How Loony are the Loons?

"nd 28K. 28K was forced to morph into RB."

I have no IDEA what your talking about with 28K!

I have NEVER been here before and only came here because someone posted my article here and MORONS were making comments like "ordinary folks" when the ARTICLE was clearly a reply to and written to the US GOVERNMENT!

Think what ever you want, but I did not know of this place before then. PERIOD!
 
RemoveBush said:
"All evidence suggests they were. Feel free to post anything that shows evidence to the contrary. The key word here is "evidence"."

It does not fall on me to PROVE that those were not the planes.... It falls on the government to PROVE that those were the planes they claim.

If NTSB were to have done their MANDATED job, then they would hvae the proof! Since they did not, they are responsible for providing the evidence that those were the planes.
Click to expand...

The NTSB's authority does not extend to non-accidental civil aircraft incidents. They are the National Transportation Safety Board. The 4 aircraft crashes on 9/11 were not safety related, therefore do not fall under NTSB jurisdiction. Please do your research.

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/NTSB_statute.htm#1131

§ 1132. Civil aircraft accident investigations
(a) GENERAL AUTHORITY.--
(1) The National Transportation Safety Board shall investigate--
(A) each accident involving civil aircraft; and
(B) with the participation of appropriate military authorities, each accident involving both military and civil aircraft.




Do you know the difference between an accident and a deliberate aircraft crash?



And please learn to use the Quote button. Really, it's quite simple. Cutting and pasting quotes rather than using the quote button is the equivalent of an Electronics Engineer using his tongue to test voltage rather than a voltmeter. In your case, this may explain a lot.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Dear RemoveBush:

Regarding your screen name, the gentleman will be out of office in a little over two years. What, oh what will occupy you after that?

RK
Click to expand...
I think he will change his moniker to PlantNewBush and continue to bother us.
 
RemoveBush said:
I have heard all these, subjective, ASSUMPTIONS.
Click to expand...

So you don't like assumptions in arguments. Don't worry, we'll be sure to keep you to that.

RemoveBush said:
Let me just make this point, which I know your gonna argue "I'm wrong"....

First! Larry, gains to get 3 Billion from ONE building! If he wins the second claim that it was 2 seperate attacks, then he gets almost 7 Billion dollars. Quite a return on your money from Several Hundered MILLION dollars.
Click to expand...

Well, looks like you were right for once, because I will say you're wrong. The question of "1 vs 2" attacks has already been decided by the courts.

RemoveBush said:
I guess in your research you MISSED this LITTLE FACT??
Click to expand...

Irony much?

RemoveBush said:
Second, the lease agreement releases Larry from any and all, in other words the lease becomes VOID, in the event of a terrorist attack. One stipulation is that if he decides to rebuild the towers then this section of the lease is voided.

So, Larry must see a large amount of money to be made in the long run to lose his min 3 Billion max 7 Billion dollars for continuing with the lease agreement.
Click to expand...

Since we know you don't like assumptions, can we see the evidence you have for these assumptions (sorry!) assertions?

You do have said evidence, right? You wouldn't post an assumption just after saying you don't like assumptions, right? You wouldn't engage in Doublethink this early in the day, would you?

RemoveBush said:
I guess in your research you MISSED this LITTLE FACT??
Click to expand...

Quite possibly. Feel free to prove us all wrong with some LITTLE FACTS. And feel free to learn how to use the quote function.
 
RemoveBush, I some quick questions you can answer in a couple lines. Just to establish a baseline:

1)What kind of degree(s) do you hold?

2)What school(s) did you attend for undergraduate and graduate work (if applicable)?

3)What do you currently do for work?

4)Why are you avoiding using mathematics or physics in your arguments, instead relying on posting info from CT sites and using rhetoric?
 
Good afternoon RemoveBush, did you have to use your Geiger Counter Electrometer when you were testing cars at work today, perchance?? I'm still wondering why I would need to use on over a voltmeter or an O-scope, assuming I don't work at the nulclear plant.

:socks: said:
Well, considering that the firefighters state on the released tapes that there were only small pockets of fire and could be contained, I would say that the fire was not that large. Not large enough to cause that damage. If it would take 2 lines to put out those fires, then I guess the towers should have fallen long ago from the fires one of the WTC experienced years earlier when it took out multiple floors that took many more than 2 hoses to put it out.
Click to expand...

