Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Answer to a Challenge

Here's a challenge from Jesse over at TV News Lies:

And so, there really is only one way to go right now: the 9/11 discussion either has to end immediately or it has to go public full force! I am personally calling out the people who continue to cling to the official story! Bring your experts, bring the 9/11 Commission, bring your debunkers and openly debate me and the team I put together. If you hear us out and answer our questions honestly in a public and open forum, we’ll go away! If not, we want mainstream televised coverage of the research we have done.


And I want to win the Powerball. Look, this is silly; we get this crap from Dylan and Jason virtually every weekend. "Why won't you guys call in and debate us on our show?" Answer: Because there's no point to it. Why would I want to go on Looser than Words Radio, which probably has about 20 people listening to it, all of whom are confirmed 9-11 Deniers? I am interesting in debating 9-11 Deniers, but only if the audience is on the fence. There is very little point to debating the crackpots at their own conference, which, of course is what Jesse has in mind:

I will arrange for a public conference, perhaps at a university, and perhaps one that spans several days. We will have hearings. Our researchers and witnesses will present a case, as if in a court of law. Our purpose will be to expose the lies contained within the official story. We will show how the 9/11 Commission changed, omitted or misrepresented much of the original evidence and testimony. We will make the case that the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, Philip Zelekow, refused testimony and evidence and did not allow any information that disputed the pre-approved official story. We will not go beyond what we know for certain although we will include all related information regarding means, motive, opportunity and suspicious behavior or coincidence. Then the representatives of the official story will address the issues as presented.


Such a deal! All I have to do is fly to some university, sit through hours (or days) of the same old regurgitated crap and then debate only those issues you presented. And by the way, you're not going to mention any theories, just ask questions and demonstrate evidence of "suspicious" behavior.

Here's my proposal. I will go on any TV or radio show that has a legitimate audience that is not entirely made up of nutbars and fruitcakes. That is, I'm not interested in Alex Jones, but I would go on with Charles Goyette, even though I think he sandbagged Popular Mechanics. The other condition I would add is that the focus of the debate has to be on the question, "Was 9-11 an Inside Job?", not "Are there problems with the 9-11 Commission Report?"

Labels: ,

96 Comments:

At 11 April, 2007 10:27, Blogger Greg said...

Helllloooooo??

 
At 11 April, 2007 10:28, Blogger 911kidneydialysis said...

CHICKEN

BOCKBOCKBOCK

YOU CANT DENY FREEFALL SPEEDS.

YOU CANT DENY THE "HIJACKERS" WERE TRAINED ON US MILITARY BASES.

GEORGE BUSH LIKES THE SAUSAGE.

WAKE UP SHEEP.

TALK TO THE HAND

 
At 11 April, 2007 10:31, Blogger 911kidneydialysis said...

GREAT LINK GREG!!!!

OVER HALF OF THE VICTIMS FAMILY MEMBERS KNOW THE TRUTH!!!

INDICTMENTS ARE COMING. THE REVOLUTION IS UNDERWAY!!

WE ARE THE TRUE PATRIOTS GREG!!

 
At 11 April, 2007 10:51, Blogger Der Bruno Stroszek said...

Yeah, let me know how that revolution is coming along. Once you get out of your bedrooms, it should race along.

 
At 11 April, 2007 11:22, Blogger Pat said...

Deny freefall speeds? Look at the photos of the towers collapsing. See that the debris around the towers is falling faster than the buildings themselves? That's because the debris is falling at freefall speed, and the buildings are not.

Hijackers trained on US military bases? That's Hopsicker, who's a fruitcake. That some people with the same names were trained on US military bases is probably true. So what? Sayeed Al-Ghamdi is apparently as common a name in Saudi Arabia as Bill Jones is here in the US.

 
At 11 April, 2007 11:40, Blogger James B. said...

There are literally tens of thousands of people who have some relation to the victims of 9/11, you guys have come up with a half dozen or so who support the conspiracy theories. Statistically speaking, this is entirely expected.

 
At 11 April, 2007 12:06, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

That's Hopsicker, who's a fruitcake.

By the way, how is your multiple identity doing these days? Gettin' your trolling in lately?
Ahh yes, attack the character, not the data yet again.
And just because they have the similiar names doesn't mean it didn't happen! ;)

How did those debris fall? Up and out right? LOL.

And James, your whole point is completely debunkable itself-appeal to popularity of course.
You forgot to mention why the relatives do have questions. What exaclty might make that unproven small percentage you mention have questions in the first place?
NM, I already know.

SLC: Where fact is fiction and fiction is fact!

 
At 11 April, 2007 12:10, Blogger Triterope said...

Meanwhile, Pomeroo's taking up a collection to pay Jim Fetzer's airfare so Jim appear on his show. Apparently this brave leader of the Truth Movement wasn't willing to discuss the matter in the media if it was going to cost him $350.

It's always on their terms and on our dime, isn't it?

 
At 11 April, 2007 12:13, Blogger mbats said...

911kd, I can't decide if you are adolescent, stuck in an adloescent mentality, or intentionally trolling. You roll out several dead horse issues, call debunkers "chicken" and "sheep," and question Dubya's sexual preference - in all caps, no less - and get a response from both our hosts in under two hours. Your display is impressive, but I can't tell if I should be impressed or repulsed.

By the way, how is your multiple identity doing these days? Gettin' your trolling in lately? Ahh yes, attack the character, not the data yet again.

Swing, did you notice the inherent hypocrisy in that statement? I sure did. I also noticed several succinct refutations of 911kd's "data" that you missed while you were zeroing in on the word "fruitcake."

 
At 11 April, 2007 12:50, Blogger Triterope said...

GEORGE BUSH LIKES THE SAUSAGE

I soooooo want to buy a t-shirt that says that.

 
At 11 April, 2007 12:52, Blogger Cl1mh4224rd said...

Jesse said: "We will have hearings. Our researchers and witnesses will present a case, as if in a court of law."

Will these hearings be presided over by an impartial judge? What about jurors?

Somehow I doubt that. They can't get a real hearing, so they have to make one up.

 
At 11 April, 2007 12:59, Blogger shawn said...

"We will have hearings. Our researchers and witnesses will present a case, as if in a court of law."

The funny thing is, lawyers often rely on logical fallacies and personal attacks to make their case.

 
At 11 April, 2007 12:59, Blogger sggw said...

They are so desperate for the creditibility they will never get, they will do anything, like an infant crying for attention

 
At 11 April, 2007 15:24, Blogger pomeroo said...

Hey Swing Dumpster, you're still a dimwit.

Here's the link to Brent Blanchard's paper, a straightforward refutation of the demolition myth by someone who works in that industry. Show us the errors he makes.

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

 
At 11 April, 2007 15:32, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

Hey Ron, did you ask Uncle Fetzer why Scholars for Twoof can't afford travel costs?

 
At 11 April, 2007 15:45, Blogger Manny said...

Hey, pomeroo:

I saw on the JREF that you're thinking of having an all-debunker show. As fine an idea as that is, I suggest you do an all expert and witness show. Get firefighters who saw 7WTC's condition prior to the collapse and who sifted through the rubble at ground zero and would have recognized demolition debris if there had been any. Get the same guys those bozos interviewed for PentaCon and ask, "north or south of the Citgo, the plane definitely hit the Pentagon, yes or no?" Get some of the engineers who are skeptical about portions of the NIST report and ask them flat-out if their concerns include the possibility other than pissed-off Muslims flying planes into the towers. Get some of the people whose words Do-Over Dylan twisted and ask what they think of their quotes being mined that way.

 
At 11 April, 2007 16:26, Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

even though I think he sandbagged Popular Mechanics.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Sorry! But I couldn't help myself!

Davin Colburn has no one to blame but himself(and perhaps hhis employers) for getting his arse handed to him by Goyette.

LOL!

 
At 11 April, 2007 16:32, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

what

 
At 11 April, 2007 16:33, Blogger Luke said...

So basically you're a big pussy...

(not that we didn't know that...)

The real truth is that nobody is gonna buy your fat ass a ticket to the debate, so you'll just use that as a reason why you can't show up. We all know that the whole argument of "popular mechanics has debunked everything the Truth movement has ever said" quickly crumbles when you clearly can't explain any of the more pertinent questions, and that's the real reason your chickenshit ass won't show.

Why the molten metal under the towers? Response: Uh, there wasn't any...
Why did Cheney let Fl 77 hit the Pentagon? Response: Uh, maybe they were talking about a different plane...
Why did WTC 7 collapse? Response: Uh, have you seen those photos of the massive damage to the South wall? Oh yeah, they havent' been released...
Why did Rodriguez experience a bomb going off in the basement before the plane hit? Response: He must be confused. The government wouldn't lie...

If any of the above responses could be considered 'debunking', then you would be the Debunking Kings. In reality, it's just called 'providing an alternate explanation', and in this case they are all far more improbable than the hypothesis put forth by the Truth Movement... Just keep telling yourselves that you're winning, though, cause it makes this blog that much more amusing to read...

 
At 11 April, 2007 16:57, Blogger shawn said...

