Vertical Sharp Round Hole in WTC7

[tonicblue]

It is a simple observation. Just as you appear to be acting like pdoh, a poster with many names. Like Docker, JessicaRabbit, et al.. And I say that because he, or they, had no real facts and are doing like you and I just posting about not much of anything.

Yet TS1234 does have problems with physics, and if you understood physics you could tell him what specific areas he is deficient in. A hint would be in the "amount of energy" required to run his beam weapon. There are beam weapons and the government has a beam weapon, it has even destroyed a missile. If you and TS1234 understood physics you could explain why that beam weapon would not work to do in the WTC.

I assume I am correct until you present some neat numbers to prove me wrong. But you could try to find some facts and stop with the "why not" stuff.

I completely disagree with truthseeker, as you may have noticed by my attack on him. I also disagree with demolition theories.

If you continue to insinuate I am pdoh, I will report that aswell.

 

[beachnut]

like a...

I have to hurt you now.

Sorry about that. I may have made a very shallow attempt at humor, or worse. Please let me know if my foot is to be place in my mouth.

I made the mistake of seeing the thread, I was sucked in by TS1234 opening statement only to find a loaded beam weapon lucking; stumbled on the sharp round error, and then this tune popped up, and there it was, like a record…

tonicblue does not realize how ironic it is for he to expose TS1234, yet both are not able to explain why, or "why not". ADDED for effect

 

[Horatius]

Sorry about that. I may have made a very shallow attempt at humor, or worse. Please let me know if my foot is to be place in my mouth.

Oh, definitely humourous, but now I've got that song in my head, going round. Like a record, almost, right rou......That's it, definitely hurting you now

I made the mistake of seeing the thread, I was sucked in by TS1234 opening statement only to find a loaded beam weapon lucking; stumbled on the sharp round error, and then this tune popped up, and there it was, like a record…

tonicblue does not realize how ironic it is for he to expose TS1234, yet both are not able to explain why, or "why not". ADDED for effect

Ah, yes, twoofer infighting, it is sweet.....

 

[T.A.M.]

tonic:

1. I agree that sometimes, that some of us here let others "attacks" slide a little if they are made against a "truther". that doesnt make it right, but it happens.

2. If slackness in reporting occurs, it may in some cases be a matter of degree and the vitriol.

TAM

 

[chipmunk stew]

tonic:

1. I agree that sometimes, that some of us here let others "attacks" slide a little if they are made against a "truther". that doesnt make it right, but it happens.

2. If slackness in reporting occurs, it may in some cases be a matter of degree and the vitriol.

TAM

Let's face it: personal attacks are subjective (by definition). What one considers a personal attack another may consider a justified smack-down. It's every forum member's prerogative to report any post they feel in is violation of the membership agreement. It's then up to the mods to rule on the violation and decide on how to enforce it.

 

[The Kooger]

they havent let the bum down the street look at them either. In other words who the hell are "you" to have access to such things. Do you represent any official organization that should have access to such things?

TAM

HAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


So you are saying "THEY" "HAVE" photos of this OBVIOUSLY very STRAIGHT cut in the building, BUT, don't have to and won't share.

HOWEVER!!!!, every other image they HAVE used in their reports(at least I think it's pictures and videos that I am witnessing in their reports) is "OK" to show and share. How do they draw the line? WHO chooses what images are "OK" to show the public and "NOT OK"?

So let's recap your point. They use images and video stills in their reports that are NOT theirs. And they supposedly have very clear images of building 7 that they have decided not to share, oh yeah, YET.


WOW, solid stuff. Keep up the great work. You're useless.

 

[beachnut]

Oh, definitely humourous, but now I've got that song in my head, going round. Like a record, almost, right rou......That's it, definitely hurting you now

Ah, yes, twoofer infighting, it is sweet.....

I owe you a beer. Next time/first time I am up there.

Yes it hurts seeing TS1234 with .... round, round, like a... dancing around with a beam weapon in his tutu

a few pitchers may not make up the difference

 

[JimBenArm]

HAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


So you are saying "THEY" "HAVE" photos of this OBVIOUSLY very STRAIGHT cut in the building, BUT, don't have to and won't share.

HOWEVER!!!!, every other image they HAVE used in their reports(at least I think it's pictures and videos that I am witnessing in their reports) is "OK" to show and share. How do they draw the line? WHO chooses what images are "OK" to show the public and "NOT OK"?

So let's recap your point. They use images and video stills in their reports that are NOT theirs. And they supposedly have very clear images of building 7 that they have decided not to share, oh yeah, YET.


WOW, solid stuff. Keep up the great work. You're useless.

