Merged 9/11 Threads

[DaGip]

Okay...
Go!

[Neutrino]

... in text format.

[DaGip]

Solid Liugi should be in on this one.

[Neutrino]

I think Blackglass' amazing yelling powers scared him off a bit...

[DaGip]

I think Blackglass' amazing yelling powers scared him off a bit...

Yeah, Blackglass can really yell through a computer screen! LOL!

[Dekloren]

http://www.911truth.org

http://911research.wtc7.net

Good start for your own research.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidenc ... c3456.html
Look at WTC buildings 3,4,5,and 6.

All MUCH MUCH closer to the towers, yet the buildings still stand.

Building 7 was over 200 feet away, across the street, yet it managed to collapse on itself completely symmetrically, into it's own basement.

Gee, that doesn't sound like the GOAL of a controlled demolition.

[Neutrino]

Look, I don't care about WTC7. I'm not a metallurgist or structual engineer, and neither are you. Any arguments about those subjects will consist entirely of both of us quoting various experts. Not my idea of a great time.

A TT-oriented subject that doesn't require extensive knowledge of the given field is the only one where interesting and original (as much as it possible on the internet) arguments can be created. Why don't you, instead of trying to drown me with links, try to explain why THEIR plan was so shoddy? Or where the death camps where thousands of minor government workers now reside are. If you can come up with non-structural questions, I'll try to answer those too.

If you don't want to construct an intelligent argument, I'm sure you'll have a great time in a shouting match with Blackglass...

[DaGip]

www.911truth.org

http://911research.wtc7.net

Good start for your own research.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidenc ... c3456.html
Look at WTC buildings 3,4,5,and 6.

All MUCH MUCH closer to the towers, yet the buildings still stand.

Building 7 was over 200 feet away, across the street, yet it managed to collapse on itself completely symmetrically, into it's own basement.

Gee, that doesn't sound like the GOAL of a controlled demolition.

Uh? Neutrino doesn't like all these video links, he would rather you put your evidence in text format...didn't you read? You know, you write something intelligent (perhaps have a link for reference) and then Neutrino will write something intelligent and so on and so forth.

I think you miss understood.

At least Jay wasn't as bland as you in just posting video links, and Xtra at least had some good rants...but just posting vid links and telling everybody to do their own research? I could do that without this thread.

[Dekloren]

Um???

Those links don't contain videos.

Of course you don't care about building 7.

Unexplainable other than with a controlled demolition.


A New York Times article theorizes that diesel fuel tanks were responsible for the collapse of Building 7 of the WTC. It collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, even though it was farther away from the Twin Towers than many other buildings that remained standing (see (5:20 p.m.) September 11, 2001). It was the first time a steel-reinforced high-rise in the US had ever collapsed in a fire. One of the fuel tanks had been installed in 1999 (see June 8, 1999) as part of a new “Command Center” for Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. [New York Times, 3/2/2002; Dow Jones Business News, 9/10/2002] However, in interviews, several Fire Department officers who were on the scene say they were not aware of any combustible liquid pool fires in WTC 7. [Fire Engineering, 9/2002] And, according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), between 11:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. on 9/11, “No diesel smells [were] reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby areas” of WTC 7. [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 6/2004, pp. L-22 ] Curiously, given all the Wall Street scandals later in the year, Building 7 housed the SEC files related to numerous Wall Street investigations, as well as other federal investigative files. All the files for approximately 3,000 to 4,000 SEC cases were destroyed. Some were backed up in other places, but many were not, especially those classified as confidential. [New York Law Journal, 9/17/2001] Lost files include documents that could show the relationship between Citigroup and the WorldCom bankruptcy. [Street, 8/9/2002] The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission estimates over 10,000 cases will be affected. [New York Law Journal, 9/14/2001] The Secret Service had its largest field office, with more than 200 employees, in WTC 7 and also lost investigative files. Says one agent: “All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building.” [Tech TV, 7/23/2002] The IRS and Department of Defense were also tenants, along with the CIA, which, it has been revealed, had a secret office in Building 7. [CNN, 11/4/2001; New York Times, 11/4/2001; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, pp. 5-2; New York Magazine, 3/20/2006] A few days later, the head of the WTC collapse investigation says he “would possibly consider examining” the collapse of Building 7, but by this time all the rubble has already been removed and destroyed. [US Congress, 3/6/2002]
Entity Tags: WorldCom, US Department of Defense, World Trade Center, Secret Service, Securities and Exchange Commission, Citibank, Internal Revenue Service, Central Intelligence Agency

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/enti ... y=worldcom

[Neutrino]

*facepalm*

It's like Jay and Xtra combined, but without the occasional sparks of intelligence or humor...