If any of the above responses could be considered 'debunking'

No, they're considered strawmen.

Not once did you come even close to what we "debunkers" actually use as responses.

lol at you not having looked at the released WTC7 damage pictures. Someone is willfully blind.

and in this case they are all far more improbable than the hypothesis put forth by the Truth Movement

You don't seem to get you only think the Truthers are more probable because you aren't very bright. You set up a series of strawmen, blow them over, and cheer about how witty and smart you are and how the debunkers only ever use the PM article/book and pretend that WTC7 was in perfect condition and no one thought it would collapse (even though that's why they evacuated the area).

You wrote a long post that pretty much could've been summed up with "I'M TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT AND <3 LOGICAL FALLACIES".

 
At 11 April, 2007 17:00, Blogger shawn said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 11 April, 2007 17:01, Blogger shawn said...

Just keep telling yourselves that you're winning

Since the side that lives in reality automatically "wins", we've already won. Even if 99.9 percent of the world believed the Truth movement we (as individuals) won because we're correct. By your logic, the creationists are winning the debate over evolution. I mean they do the same things you guys do - build theories in the gaps of an "official theory", throw about logical fallacies, attacks on the persons upholding the "official theory", and citation of the "fact" you're a majority (which in both cases is untrue and is a logical fallacy besides). Oh, and you both hold onto ideas that have been shown to be wrong or unsupported.

The saddest thing is you believe the opposite of Occam's Razor is more probable. Someone really screwed up in teaching you.

 
At 11 April, 2007 17:13, Blogger Triterope said...

Luke said...

Look quick, folks. This is what the rapidly-decomposing corpse of the Twoof movement looks like. Pretty soon, people like this is going to be all that's left of it.

 
At 11 April, 2007 17:21, Blogger Luke said...

shawn, simply by saying that you 'know' you are correct about your interpretation of 9/11, you have rendered every other word in your two silly posts irrelevant.

And actually, none of the 'debunker' responses I provided were strawmen - in every case the answer I paraphrased is actually the best explanation provided by the debunkers. Deny the molten metal, suggest Minenta's testimony was referring to a plane other than 77, state as fact that the South side of WTC7 had a 'hole' when in fact no released photos show this, and then to simply question William's reliability as a witness.

sorry dude, but it's you that is missing the point. both your posts just proved that (especially the part about 'keep telling yourselves that you're winning', because that's precisely what you then went and did!).

man I love this site...

 
At 11 April, 2007 17:21, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

"popular mechanics has debunked everything the Truth movement has ever said" quickly crumbles when you clearly can't explain any of the more pertinent questions, and that's the real reason your chickenshit ass won't show.

You do realise that the points you listed were all covered by Popular Mechanics? Oh but that would have meant you would have bothered to actually read it.

 
At 11 April, 2007 17:33, Blogger Luke said...

worm-
yeah i read the thing, or at least the 80% of it I could get in while killing time at Borders.

1. The Norman Minenta testimony was never addressed. This little piece of CSPAN footage, which PROVES Cheney had a hand in 9/11, was in fact not resolved by PM.

2. Neither was the molten metal. Simply because there is NO WAY jet fuel could have resulted in still- molten slag WEEKS after the attack. Or maybe that was in the 20% I didn't read? Please explain, if that's the case...

3. PM still has yet to explain Chertoff's statement that an NYPD photo exists which shows the damage to WTC 7's South side, yet they can't release it due to copyright reasons. Until that phantom photo is released, any statements about a 'huge gash' are entirely unsubstantiated, relying on a handful of eyewitness accounts (and countered by others).

4. As far as the basement bombs go: the 'jet fuel fireball', even if it did manuver through the non- continuous elevator shafts all the way to the basement (impossible), and somehow create a shockwave upon hitting ground level (impossible), it still cannot be explained why this happened BEFORE Flight 11 hit the building. Therefore, the only option for Deniers is to question Rodriguez's reliability as a witness. Not a particularly strong case, if you ask me... PS this too was not addressed in the PM book.

So, worm, the real question is this: Have YOU read the book, or did you just pull that last comment out your ass?

 
At 11 April, 2007 17:35, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

"YOU CANT DENY FREEFALL SPEEDS."

Sure you can... Looks at any video of the collapse. anyone you like, your choice.

Now Count... you can count?

Note, after 15 seconds the towers are still falling!

WOW! that can't be!!!! they all say "free fall" but it's clearly much slower then free fall.

You are wrong... plan as day wrong.

 
At 11 April, 2007 17:50, Blogger Triterope said...

Luke said...

Wow. This is sad, like watching Mark Wohlers trying to pitch in 1998. You know he's giving it his all, but...

 
At 11 April, 2007 17:54, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

And debunker would answer your question of molten metal with another qustion, after all the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

So.. where is the proof of this metal? Do you have a cooled chunk of it you can point to and "see there it is" NO, OK, How about some pictures that are unequivocally show a molten pool of metal? NO? Not much proof is there?

But let say someone saw some molten metal. Did they check to see what sort of metal it was?

HEY! here is a concept that is a hell of a lot more logical. Molten aluminum. You know the same stuff two big f$*king aircraft were made of! Aluminum melts at 660 by the way.

You truthers could not think your way out of a wet paper bag.

 
At 11 April, 2007 18:01, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

"There are literally tens of thousands of people who have some relation to the victims of 9/11"

I have a relationship to a victim..

One of the 911 victims has the same last name as me, and it is NOT a usual name. In fact it's far more unusual the "Chertoff"

So by truther reasoning we MUST be related same as Ben and Michael Chertoff.

 
At 11 April, 2007 18:12, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

Note the selective reasoning of Luke.

The testimony of numerous firemen who saw the gash in WTC7 is not to be believed, he want picture (there are picture but the won't look)

BUT the testimony of some guy in a basement who said he heard an explosion at a certain time IS as good as gold. Also people who said they saw something that looked like molten steel are to be believed as well. No pictures need.

Seems we have a double standard here, NO?

 
At 11 April, 2007 18:25, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

And still no one has even made an attempt to counter the fact every video clearly shows that the towers took at least 15 seconds to fall.

Much slower then the free fall bullshit truthers spew.

Free fall has become a religious mantra with them. like a religious canon it does not have to be true. It just needs to be repeated over and over so the faithful don' t stray.

Note 911kidneydialysis.. Free Fall Dude!

 
At 11 April, 2007 18:34, Blogger shawn said...

(especially the part about 'keep telling yourselves that you're winning', because that's precisely what you then went and did!)

You don't seem to understand that you saying we aren't winning doesn't make it so.

And no, saying I know I'm right doesn't render my post silly (coming from such a braindead specimen as yourself, this is quite rich). If I said I know gravity will keep me planted to the either does that render this post silly? Or maybe if I say the sky is blue? These are all facts. You children don't seem to understand that there are facts in 9/11, that you chose to ignore in order to construct your fantasies.

There's a reason I get flashbacks to when I used to debate creationists when I deal with you people. You're probably the best example of their style of argument - all flash no substance (and your only refutation to me destroying your post is "nuh uh buddy").

 
At 11 April, 2007 18:37, Blogger shawn said...

Note luke puts the word "impossible" after things that are perfectly possible.

Wow truthiness, your responses didn't mirror luke's "debunker" responses at all. Weird, looks like I was right about him setting up strawmen.

 
At 11 April, 2007 18:40, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Pat and James:

Did you pay these idiots to come on here and act so stupid that all the fence sitters will join the debunker camp without hesitation?

Please truthers, keep up these kind of posts...pretty please.

TAM:)

 
At 11 April, 2007 18:50, Blogger pomeroo said...

Actually, the idea for an all-rationalist show was ConspiRaider's, not mine. I like to showcase fantasists. I want these people to expose themselves for the frauds they are, to go beyond the disingenuous "we're just asking questions" bullshit. They've slandered people and told outrageous, insupportable lies for years. Let them explain what their "evidence" is and why no real scientists or engineers take them seriously.

It's 2007 and these clowns are still pretending that "pull it" means "blow up the building." A loon on this blog wants to see the photo of WTC 7 showing the damage to the south side. Hello? You can find photos showing the damage to WTC 7 on debunking911.com.

Let's see a few errors in Brent Blanchard's paper:

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

 
At 11 April, 2007 20:32, Blogger Luke said...

shawn, our exchange is typical of hundreds I've seen online: the so- called debunkers make some outrageous claim like "every one the 'troofer' claims have been addressed", to which the Concerned American Citizen (myself) responds with a few very specific and very 'undebunked' elements of 9/11 suggesting an inside job. shawn, in response, of course drops the 'popular mechanics debunked it all' line, even going so far a criticize me for not reading the book. my next response informs him that I have, in fact, read much of it, and that none of my points were addressed. I ask if HE has read the book, or if he just pulled the PM crap out his ass, and he drops the issue. shawn pulls all the classic shit: petty insults ('braindead specimen'), compares us to creationists (surprised he didn't go with holocaust denial), accuses my argument of having 'no substance' (never having dropped a single specific piece on information relating to 9/11 the entire debate, nor addressing any of mine - despite my having numbered them for him).

please, all you self proclaimed 'debunkers', stop making absurd statements like "every one of the facts supports us" and claiming to know FOR A FACT that the official story is true, when you then can't even address a few of the random incriminating facts that I pulled off the top of my head. it's really pretty pathetic...

