How Loony are the Loons?

[A W Smith]

Kiwiwriter i dont know how you do it. I read that long article you wrote about the passing of President Gereld Ford and you still had time to debate here. Nice Work!

 

[Architect]

28th's Misrepresentations

28th now seems to be trying to cobble together a case that there is some doubt in the engineering and architectural communities regarding the underlying collapse causes and NIST reports, although I note in passing that this appears to be based on simple cut'n'paste rather than any real research.

Anyway, lets look at what the UK Institute of Civil Engineers actually said in their magazine NCE.

7th July 2005:

Fire engineers are still debating the exact sequence of events that caused the catastrophic collapse of the iconic Twin Towers.
Conspiracy theorists still pour over every detail of every report into the disaster, looking for apparent anomalies and contradictions. But most engineers have long since accepted the basic scenario as established both by the NIST investigation and the earlier analysis by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

No evidence of any dissent, then?

22nd September 2005:

The impacts and fireballs produced shockwaves and high velocity debris. NIST believes that fire-proofing in the impact zones was largely scoured away by the debris and the shockwaves, and that this loss of protection was the key factor in the ultimate collapses of both towers. Other experts disagree (see News). But what is largely unchallenged so far is NIST's contention that on the impact floors the violent releases of kinetic and chemical energy blasted much of the floors' contents across to the far side of the buildings, where they were churned together with the debris from the planes and significant quantities of unburnt jet fuel.

<snip>

In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy, many eminent engineers voiced their suspicions about the vulnerability of the floor truss/column joints to fire.

<snip>

Largely unchallenged. Hmm. Not quite a CT smoking gun there, eh?

22nd September 2005:

A ROW over the causes of the World Trade Center twin tower collapses on 11 September 2001 broke out between British and American fire engineers last week.
British engineers strongly disputed official American claims that the towers became more vulnerable to collapse after the hijacked aircraft scraped vital fire protection from their steel frames.

The twin towers collapsed when each caught fire after terrorists flew hijacked Boeing passenger jets into them.

The disagreement provoked a strong exchange of views at a major conference held at Gaithersburg near Washington DC to discuss the official findings of America's National Institute for Standards & Technology (NIST) investigation into the 9/11 collapses.

"We don't believe that NIST has satisfactorily demonstrated that the loss of fire proofing was the deciding factor in the collapse, " said Arup associate director Dr Barbara Lane.
We have carried out computer simulations which show that the towers would have collapsed after a major fire on three floors at once, even with fireproofing in place and without any damage from plane impact." Lane said the difference of opinion was significant because clients had begun to demand that designs had NIST-compliant fire protection.

So Arup think the towers might have collapsed anyway because of the scale of the fire. Just like the Edinburgh University paper. Fair enough.

And this is just the free to access NCE archive. If any of you look at their site, you will see that the subscribers section spreads to several pages of similarly toned articles.

Selective quotes; the hallmark of the CTer.​

 

[Gravy]

That chapel is St. Paul's Chapel, and it's similar in design to St. Martin's-in-the-Fields in London.

Actually, Oliver's theory makes more sense. St. Peter's is a block north at Church & Barclay Streets, and is somewhat protected by tall buildings around it. That would be a better location from which to execute the Pope's orders.

 

[tsig]

"Please provide evidence of this."

Lack of the scientific community having been provided with the information! Evidence provided!

"I know we ask every single damn CTist this question, but: Have you read the NIST report, either in whole or in part?"

Yes I have, and it leaves more questions then answers. For example: NIST does not address the mechenism for the collapse. It only addresses the collapse. Not very good scientific investigating if they can preciecly define how the building fell so neatly, but they can't provide ONE ounce of evidence or information about the mechenism.

"Why do you feel the need to insult other posters."

Because they want to insult, I will return in kind. If they want to debate then do that. But all this "looney", "kooky", "nuts", etc. comments will not be tolerated by me and I will return in kind 10 fold.

"Again, why the attacks on people? Could you please stick with factual debate. And please format your writing in a clearer manner, using the quote function and college level grammar."

See previous comment. This is NOT a spelling site and I do not need to put my posts through a spell checker. You can certainly understand the meaning with a few spelling errors. If your that anal, well then just skip my posts because I do not worry about spelling. It is the content of things I worry about!

"RemoveBush, you really should go through the other threads in this section and actually read them. All these things you've brought up have been discussed before, and most of the people here are getting tired of the same old BS being touted as "new evidence" that will simply blow our socks off."

This is why your like are becoming the minority! You TWIST and SPIN things to fit YOUR needs. NOWHERE have I ever stated "new evidence" or "will blow your socks off" comments NOW

This is why I make comments like: Do you have a reading comprehension problem??? Because "IF" you were to actually read my posts, NOWHERE would you EVER find a claim from me anything that you just stated!

