9/11 Conspiracy Theory Question

[Steezie]

It was a close up of the corner of the building prior to collapse.

I dont see the stream you are referring to. If you are looking at the sparks next to 79, those are probably cinders being thrown

You also need to explain why thermite would be used to cut a piece of steel on the outside of the building when there are no seriously structural relevant pieces of steel there and when thermite can only be used to cut DOWNWARDS, not sideways

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Prove it was biased. You have yet to show where it was biased after numerous times asking. Show us how they came to erroneous conclusions. You can't.

Actually, this is the first time that you have specifically ask for proof that the 9/11 Commission was biased in its research. I have provided evidence of conflict of interest and how this may compromise an independent investigation, which the Commission was supposed to be. A non-independent investigation can lead to biased results such as omission of evidence, discussed in the following article: http://www.nswbc.org/Press%20Releases/NSWBC-911Comm.htm
Note the article states: "In their responsibility to report all the facts: They either refused to interview all relevant experts and witnesses, or, they censored the reports provided to them by those with direct and first-hand information."
Bias can also came into play by beginning with one's conclusion and then gathering evidence from that point onward. "When we set up our staff teams, we assigned the subject of the story of 'al Qaeda' to staff team 1," giving them the role of "telling the story of al Qaeda's most successful operation - the 9/11 attacks."
Now, you prove to me that the Commission was not biased.

Dude are you serious. Now Bush knew because he made a comment about seeing footage of the plane going into the WTC? Now you are really delusional saying Bush had foreknowledge of the attacks. The ludicrous claim that he stayed inside a classroom is ludicrous as well. He was staying in a single location to get everything together and the school was going to be about as secure as you were going to get with all of the secret service around..Heck..the terrorists could have planned to have the attacks planned to flush him out of the school and ambush him on the road.

Dick Cheney said on Meet the Press with Tim Russert,

“While I was there, over the next several minutes, watching developments on the television and as we started to get organized to figure out what to do, my Secret Service agents came in and, under these circumstances, they just move. They don't say ‘sir’ or ask politely. They came in and said, ‘Sir, we have to leave immediately, and grabbed me and. . .”7
Russert asked: “Literally grabbed you and moved you?” Cheney replied:
“Yeah. And, you know, your feet touch the floor periodically. But they're bigger than I am, and they hoisted me up and moved me very rapidly down the hallway, down some stairs, through some doors and down some more stairs into an underground facility under the White House, and, as a matter of fact, it's a corridor, locked at both ends, and they did that because they had received a report that an airplane was headed for the White House.”


That is, according to Cheney's account, what the Secret Service agents were supposed to do. The country is under attack. The school where the President is located is a potential target given that the President is there. The life of the President and the lives of the children are thus at risk. And the President waits? It sounded much like Cheney didn't even have a choice, the agents just came and moved him for his own safety. But not the same for Bush? And what does the Commission say about that?

ZZZ paranoid schizofrenic. Wow you need medication. None of these things prove the administration have anything to do with 09/11 and those statements have been debunked.

First of all, my contention is not to prove that the Bush administration had anything to do with 9/11. My central thesis is that there is the requirement for a new fully independent, totally transparent inquiry into the 9/11 attacks that investigates with full access to and critical examination of the totality of evidence. Second, where have those facts been refuted? You continue to command me to cite sources, many of which I had previously posted on here, and yet you cite none?

That would have violated the separation of powers. It was the same reason Condolleeza did not have to testify under oath. It would have violated separation of powers..not because of sinister motives. NEVER before were internal communications of another branch subject to viewing by another branch.

What you have not explained is how investigating the activity of the executive branch leading up to and on 9/11 would have violated separation of powers. Sounds more like a petty excuse for not investigating the administration in charge in greater depth.

And he received warnings on PREVIOUS dates. How do you explain that?

I'm not asking about previous dates, which you continue to divert to. I'm asking you who told Brown and what did they know, and from where did their information come? Could such information not be useful to an investigation if it desired to determine if anyone knew anything earlier than the attacks occurrence?

Prove it. Your claims are baseless. Show citations.

I already did, several posts ago in the article that Chair and Vice-Chair of the Commission published where they claimed that the CIA obstructed their investigation.

Here is another article from The Washington Post where members of the 9/11 Commission suspect deception from the Pentagon also. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html

And in this article published in The Wall Street Journal, former FBI director Louis Freeh asks "why did the 9/11 Commission ignore Able Danger?" http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007559

Nope. You have not answered any questions and your assertions have been disproven

To the contrary, I have answered many of your questions. I have used articles from mainstream and journal sources and even the words of the Commissioners themselves as well as the words of Cheney to back up my claims. Conversely, you have not provided one example of where you specifically have refuted my claims to any reasonable degree, and you persist in a strategy of pretending that I have not provided evidence or harnessed reason so that you can make bogus claims that I am disproven and refuted, and then, you throw in some ad homs, and think that you have made a reasonable argument. I'm sorry but you have not. For the last time, ridicule does not count for knowledge.

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

I'd still like to know what happened to the passengers on those planes if 9/11 was faked. Are they now stashed in Area 51 next to the leftovers of the Roswell saucer?

 

[jamesrwright3]

]Actually, this is the first time that you have specifically ask for proof that the 9/11 Commission was biased in its research. I have provided evidence of conflict of interest and how this may compromise an independent investigation, which the Commission was supposed to be. A non-independent investigation can lead to biased results such as omission of evidence

No, I asked you to show how it was biased or erroenous in terms of its conclusions. You have not provided any evidence. And you have yet to show that any alleged conflict of interest actually had any negative effect on the final outcome of the investigation. POTENTIAL conflict of interest does not mean someone actually was detrimental

, discussed in the following article: http://www.nswbc.org/Press%20Releases/NSWBC-911Comm.htm

I clicked on it. Nothing came up

]In their responsibility to report all the facts: They either refused to interview all relevant experts and witnesses, or, they censored the reports provided to them by those with direct and first-hand information."

Sorry. Vague statements like that are not going to cut it. I can say they did interview all relevant experts and witneses and have just as much clout. Show us who should have been interviewed and was not.

Bias can also came into play by beginning with one's conclusion and then gathering evidence from that point onward. "When we set up our staff teams, we assigned the subject of the story of 'al Qaeda' to staff team 1," giving them the role of "telling the story of al Qaeda's most successful operation - the 9/11 attacks."\

Dude once again you are a retard. The government had found by the time the 09/11 Commission came into existence that Al Qaeda was responsible. Can you give me a good reason why they would investigate anyone else if they had found Al Qaeda to be responsible? Maybe they should have investigated the Vatican? Maybe the Dali Lama? Maybe it was a sleeper cell of Nuns in South Boston. I mean really all of the evidence indicated Al Qaeda..from physical evidence found..to interviews of Khaled Sheik Muhammad and OBL's admissions.

