Merged New video! Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of Building 7

[atavisms]

When you so clearly display a complete inability to perceive reality through the filters imposed by your unquestioning faith in a pack of liars, it's a bit difficult to think of any other way to respond than ridicule. You've swallowed the garbage that's been fed to you so thoroughly that you've rendered yourself incapable of seeing otherwise, so rational debate seems a little pointless. You've just denied that people use metaphors in every day speech, for FSM's sake! How out of touch with reality does someone have to be to beloieve something that idiotic? At this point, ridicule is about the only option we have left. And at least it gives you something to reply to, as you're carefully avoiding responding to any substantive criticism of the lies you're so dutifully repeating.

Dave

I know it seems idiotic and very very difficult to believe. I know that. And that was my reaction as well for a long time. But the facts that no one disputes clearly and definitively reveal the use of explosives. And the the Harrit study on the dust conducted by 8 or 9 scientists from different universities was just the another nail in an already well sealed coffin of the official story. Even without it we can be certain these were not gravity driven 'collapses.'

You say I repeated some 'lies' but dont say which? Please be specific. Just spouting derogatory conclusions without establishing what youre even talking about only makes it clear to anyone who reads this that you have no real argument beyond your own difficulty in believing such a thing could be true. Or how upsetting the conclusion is that you refuse to admit it.
(Not that I would respond that way but I know how that feels, so I feel for you)

We dont need to interpret people's testimony on this issue.. just the facts on the ground. (Besides what do you reckon 'explosion' or 'blew up' is a metaphor for?)

It is not 'faith in pack of liars' or anyone, but a large array of well established facts from a variety of different sources that all point in the same direction that brought me (and millions of others all over the world) to this conclusion. So unless you are calling FEMA & NIST & the 911 Comm and the NY Times etc, 'a pack of liars' I suggest you look at the facts again.
Look at the fema bpat app c
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm
and ask yourself why NISt made no reference to it. That is solid forensic evidence from a government report and they acted as if it did not exist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcqf5tL887o
(like they did in failing to even test for explosive residues, etc etc)

If you do this with an open mind..the conclusion, as troubling and upsetting as it is, (it was very much so for me at least) is simply unavoidable.

Or you can buy that there was no molten metal at ground zero, that the thermitic red/gray chips are paint, that the squibs are but 'compressed air from the pancaking floors above,' that gravity alone can account for the incredibly explosive destruction of wtc 1&2 which blasted apart the buildings, their cores and left 1100 human bodies 'unaccounted for,' 800 foot debris fields. It took a lot..A LOT of energy to convert all of that concrete to powder, those massive completely intact (below impact zones) core structures and perimeter wall assemblies and blast them outward for hundreds of feet.. the rest of it to smithereens literally. WTC 7's implosion,.. etc



To maintain fires even underwater. again, simply impossible. Only tons of thermite can explain that the fires would not go out despite continuous water being poured on top of them. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html The thermitic reaction burns even under water because it provides it's own oxygen ,,it also gives off aluminum oxide in the form of white smoke. Seen clearly in the photos of the site and wtc7.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzheli1.html

If ridicule is all you 'have left' then its because there are no good counter arguments..or maybe you should be in a different forum. Ridicule is the domain of those who have nothing intelligent to say. Nothing that might counter the issue at hand. If you have no good argument calling people names is certainly not the solution as that only makes a person look even less capable. A person is rarely more revealing of himself than in his judgement of another.

If you are interested in the real truth then we are on the same side. I was a 'debunker' and I fought this conclusion with every ounce of my being and wish more than anything for it to be incorrect. That's the truth.

But the overwhelming number of facts, stemming from different places, all point to explosives. And that speaks louder than my own incredulity or distress in reaching this conclusion.

Peace

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Metaphors, really? Oh yeah..maybe they were thinking about their creative writing class after just nearly dying in a catastrophic event which killed 343 of their fellow firefighters You think?