"If you want to have a productive discussion, then please prepare more thoroughly. You have already begun to resort to calling posters names, which does not support your argument or bolster your credibility."

I see.... So it's perfectly acceptable by you people to TWIST things to make them fit your attacks? Its fine to place words in peoples mouths? It's OK for all that, but god forbid someone stands up to your LIES and refused to back down from your rediculous alterations of a persons statements?

I see! It amazes me how you can make claims about "truthers", yet you do it more and in worse cases.

God forbid! I did

 

[tsig]

" If they weren't on the planes, you (yes, YOU) have to come up with another explaination and evidence that backs it. You are the one making outlandish accusations, and providing no proof. No one else is obligated to prove this for you."

Wrong again!!! Here let me explain how things work, or did work in America......

When someone says that this is how something happened.... It is up to THEM to provide evidence that this is the case. The government says that these 4 planes were the ones that crashed.

However, 2 of them were not even scheduled to fly and there is NO EVIDENCE of taxi, or gears up (takeoff) of these 2 planes. It is NOT my responsibility to prove that these planse were the planes in question, it is the Governments responsibility. Yes there were people who died, but just because these questions and information has not been provided does not make it FACT!

This is a concept you people forget! FACT is provable! Provide the NTST report identifying the 4 planes! Provide the FAA data showing those planes from the airports takeoff!

Right back at ya, "because you can't"!

Facts only happen in the real world

my sky is green

 

[Architect]

Are we sure that Remove Bush isn't just PDoh, despite recent claims of conversion?

 

[CptColumbo]

Who was it, that for the longest time didn't know how to use the "quote" button? Christophera, geggy, Roxdog.

 

[Architect]

It's just another example of PDoh attempting to disguise his character.

Anyway, Christophera may be stark raving nuts but he's always polite and attempts to address evidence in his own unique (but wholly inadequate). way.

 

[RemoveBush]

"LashL - See how easy it is?

Even a troofer can do it."

I wonder if I should report you because that quote does not indicate that it was from me. After all you are breaking the Members Terms.

I'll just think about that.

 

[HeyLeroy]

Pot calling Kettle.
Come in, Kettle.
You are black.
Over.

 

[Bell]

LashL - See how easy it is?

Even a troofer can do it."

I wonder if I should report you because that quote does not indicate that it was from me. After all you are breaking the Members Terms.

I'll just think about that.

 

[CptColumbo]

"LashL - See how easy it is?

Even a troofer can do it."

I wonder if I should report you because that quote does not indicate that it was from me. After all you are breaking the Members Terms.

I'll just think about that.

Since he was showing you how to use the quote function, which you were warned that continual non-use of may lead to a suspension, you may want to "think about" taking his advice.

The warning:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2211817&postcount=775

 

[JimBenArm]

"LashL - See how easy it is?

Even a troofer can do it."

I wonder if I should report you because that quote does not indicate that it was from me. After all you are breaking the Members Terms.

I'll just think about that.

So, here's more proof. I'm still way smarter than him! I can use the quote function, he can't!

Man, do you have to get someone to tie your shoes for you? No, I bet that's just too much of a hassle, so you just trip over your laces all day.

It's just comedy gold with you here.

Please keep coming! You're just so precious!

Hey, that's your new nickname! Precious!

Bye, Precious! Mock you later, dude!

 

[HeyLeroy]

 

[JimBenArm]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/6197459691c87d3a3.jpg

Nah, Precious would still need help with that!

 

[8den]

REPOST RB you never answered this

- There was a small training excerise. Based entirely on the underground. It had nothing to do with buses at all."

OK.... Then why was the bus diverted by unmarked cars to this area?

So you admit the training excerise had no control over either any aspect of the bus and underground?

Loads of buses where being diverted away from the area, and onto tavistock square, kings cross station was being evacuated and the 30 is just one of dozens of bus routes that go past it, the number 30 wasn't singled out for special attention

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/...7_witness.html
"
The witness, named "Daniel", has a blog here and a website here. He states:

I was aboard the lower deck of the bus that was blown up on July 7th. I rang the emergency hotline to report the 2 dark cars I saw holding the bus up and diverting it towards Tavistock Square. Instead of being asked to provide a statement what followed was 7 months of police surveillance and Harassment. My experiences are contained in a book called Statement: The 4th Bomb (as yet unpublished)"
​

Whats that? An unsubstantiated quote from someone? Care to provide several witnesses you can support this claim. Can Mr Jones present an Oyster card or ticket from this trip? None of the three links appear to be of "daniel's" website they just quote it, one appears to be one paranoid dude, the rest just repeat its claims. Why doesn't he have surname, and why does he ignore the fact that several bus routes were diverted to tavistock square.