That is, according to Cheney's account, what the Secret Service agents were supposed to do. The country is under attack. The school where the President is located is a potential target given that the President is there. The life of the President and the lives of the children are thus at risk. And the President waits? It sounded much like Cheney didn't even have a choice, the agents just came and moved him for his own safety. But not the same for Bush? And what does the Commission say about that?

Dude you are so dense again. Where were they going to move the President at the time ?They MOVED Cheney to a secure bunker since the WHITE HOUSE may have been a potential target. The Secret Service also HAD A SAFE PLACE FOR CHENEY..the BUNKER DUH. There was no safer place than where the President was at at the time. He had secret service agents with weapons close to him. He was as safe there as he was going to be anywhere else and as I said before, if they were going to attack him, one option would hav been to flush him out of the school and ambush him.

First of all, my contention is not to prove that the Bush administration had anything to do with 9/11. My central thesis is that there is the requirement for a new fully independent, totally transparent inquiry into the 9/11 attacks that investigates with full access to and critical examination of the totality of evidence.

Maybe if you pay for it. But the material facts of 09/11 are not in dispute.
Al Qaeda did it. We were asleep at the wheel. We need to do better. Maybe some areas could have been more thorough but the purpose of the Comissision was to see what caused the attacks and how to prevent them in the future..not get every minute detail that would not change anyhing materially correct .

What you have not explained is how investigating the activity of the executive branch leading up to and on 9/11 would have violated separation of powers. Sounds more like a petty excuse for not investigating the administration in charge in greater depth.

You need probable cause. Show us evidence.

I'm not asking about previous dates, which you continue to divert to. I'm asking you who told Brown and what did they know, and from where did their information come? Could such information not be useful to an investigation if it desired to determine if anyone knew anything earlier than the attacks occurrence?

If probably came from the same sources than warned him before DUH
Everyone knew there was an elevated terror threat. I am sure someone may have told him

I already did, several posts ago in the article that Chair and Vice-Chair of the Commission published where they claimed that the CIA obstructed their investigation.

No you didn't, and I showed that the CIA's decision was the right one. Regardless, it would not have changed the final outcome of the investigation..NOT EVEN THE COMMISSIONERS are claiming that.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, I asked you to show how it was biased or erroenous in terms of its conclusions. You have not provided any evidence. And you have yet to show that any alleged conflict of interest actually had any negative effect on the final outcome of the investigation. POTENTIAL conflict of interest does not mean someone actually was detrimental

Here is the article regarding the omission of evidence: http://www.nswbc.org/Press%20Releases/NSWBC-911Comm.htm It worked perfectly fine for me. Now, if that evidence was omitted due to a bias, then it is fair to state the conclusions are lacking depth and are incomplete and based on biased research. Other criticism of of omission or lack of analysis was from the article by former FBI director Louis Freeh, which I had posted earlier.
How a non-independent investigation could furthermore comprise a proper inquiry, the Associated Press notes: "Zelikow once tried to push through wording in a draft report that suggested a greater tie between al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and Iraq, in line with White House claims but not with the commission staff’s viewpoint, according to Philip Shenon’s “The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation.” Shenon, a New York Times reporter, says Zelikow sought to intimidate staff to avoid damaging findings for President Bush, who at the time was running for re-election, and Rice. Zelikow and Rice had written a book together in 1995 and he would later work for her after the commission finished its job and she became secretary of state in 2005." http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/04/6826/

Sorry. Vague statements like that are not going to cut it. I can say they did interview all relevant experts and witneses and have just as much clout. Show us who should have been interviewed and was not.

If the link works, which it should, (works for me), the article posted has a document listed below.

Dude once again you are a retard. The government had found by the time the 09/11 Commission came into existence that Al Qaeda was responsible. Can you give me a good reason why they would investigate anyone else if they had found Al Qaeda to be responsible? Maybe they should have investigated the Vatican? Maybe the Dali Lama? Maybe it was a sleeper cell of Nuns in South Boston. I mean really all of the evidence indicated Al Qaeda..from physical evidence found..to interviews of Khaled Sheik Muhammad and OBL's admissions.

Because in a fact-finding independent official investigation, you don't begin where others' left off, you begin at the beginning, and not with a conclusion.

Dude you are so dense again. Where were they going to move the President at the time ?They MOVED Cheney to a secure bunker since the WHITE HOUSE may have been a potential target. The Secret Service also HAD A SAFE PLACE FOR CHENEY..the BUNKER DUH. There was no safer place than where the President was at at the time. He had secret service agents with weapons close to him. He was as safe there as he was going to be anywhere else and as I said before, if they were going to attack him, one option would hav been to flush him out of the school and ambush him.

The nation is under attack. A plane has just flown into the WTC. Is there not the possibility that a plane is bearing down on the school at that very moment? Safe indeed. And doesn't a country need its President?

Maybe if you pay for it. But the material facts of 09/11 are not in dispute.
Al Qaeda did it. We were asleep at the wheel. We need to do better. Maybe some areas could have been more thorough but the purpose of the Comissision was to see what caused the attacks and how to prevent them in the future..not get every minute detail that would not change anyhing materially correct .

The material facts are actually in dispute. Or haven't you heard of the architects, structural engineers and physicists who have stepped forward, risking their own reputation, to question the official 'pancake' theory? (I have posted a link to an article discussing them earlier in the thread).

You need probable cause. Show us evidence.

Nice diversion from my question, but it hasn't worked. Explain to me, how investigating the activity of the executive branch leading up to and on 9/11 would have violated separation of powers.

If probably came from the same sources than warned him before DUH
Everyone knew there was an elevated terror threat. I am sure someone may have told him

I'm inclined to doubt that.

No you didn't, and I showed that the CIA's decision was the right one. Regardless, it would not have changed the final outcome of the investigation..NOT EVEN THE COMMISSIONERS are claiming that.

It's called reliance on third-hand evidence... means that its shaky... means that the findings are less reliable.
And you haven't shown how the CIA's decision is 'right.' All you said was that there were national security concerns. No-where did you bother to elaborate on what would have been so hazardous. 'National security concerns' and 'incompetence' seem the excuse for a lot of things.

 

[jamesrwright3]

is the article regarding the omission of evidence: http://www.nswbc.org/Press%20Releases/NSWBC-911Comm.htm It worked perfectly fine for me. Now, if that evidence was omitted due to a bias, then it is fair to state the conclusions are lacking depth and are incomplete and based on biased research. Other criticism of of omission or lack of analysis was from the article by former FBI director Louis Freeh, which I had posted earlier.

Sorry. Does not prove that the outcome would have been any different. None of these people had any direct involvement in investigating the cell that caused 09/11. I am sure they had valuable information, but most of what they were going to say was going to be redundant..Basically the government botched the job of combating terrorism. That was established by the Commisssion. They don't have to INTERVIEW everyone under the sun if the informaiton is going to be redundant.