Ah, so one fireman who claimed to see just two isolated pockets on the 78th floor, 5 stories below the strongest fires means that there were no heavy fires in the building.

If the fires were so measly, why did hundreds of people jump to their death?

Let me ask you this? What came first? The chicken or the egg?

This is the same type of question you are asking. You want to have ALL the answers before ANY REAL investigation has been done. That is like the police trying the husband for his wifes murder before even doing any investigation, only to find out later that he was at work and could be proven by witnesses.

First step is to perform an investigation, not jump to conclusion like FEMA and NIST did. You know like the many different reasons for the collapse? It changed what 3 times?
Click to expand...

Irony much?
 
RemoveBush said:
For those close minded individuals....

http://www.implosionworld.com/hayeshomes.htm

"It was a cloudy Saturday morning late in May. That morning at 9 am, the Hayes Homes housing projects in Newark, N.J., would be dealt a fatal blow. Two 12-story buildings separated by a smokestack loomed over an otherwise graded site."

Then it says....

"In the days leading up to the implosion, crews used pneumatic drills to bore 1,300 holes within the reinforced concrete columns of the two structures and another 40 in the smokestack. It took 180 pounds of nitroglycerin-based dynamite to trigger the collapse."

So then.... It does not take TONS as you people will lead everyone to believe.

Let's do a little math here.....

The WTC's were 110 stories tall. These buildings were 12 stories.

If we divide 110 by 12 we get 9.166666. Lets just make it a nice round number, say 10.

So now. They were able to blow up TWO 12 story buildings with only a 180 pounds of explosives..... Let's multiply that by our 10 and that becomes 1800 pounds between TWO buildings. Just for saftey sake lets say they added extra to ensure the collapse..... So let's make this an even 2,000 pounds! That's a 1,000 pounds per tower.

NOT 40 TONS as has been proclaimed.

""Anything that stands vertically want to fall due to gravity's effect on it," explained Loizeaux, a 25-year implosion veteran, "We really aren't blowing the structure up. We're using explosives as a catalyst.""

This is what the Truthers have been saying all along, but you refuse to accept it and even with a quote here from experts stating similar statements you will argue against it.

Yes he is not talking about the WTC's, but the SAME principal applies. You don't need TONS of explosives to demolish buildings. This proves it, and as I promised I provided the information I stated I would previously.

Also notice that the buildings can be wired in very little time.....

"> 15 STRUCTURES, 4 COUNTRIES, 1 WEEKEND[/B]
An Explosive 96 Hours With the Team at Protec"

HMMMMMM...... It's just not so impossible now is it?????

After futher reading, this part may mean that the CD's were preped and they just filmed them? Needs more investigation.
Click to expand...

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Go and read this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64843

It'll give you some insight into why we think you're talking out your arse.

MarkyX said:
Hooray for critical thinking.

I decided to do a bit of an investigation on the controlled demolition by doing something simple: Find out what is the tallest building ever taken down by controlled demolition.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=4

J.L. Hudson Department Store
Detroit, Michigan, USA
10/24/1998
Records: At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest building & the tallest structural steel building ever imploded. At 2.2 million square feet, Hudson's is the largest single building ever imploded.
Click to expand...

The WTC 1 & 2 were 3.1 Times taller.

Wtc7 was 1.46 times taller.

And this is the world record we are talking about.

You can stack three Hudson Department building stores on top of each other and you will still not match up to the sheer height of the WTC 1 and 2.

How is this evidence against the CD theory? NO ONE knows how a building that tall will act because nothing like it has EVER been done. But we are to believe that it took a weekend to rig a huge building and a bunch of angry white guys with mid-80s IQ can spot it over demolition contracts, even though something this tall has never been done in demolition history?