Incidently if you're the NWO about to commit a terrorist travesity, why would you divert a bus to be blown up but send it so it's sitting outside the British Medical Institute with dozens of doctors nurses and consultants able to leap to the ready and help those wounded?

Where in the world did "paramedics" come from?

Um, er, what?

"It was based at Kings Cross because Kings Cross is a transport hub including several significant lines. There are few stations that carry as many lines as kings cross, so the decision to place it there is explanatory. This training exercise was so low key, and minor that it wasn't even effecting transport that day."

Most training exercises don't! 9/11 did not effect normal transpertaion either, and they were running several exercises. That is not the point! The point is that USUALLY when there is a "terrorist" attack, the governments are usually training about the same thing that happens. OKC, 9/11, 7/7.

Vague claims about there being training exercising on the same day as other terrorist incidents isn't proof of 7/7 being an inside job.

Again what is the significance of these training exercise, what are you accusing the people running these exercises of?

"So please explain the significance of a minor training exercise, involving a subsection of the transport infratstructure, that had no control over the underground, paramedics, police, firedepartment, or even the bus service, as evidence of the 7/7 bombings being an "inside job"?"

See the comment for the previous paragraph above.

As other posters have pointed out it is immensely tiresome and disrepectful of you not to grasp the quote function. I will ask again; please explain the significance of a minor training exercise, involving a subsection of the transport infrastructure, that had no control over the underground, paramedics, police, firedepartment, or even the bus service, as evidence of the 7/7 bombings being an "inside job"?​

 

[RemoveBush]

"A W Smith - no they can't investigate the drawings for those planes that are available on line yourself. see above"

Since EVERYONE is so intent on pointing out my spelling errors, I would love to say that your sentence structure leaves something to desire......

Oh.... And do you actually know what the microcontroller code can and cannot do???? Do you know that embedded code is EASY to replace. You know that stuff that actually FLYS THE PLANE when on auto pilot?

"A W Smith - you are a complete FOOL!! see for yourself"

You are not that bright are you? By all means, please show me where on there he is listed for 9/11??? The FBI can place him on there for stuff that happens MILES away in another country, but they can't put him on the list for the crime that happens here that he is accused of?? HMMMM. Oh yeah, the FBI has stated that there was no evidence, not even in the "treasure trove" of documents they found in Afganistan!!!!

"A W Smith - the above statement proves Your IQ is dropping dramatically which confirms any degree you have came from a diploma mill. see the spell check up in the right hand corner MORON (hint it has a check mark next to it)"

Sizes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

NOPE, no spell check there.

"A W Smith - to bullsh*t CT sites"

Again, back with that CRAP! I have not gone around stating that anything you people bring up are BS. Of course you don't approve of it..... It's not from FOX, where you get your daily dose of spoon fed information to digest.

"A W Smith - There is no evidence of a conspiracy involving 911 beyond wild conjecture, fabrication, quote mining, evidence tampering, character assassinations, harassment and mental defect."

Everything that YOU just posted is what the OFFICIAL VERSION IS!

There are witnesses that saw, heard, and felt explosives PRIOR to the collapse from FAR below the impact zone and in many cases from the ground level. You want to talk about "character assassinations", you people do this ALL THE TIME to people who would know more than YOU! People who where in the know, but hey what do they know right?

Maybe you should really read your post again, because you and your like just did EVERYTHING that you claim other people do.

"A W Smith - you have shown us no real evidence. just misinterpreted visuals. and comments taken out of context."

Just because YOU don't like to venture out of your basement and see life as it really is does not mean that people have taken ANYTHING out of context. BLAH BLAH BLAH. See other people can do this to.

"A W Smith - actually we relish in the fact that you came here to expose you as the fool that you are. some comments on blogs are designed to do just that. to bring you here and face the music"

What ever your little mind wants to think. Just remember this...... You are becoming the MINORITY in this issue.

"A W Smith - already proven that cell phones were more powerful than they are today also it was noted that most calls were from Air Phones. I think you are confusing the movie flight 93 with real life. But thats understandable in the maelstrom thats going on in your brain"

Do you have any RF experience? Have you worked on Recievers/Transmitters??? I have, 4 years in the military and 8 years in the civilian world. They cannot work that way. Going over 200 mph they would not be able to complete the HANDSHAKING between the tower because just as it was getting to completion, the tower would have to handoff the phone call. Therefore, the call WILL fail. You people are not as bright as you like to think you are.

"A W Smith - I had flown before 911 and there were plenty of flights that were not full. did it occur to you that planes also move mail and other cargo? Coast to coast? Funny I never had to provide a cell phone number when I flew. or even a land line number. So you are saying the calls were faked? I think thats a childlike narrow minded fantasist's view."

Hey you uneducated...... They have many ways to capture information, but then I would not expect you to understand this simple little concept.