So, welcome? Maybe?
Any reason for all the nastiness, other than you can?
T.A.M. is a polite and patient poster. He doesn't mock or deride people in a rude manner. If you are polite and courteous with him, he will be the same with you.
Evidently, you don't like that. That's so sad.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Truthseeker1234, I am not a JREF skeptic. In fact I am on your side of the fence in terms of wanting a new investigation into 911. However, I am going to be less polite and more forthright than the Jrefers.

◊◊◊◊ Off Truthtwister1234. You are an idiot who is playing a game that I dont even think you know the purpose of.

What we're doing IS the new investigation.

The problem with the other investigations is that crucial data were ignored. I can appreciate that the data on 9/11 is so strange, and so huge, that it is politically safer to do as Steven Jones does, and only consider a narrow range of data.

But politics is not science.

 

[Arus808]

The problem with the other investigations is that crucial data were ignored.

what crucial data?

 

[beachnut]

HAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


So you are saying "THEY" "HAVE" photos of this OBVIOUSLY very STRAIGHT cut in the building, BUT, don't have to and won't share.

HOWEVER!!!!, every other image they HAVE used in their reports(at least I think it's pictures and videos that I am witnessing in their reports) is "OK" to show and share. How do they draw the line? WHO chooses what images are "OK" to show the public and "NOT OK"?

So let's recap your point. They use images and video stills in their reports that are NOT theirs. And they supposedly have very clear images of building 7 that they have decided not to share, oh yeah, YET.


WOW, solid stuff. Keep up the great work. You're useless.

I think they have photos but they do not own the rights. Buy the rights see the photos. It is so very simple. I could be wrong, but then do you have the money to buy the rights to someones photos?

 

[JimBenArm]

What we're doing IS the new investigation.

The problem with the other investigations is that crucial data were ignored. I can appreciate that the data on 9/11 is so strange, and so huge, that it is politically safer to do as Steven Jones does, and only consider a narrow range of data.

But politics is not science.

Neither are feelings and imagination.
So, I've been meaning to ask you. Exactly how does this "dustification" happen? Do you have some mechanism for its occurance? Is it because someone dropped giant Fizzie tablets into the towers, or just how does this work? I'm really having trouble understanding how you deduced all this.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

what crucial data (were ignored in the 9/11 investigations)?

Gee, let's see.

NIST didn't study the behavior of the towers after "collapse" was "initiated".
NIST didn't study toasted cars.
NIST didn't study vertical round holes.
NIST didn't study the disappeareance of the south wing of WTC4.
NIST didn't study the hollowed out WTC6.
NIST didn't study the mushroom cloud.
NIST didn't study the spire.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Neither are feelings and imagination.
So, I've been meaning to ask you. Exactly how does this "dustification" happen? Do you have some mechanism for its occurance? Is it because someone dropped giant Fizzie tablets into the towers, or just how does this work? I'm really having trouble understanding how you deduced all this.

We absolutely don't know how steel was dissociated into dust. That doesn't change the fact that it happened. We observe that it happened. We see the steel spire turn to dust. We see almost the whole tower turn to dust. When the events are over, there is way too little steel to account for the towers. Way too little.

 

[Mince]

If attacks I make are going to be reported by spiteful observers like that then I shall adopt the same policy of reporting. Childish but fair.

◊◊◊◊ off... You are an idiot...

That's a little extreme, don't you think?

 

[Minadin]

That's because their directive in studying the WTC collapses, as mandated by congress, was to analyze the buildings to discover the cause of the collapse, where the initial failure occured, in an effort to improve building safety and update codes if necessary.

The building industry isn't interested in arresting a collapse that has already begun, we're much more interested in preventing those types of events from ever occuring. Likewise, we're not so much interested in the collateral damage (toasted cars, holes in other buildings, etc) if we can just avoid the problem altogether. If there's no collapse there's no (well, very little) other damage.

I don't think that you really understand what the NIST was attempting to do with their investigation at all. They weren't trying to answer every little pereipheral item that anonymous ignorant laypeople on the internet think is "weird". That's why they didn't.

 

[Horatius]

Yes it hurts seeing TS1234 with .... round, round, like a... dancing around with a beam weapon in his tutu

a few pitchers may not make up the difference

Now that you've made me think of what's in his tutu, it'll take more than "a few" pitchers.......

Lucky for you, it's friday, and I've got a head starrt

 

[JimBenArm]

We absolutely don't know how steel was dissociated into dust. That doesn't change the fact that it happened. We observe that it happened. We see the steel spire turn to dust. We see almost the whole tower turn to dust. When the events are over, there is way too little steel to account for the towers. Way too little.

