It is difficult to see properly, but these pictures appear to show the remnants of WTC2's core still standing for a little while, after the rest of the towers had collapsed. It's obscured by dust, of course.
Showing the core was still present after the collapses, shows that the core was not demolished to initiate collapse, as conspiracy theorists argue. So....are these the cores?
Here's the video:
And here's WTC1 core - image first - then the video from which the stills were taken:
63 comments:
Look at this view of WTC 7 in relation to the North Tower. [Youre good at copying and pasting, so copy this link into your search bar and view the pics]
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos
/wtc1exp5.html
Look at the amount of the North Tower that sticks out from WTC 7---and THEN look at your video clip again. It is OBVIOUS and CLEAR that in your videos, it is the outer shell of the building that remains standing, NOT the 47 CORE columns.
If the core columns was still standing, WTC 7 would either obscure them [depending on the length of what was still remaining] or the columns would be sticking up in FRONT OF WTC 7----not off to the side of it like your videos show.
As you can CLEARLY see in the pictures above [that i sent the link to]---the core columns of the North Tower would be IN FRONT OF WTC 7--partially obscured by the west side of WTC 7 if they had still been standing.
Debunked AGAIN
Oh and by the way, bonehead---did you even WATCH the full clip you posted? Even that outer shell that you think is the CORE collapses at the end of the video!
So I debunked your original claim that it was even the cores to begin with--- and as it turns out, your claim that the shell remained standing isnt even true!! My god you make this EASY!
Hey Larry, please don't call him names. So TLNL, please answer his exact points. Like I've said before I haven't a clue about this, these details the two of you are going over. But for a pure newbie like me to ever grasp any of this I need this to be presented clear as day.
I am pretty cool at discussing the few things I know, like I think Bin Laden has been dead for years, I think he denied being behind the attacks, which he never would have done if he was behind them. But yeah, then the debunkers say he didn't want to get in trouble with the Taliban or whatever the Afghanis in control were called. Ugh, I see a lot of enigma in this. But I do think Larry is correct to argue about number 7. That was no small building. Yes, debris seems to have fallen and caused fire in it, but I have seen some other big buidings have been on fire in a similar way and never dropped like a controlled demolition.
But yeah, then the debunkers will come in again and say that wasn't exactly free fall. Please guys, no name calling, except if in a most benign, perhaps playful manner. And hey Larry, are you linking to Rense.com? If so, please don't. If you want to be taken seriously for your content, it is important to be aware of who you are associating with. Kudos for dropping the other thing, Carto or something. Uhm, for those who don't know it, I have been the best chemmie writer since 2006. I learned the hard way that there are folks who say they are believers in a weather mitigation program but are determined to muddy the waters and apply a tinfoil by association image to these types of topics.
And oh yeah, I think I won the debate with TLNL with the Bin Laden alive or at least deadly sick on dialysis and with the put options. I think it was a draw on the alleged fundamentalist terrorists going to strip clubs and drinking with bimbos. Ok guys, play fair and as grown-ups. I know you can do it. Ha, and I'm astroturfed as being a blog wrecker. All three of us have now been perhaps with Alex Jones taking a dump on Larry. Oh well, we can always say consider the source.
L: It is OBVIOUS and CLEAR that in your videos, it is the outer shell of the building that remains standing, NOT the 47 CORE columns.
No - only one of the videos/pics is about WTC1. There are TWO videos - two pictures - of two different events.
Granted - the 2nd video, for WTC1, is not as definitive about the core remaining as the first video, for WTC2. We can try to work out if "the spire" is the sidewall or core.....and whether the core is visible to the left of "the spire".
But what about the 1st video?
That's more clearly suggestive of a core remaining for a little while after collapse of the rest.
So, what about it?
S: I think Bin Laden has been dead for years
Quite possibly. But.....we don't know that.
Elsewhere, one can read - "According to Khawaja's interrogation by Pakistani authorities, the long-standing rumors of bin Laden having kidney problems were a ruse deliberately concocted by the terrorist leader in order to have his enemies believe him to be largely immobile and dependent on frequent access to medical aid."
http://windsofchange.net/archives/005756.html
If Bin Laden had changed his appearance.....it'd explain no video. We just don't know.
S: I think he denied being behind the attacks
Well, there's also plenty of various AQ admissions of responsibility.
Robert Fisk, for example, has no problem with acknowledging AQ/UBL responsibility.
S: which he never would have done if he was behind them.
Well........that's arguable. It's certainly not a fact.
S: I think I won the debate with TLNL with the Bin Laden alive or at least deadly sick on dialysis and with the put options.
Again - debatable. :D
I don't consider it important if UBL is alive or dead. The fact is - we don't know.
As for put options......what does the evidence amount to? I don't think there is much we can say about it......
People seem to believe it shows foreknowledge......but.....does it? It's not exactly direct proof is it? And does it even indicate foreknowledge? By who? I'm unconvinced there's anything to the "put" options.
Completely IGNORED the picture I sent the link too huh? You ignored MUCH of my post [as usual]. I predicted you would. You also COMPLETELY ignored the fact that even the shell of the building that remains for a few seconds [that you call the core] collapses as well at the end of the clip. IGNORE, IGNORE, IGNORE.
It does appear that you ignored most of his post, TLNL. Personally, I have trouble visualising the debate points. It's as if I'm dyslexic with it. I am satisfied from looking at credible sources that he didn't claim responsibility for the attacks, and that he has been dead for years. And you failed to mention that I gave a devil's advocate position that debunkers argue that Bin Laden lied or he would get in trouble with Afghani power. As for other folks claiming responsibility, weren't there two British dudes caught in Iraq posing as terrorists? The put options show foreknowledge from Western sources. It is never in the news. The missing black box from the airplanes are never in the news. If Bin Laden has been dead for years, and if he never truly took responsibility, that means we cannot trust much from the official explanations. For Pete's sake, the US lied about weapons of mass destruction. They could have lied about an inside job. We never hear about the anthrax thing since it was shown to be an inside job. I don't think too many inside people were behind September 11th. Yet, some of it could have been of an inside nature, and a cover up could be in place in order to not let the truth rattle the stock markets. You're too hell bent on portraying the official explanation as the ultimate in truth, and that none of the questions matter even an iota. Oh, now I see you are saying Bin Laden faked having a severe kidney illness. You clearly set in your ways on this topic and will find anything you can to bolster up the official explanation. That is disturbing. I expected a bit more openmindedness from yourself, a bit more fairness in debate.
Larry raised an issue about ONLY ONE OF THE TWO VIDEOS.
I addressed it - maybe in Vid2 the rightmost remnants of structure are what was originally termed the spire - PERHAPS the right-hand side tower wall.
I ALREADY SAID THAT.
But what about video 1?
NO WORD ON IT SO FAR......and it's ME that doesn't address issues?
BULLSHIT.
There are two videos - the first one is the stronger case - the visual evidence seems more definite. In the 2nd video there's an issue over what is sidewall, and what is "the core". Not in the 1st video.
IF THERE IS EVIDENCE FOR A REMAINING CORE IN EITHER CASE THEN LARRY HAS WHAT HE SAID WOULD PROVE THERE WAS NO DEMOLITION.
That's why Larry ignored the first video, conflating the two examples into one......which he thinks he can dispute. But what about the 1st video?
And......as for Larry's claim that WTC1 was almost directly in front of WTC7....therefore "the spire" must be sidewall........fine. But why is it only now important that WTC1 was "directly in line with WTC7"? That fact was considered UNIMPORTANT when we discussing whether WTC7 could have been severely damaged by the collapse of WTC1 -- which is (almost) DIRECTLY SOUTH of WTC7. In a straight, perpendicular line....ie the exact path we'd expect the facing side of WTC1 to collapse towards.
As for "fairness in debate" in me being dead-set on one particular explanation..........look closer to home?
It isn't me claiming that UBL is alive or dead. I make NO CLAIMS about his being alive or dead.
I make no claims about the put options - other than IMO the evidence such as it is leads nowhere. You think otherwise? Fine......but why? BASED ON WHAT?
You can think what you like.......but so can I, and I don't appreciate having my character impugned for it.
You think there's been no claims by UBL for responsibility. Others disagree. There are plenty of claims and references to AQ/UBL being responsible - and for having claimed responsibility. Maybe they are "fakes"? Sure - but how do you know? We don't know FOR CERTAIN ----- that's my point. It isn't me claiming we know. I'm saying we don't actually know. So what explanation am I backing there? What is it that I am committed to there? You tell me - seeing as you make the accusation.
I'm saying we need to be very careful about we think we know --- and about what we think that "proves".
On this topic, seemingly like no other, people like to believe ambivalent evidence proves something......such as "inside job"....when in fact it does nothing of the sort.
eg - UBL "denied" responsibility.....which he would "never have done" if he was responsible. That's pure conjecture on your part. You have no idea what UBL would or would not do. Your opinion of what UBL would do is no measure of the truth of reports about UBL's behaviour.
I did NOT say that IT IS A FACT that UBL invented his illness as a distraction. I merely said there are reports of such like. I think you should recognise that fact -- that such things are reported -- that there are reports of his being alive -- of his responsibility -- of all sorts of things.
Maybe he already is dead? But that's MAYBE. We do not know for a fact. NOT AT ALL.
Similarly for the issues about the put options. What IS the evidence and what does it prove? How does it "show foreknowledge from Western sources"? how does it show that? It isn't me making the claim that the put options "prove" anything - it's you. So what am I committed to in that respect?
S: If Bin Laden has been dead for years, and if he never truly took responsibility, that means we cannot trust much from the official explanations.
