Is this 9/11 nonsense going to ever go away? ZERO eveidence but still pushing on!

reply to post by Stewie


GET WHAT ?

you have no evidence proof or even a scenario that would be viable.

this is so funny yes the truth is in the eyes of the beholder you beleive and i will wait and see!

do not cry wolf when its just a kitten????

reply to post by triplescorpio

Did you check out the link, grasshopper? (grasshopper term rom Kung-Fu, the movie and the series, not derogatory, just explanatory).

Anyway, I did not have this evidence in my pocket, to share with you. For evidence, like truth, is subjective, no?

reply to post by Stewie


That is a great site stewie...i have been over it many nay times..and it has a great many pieces written on it....and it raise soooo many valid questions.
Verm i just dont understand....i think he swings both ways....triple...just babbles BS
i have no problems naming names as they are the same FEW that toss in with no valid points of rebuttle...
J i just dont get as he grabs bits and pieces of peoples quotes and never paints an entire story...and has no real logical thoughts...
but overall i must give them credit cause through their own stubborness they keep bring up issues...that just confirm the facts.
So i guess in a way they help the truthers cause.
I find they tend not to read what gets presented and i read what they present and put it right back at them with documents and links...yet they still dont bother to look and analyse the facts.
but i do think Verm is coming around a touch.....

reply to post by jfj123


J are you completely out of touch with reality...i have explained the term freefall over and over,,,,did you check the side by side comparision of the video..NOOO...did you read the reports i posted ...NOOOO...did you ever bother to learn the term freefall in the case of CD's....NOOOOO.
Even in a perfect...listen to the word...PERFECT.. controlled demolition.....a building only comes down at ...LISTEN...near freefall....the term freefall is a term for a near perfect execution of a CD.
Now in the case of both towers and Builiding 7...LISTEN...they were near perfect freefall CD's.
So when you learn to actually take the time to read what people post to you....it might be worth arguing with you....but until that time.....take a hike and learn to show some respect for people who actually take the time to present valid points as i consider all your points valid as i do take the time to read peoples links...documents and posts.
I am not perfect but i try to read what gets presented give it as best to my abilities to give it decent analysis...and try to present evidence to back my conclusions....but to just take peoples remarks...piece them out one by one...and not back anything up...you show a complete and utter erogance which makes you out to be completely ill informed.

Learn to read and you will find the words freefall

i will make a list of many more just for you ok J123

reply to post by plube

I am not so sure about the "coming around" bit, but we will see.
I see multiple tactics.
1. The expert. He anonymously criticizes all public professionals/experts while sounding authoritative.
2. The student. He is just trying to learn, but always finds the OS more "realistic"..."believable"...
3. The obfuscater. (word?) He is just interested in distorting truther posts.
4. The flag waver. He is what a patriot is SUPPOSED to be. A debunker I suppose.
5. The witness. Saw it all.

There may be other tactics used, I am sure there are. I have been having some strange dreams lately.

Veramia-

You could be right. However, keep in mind that some of these jobs
--like fire rescue and controlled demolition--require people to go in and
do things that most people would consider 'a bit nuts' anyway. People
like this are often said to be a different breed entirely.

Also, I don't see billionaire Larry Silverstein as the kind of man that would be prepared to wait patiently for a week for a demolition team to make sure everything was all SAFETY FIRST before bringing the building down, not if there were a substantial amount of insurance money on the line: Remember that he's got those veins on his forehead and the side of his face that stick out out when he gets upset. I wouldn't want him as boss, however, I digress.

Originally posted by nickspm
Veramia-

You could be right. However, keep in mind that some of these jobs
--like fire rescue and controlled demolition--require people to go in and
do things that most people would consider 'a bit nuts' anyway. People
like this are often said to be a different breed entirely.

Also, I don't see billionaire Larry Silverstein as the kind of man that would be prepared to wait patiently for a week for a demolition team to make sure everything was all SAFETY FIRST before bringing the building down, not if there were a substantial amount of insurance money on the line: Remember that he's got those veins on his forehead and the side of his face that stick out out when he gets upset. I wouldn't want him as boss, however, I digress.