How a non-independent investigation could furthermore comprise a proper inquiry, the Associated Press notes: "Zelikow once tried to push through wording in a draft report that suggested a greater tie between al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and Iraq, in line with White House claims but not with the commission staff’s viewpoint, according to Philip Shenon’s “The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation.”

That has more to do with Iraq policy than 09/11 investigation. Regardless, it does not disprove or change the comission's final conclusions.

Shenon, a New York Times reporter, says Zelikow sought to intimidate staff to avoid damaging findings for President Bush, who at the time was running for re-election, and Rice. Zelikow and Rice had written a book together in 1995 and he would later work for her after the commission finished its job and she became secretary of state in 2005."

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/04/6826/

I guess you missed the part of the article where the Dem Chairman of the Committee praised Zeilkow. There goes your bias argument and your argument saying he tried to protect ther adminstration. Great article.

Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, the panel’s Democratic vice chairman, praised Zelikow as a “person of integrity” who was upfront in disclosing his background and White House contacts. It made sense for commission staff to contact the White House regularly to get information, Hamilton said, and the book also notes that Zelikow was such a dogged negotiator that even then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales found him irritating and subsequently refused to meet with him.

“Did he try to sway the report to protect the administration? I think the answer was no,” Hamilton told the AP

.

Because in a fact-finding independent official investigation, you don't begin where others' left off, you begin at the beginning, and not with a conclusion.

Sorry, if all of the evidence shows Al Qaeda and OBL and Khaled and physical evidence show Al Qaeda, you don't go off chasing other possibilies for which there is NO EVIDENCE.

The nation is under attack. A plane has just flown into the WTC. Is there not the possibility that a plane is bearing down on the school at that very moment? Safe indeed. And doesn't a country need its President?

Possibly, but there were no bunkers and actually..the location of the President is pretty much a secret for the most part, especially these low key non political rally visits. Only the pres and the school administration knows ahead of time. .

The material facts are actually in dispute. Or haven't you heard of the architects, structural engineers and physicists who have stepped forward, risking their own reputation, to question the official 'pancake' theory? (I have posted a link to an article discussing them earlier in the thread).

And every single university and professional organization agree with the OV..and all peer reviewed articles in academic journals. Sorry, not going to reopen and investigation for a bunch of wack jobs with no physical evidence of any other thing happening. Are you saying planes did not cause the collapse of the WTC?

Nice diversion from my question, but it hasn't worked. Explain to me, how investigating the activity of the executive branch leading up to and on 9/11 would have violated separation of powers.

You are a retard. You cannot investigate someone without probable cause and evidence. I cannot say someone might have committed a crime and then start investigating them without evidence. I have asked you for evidence showing there was criminal activity by the White House i.e. pro bable cause. You have provided none.



I'm inclined to doubt that.

It's called reliance on third-hand evidence... means that its shaky... means that the findings are less reliable.

Not less reliable. That is a farce. The government is one entity. Unless you are saying Al Qaeda is not responsible.

And you haven't shown how the CIA's decision is 'right.' All you said was that there were national security concerns. No-where did you bother to elaborate on what would have been so hazardous. 'National security concerns' and 'incompetence' seem the excuse for a lot of things

Are you saying Al Qaeda was not responsible and would have changed the outcome of the investigation

 

[Terral]

Hi Steezie:

9/11 Conspiracy Theory Question

Before answering your 9/11 question, I am a member of AE911Truth.org and the only demolition supervisor among all the members (search “Terral”). My NYPD Police Report on the Flight 93, Flight 77 and WTC-7 cases can be downloaded here. I have thousands of hours invested in my own 9/11 Investigation and know for certain that these attacks were definitely part of a ‘9/11 Inside Job.’ Before you begin making claims about “Conspiracy Theorists,” then remember George Bush’s story says 19 Bearded Jihadist Radicals (pic) pulled off these 9/11 attacks; which places him at the top of the Conspiracy Theorist list. :0)

I was discussing this with someone earlier and I've found that theres one problem with the "controlled demolition" idea (apart from the fact that its ludicrous) that conspiracy theorists cant seem to answer.

I can assure you and everyone here that this side of the debate has seen all the questions and can provide many of the answers using credible third-party evidence.

The contention is that the WTC was brought down by demolition explosives via a controlled demolition.

Let’s clear the air right at the top about the absolute fact that only ‘two’ theories exist for what took WTC-7 down in 6.6 seconds (video).

1. Controlled Demolition. 911Research.com

2. Building Fires / Debris

Typical building fires burn at 800 degrees Fahrenheit (Schwab.com/UL testing data), but sustained temperatures of 2800 degrees are required (link) to become the “Killer Fire” of any steel-framed skyscraper. Therefore, if you want to sit there and reject the Controlled Demolition explanation from hundreds of professional architects and engineers, then your job is to somehow prove that building fires did it. :0) Good Luck!

For research purposes, I've watched probably several dozen ACTUAL controlled demolitions of buildings and in EVERY SINGLE ONE there is one constant feature. That is a LOUD and completely audible explosion preceding the collapse.

Do you mean like these explosions going off everywhere ‘before’ the WTC skyscrapers collapsed into their own footprints?

WTC Explosions Video

More WTC Explosions

This is not "Well there was a witness who thinks he might have heard an explosion" no this is "I was two miles away and I heard it." ALL of Lower Manhattan would have heard the required explosives needed to bring down such large structures in such a fashion.

We agree that ‘some’ concussion explosions are required to bring down these WTC skyscrapers in a symmetrical demolition. The difference in ‘this case’ is that massive amounts of Thermate cutter charges were used to ‘sever’ the massive steel connections that ‘do not’ cause loud explosions:

Dr. Steven Jones video

Cutter Charge link

There were probably several dozen recording devices trained on the WTC at the time of the collapse and not a single one caught any hint of an explosion the requisite size. The only audio recording I have heard that hinted at something that size has a contested validity. So why is this? Where is the explosion?

You have not been looking very hard if you really think there were no explosions going off all day long (911Research.org eyewitness testimony) during these 9/11 attacks. The problem is that the Bush Administration and the Department of Defense and the FBI have been running Counterintelligence / Disinformation campaigns since ‘before’ these 911 attacks even took place, so that more Inside-Job Propaganda litters the internet than ‘the’ 911Truth. The bogus 911 Commission Report is a prime example of a ‘keyword sanitized’ document that never uses the term “explosions” outside the notations ‘and’ only used the singular term “explosion” six times in the entire 585 Page document. Look at this News Video taken outside the Pentagon and try to count the number of ‘explosions’ going off in the background:

Many Pentagon Explosions

My Pentagon Timeline details all the ‘explosions’ taking place in time stamped News Videos if anyone is really interested. The point is that the Official Arlington County After-Action Report (link) also uses the term “explosion” exactly six times and never uses the term “explosions” even once. The reason you are not so up-to-date on all the massive ‘explosions’ taking place on 9/11 is because that is exactly what the ‘real’ inside-job terrorists want you to believe, as they continue to micromanage information relating to ‘all’ these 9/11 atrocities in a MASSIVE cover up operation.