Sure - we can't trust "official explanations" anyway. BUT - there's a big difference between what the government can readily cvontrol and is responsible for....and things like a technical engineering report put together by 100s of leading engineers. Personal testimony of firemen, and mountains of eviddence from a million different places. It's worth something. Maybe it isn't the "truth".....but don't tell me "the truth" is XYZ when there's no evidence for it. I'd rather come to a wrong conclusion based on faked or manipulated evidence - than reach the right conclusion based on no evidence.
S: You're too hell bent on portraying the official explanation as the ultimate in truth
Hell-bent? Right......
Whatever, really.
Bushco tried to suppress the fact that they were warned about AQ using planes to attack american landmark buildings.
It did not come out of a clear blue sky. It was not "totally unexpected".
"That's why Larry ignored the first video, conflating the two examples into one......which he thinks he can dispute. But what about the 1st video?"
No, I was actually addressing the ONE video that was CLEAR to see. That first video shows NOTHING. Plus, truthers are NOT making the point that the cores stood for a "little while" and then collapsed. WE argue WHY didnt the cores REMAIN STANDING. YOU never address the most glaring question of all: If the cores didnt collapse initially [YOUR view] what made the EVENTUALLY collapse??? Hmmmmmm?????????
"And......as for Larry's claim that WTC1 was almost directly in front of WTC7....therefore "the spire" must be sidewall........fine."
"Fine": translation: "I was debunked"
"..But why is it only now important that WTC1 was "directly in line with WTC7"? That fact was considered UNIMPORTANT when we discussing whether WTC7 could have been severely damaged by the collapse of WTC1 -- which is (almost) DIRECTLY SOUTH of WTC7. In a straight, perpendicular line....ie the exact path we'd expect the facing side of WTC1 to collapse towards."
Uhhhh, dont you mean the NORTH Tower? SEe what I mean? This guy doesnt even know which tower it is!
The North Tower is in FRONT OF WTC 7 in the picture I sent, but WTC 7 was the FARTHEST building away of ANY of the buildings in the WTC 7 complex. Buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 were all MUCH closer [right EXT to the towers] and even had debris fall DIRECTLY ON TOP OF THE ROOFS OF THE BUILDINGS and had bigger fires [especially WTC 5] and guess what-----NONE of the other buildings COLLAPSED. Ive already said this over and over, but you keep repeating it as if it was never said.
"It does appear that you ignored most of his post, TLNL." [Socrates]
Your ONE reader agreeing with me again. Socrates, this is his favorite tactic. He ignores questions repeatedly and when I keep asking him new ones and tack on the older, unanswered ones, he complains that there are "so many" [because he has IGNORED them], so his complaints that there are many questions unanswered only serves as a testiment that he ignores them. Ignoring is a common tactic among would-be 9/11 debunkers. NIST ignores, Popular Mechanics ignores---everyone that does hit pieces [BBC, NatGeo, History channel]--all ignore, ignore, ignore. You HAVE to ignore things in order to believe the governments version of 9/11.
Socrates, he keeps ignoring this post I left on the story:
"WTC 7 - Falling Forwards (Not Symmetrical, Not 'into its own footprint')"
"Tell me something Sherlock----what PRECEDENCE do you have for making such claims???? You have NO PRECEDENCE---because a building has NEVER collapsed before due to fire---so where the hell do you get this? You just made it up???? How does 30 floors of building CRUSH 47 SOLID STEEL COLUMNS that was in the center of the towers??? If this was NOT demolition----a LARGE part of [or at least even SOME part of] the 47 column should have STILL been standing after the collapse. But no, the whole building collapsed in 10 seconds and was reduced to dust. This was done much better than demolition according to YOU.
So, for now on [in your view], demolition companies need not place explosives in buildings and take weeks/months doing it. They should just have a plane fly through it and set a few office fires and wait an hour.
Oh, by the way, did you watch the show "Life After People" the other day? They ADMITTED that even though buildings could reach over 2,000 degrees, that still wouldnt be enough for a building to collapse---but yet they said a few years ago in a 9/11 hit piece that just over 1,000 degrees was hot enough to weaken steel.
Hmmmmmmmmmm. What say you about that?? I cant wait to see how you spin THIS!"
Ive re-posted it 3 times now--he just refuses to answer it. He continues to ignore me asking him "what precedence is there for him knowing EXACTLY why the twin towers would have collapsed" when a high rise steel framed building has NEVER collapsed before. He gives detailed descriptions of how and why it collapsed. What precedent is he basing this on??
This is what his claim was:
""Sure - as the falling part of the building tilted there would be a greater stress on the supports beneath the falling edge.........but as that meets resistance from the intact building.....it transfers the force to the opposite side, via a pivot presumably. That transfer sends the forces to the other side of the falling block........which breaks the supports beneath it, until it reaches a momentary resistance, whereby it transfers the forces back to the other (original) side of the fall.
And on the process goes - down to the bottom. As it must do - unless there is sufficient force to withstand the mass of the falling tower floors - which there wasn't."
What's the precedent for this? How would this be known? He keeps IGNORING me asking him that Socrates.
If he DOES address it, he'll say "because the firefighters said so". Then I ask "How do THEY know? [since its never happened before]---then he'll say someone else knew. OK, how did THEY know? So on and so on. He has NEVER explained to me how these things are known to ANYONE.
You are ignoring the fact that there IS evidence the 1st video shows what looks like the core.
I have posted further evidence which suggests the 2nd video also shows what appears to be the core remaining for a short time after the main collapse.
In case you forgot, Larry, earlier you had written:
L: If this was NOT demolition----a LARGE part of [or at least even SOME part of] the 47 column should have STILL been standing after the collapse.
It appears that A LARGE PART of BOTH cores WERE 'still standing after the collapse(s)'.
Now you're complaining they didn't remain standing "long enough"?
The point is.......you, and the conspiracists claim that for the buildings to have collapsed the core columns must have been broken....and there's no way the planes, fires and collapse could do that without explosives.
But the videos and pictures suggest the cores did not completely collapse along with the building - they disappear at the end of the collapse.
The conspiracists have always complained the core columns must have been the first to fail.....hence the belief in conspiracy. How could the building collapse unless the core columns had been (purposefully) destroyed?
Well......the pictures confirm that it appears the cores survived longer than the rest of the building.
Earlier Larry claimed such evidence would be proof AGAINST controlled demolition.
Now we have evidence suggesting such a thing did happen - suddenly it isn't evidence against controlled demolition.
I'm not the right person to get too involved in this debate. I simply have never looked into it enough. But I do find it curious how fires alone allegedly brought down the buildings. I do see Larry's point that the cores should have remained standing. Here's an analogy. Water damage can cause plaster and other crap to fall from a top floor to the one below. But the wooden structure is not gonna also pancake down. Those buildings were made with heavy steel. It just makes no sense to me how the whole entire buildings would crumple down to the bottom.
TLNL, I'm not saying I think you're paid to post. I can understand your reaction to my post, but please try to not read too far into it. I am busy over at RI plying my craft on subjects I am knowledgable in. I got the word out about Tinoire's military intelligence gig. I got the word out about Rivero working for a large military contractor. I dropped the link down in one of your other threads. You should check it out if you get the chance. You wouldn't believe the types of interference being produced.
Anyway, I hope you two can keep this for real. If it ever feels like you are getting frustrated Larry, perhaps you should just let it be, or just make your posts. Ultimately the reader decides. I actually think part of the problem is that TLNL isn't an expert debunker. Nothing personal to him, but I think he conflates internet disinfo surrounding September 11th with the details about Sept. 11th. If you really want to go toe to toe with debunkers, I suggest you sign up to Democratic Underground and post in their 9/11 forum. Just don't let them know you lean right in politics, because I don't think those people are allowed on that forum. I'm not allowed on DU for other reasons, for of course my politics are on the left.
And yet he IGNORES it AGAIN:
His claim:
""Sure - as the falling part of the building tilted there would be a greater stress on the supports beneath the falling edge.........but as that meets resistance from the intact building.....it transfers the force to the opposite side, via a pivot presumably. That transfer sends the forces to the other side of the falling block........which breaks the supports beneath it, until it reaches a momentary resistance, whereby it transfers the forces back to the other (original) side of the fall.
And on the process goes - down to the bottom. As it must do - unless there is sufficient force to withstand the mass of the falling tower floors - which there wasn't."
My response, that he has IGNORED 4 times now (and he wonders why I REPEAT things):
"Tell me something Sherlock----what PRECEDENCE do you have for making such claims???? You have NO PRECEDENCE---because a building has NEVER collapsed before due to fire---so where the hell do you get this? You just made it up???? How does 30 floors of building CRUSH 47 SOLID STEEL COLUMNS that was in the center of the towers??? If this was NOT demolition----a LARGE part of [or at least even SOME part of] the 47 column should have STILL been standing after the collapse. But no, the whole building collapsed in 10 seconds and was reduced to dust. This was done much better than demolition according to YOU.
So, for now on [in your view], demolition companies need not place explosives in buildings and take weeks/months doing it. They should just have a plane fly through it and set a few office fires and wait an hour.
Oh, by the way, did you watch the show "Life After People" the other day? They ADMITTED that even though buildings could reach over 2,000 degrees, that still wouldnt be enough for a building to collapse---but yet they said a few years ago in a 9/11 hit piece that just over 1,000 degrees was hot enough to weaken steel.
Hmmmmmmmmmm. What say you about that?? I cant wait to see how you spin THIS!"
"It appears that A LARGE PART of BOTH cores WERE 'still standing after the collapse(s)'."
OK, you "claim" the cores remained standing. Show m PICTURES of the cores STILL STANDING after all the smoke and dust cleared. There's thousands upon thousands of pictures of ground zero after the smoke cleared and dust settled----so Sherlock, show me ONE picture of the cores STANDING after the dust settled. You will IGNORE this too---know why? Because theres NO PICTURES showing that---know why? Because they COLLAPSED into dust!
If YOU are right---let see a photo!!!!!!