 
At 11 April, 2007 20:54, Blogger Luke said...

regarding molten metal: there are far more eyewitness reports of molten metal than there are of severe damage to wtc7, so it seems you (truthiness) are relying on a double standard as well. in addition to a number of photographs, there are VERY specific descriptions of literally liquid metal FLOWING under the pile weeks after the collapse. NEVER is this explained by debunkers - the only response is suggesting that the molten metal wasn't there at all. vague reverences to melted aluminum from the plane are meaningless, explaining neither how the aluminum reached that temperature, nor how it remained so hot for more than a month. 911trutiness, as predicted, simply suggested (with no evidence) that the metal wasn't there at all. that's some pathetic debunking, if you ask me...

as far as the gash in WTC7 goes, all facts (minus a few eyewiness reports NOT from first- person video interviews) suggest damage to the building from WTC1's collapse was minimal. a few photos show gashes here and there, but clearly nothing that could have penetrated all the way to the building's core. that's why this phantom 'massive' gash was invented on the South side of the building, the only side not photographed (not that that stopped PopMech from lying about having seen one). granted, this is the face that was closest to WTC1, but damage to adjacent buildings suggests the recessed WTC 7 would have sustained minimal damage. reports from many firemen, including some interviewed in person, suggest damage to the South face was not severe, certainly not enough to cause a collapse (much less a symmetrical one). photos prove the transfer truss on the 7th floor was undamaged, even if this gash existed, so the magical collapse remains unexplained - regardless of how severe the damage to the south face really was. unless someone wants to talk about diesel fuel being pumped into the burning floors for seven hours until the steel melted?

ps shawn, sorry, got you mixed up with civilized worm - you do at least get credit for not dropping the PM debunked it all line... my bad

 
At 11 April, 2007 21:07, Blogger Abby Scott said...

Now, Luke, you know that's not true.

You can take a look at all the testimony. For example, these are first-person:

From Captain Chris Boyle in an interview with Firehouse:


Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.


From Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.


From Daniel Nigro:

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.


I'm sure if you reached out to other firefighters present that day, they would tell you their experiences as well... Depending on how you announced yourself.

 
At 11 April, 2007 21:51, Blogger mbats said...

Luke:

vague reverences to melted aluminum from the plane are meaningless, explaining neither how the aluminum reached that temperature, nor how it remained so hot for more than a month.

The planes were hardly the only source of aluminum - The buildings were wrapped in it, and that was hardly the only place where it was used as a building material. Aluminum's melting temerature is low enough that it will melt in any extended fire using office materials as fuel. after the towers' collapse, the rubble insulated the heat and kept it from dissipating, thus keeping the fires going, melting more aluminum, and keeping it in a molten state. If you say anything more about molten metal without providing a more likely hypothesis for its source, you will have proven yourself unscientific and intellectually dishonest.

as far as the gash in WTC7 goes, all facts (minus a few eyewiness reports NOT from first- person video interviews) suggest damage to the building from WTC1's collapse was minimal. a few photos show gashes here and there, but clearly nothing that could have penetrated all the way to the building's core. that's why this phantom 'massive' gash was invented on the South side of the building, the only side not photographed...

Anyone who's looked at the photographs out there know that the reason that the south side was not photographed was because it was top to bottom engulfed in smoke from its own fires. Buildings that have that much smoke pouring out of them are not minimally damaged. I retract the leeway I granted you previously - this statement proves your intellectual dishonesty.

 
At 12 April, 2007 00:44, Blogger Luke said...

ok guys, let's just assume that the top 5 floors of WTC1 plunged straight into WTC7 and caused a huge gash like we're meant to believe. This debris would have to tear it's way through the southern third of the building and somehow manage to gouge out a significant number of core columns...

First question: Why doesn't the building collapse right there? If the damage is so severe, why doesn't the core immediately give way and topple over? In reality, the building doesn't budge, there are no immediate signs of collapse, and NO fires as of around 10:45 am.

OK, so we've got kinda big damage but not enough to really weaken the building. And although they aren't immediately visible, enough burning carpet and shit landed inside the building to start big fires (after smoldering for a few hours). Then suddenly the columns start melting or giving way or some shit and...

I mean, it gets really crazy from there (you guys wanna talk about kooks and shit...) Somehow the eastern penthouse collapses first, even though it's nowhere near where the debris from WTC1 would have hit... I guess that's where these super hot (yet orange) gas fires had managed to compromise the vertical columns enough for them to give way (note that this is impossible). The penthouse collapses... then ten seconds later the entire structure plunges downward, the roof staying horizontal to the ground the entire way down.

THE ONLY WAY for this type of collapse to happen is for multiple columns to give way - simultaneously - in different parts of the building. That means multiple corner box columns, each up to 75 feet apart. The odds of random fires causing this is infinitely small, to the point that it is literally impossible. Just ask Danny Jowenko...

And the last absurd part of the official story is trying to explain why it didn't topple to the South, if damage to the core was so severe on that side. A 47 story skyscraper falling from asynchronous damage would spread out over a pretty big area, but instead it collapses right into it's own footprint...

It's fucking crazy guys. YOu all need to quit smoking so much meth

 
At 12 April, 2007 05:26, Blogger sggw said...

#7 have no core colums like the towers and did fall to the south in you bother to look at the debris plie.
In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors, it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Fuel was stored on the lower levels in the middle of the building right under the main truss assy that supports the building, no wonder the colapse started in the middle.
I wonder how hot the girders would get with a fire from 40000 gals of fuel underneith them for 6-7hrs.
The only people smokeing meth are the toofers

 
At 12 April, 2007 06:18, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

POMERPEEEU Here you go Pom...

Blanchard's primary mislead is to imply that any controlled demolition would have to be engineered in the same fashion that he has witnessed in commercial demolitions. He never explicitly acknowledges this, but he repeatedly reinforces it, exploiting people's tendency to defer to experts.

In fact, it is quite easy to destroy structures when constraints of economy and safety are eliminated: blowing things up is much easier than imploding them. But Blanchard would have you believe, for example, that it is impossible to destroy a building's columns without the labor-intensive procedure of "pre-burning." I doubt that members of combat demolition units bother with such procedures when they blow up buildings.
The key tenet of Blanchard's denial of WTC controlled demolition is thus the unacknowledged assumption that all demolitions have to be engineered in the same way as those designed to implode buildings with minimal collateral damage. His reliance on a stealth assumption is reminiscent of the NIST Report, which hides its failure to explain the total collapses of the Twin Towers behind the idea that "collapse initiation" automatically leads to "global collapse" -- an assumption that runs counter to all experience and defies experimental verification.
Blanchard makes repeated assertions that there is no evidence of explosives. That is arguable, given the unexplained sulfidation of steel, multiple fingerprints of aluminothermics in Ground Zero samples, and multiple and abundant evidence of high blast pressures that are difficult to explain absent high explosives. (Not including ignoring or being unaware of the events in sub-level B that destroyed concrete walls in the parking garage, blew up a multi-ton press, and creating white smoke rather 'jet fuel' smoke, and also reminded victims of the 1993 truck bomb.)
Blanchard's use of the phrases "physical evidence relating to explosives" and "physical evidence indicating explosives" implies that only physical artifacts, such as samples containing residues of known explosives, constitute physical evidence. However, the vast public bodies of photographs and video recordings of the each towers' destruction are physical evidence that can be used to make quantitative measurements about the global features such as symmetry, rates of fall, rates of expansion, and trajectories of rubble. Such features are the basis for arguments for demolition quite apart from specific theories involving explosives. Blanchard's denials of evidence of explosives, even if correct, do nothing to address those arguments.
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews
/blanchard/index.html

 
At 12 April, 2007 06:30, Blogger Triterope said...

Blanchard's primary mislead is to imply that any controlled demolition would have to be engineered in the same fashion that he has witnessed in commercial demolitions.

Uh... Swing? Your people are the ones who've been running for six years screaming WTC WUZ JSUT LIKE CD OMG!!!!!

So why the hell shouldn't Blanchard compare it to traditional demolition? That's the allegation the paper attempts to answer!

Of course, if the paper had addressed non-traditional methods, your argument would no doubt be that he failed to answer the allegation of traditional demolition.

Heads it's a conspiracy, tails it's a conspiracy. I guess we'll just keep flipping until we get the coin to land on its edge.

 
At 12 April, 2007 06:37, Blogger sggw said...

and now sd and the toofers know more than a 20 year expert in CD LOLOL I wonder what the qualifications are of the person who wrote the piece are? I noticed the site qoutes some of the toofers as sources LOL
This is just another pathetic attempt by the toofers

 
At 12 April, 2007 06:50, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

"as far as the gash in WTC7 goes, all facts (minus a few eyewiness reports NOT from first- person video interviews) suggest damage to the building from WTC1's collapse was minimal"

The "minimal" damage to WTC7 was from WTC2, it was WTC1 that did the major damage, you can't cherry pick a statement made right after WTC2 fell and apply it to building 7 after the fall of WTC1.

you want visual proof, OK

WTC Gash

See this thing leaning like this? It’s definitely coming down.

