Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
We already have your information. Your IP was flagged the very first time you clicked on a truther video on youtube. We've been watching you ever since....
...all of you (Our surveillance budget went waaaayyyy up in 2002 and has been huge ever since).
In 2001, hard disk space was 4 dollars per gigabyte, today it's around 4 cents. Our ability to track and record everything you say or read on the web is expanding several times faster than the population of the planet. Once you get on our watch list, we never really have any reason to take you off.
Ok let me address the things worth addressing. First I've said I don't want to give any information about myself at all. It is my prerogative, I certainly am not violating any rules. I am also not being hypocritical as I have never asked anyone for any information about themselves.
Wow. That is quite possibly the dumbest page I have ever seen.
What was wrong with the Sofa Store in Charleston SC?
What was wrong with WTC 5? FEMA cited "Intense building fires" for the collapsed section of 5WTC.
Dogwood Elementary School had no sprinklers. Neither did 1 or 2 or 7 WTC. None of them worked at any point in time on 911.
Sight and Sound Theatre in PA. (Not SITE as your site repeats over and over. Pretty sad, that a supposed "legitimate" researcher, cannot get the name of a building correct, and if he had read the entire USFA report on that fire, would have noticed the problem) The entire STEEL section (which was the roof, the walls were either CBS or brick, I don't recall) collapsed from fire.
They cited the following "problems" with the building.
-No sprinklers (gee, 1,2,and 7 didn't either)
-Damaged SFRM (Gee, where else was there confirmed problems with the SFRM .......Oh, right, WTC 1,2,and 7. Imagine that)
-No fire doors.....(gee, that would help the spead of the fire. I wonder if a 767 being parked into the side of the building might have the same effect on a building.....or maybe if a large chunk of a building was removed by the collapse of a much bigger building hitting hit, might have the same effect.....)
I was asked about independent researchers. Right here "The building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access – and delayed the BPAT team in gaining access – to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns."
I was saying if there was a conspiracy, you could let independent researchers on long after anything is gone, deny them stuff, and then people like you would say "Hey they let independent researchers on" When in fact it didn't matter.
I'm not really concerned with how much thermite was there or not. I'm more concerned with IF it was there. Because there obviously had to be enough to do the job. I would suggest you take a similar approach.
The effects of thermite are clearly visible after a fire.
The effects of thermite going off at any time, and very noticeable, even in broad daylight.
Thermite cannot do what Jones et al. claim it can, in the way that they claim it was most likely done. (Painted on) Van Romero proved this wrong on the TruTV "Conspiracy Theories with Jesse Ventura" show, but cut the part out where he showed it to be unable to cut a steel beam. Wanna see?
Start about the 2 minute mark. It's pretty epic liar stuff.
Let me make this clear I am not Hoffman nor do I have anything to do with the creation or maintenance of his website. That link was the exact same link I sent you before. You can look at the previous posts.
Listen I really don't want to go back and forth with whether Hoffman lied or not. You believe he is... fine, I don't, I also look at the other great information he has on the site as well.
Also if you want to be technical about it, the record time statement has to be fact. I don't believe two 110 story buildings have ever collapsed on the same day before. So whatever time the clean up was in, is in fact a record.
This brings me to the most important part of my post.
You say you don't know who came on the highway with Lloyde England, fair enough, neither do I. But I can tell you who it wasn't, and that's OBL, KSM, or any member of AQ.
How the **** do you come to THAT conclusion? Because you don't know who this mysterious person is, that means that 19 terrorists didn't hijack 4 jets, and crash them into 3 different targets killing ~3000 people?
There's no real way to spin it, you can't say anything about leading questions, or not releasing the whole tape, that part is completely self contained.
And I explained why. It's not an area of 9/11 that interests me much at all, hence I have not studied it, and it's not something I am even a little knowledgeable about.
Did you know that a 1cu/f pile of cotton clothes produces more thermal energy than the same amount of thermite?
Yes. It fits the known facts of the day. If you have a better theory, that accounts for all the known facts of that day, I would gladly look at it and consider it's merits. Do you have such a thing?
I really don't get it, I just don't. But as I said anyone with a somewhat open mind reading this, can see just how much members will adhere to their dogma.