If fire melts steel or even BUCKLES it---tell me why pots and pans do not melt on gas stoves. Why dont woodstoves just melt in peoples living rooms??? Know why?????
BECAUSE FIRE DOESNT MELT STEEL. Even in my pots/pans and woodstove analogy, if ANY of the 2 [between woodstoves and the twin towers] would melt steel, it would be the woodstoves, because woodstoves are single units and the fires are hotter and contained. The twin towers had 100+ floors of interconnecting steel beams---transferring the heat throughout the beams, taking it MUCH longer to get as hot as the fire---yet the towers collapsed in 56 and 104 minutes and woodstoves last through ENTIRE winters when they are constantly running???
heat is not a binary thing, Larry.
heat is analogue.....not digital. It goes from absolute zero to.....whatever. The existence of fire - and its effects are not a binary situation.
Fire DOES melt steel......how do you think they make steel? How do you think they pour and shape it? Magic?
Ask a blacksmith.
L: a building has NEVER collapsed before due to fire
No - you are wrong Larry. And you are being as sloppy as ever in your choice of words.
Buildings have always been at danger of collapsing in fire ......they still are.....they always will be.
L: did you watch the show "Life After People" the other day?
No I didn't see it. You can safely assume I never see anything "on telly".
L: Show m PICTURES of the cores STILL STANDING after all the smoke and dust cleared.
Ah - see - now it has to be shown they were there hours, weeks days later?
If you ask for prove of something - be careful in your use of language? Be specific what you want.
I am satisfied that there is positive, direct evidence that the cores were the last parts of the towers to fully collapse.
That tends to contradict the claims of controlled demolition conspiracies.
Does it prove much? I don't know. But it does tend to contradict the claims of the conspiracists - that's all. It needn't prove the opposite of the conspiracists claims are true....because the conspiracists claims are outlandish and ignorant anyway. eg "FIRE DOESNT MELT STEEL", "the towers collapsed into dust", etc
L: a building has NEVER collapsed before due to fire
"No - you are wrong Larry. And you are being as sloppy as ever in your choice of words."
I meant a steel-framed building--universal collapse. Never happened before or since 9-11. Name ONE.
"Buildings have always been at danger of collapsing in fire ......they still are.....they always will be."
Ahhhhh, now youre saying "in danger of" and ACTUALLY happening are the EXACT same thing! Hilarious!
"Fire DOES melt steel......how do you think they make steel? How do you think they pour and shape it? Magic?"
Yes, under EXTREME temps---over 2,800 degrees. The fires in the WTC had never reached temps hot enough for the steel to evn lose ONE PERCENT of their strength. You ignored my woodstove comments. Why dont woodstoves melt? Hmmmmmmm??
L: Show m PICTURES of the cores STILL STANDING after all the smoke and dust cleared.
"Ah - see - now it has to be shown they were there hours, weeks days later?"
Translation: I cant show you pics Larry, because none exist.
My answer? YES! It DOES have to be shown! If they arent standing days/weeks later, that means they ARENT STANDING when they SHOULD have! Do you even REALIZE how strong central cores are? Oh and by the way----the 9/11 commission said the cores were HOLLOW---so if you believe the official story, you think they were hollow too----which negates your videos "supposedly" showing cores-----lol! I cant believe you are THIS dumb! Wait a minute, yes I can.
Thank you for ADMITTING you have ZERO proof the cores remained standing. Like I have already said. Truthers dont care if the cores stood 5 minutes after the rest of towers collapsed or 30 seconds after----which even THAT you have not even proved [all I see is smoke in that video you posted]-----truthers argue that the cores should have REMAINED standing until it was time for the demolition crews to take it down.
"I am satisfied that there is positive, direct evidence that the cores were the last parts of the towers to fully collapse."
You better take that POSITIVE evidence to the 9/11 commission-----THEY said the cores were HOLLOW---meaning NOT 47 SOLID STEEL MASSIVE BEAMS. Dont believe me? Buy a copy of the 9/11 commission book. YOU believe the official story right??? So, you must believe the cores were HOLLOW too!
Oh by the way, youve now ignored THIS comment FIVE TIMES NOW:
"Tell me something Sherlock----what PRECEDENCE do you have for making such claims???? You have NO PRECEDENCE---because a building has NEVER collapsed before due to fire---so where the hell do you get this? You just made it up???? How does 30 floors of building CRUSH 47 SOLID STEEL COLUMNS that was in the center of the towers??? If this was NOT demolition----a LARGE part of [or at least even SOME part of] the 47 column should have STILL been standing after the collapse. But no, the whole building collapsed in 10 seconds and was reduced to dust. This was done much better than demolition according to YOU.
So, for now on [in your view], demolition companies need not place explosives in buildings and take weeks/months doing it. They should just have a plane fly through it and set a few office fires and wait an hour.
Oh, by the way, did you watch the show "Life After People" the other day? They ADMITTED that even though buildings could reach over 2,000 degrees, that still wouldnt be enough for a building to collapse---but yet they said a few years ago in a 9/11 hit piece that just over 1,000 degrees was hot enough to weaken steel.
Hmmmmmmmmmm. What say you about that?? I cant wait to see how you spin THIS!"
When, oh when, will I get an answer??? I always LOVE coming back here to see what comment you ignore---the comments you IGNORE speak louder than the ones you address [although poorly].
L: The fires in the WTC had never reached temps hot enough for the steel to evn lose ONE PERCENT of their strength.
Oh shutup?
Either that or attempt to stand-up your crazy claims?
You never do.......just blah blah.....next question.
L: I cant show you pics Larry, because none exist.
THEY'RE RIGHT HERE ON THE FUCKING WEBSITE YOU FUCKING ARSEHOLE.
L: If they arent standing days/weeks later, that means they ARENT STANDING when they SHOULD have!
God, you're a fool. I've had enough of this.
L: Thank you for ADMITTING you have ZERO proof the cores remained standing.
No -- you fucking twat! THEY ARE STANDING - AT THE END OF THE COLLAPSE _ AS THE FUCKING PICTURES I AHVE POSTED HERE PROVE.
FUCK YOU THAT THE CORES HAVE TO STAND FOR WEEKS>
YOU SAID IF THERE WERE ANY OF THE CORE LEFT AFTER COLLAPSE - IT'D DISPROVE DEMOLITION.
I POSTED EVIDENCE THEY WERE.
FUCK YOU AND YOUR INABILITY TO DEAL WITH THAT FACT.
L: Truthers dont care if the cores stood 5 minutes after the rest of towers collapsed or 30 seconds after
Troofers care about fuck-all except their own PREJUDICED notion.
L: -truthers argue that the cores should have REMAINED standing until it was time for the demolition crews to take it down.
NO THEY FUCKING DON'T.
FIRST TIME YOU HAVE EVER ADDED TAHT CONDITION - SO FUCK YOU AND YOUR LIES>
L: So, for now on [in your view], demolition companies need not place explosives in buildings and take weeks/months doing it. They should just have a plane fly through it and set a few office fires and wait an hour.
YOU@RE A FUCKING ARSE.
YOU ARE FULL O SHITE LARRY.
WHEN YOU ARE PREPARED TO ADDRESS SOMETHING SERIOUSLY, COME BACK, TIL THEN - GO FUCK YOURSELF?
Man, are you an intellectually dishonest creep.
L:FIRE DOESNT MELT STEEL
there's no point in continuing.
You're a fucking arsehole.
L: I cant show you pics Larry, because none exist.
"THEY'RE RIGHT HERE ON THE FUCKING WEBSITE YOU FUCKING ARSEHOLE."
Funny, you had just previously said:
"Ah - see - now it has to be shown they were there hours, weeks days later?"
And I answered, YES they do! Wheres the pics of the cores standing DAYS AFTER the collapses??
L: The fires in the WTC had never reached temps hot enough for the steel to evn lose ONE PERCENT of their strength.
"Oh shutup?"
According to the NIST report---which YOU claim to believe in!
L: Thank you for ADMITTING you have ZERO proof the cores remained standing.
"No -- you fucking twat! THEY ARE STANDING - AT THE END OF THE COLLAPSE _ AS THE FUCKING PICTURES I AHVE POSTED HERE PROVE.
FUCK YOU THAT THE CORES HAVE TO STAND FOR WEEKS>
YOU SAID IF THERE WERE ANY OF THE CORE LEFT AFTER COLLAPSE - IT'D DISPROVE DEMOLITION.
I POSTED EVIDENCE THEY WERE.
FUCK YOU AND YOUR INABILITY TO DEAL WITH THAT FACT."
Where's the pictures of the cores standing AFTER THE SMOKE AND DUST CLEARED????????????? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm???????????????????????????????
That's what I ORIGINALLY asked! AFTER smoke and dust cleared!!! Can you READ??????
Its so fun watching you IMPLODE, lol.
"YOU SAID IF THERE WERE ANY OF THE CORE LEFT AFTER COLLAPSE - IT'D DISPROVE DEMOLITION."
Exactly---and so far, you have not posted ONE PHOTO of the cores standing AFTER---AFTER---AFTER-----AFTER-----AFTER the smoke and dust cleared so we would be able to CLEARLY see cores standing!!!!!!!
L: -truthers argue that the cores should have REMAINED standing until it was time for the demolition crews to take it down.
"NO THEY FUCKING DON'T.
FIRST TIME YOU HAVE EVER ADDED TAHT CONDITION - SO FUCK YOU AND YOUR LIES"
LOL--getting mad?? Actually, yes they do. Tell me something genius----if the COLLAPSES didnt bring down the cores initially [which is what you claim]----what would have made them collapse 5 minutes/10 minutes/30 minutes/1 hour later???
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm???????????????????????????????????
"YOU@RE A FUCKING ARSE.
YOU ARE FULL O SHITE LARRY.