Oh, absolutely. You'll often hear people describe their brushes with natural disasters as being "like the end of the world".

You're clearly too out of touch with both physical reality and human nature to be discussing much of anything in a rational manner.

 

[Animal]

Read my sigs. Materials characterisation was part of my training. I've got far more experience than Harrit or Jones when it comes to materials characterisation and identification. .

That means he will move to a new subject matter......like structural engineering, and when b**ch slapped by a structural engineer, will then move on to something about fire fighting, and when b**ch slapped by a fire fighter, will move on to aviation, and when b**ch slapped by a pilot, will move on to........etc etc. Eventually he will get back around to materials and it will be like he never had the original conversation at all....and around and around the circle will go.

 

[Animal]

I know it seems idiotic and very very difficult to believe. I know that. And that was my reaction as well for a long time. But the facts that no one disputes clearly and definitively reveal the use of explosives. And the the Harrit study on the dust conducted by 8 or 9 scientists from different universities was just the another nail in an already well sealed coffin of the official story. Even without it we can be certain these were not gravity driven 'collapses.'

You say I repeated some 'lies' but dont say which? Please be specific. Just spouting derogatory conclusions without establishing what youre even talking about only makes it clear to anyone who reads this that you have no real argument beyond your own difficulty in believing such a thing could be true. Or how upsetting the conclusion is that you refuse to admit it.
(Not that I would respond that way but I know how that feels, so I feel for you)

We dont need to interpret people's testimony on this issue.. just the facts on the ground. (Besides what do you reckon 'explosion' or 'blew up' is a metaphor for?)

It is not 'faith in pack of liars' or anyone, but a large array of well established facts from a variety of different sources that all point in the same direction that brought me (and millions of others all over the world) to this conclusion. So unless you are calling FEMA & NIST & the 911 Comm and the NY Times etc, 'a pack of liars' I suggest you look at the facts again.
Look at the fema bpat app c
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm
and ask yourself why NISt made no reference to it. That is solid forensic evidence from a government report and they acted as if it did not exist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcqf5tL887o
(like they did in failing to even test for explosive residues, etc etc)

If you do this with an open mind..the conclusion, as troubling and upsetting as it is, (it was very much so for me at least) is simply unavoidable.

Or you can buy that there was no molten metal at ground zero, that the thermitic red/gray chips are paint, that the squibs are but 'compressed air from the pancaking floors above,' that gravity alone can account for the incredibly explosive destruction of wtc 1&2 which blasted apart the buildings, their cores and left 1100 human bodies 'unaccounted for,' 800 foot debris fields. It took a lot..A LOT of energy to convert all of that concrete to powder, those massive completely intact (below impact zones) core structures and perimeter wall assemblies and blast them outward for hundreds of feet.. the rest of it to smithereens literally. WTC 7's implosion,.. etc

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_349174abd5befe8ed2.jpg[/qimg]

To maintain fires even underwater. again, simply impossible. Only tons of thermite can explain that the fires would not go out despite continuous water being poured on top of them. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html The thermitic reaction burns even under water because it provides it's own oxygen ,,it also gives off aluminum oxide in the form of white smoke. Seen clearly in the photos of the site and wtc7.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzheli1.html

If ridicule is all you 'have left' then its because there are no good counter arguments..or maybe you should be in a different forum. Ridicule is the domain of those who have nothing intelligent to say. Nothing that might counter the issue at hand. If you have no good argument calling people names is certainly not the solution as that only makes a person look even less capable. A person is rarely more revealing of himself than in his judgement of another.

If you are interested in the real truth then we are on the same side. I was a 'debunker' and I fought this conclusion with every ounce of my being and wish more than anything for it to be incorrect. That's the truth.

But the overwhelming number of facts, stemming from different places, all point to explosives. And that speaks louder than my own incredulity or distress in reaching this conclusion.

Peace

Arguement from willful ignorance noted.