"A W Smith - Are you that stupid? They really were not looking for? Why would they not even search for something they used as an excuse to enter a military action? That is like saying well we didn't actually try to rescue the hostages in Iran in the seventies we just felt like loading our turbines with sand crashing our helicopters and killing our ops just to see what the publics reaction would be."

Not as stupid as you are pointing out in EVERY sentence. Of course they made a SMALL effort, because they had camera crews there. They had to make some sort of effort, but it was not a real effort. OK brain child, riddle me this....... If we went into Iraq for WMD's, then why just hours after the planes crashed did Rumsfeld order his people to find anything they could to attack Sadam???

You see, for the many simpletons in the room, they were not looking for WMD's and used that as an excuse for their multiple war plan that they had been planning for years.

"A W Smith - there was no ability proved to perform such an operation because the operation never took place beyond pen to paper. they were never READY to perform such an operation"

It shows ability to, motive, and a history of thinking about it. Just the same things that a COURT OF LAW uses in trial cases. Then again I don't expect you to understand that because you appear not to understand simple little things such as that.

"A W Smith - you neuter dogs and cats also? do you have a license for that?'

A childs mind just won't change no matter what, at least you have shown this with your comment! Since you obviously have not surpassed the 4th grade level in school....... A VET is SHORT for VETERAN! This is a person who serves their country in the millitary, and maybe when you grow up you will have a desire to help your country. However, I seriously doubt that because people like you never do grow up.

"A W Smith - it shows no motive. It involved no injury to citizens hence no evidence. it is far from only one step away simply proving that it never made it past conference. there are checks and balances."

First, it would have included citizens because I know that if I see a military base being attacked I am going to help the base fight off the attackers. Second, it was presented to the PRESIDENT so it went further than "conference".

"A W Smith - here we boil down to 'the Jooos did it' the only evidence you have is that you are anti Semitic, racist, or both. If such a faction was able to muster all the resources to pull off such a conspiracy and tie up all the lose ends. then yes we are talking THOUSANDS of participants. how do you 'account' for that?"

So, then the Isrealis have NEVER attacked the US before? By the way jerk!!! I don't care what background a person has, I don't look at their education, their skin color, or the way they talk. UNLIKE YOU OBVIOUSLY!
I see, so in order to do this it would take "THOUSANDS"? WRONG! It would take a person or two to go to these countries and higher the people... You do realize that we have contacts and higher people like this all the time??? Have you ever heard of any of the over throws we have done? So they get these people to come to the country and get them the material and they are on their own.... How difficult is this for you to understand? It happens all the time. Even other countries do it, because it works so well.

"A W Smith - till the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki dropped"

And this included how many of THOUSANDS of people? Yet it did not, it was not known for YEARS. Yet you people want to keep screaming that there would be leaks and that that many people could not keep a secret.

"A W Smith - Seibel Edmonds mentioned nothing about a 911 conspiracy. she did however revealed this quoted below"

I see.... So your gonna pick and chose again??? So let's see.... She does not state the details to indicate if it was about the 9/11 plans or some other plan. But your gonna just blow off that she implicates "HIGH OFFICIALS" in 9/11? HMMM Nothing like picking and choosing what you want to know.

"A W Smith - So at the top of this post you say the FBI did not have enough information to seek arrest of OBL yet the evidence provided by Edmonds conflicts with that. So which will it be? A conspiracy by a faction of government or Incompetence by the government? you cant have both."

No it does not! She stated that he was planning something. There is no detail there to indicate whether it was 9/11 or some other attack. You however, as usual, want to make the assumption that this information is talking about 9/11. Perhaps it was, but there has been no EVIDENCE to show that. Yet, Siebel Edmonds has CLEARLY stated multiple times that people in the government would go to jail if 9/11 was truely investigated. One is a far cry from another.

I don't expect anything like FACTS to get in your way though..... So as you were and carry on......

 

[HeyLeroy]

TrimShrub:

(snip)

RemoveBush, I urge you to use the quote function to properly attribute authorship to the posts you are quoting. Failing to do that in the future may result in you being suspended from the forum.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Patricio Elicer

This was posted to you over 260 posts ago. The moderators here are being very patient with you.

I can grudgingly understand why you are posting the way you do, as you've mainly in the past stuck to posting replies to blogs. However, there are rules here, and you are flagrantly violating them.

Remember, when in Rome, do as the Romans.

 

[JimBenArm]

"A W Smith - no they can't investigate the drawings for those planes that are available on line yourself. see above"

Since EVERYONE is so intent on pointing out my spelling errors, I would love to say that your sentence structure leaves something to desire......

Oh.... And do you actually know what the microcontroller code can and cannot do???? Do you know that embedded code is EASY to replace. You know that stuff that actually FLYS THE PLANE when on auto pilot?