Just a little bit of logic to hurt 'em more with.
Click to expand...
From CDI's website:
Mark Loizeaux, President of CDI, called Hudson’s the greatest dynamic structural control challenge the company had ever faced. CDI had to sever the steel in the columns and create a delay system which could simultaneously control the failure of the building’s 12 different structural configurations,
Click to expand...
Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI’s 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI’s implosion design. During that period, the lower two basements of the structure were filled with engineered fill and the perimeter basement walls bermed to 1st basement level with soil to support perimeter walls which would surely have failed under soil and hydrostatic loads once the horizontal support of the Hudson’s internal structure was removed by the implosion.
Click to expand...

This is before they even started torch-cutting critical support beams and planting charges!

CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition
Click to expand...

That's almost seven miles of det-cord! In a building whose interior had been gutted in anticipation of the demolition!!!

And don't try pulling that 'radio-controlled' BS outta your arse. There's a reason demo companies use hardwiring instead of radio control. It's called interference. They don't want to take the chance that a stray radio signal, either from a cell-phone, two-way radio, or electrometer would accidentally set off the charges before they're supposed to go off.
CDI’s implosion of Hudson’s set three new records:

At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest building ever imploded, eclipsing the record held by CDI since 1975 with the felling of the 361 ft. tall Mendez Caldiera Building in Sao Palo, Brazil.

At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest structural steel building ever imploded, eclipsing the record CDI set in 1997 with the felling 344 sq. ft. tall #500 Wood Street Building in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

At 2.2 Million square feet, Hudson’s is the largest single building ever imploded.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
mortimer said:
The NTSB's authority does not extend to non-accidental civil aircraft incidents. They are the National Transportation Safety Board. The 4 aircraft crashes on 9/11 were not safety related, therefore do not fall under NTSB jurisdiction. Please do your research.

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/NTSB_statute.htm#1131

§ 1132. Civil aircraft accident investigations
(a) GENERAL AUTHORITY.--
(1) The National Transportation Safety Board shall investigate--
(A) each accident involving civil aircraft; and
(B) with the participation of appropriate military authorities, each accident involving both military and civil aircraft.




Do you know the difference between an accident and a deliberate aircraft crash?



And please learn to use the Quote button. Really, it's quite simple. Cutting and pasting quotes rather than using the quote button is the equivalent of an Electronics Engineer using his tongue to test voltage rather than a voltmeter. In your case, this may explain a lot.
Click to expand...

You know what, I'll have to apologize and withdraw my statement about the NTSB. Accident, as defined by the NTSB:

§ 1101. Definitions
Section 2101(17a) of title 46 and section 40102(a) of this title apply to this chapter. In this chapter, the term "accident" includes damage to or destruction of vehicles in surface or air transportation or pipelines, regardless of whether the initiating event is accidental or otherwise.


My statement about your lack of quoting abilities still stand.
 
RemoveBush said:
I have NEVER been here before and only came here because someone posted my article here and MORONS were making comments like "ordinary folks" when the ARTICLE was clearly a reply to and written to the US GOVERNMENT!

Think what ever you want, but I did not know of this place before then. PERIOD!
Click to expand...


What article would that be? This is why people want you to use the quote function, and provide links. It's so we know WHAT THE HELL YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. Fruitloop.

So how about a link? Since you seem to feel so strongly about your ARTICLE.
 
Holy [rule8], not that [rule8] argument again...

RemoveBush said:
Well, considering that the firefighters
Click to expand...

A firefighter, BrainRemoved, a firefighter. Chief Orio Palmer

state on the released tapes that there were only small pockets of fire and could be contained, I would say that the fire was not that large. Not large enough to cause that damage. If it would take 2 lines to put out those fires, then I guess the towers should have fallen long ago from the fires one of the WTC experienced years earlier when it took out multiple floors that took many more than 2 hoses to put it out.
Click to expand...

Please, point out the two isolated pockets of fire on the 78th floor. Also point out the not so large fires. Thanks much.

6-36_wtc2-north-face-exit.jpg


And some more:

http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/nist1-5fd/6-26_wtc2-east-face.jpg
http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/nist1-5fd/6-28_wtc2-north-face-exit.jpg
http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/nist1-5fd/6-32_wtc2-northeast-corner-exit.jpg
 
RemoveBush; said:
"Where were these alleged "questions" asked? I think you're serving yourself some easy questions to answer, so it looks like you'll be willing to answer questions when you're not. Please provide links to the post that presented these questions, or we'll just have to assume you faked them all."
Click to expand...
Please show the source for this quote.