WTC-7 was wired for demolition in the weeks leading up to 9/11, until Larry “Pull It” Silverstein (link) gave the fateful command. The “fire chief” is really his Controlled Demolition Supervisor . . .

Silverstein Incriminating Himself

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Steezie]

Hi Steezie: Before answering your 9/11 question, I am a member of AE911Truth.org and the only demolition supervisor among all the members (search “Terral”). My NYPD Police Report on the Flight 93, Flight 77 and WTC-7 cases can be downloaded here. I have thousands of hours invested in my own 9/11 Investigation and know for certain that these attacks were definitely part of a ‘9/11 Inside Job.’ Before you begin making claims about “Conspiracy Theorists,” then remember George Bush’s story says 19 Bearded Jihadist Radicals (pic) pulled off these 9/11 attacks; which places him at the top of the Conspiracy Theorist list.

And Im a pre-certified welder who's job it is to know how steel behaves under high heat/stress situations to avoid failure. The CV weenie waving contest is never productive. I never one stated that I dont believe that anything was covered up. I do believe there was a cover-up of how badly the response was screwed up, how far they dropped the ball. But it ends there as far as Im concerned.

I can assure you and everyone here that this side of the debate has seen all the questions and can provide many of the answers using credible third-party evidence.

Ok, go

Let’s clear the air right at the top about the absolute fact that only ‘two’ theories exist for what took WTC-7 down in 6.6 seconds (video).

Are you talking credible theories or just theories in general?

Typical building fires burn at 800 degrees Fahrenheit (Schwab.com/UL testing data), but sustained temperatures of 2800 degrees are required (link) to become the “Killer Fire” of any steel-framed skyscraper. Therefore, if you want to sit there and reject the Controlled Demolition explanation from hundreds of professional architects and engineers, then your job is to somehow prove that building fires did it. :0) Good Luck!

**Shrug** Ok, the steel used in the construction of the WTC was A36 structural. Now, I dont have a good copy of the A36 structural specs but you can get one. A36 requires a temperature of between 2500-3000 degrees F before it will melt. HOWEVER it will begin to lose strength when heated above about 900 degrees.

Also you mis-stated information from your own link "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A typical fire burns at around 800°F." [/FONT]That is a typical FIRE, not a fire in a skyscraper fueld by jet fuel. It says further on that, "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]the fire's intensity changes as flammable items are consumed[/FONT]" Now, considering that the type of jet fuel that was in the planes when they hit has a max burning temperature of roughly 1700 degrees F, thats more than enough to weaken the steel beams.

Also, one thing most people dont take into account. Steel will change shape as its heated. This deforming can cause cracks in welds that hold the steel together and, if the deformation goes on for a long enough time, you will have failue at the welds (Trust me, from personal experience thats NOT hard to do)

The plane strikes the building and knocks off the flame-retardant (Which I have personally had to do, all you need is a screwdriver and you can scrape it off no problem) and exposes the steel to the high temperatures of the jet fuel fire.

Do you mean like these explosions going off everywhere ‘before’ the WTC skyscrapers collapsed into their own footprints?

<Video>

<Video>

Im hearing a lot of "I heard" and "It sounded like" I havent yet seen any actual verifiable footage that contains audible explosions.

We agree that &#8216;some&#8217; concussion explosions are required to bring down these WTC skyscrapers in a symmetrical demolition. The difference in &#8216;this case&#8217; is that massive amounts of Thermate cutter charges were used to &#8216;sever&#8217; the massive steel connections that &#8216;do not&#8217; cause loud explosions:

What evidence do you have that thermite or any derrivative thereof was used?

Cutter Charge link

The slant cut colums were cut during cleanup. Also, again as a demolition supervisor you should know this, thermite cannot cut at an angle.

You have not been looking very hard if you really think there were no explosions going off all day long (911Research.org eyewitness testimony) during these 9/11 attacks. The problem is that the Bush Administration and the Department of Defense and the FBI have been running Counterintelligence / Disinformation campaigns since &#8216;before&#8217; these 911 attacks even took place, so that more Inside-Job Propaganda litters the internet than &#8216;the&#8217; 911Truth. The bogus 911 Commission Report is a prime example of a &#8216;keyword sanitized&#8217; document that never uses the term &#8220;explosions&#8221; outside the notations &#8216;and&#8217; only used the singular term &#8220;explosion&#8221; six times in the entire 585 Page document. Look at this News Video taken outside the Pentagon and try to count the number of &#8216;explosions&#8217; going off in the background:

There is no physical evidence of explosions so I have to discount the testimony as erronious. What are these people's qualifications for picking out explosive sounds as opposed to a closet full of chemical cleaners or a boiler?

The Many Pentagon Explosions

I heard and saw nothing that was DEFINATELY demolitions explosives.

My Pentagon Timeline

details all the &#8216;explosions&#8217; taking place in time stamped News Videos if anyone is really interested. The point is that the Official Arlington County After-Action Report (link) also uses the term &#8220;explosion&#8221; exactly six times and never uses the term &#8220;explosions&#8221; even once. The reason you are not so up-to-date on all the massive &#8216;explosions&#8217; taking place on 9/11 is because that is exactly what the &#8216;real&#8217; inside-job terrorists want you to believe, as they continue to micromanage information relating to &#8216;all&#8217; these 9/11 atrocities in a MASSIVE cover up operation.

Tin foil hat stuff does not impress me

WTC-7 was wired for demolition in the weeks leading up to 9/11, until Larry &#8220;Pull It&#8221; Silverstein (link) gave the fateful command. The &#8220;fire chief&#8221; is really his Controlled Demolition Supervisor . . .

Then can you explain to me how, and you should know this if in fact you are a demolitions supervisor, the charges were planted in the WTC without it EVER being noticed or disrupting the daily office work of the people there?

Again, if you are in fact a demolitions supervisor, you should know that charges have to be placed on colums themselves which often necessitates the removal of drywall and other parts of the building that are kinda necessary for the building to function.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Sorry. Does not prove that the outcome would have been any different. None of these people had any direct involvement in investigating the cell that caused 09/11. I am sure they had valuable information, but most of what they were going to say was going to be redundant..Basically the government botched the job of combating terrorism. That was established by the Commisssion. They don't have to INTERVIEW everyone under the sun if the informaiton is going to be redundant.

How would their insight on the situation be considered redundant? I thought this was an investigation.

That has more to do with Iraq policy than 09/11 investigation. Regardless, it does not disprove or change the comission's final conclusions.