 

[aggle-rithm]

But the facts that no one disputes clearly and definitively reveal the use of explosives. And the the Harrit study on the dust conducted by 8 or 9 scientists from different universities was just the another nail in an already well sealed coffin of the official story. Even without it we can be certain these were not gravity driven 'collapses.'

Until you learn a little bit about how to distinguish truth from falsehood, you have no business posting in a skeptics' forum.

 

[Clayton Moore]

As usual, bill smith hasn't understood the question. As I already said, it's clearly possible to add violatile materials to nanothermite, which will vapourise and yield the large volumes of gas needed to produce an explosion. However, that's not going to make it any better at cutting steel than simple thermite, because a subsonic deflagration won't produce a significant shockwave and won't generate a Munroe effect. In fact, making thermite into a subsonic explosive will make it less able to cut metal, because the explosion will scatter the molten iron it produces away from the structure it's intended to cut. What is yet to be demonstrated is that it's possible to make nanothermite into a high explosive, a distinction I suspect most truthers aren't even aware of.

If it were possible to make nanothermite work as a high explosive, defined as one in which the explosive shock front moves at supersonic speed, then it could conceivably be used as a cutter charge in a controlled demolition. It would be an exceptionally poor one, because the already low energy density available from nanothermite (due to the inevitable surface oxidation of the aluminium reducing the amount of free aluminium metal available to react) would be reduced still further by the presence of the volatile material. The whole nanothermite argument, therefore, reduces to the assertion that the conspirators chose a material which has been hypothesised as a poorer yield explosive than many well-known alternatives, without any actual data to back up this hypothesis. And, of course, this argument still fails to explain the absence of any sufficiently loud explosions at the right time to have caused the collapses, the one thing that isn't a major problem for the invocation of conventional thermite.

So, in summary: Until someone produces a reference demonstrating a supersonic shock front in modified nanothermite, we have no reason to accept the claim that nanothermite can be modified to form a high explosive; and even if such a reference is produced, it makes no sense to use nanothermite for a demolition explosive.

Dave

ETA: Interestingly, some time in June the Wikipedia article on energy density was edited to remove the energy densities of thermite and of typical high explosives. Not being a conspiracy theorist myself, I won't claim for certain that this was done by a 9/11 truther, but simply confine myself to pointing out how convenient it is for them that this information is not now as easily found as it used to be.

When things disappear from the internet that could be related to 9/11 you can bet your sweet bippy that the truther side DIDN'T do it.

 

[NoahFence]

When things disappear from the internet that could be related to 9/11 you can bet your sweet bippy that the truther side DIDN'T do it.

Uh huh.

Based on what? Truther's blazing honesty and integrity? Come on. Each and every truther is a liar.

 

[Gamolon]

You say I repeated some 'lies' but dont say which? Please be specific. Just spouting derogatory conclusions without establishing what youre even talking about only makes it clear to anyone who reads this that you have no real argument beyond your own difficulty in believing such a thing could be true.

I read this above and then had to laugh at the following statements below...

Or you can buy that there was no molten metal at ground zero,

It's the molten STEEL comment that people have an issue with, not molten METAL.

that the thermitic red/gray chips are paint,

There is much evidence in another thread that Harrit's claims are incorrect.

that the squibs are but 'compressed air from the pancaking floors above,'

Can you tell me what caused the "squibs" around the entire building at :06 in this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GNhEpHfgfI

It took a lot..A LOT of energy to convert all of that concrete to powder,

There were no chunks of concrete eh? Have a look at these photos. ALL powder right? http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/wtc6.html

those massive completely intact (below impact zones) core structures and perimeter wall assemblies and blast them outward for hundreds of feet..

Couldn't have fallen sideways right? HAD to be ejected via explosives. This has been proven to be incorrect.

Only tons of thermite can explain that the fires would not go out despite continuous water being poured on top of them.

