Thursday, September 14, 2006

SF Panel Discussion on 9-11 Denial

Here's an interesting panel discussion on 9-11. I'm not convinced the man arguing "our" side is really a skeptic of 9-11 Denial as much as he is worried that it's a diversion from more important tasks of the Left. The Denier refuses to be tied down to any theory; he's just asking questions, so he can always dismiss any specific CTs as "not mainstream in the 9-11 movement". Interestingly he does not use the term "truth".

31 Comments:

At 14 September, 2006 15:38, Blogger shawn said...

I hate their strawman defense most of all.

 
At 14 September, 2006 17:40, Blogger nesNYC said...

Yeah, fuck questions already. We know members of the OSP, PNAC and Dov Zakhiem are the "911 boys" and deserve to be tried, convicted and hung in the gallows for their treasonous acts in the best interest of IsraHELL.

 
At 14 September, 2006 17:45, Blogger shawn said...

hahahahahahah oh you're precious.

 
At 14 September, 2006 17:58, Blogger Alex said...

Aint he though? It's like watching your two year old cousin try to finger-paint a giraffe.

 
At 14 September, 2006 18:26, Blogger Alex said...

Speaking of refusing to be tied down to any one theory, check out todays Cox & Forkum:

The New Desecraters

 
At 14 September, 2006 18:42, Blogger MarkyX said...

Sweet Jesus...

Damn, I rock :)

 
At 14 September, 2006 18:49, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Nesnyc,
Alright you can argue all you want about 9-11 this and 9-11 that and little green men shot lasers at the pentagon.

BUT when you call for a "trial" most of the time they do require something called "evidence" and they may also want you to provide (I could be wrong) ACTUAL PEOPLE (not holograms) to prosecute.

This may be a lot to digest so good luck!!

 
At 14 September, 2006 20:25, Blogger 911coverup said...

Can you guys explain these findings for me?

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

 
At 14 September, 2006 20:27, Blogger 911coverup said...

These links were cached before they were taken down, by the way

 
At 14 September, 2006 20:34, Blogger shawn said...

What's wrong with them?

 
At 14 September, 2006 20:48, Blogger Andrew said...

The steel I-Beams are shown to be severely corroded (melted) and sulfur and iron oxide were noted (thermate?)

How is this possible when the official explanantion is that the building was felled by damage from a deadly "scoop" in a corner which comrpromised the entire 52 story structure resulting in a complete and perfect collapse?

I think the "final" report on Building 7 comes out in December so i'll give you at least until January to find your answer

 
At 14 September, 2006 20:55, Blogger Andrew said...

"A bigger budget, more time and earlier access to the scrap yards, where steel was being cut up and sold, would have enhanced the investigation, he says. "You do the best you can, with the available resources. I think we did a very credible job."

..like an Enron accounting statement.

 
At 14 September, 2006 20:58, Blogger James B. said...

ulfur and iron oxide were noted (thermate?)


Oh my God! They found rust in a steel building! What are the odds of that?

You know, I was outside on the streets of Seattle today, and I noticed an oddly large amount of dihydrogen oxide on the ground. Mighty suspicious....

 
At 14 September, 2006 21:02, Blogger shawn said...

and sulfur and iron oxide were

Hmmm drywall and rust in a building? Say it ain't so!

 
At 14 September, 2006 21:02, Blogger Andrew said...

I'll leave a sarcastic comment about rust knocking the building down to one of your cohorts

wheres the sulfur come from?

 
At 14 September, 2006 21:07, Blogger Andrew said...

drywall?

care to back that up?

i know theres rumblings in the "scared-shitless" debunker community trying to give that one wings with little success

take a long hard look at that i-beam , Shawn. Did fire and drywall do that?

 
At 14 September, 2006 21:09, Blogger James B. said...

Drywall is made primarily from the semi-hydrous form of calcium sulphate (CaSO4.½ H2O) plaster created by heating ground gypsum rock (hydrous calcium sulfate).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drywall

 
At 14 September, 2006 21:20, Blogger Andrew said...

hmm! maybe there was thermite in the drywall

 
At 14 September, 2006 21:31, Blogger Andrew said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 14 September, 2006 21:32, Blogger Andrew said...