It does, however, show how the Commission's conclusions might have been altered due to bias resulting from a non-independent investigation. Which leaves us to ponder what else was either omitted, not investigated or distorted due to such bias. It is clear, that a non-independent investigation can result in bias, which makes the findings of the Commission less reliable. On such grounds alone, the Commission's findings can be drawn into question as to their value if they were made under biased direction. The text I cited earlier indicates biased interests in the favor of the Bush administration, particularly its Iraq policy.

It is for this reason, to ensure a full and proper investigation, with minimal bias from conflict of interest such as that which Zelikow presented, that the Family Steering Committee stated: "It is apparent that Dr. Zelikow should never have been permitted to be Executive Staff Director of the Commission. ... It is abdundantly clear that Dr. Zelikow's conflicts go beyond just the transition period. ... The Family Steering Committee is calling for 1. Dr. Zelikow's immediate resignation. ... 4. The Commission to apologize to the 9/11 families for this massive appearance of impropreity."

Now, I asked you previously to prove how the Commission was not biased and how it was independent.

I guess you missed the part of the article where the Dem Chairman of the Committee praised Zeilkow. There goes your bias argument and your argument saying he tried to protect ther adminstration. Great article.

Hamiliton rightly says that he "thinks" that Zelikow did not try to protect the administration. He "thinks" that a man who served on the Bush transition team and co-authored a book with Condolezza Rice, might not have been biased, and having control of the lines of inquiry, directed it in such a way so that the Bush administration would receive a lower level of scrutiny or less inquiry of depth.
Hamiliton also "thinks", according to what he said in a interview by Evan Solomon for a television program for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, that "super-heated jet-fuel melted the steel super-structure." I emphasize the word 'melted' because many individuals have previously pointed out that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. Popular Mechanics, in its attack, argued that no one claimed that jet-fuel fire could melt steel. And yet here we have the co-chair of the Commission believing and claiming as such. Griffin takes special note of this, and the notion that Hamiliton did not even "know specifically if it's [WTC 7] in the Report."

Possibly, but there were no bunkers and actually..the location of the President is pretty much a secret for the most part, especially these low key non political rally visits. Only the pres and the school administration knows ahead of time. .

So in a time of national crisis, the President is perhaps safest in a (was it public?) school?

And every single university and professional organization agree with the OV..and all peer reviewed articles in academic journals. Sorry, not going to reopen and investigation for a bunch of wack jobs with no physical evidence of any other thing happening. Are you saying planes did not cause the collapse of the WTC?

Not every single expert agrees with the official conspiracy theory. Many architects, structural engineers and physicists have risked their reputation in scrutinizing the official 'pancake' theory (I posted an article about it previously). And, I have also previously posted a link to a peer-reviewed journal article in the Open Civil Engineering Journal that questions further the 'pancake' theory and the mechanisms of collapse. Other military, intelligence and government officials and even pilots have also risked their reputation and come forth saying 'This doesn't seem right.' Not every "professional" agrees with the OV. It's reliability for accuracy is disputed.

You are a retard. You cannot investigate someone without probable cause and evidence. I cannot say someone might have committed a crime and then start investigating them without evidence. I have asked you for evidence showing there was criminal activity by the White House i.e. pro bable cause. You have provided none.

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/05/27/p25698

The article listed above is very brazen to say the least in getting its point out there. However, it may what you are requesting.

Not less reliable. That is a farce. The government is one entity. Unless you are saying Al Qaeda is not responsible.

Are you saying Al Qaeda was not responsible and would have changed the outcome of the investigation

You have not answered my question asking you to elaborate on the apparent security concerns that results in the Commission relying on third-hand evidence from an organization that its chairs believed obstructed its inquiry. You have neither debated how reliance on third-hand evidence can reduce the reliability for accuracy in the Commission's findings.


Well, I would love to continue this debate, I'm unlikely to offer many more replies, unless it is to call out silly ridicule arguments. I have a lot of work to do at this moment and these posts on this topic require a great deal of energy in research. All I can say is, truth does not fear investigation.

 

[seeker777]

There is nothing, absolutely nothing you could every produce that would convince a conspiracy advocate that they are wrong.

Ignore them, let them talk about their conspiracy theories amongst themselves and don't give them the time of day.

I repeat...you are wasting your time, energy and sanity in making a choice to engage a conspiracy advocate in debate....all of the science, physics, mathematics and expert advice will not discount their 18 second youtube video.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There is nothing, absolutely nothing you could every produce that would convince a conspiracy advocate that they are wrong.

Ignore them, let them talk about their conspiracy theories amongst themselves and don't give them the time of day.

I repeat...you are wasting your time, energy and sanity in making a choice to engage a conspiracy advocate in debate....all of the science, physics, mathematics and expert advice will not discount their 18 second youtube video.

We are all "conspiracy advocates" when discussing 9/11. You, myself and everyone in this discussion. There are very few who dare say that 9/11 happened by accident and no-one conspired for its occurrence.

 

[jamesrwright3]

How would their insight on the situation be considered redundant? I thought this was an investigation.

Dude, you don't interview everyone if they are going to say the same thing. None of these people had direct involvement in the 09/11 investigation or the investigation into the sleeper cells They interviewed hundreds of peoples and poured over tens of thousands of pages worth of documents. Can you prove that anything these people would have said would have changed anything

It does, however, show how the Commission's conclusions might have been altered due to bias resulting from a non-independent investigation. Which leaves us to ponder what else was either omitted, not investigated or distorted due to such bias. It is clear, that a non-independent investigation can result in bias, which makes the findings of the Commission less reliable. On such grounds alone, the Commission's findings can be drawn into question as to their value if they were made under biased direction. The text I cited earlier indicates biased interests in the favor of the Bush administration, particularly its Iraq policy.

It is for this reason, to ensure a full and proper investigation, with minimal bias from conflict of interest such as that which Zelikow presented, that the Family Steering Committee stated: "It is apparent that Dr. Zelikow should never have been permitted to be Executive Staff Director of the Commission. ... It is abdundantly clear that Dr. Zelikow's conflicts go beyond just the transition period. ... The Family Steering Committee is calling for 1. Dr. Zelikow's immediate resignation. ... 4. The Commission to apologize to the 9/11 families for this massive appearance of impropreity."

Nope, there was no bias, as per your article. Tell us how it may have been biased in its conclusions.

Now, I asked you previously to prove how the Commission was not biased and how it was independent.

I did. It was bipartisan and no one on the committee said it was biased. I can't prove a negative. You need to show how it was biased i.e. came to wrong conclusions.

Hamiliton rightly says that he "thinks" that Zelikow did not try to protect the administration. He "thinks" that a man who served on the Bush transition team and co-authored a book with Condolezza Rice, might not have been biased, and having control of the lines of inquiry, directed it in such a way so that the Bush administration would receive a lower level of scrutiny or less inquiry of depth.

