the rest of the material would burn with the reaction.

You don't think that the thousands of people who worked in the WTC would have noticed these bulky thermite devices attached to collumns all over their workplace?

 

[Horatius]

It would be hard to distinguish the ceramic housing from mega tons of other debris. All (or at least most) the rest of the material would burn with the reaction.

Uhm, no, that's the whole point of using those materials - by not being burnt, they can focus the output into the desired direction. And if they can survive that, they could probably survive quite a bit.

As for being distinguishable from the rubble, I suggest you take a look at kookbreaker's photos. You'd need quite few of these things to produce a collapse as imagined by most CTists.

 

[Horatius]

It requires a device to cut horizontally--and there is absolutely no evidence that the device (which was discussed at length elsewhere in these threads) can be used to cut vertical steel as thick and as wide as was used in the tower main structure...

This post has a link to a video of such a device in action. Please note the size of the device as compared to the size of the bar being cut, and extrapolate to the columns of the WTC towers.

Other posts that discuss this idea:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2189538#post2189538

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2176771#post2176771 This one's mine! Nice sword picture too!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2195572#post2195572

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2177399#post2177399

Okay, so now it looks like I'm shilling for myself, but damnit, there's no point in doing all this work over again!

 

[DavidJames]

Ok, that still doesn't make my answer to the question "How did they cut horizontally?" wrong. They could of used this technology and cut horizontally.

Normal people would be embarrassed after their argument was shown without merit. Not tin hatters, they just move the goal posts are attempt to redirect the focus.

They could have, maybe, possibly, that's all you got. You are so focused on your delusions that you can't think straight.

I feel sorry for you.

 

[R.Mackey]

Do you have any proof that P.I Jr is Sentinel besides Sentinel saying he is P.I. Jr?

Evidence, Without Rights, the word is evidence. And yes, we do. This the JREF Forum. Those who assert without evidence are soon revealed.

Paul Isaac Jr. met poster Gravy in real life at Ground Zero. In this post, Sentinel identifies himself in footage taken by the Loose Change crew, and this identification is consistent with those personal meetings.

Do you have a source for the proper context?

Fireman Lou Cacchioli complained about being quoted out of context by People magazine, and also did express some anger at the 9/11 Commission. This was reported by the dubious Arctic Beacon, but that article is not working at present. It is reprinted in its entirety here.

Nonetheless, what you said as follows, is incorrect:

NY Fireman Lou Cacchioli who says the 9/11 Commission twisted his words.

It's incorrect because it's a seemingly mild exaggeration. This is inconsistent with the rest of your statement, where you quoted him accurately:

"I finally walked out. They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn't let me do that, I walked out."

That's "trying." Not "did."

He further stated:

“My story was never mentioned in the final report and I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room,” said Cacchioli.

Since his story was never mentioned, it was not "twisted."

This may seem like a nitpick. However, I claim it is a valid criticism because it is precisely this sort of nitpick that angered him to begin with -- namely taking his comments about how things "sounded like bombs," and altering them into "were bombs."

So, if you want to use his words, use them all and use them faithfully.

I've read them, and I see nothing there inconsistent with the Official Theory.

 

[beachnut]

Ok, that still doesn't make my answer to the question "How did they cut horizontally?" wrong. They could of used this technology and cut horizontally

This technology existed before a patent was filed. How long before, who knows? Also the US has many military and CIA weapons experts and are very intelligent.

I'll leave it to you to read the rest of the application, with particular note as to what materials the device is made out of, and then ask how many such devices would have been found in the rubble, if they had been used.

It would be hard to distinguish the ceramic housing from mega tons of other debris. All (or at least most) the rest of the material would burn with the reaction.

No it would stand out lie a sore thumb. So would the set up.

These devices would be harder to use than regular CD for a lot of reasons. Why not tell us why you have no clue how these could be used to destroy the WTC.

How many can you order? Or can only the government get these things. How many were ordered before 9/11? You know one way they knew McVeigh did OKC. He bought the fertilizer! If the miltitary was in on 9/11 it would have never happened; you are now making up lies and spreading false ideas.

Darn, now you find who bought the devices, and you have your bad guys.

But there was only aircraft impacts, fire, and the buildings fell. Fire destorys buildings, fires not fought destroy buildings faster.

So who bought all the thermite devices. I have seen one work, but it was small. Large compared to the column to cut, but small. I wonder who invented these things. Did a CTer luck out like LC guys and make money off of nut case ideas? IT happens sometimes.