"A W Smith - you are a complete FOOL!! see for yourself"

You are not that bright are you? By all means, please show me where on there he is listed for 9/11??? The FBI can place him on there for stuff that happens MILES away in another country, but they can't put him on the list for the crime that happens here that he is accused of?? HMMMM. Oh yeah, the FBI has stated that there was no evidence, not even in the "treasure trove" of documents they found in Afganistan!!!!

"A W Smith - the above statement proves Your IQ is dropping dramatically which confirms any degree you have came from a diploma mill. see the spell check up in the right hand corner MORON (hint it has a check mark next to it)"


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld/editor/removeformat.gif
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld/editor/separator.gif http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld/editor/bold.gif
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld/editor/italic.gif
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld/editor/underline.gif
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld/editor/separator.gif Sizes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld/editor/menupop.gif
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld/editor/color.gif
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/clear.gif http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld/editor/menupop.gif
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld/editor/separator.gif http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld/editor/createlink.gif
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld/editor/insertimage.gif
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld/editor/separator.gif http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld/editor/quote.gif
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld/editor/separator.gif http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld/editor/resize_0.gif
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld/editor/resize_1.gif
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld/editor/separator.gif http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld/editor/switchmode.gif

NOPE, no spell check there.

"A W Smith - to bullsh*t CT sites"

Again, back with that CRAP! I have not gone around stating that anything you people bring up are BS. Of course you don't approve of it..... It's not from FOX, where you get your daily dose of spoon fed information to digest.

"A W Smith - There is no evidence of a conspiracy involving 911 beyond wild conjecture, fabrication, quote mining, evidence tampering, character assassinations, harassment and mental defect."

Everything that YOU just posted is what the OFFICIAL VERSION IS!

There are witnesses that saw, heard, and felt explosives PRIOR to the collapse from FAR below the impact zone and in many cases from the ground level. You want to talk about "character assassinations", you people do this ALL THE TIME to people who would know more than YOU! People who where in the know, but hey what do they know right?

Maybe you should really read your post again, because you and your like just did EVERYTHING that you claim other people do.

"A W Smith - you have shown us no real evidence. just misinterpreted visuals. and comments taken out of context."

Just because YOU don't like to venture out of your basement and see life as it really is does not mean that people have taken ANYTHING out of context. BLAH BLAH BLAH. See other people can do this to.

"A W Smith - actually we relish in the fact that you came here to expose you as the fool that you are. some comments on blogs are designed to do just that. to bring you here and face the music"

What ever your little mind wants to think. Just remember this...... You are becoming the MINORITY in this issue.

"A W Smith - already proven that cell phones were more powerful than they are today also it was noted that most calls were from Air Phones. I think you are confusing the movie flight 93 with real life. But thats understandable in the maelstrom thats going on in your brain"

Do you have any RF experience? Have you worked on Recievers/Transmitters??? I have, 4 years in the military and 8 years in the civilian world. They cannot work that way. Going over 200 mph they would not be able to complete the HANDSHAKING between the tower because just as it was getting to completion, the tower would have to handoff the phone call. Therefore, the call WILL fail. You people are not as bright as you like to think you are.

"A W Smith - I had flown before 911 and there were plenty of flights that were not full. did it occur to you that planes also move mail and other cargo? Coast to coast? Funny I never had to provide a cell phone number when I flew. or even a land line number. So you are saying the calls were faked? I think thats a childlike narrow minded fantasist's view."

Hey you uneducated...... They have many ways to capture information, but then I would not expect you to understand this simple little concept.

"A W Smith - Are you that stupid? They really were not looking for? Why would they not even search for something they used as an excuse to enter a military action? That is like saying well we didn't actually try to rescue the hostages in Iran in the seventies we just felt like loading our turbines with sand crashing our helicopters and killing our ops just to see what the publics reaction would be."

Not as stupid as you are pointing out in EVERY sentence. Of course they made a SMALL effort, because they had camera crews there. They had to make some sort of effort, but it was not a real effort. OK brain child, riddle me this....... If we went into Iraq for WMD's, then why just hours after the planes crashed did Rumsfeld order his people to find anything they could to attack Sadam???

You see, for the many simpletons in the room, they were not looking for WMD's and used that as an excuse for their multiple war plan that they had been planning for years.

"A W Smith - there was no ability proved to perform such an operation because the operation never took place beyond pen to paper. they were never READY to perform such an operation"

It shows ability to, motive, and a history of thinking about it. Just the same things that a COURT OF LAW uses in trial cases. Then again I don't expect you to understand that because you appear not to understand simple little things such as that.

"A W Smith - you neuter dogs and cats also? do you have a license for that?'