WTC7 Damage

And you will note these images correspond to what the witnesses had to say. So, lets see we have pictures showing damage and numerous eye witness confirmations, and what do you have? You saying WTC7 had "minimal" damage with no proof what so ever.

But so now where is YOUR proof of molten steel? Just saying it, does not make it so, COME ON just one photo of molten steel.

 
At 12 April, 2007 07:07, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

"Uh... Swing? Your people are the ones who've been running for six years screaming WTC WUZ JSUT LIKE CD OMG!!!!! "

That's how it works. They say "looks like controlled demolition to me" and when you pound on there thick skulls for a while and they realize they can not make that work, you see the silliness Swing is proposing. A "New and improved" form of controlled demolition that does not look like controlled demolition but is controlled demolition.

And of course they still have no REAL controlled demolition experts who will join them.

 
At 12 April, 2007 07:19, Blogger Triterope said...

That's how it works.

It is an endless retreat, isn't it? You try to answer one of their questions and all they can do in response is redefine terms, obfuscate, change the subject, accuse you of ad hominem, repeat their quote-mined "eyewitness accounts" again, or raise five new unrelated points and demand you answer them all.

Honestly, the Twoofer arguments are so repetitive now that we should just make a canned list of responses and refer to them by number. Thirty or forty is probably all we'd need.

 
At 12 April, 2007 07:57, Blogger CHF said...

Blanchard's primary mislead is to imply that any controlled demolition would have to be engineered in the same fashion that he has witnessed in commercial demolitions.

So in other words his mistake was not comparing it to any demolition technology that has ever been used.

Swing, you're really losing it man.

 
At 12 April, 2007 08:11, Blogger Abby Scott said...

Luke, just because you don't understand why wtc7 fell over immediately, doesn't make it false.

Go to engineers, ask them to explain this to you. This is advice I've given before.

 
At 12 April, 2007 08:39, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Truthy, perhaps if you read FEMA's report on molten metal at WTC 7...You really don't think truthers just make stuff up do you?

Exerpts:
A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

FEMA's investigators inferred that a "liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur" formed during a "hot corrosion attack on the steel." The eutectic mixture penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it "susceptible to erosion."
Following are excerpts from Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination.
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
...
The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.
...
liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.(although bunks will try to excuse it away as 'drywall') The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.

So then the next line of logic is, what burns hot enough to melt holes into steel like swiss cheese?

For one, it sure isn't office furniture...

Actually Truthy, I have a friend in explosive ordinance working in the Nuclear Proliferation unit in the Army. He visited the other day to let me know the FBI would be calling me about a background check for a security clearnce upgrade. He suggested looking for large trucks visiting the day or or a day or two prior to the attacks. He suggested the possible use of Comp-B, albeit in large amounts, to explain what happened in the basement sub-level B. So I guess that is the expert I'm relying on when it comes to explosives.

CHF To Blanchard's credit, he only examined that which he is an expert on: traditional controlled demolitions. You could use he reasoning to support a non-traditional CD of 1 and 2, but I can also use his reasoning to support a non-traditional CD and/or the use of explosives to explain the debris traveling up and out as opposed to the effect of gravity.

Another error in Blanchard's report:
Blanchard's claim that the steel was properly examined, lacking any verification, stands as an empty assertion, and is contradicted by testimony to a hearing by the Committee on Science in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Blanchard and WTC 7:
Blanchard uses a red-herring (pull it, no airplane hit it, owner's admission) claims to bracket his only discussion of claims of the controlled demolition of WTC 7. Silverstein's supposed admission that the building was demolished functions here as elsewhere to distract from the physical features of the building's collapse that indicate controlled demolition:

* Sudden onset
* Near free-fall speed of descent
* Streamers of dust emerging from the facade
* Totality, leaving no large assemblies intact
* Symmetry, falling in a precisely vertical fashion
*Lack of evidence of surrounding structures being damaged by WTC1 and 2, not 7.
*Conflicting expert opinion

Since none of these features has ever been observed in the natural collapse of a steel-framed building, and each is a signature characteristic of controlled demolition, each individually indicates controlled demolition. Taken together, they constitute an overwhelming inductive argument for controlled demolition.

 
At 12 April, 2007 09:18, Blogger sggw said...

sd that is just more of your how to say nothing in 5000 words. You are just a dumb sob who just does not understand, it was all explained but you just try and C&P a lot of words to make yourself sound like you know something, you do not. You ask some dumb question to make it sound like there was something else that could cause hi temps. There were prodigious amounts of drywall through out the building, the whole core was covered with it, more than enough to react with the steel.

Your so called over whelming arguement is a sham. Show us one building in the world that was designed like the towers and you might have a point, til you do every thing you post is just a load of crap.The simple fact that you call the towers steel frame buildings and tube construction clearly shows you have no clue what you are talking about, even after the style has been explained to you many times.
Try your own words sometime instead of C&P sombody elses lies.

All your bullet points have been answered a thousand times,
repeating them over and over will not make them true

(* Sudden onset
* Near free-fall speed of descent
* Streamers of dust emerging from the facade
* Totality, leaving no large assemblies intact
* Symmetry, falling in a precisely vertical fashion
*Lack of evidence of surrounding structures being damaged by WTC1 and 2, not 7.
*Conflicting expert opinion)

All in the parenthese above is just BS plain and simple.

Why don't you just email Mr. Blanchard and get it from him, that would at least be the first time you talk to an expert.

BTW how is that list of engineers comeing along?

 
At 12 April, 2007 09:27, Blogger CHF said...

CHF To Blanchard's credit, he only examined that which he is an expert on: traditional controlled demolitions.

And who's an expert on "non-tradition" demolitions? You?

Blanchard and WTC 7:
Blanchard uses a red-herring (pull it, no airplane hit it, owner's admission) claims to bracket his only discussion of claims of the controlled demolition of WTC 7.


How can it be a red-herring when he's addressing the main twoofer talking points?

For all your silly claims of why WTC7 was a demolition, you're missing the most obvious problem:

there were no charges going off!

Here's a challenge for ya: explain why the FDNY thought WTC7 would come down and why they cited structural damage as their reason.

Remember: you don't wanna implicate the FDNY.

 
At 12 April, 2007 10:00, Blogger sggw said...

Chf
Still none of these dolts will ever explain how, when and where these building were wired and then to have none of the thousands of people not notice something.

There was a pgm on the history chanel, it clearly showed that CD would have been impossible on 3 huge buildings and nobody notice especially on girders in the basemant which are the largest. They have to be cut in the center and charges must be placed on both sides of the "H" section then wired with Primacord to a detonator some where.
Where was the detonator , in or close to the buildings outside?
How would they hide the primacord so they would be at a safe distance?

 
At 12 April, 2007 10:37, Blogger Gary said...

What's so special about molten metal? I've got a hunk of what was a pool of molten aluminum that was produced when a ladder rack melted off of one my trucks during the Cedar Brush fire in 2003. That fire didn't get particularly hot and was relatively fast moving yet still reduced the rack to a pool of molten metal in a matter of minutes. This is one of the most unimpressive arguments the Truthers have offered me yet.

 
At 12 April, 2007 11:09, Blogger pomeroo said...

Swing Dumpster, upholding his well-earned reputation as one of the least intelligent and most ignorant of an extremely stupid and ignorant group of liars, pretends to find errors where there are none.

The seismic data complied by the Lamont-Doherty labs show conclusively that no explosives were used at the WTC complex. Undoubtedly, the scientists there are all part of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy.

Blanchard uses his EXPERTISE in controlled demolition to explain why the collapses of buildings at the WTC complex do NOT resemble demolitions. Dumpster, a total ignoramus on the subject, tap dances furiously to throw up a smoke screen.

Blanchard's main point regarding each of the twin towers is that the collapse proceeds, as is confirmed by ALL the video evidence, from the impact floors. Conspiracy liars are left with two alternate hypotheses, both insane: they can pretend that people were scurrying frantically about the burning building planting charges on the impact floors; or they can pretend that the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy knew the exact floors the hijacked planes would hit and wired them in advance with an unknown type of explosive that was capable of surviving the initial fireballs and the resulting fires.

But that won't discourage the loons. Remember, they've got that trifecta going for them: stupid, crazy, and oh-so dishonest.

 
At 12 April, 2007 12:30, Blogger sggw said...

Basement Bomb Theories Lack Supported
The idea that powerful explosions in the Towers' basements initiated the collapses or were instrumental is not supported by credible evidence, but is contradicted by several bodies of evidence.
The conclusions that seismic spikes preceded the collapses is based on flawed analysis seismic.html
The body photographic and video evidence contradicts the idea that large explosions in the Towers' bases precipitated the collapses.
The testimonies of emergency responders http://911review.com/coverup/oralhistories.htmldo not include descriptions of large-scale explosions low in the towers preceding the descent of the dust clouds.
The survival of 18 people in the rubble near the center of the North Tower contradicts theories that basement bombs destroyed the bases of the core columns.