[DaGip]

*facepalm*

It's like Jay and Xtra combined, but without the occasional sparks of intelligence or humor...

My thoughts exactly...it's like a genetically spliced clone of both Jay and Xtra, but something is slightly askew...like a far off stare, part living, yet something a bit artificial and androidish.

We should make a movie!

[Neutrino]

Genius!

He could be mutated to giant size and stomp his way across lower Manhattan...

[Dekloren]

It's almost 5 am.

I'm tired.

I don't care right now to spend a half hour writing "something intelligent" especially when you disregard any evidence and especially building 7.

Why did it fall???

How??

Does the above paragraph not give good enough reasons for it to be demolished??

Oh, and don't forget Larry Silverstein saying, "We decided to pull it", referring to building 7. Pull is a term used from demolitions.
Google Larry Silverstein.

[DaGip]

It's almost 5 am.

I'm tired.

I don't care right now to spend a half hour writing "something intelligent" especially when you disregard any evidence and especially building 7.

Why did it fall???

How??

Does the above paragraph not give good enough reasons for it to be demolished??

Oh, and don't forget Larry Silverstein saying, "We decided to pull it", referring to building 7. Pull is a term used from demolitions.
Google Larry Silverstein.

Yes, get some sleep. Refresh your mind. Return tomorrow. The thread will still be here, like an old freind...waiting for your return.

[Neutrino]

I already said it once, but I'll give you the benifit of the doubt.

Structural engineering is not an interesting topic

You quote a site and I quote something from the NIST. Then you quote something that rebutts that and I return the complement. ad nauseum. If I wanted an argument that doesn't go anywhere, I would have a shouting match with a 10 year old. It won't be proved or disproved by uneducated fools quoting their more experienced betters on the internet, so why bother? I fully admit there are many fishy things in the NIST's interpretation, but equally many in the conspiracy theorest's arguments.

Look, if you really want to talk about WTC7, I have a question for you. Why? Why detonate WTC7? The casualties of that single tower would have been hugely eclipsed by the main towers themselves. Why undertake a very risky and unnatural looking course of action for virtually no gain? These people managed to organice a national or global deception. I would imagine they have a basic grasp of logic.

[DaGip]

I think I am going to get an engineering degree, just so I can be qualified to debate this very subject!

[Dekloren]

lol@NIST


NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable
Implicitly acknowledges controlled demolition only means by which towers could have fallen at free fall speed
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, October 16, 2007



The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.

In a recent letter (PDF link) to 9/11 victim's family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the "collapse initiation" proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics.


In addition, NIST's own studies confirmed that virtually none of the steel in either tower reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees. The point at which steel weakens is 1000 degrees and melting point is reached at 1,500 degrees, according to NIST itself.

"NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support," writes Kevin Barrett of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors."

"But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment--a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air."

"Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST's ridiculous "initiation" scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon," concludes Barrett.
NIST have yet to properly address the sudden freefall collapse of WTC Building 7, which imploded on the late afternoon of 9/11 despite not being hit by a jetliner.

In August 2006, NIST promised to scientifically evaluate whether explosive devices could have contributed to the 47-story building's collapse but no answers have been forthcoming.

In August of this year, James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, called for an independent inquiry into NIST's investigation of the collapse of the twin towers.

Quintiere said NIST's conclusions were "questionable", that they failed to follow standard scientific procedures and that their failure to address Building 7 belied the fact that the investigation was incomplete.

[Neutrino]

*sigh*

[Dekloren]

Didn't think so!

[Dekloren]

Look, if you really want to talk about WTC7, I have a question for you. Why? Why detonate WTC7? The casualties of that single tower would have been hugely eclipsed by the main towers themselves. Why undertake a very risky and unnatural looking course of action for virtually no gain? These people managed to organice a national or global deception. I would imagine they have a basic grasp of logic.