WTC7

 
At 14 September, 2006 21:45, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

You know, I was outside on the streets of Seattle today, and I noticed an oddly large amount of dihydrogen oxide on the ground. Mighty suspicious....

That's residue from all the chemtrails.

 
At 14 September, 2006 22:21, Blogger mbats said...

andrew, even if we were grant you the presence of thermite in any of the buildings, what would it prove, since it could have been spontaneously produced from materials already present in the building?

As to your WTC7 link, joanbasil already showed us that back in the Village Voice on 9-11 Deniers: Crackpots thread; feel free to read the responses there. Actually, since you seem ready to trust the analysis of demolitions experts, how about absorbing the response from experts that actually had time to review all of the evidence before formulating their response?

 
At 14 September, 2006 22:35, Blogger Pat said...

Nice Cox & Forkum, Alex!

 
At 14 September, 2006 22:48, Blogger nesNYC said...

BUT when you call for a "trial" most of the time they do require something called "evidence" and they may also want you to provide (I could be wrong) ACTUAL PEOPLE (not holograms) to prosecute.

There's enough linking OSP, AIPAC, PNAC and Zakhiem to scandals that don't even involve 911 but there is clear and convincing proof of who was where and did what in the interest of the Zionist state. The above are far from holograms and deserve to be shipped to Guantanimo along with the other terrorists.

AIPAC is already on the run and hopefully it will extend to the above but I'm not holding my breath.

 
At 14 September, 2006 23:32, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Andrew, I'm going to end it right here: You CAN'T do a controlled demolition with Thermite, which is NOT an explosive. No matter how much you want that to be the case, it doesn't work.

It is laughable that CTs would choose Thermate as their "murder weapon"(although the same idiots talk about 'pulverized concrete a lot'), but it highlights the non-objective, non-scientific manner in which they work.

They find residue of sulfer, and immediately they start saying it was Thermite- in other words, they already pre-determined that their hypothesis of CD was automatically true, and then they sought out only what would support that conclusion. E.g. sulfer HAD to be Thermate and not from drywall because they KNEW the building was brought down by CD.

That's the opposite of correct science.

 
At 14 September, 2006 23:34, Blogger default.xbe said...

E.g. sulfer HAD to be Thermate and not from drywall because they KNEW the building was brought down by CD.

the funny thing im sure there are more conventional explosives that would leave a sulphur residue as well, but CTs latch onto thermite because they follow their leaders like the sheep they claim we are

 
At 15 September, 2006 00:04, Blogger mbats said...

although the same idiots talk about 'pulverized concrete' a lot

I'm pretty sure I could pulverize a piece of concrete with a sledgehammer in front of most loosers, and they would tell me with a straight face that no sledgehammers were found in the wreckage.

 
At 15 September, 2006 05:22, Blogger shawn said...

i know theres rumblings in the "scared-shitless" debunker community trying to give that one wings with little success

Andrew, I'm waiting for my apology.

(PS We don't need to give it wings, idiot, since it's what drywall is made of.)

 
At 15 September, 2006 09:06, Blogger Alex said...

I'm pretty sure I could pulverize a piece of concrete with a sledgehammer in front of most loosers, and they would tell me with a straight face that no sledgehammers were found in the wreckage.

We need to start doing public displays. You can pummel a piece of concrete with a sledgehammer, while I try to make thermite burn sideways on a metal beam. Meanwhile Pat can extract sulfur from gypsum, while James challenges Fetzer to a box-cutter-vs-luggage death mach. We'll call it "The Amazing Troofer Smashers". A subsidiary of the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey.

 
At 15 September, 2006 12:48, Blogger AbrashTX said...

Andrew, the other reason that the thermate claim is ludicrous is because other by-products in the correct ratios would be detected if thermate were present. 29% of Thermate is a barium compound. Sulfur makes up only 2%.

Where are the barium oxide and other by-products that would be present if thermate had been used?

 
At 15 September, 2006 19:12, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

..like an Enron accounting statement.

Typical Tin Foil Hatter to make an emotion filled response yet it proves nothing but is designed to cause an emotional reaction.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home