I can see that. It would still be really helpful to find evidence of a team going in and doing that. I have yet to find absolute proof that the building was a controlled demolition. I mean, yeah, the term free-fall keeps getting thrown about, but considering that the floors on the inside of the building had basically collapsed inward, the exoskeleton had very little resistance when it finally decided to come down. For all we know, the firefighters could have been counting down when they had seen the building begin to come down. What I'm saying is that we really just don't know. The evidence is reduced to testimony and what we can see in the video of the collapse.

reply to post by Varemia


Well you almost said it there Verm....Damn...Collapsed inward.....wow....that is exactly what should not have EVER occured in any one of these three buildings....the word that should jump out at you here is INNER CORE.

The Inner core would not....LISTEN......would not collapse in on itself in ANY senario....get it now...ANY senario..with out taking out the ...listen to this word...(i am a Structural Engineer) and many others have stated this....INNER CORE.
IT is a extremely strong arangement and if anything was going to occur the floors would collapse around the core....the weaker outer frame would collapse....but not the inner core of a steel building....that is why they do not just ummmm...fall down....without HELP.
this is one of the main reasons so many architects and Engineers do not at all believe the OS...Steel structures built around an Inner core do not just collapse...WITHOUT the HELP.....of explosives.

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by Varemia

 

Well you almost said it there Verm....Damn...Collapsed inward.....wow....that is exactly what should not have EVER occured in any one of these three buildings....the word that should jump out at you here is INNER CORE.

The Inner core would not....LISTEN......would not collapse in on itself in ANY senario....get it now...ANY senario..with out taking out the ...listen to this word...(i am a Structural Engineer) and many others have stated this....INNER CORE.
IT is a extremely strong arangement and if anything was going to occur the floors would collapse around the core....the weaker outer frame would collapse....but not the inner core of a steel building....that is why they do not just ummmm...fall down....without HELP.
this is one of the main reasons so many architects and Engineers do not at all believe the OS...Steel structures built around an Inner core do not just collapse...WITHOUT the HELP.....of explosives.

edit on 043131p://f55Friday by plube because: speeeel

I was talking about the WTC 7 in my last post. As for the towers, the core did remain standing for a little bit after the initial collapse, so it was very strong and intact. What I think failed were the trusses that connected the core to the outer load-bearing walls. Now, those could have had charges placed on them, sure, but there was sagging documented by the curvature of the tower walls in video. The sagging caused something else to bend out of association, and at some point the trusses failed and the interior began collapsing, then after a few seconds the rest of the tower failed above the point of impact. I came to this conclusion based off a video that perceived a rumble from the inside of the tower before it finally began to visibly collapse from the outside.

Now, the rumble could have been from explosives near the base, but in order for there to be a base up explosion to make the top appear to come down, there would have to be visible ejections along at least one side of the tower all the way up (though it's possible that the higher resistance glass likely used because of the need for better wind resistance reduced any effect. This is an unknown for me.). Since ejections didn't begin until debris and rubble were collapsing down into the tower during the final fall, I cannot attribute those to explosives.

read read read
learn learn learn

Conclusion
It is clear from the videos that all three buildings fell too fast, too symmetrically and too
completely for the collapse to be due to anything other than controlled demolition using
explosives. It is also clear that at least part of the material used to demolish the buildings
was nanothermite.
As this evidence is compelling there is no point in wasting time debating debunkers on
distracting issues, such as the difficulty in laying the explosives without detection. Clearly
explosives were laid, hence that difficulty, and all other such difficulties, must have been
overcome.

conflicting NIST Report

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the explanations of the collapse that have been given by the 9/11 Commission Report and NIST are not physically possible. A new investigation is needed to determine the true cause of what happened to these buildings on September 11, 2001. The destruction of all seven WTC buildings and especially WTC1 and WTC2 may be considered the greatest engineering disaster in the history of the world and deserves a thorough investigation.

billiard ball example

What are the chances that a phenomenon other than controlled demolition would exhibit all six features never observed elsewhere except in controlled demolitions?