Dude, you are a flippin dumb ass. The Dem chairman said he did not steer the investigation and was actually an asset. Get off the drugs

Hamiliton also "thinks", according to what he said in a interview by Evan Solomon for a television program for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, that "super-heated jet-fuel melted the steel super-structure." I emphasize the word 'melted' because many individuals have previously pointed out that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. Popular Mechanics, in its attack, argued that no one claimed that jet-fuel fire could melt steel. And yet here we have the co-chair of the Commission believing and claiming as such. Griffin takes special note of this, and the notion that Hamiliton did not even "know specifically if it's [WTC 7] in the Report."

Uhh it does get hot enough to SIGNIFICANTLY weaken steel, especially if combined with heavy structural damage

So in a time of national crisis, the President is perhaps safest in a (was it public?) school?

yes, until they know what is going on.

Not every single expert agrees with the official conspiracy theory. Many architects, structural engineers and physicists have risked their reputation in scrutinizing the official 'pancake' theory (I posted an article about it previously). And, I have also previously posted a link to a peer-reviewed journal article in the Open Civil Engineering Journal that questions further the 'pancake' theory and the mechanisms of collapse. Other military, intelligence and government officials and even pilots have also risked their reputation and come forth saying 'This doesn't seem right.' Not every "professional" agrees with the OV. It's reliability for accuracy is disputed.

Dude, you are on crack. No academic journal has given your dumb ass theory any credence because it is a crock of doo doo. I am sorry, an open journal is really not a journal at all because it does not meet the same standards as an academic journal in terms of peer review

if it is a LEGITIMATE journal, please tell which engineering library stocks it.

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/05/27/p25698

The article listed above is very brazen to say the least in getting its point out there. However, it may what you are requesting.

Not listening to goofy ass conspiracy theory web sites.

You have not answered my question asking you to elaborate on the apparent security concerns that results in the Commission relying on third-hand evidence from an organization that its chairs believed obstructed its inquiry. You have neither debated how reliance on third-hand evidence can reduce the reliability for accuracy in the Commission's findings.

There are no security concerns. Can you show me how the committees conclusions that Al Qaeda did it would have changed?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In reply to James... now you say that are no security concerns, when you previously argued that the reason the CIA wouldn't give the Commission access was because of such security concerns, which you never bothered to elaborate on.
And I have provided you with a legitimate peer-reviewed academic journal article. You just keep shifting the goalposts.
Your claim that the commission was "bipartisian" is still questionable given Zelikow's conflict of interest. And I have already addressed ad naeusam how bias may affect the Commission's conclusions and how it renders its findings less reliable in terms of accuracy.
I also never claimed that the Dem chairman "steered the investigation." So you are essentially putting words in my mouth.
And you continue to persist with the ad homs. I am contemplating not even dignifying your posts with a reply. For the last time, ridicule does not count for knowledge.

 

[Btodd]

Before answering your 9/11 question, I am a member of AE911Truth.org

You mean the organization that considers electrical engineers and landscape architects as credible experts on structural engineering and controlled demolitions?

Typical building fires burn at 800 degrees Fahrenheit (Schwab.com/UL testing data), but sustained temperatures of 2800 degrees are required (link) to become the “Killer Fire” of any steel-framed skyscraper. Therefore, if you want to sit there and reject the Controlled Demolition explanation from hundreds of professional architects and engineers, then your job is to somehow prove that building fires did it. :0) Good Luck!

I guess you're going to ignore any structural damage sustained to the building, the top-down collapse, and assume that unless the fires can be proven to your satisfaction, that we're suppose to accept 'controlled demolitions' as the only alternative by default? I don't think so.

We agree that ‘some’ concussion explosions are required to bring down these WTC skyscrapers in a symmetrical demolition. The difference in ‘this case’ is that massive amounts of Thermate cutter charges were used to ‘sever’ the massive steel connections that ‘do not’ cause loud explosions:

Ah, so it's controlled demolitions PLUS theoretical thermate demolitions. Where are the massive amounts of evidence for the massive amounts of thermate cutter charges you propose?

How were these charges mounted? When? By whom? How was the amount of thermate necessary fed to the point of severance? How did thermate cut sideways through a vertical column, and how was it timed perfectly to mimic a gravity-driven, top-down collapse that started at the plane's impact point? Are there any examples of anyone EVER using thermate to sever vertical columns in a building, or using it in demolitions at all?

Cutter Charge link

Sheared beams? You've no doubt been shown the footage of cleanup workers cutting these beams (Steezie posted a great video) with a torch in your time on the JREF Forums and elsewhere, so I think any attempt to present them as part of some fantasy about thermate demolitions is highly dishonest.

The rest of your post was a hodge-podge of the usual buzzwords and general paranoia that drive the Truth Movement. And you're still using 'Pull it' with a straight face? :o


Btodd

 

[Terral]

Hi Steezie:

And Im a pre-certified welder who's job it is to know how steel behaves under high heat/stress situations to avoid failure. The CV weenie waving contest is never productive. I never one stated that I dont believe that anything was covered up. I do believe there was a cover-up of how badly the response was screwed up, how far they dropped the ball. But it ends there as far as Im concerned.

If Steezie wants to try and prove that &#8220;Building Fires / Debris&#8221; brought down WTC-7 in 6.6 seconds, then give us your best shot. :0) This side of the debate will continue to point out all of the Controlled Demolition evidence pointing directly to the 9/11 Inside Job for this WTC-7 case &#8216;and&#8217; for the Flight 93 case &#8216;and&#8217; for the Flight 77 case.

Ok, go. Are you talking credible theories or just theories in general?

There are only TWO explanations for what took WTC-7 down into its own footprint (Controlled Demolition and Building Fires / Debris) and my case was made above. Yes. I am very interested to see how a welder defends the &#8220;Building Fires Did It&#8221; theory. :0)

**Shrug** Ok, the steel used in the construction of the WTC was A36 structural. Now, I dont have a good copy of the A36 structural specs but you can get one. A36 requires a temperature of between 2500-3000 degrees F before it will melt. HOWEVER it will begin to lose strength when heated above about 900 degrees.

No sir. You are attempting to spout off Loyal Bushie LIES having no basis in structural steel reality whatsoever. We are NOT talking about how a little piece of iron acts in your controlled laboratory situations! We ARE talking about how 2800-degree structural red iron steel (like this only much bigger) behaves in a steel-framed network (like this)! WTC-7 was comprised of thousands of massive columns (like this), girders, beams (some 9 feet tall) bolted and welded together into one massive network (like this). This means that any heat energy introduced to any given component would be spread out evenly throughout the entire steel-framed network. There is NO SUCH THING as one of these network components &#8216;losing strength&#8217; (heh) at any 900 degrees, because the heat energy never remains in any one location long enough to weaken anything. Steel is an excellent conductor of heat and the heat energy in any given column would be transported &#8216;away&#8217; from the heat source to heat the ENTIRE NETWORK. While your single column or beam is heating up to 300 degrees, then the energy is passing into the adjacent beams more quickly than the fire can introduce more energy into the network. Building fires simply do NOT have sufficient energy to produce the kinds of temperatures required to bring down ANY steel framed network. Period!