 
At 12 April, 2007 12:47, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Pom, it could be that the only tools you use are playground name calling. For example,

You are aware that there were no seismic recordings of the 1993 wtc truck bombing according to seismologist, Won-Young Kim. Does that mean that didn't take place?
Strike 1

Blanchard uses his EXPERTISE in controlled demolition to explain why the collapses of buildings at the WTC complex do NOT resemble demolitions.
Correct. It does not resemble a demolition, nor a traditional controlled demolition where the collapse starts at the bottom. What POM is ommitting is the destruction began in Sub-Level B around the core which according to Mark L. is the exact place you would want to destroy to assist in a gravity collapse. And lo and behold that is exactly what happened.

You and I both know the only way to scientifically prove the use of explosive devices is to chemically test for residue of the remains, correct? Did that happen? Of course not!

Based upon appearance alone, it didn't look like a traditional CD event because of the origin of the collapse region.
Despite what numerous witnesses, victims, firefighters, first reponders, etc. state it wasn't a traditional CD in that collapse didn't start at the base, only the destruction started there.

And finally an elementary example:
If a monkey is in a duck suit, does that mean the monkey is no longer a monkey but now a duck? The monkey doesn't look like a monkey so therefore it is not a monkey! Only in bunk logic

The destruction of the towers began in sub-level B. The collapse began around the collapse zone. Praytel, what floor did the collapse begin on?
You might want to make a note of that before you begin the name calling because it truly makes you appear to be the liar or just plain stupid.

And explain to me again how the power of gravity forces debris up and then outward?
Strike 2

Conspiracy liars(ad hom) are left with two alternate hypotheses, both insane: they can pretend that people were scurrying frantically about the burning building planting charges on the impact floors.

Of course you and I both find this entertaining but unrealistic I will overlook your sheer lack of evidence of me being a 'liar'.

or they can pretend that the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy knew the exact floors the hijacked planes would hit and wired them in advance with an unknown type of explosive that was capable of surviving the initial fireballs and the resulting fires

Or they could have wired numerous floors throughout the building, or they could have a wired multiple segments of the core to blow, or a combination of both. Simply, terrorist rigged the building to bring it down.

Or you can accept the theory that assymetrical damage and fire caused a symmetrical collapse and symmetrical failure of support systems at the exact same time and the exact same place in the exact same manner despite varying levels of damage from plane and fire and floor location all because of fireproofing and best of all: gravity! Please overlook the fact that the wrong tower fell first of course.

Interesting theory... but I will stick with the one that is rooted in historical reality. Feel free to stick with astronomical odds, historical precedence, and complete ignorance on the entire story surrounding the events of in Sub-Level B and the most unlikely scenario: gravity and and inadequate fireproofing were responsible for the global collapse of 3 high rise buildings within a few hours of each other.

And finally Pomeroo you can take your name calling, your fallacies, your errors, and waltz back to JREF and hang out with like minded bunks.

 
At 12 April, 2007 13:02, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

SSGWROFLMAO. You would serve your kind better in the jungle tossing crap at each other. Or better yet, join the school yard with your comments. I guess Jenny was right..when that stuff starts flying I must be touching on something you don't want to hear.

WTC Basement Explosions:

1.Mike Pecoraro, Stationary Engineer and unname Co-Worker
a) See'lights flicker, the Asst. Engineer reports to him hearing a large explosion,
b)Sees white smoke, and reports the smell of kerosene.
c)The smell he thought coming from perhaps a burning car in the parking garage above them.
d)Kerosene smell, not a kerosene fire. Kerosene does not produce white smoke to my knowledge.
e)Damage after the sound of an explosion: When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone. "There was nothing there but rubble, "Mike said. "We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press ? gone!"
f)A machine shop and a 50 ton press is gone.
e)Location of damage-C-level
f) The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. "There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything" he said.
g)Parking garage and walls are gone.
h)As they ascended to the B Level they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up "like a piece of aluminum foil" and lying on the floor.
i)Comments, "They got us again referring to the WTC 93 bombing. He saw similiar things after that bombing.
j)He was convinced a bomb had went off in the building.
k)See's two vicitms, badly burned an injured.
l)No reports of black soot or smoke in the lobby

Brief summary of experience: explosive sound heard, followed by white smoke with massive damage on multiple floors, and burned and injured victims.
Source: Chief
Engineer


2. Jose Sanchez, Maintance Worker & co-worker, Chino
a)Hears the sound of an explosion,"It sounded like a bomb went off."
b)Sees lights flicker.
c)Located in Sublevel 4 workshop.
d)Fireball in the freight elevator.
e)Singes hair and drops co-worker Chino to his knees.
f)Room fills with smoke, "I believe it was a bomb that blew up inside the building."
g)Chino's leg and knee apparently broken. He can't walk and gets assistance from Sanchez.
h)Fireballs do not break legs, however, concusion can and does.
i)Exits at parking level lot on sub level 4 and sees many people fleeing.
j)"It took about 15 or 20 minutes to get outside and for me it was like a bomb with huge smoke all around.
i)Comments he is lucky to be alive because he wasn't near the stairwell.
Brief Summary: sound of an explosion, damage to freight elevator, damage to humans
Source: Taped statement to William Rodriguez as reported in the
href="http://www.arcticbeacon.com/12-Jul-2005.html">Second Janitor


3. Construction Worker,Phillip Morelli, 7 year employee at WTC 1
a)Location-4th sublevel, B-4 main freight car
b)"That is when I got blown. The impact of the explosion or whatever happened threw me to the floor. And thats when everything started happenin'. It knocked me right to the floor. You didn't know what it was, you just assumed something fell over in the loading dock. Something very heavy, something very big. You don't know what happened then all the sudden you just felt the floor movin'and you get up... the walls, you know now I'm hearing that the main freight car, the elevators, you know what I mean fell down so I was right near the main freight car so I assumed what that was.
Then you heard that comin' towards ya. I was racing I was goin' towards the bathroom, all of the sudden I opened the door i didn't know it was the bathroom and then the big impact happened again and then all the ceiling tiles started falling down the light fixtures were falling swinging, swinging out of the ceiling. I came runnin' out of the door and everything,the walls were down and I started runnin' towards the parkin' lots."
c)Nearly 100 floors below where the first plane hit.
d)Thought a car or something exploded on B-1 or something big and heavy got delievered and fell over.
e)Knew it was something big floor was moving underneath him
f)Smoke and people screaming
g)Got to parking lot and describes a lot of smoke, people screaming, and helping a person with a broken leg.
h)He and others run up the ramp from 1 to 2, as you have to do that to get out of the subbasement, it happens all over again. And got thrown to the floor. But unaware of a second plane hit.
i)Walls in the basement caving in
j)Knows people got killed, broken legs, and reconstructive surgery because the walls hit them in the face.
k)No matter where you were in the building, you weren't safe.
Brief Summary: Explosion throws him to the ground and causes
the floor to move underneath him. Destroys walls and freight elevator that he was near. Runs to the bathroom and another explosion causes the ceiling and lights damaged,people damaged observed in parking garage, attempts to escape by going to Tower 2 exit and gets thrown to the ground for a second
time. Source-NY1 News:http://www.ny1.com/pages/RRR/911special_survivors.html

Marlene Cruz, Carpenter, employee for 15 years
a)Location: elevator subbasement B, WTC 1
b)Hears an explosion that blows up the elevator, the elevator falls, and gets stuck at B level.
c)Herself and the elevator operator are injured.
d)She reports her body felt like it was run over by a truck and has a sprained leg.
e)After hearing the explosion she states, "Here we go again another bomb" in reference to her experience with the 1993 truck bombing.
f)States seeing her friend Arther Delbeanko (sp?) who was fine after she got hurt. They hear screams. He was going around looking for other people,trying to break through doors to see who he found.
g)She states Arthur got hurt after her. No description is given how he was hurt after her.

Brief Summary: Hears an explosion, elevator is blown up, stops at B-1 her and the elevator worker suffer injuries. She gives NO mention of burns from a fuel fire. She mentions no smoke or fire at all from fuel or anywhere else.
The explosion reminds her of the 1993 truck bomb and she thinks it is another bomb.
Source: ABC News Special Report with Peter Jennings


The above accounts match perfectly with the video and audio evidence of bombs going off in the basement.

SS Please update your research.

 
At 12 April, 2007 13:33, Blogger shawn said...

compares us to creationists (surprised he didn't go with holocaust denial)

Oh you use the same logic as Holocaust deniers (as they use the same as creationists), I just didn't want you to be a crybaby so I went with the less evil of the two groups.

I also never said "PM debunked them all" so you might want to stop construction those strawmen you love so much.

And why do I have to include any "proof" in my discussion - you certainly didn't (though you seem to think you did). You just listed off what happened on 9/11 and then put (impossible) after each statement of fact. You remind me of Marcuse, who loved to change the definitions of words around to fit his mindset - impossible in your using (though you most likely are ignorant of the fact you're using it this way and of course didn't intend it) means "I don't buy it". None of the things you called impossible are impossible, you just don't believe (even with the mounds of evidence you and your ilk still ignore even though you continue on the pretense that it is we who ignore evidence) that the events happened. That's fine, some people don't believe the Holocaust happened.