How can thermite be your explanation when thermite burns very quickly? How could thermite keep the fires going when it would have burned out a long time ago when it was consumed when it supposedly cut the columns?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Fifteen at the bare minimum.



It was asymmetrical. Do pay attention please.



A 'planned implosion' would have taken dozens of people weeks or months to prepare - the largest controlled demo in history. No other controlled demo is even close to the size of WTC 7. Yet nobody saw a thing.

Lemme guess. A 1/2 hour security lapse allowed all this to happen in multiple buildings.....

You don't get it do you? Advanced secret tech remains secret until someone figures it out. That would be doable if you had physical evidence and comparable scientists and labs.

Just because the how is a mystery doesn't mean three huge buildings destroyed themselves in less than a visual minute without the assistance of explosives.

Think missing weapons grade anthrax. Understand?

 

[excaza]

To maintain fires even underwater. again, simply impossible. Only tons of thermite can explain that the fires would not go out despite continuous water being poured on top of them.

Right, because pouring water on top of a debris pile guarantees that the water goes directly to the fires. Derp.

 

[NoahFence]

You don't get it do you? Advanced secret tech remains secret until someone figures it out. That would be doable if you had physical evidence and comparable scientists and labs.

Just because the how is a mystery doesn't mean three huge buildings destroyed themselves in less than a visual minute without the assistance of explosives.
Think missing weapons grade anthrax. Understand

 

[Edx]

Only tons of thermite can explain that the fires would not go out despite continuous water being poured on top of them.

Oh look, atavisms is wrong again. Surprising?

To cut off the oxygen supply to the fire... Water application continued around the clock. Within a week the monitoring results conclusively demonstrated that carbon monoxide, temperature and oxygen levels were dropping.

http://www.landfillfire.com/histories.html

Initially, water was applied to the fire in high-pressure streams in excess of 2,000 gallons per minute (gpm). This extinguished flames at the surface but did not quell the fire brewing deep in the landfill. In fact, most of the water quickly ran off the surface, draining to the landfill toe where pools of toxic black leachate were form

http://waste360.com/mag/waste_fighting_landfill_fire

On January 26, 1998....a fire 15 to 20 feet underground. Attempts were made to smother it with injections of more than 1,000 pounds of liquid carbon dioxide. The fire was eventually deemed to be extinguished in a matter of weeks, although it continued to smolder for 4 months

http://preview.tinyurl.com/3gw2qy3

Whoever set fire to the huge Heyope tyre dump near Knighton, Powys, in 1989 could have had little idea that the action would enter the record books. Almost 13 years later, Britain's longest burning tyre fire smoulders gently on.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2002/may/15/environment.waste

Also reports of molten steel are common are therefore expected in normal fires. Go on, I dare you to deny it.

 

[Marokkaan]

Read my sigs. Materials characterisation was part of my training. I've got far more experience than Harrit or Jones when it comes to materials characterisation and identification. Harrit is a chemist and even he didn't have any interest in the one thing that a chemist should have been interested in, namely the organic binder material. He should have known that FTIR analysis would have been perfect to find out not only what that material is but also the other particles. Couple that info with XRD or microprobe and you get the answer. He didn't. He's incompetent. Your problem is you have no knowledge of the subject. This means you base your position on an argument from authority. There are plenty of other scientists who have materials science degrees and experience that say it's paint, but you don't believe them. Why not?

The funny thing is truthers don't realise just how easy it is to debunk the Harrit et al paper. Even their DSC thermograms show it can't be what they say it is but because truthers lack even the most rudimentary knowledge of, well lets face it, anything, they just believe anything that's on youtube or a conspiracy site.