Your job is to show us how building fires &#8216;severed&#8217; literally thousands of connections in this steel-framed network simultaneously causing WTC-7 to symmetrical collapse into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds. :0) Your problem is that WTC-7 was built using Compartmentalization of all steel supports (see 5.3.3 Compartmentalization) using solid concrete slabs horizontally &#8216;and&#8217; curtain walls (2 to 10 inches thick) vertically. This means any given building fire is contained within concrete boundaries to extinguish the fuel source WITHOUT having the ability to pass through into the adjacent sub-compartments. Your next problem is that WTC-7 had very little in the way of building fires (video) that were limited to just a few floors. :0) Your problem is that steel-framed skyscrapers have burned like a Roman Candle for over 24 hours without any CD-like collapse (Madrid story = pic). Here is a picture of WTC-7 in &#8216;full freefall&#8217; (here) without one sign of any &#8216;fires&#8217; (heh) through any of the unbroken windows. Go ahead and try to explain how &#8220;Building Fires Did It.&#8221; :0)

Also you mis-stated information from your own link "A typical fire burns at around 800°F." That is a typical FIRE, not a fire in a skyscraper fueld by jet fuel.

WTC-7 was NOT hit by any Jetliner and is 350 feet away from the nearest of the Twin Towers. Hopefully you intend on making a case for how typical building fires took down WTC-7 in just a few cotton picking hours using more than just talk, talk, talk! :0)

It says further on that, "the fire's intensity changes as flammable items are consumed" Now, considering that the type of jet fuel that was in the planes when they hit has a max burning temperature of roughly 1700 degrees F, thats more than enough to weaken the steel beams.

Please help me stop laughing . . . WTC-7 was NOT hit by any Jetliner or anything similar! Also, as a welder, you should know &#8216;sustained&#8217; temperatures are required to begin cutting massive red iron connections. Your job is to explain how building fires &#8216;severed&#8217; ALL of these massive steel connections (from this building) to create the tiny little pile (pic) in a single symmetrical collapse! You are talking about &#8216;weakened&#8217; steel (heh) being &#8216;severed&#8217; simultaneously and completely throughout the entire steel-framed network, when that is very much impossible in this &#8220;Compartmentalized&#8221; situation. The fact that you ramble on aimlessly about &#8216;jet fuel&#8217; in this WTC-7 case is really very embarrassing to you and your &#8220;Building Fires Did It&#8221; case. :0)

Also, one thing most people dont take into account. Steel will change shape as its heated.

Talk, talk and more talk! The heat energy is spread evenly throughout the ENTIRE steel-frame network. There is no such thing as a single component heating up to any 1700 degrees (heh), while the adjacent columns and beams remain cool. No sir. Heat energy runs very quickly from the hot areas into the cool areas to gradually heat up the ENTIRE NETWORK.

This deforming can cause cracks in welds that hold the steel together and, if the deformation goes on for a long enough time, you will have failue at the welds (Trust me, from personal experience thats NOT hard to do)

Please forgive, but I do not believe a single word coming out of your mouth. Building fires have NEVER caused the symmetrical collapse of ANY steel-framed skyscraper in the history of this planet before or after 9/11, because they do not produce sufficient energy to elevate the temperature of the entire network above what is required. You are talking about &#8220;if the deformation goes on for a long time&#8221; (heh) in complete defiance to the fact that WTC-7 collapsed into its own footprint in just a few cotton picking hours!

The plane strikes the building and knocks off the flame-retardant (Which I have personally had to do, all you need is a screwdriver and you can scrape it off no problem) and exposes the steel to the high temperatures of the jet fuel fire.

If you want to continue embarrassing yourself with all of this &#8220;plane&#8221; and &#8220;jet fuel&#8221; nonsense, then please be my guest. However, I see NOTHING convincing in your testimony to support any &#8220;Building Fires Did It&#8221; explanation for this WTC-7 case at all. Zip, zero, nada, nothing.

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Terral]

Hi seeker:

There is nothing, absolutely nothing you could every produce that would convince a conspiracy advocate that they are wrong.

Here is &#8216;seeker&#8217;s&#8217; problem in a nutshell:

1. He is severely outgunned in this WTC-7 debate.
2. The Official Government Cover Story says 19 Bearded Jihadists (pic) carried out these 9/11 attacks and he supports that nonsense.
3. Seeker has no &#8220;Building Fires Did It&#8221; case and no idea of how to present one using WTC-7 evidence.
4. WTC-7 was struck my no plane or anything similar.
5. We have hundreds of professional architects and engineers (link) and scholars (link) with tons of evidence saying these WTC skyscrapers were taken down using Controlled Demolition.
6. Everyone with an explanation for what took WTC-7 down in 6.6 seconds is in the Conspiracy Theory business, unless you really think these attacks were carried out by a single individual.
7. Seeker is not &#8216;seeking&#8217; anything, but is here to point you in the direction of the Official Government Cover Stories for all of these &#8216;related&#8217; 9/11 cases.

Ignore them, let them talk about their conspiracy theories amongst themselves and don't give them the time of day.

If &#8216;seeker&#8217; is really seeking &#8216;the&#8217; 911Truth, then why is he doing this? If seeker does have a &#8220;Building Fires Did It&#8221; explanation for how WTC-7 collapsed into its own footprint in just a few hours, then this is his grand opportunity to present &#8216;his&#8217; conspiracy theory. :0)

I repeat...you are wasting your time, energy and sanity in making a choice to engage a conspiracy advocate in debate....all of the science, physics, mathematics and expert advice will not discount their 18 second youtube video.

Bullony! You are being handed a MOUNTAIN of Controlled Demolition evidence and would rather stick your head in the sand &#8216;and&#8217; believe 19 Bearded Jihadist Radicals pulled off these attacks. :0) Simply &#8220;quote >>&#8221; anything you see errant in any of my posts on this topic and offer your opposing &#8220;Building Fires Did It&#8221; explanations using whatever seeker calls &#8216;credible evidence.&#8217; Do you really have evidence that building fires brought down WTC-7 laying around handy? :0) The funny thing is that the bogus 911 Commission Report does not even mention the WTC-7 collapse &#8216;and&#8217; the NIST cronies have yet to make their findings public. Therefore, I am wondering how seeker draws &#8216;his&#8217; Building Fires Did It conclusions, when the supposed experts have NOT been able to produce that kind of evidence in all these years? :0) Do you have any 'precedent' for building fires taking down steel-frame skyscrapers to create a CD-like symmetrical collapse? Please haul out 'your' evidence and make 'your' case.