NIST avoids asking this and other questions by implying that they don't exist. It uses the false assertion that partial collapse will inevitably lead to total collapse (couched in the ill-defined terms of "column instability," "global instability," "collapse initiation," and "global collapse") to imply that nothing about the actual collapses is worth considering.

NIST failures

Now if any of you that keep up this arguement of how the buildings just fell down....can read.
There is a mass of varied and highly respected opinion in all these works..and extremely in depth.
Now do yourselves a favour..and read them...cause i have read everyone word of them...and they are very very very informative...and if you read my posts you will see it is what i truely see as logical and well written papers.
it is a hard read...and if any of you come back with crud within a few mins after this post... i will know you could not even be bothered to read any of it.
so i will know by the timing of your responses if you even bothered to look at one source let alone all three of them...PROPERLY.

The ball is in your courts now.....don't let me down.

reply to post by Varemia


now are you telling me that building 7 didn't have a inner core Verm....i sure hope not...cause not only did building 7 have a inner core...It had one of the MOST substantial core of all of the buildings....and not only that Building 7 was designed so that....get this Verm...it was designed so that Every second floor could be removed to give higher floor space WITHOUT affecting structural integrity. So please verm...DO NOT show more of your pure and utter Ignorance.
And did you know Verm that the 23 third floor of building seven was call the ....LISTEN...BUNKER.

I will leave up to you to look up the reason why...as i don't have time to explain it to you right now....but you can easily find out why....cause i know.

The one thing that did not happen Varemia, was that WT7 collapsed inward, you yourself took great pains to demonstrate that in your own short thread. That particular video shows so much collapse activity around and across to center from the penthouse area, yet when the building falls, the downward collapse is so equal wing end, to wing end that you can count the floors on either side as they go down. The late Barry Jennings was good testimony as to the explosions, enough to make the BBC do another documentary on the collapse, plus the fact that they had been embarrassed by their erroneous reporting on the day. Then there are differing accounts of the instability, which includes [damage to the foundations] ?? or compromised [core columns] towards the east wing, so which is it to be. In the case of damage to the foundations, that might suffice for a unilateral collapse, the problem there is how did the foundations become damaged in the first place. For the compromised core columns failing where they did would involve a collapse that would not be as uniform in a free fall experience, remember the NIST had to revise their findings from their cartoon to allow building freefall over a certain period, because of a determined teacher. By their own definition then, that freefall could have only occurred over the area that they specified, columns 79, 81 and 82 towards the East side, (that would make sense in the video as per their rationale) as being unsupported over eight or nine floors, but that could not include the rest of the building in freefall, something that they just don't deal with. They had other findings in the twin towers that they did not deal with either.

files.meetup.com...

Varemia-

Once we start talking about the necessity of absolute proof or absolute certainty, then there is very little that we can actually know in the physical universe at all. For instance, I might then argue that no one has any absolute proof that any buildings fell in New York on 9/11 at all.

Based on the standard of absolute proof, it would be very difficult to prove me wrong. I could argue (reductio ad absurdum) that video and sound can be altered. Mass hypnosis could have simply convinced everyone that the buildings are gone when they are obviously still standing there where they always were. Missing loved ones aren't dead they are simply invisible to almost everyone, since virtually everyone has fallen under the mass delusion of believing anything unusual happened at all on 9/11.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by jambatrumpet

 

Try spending some more time reading those statements. The NYTimes site is the one I spoke of earlier. NONE of them say there were bombs present, they do compare what they saw to explosions...only as a comparison though.

Are we looking at the same list of statements?

Here are three examples, but there are more:

Edward Cachia FDNY WTC2 explosions before collapse
As my officer and I were looking at the south tower, it just gave. It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.

We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions. Everybody just said run and we all turned around and we ran into the parking garage because that's basically where we were. Running forward would be running towards it. Not thinking that this building is coming down. We just thought there was going to be a big explosion and stuff was going to come down.

Fireman Louie Cacchioli - FDNY
”I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building.”

www.flcv.com...