See what I did there?

 
At 12 April, 2007 13:36, Blogger shawn said...

I guess Jenny was right..when that stuff starts flying I must be touching on something you don't want to hear.

Swing, did you just ignore comments or what?

It's already been explained that the nonsense you folks cling to was shown to be unsupported ages ago - once you explain to a fool why he's a fool it's perfectly fine to then make fun of him for amusement's sake.

I know you all like to pretend that you bring up new ideas or new "evidence" but you don't. You either bring up the same nonsense or try to repackage it and think we don't notice. The fact one of the newer idiots still thinks the damage to WTC7 was minimal speaks to that perfectly (and the fact he wasn't aware there are several pictures of the damage).

 
At 12 April, 2007 13:59, Blogger pomeroo said...

The brain-dead Swing Dumpster tries again to lie his way out of his self-constructed trap:


"Pom, it could be that the only tools you use are playground name calling. For example,

You are aware that there were no seismic recordings of the 1993 wtc truck bombing according to seismologist, Won-Young Kim. Does that mean that didn't take place?
Strike 1"


Strike 0: The Lamont-Doherty labs compiled data that show conclusively that NO EXPLOSIVES WERE USED AT THE WTC COMPLEX. See their webpage or review their findings on 911myths.com.


"And explain to me again how the power of gravity forces debris up and then outward?
Strike 2"

Strike 0: Sheer gibberish. Videos show debris falling faster than the collapsing buildings and, no, debris can't FALL up.

No one "wired" anything in the twin towers. The collapses did not begin at the basement level because there is absolutely NOTHING to suggest that they did and overwhelming evidence demonstrating that they did not.

If you would take the trouble to READ all ten pages of Blanchard's clearly-written paper, you would understand that demolition specialists UNDERSTAND how make a structure collapse. Your imaginary charges could not possibly function as you pretend. You still never explain why you, an unintelligent ignoramus, know more about demolition than someone who works in the industry.

THE COLLAPSES OF THE TOWERS PROCEED--OBVIOUSLY--FROM THE IMPACT FLOORS.

In five years of lying, you frauds have done nothing to challenge that assertion.

 
At 12 April, 2007 14:04, Blogger CHF said...

Swing,

Read this slowly and try to take it all in.

1) blowing the basement supports would collapse the WTC from the bottom - not the top.

2) the base supports WERE NOT DESTROYED since parts of the center core remains standing after the floors had fallen.

3) A bomb that takes out the base supports would have been heard by way more people than the ones who heard the "basement bombs" in your story. How many people do you think heard the truck bomb in 1993? FOUR???

Basement bombs in a top-down collapse are fucking pointless.

Basement bombs in a top-down collapse are fucking pointless.

Basement bombs in a top-down collapse are fucking pointless.

Basement bombs in a top-down collapse are fucking pointless.

Keep repeating this until it penetrates you thick skull.

Or maybe you could present your idiotic theory to those engineers you've been contacting.

 
At 12 April, 2007 14:11, Blogger Luke said...

shawn, when did I say I wasn't aware of the damage to wtc7, or even say something to suggest that? I clearly stated that there are multiple photos of damage to WTC 7: none of them show major structural damage OR even a hint of this 'massive' gash to the South face. If you think the minor corner damage in those pictures would cause the entire building to go in on itself in a symetrical collapse, then you're just plain stupid.

notice how, in your previous post, you again broadly dismissed all the evidence I posted, without addressing any of it specifically, or providing any information to support your case whatsoever. my six- year old uses similar debate tactics...

abby-
that was a pretty lame response. Do YOU understand why WTC7 didn't collapse right away if damage was so severe? Or did you just assume that some expert, somewhere, does? NIST sure didn't explain it... so I'm not sure who exactly you're referring me to.

 
At 12 April, 2007 14:19, Blogger CHF said...

Luke,

why did the FDNY pull back from WTC7 cuz they feared it would collapse from structural damage?

 
At 12 April, 2007 14:23, Blogger sggw said...

SD instead of doing your usual say nothing and never address anything except what you cah spin. Why don't go to Jay's blog and read the transcripts and see what people really said. Many times in crisis people will miss interpret many things and you know it. There was no explosive residue, it would be very easy to pick up but it was not. There were no bombs, case closed

How's your list of engineers comeing?

 
At 12 April, 2007 15:04, Blogger Alex said...

How does he do it? How does he manage to get more and more ignorant with every single comment?

 
At 12 April, 2007 15:05, Blogger shawn said...

when did I say I wasn't aware of the damage to wtc7, or even say something to suggest that? I clearly stated that there are multiple photos of damage to WTC 7: none of them show major structural damage OR even a hint of this 'massive' gash to the South face.

I can't believe you say all this nonsense and then say I'd be stupid for it to collapse straight down. The damage in the pictures isn't minor - the only ones you can even pretend show minor damage have the massive amounts of smoke billowing from the building obscuring the damage.

You might want to go back to high school physics if you can't understand why all the buildings fell the way they did.

notice how, in your previous post, you again broadly dismissed all the evidence I posted, without addressing any of it specifically, or providing any information to support your case whatsoever.

You did not give any evidence. As I said in my post, you listed things that happened and then said they were impossible and gave no reason for why they'd be impossible. You're projecting like you do in every post.

What information do I need to prove my position? A plane hit a building, fires broke out, the building collapsed. No evidence has been uncovered for any alternate factors besides the plane and its fuel, so good ol' Occam's Razor comes into play. You really need to look up this "logic" thing sometime.

Wow, your kid understands logical fallacies, projecting, and the burden of proof? You've got a regular prodigy on your hands.

why did the FDNY pull back from WTC7 cuz they feared it would collapse from structural damage?

If Luke's answers anything but "they were in on it" we debunkers !!WIN!! again. Heck, even if he says that we win. Of course the man is so thick he won't realize that folks had a feeling WTC7 was going to collapse from massive damage and the inferno raging inside.

But of course Luke knows better than fire fighters who were on the scene.

 
At 12 April, 2007 17:22, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Strike 0: The Lamont-Doherty labs compiled data that show conclusively that NO EXPLOSIVES WERE USED AT THE WTC COMPLEX. See their webpage or review their findings on 911myths.com.

My God you are dense. Just because there weren't seismic waves doesn't prove there were no explosives and my case in point was the 1993 bombing that had no seismic waves either.

CHF despite your lack of knowledge on structural engineering, explosive demolitions, etc. what you may believe in no way changes the facts of what the people went through in the sub-levels. It is too bad you cling to your 'no bombs belief' as if it were a religion, because overwhelming evidence proves your religion false.
In the example I gave, the logical order as follows:

First: Explosive sound heard, concussive force felt.

Second: Humage damage consistent with an explosive device not jet fuel, transformers, or pop machines.

Third: Evironmental damage-
structural damage in walls, ceiling, 50 ton press, parking garage, rooms, white smoke in the sub basement not jet fuel smoke, parking garage walls destroyed consistent with an explosive device.

Fourth: reminded several victims in the area of the first WTC truck bombing in 1993, not jet fuel fire ball, not an office fire. Described by some as if a bomb had gone off.

Fifth: Location in sub-level basement B and C levels.

Face the logical fact with supporting evidence and historical precedence supported by demolition expert and military blast ordinance expert: terrorists used an explosive device in the sublevels of the WTC complex to assist in the destruction of the towers.. Your religion is dead, your god is vanquished, and your reality smashed. It is time to move on to something else you can try to disprove, brother, because this one is mine. Case Closed!

I would beg all of you to stop supporting the terrorists by denying this fact. If you don't other terrorists may try to assist in the destruction of a high rise structure by placing explosive devices in the sublevels of target buildings.
One other request, please email and contact the owners and lease holders around the globe and have them update their fire proofing!

 
At 12 April, 2007 17:27, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Enjoy these words of wisdom for the evening. Mom says I have to go home and can't play with you guys anymore.

I present my top 10 reasons why the 10,000 page NIST report is absurd:

#10. Their theory is that “widely-dislodged fireproofing” was the primary reason the towers collapsed.2

#9. This theory ignores the fact that no steel framed building had ever completely collapsed due to fire in history.3

#8. They disproved their own “widely-dislodged fireproofing” theory with a shotgun experiment.4

#7. They ignore massive eyewitness testimony.5

#6. Their theory ignores a foundational law of physics.6

#5. Their steel tests contradicted their own theory and showed that the towers should not have collapsed.7

#4. They “proved” their theory with computer models that they refuse to release.8

#3. Their computer simulations used exaggerated data.9

#2. Their 10,000 page, 43 volume report explains (only in a footnote!), that their theory is a pre-collapse theory—they do not attempt to explain the “structural behaviour of the tower” after the collapse began!10


NIST’s most absurd blunder of all?

#1. Their 10,000 page, 43 volume report can’t find the space to discuss molten and evaporated steel; outrageously claiming that it was “irrelevant to the investigation”!11

Which proves bunks it was there just not relevant! You guys don't even know your own reports.

