Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
This type of research is obviously not bsbray11's cup of tea. It has been pointed out to that person numerous times that no one is saying the towers were "vaporized". Yet he constantly uses that term. One must wonder his objective or agenda.

I know BsBray and I can tell you his only objective (agenda) is to find the truth. If you would calm down and stop calling people who ask you questions liars and such, maybe we could come to a conclusion. I'm sorry to have to say, but you haven't provided much other than "he's lying" or "it's fake". Not everyone is out to get you or discredit you. Just calm down and we can discuss this stuff like adults.

Furthermore, BsBray has given us close up photos of ground zero. Your comparison photo is from far enough away that you can't see anything. If I'd have to take my pick of who has an agenda here, I would say it is you. No offense.

Originally posted by Griff
I would say it is you. No offense.

Wow you figured that out??

I found that out months ago..

I quit bothering with this person cause they have nothing to add, have no proof, and when people ask them exactly how tf their space beams work they can not come up with any good answer to it and starts crying that we are discrediting them.

Unfortunately the discrediting of us is only part of the problem the garbage you spew makes it easy..

Originally posted by ThichHeaded

Originally posted by Griff
I would say it is you. No offense.

Wow you figured that out??

I found that out months ago..

I try to give the benefit of doubt. That's all. So far my doubts have become reality.

Originally posted by Griff
I know BsBray and I can tell you his only objective (agenda) is to find the truth. If you would calm down and stop calling people who ask you questions liars and such, maybe we could come to a conclusion. I'm sorry to have to say, but you haven't provided much other than "he's lying" or "it's fake". Not everyone is out to get you or discredit you. Just calm down and we can discuss this stuff like adults.

Excuse me??? Why are you stating that I called someone a liar when I have not? What is your objective? I am one of the few calm ones in this thread. Most others (including BsBray) are regular users of ad hominems. I suggest you rethink your thoughts.

[edit on 14-8-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]

Originally posted by Griff
Furthermore, BsBray has given us close up photos of ground zero. Your comparison photo is from far enough away that you can't see anything. If I'd have to take my pick of who has an agenda here, I would say it is you. No offense.

If you cannot understand that the closeup photos do not provide the perspective necessary, then this research is not your cup of tea either.

Please refrain from getting personal with your posts. As all of you know, there is a very tight standard on this forum and with damn good reason. We are all in pursuit of the truth, and if we spend our time insulting those that disagree with us, how can we ever expect to accomplish anything?

Stay on Topic!

If you find your post is attacking a member, please edit the content or refrain from posting it.

Thank you.

chissler: I want you to know that I am trying very very hard. But is very difficult when rude posts and even slanderous posts continue to show up. What are ATS's terms regarding slander? i.e. if someone accuses me of calling someone a liar when I have not, what am I to do?

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
Excuse me??? Why are you stating that I called someone a liar when I have not? What is your objective? I am one of the few calm ones in this thread. Most others (including BsBray) are regular users of ad hominems. I suggest you rethink your thoughts.

[edit on 14-8-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]

See. This is what I mean. I'm giving you sound advise to stop and think before you post and to answer questions. You turn around and say I have an objective. Yes, I have an objective...to find the truth.

I know it hurts the ego when people question and poo, poo your theory. Happens to me all the time. There is no reason to retort to saying those people have an agenda or etc.

Can we get back to the thread now? I have nothing against you CB and have enjoyed your posts. I would just like to see some of the questions posed here answered. Not "look at my report". So, please for the sake of us all, let's discuss your theory.

What did you think about the guy who found that you can ignite salt water with radio waves?

Oh, btw, i didn't mean to imply that you are calling people liars here. Just that you are calling people who were at GZ liars. Sorry for the confusion.

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
If you cannot understand that the closeup photos do not provide the perspective necessary, then this research is not your cup of tea either.

Your theory is that the steel was vaporized (for lack of a better word) right? How is showing a far viewed picture going to prove this when a closer view shows the steel intact?

As far as this research being my cup of tea. I'm a structural engineer who would like to know what happened that day. If the plane damage and fire were the culprits, so be it and I'd like to know how to avoid it the next time I spec a building.

Furthuremore instead of being insulting, why not explain why the close up photos do not provide the perspective neccessary?

A wise man once said. "It is easier to catch flies with honey than vinegar".

[edit on 8/14/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 8/14/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff
What did you think about the guy who found that you can ignite salt water with radio waves?

Oh, btw, i didn't mean to imply that you are calling people liars here. Just that you are calling people who were at GZ liars. Sorry for the confusion.

I have not yet read the salt water / radio wave article, but would not find it surprising if true, given everything else I've been learning lately....

I have not called any of the firefighters liars, only the high levels at companies like CDI.

Originally posted by Griff

Your theory is that the steel was vaporized (for lack of a better word) right? How is showing a far viewed picture going to prove this when a closer view shows the steel intact?

As far as this research being my cup of tea. I'm a structural engineer who would like to know what happened that day. If the plane damage and fire were the culprits, so be it and I'd like to know how to avoid it the next time I spec a building.

Furthuremore instead of being insulting, why not explain why the close up photos do not provide the perspective neccessary?

A wise man once said. "It is easier to catch flies with honey than vinegar".

[edit on 8/14/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 8/14/2007 by Griff]

Griff, any insults from me are direct retaliation.

You're a structural engineer?

My theory is that most of the steel was DUSTIFIED. Not "vaporized".

I think you should read Dr Judy Wood's two papers Star Wars Beam Weapons and Molecular Dissociation in their entirely.

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
I think you should read Dr Judy Wood's two papers Star Wars Beam Weapons and Molecular Dissociation in their entirely.

I think you're right because I haven't yet. I will look into them when I get a chance.

Originally posted by Griff
If the plane damage and fire were the culprits, so be it and I'd like to know how to avoid it the next time I spec a building.

Without getting off topic in this thread, I need to make a quick response to your comment above. Your phrase "the plane damage" is misleading in that it makes the assumption that planes hit the towers when there's evidence to the contrary.

As a structural engineer, I'm sure you know that it's physically impossible for an aluminum airplane with a plastic nosecone to glide through steel girders and steel-reinforced concrete floor slabs as if it's flying through the air. Since every 9/11 videos shows exactly this, we can conclude all videos to be fake. Also, you must know it's impossible for aluminum wings (with their multiple moving panels and all) to make clean slices through steel girders and steel-reinforced concrete floor slabs.

Originally posted by Griff
I think you're right because I haven't yet. I will look into them when I get a chance.

Thanks, I would appreciate someone with your expertise reading them.

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
My theory is that most of the steel was DUSTIFIED. Not "vaporized".

Tell us exactly what the difference is, in scientific terms, between those two terms, and the term "molecular dissociation".

No references to the WTC in your definition, only tell us, on a small level, what the differences are in these chemical processes.


I already know that vaporization and molecular dissociation are basically the exact same thing, at least for steel. So if the towers were "dustified" (a term Judy Wood made up), and Judy Wood is talking about molecular dissociation, then she is basically talking about the steel being vaporized, in that it becomes a vapor in the air. That's all that means. I've explained this two or three times before but CB does not understand.

[edit on 14-8-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Tell us exactly what the difference is, in scientific terms, between those two terms, and the term "molecular dissociation".

No references to the WTC in your definition, only tell us, on a small level, what the differences are in these chemical processes.


I already know that vaporization and molecular dissociation are basically the exact same thing, at least for steel. So if the towers were "dustified" (a term Judy Wood made up), and Judy Wood is talking about molecular dissociation, then she is basically talking about the steel being vaporized, in that it becomes a vapor in the air. That's all that means. I've explained this two or three times before but CB does not understand.

[edit on 14-8-2007 by bsbray11]

I already explained the difference to you multiple times (including on your own SO911) but you do not understand. Perhaps if you cool down your tone, I'll explain again.