Good luck in the debate, if you ever develop a &#8220;Building Fires Did It&#8221; explanation . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Terral]

Hi Todd with Steezie mentioned:

You mean the organization that considers electrical engineers and landscape architects as credible experts on structural engineering and controlled demolitions?

This is Todd&#8217;s &#8220;Building Fires Did It&#8221; explanation for this WTC-7 Case? Your Loyal Bushie explanation is about as funny as your avatar. :0) Steezie is a &#8216;welder&#8217; and we are supposed to take his word that Building Fires Did It! Richard Gage, AIA is no landscape architect (link). Anyone can go through all of the member categories here and decide for themselves if Todd and Steezie (heh) make better expert witnesses. Please forgive if I am willing to take accept the testimony of these professionals and these reputable scholars than yours. :0)

I guess you're going to ignore any structural damage sustained to the building, the top-down collapse, and assume that unless the fires can be proven to your satisfaction, that we're suppose to accept 'controlled demolitions' as the only alternative by default? I don't think so.

Just haul out &#8216;your&#8217; evidence that &#8220;Building Fires Did It&#8221; for this WTC-7 case and these readers can decide for themselves. Here is a picture again of WTC-7 during the collapse (pic) &#8216;and&#8217; you see no signs of even a broken window. Before you say, &#8220;The damage is on the other side of the building&#8221; (heh), then we are talking about a &#8216;symmetrical&#8217; (straight down) &#8216;collapse&#8217; (pick your video) with all four sides coming down simultaneously. How did your &#8216;damaged&#8217; side fall at the same exact rate as this undamaged sides, according to &#8216;your&#8217; Building Fires Did It explanation? :0) This picture (pic) from this website shows the telltale &#8216;Kink&#8217; in the roofline common to typical CD implosions, because the middle of the building is collapsing &#8216;faster&#8217; than the two sides in order to lay the debris down in a little bitty pile (pic). How were thousands of steel connections &#8216;severed&#8217; at the very same time to create this CD-like symmetrical collapse? :0) Oh, you have no case for anything, so just keep on talking . . .

Ah, so it's controlled demolitions PLUS theoretical thermate demolitions. Where are the massive amounts of evidence for the massive amounts of thermate cutter charges you propose?

If you bothered to actually &#8216;read&#8217; from my work above (you obviously did not), then perhaps you would have encountered the work of Dr. Steven Jones (here) and the attached video (here). We have tons and tons and tons of molten metal in massive pools under &#8216;all three&#8217; WTC skyscrapers burning above 1500 degrees Centigrade six to eight weeks &#8216;after&#8217; 9/11 leaving huge iron biscuits (like this) that cannot possibly be produced in any typical building fire.

How were these charges mounted? When? By whom?

Very carefully, before 9/11 and by the real inside-job bad guys. If you have evidence for Senor Bushie&#8217;s &#8220;Building Fires Did It&#8221; Official Cover Story Explanation, then this is the time to being presenting that to these readers. WTC-7 collapsed into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds like from any typical building implosion.

How was the amount of thermate necessary fed to the point of severance?

Stop being foolish! You either &#8216;do&#8217; have a Building Fires Did It case &#8216;or&#8217; you do not. Period. How is Todd going to make &#8216;his&#8217; Building Fires Did It case by asking a kazillion irrelevant questions? LOL!

How did thermate cut sideways through a vertical column, and how was it timed perfectly to mimic a gravity-driven, top-down collapse that started at the plane's impact point?

How did thermite cutter charges (link) cut sideways? :0) Charges are placed (like this) at 45-degree angles allowing specific column lines to collapse in one of the four directions and detonated according a precision symmetrical collapse strategy, according to a predetermined coordinated plan. Taking down large buildings is a science &#8216;and&#8217; an art for those skilled in the profession. However, your job is to show everyone here how Building Fires could possibly produce the same results. Good Luck. :0)

Are there any examples of anyone EVER using thermate to sever vertical columns in a building, or using it in demolitions at all?

Yes. We see three prime examples in these WTC cases. :0) Thermate cutter charges are illegal, because the aluminum/iron oxide, barium nitrate compounds and sulfur are not traceable to any legitimate demolitions production company, but these bad guys were not carrying out any typical CD job . . .

Sheared beams? You've no doubt been shown the footage of cleanup workers cutting these beams (Steezie posted a great video) with a torch in your time on the JREF Forums and elsewhere, so I think any attempt to present them as part of some fantasy about thermate demolitions is highly dishonest.

Please forgive, but Todd has not presented any evidence for ANYTHING and your buddy Steezie is only a welder writing on these WTC cases. Since you do not accept the testimony of the 400+ professional architects and engineers and their scholarly counterparts, then surely you do NOT expect these readers to side with Todd and a welder. :0)

The rest of your post was a hodge-podge of the usual buzzwords and general paranoia that drive the Truth Movement. And you're still using 'Pull it' with a straight face?

Please try again when you &#8216;do&#8217; have a Building Fires Did It explanation for how WTC-7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds into its own footprint on 9/11. GL in the debate,

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[jamesrwright3]

Wow I thought I had seen some true idiocy in this thread but the last poster takes the cake. LOL what a goofball

 

[Terral]

Hi James:

Wow I thought I had seen some true idiocy in this thread but the last poster takes the cake. LOL what a goofball

Goofball? :0) What did James manage to 'quote >>' from my work to prove errant using 'his' credible "Building Fires Did It" evidence? Hmmmm? The real goofball is the guy adding two-sentence drivel to this very important debate on the Controlled Demolition of WTC-7 on 9/11. I have over 400 professional architects and engineers 'and' scholars on my side. What does James have? Nothing. :0)

The empty handed members coming out here to call people names are the ones running around with 'no' Building Fires Did It arguments for anything. I am sorry you have been reduced to calling people names, but please try again when you 'do' come up with a Building Fires Did It explanation that makes one lick of sense.

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[jamesrwright3]

Hi James:



Goofball? :0) What did James manage to 'quote >>' from my work to prove errant using 'his' credible "Building Fires Did It" evidence? Hmmmm? The real goofball is the guy adding two-sentence drivel to this very important debate on the Controlled Demolition of WTC-7 on 9/11. I have over 400 professional architects and engineers 'and' scholars on my side. What does James have? Nothing. :0)

The empty handed members coming out here to call people names are the ones running around with 'no' Building Fires Did It arguments for anything. I am sorry you have been reduced to calling people names, but please try again when you 'do' come up with a Building Fires Did It explanation that makes one lick of sense.

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

Sorry, you are just an idiot, plain and simple. There is no peer reviewed academic journal article or any major professional engineering organization study or any academic institution which supports such a looney theory
So you have nothing on your side.

Checkmate
You lose