This statement is stunning evidence that there needs to be a criminal investigation, as well as a new investigation.

 
At 12 April, 2007 17:38, Blogger sggw said...

LOLOLOLOLOLOL once again sd repackages the same BS like it is something new LOLOLOL and he expects anyone to believe it. The only thing that is stunning is that you try and pass off the same BS over and over.
I knew he was desperate but this is really comedy LOL

molten and evaporated steelLOLOL
Got some piks of these?

I can't wait for the second act

 
At 12 April, 2007 17:42, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

"The above accounts match perfectly with the video and audio evidence of bombs going off in the basement."

No there match with the sound made by elevators falling.

Smell of Kerosene, DUH! Jet fuel, Unless you are proposing YOUR bomb planter also made sure to spread kerosene around to give a jet fuel smell for effect? And you wonder why you get called stupid?

AND here is the kicker! all this a good 40 minutes before the collapse!!!!

Swing wants you to believe the towers were blown up in slow motion, Blow up a little here.... and a little there.... and then the grand finale. Like a big fireworks show.

WOW these guys must truly be evil, they wanted the destruction of the towers to be slow event to be savored, not satisfying enough just to do it in one big bang.

Again. if you don't want to be made fun of then come up with some that is at the very least semi believable and not so puerilely silly.

Slow motion controlled demolition?

 
At 12 April, 2007 18:02, Blogger Alex said...

At least he's stopped claiming that "all of this happened before the impact!". Now it's just "before the collapse". Maybe he's capable of learning after all?

 
At 12 April, 2007 18:15, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

This is a much more scientific explanation of how iron at the WTC site show signs of burning. Unlike the truthers often sited "Thermite Bombs" bull.

Iron Burns

 
At 12 April, 2007 18:21, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

Just in case the last link was too technical.

For Truthers and other Children

 
At 12 April, 2007 19:00, Blogger texasjack said...

Mom says I have to go home and can't play with you guys anymore.

Swing, I think that is the only you thing posted that sounds truthful.

 
At 12 April, 2007 19:11, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

1. The Norman Minenta testimony was never addressed. This little piece of CSPAN footage, which PROVES Cheney had a hand in 9/11, was in fact not resolved by PM.

You're right I don't think that was in the book but it's been covered repeatedly here.


2. Neither was the molten metal. Simply because there is NO WAY jet fuel could have resulted in still- molten slag WEEKS after the attack. Or maybe that was in the 20% I didn't read? Please explain, if that's the case...

"Melted Steel" page 37. First of all there is no evidence of any of the molten metal being steel. It is however possible that the fires contained within the debris for weeks after could easily have reach tempratures capable of melting steel. Most importantly though EXPLOSIVES DON'T MELT STEEL!


3. PM still has yet to explain Chertoff's statement that an NYPD photo exists which shows the damage to WTC 7's South side, yet they can't release it due to copyright reasons. Until that phantom photo is released, any statements about a 'huge gash' are entirely unsubstantiated, relying on a handful of eyewitness accounts (and countered by others).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HLDgjYuRHk&eurl= So the firefighters are just making shit up huh? Oh wait I forgot, they were the ones that "pulled it".


4. As far as the basement bombs go: the 'jet fuel fireball', even if it did manuver through the non- continuous elevator shafts all the way to the basement (impossible), and somehow create a shockwave upon hitting ground level (impossible), it still cannot be explained why this happened BEFORE Flight 11 hit the building. Therefore, the only option for Deniers is to question Rodriguez's reliability as a witness. Not a particularly strong case, if you ask me... PS this too was not addressed in the PM book.

You're right, one witness against dozens of others isn't a strong case at all.


So, worm, the real question is this: Have YOU read the book, or did you just pull that last comment out your ass?

I bought the book, I've found it very useful in dealing with the nutters in my college.

 
At 12 April, 2007 19:21, Blogger CHF said...

Swing,

have your brought your basement bomb idoicy to engineers?

You keep avoiding this question.

CHF despite your lack of knowledge on structural engineering, explosive demolitions, etc....

Yeah ok, Mr. Expert. For someone who thinks the world's engineers don't know what they're talking about you sure have some gall to talk down to anyone else about having a lack of knowledge.

People in the lobby of the WTC reported smelling kerosene.

Imagine that: bombs on the lower levels that smelled like jet fuel.

Care to speculate on what kind of bombs they were?

Humage damage consistent with an explosive device not jet fuel, transformers, or pop machines.

You never adressed the injuries question. Were they burned or blown apart by shrapnal?

You also still haven't answered my question as to how many people heard the 1993 bomb go off.

Was it only 4 people, Swing?

And please update me on your engineer quest. Let me know what they think of your slow-motion basement bomb theory. I wonder if they'l laugh as hard as I did.

 
At 12 April, 2007 19:23, Blogger CHF said...

NIST’s most absurd blunder of all?

#1. Their 10,000 page, 43 volume report can’t find the space to discuss molten and evaporated steel; outrageously claiming that it was “irrelevant to the investigation”!11


Oh the steel evaporated now, did it?

You're such a fucking moron it almost defies words.

Make sure you remember to ask those engineers about this evaprated steel of yours.

 
At 12 April, 2007 19:28, Blogger Civilized Worm said...

I would like to know what kind of explosive is capable of melting steel, let along evaporating it.


Evaporated steel! Hahahahahaha!

 
At 12 April, 2007 19:53, Blogger CHF said...

You know...I really think we just saw Swing throw in the towel tonight.

- His quest to find some engineer backing has hit a brick wall and he won't talk about it anymore

- His basement bomb theory is completely illogical and he can't answer any questions put to him about it

- Since he has nothing left at this point, he's now hoping to keep the game going with "evaporated steel."

It's at the point now where one can only laugh.

 
At 12 April, 2007 21:54, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

There is a real scientific argument to be made for not so much the idea of evaporating steel but steel that burns. When steel rust it is in effect burning.

Mark R. Ferran BSEE theory is basically heated steel in the rubble covered in an insulating blanket of gypsum and concrete dust would burn (rust) eating itself up in the process.

Ferran Quote: It is important to understand that general rule in chemistry that most chemical reactions (e.g., oxidation of iron) are accelerated by higher temperatures. This is especially true of iron oxidation. This means, that the hotter iron metal in contact with oxygen is, the faster it will oxidize (burn). For example, it is a familiar sight at iron foundries to see hot iron rust forming instantaneously on red-hot iron beams. This hot rust usually falls off spontaneously (because of the difference in thermal expansion properties between iron and rust). Meaning, a hot iron beam, if combined with a large enough number of other hot iron beams in a confined or semi insulated pile (e.g., covered with cement dust), will burn CONTINUOUSLY until it consumes itself, (and thus will appear to have been "vaporized" to those not looking for the rust residue). It will just thin away (and turn into rust), as illustrated by this photo of burned and thinned I-beam metal recovered from the rubble of the WTC towers:

Unfortunately for Swing this is not a product of explosives but a natural process inside the rubble pile.

But they can not build a conspiracy theory out of a natural process so they will not even entertain the ideas.

 
At 13 April, 2007 06:14, Blogger sggw said...

Chf
Don't you realize that they planted kerosene FAE bombs LOL

 
At 13 April, 2007 06:58, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

CHF Come on CHF, play nice! You can avoid the name calling can't you?

1.have your brought your basement bomb idoicy to engineers?
I have yet to find a firm that had read the NIST report, let alone examine the evidence for an explosive device in the basement. So yes, I've have sent the evidence to a number of firms.

2. molten and evaporated steelLOLOL
Got some piks of these?

Don't be lazy, twit, go read the FEMA BPAT report. The pics are in the last section. Again, you are trying to deny the exist, NIST says they do, FEMA says they do. Are you as dense as POM or what?? Go read the report big guy and then procede to agree with it. Unless you willing to debunk the report.

His basement bomb theory is completely illogical and he can't answer any questions put to him about it.

Come on CHF, you know it is a completely logical fact considering the past attack in 93 and the eyewitnesses/victims accounts that suffered the damage. That is unless you want to call them liars, then of course that is your perogative.
What would smell like kerosene? Burning car/truck fuel? Don't really care what the smell is. It is the logical development that I pointed out that points to the fact that an explosive device/s were used in the sub-levels of the towers. Doesn't get much simpler than that.

CHF..Care to speculate on what kind of bombs they were?

Now we are getting somewhere. To be honest it would be pure speculation because there were no tests done to confirm what type of device it was. Maybe Comp B as my friend discussed with me? Not sure.
What might your speculation be, CH?

So SGG, now smell causes all those things in the sublevels. Sheer genuis. Imagine that smell, but no smoke, no soot, no firefighters to the basement,no evidence oh and keep calling all those victims liars. Talk about saying nothing! LOL

 
At 13 April, 2007 07:17, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed [from WTCs 1 & 2],” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

I'm sure you've all read that account.

I guess evaporated steel could be a fair description of holes in steel. Perhaps not the best term used in the NYTimes but a term published none the less.