I disagree with parts of the NIST report. I believe that the fuel loads and fire temperatures were HIGHER than NIST places them at. Possibly as much as double the fuel load per m/2.
But, because I do in fact have an open mind, and have looked at the data, and looked at their calculations and analysis in depth, my disagreement means not much in the grand scheme of things. BECAUSE I have an open mind, I have accepted that even at the lower fuel load, and lower temperatures, I accept that the NIST came to the correct conclusion.
So, before you go running your ignorant mouth, perhaps you should not jump to random, baseless conclusions. It makes you look like a fool.
Are you happy now? I don't mean to sound arrogant or anything but this will be the last time I do something like that most of these were already answered you just have to read through the thread.
You don't sound arrogant at all. You sound childish.
Now let me ask you a question. It's a very simple one or at least you think it would be. This is just one little point in my OP. Go to the Lloyde England video, watch it. Tell me exactly who came on the highway with him?
who knows? Are you saying it wasn't planned? That 19 guys just happened to bump into each other at the airport and said to themselves "lets hijack some planes and crash them into big buildings"??????
Don't give me the usual BS about not releasing the whole tapes, beating up an old man etc...
How is it BS?, if we do not know what the conversation was before he said it we have no context. And I don't think any us said they beat him up so wher do you get that from???
That doesn't apply, especially to these points there's not taking it out of context, and I hope you know that.
So here we have a very basic matter and you are not sure of the answer to this very basic question. But this simple matter will make the whole official story false (if it is true that is), and think how small it is in the grand scheme of 9/11. And you want to go on wholeheartedly believing the official story. I really don't get it, I just don't. But as I said anyone with a somewhat open mind reading this, can see just how much members will adhere to their dogma. Is it really that hard to just try to open yourself up a little bit to an alternative theory? I really don't understand it.
Can you try this again in English? How does an out of context comment by an old man to a pair of proven liars and manipulators possibly make anything false let alone the common accepted version of 911?
I doubt that It would even be admissible as evidence let alone be proof of anything.
WHICH, as I have stated repeatedly, was not undertaken in full UNTIL the reports on WTC 1 & 2 were completed. Now what makes you believe that NIST had an unlimited budget?
Its an admirable job at research and justification for each step of their process towards coming up with a 'most probable' scenario for collapse.
Given their very limited resources, AE911Truth has done an admirable job providing research that validates the argument that we have yet to see an honest investigation into 9/11.
As pointed out many times these groups are ostensibly populated by hundreds of persons in high income brackets and they have been supported by celebrities with stratospheric earnings. Yet somehow their resouces are now described as 'limited'.
For example, your reference to "6.6 seconds" completely ignores what it means for a modern 47-story building covering a city block, to drop in freefall for 8 storys. As Bill Smith would suggest, somehow the WTC7 table had all 4 legs severed simultaneously. Column 79 was one leg and that's all the NIST chose to stand their argument on.
In a reply to a post in which I state quite clearly and correctly that the building did NOT collapse in 6.6 seconds you type this lie!
You know very well that in the preceeding 10 seconds the interior of the building was coming apart and that, if you had read the report, col 79 was simply the first large failure that LED TO the entire core failure. Column 79 was specifically NOT part of the core.
You know as well as I do that sulphur was a very small part of the evidence presented by AE911Truth in support of the existence of thermitic materials pervasive in the WTC dust. You might explain the source of heat required to create the iron micro-spheres for example. The NIST certainly didn't.
My, my, I seem to recall this being explained many many times here in these pages. Did NIST explain them? No but then NIST was tasked with finding out how the buildings collapsed not how various constituents of the dust came to be there.
Grinding and cutting tools MM!
Distortion of the truth is the 'stock 'n trade' of the Official Conspiracy Theory supporters.
Misunderstanding, a political worldview that demands large scale vast conspiracies, and shoddy research with a myopic view towards finding any niggling little detail that they can say 'oh explain this insignificant point' is the stock and trade of the 911 conspiracy movement.
As soon as I see your words "yet they have absolutly no independant work of their own", I know two things. You don't check your spelling and you don't care about the lack of truthfulness in your argument.
Wow. That is quite possibly the dumbest page I have ever seen.
What was wrong with the Sofa Store in Charleston SC?
What was wrong with WTC 5? FEMA cited "Intense building fires" for the collapsed section of 5WTC.