RemoveBush; said:
"Perhaps you could explain why Mr. Silverstein would get himself involved in a long-term lease on a property that was about to be condemned? Is he just the worst billionaire landowner in history?"
Click to expand...
Please show the source for this quote.
 
mortimer said:
You know what, I'll have to apologize and withdraw my statement about the NTSB. Accident, as defined by the NTSB:

§ 1101. Definitions
Section 2101(17a) of title 46 and section 40102(a) of this title apply to this chapter. In this chapter, the term "accident" includes damage to or destruction of vehicles in surface or air transportation or pipelines, regardless of whether the initiating event is accidental or otherwise.


My statement about your lack of quoting abilities still stand.
Click to expand...

The FBI took over the investigation from the NTSB since the criminal investigation superceded the accident investigation, but the NTSB still did work on the FDRs and CVRs, and even created the AA77 animation. I believe that they even had there top investigators working with the FBI, so 28ths argument is essentially a strawman as the NTSB was very much involved in the investigations.

This is their 9/11 page which links a number of documents on the investigations:

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm
 
"Do you realize that going down the "the towers were falling apart" road makes it much harder for you to argue that they should've stood up against a plane crash?"

Not at all! Do you realize that resistance is a powerful force and that the collapse would have been slowed and eventually stopped at some point before the ground level. The reason for demolition is to remove that resistance! Progressive collapse is possible, but only for a short period of time. Eventually the building will provide enought resistance to stop the fall, this did not happen so somethign came into play.

You do realize that the AIR was filed with salt??? You do realize that salt can eat away exposed steel?

You guys simply grab onto one plausible explaination and run with it without even THINKING about the other plausible methods.

That is what distiguishes a scientist/engineer from the "common sense" person, we look at all options. You simply want to hekle and refuse to consider ANYTHING that YOU think does not fit.

I guess that the US has never attacked it's own? Does the U.S.S. Liberty ring any bells? LBJ "I want that god damn ship on the bottom of the ocean!"

Stop with such a close minded view.

If the evidence is there and the scientific community agrees then it is provable. However, the scientific community DOES NOT agree on the results the government has provided. Therefore, science HAS NOT proven anything. You simply believe the governments version blindly and without even considering any other options.

Fore example:

Notice that I don't claim that those planes were not the ones stated. I simply state that I don't know and I question the validity because no evidence has been provided. BIG DIFFERENCE!

Yet you people start screaming and shouting and making nonsense comments about rediculous senerios.

2 ATC personnel reportedly stated that they watched 2 of the planes travel over the Atlantic and then in a single sweep of the scope they dissapeared.

The interviews of ATC personnel were ripped up and trashed in multiple trash cans. Sorry, but unless someone has something to hide they don't do this. Also, notice that no charges were brought against this supervisor for destroying EVIDENCE to a crime!

Maybe if you could open you minds rather than being THICK headed, you would see there ARE other options and reasons. Not all are correct, but so far the official version has been proven wrong by experts as well.
 
mortimer said:
You know what, I'll have to apologize and withdraw my statement about the NTSB. Accident, as defined by the NTSB:

§ 1101. Definitions
Section 2101(17a) of title 46 and section 40102(a) of this title apply to this chapter. In this chapter, the term "accident" includes damage to or destruction of vehicles in surface or air transportation or pipelines, regardless of whether the initiating event is accidental or otherwise.


My statement about your lack of quoting abilities still stand.
Click to expand...

There's also this passage:

(d) EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY OF BOARD.--Only the Board has the authority to decide on the way in which testing under this section will be conducted, including decisions on the person that will conduct the test, the type of test that will be conducted, and any individual who will witness the test. Those decisions are committed to the discretion of the Board. The Board shall make any of those decisions based on the needs of the investigation being conducted and, when applicable, subsections (a), (c), and (e) of this section.
Click to expand...

Since we know they did cede jurisdiction to the FBI, it was probably under this rule, which gives the NTSB the sole right to determine how and what tests will be conducted. As it was obvious why the planes came down, they had the authority to limit the testing to only what was needed by the FBI investigation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom