"9/11 Truth Movement" demands answers

Ah, yes, the 9/11 Denial Movement "demands" answers.

When have you silly, spoiled "Truthers" ever paid attention to answers? You can't even ask valid questions no matter how hard we try to get you to.

Originally posted by ugie1028
i was referring to the evidence that proves that WTC7 was brought down by structural failure.

...so what are you saying, that a 110 story building fell down, crushing WTC 6 and smashing up WTC 7 with wreckage, and it *didn't* cause critical structural damage to anything?

You asked for proof that wreckage from WTC 1 fell and hit WTC 7 and I showed it to you. When I say these protestors are using bad information (I.E. not knowing even after eight years that WTC 1 fell on WTC 7) in order to get people to believe what they themselves want to believe, you haven't proven me wrong.

It came down and fell into its own footprint like a demolition, WTC1 and 2 also went down like a controlled demolition.

All right then, so modify your conspiracies to say that when WTC 1 was brought down by controlled demolitions, it fell and hit WTC 7, becuase you now have photographic evidence to back that part up, at least...or is that going against the diktat of what your conspiracy websites are ordering you to believe?

You can't believe the likes of "GoodOlDave". People like him spread purposeful misinformation, knowing they're wrong and/or not researched enough to know what they're talking about.

As far as debris from the collapse of WTC 1, NIST had this to say:

“while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.”

As for the fuel fires, NIST had this to say:

"As for fuel fires, the team found that they could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to fail a critical column..."

www.nist.gov...


So NIST is saying that the fuel from the fuel tanks was not the cause of collapse and the debris from WTC 1 had little effect in even causing the collapse of WTC 7.

So what did cause the collapse of WTC 7 according to NIST? Regular, uncontrolled office fires. Yep, the diesel fuel, which does burn hotter than paper or typical office fires, didn't cause the collapse of WTC 7, but regular ol' office fires.

Even though regular ol' office fires have never caused a global collapse or floors to sag in any other building in history, we have it done 3 times on 9/11.

Dave, you seriously need to get researched, because the evidence is against you. Even your own sources are against you. You got some damn nerve attacking truthers when you can't even get the official story straight.

9/11 was an inside job.

Originally posted by ugie1028
[EDIT: im not answering to you anymore, i see your in lines with a few trolls on this forum.

"Tis fallacy, not the truth, that need fear critique"- Patrick Henry.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You asked for proof that wreckage from WTC 1 fell and hit WTC 7 and I showed it to you. When I say these protestors are using bad information (I.E. not knowing even after eight years that WTC 1 fell on WTC 7) in order to get people to believe what they themselves want to believe, you haven't proven me wrong.

NIST has proven you wrong. Nobody is denying that WTC 1 did some damage to WTC7, but NIST says the damage wasn't significant enough to be a factor in WTC 7's collapse.

That means we can stop bringing this point up. It's moot and needs no further discussion.

The fuel tanks didn't cause any significant damage to the interior of WTC 7, so that point is also moot and needs no further discussion.

Office fires have never globally collapsed a building before, so that point is moot also.

What does that leave us with? Controlled demolition...


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a39ae149b0f6.gif[/atsimg]


Nothing else needs to be said.....

reply to post by ugie1028


There were some nicks to the corner of WTC, nothing which would have damged it structurally, even NIST says as much. In fact, it's even suspicious as to what caused the fires in the building to start up. But to say that WTC1 "fell on top of" WTC7, and made it go down, is a crock [snip].



removed censor circumvention (mild)

[edit on 15/9/09 by masqua]

reply to post by OmegaPoint


you see, the trolls on this thread IGNORE those facts.

stuff like that needs to be looked at again, something sinister happened that day, more then just (hijackers with box cutters.)

reply to post by ugie1028


Novus Ordo Seclorum!





www.mccullagh.org...

www.globalresearch.ca...

9-11-2001
www.youtube.com...










[edit on 15-9-2009 by ET_MAN]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You can't believe the likes of "GoodOlDave". People like him spread purposeful misinformation, knowing they're wrong and/or not researched enough to know what they're talking about.

Now, THIS is why I have to shake my head at the Truther's logic. For me, personally, the best way to make up one's mind on a controversial topic is to listen to BOTH sides of the debate, to see who has the better argument. The truther's on the other hand, have a policy of "Don't read THAT" and "Don't believe anything HE says" in a not too well veiled attempt at censorship, to prevent people from learning damaging facts. My view is that people should listen to me AND the truthers, to show who has the facts on their side and who does not. Howon earth can you call yourself a 9/11 researcher when you're actively AVOIDING material relevent to the 9/11 attack?