A childs mind just won't change no matter what, at least you have shown this with your comment! Since you obviously have not surpassed the 4th grade level in school....... A VET is SHORT for VETERAN! This is a person who serves their country in the millitary, and maybe when you grow up you will have a desire to help your country. However, I seriously doubt that because people like you never do grow up.

"A W Smith - it shows no motive. It involved no injury to citizens hence no evidence. it is far from only one step away simply proving that it never made it past conference. there are checks and balances."

First, it would have included citizens because I know that if I see a military base being attacked I am going to help the base fight off the attackers. Second, it was presented to the PRESIDENT so it went further than "conference".

"A W Smith - here we boil down to 'the Jooos did it' the only evidence you have is that you are anti Semitic, racist, or both. If such a faction was able to muster all the resources to pull off such a conspiracy and tie up all the lose ends. then yes we are talking THOUSANDS of participants. how do you 'account' for that?"

So, then the Isrealis have NEVER attacked the US before? By the way jerk!!! I don't care what background a person has, I don't look at their education, their skin color, or the way they talk. UNLIKE YOU OBVIOUSLY!
I see, so in order to do this it would take "THOUSANDS"? WRONG! It would take a person or two to go to these countries and higher the people... You do realize that we have contacts and higher people like this all the time??? Have you ever heard of any of the over throws we have done? So they get these people to come to the country and get them the material and they are on their own.... How difficult is this for you to understand? It happens all the time. Even other countries do it, because it works so well.

"A W Smith - till the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki dropped"

And this included how many of THOUSANDS of people? Yet it did not, it was not known for YEARS. Yet you people want to keep screaming that there would be leaks and that that many people could not keep a secret.

"A W Smith - Seibel Edmonds mentioned nothing about a 911 conspiracy. she did however revealed this quoted below"

I see.... So your gonna pick and chose again??? So let's see.... She does not state the details to indicate if it was about the 9/11 plans or some other plan. But your gonna just blow off that she implicates "HIGH OFFICIALS" in 9/11? HMMM Nothing like picking and choosing what you want to know.

"A W Smith - So at the top of this post you say the FBI did not have enough information to seek arrest of OBL yet the evidence provided by Edmonds conflicts with that. So which will it be? A conspiracy by a faction of government or Incompetence by the government? you cant have both."

No it does not! She stated that he was planning something. There is no detail there to indicate whether it was 9/11 or some other attack. You however, as usual, want to make the assumption that this information is talking about 9/11. Perhaps it was, but there has been no EVIDENCE to show that. Yet, Siebel Edmonds has CLEARLY stated multiple times that people in the government would go to jail if 9/11 was truely investigated. One is a far cry from another.

I don't expect anything like FACTS to get in your way though..... So as you were and carry on......

Hi Precious!

Good to see you're still around. And still can't figure out that complicated quote function! Wow, must really be hard for you.

Any signs of the NWO in your neighborhood? I know an important man as yourself must be high on their list of people to dispose of. Can't have loose ends (oops, change) laying around now, can we, er, they?

Any luck with that Electrometer? Did it ever show you anything on the conspiracy yet, or is it still in the shop?

Well, that's all for now. Don't want to overheat your head.

Bye, Precious!

 

[T.A.M.]

RB:

Anything found i quotes here, is a combination of my statements and your replies, noone elses unless stated above them. I do not use the quote button, because of all of the html code you had in previous posts which made reading it while I was editing a headache.

"T.A.M. - A blanket "Physics says this or that shouldn't happen is not sufficient. If that were the case, then all engineers besides those involved in the NIST investigation would be screaming it from the roof tops. Of all the members of the structural engineering community, most of which I would guess have at least read some summaries of the NIST reports, none of them have come out and said the physics is wrong, or that the towers couldnt have collapsed the way NIST says they did. You must provide a scientific work or reference that takes the NIST findings and proves them wrong. Otherwise, the statement is opinion. So far, I have seen one attempt, and I believe Greening's Paper counters it. Likewise, if a structural engineer could prove the NIST findings impossible, he would certainly publish his work in a reputable peer reviewed journal, as this would be a monumental, career making paper...yet I see none."

OK.... I have already supplied numerous listing, perhaps I will find a reply further on when you read them but here goes again.

If you look at that video I posted earlier, you will find a STRUCTURAL ENGINEER who states that WTC7 was an IMPLOSION!

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...2F11+mysteries

How about this Controll Demollition expert?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSO...0911 jowenko

1. I really don't want to have to watch an entire CT video to find the name and schooling of your "Structural Engineer", so could you kindly just provide his name, and where he recieved his degree so I can verify it.