Dogwood Elementary School had no sprinklers. Neither did 1 or 2 or 7 WTC. None of them worked at any point in time on 911.
Sight and Sound Theatre in PA. (Not SITE as your site repeats over and over. Pretty sad, that a supposed "legitimate" researcher, cannot get the name of a building correct, and if he had read the entire USFA report on that fire, would have noticed the problem) The entire STEEL section (which was the roof, the walls were either CBS or brick, I don't recall) collapsed from fire.
They cited the following "problems" with the building.
-No sprinklers (gee, 1,2,and 7 didn't either)
-Damaged SFRM (Gee, where else was there confirmed problems with the SFRM .......Oh, right, WTC 1,2,and 7. Imagine that)
-No fire doors.....(gee, that would help the spead of the fire. I wonder if a 767 being parked into the side of the building might have the same effect on a building.....or maybe if a large chunk of a building was removed by the collapse of a much bigger building hitting hit, might have the same effect.....)
Yes, that is not uncommon. Notice the two hilited portions? There is that word "delayed" you didn't understand....
Huh? This makes no sense whatsoever.
Very good. Now, since you were unaware of that, I wonder what else you might be unaware of.....
No, I won't. Here's why.
The effects of thermite are clearly visible after a fire.
The effects of thermite going off at any time, and very noticeable, even in broad daylight.
Thermite cannot do what Jones et al. claim it can, in the way that they claim it was most likely done. (Painted on) Van Romero proved this wrong on the TruTV "Conspiracy Theories with Jesse Ventura" show, but cut the part out where he showed it to be unable to cut a steel beam. Wanna see?
Start about the 2 minute mark. It's pretty epic liar stuff.
Fair enough. I never mentioned anything nefarious about the links you posted.
Great information from a known liar and quoteminer. Cool.
So, you're ok with getting your information from someone who posts misleading/incorrect information? Awesome.
Well, I mean, if you want to play semantics, sure. Since you have no control to base it off of.....
Do you have a point? I would assume it wasn't OBL either. He wouldn't have made it out of VA that day.
How the **** do you come to THAT conclusion? Because you don't know who this mysterious person is, that means that 19 terrorists didn't hijack 4 jets, and crash them into 3 different targets killing ~3000 people?
Wow. Awesome logic.
I didn't, not do I much care really. It's not part of my interest, so it could have been you, and I wouldn't give two rat's nuts.
And I explained why. It's not an area of 9/11 that interests me much at all, hence I have not studied it, and it's not something I am even a little knowledgeable about.
Did you know that a 1cu/f pile of cotton clothes produces more thermal energy than the same amount of thermite?
Then I suppose you'll be taking this information to the UN, or some other LE body in any country, right?
I don't much care really.
Yes. It fits the known facts of the day. If you have a better theory, that accounts for all the known facts of that day, I would gladly look at it and consider it's merits. Do you have such a thing?
Well, let me give you a little bit of education.
I disagree with parts of the NIST report. I believe that the fuel loads and fire temperatures were HIGHER than NIST places them at. Possibly as much as double the fuel load per m/2.
But, because I do in fact have an open mind, and have looked at the data, and looked at their calculations and analysis in depth, my disagreement means not much in the grand scheme of things. BECAUSE I have an open mind, I have accepted that even at the lower fuel load, and lower temperatures, I accept that the NIST came to the correct conclusion.
So, before you go running your ignorant mouth, perhaps you should not jump to random, baseless conclusions. It makes you look like a fool.
"The building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access – and delayed the BPAT team in gaining access – to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns."
Let me try Boolean logic with you. The AND would mean both statements have to evaluate to true for the whole statement to be true. Meaning both the independent investigators were prevented AND BPAT was delayed. They both happened, two different events.
So you want to talk about something that was done on TV? Watch how easily Jon Cole proves National Geographic wrong. National Geographic had about 175 pounds of thermite, and couldn't melt steel. Yet Cole is able to do it with a few pounds? Why? Something tells me it Cole may have been trying just a little harder than the people at Nat Geo. really watch this whole thing, he has his clips right up against the Nat Geo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
So I would be very wary of shows like this.
If what Lloyde England said is true, meaning whoever it was came on the highway with him Helped knock down the lightpole, and make the hole in his car. Because that's all he could have meant by what was planned. If that is true, the whole official story is false. Simple as that.