Someone here shared the profound thought that any attempt to regulate the access of information is a blatant sign of an agenda being at work, and in this case, I thoroughly agree. Case in point...

As for the fuel fires, NIST had this to say:

"As for fuel fires, the team found that they could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to fail a critical column..."

www.nist.gov...

Interesting enough, when I follow this link...and I have to presume the author of this post didn't think that I would...I see the following ON THE VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH-

"GAITHERSBURG, Md.—The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, was primarily due to fires, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced today following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation. This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.

“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,” said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. “Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.” "

In short, Bonez is deliberately cutting and pasting his information out of context, selecting what he wants others to know while concealing information which, if he had revealed it, it would prove the exact opposite of what he intended to convince people of- runaway fires DID lead to the destruction of WTC 7, it's just the fires wasn't from the fuel from the backup generators.

Oh, and elsewhere in this article, they likewise state the following-

"The investigation team considered the possibility of other factors playing a role in the collapse of WTC 7, including the possible use of explosives, fires fed by the fuel supply tanks in and under the building, and damage from the falling debris of WTC 1.

The team said that the smallest blast event capable of crippling the critical column would have produced a “sound level of 130 to 140 decibels at a distance of half a mile,” yet no noise this loud was reported by witnesses or recorded on videos. "

So in short, the VERY SAME ARTICLE BONEZ IS ATTEMPTING TO QUOTE SPECIFICALLY SAYS HIS EXPLOSIVES STORY IS WRONG. Bonez is LYING when he attempts to claim that NIST supports his claims of controlled demolitions, because it doesn't! There is no way he could have cut and pasted this material in the way he did without knowing what he was doing.

The question isn't whether I'm full of it. The question is, if the conspiracy people are so wise and in the know of there being some secret conspiracy afoot, why do they need to lie in order to trick people like this? A bullsh*t artist is a bullsh*t artist, regardless of what side of the debate the bullsh*t artist happens to be on. I would have thought even the truthers would acknowledge that.

"You got some damn nerve attacking people when you can't even get your own story straight" is exactly right, Bonez.


[edit on 15-9-2009 by GoodOlDave]

Originally posted by ugie1028
you see, the trolls on this thread IGNORE those facts.

My, isn't *this* a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Bonez had generously pointed out the NIST report, which specifically said that runaway fires DID lead to the destruction of WTC 7, and that any explosives powerful enough to destroy WTC 7 would necessarily have been loud enough to have been blatantly heard. Most importantly, this document was published on 8-21-08, over ONE YEAR AGO.

My first post here was, word for word, that, "it's understandable that a web page may not have been updated since it was first written, but it's sheer unforgivable laziness for a protestor claiming to be doing honest research to be quoting obsolete information, particularly when they would have gotten the answer to their own question from a 30 second google search". Despite all your quote mining and childish temper tantrums, in the end, all you people managed to do is prove I was RIGHT.

Thank you.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by ugie1028
you see, the trolls on this thread IGNORE those facts.

My, isn't *this* a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Bonez had generously pointed out the NIST report, which specifically said that runaway fires DID lead to the destruction of WTC 7, and that any explosives powerful enough to destroy WTC 7 would necessarily have been loud enough to have been blatantly heard. Most importantly, this document was published on 8-21-08, over ONE YEAR AGO.
Thank you.

Ahrm...



Deny ignorance, ASK QUESTIONS.

Stop trolling my thread!

Originally posted by ugie1028
Stop trolling my thread!

Then stop trying to trick people with lies and distortions. The topic that started all this was over the protestors' ignorance of easily available information about what happened to WTC 7, *not* the towers. The aerial photos I posted was of WTC 6 and WTC 7, *not* the towers. Likewise, the NIST report Bonez introduced was over WTC 7, *not* the towers. Thus, this discussion is about WTC 7, not the towers, not the Pentagon, and certainly not about Antarctica. Trying to change the subject by posting claims of CD in the towers is a de facto admission that your argument is running out of steam. How the heck did CD in the towers cause WTC 7 to collapse, exactly?

So let's cut to the chase. I posted aerial photos that proved WTC 7 was in range of falling wreckage from WTC 1, and Bonez was generous enough to post the NIST report showing the collapse was caused by the fires in the building. These protestors might not agree with the evidence, and it's obvious they wouldn't, but for these self declared researchers to not know what the evidence is *at all* is being intellectually lazy and horribly irresponsible, particularly when they're actively attempting to use WTC 7 to stir up false public unrest. Nothing you've ever posted showed why this statement is incorrect.