2. I have watched the video on Jowenko. Here is what happened (I am sure you no this, but likely dont care) with Jowenko. The documentary makers showed him a video of WTC7 collapsing. they did NOT tell him it was WTC7 or when it happened or that it was hit by debris or about the uncontrolled raging fires...they just showed him the unnamed video and asked him what he thought caused the collapse. Well any building that falls from bottom first, relatively straight down, prior to 9/11 would get that response, as there was little else in the world except CD to ever bring down buildings. Jowenko also said that WTC1 and 2 WERE NOT BROUGHT DOWN BY DEMOLITION...so you cannot have it both ways if you accept his opinion for WTC7, you must accept it for WTC 1&2. Once he was told the circumstances around the collapse video of WTC7 he decided to clam up, and will no longer talk to anyone.

Steven Jones knocks down Greening's "theory" with SCIENTIFIC experiments!
http://www.journalof911studies.com/J...radeCenter.pdf
Just do a search on Greening in the PDF to find the information.

See Pomeroo's comment just above.

Here is another person, but this one is Anonymous. If you want to know more, then ask Dr. Jones:

"Comments from a Structural Engineer / Architect
• “It occurred to me that structural engineers and architects are
practitioners of static physics [like yourself] although we use
different terminology peculiar to our professions to elaborate
on our designs.
• “I am surprised how few of my colleagues have expressed
public disbelief at the official line which lurches from theory to
theory as the shortcomings of each became apparent. I guess
they have run out of ideas on Building 7.
• “You nailed the biggest problem when you focused on the
symmetry of collapse in comparison to the asymmetry of the
damage... Steel high rises are designed (and overdesigned) as
cantilever beams on end. There is so much redundant steel in
these buildings because they have to resist hurricane force
winds. Was there a hurricane in New York on Sept 11?
• “If steel framed structures designed by world class engineers
(who are still being commissioned to design high rises
elsewhere in the world) can collapse with so little provocation, I
should send my diploma back and take up fortune telling.”"

I put NO FAITH in anonymous sources. They are as useless as Teats on a bull.

Again in Steven Jones's document:
Structural Engineers strongly criticize the final NIST report on WTC collapses: New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005.
• “World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show
computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls
from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned.
• “Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the
type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.
• “The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top
of the tower has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings….
• “University of Manchester [U.K.] professor of structural engineering Colin
Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural
response. “NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the
opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any
errors in the modeling will be lost,” he said….
• “A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. “By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,” he said. “The software used [by NIST] has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls.”

These quotes tell me virtually nothing, except that for whatever reason, NIST has not allowed public access to their models...

"T.A.M. - As the 18-30 storey building "Chunk" above the impact zone fell, it wiped out the building floors below with little to no resistance (in comparison to the force acting downward). As a result the building below the zone appeared to collapse with ease, falling in near free fall time."

OK, then what took out the core?? What you are describing would mean that the floors would RIP themselves from the core and fall. Sure the core could suffer damage, but a large portion of it would be still standing. By all means, please explain how the core which was the large load baring part of the building was destroyed by this "theory".

I believe if you watch many of the videos, a large portion of the core does remain standing for about 10-20 seconds after the collapse, but it then, with no other support around it, tips to the side and collapses.

"I believe there was some damage to some of the support structure, but my memory is poor on the exacts at this moment.

As for the fires, numerous pictures posted here have shown fires raging through multiple floors of WTC7, and a few pictures show smoke coming from nearly every floor on the south side facade. There is alot of testimony from firemen on the scene that the fires were out of control, and hence part of the reason why efforts were ceased on it so early."

OK, so why didn't these fall down?? If the "theory" put forth is true, then these buildings should have fallen as well after all they are actually worse fires than what the WTC had:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wt...an_plaza_c.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7..._fire_lg_c.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7...b_la_fire1.jpg

You mean besides the fact that every fire and every building, and every circumstance of collapse is unique? Just because a+b+c contributed to collapse of Building 7, does not mean that a+b+c must result in collapse of any and every building in existence. What about factors d,e,f,g,h..etc..that we may not know of. This is a kindergarten approach, to think that every time factors a+b+c are inacted, that the building they are acted on MUST collapse...come on. You think every single controlled demolition is a success...NO, so why, if they apply the same factors, shouldnt every single CD be perfect and result in total collapse?

"T.A.M. - A topic unto itself. Let me just say that "squadrons" and "contingents" can be referred to as "it", and there was a firefighting contingent formed in a perimeter around WTC7 that day. He could have been referring to the contingent, as a whole, as "it". I could go into further detail wrt what actual authority Larry would have or not have to call for a demolition of a building in this scenario, but it has been beaten to death on this board."

OK, but you do realize that you are stating that the fire department needed to get approval from Larry for doing this! The fire department is in charge from the moment they enter a fire scene and until they determine that it is resolved. So you are now saying that Larry was running things at WTC7, is that what your saying? If not, then why in the world would the fire department even need to call Larry to talk with him about anything? If they could not do anything, then they relinquish control to who ever is next in line. Since Larry told them to move back, the firemen were not in control, so who was?