"Other Collapses in Perspective: An Examination of Other Steel Structures Collapsing due to Fire and their Relation to the WTC" by Adam Taylor, contributor for Debunking the Debunkers blog
Boy, this "Adam Taylor" sounds like quite the expert, doesn't he.
You do know that Zdenek Bazant has cited published data (his own & others) which proves that, for columns under significant amounts of stress (as the remaining, undamaged columns were), even small increases in temperature (~250°C - 350°C) can lead to runaway creep & total collapse in very short periods of time, right?
[from: Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, Vol. 134 (2008)
What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York
Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening and David B. Benson]
You do know about Prof. Bazant's credentials, don't you?
I won't bore you with the details. Just a quick overview.
You know, the usual...
PhD in Engineering Mechanics, Registered Structural Engineer, Postgrad diploma in Theoretical Physics, 50 year career in Civil Engineering, much of it studying the field of large structure failures, Professional Engineer, Distinguished Chair of Civil Engineering at Northwestern University, one of only a handful of people in history to be elected to BOTH the National Academy of Sciences AND National Academy of Engineering, six honorary PhDs, one of the top 100 highly cited scientists in engineering (>8900 citations), and a list of awards (~20), textbooks (~26) & published articles in refereed journals (~500) longer than my Johnson.
Yeah, the usual...
Here's his photo, by the way. (Looks just the way that a distinguished old school engineer ought to):
Now let's look at your authority, Mr. (Doctor?) Taylor.
Do you know anything about his qualifications? Did you bother to do any checking? (I don't think so...)
Structural engineer? Mechanical Engineer? Professional Engineer specializing in the forensic analysis of large structure failure? (Like Bazant)
Or are you "just sure" that he wouldn't write anything that he wasn't 100% sure about?
"Studying in Liberal Arts and Political S [presumably "Science"]
Currently a university student. Am not a huge science expert, but have a basic understanding of physics, especially Newton's Laws of Motion."
___
Clearly Dr. Bazant should immediately retract his calculated conclusions, because the Liberal Arts student, Adam Taylor, possesses "a basic understanding of physics."
"… especially Newton's Laws of Motion."
___
Hmmmm, who to believe on the issue of structural collapse ...??
or
...???
Is this a trick question??
___
This is the very heart of your problem. One friggin' incompetent amateur after another quoting other friggin' incompetent amateurs.
Amateurs like:
Richard Gage
Steven Jones
David Ray Griffin
David Chandler
Jim Hoffman
etc. etc. etc.
femr2
Major_Tom
tmd2
mrkinnies
…
If what Lloyde England said is true, meaning whoever it was came on the highway with him Helped knock down the lightpole, and make the hole in his car. Because that's all he could have meant by what was planned. If that is true, the whole official story is false. Simple as that.
You are suggesting that, immediately after AA77 flew into the Pentagon, as hundreds of passers-by stopped their cars & milled about on a multi-lane highway, 4 to 6 guys trotted up the embankment CARRYING A LIGHT POLE, passed thru the crowd ("scuse me, ... 'scuse me ... 'scuse me ... ah, here's the taxi..."), stopped at England's taxi, lifted the pole & manually hurled it thru his front window...
"The building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access – and delayed the BPAT team in gaining access – to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns."
Let me try Boolean logic with you. The AND would mean both statements have to evaluate to true for the whole statement to be true. Meaning both the independent investigators were prevented AND BPAT was delayed. They both happened, two different events.
I've never denied that the BPAT team was delayed in getting the blueprints. You, however, have claimed they were DENIED them, many times. I've corrected you MANY times stating VERY CLEARLY that they were DELAYED.
Different contraption. Not to mention that Cole cut a much smaller plate compared to what NatGeo attempted. I wonder if Cole could do the same with a full size column.
Something tells me it Cole may have been trying just a little harder than the people at Nat Geo. really watch this whole thing, he has his clips right up against the Nat Geo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
Um, this was a show that was CONSPIRACY FRIENDLY. (Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura) They PURPOSELY left out the conclusion to Van Romero's video. That is misleading at the least. Are you ok with that?
If what Lloyde England said is true, meaning whoever it was came on the highway with him Helped knock down the lightpole, and make the hole in his car. Because that's all he could have meant by what was planned. If that is true, the whole official story is false. Simple as that.