Either prove why this statement is incorrect, or stop shedding your crocodile tears for these protestors. They're in the wrong and no amount of waffling on your part will change the fact that they're wrong..

What made me decide the official story is a bunch of baloney is watching the buildings collapse and then seeing pics of the leftovers.

This is directed at GoodOlDave.
Have you any idea of the strength of steel ? Have you ever heated a length of steel with a 2500 deg torch in order to make a bend. Have you ever tried to strike a welded joint with a massive hammer to seperate two pieces of metal,
Have you ever used a hydraulic press to bend and form metal. Have you tried delivering a direct blow onto the head of a bolt to try to shear it away from the thread. Have you ever gone into a building/factory that has had a major fire and seen the metal structure that remains. Have you seen how thick some of those steel columns in the towers were. Have you any idea what it would take to bend/snap/crinkle or shear those beams. Let me tell you . In the world of engineering there are many tried and trusted ways of cutting or forming or bending or machining steel, none of these techniques were used on that fateful day. no just plain office fires and the weight of the building.
Let me be crystal clear about one thing here, in engineering it takes an enormous amount of precision to achieve symmetry, for example, take the brake discs off one side of your car. drive and apply the brakes, what happens - you pull to one side. no symmetry, no even load.
Pour water down an incline and watch it take the line of least resistance, all materials operate with this same principle, there is not a cats chance in hell that the towers and wtc7 fell virtually into the own footprints from a natural collapse. Firstly the upright beams would be able to take a tremendous amount of weight and force before evan considering bursting apart and ending up as a pile of matchsticks (not to mention the fact that there is supposed to have been repeated violent collisions of `constantly falling` solids pulverising everything into dust) and secondly there is no way there would have been a perfect symmetrical collapse. not once - three times - three buildings.

GoodOlDave I bet you also believe that the pentagon plane wings folded neatly back and entered the hole before vapourising.
I didn`t need the truther movement to convince me of anything, it`s plain as day to me, how you can honestly believe the official story is beyond me.
For goodness sake mate, even if the engineering and physics were in doubt surely the fact that they have sought to conceal virtually ALL of the evidence is on it`s own a shocking admission. Surely the worlds architects and engineers could have learned a great deal relating to the towers demise. You are blinkered GoodOlDave.

ugie1028 - thanks so much for taking the time to video the truth gathering and all of your efforts to upload for us at ATS. I bet a lot of people opened their eyes after that. Thats what is great about the internet, those people can now find some time and search for the answers without having to talk about it and be ostricised by narrow minded friends or family. So i`m sure a lot of good came from the peaceful gathering.
gee whiz is that dave guy in denail or what hey ?

Originally posted by CannotGoHome
This is directed at GoodOlDave.
Have you any idea of the strength of steel ? Have you ever heated a length of steel with a 2500 deg torch in order to make a bend. Have you ever tried to strike a welded joint with a massive hammer to seperate two pieces of metal,

If that's the analogy you're using in an attempt to understand what happened at the WTC then it's little wonder why you're being led astray. The problem isn't that the fires melted the steel or even damaged the steel. the problem is that the fires were burning throughout entire floors, and were heating the steel unevenly. Thsi was compounded by the fire protection foam being damaged by the aircraft impact which caused the steel to be exposed to the heating unevenly. This caused warpage from unequal thermal expansion and contraction from the uneven temperatures, and combined with the thousands of tons of force bearing down upon it, it buckled and led to structural failure. This, combined with the unique design of the towers which no other building in the world used (except for each other), the initial collapse caused a chain reaction of cascading structural collapse.

At least, this is the diagnosis of MIT structural engineer Thomas Eagar, of MIT, which I subscribe to, and I have yet to encounter anyone who can explain why this summary is incorrect. Here's his report, if you care to read it.

MIT report on the collapse of the towers

secondly there is no way there would have been a perfect symmetrical collapse. not once - three times - three buildings.

This just has to be coming from those damned fool conspiracy web sites. The buildings did NOT "come down in perfect symmetry" as shown by the massive damage to the neighboring buildings I.E. WTC 6.

GoodOlDave I bet you also believe that the pentagon plane wings folded neatly back and entered the hole before vapourising.

I cannot comment on the physics behind the step by step destruction of flight 77 as it crashed into the Pentagon becuase I have no background in the analysis of plane crash forensics. I daresay, neither do you.

I am going by the obvious fact that it would be idiotic to crash some mysterious flying object into the Pentagon and plant all sorts of fake wreckage to make people think it was a passenger jet when the conspirators (whoever you imagine them to be) already had one or more disposable passenger jets under their control. If they had the ability to crash real jets into the towers, then they certainly had the ability to crash a real jet into the Pentagon.

reply to post by CannotGoHome


dave is in that (ridiculing stage) of truth...