WHEN YOU ARE PREPARED TO ADDRESS SOMETHING SERIOUSLY, COME BACK, TIL THEN - GO FUCK YOURSELF?"
BRILLIANT debating skill!! You called me an arse and told me to fuck myself? My god, Im debunked!!!! LOL
Oh by the way, you have ignored my post for a SIXTH time now. I will re-post it because apparently you are hving trouble reading it. Hmmmmm.
"Tell me something Sherlock----what PRECEDENCE do you have for making such claims???? You have NO PRECEDENCE---because a building has NEVER collapsed before due to fire---so where the hell do you get this? You just made it up???? How does 30 floors of building CRUSH 47 SOLID STEEL COLUMNS that was in the center of the towers??? If this was NOT demolition----a LARGE part of [or at least even SOME part of] the 47 column should have STILL been standing after the collapse. But no, the whole building collapsed in 10 seconds and was reduced to dust. This was done much better than demolition according to YOU.
So, for now on [in your view], demolition companies need not place explosives in buildings and take weeks/months doing it. They should just have a plane fly through it and set a few office fires and wait an hour.
Oh, by the way, did you watch the show "Life After People" the other day? They ADMITTED that even though buildings could reach over 2,000 degrees, that still wouldnt be enough for a building to collapse---but yet they said a few years ago in a 9/11 hit piece that just over 1,000 degrees was hot enough to weaken steel.
Hmmmmmmmmmm. What say you about that?? I cant wait to see how you spin THIS!"
You STILL havent answered why woodstoves dont melt in front of people'e eyes in their living rooms. Got an answer? Or will that be among the MANY, MANY, MANY questions you ignored and added to the LONG list of unanswered questions?????
Im waiting for an answer. Waiting...waiting...waiting.
Oh and by the way, calling me a "cunt" is NOT an answer to that question. But I sure do understand why you get angry---it's the only emotion left when you are constantly in panic mode from not being able to answer questions. LOL
It's killing you that the "nut" is ripping you a new arsehole with facts.
Oh shutup and go away Larry? You are really pissing me off.
An example WHY........
Earlier you had said
L: If this was NOT demolition----a LARGE part of [or at least even SOME part of] the 47 column should have STILL been standing after the collapse.
Now you say
L: That's what I ORIGINALLY asked! AFTER smoke and dust cleared!!! Can you READ??????
there was NO MENTION of that initially.
You just add more and more qualifications as you proceed - it's ridiculous.
Another example........
You ask "why did firemen think the building was going to collapse"?
When I reply, saying that they had put engineer's tranists on the building and these devices told the firemen the building was moving, you just ask "Why did they put transits on the building?"
I say....because there were fires, damage, they could hear the building creaking......they were they on the ground....
You say "But how did they know the building was collapse!!!???"
It's ridiculous. Like speaking to a child.
Forget it - I am not going to bother anymore. I've put up with your insults and your nonesense long enough.
You misquoted me [as usual]. I said what gave the firefighters the SUSPICION to put transits on the building? I also asked, why didnt they put transits on Bankers Trust, WTC 3, 4, 5 and 6---all of hich were damaged MORE severely and WTC 5 and Bankers Trust had intense fires---but no transits for them, huh??
Ill ask a THIRD time:
WHY DONT WOODSTOVES MELT IN PEOPLE'S HOUSES??
I will also ask this a SEVENTH TIME since you are INCAPABLE of answering it:
"Tell me something Sherlock----what PRECEDENCE do you have for making such claims???? You have NO PRECEDENCE---because a building has NEVER collapsed before due to fire---so where the hell do you get this? You just made it up???? How does 30 floors of building CRUSH 47 SOLID STEEL COLUMNS that was in the center of the towers??? If this was NOT demolition----a LARGE part of [or at least even SOME part of] the 47 column should have STILL been standing after the collapse. But no, the whole building collapsed in 10 seconds and was reduced to dust. This was done much better than demolition according to YOU."
Its just a matter of time before you enable comment moderation again---LOL.
STILL cant find a photo of the cores standing after the dust and smoke cleared huh???? I'll be ignored ad nauseum on that one---wont I?
LOL
I'M like talking to a child? At least a child wouldnt need to be asked aquestion SEVEN TIMES before they answered it!!
"I say....because there were fires, damage, they could hear the building creaking......they were they on the ground...."
Also BIGGER fires in WTC 5 and Bankers Trust!! Transits for those buildings? NOPE! And those buildings didnt collapse! Hmmmm--why not? There was MUCH GREATER damage to WTC 3 (Marriott Hotel), 4, 5 and 6 and Bankers Trust---all didnt collapse-----why not??
"Oh shutup and go away Larry? You are really pissing me off."
I know--and I LOVE IT--lol. Why continually visit and post on my blog then??????? I didnt come to YOUR blog first-----you came to MINE first.
YOU go away!! Ya stupid British bootlicking pussy.
Larry, you're a fool.
You've claimed:
L: Explosives are the ONLY thing that would make the WTC rubble still hot after several months.
What a joke.
L: fire ALONE has never EVER caused a building to collapse---EVER in the history of architecture.
What a joke.
L: WTC 7 the ONLY building in history to collapse by fire alone.
What a joke.
L: The DAY of 9-11, every news station on TV flashed Bin Laden’s picture along with the 19 hijackers and their COMPLETE HISTORY. I STILL HAVE TAPES FROM THE DAY OF 9/11 THAT PROVES THIS!
What a joke.
Why should I respond to this rubbish? Add in your insults and your ridiculous attitude to data that contradicts your own prejudice, your refusal to even offer a counter-hypothesis.......and there's every reason to drop "discussion". It isn't a discussion - it's fraud.
"What a joke."
BRILLIANT debating skill! Gee, Im debunked!!
"Why should I respond to this rubbish? Add in your insults and your ridiculous attitude to data that contradicts your own prejudice.."
MY insults? I guess you "forgot" about this:
"YOU@RE A FUCKING ARSE.
YOU ARE FULL O SHITE LARRY.
WHEN YOU ARE PREPARED TO ADDRESS SOMETHING SERIOUSLY, COME BACK, TIL THEN - GO FUCK YOURSELF?"
"....there's every reason to drop "discussion". It isn't a discussion - it's fraud."
Of course you want to drop it! You're defeated! You FINALLY admit youre a fraud.
EIGHT TIMES youve now IGNORED this:
"Tell me something Sherlock----what PRECEDENCE do you have for making such claims???? You have NO PRECEDENCE---because a building has NEVER collapsed before due to fire---so where the hell do you get this? You just made it up???? How does 30 floors of building CRUSH 47 SOLID STEEL COLUMNS that was in the center of the towers??? If this was NOT demolition----a LARGE part of [or at least even SOME part of] the 47 column should have STILL been standing after the collapse. But no, the whole building collapsed in 10 seconds and was reduced to dust. This was done much better than demolition according to YOU."
EIGHT
EIGHT
EIGHT
EIGHT
EIGHT
EIGHT
EIGHT
Oh, by the way. Why dont woodstoves melt?? FOURTH time Ive had to ask that!
you really are ridiculous Larry.
So, is it 8 eight times you've said
L: a building has NEVER collapsed before due to fire
??? 8 times you've repeated this utter rubbish? What do you want as a reply to such garbage? What sort of reply is to be expected? You're talking garbage. That's the only possible reply I can give. How many times do you want the reply?
L: How does 30 floors of building CRUSH 47 SOLID STEEL COLUMNS that was in the center of the towers???
You mean - how do 30 floors (including 47 solid steel columns) fall through 12 ft and demolish the single floor below?
And then, how do 31 floors, including 47 solid steel core beams running throughout, fall another 12 feet and destroy the floor directly below that?
And then how do 32 floors fall another 12 ft destroying the floor below.....
It's not exactly surprising, really, that 30 floors of falling building will overcome the resistance of a single floor below.
L: If this was NOT demolition----a LARGE part of [or at least even SOME part of] the 47 column should have STILL been standing after the collapse.
It was. Check the pics I put up.
L: the whole building......was reduced to dust.
Don't be ridiculous.
There you go AGAIN----picking apart my ENTIRE post as to PURPOSELY OMIT the MAIN THING I ASKED.
THIS was my MAIN question:
"what PRECEDENCE do you have for making such claims????"
When you told me this:
"Sure - as the falling part of the building tilted there would be a greater stress on the supports beneath the falling edge.........but as that meets resistance from the intact building.....it transfers the force to the opposite side, via a pivot presumably. That transfer sends the forces to the other side of the falling block........which breaks the supports beneath it, until it reaches a momentary resistance, whereby it transfers the forces back to the other (original) side of the fall.
And on the process goes - down to the bottom. As it must do - unless there is sufficient force to withstand the mass of the falling tower floors - which there wasn't."
So, I ask AGAIN---for the NINTH time now:
"what PRECEDENCE do you have for making such claims????"
"You mean - how do 30 floors (including 47 solid steel columns) fall through 12 ft and demolish the single floor below?
And then, how do 31 floors, including 47 solid steel core beams running throughout, fall another 12 feet and destroy the floor directly below that?"
So, in OTHER words, you believe in the pancake theory????
If they PANCAKED---why was everything obliterated after the towers collapsed?? If there was pancaking, the rubble at ground zero should have been a PANCAKED building! It should have LANDED in the pancaked form---but do you SEE pancaked floors in the rubble? NO, you see TOTAL destruction. Pancaking ALSO does not explain why the concrete was PULVERIZED. The pancake theory has been debunked ad nauseum, but morons like YOU keep repeating it---DESPITE the fact that there were no stacks of floors in the rubble at ground zero!
"It's not exactly surprising, really, that 30 floors of falling building will overcome the resistance of a single floor below."