"Other Collapses in Perspective: An Examination of Other Steel Structures Collapsing due to Fire and their Relation to the WTC" by Adam Taylor, contributor for Debunking the Debunkers blog
Boy, this "Adam Taylor" sounds like quite the expert, doesn't he.
You do know that Zdenek Bazant has cited published data (his own & others) which proves that, for columns under significant amounts of stress (as the remaining, undamaged columns were), even small increases in temperature (~250°C - 350°C) can lead to runaway creep & total collapse in very short periods of time, right?
[from: Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, Vol. 134 (2008)
What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York
Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening and David B. Benson]
You do know about Prof. Bazant's credentials, don't you?
I won't bore you with the details. Just a quick overview.
You know, the usual...
PhD in Engineering Mechanics, Registered Structural Engineer, Postgrad diploma in Theoretical Physics, 50 year career in Civil Engineering, much of it studying the field of large structure failures, Professional Engineer, Distinguished Chair of Civil Engineering at Northwestern University, one of only a handful of people in history to be elected to BOTH the National Academy of Sciences AND National Academy of Engineering, six honorary PhDs, one of the top 100 highly cited scientists in engineering (>8900 citations), and a list of awards (~20), textbooks (~26) & published articles in refereed journals (~500) longer than my Johnson.
Yeah, the usual...
Here's his photo, by the way. (Looks just the way that a distinguished old school engineer ought to):
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=176&pictureid=4957[/qimg]
Now let's look at your authority, Mr. (Doctor?) Taylor.
Do you know anything about his qualifications? Did you bother to do any checking? (I don't think so...)
Structural engineer? Mechanical Engineer? Professional Engineer specializing in the forensic analysis of large structure failure? (Like Bazant)
Or are you "just sure" that he wouldn't write anything that he wasn't 100% sure about?
"Studying in Liberal Arts and Political S [presumably "Science"]
Currently a university student. Am not a huge science expert, but have a basic understanding of physics, especially Newton's Laws of Motion."
___
Clearly Dr. Bazant should immediately retract his calculated conclusions, because the Liberal Arts student, Adam Taylor, possesses "a basic understanding of physics."
"… especially Newton's Laws of Motion."
___
Hmmmm, who to believe on the issue of structural collapse ...??
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=176&pictureid=4956[/qimg] or [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=176&pictureid=4957[/qimg]...???
Is this a trick question??
___
This is the very heart of your problem. One friggin' incompetent amateur after another quoting other friggin' incompetent amateurs.
Amateurs like:
Richard Gage
Steven Jones
David Ray Griffin
David Chandler
Jim Hoffman
etc. etc. etc.
femr2
Major_Tom
tmd2
mrkinnies
…
LOL!!! I pictured Dr. B as a kinda dorky looking fellow, with a bad combover, glasses, and maybe even a pocket protector.
Turns out, he's the scientist from Back to the Future!!
Awesome!!
tfk said:
Talk about clueless...
You are suggesting that, immediately after AA77 flew into the Pentagon, as hundreds of passers-by stopped their cars & milled about on a multi-lane highway, 4 to 6 guys trotted up the embankment CARRYING A LIGHT POLE, passed thru the crowd ("scuse me, ... 'scuse me ... 'scuse me ... ah, here's the taxi..."), stopped at England's taxi, lifted the pole & manually hurled it thru his front window...
"Other Collapses in Perspective: An Examination of Other Steel Structures Collapsing due to Fire and their Relation to the WTC" by Adam Taylor, contributor for Debunking the Debunkers blog
Boy, this "Adam Taylor" sounds like quite the expert, doesn't he.
You do know that Zdenek Bazant has cited published data (his own & others) which proves that, for columns under significant amounts of stress (as the remaining, undamaged columns were), even small increases in temperature (~250°C - 350°C) can lead to runaway creep & total collapse in very short periods of time, right?
[from: Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, Vol. 134 (2008)
What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York
Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening and David B. Benson]
You do know about Prof. Bazant's credentials, don't you?
I won't bore you with the details. Just a quick overview.
You know, the usual...