Explain Fig 31 in the paper to us. I need a laugh.

lol

 

[twinstead]

lol

I wouldn't laugh too hard, marokkaan; you are one of those who believe anything you read on an internet site as long as it supports your world view. Objective you are not.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

When you so clearly display a complete inability to perceive reality through the filters imposed by your unquestioning faith in a pack of liars, it's a bit difficult to think of any other way to respond than ridicule. You've swallowed the garbage that's been fed to you so thoroughly that you've rendered yourself incapable of seeing otherwise, so rational debate seems a little pointless. You've just denied that people use metaphors in every day speech, for FSM's sake! How out of touch with reality does someone have to be to beloieve something that idiotic? At this point, ridicule is about the only option we have left. And at least it gives you something to reply to, as you're carefully avoiding responding to any substantive criticism of the lies you're so dutifully repeating.

Dave

I know it seems idiotic and very very difficult to believe.

Yet you believe it.

And that was my reaction as well for a long time. But the facts that no one disputes clearly and definitively reveal the use of explosives.

No. You believe the undisputed facts reveal use of explosives. You're having a lot of trouble with the distinction between what you believe and what is real.

And the the Harrit study on the dust conducted by 8 or 9 scientists from different universities was just the another nail in an already well sealed coffin of the official story.

You're getting the details wrong. Of that paper's 9 co-authors, only 3 (Harrit, Farrer, and Farnsworth) listed a university as their affiliation. Harrit was an Associate Professor near retirement, Farrer a lab manager, Farnsworth a graduate student.

Even without it we can be certain these were not gravity driven 'collapses.'

You are certain, but who is this "we" of whom you speak?

You say I repeated some 'lies' but dont say which? Please be specific.

See above and below.

Just spouting derogatory conclusions without establishing what youre even talking about only makes it clear to anyone who reads this that you have no real argument beyond your own difficulty in believing such a thing could be true. Or how upsetting the conclusion is that you refuse to admit it.
(Not that I would respond that way but I know how that feels, so I feel for you)

It is not 'faith in pack of liars' or anyone, but a large array of well established facts from a variety of different sources that all point in the same direction that brought me (and millions of others all over the world) to this conclusion. So unless you are calling FEMA & NIST & the 911 Comm and the NY Times etc, 'a pack of liars' I suggest you look at the facts again.

Dave Rogers was not calling FEMA & NIST & the 9/11 Commission and the NY Times a pack of liars. For you to suggest that he was is a typical example of your distortions of the truth, which is a euphemism for your lies.

It should also be noted that FEMA, NIST, the 9/11 Commission, and the New York Times all disagree with your claims that the facts "clearly and definitively reveal the use of explosives" and that "we can be certain these were not gravity driven 'collapses.'" Citing them as though they support your claims is another example of your distortions of the truth, i.e. your lies.

If you do this with an open mind..the conclusion, as troubling and upsetting as it is, (it was very much so for me at least) is simply unavoidable.

So say you, but how would you know what it's like to examine the facts with an open mind?

Or you can buy that there was no molten metal at ground zero,

Almost everyone acknowledges the likelihood that molten metal was present. Truthers, however, often commit a fallacy of equivocation by assuming the molten metal was molten steel. By acting as though the presence of molten metal is controversial, you give the impression that you don't understand the importance of the distinction between molten metal and molten steel.

that the thermitic red/gray chips are paint, that the squibs are but 'compressed air from the pancaking floors above,' that gravity alone can account for the incredibly explosive destruction of wtc 1&2 which blasted apart the buildings, their cores and left 1100 human bodies 'unaccounted for,' 800 foot debris fields. It took a lot..A LOT of energy to convert all of that concrete to powder, those massive completely intact (below impact zones) core structures and perimeter wall assemblies and blast them outward for hundreds of feet.. the rest of it to smithereens literally. WTC 7's implosion,.. etc

As arguments from incredulity go, yours is quite weak because the things that amaze you seem quite likely to those who are better informed and educated than you. In particular, no one who is capable of calculating the gravitational potential energy of the towers would express the incredulity you have expressed above.

To maintain fires even underwater. again, simply impossible. Only tons of thermite can explain that the fires would not go out despite continuous water being poured on top of them.