Maybe not---but what IS surprising is that the resistance from the lower undamaged floors would have SLOWED down the collapse so the collapse time should have been longer than 10-12 SECONDS [it should hve been mor like50 seconds--and thats IF the whole building even WOULD HAVE collapsed at all]. 10-12 seconds is VIRTUAL FREEFALL speed. Do you know what FREEFALL means? It means its the EXACT SAME speed that a billiard ball would travel if I was on top of the WTC and just let it drop. The towers fell in virtual FREEFALL speed---and that was with 80 floors of UNDAMAGED building under it.
L: If this was NOT demolition----a LARGE part of [or at least even SOME part of] the 47 column should have STILL been standing after the collapse.
"It was. Check the pics I put up."
You put up pics of the cores standing even after the dust and smoke cleared like I ASKED FOR ORIGINALLY?? WHEN?? You have YET to explain that even if the cores were standing at any given time [whether it was 1 minute, 5 minutes, 10 minutes or 30 minutes---WHAT MADE THEM EVENTUALLY FALL?] It stands to reason that if the cores survived the collapse itself [which is what YOU claim], what was strong enough to make them fall later? A strong gust of wind????
MORON
I cant WAIT to see how much of this post you ill IGNORE.
By the way, you STILL ignored this question [5 times now]:
"Why dont woodstoves melt?"
L: "what PRECEDENCE do you have for making such claims????"
What do you mean? It's a hypothesised explanation for an unprecedented event.
It's the explanation offered by Ryan Mackey - the NASA dude.
The event was unprecedented. When has any of it happened before?
You love to say "X SHOULD DO Y"........like you know.
IF it's an unprecedented event - how do you KNOW it SHOULD have gone differently? BASED ON WHAT? WHAT'S YOUR PRECEDENT?
L: If there was pancaking, the rubble at ground zero should have been a PANCAKED building! It should have LANDED in the pancaked form---but do you SEE pancaked floors in the rubble? NO
Really? You're dead certain?
L: Pancaking ALSO does not explain why the concrete was PULVERIZED.
Pulverise - from the Latin for dust - pulver.
Of course a form of "pancaking" pulverises.....WTF.
L: what IS surprising is that the resistance from the lower undamaged floors would have SLOWED down the collapse so the collapse time should have been longer than 10-12 SECONDS
Really? SHOULD it really?
Maybe your time is out?
Whatever - THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT THAT THE TOWERS COLLAPSED MORE SLOWLY THAN FREEFALL
Watch ANY video - the ejected debris falls faster than the collapse zone. ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT DOUBT.
L: You put up pics of the cores standing even after the dust and smoke cleared like I ASKED FOR ORIGINALLY??
No - stop lying!
You added your qualifier "after the dust had settled" AFTER I had shown the pictures of the remnants of the cores IN THE DUST.
Here's what you ORIGINALLY said.......
L: If this was NOT demolition----a LARGE part of [or at least even SOME part of] the 47 column should have STILL been standing after the collapse.
It was. Now you're backtracking, and saying it had to still be standing AFTER the dust had settled.
Now, Larry - let's have you answer some questions?
But we know you won't - you are too cowardly and too dishonest.
As Mackey says:
This paper refutes Dr. Griffin’s major claims, supporting with evidence that the aircraft
impacts were expected to significantly damage the structures, that the resulting fires were of both sufficient temperature and duration to cause structural collapse, that a progressive collapse resulting in total destruction of the Towers was the likely result, and that the “controlled demolition” hypothesis is speculative and unsupported by any evidence.
http://911guide.googlepages.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf
"IF it's an unprecedented event - how do you KNOW it SHOULD have gone differently? BASED ON WHAT? WHAT'S YOUR PRECEDENT?"
How do I KNOW???? TWO reasons: It shouldnt have collapsed AT ALL, based on the fact that a steel framed skyscraper has NEVER collapsed due to fire before, EVER --AND because Frank DeMartini said in a February 2001 documentary on the WTC that the WTC was DESIGNED TO TAKE MULTIPLE JET IMPACTS.
THATS how I KNOW. How does your guy KNOW about intricate details of how a skyscraper collapses when its NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE?
Good to see it only took NINE times for me to ask that before you FINALLY addressed it!
"Of course a form of "pancaking" pulverises.....WTF."
Any PROOF of that?
"Whatever - THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT THAT THE TOWERS COLLAPSED MORE SLOWLY THAN FREEFALL"
No doubt huh??? But, yet you have NO proof! So, what prompts the lack of doubt??
"Watch ANY video - the ejected debris falls faster than the collapse zone. ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT DOUBT."
I have no clue what that even means
"You added your qualifier "after the dust had settled" AFTER I had shown the pictures of the remnants of the cores IN THE DUST."
The "qualifier" was assumed because I have NEVER held the view that the cores stood at ANY GIVEN TIME----I have always said they collapsed WITH the towers--and your pictures and videos show NOTHING. Even you ADMITTED its hard to see-----so youre ASSUMING its the cores??
Your pictures and videos arent even relevant----because I KEEP asking you----"WHAT MADE THE CORES EVENTUALLY COLLAPSE THEN?" You IGNORED m asking you that 3 times now. You have yet to show m ONE PICTURE after the dust settled that shows the cores---so that's an ADMITTANCE that the cores eventually collapsed right??? RIGHT??????????
OK THEN----WHAT MADE THEM COME DOWN AFTER THE COLLAPSE BUT BEFORE THE DUST SETTLED????? The collapse ITSELF wasnt strong enough to bring them down IN YOUR VIEW----so what WAS strong enough??? They should have been STILL standing WAY after the dust settled----if they shouldnt be--what made them come down?????
"This paper refutes Dr. Griffin’s major claims, supporting with evidence that the aircraft
impacts were expected to significantly damage the structures, that the resulting fires were of both sufficient temperature and duration to cause structural collapse, that a progressive collapse resulting in total destruction of the Towers was the likely result, and that the “controlled demolition” hypothesis is speculative and unsupported by any evidence."
Tell that to Frank DeMartini, who designed the towers to withstand MULTIPLE jet impacts!!
and yet AGAIN-----
"why dont woodstoves melt?"
FIVE times now
watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKvtHhBJtLs
Physicist Steven Jones sums it up perfectly while explaining the "pancake theory". He says this:
"As the floors pancaked, you'd expect to see a whole stack of floors piled up on top of each other after the collapse is completed. Instead of a whole stack of floors and then a spindle of core columns standing too, what you see is dust that is being produced. Now you cant have it both ways. In other words, if there's dust being produced, where's the mass that causes the collapse? And if there's a mass in the collapse, that everytime one floor hits a stationary floor, or a set of floors that's a stationary floor, that will slow the collapse down. The mass has to move out of the way to get the collapse to be rapid."
Its at 5:35 in the clip.
Any explanation or refutation of this? I cant wait to hear.
L: It shouldnt have collapsed AT ALL
What does that mean? Back to you simply stating your non-expert opinion "It's impossible", says the non-expert.
L: based on the fact that a steel framed skyscraper has NEVER collapsed due to fire before, EVER --AND because Frank DeMartini said in a February 2001 documentary on the WTC that the WTC was DESIGNED TO TAKE MULTIPLE JET IMPACTS.
Because something has never happened before does *NOT* make it *impossible*. Nobody had flown passenger jets into the WTC before....
And yes - the buildings were supposed to withstand an aircraft impact. They did.
Seems the idea was to withstand a plane trying to land locally - lost in fog, whatever ie moving more slowly, less fuel. Not planes as bombs.
Regardless - the towers DID survive being hit by planes. They did not survive being hit by planes, explosions, AND a mass of severe fires.
L: How does your guy KNOW about intricate details of how a skyscraper collapses when its NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE?
It isn't just Ryan Mackey who says so - physics professors - engineers whatever. Yes, a few poor souls in Architects for Truth believe otherwise......but one of them thinks you can model the collapse with cardboard. The "physician" S Jones believes Jesus visited S America....hmm.
Essentially it is a physics and engineering issue. The Laws of Physics.....you know? Mackey knows his stuff. Sure - I'm relying on expert testimony....I don't have the physics or engineering to critically assess explanations. But I have a little - and Mackey's explanation of piledriver (rather than pure pancake) makes sense to me. You think his numbers are wrong? Tell him?
LNL:"Of course a form of "pancaking" pulverises.....WTF."
L: Any PROOF of that?
well, the idea is piledriver - not pancake in the fashion you imagine. But.....it seems obvious pancaking involves "pulverising". Part of the building smashes into that below - of course that's pulverising.
LNL: THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT THAT THE TOWERS COLLAPSED MORE SLOWLY THAN FREEFALL"
L: No doubt huh??? But, yet you have NO proof! So, what prompts the lack of doubt??
Absolutely no doubt.
As I said, watch any video - and ask yourself how the debris in the mushroom obscures the collapse zone.....if the collapse was going at freefall?
If the collapse was going at freefall......the point of collapse COULD NOT HAVE BEEN OVERTAKEN BY FALLING DEBRIS. The fact the collapse zone is obscured by debris proves the collapse was slower than freefall. The debris was moving at freefall.....and it fell faster than the collapse zone....thereby obscuring it from view. Therefore absolutely beyond doubt -- the collapses went more slowly than freefall - there was resistance.
How could freefalling debris reach the ground before the collapse had finished - if both debris and collapse were subject to freefall? IF they were feefalling, they would have fallen at exactly the same rate - they'd have reached the ground at the same time. If it was free-fall NOTHING could have reached the ground before the collapse point. It did. So, not freefall collapse. Absolutely - without any doubt.