Please explain to me how these support your statement of not ONE of the NY Firefighters including explosives in their official statements...there is discussion of multiple explosions, and even a direct comparison how buildings are 'blown up' on television...

Originally posted by nickspm
Writing for Fox News, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro states, “I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.”

“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.”

Here are a few issues I have with this.
1. Writing for fox news....nuff said.
2. He remembered very clearly....eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. A lot of people who very clearly remember something, have been very clearly wrong with regard to their memory.
3. Shortly before the building collapsed, it is claimed he asked to authorize a CD. It takes months to set a CD to fall correctly and supposedly it was done "shortly" before it fell???? IMPOSSIBLE for many reasons including it would take a MASSIVE team of personnel to access structural components, set charges, run line, set a perimeter, etc.... Nobody saw thousands of personnel zipping in and out of the building with massive amounts of explosives? vehicles? etc..???? Not gonna happen.
4. Since it was expected to fall anyway, why use CD and endanger a massive amount of personnel to demolish it?

Originally posted by nickspm
Veramia-

When you put it like that it does appear that some of the explosives were probably in Building 7 before the day of 9/11. However, we can't rule out the possibility that the explosives were rigged in one day. That's because, as we've already noted, the structural integrity of the building had already been compromised due to fire damage.

Actually it would be very difficult to get a clean fall on a structurally damaged building where the teams had not time to do a complete structural study. Can you imagine how hard it would be to instantly figure out weight transfer, structural damage, etc... for each structural component, then wire everything correctly? This would be all but impossible.

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by jfj123

 

J are you completely out of touch with reality...i have explained the term freefall over and over,,,,did you check the side by side comparision of the video..NOOO...did you read the reports i posted ...NOOOO...did you ever bother to learn the term freefall in the case of CD's....NOOOOO.

No I haven't heard the term misused in the world of demolitions.
Could you provide a list and source of CD terminology with freefall mentioned and a definition?

And I will ask you and everyone in the "truther" camp. What is the official truther story with regard to 9/11. You all talk about science proving that 9/11 was a coverup and 9/11 was created by the US government. Because science proves a conspiracy, it should be a forgone conclusion that there is an official, science backed truther story to explain the events around 9/11.

I've asked this question in excess of 20 times on this thread but never once have I received an answer. I wonder why that is?

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by plube

 

I am not so sure about the "coming around" bit, but we will see.
I see multiple tactics.
1. The expert. He anonymously criticizes all public professionals/experts while sounding authoritative.
2. The student. He is just trying to learn, but always finds the OS more "realistic"..."believable"...
3. The obfuscater. (word?) He is just interested in distorting truther posts.
4. The flag waver. He is what a patriot is SUPPOSED to be. A debunker I suppose.
5. The witness. Saw it all.

There may be other tactics used, I am sure there are. I have been having some strange dreams lately.

The funny thing is that this same list can be applied to the truthers.
1. The expert. He anonymously criticizes all public professionals/experts while sounding authoritative.
2. The student. He is just trying to learn, but always finds the truther more "realistic"..."believable"...
3. The obfuscater. (word?) He is just interested in distorting skeptic (for lack of a better word) posts.
4. The flag waver. He is what a patriot is SUPPOSED to be.
5. The witness. Saw it all.

So what does your argument prove?

Shortly before the building collapsed, it is claimed he asked to authorize a CD. It takes months to set a CD to fall correctly and supposedly it was done "shortly" before it fell???? IMPOSSIBLE.

Who says it was done 'shortly' before it fell (by 'shortly' I'm assuming you mean on the same day, presumably after WTC7 became damaged from falling derby). I certainly don't think it could have been done in that short space of time, which suggests foreknowledge.

Nobody saw thousands of personnel zipping in and out of the building with massive amounts of explosives? vehicles?.

Apparently not. But does that disprove a controlled demolition? Nope.

reply to post by Nathan-D


But it really doesn't prove a controlled demolition either, since there is no evidence of the explosives or of people planting them. Only the supervisor wanting to know if he could be permitted to demolish the building in light of its instability.