Um??

A New York Times article theorizes that diesel fuel tanks were responsible for the collapse of Building 7 of the WTC. It collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, even though it was farther away from the Twin Towers than many other buildings that remained standing (see (5:20 p.m.) September 11, 2001). It was the first time a steel-reinforced high-rise in the US had ever collapsed in a fire. One of the fuel tanks had been installed in 1999 (see June 8, 1999) as part of a new “Command Center” for Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. [New York Times, 3/2/2002; Dow Jones Business News, 9/10/2002] However, in interviews, several Fire Department officers who were on the scene say they were not aware of any combustible liquid pool fires in WTC 7. [Fire Engineering, 9/2002] And, according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), between 11:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. on 9/11, “No diesel smells [were] reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby areas” of WTC 7. [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 6/2004, pp. L-22 ] Curiously, given all the Wall Street scandals later in the year, Building 7 housed the SEC files related to numerous Wall Street investigations, as well as other federal investigative files. All the files for approximately 3,000 to 4,000 SEC cases were destroyed. Some were backed up in other places, but many were not, especially those classified as confidential. [New York Law Journal, 9/17/2001] Lost files include documents that could show the relationship between Citigroup and the WorldCom bankruptcy. [Street, 8/9/2002] The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission estimates over 10,000 cases will be affected. [New York Law Journal, 9/14/2001] The Secret Service had its largest field office, with more than 200 employees, in WTC 7 and also lost investigative files. Says one agent: “All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building.” [Tech TV, 7/23/2002] The IRS and Department of Defense were also tenants, along with the CIA, which, it has been revealed, had a secret office in Building 7. [CNN, 11/4/2001; New York Times, 11/4/2001; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, pp. 5-2; New York Magazine, 3/20/2006] A few days later, the head of the WTC collapse investigation says he “would possibly consider examining” the collapse of Building 7, but by this time all the rubble has already been removed and destroyed. [US Congress, 3/6/2002]
Entity Tags: WorldCom, US Department of Defense, World Trade Center, Secret Service, Securities and Exchange Commission, Citibank, Internal Revenue Service, Central Intelligence Agency

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/enti ... y=worldcom

[Dekloren]

I think I am going to get an engineering degree, just so I can be qualified to debate this very subject!

10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the "collapse initiation" proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics.

All you need to know, my good man.

[Neutrino]

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=w8ye4mYR878

This is a direct quote from the above link.

"According to Dr. Neutrino, God-Emperor of Humanity, it "makes no sence for the government to have destroyed WTC7. Secret Service files can be desposed of in other, simpler ways. Why destroy an entire building in an awkward manner when you can just claim any incriminating files were "lost"?" Dr. Neutrino then disproves the explosives used in the TT with his several hundred thousand years experience as an expert demolitionist. "Thermite does not work that way. Period. Thermite simply does not produce enough gas to produce the clouds apparently seen. It doesn't produce enough kinetic energy to embed a 20 ton beam in an adjacent building, unless present in enough quantity to destroy the beams through its sheer weight. Mixing conventional explosives in makes no sense, either. Why not just use more almost untracable Thermite? You can even say it was the drywall, for added amusement""

[Dekloren]

Clown.

"Thermite simply does not produce enough gas to produce the clouds apparently seen. It doesn't produce enough kinetic energy to embed a 20 ton beam in an adjacent building, unless present in enough quantity to destroy the beams through its sheer weight. Mixing conventional explosives in makes no sense, either.""

Also, if thermite or conventional explosives don't have the energy to do that, a falling building does???

You just proved it yourself, man.

You seem half intelligent, use it.

[Dekloren]

Don't forget to mention the "passport" they found of the "hijacker" that was later found alive. The amazing passport that flew out of his pocket, out of the plane, through a brimestones fireball, and landed on the ground unscathed.

Also the other about 6 of the "hijackers" found alive.

Thanks!

[Frigidus]

I'll get to this after class...although I'd honestly appreciate it if someone could find Backglass' old post where he actually had NIST quotes explaining 9/11. Right now I'm busy.