I can't believe this has been an issue for so long. The speed of collapse used to seem "impossible" to me.....but once I realised the debris falls faster than the collapse....and that the principle of the collapse is a huge mass smashing into a SINGLE FLOOR and proceeding on to the next......then the collapse looks exactly as you'd expect. IMO people saying "it shouldn't" collapse like that are simply ignorant - the problem is their own (non-expert) expectations. I laboured under the same mistaken belief - until I was given plausible reasons and explanations for how it happened. Are those explanations absolutely "true"? Who knows...?...but they are very plausible and they fit the available evidence. The competing explanations - controlled demolition - DO NOT.
It's nearly 10 years later.....and there still isn't the tiniest bit of physical evidence for demolition. At some point rational people have to reject their own pet-theories and accept what the evidence suggests.....however unhappy about it one might be.
This is why I say I'd rather come to the wrong conclusions because of "faked evidence" than come to the "right" conclusion on faulty reasoning and a lack of evidence. If there is some grand conspiracy that "controls the world" and can fake all the evidence in such a case as this......well.....what can you do about it? you ain't going to get anywhere without excellent evidence otherwise. And it isn't there.
Initially it was reasonable to hold the view that the collapses were highly suspicious blah blah blah - but 10 years later there's not a single piece of positive evidence for demolition - like a detonation cord, a confession, a document, not a thing!
Eventually one is obligated to ask demolition is believed at all 10 years later........when there's simply no evidence for it. That's called faith.....not science....not rationalism.
Apart from saying "It shouldn't have collapsed" what is the actual, positive evidence for demolition? NOTHING.
That's exactly the reason why you refuse to even present your hypothesis of "what really happened". Because you know there's nothing to support it beyond your claims "it's impossible"...."it shouldn't have happened".
You claim NIST invented "a new phenomena" to explain the collapse.....when they never said such a thing: they didn't change the rules to explain the collapse.
However, it is the demolition believers and their hero Stephen Jones whom posit a new phenomena - supper-de-doooper nanothermite.
Painted onto the steel? Seriously - come on!
Interestingly, Stephen Jones asserts the existence of very high temperatures in the towers/debris. Higher than NIST claim.
For Jones, this means there must have been super-de-doooper nanothermite.
But whilst CD'ers support Jones' claims, they ALSO reject the idea of the fires having been hot enough to melt (weaken!) steel.
So which is it? Were there very high temperatures - hot enough to melt steel - or not?
Jones claims there were......most CDs claim there were not (even as they support Jones)
That needs some explaining? Likewise why Jones thinks his dust samples - provenance unknown - are proof of anything. The dust could have come from anywhere.
And if it is from WTC - according to Jones it provides evidence for very high temperatures. He thinks it was because of super-de-dooper nanothermite........but.....why need it be? Why leap to that conclusion?
Do we have any super-de-sdooper nano-thermite to test against? No - because Jones only posits that "it exists".......in the CIA I suppose?
And, contrary to your ealrier statements, thermite is an incendiary, not an explosive. It works by burning - not by turning into a gas very quickly as explosives do. It has to be held against the thing it is supposed to be burning. How can that be done if it burns through steel? There's no explanation even offered for these issues. (Because there is no plausible explanation)
You can believe it if you want -- but you should ask yourself WHY you believe something for which there is absolutely no evidence.
You can be as suspicious as you like........but without any evidence all you have is suspicion. You, and conspiracytheorists work from that position - you have your belief - and you are looking for the least nugget of data which can validate your beliefs. All evidence otherwise is simply rejected....but the least thing of use to you is embraced - no matter its provenance, its implausibility etc.
Because you already believe in a particular explanation......of govt conspiracy to murder its own people to justify war....you treat people who see the evidence differently as fellow traitors......suckers to a grotesque malignant evil. No surprise, if you believe in such a conspiracy. But it makes you unpleasant......because you're acting as if it were true.
Personally the most intersting thing about all this to me now is the back-story of peoples' approach to evidence, their reasoning, their leaps of faith etc. I have learnt a lot about how poorly I treated evidence.....and how conspiracy theory rests on such failings.
You can believe what you like. Just like the religious do......
They don't have any better evidence for their own views.....but.....like CTs....they already believe, absent evidence. And because they believe, they can do things like hijack planes and fly them into skyscrapers....blow people up in nightclubs....on trains....whatever.
I mean - do you believe there is no-one out there in the world who rejoiced at 911? Do you deny there are plenty of reasons and a long history to draw upon for some people to justify doing such a thing? Do you deny that? It seems implicit in CTs views that USA foreign policy is benign: it couldn't possibly give people reason to do such a thing? I beg to differ - I'm amazed it hasn't happened more and sooner.
"The "physician" S Jones believes Jesus visited S America....hmm."
Jones is not a PHYSICIAN----he's a PHYSICIST, ya jackass! Who cares what someone believes religiously? His religious beliefs doesnt illegitimize his knowledge of physics! MORON
"As I said, watch any video - and ask yourself how the debris in the mushroom obscures the collapse zone.....if the collapse was going at freefall?"
Im glad you used the term "mushroom" because I have a question about that. What CAUSED the outward mushroom shape as it collapsed? If it was a complete gravitational collapse as you believe, everything should have fallen STRAIGHT DOWN with no mushroom shaped falling debris. It takes energy to make that mushroom cloud of dust, smoke and debris. You claim it simply just fell, that means everything would have just fallen straight DOWN---but yet we see the debris being pushed outward in a mushroom shape--why is that??? What is creating that energy? You CANT say the enrgy is created by the weight of the collapsing upper floors--because since it is falling straight down, a gravitational collapse would have just taken everything straight down with it.
"How could freefalling debris reach the ground before the collapse had finished - if both debris and collapse were subject to freefall? IF they were feefalling, they would have fallen at exactly the same rate - they'd have reached the ground at the same time."
Youve lost your fucking mind. Who said the DEBRIS was free fall???? NO ONE HAS. We say the building ITSELF was falling at free fall speed ya dickhead! Who's even talking about the debris anyway??? Divert! Divert! Divert! Youre an expert at DIVERSION.
"and that the principle of the collapse is a huge mass smashing into a SINGLE FLOOR and proceeding on to the next"
You did not even address the quote I posted from Steven Jones. Did you not even READ the part where he said that you cant have it both ways? You cant have all this dust being produced [that you have even admitted is there and we can ALL see] and STILL have enough mass to fall and crush the next floor under it and so on and so on. The dust is COMING FROM the mass. You cant have all this dust being produced with the SAME amount of mass falling as youd have if there was NO dust being produced. But you conveniently just ignored Jones' quote.
"Interestingly, Stephen Jones asserts the existence of very high temperatures in the towers/debris. Higher than NIST claim."
Flat out lie. In the very fucking video link I posted, he said the temps werent that high! Did you even fucking watch it? Obviously NOT! MORON
"Because you already believe in a particular explanation......of govt conspiracy to murder its own people to justify war....you treat people who see the evidence differently as fellow traitors......suckers to a grotesque malignant evil. No surprise, if you believe in such a conspiracy. But it makes you unpleasant......because you're acting as if it were true."
No, the government THEMSELVES act like its TRUE, for covering up so much, not investigating hardly ANYTHING, shipping the WTC steel off, melting alot of it down without analyzing it, not releasing better pictures and videos that shows EXACTLY what hit the Pentagon, ignoring hundreds of questions in the 9/11 investigation, on and on and on. If NONE of what we say is true, why all the fucking secrecy and covering up? I explained over and over to you how much they covered up and you just respond with "whatever" like a fucking 2nd grader.
Even YOU IGNORE 90% of my questions---how can I expect the government [who has WAY more power than a dickhead like YOU] to shed light on the questions?
Funny you talk about faith, because you believe the official story which takes WAY more faith to believe! To believe the official story, you have to believe that small fires melt steel when experts say it takes fires as hot as 2800 degrees F to melt steel. You have to believe that planes vaporize into nothing, yet human flesh can withstand fires hot enough to vaporize planes. You have to believe that steel framed buildings collapse due to fire alone although it has never happened in the history of architecture. You have to believe that passports can pass through giant fireballs and land conveniently on the street below. You basically have to throw out all science, logic and kinetic energy. You have to believe that wings just pop off of airplanes seconds before they impact a building and disappear.
You have the nerve to say it takes alot of faith for ME??
LOL
Ive asked this SIX times now:
"WHY DONT WOODSTOVES MELT?"
WHY DO YOU KEEP IGNORING THIS???????????????????????
Jones is not a PHYSICIAN----he's a PHYSICIST, ya jackass!
yes - I know. I know it really means doctor....no matter.
L: Who cares what someone believes religiously? His religious beliefs doesnt illegitimize his knowledge of physics! MORON
I don't care that he's a mormon, particularly. But it does show he is susceptible to some pretty wacko beliefs.
L: What CAUSED the outward mushroom shape as it collapsed? If it was a complete gravitational collapse as you believe, everything should have fallen STRAIGHT DOWN with no mushroom shaped falling debris.
Should it really? There you go again - SHOULD.
If it was a demolition, with no building resistance, it would have collapsed as you described. It didn't - so no demolition.
L: It takes energy to make that mushroom cloud of dust, smoke and debris. You claim it simply just fell, that means everything would have just fallen straight DOWN---but yet we see the debris being pushed outward in a mushroom shape--why is that??? What is creating that energy?
Yup - it takes energy. Gravity.....versus resistance of the building. Ever flicked a wooden lolly stick? Same principle.
L: You CANT say the enrgy is created by the weight of the collapsing upper floors--because since it is falling straight down, a gravitational collapse would have just taken everything straight down with it.
Well, no.......the resistance of the building to the gravity driven collapse is what flings the pieces outwards. (Btw - even if flung outwards - they still fall at freefall.)
L: Youve lost your fucking mind. Who said the DEBRIS was free fall???? NO ONE HAS. We say the building ITSELF was falling at free fall speed ya dickhead! Who's even talking about the debris anyway??? Divert! Divert! Divert! Youre an expert at DIVERSION.