If you understood the thermite reaction, you'd realize that thermite would burn out pretty quickly, and that aluminum oxide is neither the only possible nor the most likely explanation for white smoke.

If ridicule is all you 'have left' then its because there are no good counter arguments..or maybe you should be in a different forum. Ridicule is the domain of those who have nothing intelligent to say.

As Dave Rogers said, ridicule is about all that's left after you've proved yourself immune to rational discussion and continue to repeat lies.

If you are interested in the real truth then we are on the same side.

Dave Rogers seems to be much more interested in the real truth than you are. I'm pretty sure you and he are not on the same side.

But the overwhelming number of facts, stemming from different places, all point to explosives. And that speaks louder than my own incredulity or distress in reaching this conclusion.

Once again, you are failing to distinguish between what you believe and what is real.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

pffffff






Why you dont answer the questions?

So Maro.....do you believe WTC7 collapsed completely in less than 7 seconds? Yes or no? Perhaps you could answer a simple question like this before chiding others for not answering question

 

[Venom]

Ata, why do you repeat over and over that "NIST 'admitted' freefall" when it was just explained more thoroughly for you nuts. Their responsibility was not to prove any preconceived account of what happened.....which is what you are trying to do and failing at.
You can brag all you want about your "1,500 engineers and architects for 9/11 Truth", but the fact remains that they have made zero progress on their "research" (simply because many of those "scientists" are out of their league on this topic).

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Do I really have to track it down for you? The point is that thermitic materials can be engineered to have high explosive properties. You can refer 1000 different papers that do not address this fact and thereby avoid it altogether, but that doesn't make it any less true.

And what would be the point? Explosives make very loud bangs and large blasts which were not heard or seen on 911 which is why Gage et al came up with the idea that it was thermite as it would be quiet. Making the thermite explosive simply is pointless.

And either would leave residue, cut columns, shock cord, detonators, timers etc................none of which were found.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You say I repeated some 'lies' but dont say which?

Just from a sampling of your posting history I can find find the following lies that you repeated:

• Freefall means there were no supports. No supports means they were removed with explosives of some kind.
• Even a single intact vertical column would have caused an asymmetrical collapse.
• 'Symmetrical' means in the manner of controlled demolition. (not along the straight edge of a ruler). Now you;re telling me it wasn't 6.5 seconds.
• It looks exactly like what it was; a planned implosion

How many was it?

I counted 5 when you consider one sentence contains two errors of fact. Let's view a little more of your posting history shall we?

• Metaphors, really? Oh yeah..maybe they were thinking about their creative writing class after just nearly dying in a catastrophic event which killed 343 of their fellow firefighters You think? (You know how many firefighters bodies were recovered? 70
  
  'trolls' is the best you can do.
  
• Fact is, there are 911truth groups founded by almost every professional walk of life and involving all kinds of people. from world class academics:http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/e/hand-waving-the physics-of-911-by-david-griscom.pdf
  to military personal, veterans, actors, religious leaders, Christians, Muslims, Jews, doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, firefighters, family members, scientists, almost every US state and county, every country has them.. (to mention just a few of the more prominent) and MILLIONS of people from all walks of life the world over, that have looked at the evidence, at the FACTS, and come to the same terrible conclusion.

But you dismiss them all as "trolls." (That says a lot about you and nothing about 911 Truth).

While I'm on the subject of "your posts" let me chime in. Professional incompetence;m that is the inability to do things relevant to the research in their respective professions, is not "looking at the evidence," it's called being irresponsible, lazy, incompetent, and silly; and yet you think their their professional titles give them an excuse? Well I guess that question's rhetorical since you advertise them frequently. Now, where was I? Oh yes... your repeated lies.

That WTC 7 was not even mentioned in then 911 Commission Report -(aka The Omission Commission)

It's a lie because you've never read the commission report, so naturally you have no idea what its scope was. Naturally, you think the commission report was tasked with addressing engineering studies... uh-huh... whatever...