Way too little? Did you measure this yourself? How did you come to this conclusion? Really, I want to know. If it was from looking at pictures on the internet, why do you think that's reasonable? Do you think all the steel at the site would be visible? Why didn't the samples of the dust show high iron content, if it was all dustified?
You aren't bothered by the fact there is no way to do to steel beams what you claim, yet still insist it happened that way? Doesn't being told it's stupid by people who do this for a living even make you think twice?
Why do you think you are more qualified to make these decisions? Is a musician really who we need investigating what happened?

 

[The Kooger]

So, welcome? Maybe?
Any reason for all the nastiness, other than you can?
T.A.M. is a polite and patient poster. He doesn't mock or deride people in a rude manner. If you are polite and courteous with him, he will be the same with you.
Evidently, you don't like that. That's so sad.

Thanks for the welcome, I am not here to slap fight, that wastes time.
HOWEVER, you say what? He is a polite and patient poster. This is what I've gathered by him in this thread:

Post 1. “Footage is a copy of a copy of a copy by the looks of it. The compression is horrid.

Show me the original footage from the station, not some F&*King low rez barely viewable footage from google. You tried the same thing with your alleged "Nose Cone out the other side" crap.

Try again.

TAM”



Post 2. “they havent let the bum down the street look at them either. In other words who the hell are "you" to have access to such things. Do you represent any official organization that should have access to such things?

TAM”


Post 3. “Thanks for the link, but even 640x480 is low rez for this type of thing.

I feel that they do not owe anyone anything. They are private companies. They own the footage. Who do they have an "obligation" to provide this to?

TAM”

Post 4. “Seems to me the perfect debris to cut such a slice would be a long piece of steel. Any long pieces of steel in the WTCs?

lol

TAM”

Post 5. So this video/photo, to us in the sane business, proves the debris damage was enormous, and adds evidence to the effect of debris to damage of WTC7 and its ultimate collapse.

To the truthers, particularly ACE and the no-planers, it proves that a High Energy Beam weapon was used...because only such a weapon could cause such a clean cut.

So what is the solution to this differing of opinions?

TAM”


Post 6. I think a larger version of one of the Tripod aliens from "War of the Worlds" could have created such a hole.”

Post 7. I AGREE

tonic:

1. I agree that sometimes, that some of us here let others "attacks" slide a little if they are made against a "truther". that doesnt make it right, but it happens.

2. If slackness in reporting occurs, it may in some cases be a matter of degree and the vitriol.

TAM



Yeah, sounds like he is being polite and nice. Actually it sounds like he's being a condisending jitbag. But thats ok, I can be too. We all can.

Here's my main point, and then I most likely will not post again until I can ADD to a discussion.

Where is the: "yeah, it would be nice to see those NIST pics they aren't sharing, I wonder if they will shed any light on building seven's OBVIOUS bizarre collapse. Because ball busting or not, IT LOOKS LIKE Controlled Demolition. I'll repeat, IT LOOKS LIKE IT. Is it? I don't KNOW either. But even nice and polite TAM has to admit IT LOOKS LIKE ONE.

So if all you want to do is bash people for their views, I'm being given the impression that it must be ok to bash YOUR views (which are appearently to just laugh at any other view or idea thats not yours)(scrutiny is one thing). You bash mine, I'll bash yours. Thats what I seem to be seeing.

I'm not here to offend, just defend when it seems people are beating up someone instead of constructively debating or sharing or whatever it is people do here.

That's what I saw from this guy in THIS thread, I may be wrong.



Remember, when the truth is known, most of the other side will allow you all to save face.

 

[Arus808]

Gee, let's see.

NIST didn't study the behavior of the towers after "collapse" was "initiated".

NISt was only tasked to find out what caused teh collapse. once collapse has happened, nothing is going to stop it.
so studying the behavior of "during collapse" and "after collapse" was irrelavant.

NIST didn't study toasted cars.

that wsn't their job. toasted car - burned by the fires from the burning debris that fell on it.

NIST didn't study vertical round holes.

what vertical round holes?

NIST didn't study the disappeareance of the south wing of WTC4.

disappearance? um it was destroyed due to the collapse of WTC 1 and 2

NIST didn't study the hollowed out WTC6.

didn't need to. and irrelavant to the collapse of wtc 1 and 2.

[quoteNIST didn't study the mushroom cloud.[/quote]
that wsn't a mushroom cloud.

[quoteNIST didn't study the spire.[/quote] irrelevant. spire was only standing for a few moments after the collapse. which actually proves that no CD was involved.