I've lost my fucking mind? LOL.
Nobody said the debris fell at freefall? So what? It's taken for granted?
The point is the debris DID fall at freefall - obviously - and it fell faster than the collapse zone. Therefore, the building DID offer some resistance - evidence against controlled demolition.
L: You cant have all this dust being produced [that you have even admitted is there and we can ALL see] and STILL have enough mass to fall and crush the next floor under it and so on and so on.
Rubbish. Most of it is steel.
L: The dust is COMING FROM the mass. You cant have all this dust being produced with the SAME amount of mass falling as youd have if there was NO dust being produced. But you conveniently just ignored Jones' quote.
No - I didn't ignore it. Most of the mass of the towers was steel, and contents. Some concrete. What was the dust made of exactly? Like most dust - skin? some concrete? building stuff. whatever.
How much of the mass is accounted for by the dust? Tell me?
>
L: Flat out lie. In the very fucking video link I posted, he said the temps werent that high! Did you even fucking watch it? Obviously NOT! MORON
No - not a lie.
Here's S Jones claiming very high temperatures:
The formation of molten spheres with high iron contents along with other species in the WTC dust required extremely high temperatures.
and
We agree with the RJ Lee report that the abundance of “spherical particles of iron and silicates” is proof of
high temperatures......
and
The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicates the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool [1].
The temperature required to volatilize/boil lead is 1,740 C or 3,164 F
LINK
L: "WHY DONT WOODSTOVES MELT?"
WHY DO YOU KEEP IGNORING THIS???????????????????????
because they don't get hot enough?
good enough answer?
"The formation of molten spheres with high iron contents along with other species in the WTC dust required extremely high temperatures."
He's talking about the high temperatures of the fucking EXPLOSIVES/NANOTHERMITE THAT CUT THE STEEL YOU FUCKING STUPID IGNORANT MORON!!! NOT THE FIRES!!!
Molten spheres and iron are NOT FOUND IN FIRE!!!
YOURE A STUPID LYING ASSHOLE!!!
L: He's talking about the high temperatures of the fucking EXPLOSIVES/NANOTHERMITE
Ah - but - you see the contradiction?
The conspiracists claimed the fires couldn't have been hot enough to melt steel.
Then they claim temperatures were even hotter than NIST suggested.
Likewise with the supposed "molten metal" found in the rubble........conspiracists claim "the fires weren't hot enough to destroy WTC"......yet conspiracists also claim there was "molten metal" found in the rubble.
So - even though conspiracists claim the fires weren't hot enough to melt steel, they also claim to have proof steel was melted by temperatures higher than even NIST claimed.
New phenomena - super-de-dooper nanothermite to the conspiracists rescue!
"Likewise with the supposed "molten metal" found in the rubble........conspiracists claim "the fires weren't hot enough to destroy WTC"......yet conspiracists also claim there was "molten metal" found in the rubble."
Yes! From the thermite MELTING the steel. We have always, ALWAYS said that FIRE is not hot enough to melt steel, but the thermite IS!!!
What do you NOT fucking comprehend DICKHEAD??
In the new Loose Change movie, Steven Jones actually has a chip of the nanothermite that was found in the dust from the twin towers. It was given to him by a woman who lived in an apartment close to the WTC whose windows were blown out when the towers came down and dust flew in her window--along with reddish/orange chips. She sent one of the chips to Jones and he analyzed it and low and behold, it was an incindiery.
Tell me something ASSFACE----why was ALL of the steel from the twin towers and building 7 SHIPPED OFF to other countries and NOT analyzed??????? Hmmmmmm??? Removal of evidence from a crime scene is a crime ITSELF.
L: Tell me something ASSFACE----why was ALL of the steel from the twin towers and building 7 SHIPPED OFF to other countries and NOT analyzed???????
This is yet another myth you hold to.
And even when the myths are pointed out to you, and even once you discard them from your range of evidence -- you continue as if nothing had changed -- as if the myth had been proven true.
What's the point of even showing you that some of the things you believe are myths, when it makes absolutely no difference to your conclusion?
This is a result of your prejudice, of course -- you are determined that your preconceived idea of conspiracy and controlled demolition is right -- and no matter what the evidence says -- even if you find it is a myth -- it makes no difference.
That's why your "search for the truth" is a total sham. Because you are ONLY interested in things which you believe support your "theory".
You are very clearly *not* 'just asking questions'......you are desperately trying to stand-up your conspiracy.
Else the evidence would make a difference.
It would make a difference that you found out that steel from WTC was analysed.....that it wasn't ALL carted off without being examined......that it was removed from the scene BY THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AUTHORITIES FOR ANALYSIS AND DISPOSAL ie NOT A CRIME - NOT REMOVING EVIDENCE. If there's a burgulary, and the police take away fingerprints and DNA - that isn't considered "removing evidence" - DUH!!!!
L : Hmmmmmm??? Removal of evidence from a crime scene is a crime ITSELF.
Don't be dumb! Not if it is done by the police and investigators themselves -- or at their behest -- for the sake of the investigation.
Investigators examined thousands of pieces of steel ---- they trawled the debris for RELEVANT EVIDENCE. They don't have to look at every single piece of steel.......that would be ridiculous to even expect.
They'd still be looking at......and you'd be complaining.
And it would still have to be in situ to satisfy you. Ridiculous.
In fact - contrary to your suggestions - the steel was inspected. Not every piece - but every piece they thought was relevant to their investigation.
"There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures".
www.house.gov/science/hearings/full02/mar06/corley.htm
The last steel was cleared in May 2002. Hardly a ridiculously speedy disposal of "evidence".
That quote discredits the silly idea that the authorities removing the mess were committing "a crime".
But if you wish to pursue it - why isn't Stephen Jones guilty of the same crime? He has some of the evidence!!! That's a crime, right!
L: In the new Loose Change movie, Steven Jones actually has a chip of the nanothermite that was found in the dust from the twin towers.
That's a crime (acvcording to you)
But anyway - he has some nanothermite from the towers, does he?
L: It was given to him by a woman who lived in an apartment close to the WTC whose windows were blown out when the towers came down and dust flew in her window--along with reddish/orange chips.
Ah. You don't even see a problem with that.
"A woman"?
"dust came in the window"?
LOL.
Why do you believe this woman and not Chief Nigro?
You refuse to accept what Chief Nigro says......but "this woman" is totally believable? WHY?
And how do we know it came from WTC? (we don't)
And how do we know it is "nanothermite"? We don't. Jones' study has been debunked - but you refuse to believe it. Shock.
He has some dust of unknown provenance -- and he seemingly makes unjustified claims about it.
You don't think it is a bit odd that the controlled demolition theory is having to invent novel substances to sustain itself?
You mocked NIST when you (wrongly) accused them of inventing "a new phenomena" - and yet you laud Stephen Jones for claiming he's found a new phenomena (given to him by "a woman") Hmmmm.
That's the same scepticism you display towards all the evidence, right? Like Chief Nigro......lol
Some kooky discredited professor produces dust from some woman, and it contains a til-now unknown substance......
And you swallow it all.
But 100s of engineers and physics professors, and fire experts, and architects etc - are all wrong - and their evidence "worthless".
Amazing.
Do you know who LOOSECHANGE used as a technical advisor?
Tell me??
And tell me about their "expertise"?
lol
--HOW MUCH "SUPER DE DOOOPER" NANOTHERMITE WOULD BE NEEDED?
--WHERE WAS IT PLACED TO DESTROY THE BUILDING?
--WHO PLACED IT?
--WHEN??
--HOW?
WHAT's THE EVIDENCE FOR IT? (a kooky professor with magic dust an old woman gave him)
....when I bounced my calculations and conclusions off Jones et al, all he could come up with was the suggestion that there were probably other explosives used in the WTC and the nanothermite chips were maybe just fuses!
Thus, after all the fuss about high-tech nano-thermites, we are back to good-old "bombs in the buildings" as the answer to how the buildings were destroyed.
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-30.html#p2664
L : Hmmmmmm??? Removal of evidence from a crime scene is a crime ITSELF.
"Don't be dumb! Not if it is done by the police and investigators themselves -- or at their behest -- for the sake of the investigation.
It was NOT done by "police and investigators"---it was done by FEMA. The FBI wasnt even allowed near it. And FEMA just happened to be in NYC the day before 9/11 to attend a "training seminar".
"Investigators examined thousands of pieces of steel ---- they trawled the debris for RELEVANT EVIDENCE. They don't have to look at every single piece of steel.......that would be ridiculous to even expect."
Proof of this??? Of course not! You just SAYING it makes it fact??
"This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples."
Oh brother! If it's in the scrap yards, that means it was AFTER removal from the crime scene! That means it was REMOVED. How did this debunk my stance that it's a CRIME to remove evidence from a crime scene??? Youre an IDIOT!
"The last steel was cleared in May 2002. Hardly a ridiculously speedy disposal of "evidence"."
I think 8 months is pretty damned fast for removing 200 tons of demolished steel!!
"Why do you believe this woman and not Chief Nigro?"
Because Nigro was too chickenshit to appear in a documentary, as the woman did. Also, how can Nigro's claim [that there was no demolition] be taken seriously when a collapse of a steel framed building has NEVER happened before that day? How would he know of the things he claimed?
"You refuse to accept what Chief Nigro says......but "this woman" is totally believable? WHY?"
Because there's no reason she would lie. She didnt even know who Steven Jones was until just a few years ago.
"And how do we know it came from WTC? (we don't)"
Yeah, pieces of nanothermite just fly around in NYC everyday right outside of apartment windows.
"And how do we know it is "nanothermite"? We don't. Jones' study has been debunked - but you refuse to believe it. Shock."
Uhhhh, because Jones examined it. He's been debunked? By who? Popular Mechanics?? NatGeo???