PhD in Engineering Mechanics, Registered Structural Engineer, Postgrad diploma in Theoretical Physics, 50 year career in Civil Engineering, much of it studying the field of large structure failures, Professional Engineer, Distinguished Chair of Civil Engineering at Northwestern University, one of only a handful of people in history to be elected to BOTH the National Academy of Sciences AND National Academy of Engineering, six honorary PhDs, one of the top 100 highly cited scientists in engineering (>8900 citations), and a list of awards (~20), textbooks (~26) & published articles in refereed journals (~500) longer than my Johnson.
Yeah, the usual...
Here's his photo, by the way. (Looks just the way that a distinguished old school engineer ought to):
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=176&pictureid=4957[/qimg]
Now let's look at your authority, Mr. (Doctor?) Taylor.
Do you know anything about his qualifications? Did you bother to do any checking? (I don't think so...)
Structural engineer? Mechanical Engineer? Professional Engineer specializing in the forensic analysis of large structure failure? (Like Bazant)
Or are you "just sure" that he wouldn't write anything that he wasn't 100% sure about?
"Studying in Liberal Arts and Political S [presumably "Science"]
Currently a university student. Am not a huge science expert, but have a basic understanding of physics, especially Newton's Laws of Motion."
___
Clearly Dr. Bazant should immediately retract his calculated conclusions, because the Liberal Arts student, Adam Taylor, possesses "a basic understanding of physics."
"… especially Newton's Laws of Motion."
___
Hmmmm, who to believe on the issue of structural collapse ...??
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=176&pictureid=4956[/qimg] or [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=176&pictureid=4957[/qimg]...???
Is this a trick question??
___
This is the very heart of your problem. One friggin' incompetent amateur after another quoting other friggin' incompetent amateurs.
Amateurs like:
Richard Gage
Steven Jones
David Ray Griffin
David Chandler
Jim Hoffman
etc. etc. etc.
femr2
Major_Tom
tmd2
mrkinnies
…
This is probably the longest appeal to authority I have ever seen. Try addressing what is in the article.
That article wasn't a "science" paper at least in a classical type of way. It is more of a newspaper article. He cites other steel frame collapses, and the known structural problems with them. What is so wrong with that?
You are suggesting that, immediately after AA77 flew into the Pentagon, as hundreds of passers-by stopped their cars & milled about on a multi-lane highway, 4 to 6 guys trotted up the embankment CARRYING A LIGHT POLE, passed thru the crowd ("scuse me, ... 'scuse me ... 'scuse me ... ah, here's the taxi..."), stopped at England's taxi, lifted the pole & manually hurled it thru his front window...
Yes. Because as we all know the best way to cove up a conspiracy is to leave these clues in wait of two douchebags with a camera to show up and badger an old man into a "confession". That way, the hundreds of eyewitnesses, the wreckage, the ATC's who tracked the flight, the radar data, the FDR data and the DNA of the victims recovered from the Pentagon can be simply handwaved away.
So you think that a poorly researched "newspaper article" done by a student in an unrelated field carries as much weight as a person with decades of experience and awards in the very field he is discussing.
I suppose that you'd have no problem if my neighbor the out of work plumber took a crack at fixing your 60" plasma TV. I mean pretty much all he does right now is watch TV so clearly he is qualified using your own standards.
If they're not worth addressing, don't bring them up in the first place.
No, I certainly don't.
I've never denied that the BPAT team was delayed in getting the blueprints. You, however, have claimed they were DENIED them, many times. I've corrected you MANY times stating VERY CLEARLY that they were DELAYED.
Do you know what an "independent researcher" is?
Why don't you address what was brought up, and not shift the goalposts.
Different contraption. Not to mention that Cole cut a much smaller plate compared to what NatGeo attempted. I wonder if Cole could do the same with a full size column.
I've seen both. Do you have some kind of point?
Um, this was a show that was CONSPIRACY FRIENDLY. (Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura) They PURPOSELY left out the conclusion to Van Romero's video. That is misleading at the least. Are you ok with that?
How do 2 people move a lightpole, drop in from a height large enough to penetrate the windshield and impale the rear seat, and NOBODY NOTICE?!?!?!?
Yeah, did a little bit of research. Very little. You're assuming the consequences. This is a logical fallacy.
No sadly you still don't get it. I will try one more time.
I was asked about independent researchers. Right here "The building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access – and delayed the BPAT team in gaining access – to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns."