First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

He falls in line with (ridiculed stage) because he is blinded by the OS and his love for the govt, when he should be for the people and supporting them....

Sad... just sad.

BTW, YW. (about the videos)

Pass them out to everyone you know. let them know true patriots are still abundant in this country... and grows larger each day.

[edit on 9/15/2009 by ugie1028]

reply to post by jthomas


There is no "we" for you good sir. You state you believe no CT and that there is no OS. There is not a single person on earth who agrees with you.

Some of those analagies might seem pretty lame to you, until you have worked with steels (30 years and counting in my case) you wouldn`t understand about heat transfer and heat loss, you wont know what sort of furnace conditions and temperatures are required to `soften metals` never mind keep them malleable.

I did read the MIT article which rambles on about `clips` letting go, and those unimaginable forces of a pancake collapse which convenienlty managed to implode inwards. No mention of the massive intensive core structure not remaining upright.
If you had done so much research you know that the dark black smoke pouring out of the `TOP FLOORS ONLY` was black from the obviosly oxygen starved pockets of fire, you would have heard the fireman inside the tower describe that all that was needed was two water lines to knock down the fire.

And as one does learn from good forum boards like ATS, I also read a gem when somebody noted that all the heroic firemen with all the experience of firefighting went unreservedly into the building never believing for a second there was any chance of a collapse. OK thats the deal, those guys were there they grew up firefighting amongst the skyscrapers of NYC. They never hesitated.

Arghhh I`m sorry OP this has gone completely off the original topic.

GoodOlDave please go glue some stuff together and watch the unpredicatable nature of how it breaks apart.

Originally posted by ugie1028
He falls in line with (ridiculed stage) because he is blinded by the OS and his love for the govt, when he should be for the people and supporting them....

Sad... just sad.

Sad, just sad, is damned right. I asked you over and over how anything I posted here is incorrect- how WTC 1 wreckage was able to reach WTC 7, how the NIST report showed the fires brought down WTC 7, how these protestors were being intellectially lazy for not doing any research into their claims, all of that- and for most people, this would have been a solid gold opportunity to humiliate me for all time and show why I'm mindlessly posting prepackaged propaganda like an automaton.

What was your response? "Sad, just sad". Yep, I guess you showed me!

It's painfully obvious that it's a grandiose waste of my time telling you anything. I came here anticipating a rational discussion with like minded rational minds, and all I'm encountering are conspiracy zealots who are so hard core madly in love with their conspiracy stories that I swear they WANT them to be true, and they'll continue to cling to them regardless of what I or anyone else on the planet tells them. I might as well be discussing evolution with the Pope.

All I can say is, have fun with your conspiracy stories, but don't turn around and throw childish temper tantrums over why you're having so much difficulty convincing outsiders of your conspiracies. The problem isn't that everyone on the planet (except of course for you) is some kind of goose stepping sheep. The problem is that you're leaving your safe, comfortable conspiracy hideaway on the internet where noone questions anything, and are approaching real people in the real world with these goofball antics of yours that make you look like a bunch of crackpots. Ignore this at your own cost.

I;m heading over to a different thread. This is Good Ol' Dave, over and out.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
In short, Bonez is deliberately cutting and pasting his information out of context, selecting what he wants others to know while concealing information which, if he had revealed it, it would prove the exact opposite of what he intended to convince people of- runaway fires DID lead to the destruction of WTC 7, it's just the fires wasn't from the fuel from the backup generators.

Oh Dave.... You should stick to not typing anything onto your screen at all. Do you have the slightest idea of how foolish you just made yourself look?

Did you even read my post? My unedited post clearly says that NIST claims that WTC 7 collapsed due to regular ol' office fires and that it did not collapse from the fuel fires or the debris from WTC 1. Just like it says in the page that I linked to.

Why would I say something and post a link that would reveal the opposite of what I said? Either you are purposely lying about what I typed, or you're incompetent and didn't fully read/understand my post.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Bonez is LYING when he attempts to claim that NIST supports his claims of controlled demolitions, because it doesn't!

Nowhere in my post does it say that I claimed NIST supports controlled demolitions. You are again purposely lying about what I typed, or you're incompetent and didn't fully read/understand my post.


You need a break. You've got serious issues going on over there and you really need to talk to somebody about them. Please don't type another character onto your screen without actually reading and understanding what you're trying to reply to. It would make you look so much less like the fool that you have in your above post.




[edit on 15-9-2009 by _BoneZ_]