No, my thoughts on the matter are this. I think that the Fire Chief, out of respect to the owner of the building, called him to let him know the dire circumstances. I think Larry offered his opinion, to pull fire fighting efforts/contingents back and let the building fall. I don't think it was given or taken as an "order" but rather as a resignation to what was going to happen.
I think the fire commander was saying "we are gonna pull back and let it fall", and Larry was agreeing, saying, "ya, it sounds hopeless, let it fall, pull them out..." (not his words obviously).

"T.A.M. - 1. Provide me testimony from Nicholas DeMasi confirming the story.
2. Please provide me with any other rescue workers besides these two "partners" who saw, in any way, the black boxes."

If you would have READ the article, you would have read that he states that MANY people saw them with the black boxes. He aslo states that he will not BETRAY his brothers by naming them without their permission. Someone that has INTEGRITY!

How convenient. Hide behind anonymity for INTEGRITY sake, but how dare anyone in the government keep anything or any sources hidden right???

Anonymous sources, kept anonymous for whatever reason, are useless and have no weight with me. What about non-firefighters/rescue workers who supposedly saw them with the black boxes. None of them to come forward or be listed by name...also convenient.

"T.A.M. - The NTSB deferred to the FBI all investigation due to the criminal nature of the crashes. The NTSB is, for the most part, a safety board, formed to determine the accidental causes of crashes to help enhance safety in the future. If you have a problem with why they didnt do more, ask them why."

Sure, and I will probably get the same answer that everyone else gets "National Security". It's amazing how something the whole world witnessed is national security.

Do you know what the mandate of the NTSB is. If so, please state it so I can see how it compares to their role in 9/11. Are they responsible for criminal investigation? No, they assisted the FBI, and then, because it was a criminal investigation, they deferred to the FBI on the matter...what is wrong with this??

"T.A.M. - Please show me a VALID reference that states that within hours of the crashes they had anything that couldnt be garnished from a passenger manifest."

You did not just say that did you???? Are you kidding me? First of all.... They would have to COMB the manifests and try to identify EVERYONE on the planes.... Then they would have to try and find the information from the INS as to what they had on them. Then they would have to review the information to validate it. etc. etc. etc.

You really think that in just a couple of hours they can have all this information? They first need to find out what port of entry they entered the US from. There are SEVERAL ports they could enter from, so do you realize the time involved to obtain that information?

1. Show me what they had, definitely, within a few hours of the attacks. what info besides names?

2. How long would it take to get passenger manifests, run the names through a computer and see which ones pop up as suspicious. Some of them were known al-qaeda operatives. I am sure those seated next to them, with arab names would also be considered suspicious. SO they then pump out this preliminary information until further details can be acquired. Like you, I am speculating, so why bother as speculation is useless...unless of course you work(ed) for the FBI also?

"T.A.M. - 1. The cost of the full investigation, including legal costs, I believe was the number you quote. Do you have any info on how much it cost to INVESTIGATE Clintons "BJ" activity...just the INVESTIGATION."

No I do not.

right, so the comparison of costs is invalid.

"T.A.M. - 2. The $160K you speak of...was this for FEMA or for the FBI. They do not need to provide funding to the FBi to investigate, as they are a preexisting organization, that would simply deviate the needed man power. This quote is too vague."

This was for the 9/11 Ommission Commission.

Was this a set up cost with the promise of more. Do you know the exacts. Was this a one time payment with nothing further promised? Once again, talking money figures without knowing the specifics is useless.

"T.A.M. - 3. If not 5 Democratic Politicians and 5 Republican Politicians, than who...who should have been on the committee. Do not cry foul without a suggestion for who should have been on the commission."

How about EXPERTS? You know like Structural Engineers, Construction Engineers, basically anyone who has the technical ability to know what they are looking for and what to ask. Do you know the reason why Kissenger resigned from the commission? It was because the Jersey girls asked him if one of his clients was OBL. Does this sound like a committee that is not biased? Even the next person to take charge was questioned by them.

I am not saying the commission was perfect. It was a commission formed to investigate the attacks from multiple levels. They were to be scrutinizers of testimony, and investigators to determine where to get evidence and opinion. To suggest Structural Engineers on such a committee is foolish. That is what NIST was for. The goal was to get the information from the engineers and the FBI agents and the other experts and compile it into a useful account of events, and to try to obtain answers to what questions might be posed.

You might want to be careful.... Your not using the "quote" button so people can track the quotes. Despite the fact that it says "quote", you are still not complying with the Members Terms since everyone here wants to play that game.

I explained in the opening. I am sure if you used the quotes as I do, they would be less on your back about it.

TAM