Well check for yourself... your posting history is still pretty brief, I merely grabbed some content from the first 5 or 6 posts on the list.

Just spouting derogatory conclusions without establishing what youre even talking about only makes it clear to anyone who reads this that you have no real argument beyond your own difficulty in believing such a thing could be true. Or how upsetting the conclusion is that you refuse to admit it.

Well, if that's your standard... let's examine your recent posting history a bit more shall we? Hmmm...

Typical denier response. Clearly reveals your thorough knowledge of the subject as well as your impressive mental abilities

For the record, you've lost the moral high ground once you've reciprocated the treatment.

Ah... darn... I forgot... there were a few more lies in the post I'm originally addressing as a courtesy... since you obviously want specificity... I'll even dedicate a little time even though it's been addressed as a courtesy.

We dont need to interpret people's testimony on this issue.. just the facts on the ground. (Besides what do you reckon 'explosion' or 'blew up' is a metaphor for?)

Actually we do need to examine and interpret the witness testimony if you believe there's something relevant to it. To blanket all the testimony into one thing is absolutely absurd. Would you want to wrongly conclude that a freight train destroyed a small town when people used a metaphor to describe the experience of going through a tornado? Probably not, yet you're advocating exactly that.

It is not 'faith in pack of liars' or anyone, but a large array of well established facts from a variety of different sources

Excuse me? A wide variety? Every lin you've ever posted is from a 911 truth website which has a bias that agrees with your own. I find it telling that you have not and will never reference a book outside of NIST or 9/11 truth youtube or websites that talks about the issues and corroborates them without the dirtying of existing bias. having "911truth" in every url is not variety, it's a monologue.

If you do this with an open mind..the conclusion, as troubling and upsetting as it is, (it was very much so for me at least) is simply unavoidable.

If you had an open mind then you wouldn't need to rely solely on one set of sources to make your points.

It took a lot..A LOT of energy to convert all of that concrete to powder, those massive completely intact (below impact zones) core structures and perimeter wall assemblies and blast them outward for hundreds of feet.. the rest of it to smithereens literally. WTC 7's implosion,.. etc

I'd say this is another example of the lying you've asked about, except it fits more into the category of "I'm making wild assumptions on topics I have never looked at in my entire life". This garbage, is the kind of thing you can only produce by having no experience or background study, mixed with a megaton of bias; not from someone whom has taken an interest in, and learned about the topics.

If ridicule is all you 'have left' then its because there are no good counter arguments..or maybe you should be in a different forum. Ridicule is the domain of those who have nothing intelligent to say. Nothing that might counter the issue at hand. If you have no good argument calling people names is certainly not the solution as that only makes a person look even less capable. A person is rarely more revealing of himself than in his judgement of another.

You might have a point if the ridicule started from the outset. What you have had, is a series of counterarguments spread over the last decade answering some of the most important questions you, and thousands of other "truthers" have asked repeatedly, and ignored, dodged, and pretended did not exist. Ridicule takes place under two conditions; when you have no counterargument to begin with, and when you've addressed the same claim repeatedly and you have shown an unwillingness to register it. Patience eventually runs out, whether appropriate or not in its timing.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I know it seems idiotic and very very difficult to believe. I know that. And that was my reaction as well for a long time. But the facts that no one disputes clearly and definitively reveal the use of explosives. And the the Harrit study on the dust conducted by 8 or 9 scientists from different universities was just the another nail in an already well sealed coffin of the official story. Even without it we can be certain these were not gravity driven 'collapses.'

Look, just stop. I've been a professional scientist for over a quarter of a century, I've read the Harrit paper, and I can see it's utter garbage. Anybody and everybody involved in it should be too embarrassed ever to show their faces in public. It's trivial, as Sunstealer has pointed out many times, to see that the data contradicts the conclusions they draw from it. As for the "facts that no one disputes", it's simply a lie to say that they "clearly and definitively reveal the use of explosives"; they don't. Simple examination of, for example, the Trinity Church video (the original, that is, without the dubbed-in explosions on some doctored versions) make it cleat that explosives had nothing to do with the collapses.