Here's the Boolean logic again. The AND would mean both statements have to evaluate to true for the whole statement to be true. Meaning both the independent investigators were prevented AND BPAT was delayed. They both happened, two different events. I hope you understand now?
I'm not in a position to address whether it could be sprayed on or not, I really don't think it matters. I'm saying I am very wary of shows like this, you believe what ever you want.
As for Lloyde you will have to take that up with him. He is the one that said it.
This is probably the longest appeal to authority I have ever seen. Try addressing what is in the article.
That article wasn't a "science" paper at least in a classical type of way. It is more of a newspaper article. He cites other steel frame collapses, and the known structural problems with them. What is so wrong with that?
You are suggesting that, immediately after AA77 flew into the Pentagon, as hundreds of passers-by stopped their cars & milled about on a multi-lane highway, 4 to 6 guys trotted up the embankment CARRYING A LIGHT POLE, passed thru the crowd ("scuse me, ... 'scuse me ... 'scuse me ... ah, here's the taxi..."), stopped at England's taxi, lifted the pole & manually hurled it thru his front window...
This is probably the longest appeal to authority I have ever seen. Try addressing what is in the article.
That article wasn't a "science" paper at least in a classical type of way. It is more of a newspaper article. He cites other steel frame collapses, and the known structural problems with them. What is so wrong with that?
No sadly you still don't get it. I will try one more time.
I was asked about independent researchers. Right here "The building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access – and delayed the BPAT team in gaining access – to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns."
Here's the Boolean logic again. The AND would mean both statements have to evaluate to true for the whole statement to be true. Meaning both the independent investigators were prevented AND BPAT was delayed. They both happened, two different events. I hope you understand now?
I understand it just fine. Do you know what an INDEPENDENT researcher is? It's not FEMA's BPAT, it wasn't NIST, it wasn't FDNY, or anyone with any government agency that I am aware of.
Independent researchers are you and me. I wouldn't give you the blueprints to my shed, let alone a multi-million dollar building.
I've stated many times that I agree that the BPAT team was DELAYED in getting the blueprints. I understand that just fine. I agree.
I will also agree that independent researchers like you and I, were blocked access to the buildings blueprints. Do you have some kind of point to make about this?
I'm not in a position to address whether it could be sprayed on or not, I really don't think it matters. I'm saying I am very wary of shows like this, you believe what ever you want.
I understand it just fine. Do you know what an INDEPENDENT researcher is? It's not FEMA's BPAT, it wasn't NIST, it wasn't FDNY, or anyone with any government agency that I am aware of.
Independent researchers are you and me. I wouldn't give you the blueprints to my shed, let alone a multi-million dollar building.
I've stated many times that I agree that the BPAT team was DELAYED in getting the blueprints. I understand that just fine. I agree.
I will also agree that independent researchers like you and I, were blocked access to the buildings blueprints. Do you have some kind of point to make about this?
Perhaps you should also apply the same standard to YouTube videos.
I think you're missing the point, as always.
He said that someone helped him hurl a lightpole into the windshield of his car? Where? Please provide the link for that.
One last, and this is the last attempt. Let's go back to the beginning you said this question "Why, if they are the ones covering everything up, were independent experts from SEAoNY, ASCE and Dr Astaneh-Asl allowed on the site at all?" Was not answered by me.
To which I replied.
"They were certainly denied documents. http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wt...ee_charter.htm...."
The whole line of discussion had nothing to do with BPAT.
Then I tried to explain it here it all is again.
The building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access – and delayed the BPAT team in gaining access – to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns."
Let me try Boolean logic with you. The AND would mean both statements have to evaluate to true for the whole statement to be true. Meaning both the independent investigators were prevented AND BPAT was delayed. They both happened, two different events.
Please tell me you understand now? If you don't there's really not much more I can do.
I do, you can clearly see Cole melts steel with only a few pounds, and Nat Geo couldn't do it with 175 pounds. What would you go with?
As far as spray painting thermite, I have not looked into it, and do not think it matters. I'm saying based on history of shows like that I would be wary. But that's your decision.
This brings us back to the original question. What was planned (as I see it he could only be talking about a downed lightpole, and hole in his winshield), and who came on the highway with lloyde? They were talking about a "world" event.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