Your moron comment really should be directed to the NY Times:
Evidence of evaporated steel as reported by the New York Times:

“Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened… ‘Fire and the structural damage… would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’”
from: Glanz, James (2001). “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members
have been partly evaporated,” New York Times, November 29. 2001

Please point to the retraction the NYT issues or I will stand by this article in my view.

Texasjack, please point out where I have been untruthful or prove where you have not lied in your character attack.

 
At 13 April, 2007 07:21, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

911 Truthy! Hey bud please post the degrees in F that the article points to. You just mentioned a general statement with no numbers to support your position. Nice try though...
And then try to reconcile that with burning office fires. And then explain why FEMA and the NIST, full of experts, didn't offer that reason for the bizarre behavior of the steel.

 
At 13 April, 2007 08:18, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Moreon the molten metal for the religious zealots. Again facts not stuff made up from troofers...

Molten Metal, Flowing and in Pools

There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7.

For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer,

‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)

The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.” (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)
Is he expert enough? Probably not in this religion

Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002,

‘Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.)
Not from the result of 'simmering' for weeks as some bunks like to try to point out.

Notice that the molten metal was flowing down in the rubble pile early on; so it is not the case that the molten metal pools formed due to subterranean fires after the collapses. Dr. Allison Geyh was one of a team of public health investigators from Johns Hopkins who visited the WTC site after 9-11. She reported in the Late Fall 2001 issue of Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel.”


A video clip provides eye-witness evidence regarding this metal at ground zero: http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/red_hot_ground_zero_low_quality.wmv. The observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddish-orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long time — once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location.

This post was not for CHF considering his limited proper behavior as of late.

Keep on denying...

 
At 13 April, 2007 08:23, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

"911 Truthy! Hey bud please post the degrees in F that the article points to."

SWING, SWING, SWING.

I know you are not a smart guy and all but you should have been able to grasp the concept in the article.

Let me DUMB it down for you, Heat causes chemical reactions like rusting to go faster. when steel rust it causes heat. The exact temperature is unimportant, but more is better.

I take it you did not understand the concept of sulfur-rich compounds in the pile, wall board contains some sulfur. Sulfur can be further oxidized to form sulfuric acid. So you would have hot steel in contact with sulfuric acid, and like I said chemical reactions speed up in heat. Bingo you have steel with holes corroded in them.

Like I said this is maybe much to hard for a dullard like you to understand, it is science after all and we all know how you guy hate science.

 
At 13 April, 2007 08:45, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

"no evidence oh and keep calling all those victims liars."

In Swing world he hears of how firemen looked at WTC7 ans saw a huge gash in the building, saw major fires burning inside and in general recognized the building was doomed to fall.

But Swing says they are liars WTC7 was not damaged at all. They did not see what they saw.

NOW. also in Swings world some guys in the basment of the towers hear a loud explosive sound before the first plane even hits. It had to be a mini nuke. These guy could not be mistaken or swing could not misinterpretting what they said.

Firemen.... liars
Basement Guys..... Truth

OH... WAIT.... he was wrong on that... It was after the plane hit.. OK we will let that go... What's wrong with one little error when Swing has a boat load of errors.

So why believe info from a guy like swing is wrong so often?

 
At 13 April, 2007 09:12, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

Even if you believe a controlled demolition was the cause of the WTC collapse you would still have to explain what process kept the steel molten for months.

After all any controlled demolition expert would only use as much explosives as necessary to do the job. But in the truthers world you have to believe that thousand of tons of extra "thermite" was also kept in the WTC basement with the only purpose of melting steel AFTER the towers fell. Funny none of Swings basement guys noticed the extra thermite.

NO. if there was molten steel in the pile it was from the process of burning organic material in a furnace type environment. And that environment would form irregardless of why the towers fell.

But then the towers did fall from impact damage and fire.

 
At 13 April, 2007 09:19, Blogger texasjack said...

Texasjack, please point out where I have been untruthful or prove where you have not lied in your character attack.

You're kidding right? First of all I wrote "sounds truthful", but I know how you guys have trouble with similes.

But here Swing, I'll give you an example-- you copied and pasted this:

The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.” (Williams, 2001, p. 3; emphasis added.)

It came from this website: http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm

That website took it from this article: http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf

These words "The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that" is not in the article and Leslie Robertson is not quoted anywhere. You stole the words before the "quote" off a one of your bogus conspiracy websites. And you call yourself an Educator?
Did you even read the article, especially the two paragraphs before? I think you just regurgitate the same baloney from unreliable websites.

 
At 13 April, 2007 09:24, Blogger sggw said...

Sd you are nothing but a piece of crap repackageing the same crap again.

You can spout all your bull shit til the cows come home and it will still be that, Bull Shit.

No CD company in the world agree's with the CD theory. Funny many of you whaks claim the fires were not that hot.
The involvement of Steve Tully and Mark Loizeaux in the destruction of the evidence of the unprecedented collapses would seem to disqualify them as objective reporters of evidence.

There is no evidence that the molten metal was actually steel, or that any tests were performed on it to determine its composition. It could have easily been another metal with a lower melting point, such as aluminum, which was used on the WTC's facade. Furthermore, are explosives used in demolition supposed to leave molten metal that smolders for weeks? Blanchard said just the opposite

How would bombs create molten anything? You have yet to explain how the demolition could be done and nobody notice, all we get is some fantisy about radio controlled explosives.

How on earth did anyone place the charges in just the right spots in the trade center with out being caught and no holes in the walls to be seen? CD would have been impossible on 3 huge buildings and nobody notice especially on girders in the basemant which are the largest. They have to be cut in the center and charges must be placed on both sides of the "H" section then wired with Primacord to a detonator some where.

Where was the detonator, in or close to the buildings outside?

How would they hide the primacord so they would be at a safe distance?

No one reports having seen work that might involve the planting of demolitions charges. I’m not aware of anyone who has provided a rational explanation of how this work might have been done and remained unobserved, before, during, and after the building’s collapse. An employee of Solomon Smith Barney who worked in WTC 7 says,
I actually worked at WTC7 and was there on 9-11. From the minute the first plane hit the towers, WTC7 was getting hit with debris. In fact, when I finally got down to the lobby 45 minutes later, we were all forced to leave through the back since so much debris had hit the building and blocked the entrance. I also would love to have someone tell me how the 28-44th floors were wired for demolition, when we packed like sardines after the merger with Smith Barney and most floors had people on them 7 days a week. ( A few floors were trading floors so it was 24x7 and many worked 6-7 days a week), and I never saw one construction crew in my time there doing anything significant.
Why won't CT's talk to people who worked at WTC7? My friends and I who worked with at Salomon are eager to talk but I'm guessing you won't like the answers. http://tinyurl.com/n5x Fires

Are you ever going to provide a list of your engineers to back up your crap?
Fiction is fact and fact is fiction in the world of the toofers and has been proven time after time.

 
At 13 April, 2007 10:13, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Truthy I checked your source and read the info at that peer reviewed website you linked to, but I couldn't find any mention of engineering degrees or colleges attended from that Mark,but lots of comments on land use, civil rights, and acceptance to a university that has a great theatre and museum programs. Also included was a link to a newspaper article dated 1987. He does get many props about the 14th ammendment and enjoys bothering liberals but I could find no mention of his engineering background and training. Do you have any links you can share?
Thanks!

 
At 13 April, 2007 10:26, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

NM Truthy, I did find what he was an expert in: electrical engineering and law. He is not a structural engineer. So according to SLC standards, you can not use him to support the OS.
Thanks but no thanks!

 
At 13 April, 2007 10:35, Blogger CHF said...

Swing,

few engineers have read the entire NIST report but all engineers would be familiar with its basic conclusions. Thus far you have found none that give your basement bombs the time of day. That's a
hint, son!

As for the victims of this "bomb" how many of them are today saying they believe there was a bomb? how many suffered bomb-like injuries such as shrapnal wounds? You keep ignoring this question.

What would smell like kerosene? Burning car/truck fuel? Don't really care what the smell is.

Well I suppose you should start caring. The FDNY reported the smell of kerosene in the lobby. Was there a car in the lobby, Swing?

To be honest it would be pure speculation because there were no tests done to confirm what type of device it was. Maybe Comp B as my friend discussed with me? Not sure. What might your speculation be, CH?

Jet fuel coming down the shafts (this happened during the Empire State building B-25 crash as well). It explains the kerosene, the burn victims and the fact that the core supports were not destroyed. I'm still waiting for you to explain why they set off a bomb that didn't even come close to doing what you think it was supposed to do.

Given how many people heard this "bomb" I think it's safe to say it wasn't on par with the 1993 device (you refuse to look into how many people heard that bomb for some reason). Your "bomb" sounds more like a handgrenade if anything. Why do you suppose they'd set off such a tiny bomb, Swing? For what surpose?

And while you're pondering all this, try to explain what kind of bomb creates "molten steel."

 
At 13 April, 2007 10:36, Blogger CHF said...

I did find what he was an expert in: electrical engineering and law. He is not a structural engineer. So according to SLC standards, you can not use him to support the OS.
Thanks but no thanks!


Who are your engineer sources again?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home