You say I repeated some 'lies' but dont say which? Please be specific.

It's a lie that Harrit et al found evidence of thermite in the WTC dust residues. It's a lie that a period of freefall in the course of a collapse can only be produced using explosives. It's a lie that WTC7 fell symmetrically into its own footprint. It's a lie that only explosives can explain the presence of debris 600 feet outside the footprint of the Twin Towers. It's a lie that the fires in the WTC buildings were small and localised. It's a lie that fire cannot cause the collapse of a steel-framed building. It's a lie that explosives or thermite were in any way involved in the WTC collapses. It's a lie that the corroded steel girders found in the rubble of WTC7 can only have been produced by temperatures higher than those available in a building contents fire. It's a lie that the material seen falling from a corner of one of the Twin Towers can only be molten steel. It's a lie that eyewitness reports of explosions or explosion-like sounds in the course of a building fire prove that there were explosives going off. It's a lie to claim, or even imply, that eyewitnesses observed explosions of sufficient intensity, at the right time, to have caused any of the collapses.

Or you can buy that there was no molten metal at ground zero,

You mean molten steel. Nobody disputes that there was molten metal at ground zero; it would be extraordinary if there hadn't been. When you repeat lies, try to repeat them accurately.

that the thermitic red/gray chips are paint,

I'm not convinced they're paint. From the Harrit data, the only thing that's absolutely certain is that they're not thermite.

that the squibs are but 'compressed air from the pancaking floors above,'

I've watched the videos with my brain engaged. They don't look even remotely like explosions, they're in the wrong place, and there are only about six of them. They're exactly what you'd expect from the known collapse dynamics.

that gravity alone can account for the incredibly explosive destruction of wtc 1&2 which blasted apart the buildings, their cores

"Blasted apart" is another lie. Yes, gravity alone can do that. I've done the potential energy calculations, and modelled the dynamics of the collapses. There's more than enough energy.

and left 1100 human bodies 'unaccounted for,'

Buried under debris that burned for weeks.

800 foot debris fields.

From 1600 foot buildings. BFD.

It took a lot..A LOT of energy to convert all of that concrete to powder, those massive completely intact (below impact zones) core structures and perimeter wall assemblies and blast them outward for hundreds of feet.. the rest of it to smithereens literally.

Lying again. But anyway, yes, it did take a lot of energy. How much do you think it took, and how much do you think was available? I've worked out both numbers, and so have a lot of other people. The result isn't what you've decided it should be.

WTC 7's implosion

Another lie.

To maintain fires even underwater. again, simply impossible.

Lie. "Underwater" is a deliberate misrepresentation of the conditions in the rubble pile.

Only tons of thermite can explain that the fires would not go out despite continuous water being poured on top of them.

Now that's just plain idiotic. Thermite can't go on reacting for weeks. It can't even go on reacting for minutes.

If ridicule is all you 'have left' then its because there are no good counter arguments..or maybe you should be in a different forum.

Or maybe the arguments have been made, over and over again, and they're just being ignored by people who haven't understood them, haven't taken the trouble to understand the issues involved, can't even begin to comprehend the physics, and yet insist that they, from their pinnacle of utter ignorance, have seen something everyone else has missed.

If you are interested in the real truth then we are on the same side.

No, we're not. If you were interested in the real truth you'd be able to answer all of the following questions:

What, in gigajoules, was the potential energy stored in the Twin Towers?
What, in gigajoules, was the energy needed to collapse the Twin Towers?
What, in joules per gram, is the energy density of thermite?
What, in joules per gram, is the maximum energy density measured from one of Harrit's samples?

If you can't answer all of those questions, why do you keep repeating conclusions drawn from the differences between those numbers? How can you know the differences, if you don't know the numbers?

Some truth-seeker.

Dave