"He has some dust of unknown provenance -- and he seemingly makes unjustified claims about it."
According to who? YOU??
"You don't think it is a bit odd that the controlled demolition theory is having to invent novel substances to sustain itself?"
I see no links from you proving that there were other red/orange cips laying elsewhere on the street below that were examined and found NOT to be nanothermite.
"You mocked NIST when you (wrongly) accused them of inventing "a new phenomena" - and yet you laud Stephen Jones for claiming he's found a new phenomena (given to him by "a woman") Hmmmm."
Oh brother---what is even your point? So youre saying NIST does NOT call it a "new phenonmena"? That would be FALSE---they do. A piece of nanothermite IS a new phenonmena----but that is not why NIST called it that. They called it that because they couldnt EXPLAIN the collapse. Plus, Jones' chip of nanothermite is from the twin towers. The "new phenonema" claim was talking about building 7----get your facts straight, dipshit.
That's the same scepticism you display towards all the evidence, right? Like Chief Nigro......lol
Some kooky discredited professor produces dust from some woman, and it contains a til-now unknown substance......
"--HOW MUCH "SUPER DE DOOOPER" NANOTHERMITE WOULD BE NEEDED?
--WHERE WAS IT PLACED TO DESTROY THE BUILDING?
--WHO PLACED IT?
--WHEN??
--HOW?
WHAT's THE EVIDENCE FOR IT? (a kooky professor with magic dust an old woman gave him)"
AGAIN< you ask quesions that only an investigation would answer, but you claim it discredits us for NOT KNOWING the answer when DESPITE there not being an investigation!! This is the whol REASON WHY we want a new investigation---to get ANSWERS. But YOU claim that we should ALREADY KNOW the answers that the investigation that we have been fighting for would uncover! You are offiially RETARDED.
"Thus, after all the fuss about high-tech nano-thermites, we are back to good-old "bombs in the buildings" as the answer to how the buildings were destroyed."
Yeah, like all those reports by witnesses who heard bombs ON THE DAY OF 9/11 who reported hearing them on live TV with newscasters interviewing them. What reason would they have had to report hearing bombs on the VERY DAY of 9/11? Hmmmmmmm????
By the way, are you EVER going to answer "WHY DONT WOODSTOVES MELT"? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm???????
I see I will FOREVER be ignored on the question of why woodstoves do not melt. I guess to The Last Nutsack Left, IGNORING an issue means it doesnt exist!
A new investigation is not going to make explosives hidden in the WTC more plausible.
And you're backtracking to a position where you suggest you don't make any outright claims - you only want "a new investigation".
By all means, agitate for a new investigation.
But don't tell me you know what did, or did not, happen.
How do you know buildings "CANNOT COLLAPSE LIKE THAT".....if you haven't yet had an investigation?
What you really mean by saying "there hasn't been a proper investigation" is that you want to be able to believe whatever you like, and discard whatever evidence you like.
And you'll keep doing so until you get an investigation you can agree with - which will be never. Because it isn't ever going to agree with you.
Because you disagree with it -- it isn't "a proper investigation". There can be no "proper investigation" until you agree with it.
You aren't interested in "an investigation" - you want vindication for your beliefs - and until you get it, you will reject any and every investigation saying otherwise. And you'll believe anything that appears to justify your belief. Cherry-picking, bias, prejudice.....it's all there.
Just one example which proves you don't merely "call for an investigation" - you make outright claims - AS IF YOU HAVE ALREADY HAD AN INVESTIGATION WHICH VINDICATES YOUR VIEW. (You haven't had such an investigation - so how come you can assert these things as FACTS already?)
eg
Larry: If this was NOT demolition----a LARGE part of [or at least even SOME part of] the 47 column should have STILL been standing after the collapse
What investigation are you referring to there, Larry? What investigation has said that?
So why are you making the claim......if there's been no investigation?
And why do you pretend that you don't make such claims?
Don't back away and take refuge behind claims of "objectivity"......
LEt's face it - 911 Troof is not some event of which you are a mere disinterested observer - it is the cornerstone of your entire political conception and your understanding of the world. You are committed to a very particular explanation of the event - and the only evidence you admit is that which supports your existing view. The one sustains the other - they are part of the same thing.
You are being extremely disingenuous to suggest you "only ask questions". 911 conspiracy comfily fits into, and accurately reflects, your worldview. Don't pretend your position is "objective"......and don't pretend you don't make very specific, and outrageous, unsupported claims in support of your position.
When you, and troofers, say you want "a new investigation" - what do you mean?
You will just refuse any investigation - it'd be compromised by the people who did 911, right? TPTB......the bloodless coup...the cabal....the NWO.....whatever...right?
So how exactly could "an official" investigation be setup?
What exactly would it take to achieve?
Some major differentiation between "us" and "them"would be needed first......some way to tell "the good guys" from "the bad guys"......? Else we couldn't rely on any investigation......right?
That conjurs up some McCarthy type investigations to distinguish "unamerican" activities - to flush-out and eradicate "the bad guys".
That's before a proper 911 investigation could get under way.
But the investigation hasn't even began, and yet witch-hunts for the conspirators have already taken place.
Hmmm. One wonders what the investigation is for then?
That's the implied position of your "just calling for an (independent) investigation".
There is a whole political conception and worldview behind your "just asking questions". And it's a worldview in which you can simply reject evidence and explanations and investigations simply because you deem them compromised - "UN-AMERICAN"/ NWO / WHATEVER.
So whilst you claim to be only asking for "a new investigation", we see that in fact you ask for so much more - because you demand "an official investigation" where you get to decide who the officials are, based on whether they agree with you or not.....ie whether they are considered "NWO"/ ENEMY or not.
You are really arguing not for a new investigation, but for a new sense of "OFFICIAL"......
You are seeking to recreate the state, to completely reform "America". So that these "evil" conspirators and NWO-types are removed from power, etc, right?
Yet you claim to be "only asking questions".
Aren't you disingenuous? You are *not* just asking questions - you are asserting an entire political agenda and a very particular worldview.
It's the "official" part of "official investigation" you and troofers reject and which you all wish to reform anew. Gawd help us.
Ever heard of de-kulak-isation?
"What you really mean by saying "there hasn't been a proper investigation" is that you want to be able to believe whatever you like, and discard whatever evidence you like."
No, what I mean by 'there hasnt been a proper investigation' is that the one they had in 2003 let NO HARD questions into the investigation, the members were hand-picked by the Bush administration [which in and of itself constitutes a NON-independent investigation]. Even 6 of the 10 members of the commission NOW ADMIT that they were set up to fail. Even before the investigation began Kean and Hamilton BOTH said OUT LOUD that the purpose of the investigation was NOT TO FIND OUT WHO DID IT, but was only to prevent future attacks. WTF???? How can you prevent future attacks UNLESS you find out who did it???
I want ALL questions addressed and answered---not with "THE ANSWERS I LIKE"---but with answers PERIOD.
Case in point. I cant even get YOU to address SIMPLE questions that Ive asked you OVER and OVER and OVER like "why dont woodstoves melt?" and then you have the fucking audacity to tell me that Im only bitching about the investigation because the answers "didnt FIT" what I want to believe! NO--- its because hundreds and hundreds of questions WERENT EVEN ASKED in the investigation and even the ones that WERE asked that even resembled hard questions were glossed over and IGNORED. YOU ignore questions yourself! Ive asked you about 12 times now "why dont woodstoves melt?" and you wont fucking ANSWER IT! Am I angry that I "didnt get the answer I like"??? NO. Im pissed because you IGNORE the question altogether and then have the fucking nerve to say that Im only pissed off that I "dont get the answers I LIKE". I dont get answers AT ALL----especially from YOU, you fucking douchebag.
If YOU ignore questions---then SURELY Bush administration appointees will IGNORE the question!
How can you be 100% biased in an investigation when you appoint Philip Zelikow to run the proceedings?? He was a fucking WHITE HOUSE employee! He co-authored a book with Condi Rice! He co-wrote the fucking BUSH DOCTRINE----you know, the new foreign policy we now have [invading countries when we even THINK they're a threat]. How would ANYONE working in the White House ever be questioned or accused of any wrong doing when you have a fucking WHITE HOUSE EMPLOYEE running the investigation?????
Now, for the 13th fucking time asshole: WHY DONT WOODSTOVES MELT??
i meant to say "How can you be 100% UN-biased..."
Now, why dont woodstoves melt????
L: I dont get answers AT ALL----especially from YOU, you fucking douchebag.
Gee, I wonder why I ignore you?
Where does your physics knowledge come from, Larry?
Oh - and are you an architect? Never answered that, have you?
Just like you've never answered how WTC were fitted with explosives......
YOu simply refuse to play the game properly Larry. So you get ignored.
For the 20th time---why dont woodstoves melt?? The reason why you IGNORE me is because you HAVE NO ANSWER for that question! Youre jut ONE guys---some loser who probably still lives with his mother--in her basement in London. And you ACTUALLY question why our own US government ignores the truth of 9/11???? Because it incriminates THEM, thats why! Even YOU ignore me---and YOURE not accused of anything in the cover-up of 9/11----now, amplify that by 1,000 and thats our own government ignoring the facts of 9-11, because it incriminates them! Your OWN behavior is a direct reflection of our own government ignoring the truth!
One day you say you are "only asking questions".
Another day, you say you can't be expected to provide an explanation for 911 because "there hasn't been an investigation.
All you want is an investigation to find out the truth.........you say.
Another day - today - you claim: "our own government ignoring the facts of 9-11, because it incriminates them!"
Somehow you know that, even though you also claim "there hasn't been an investigation".
Somehow you assert government complicity and guilt even though "there hasn't been an investigation" -- even though "you're not making any claims" -- even though you are "only asking questions".
Well, you talk obvious bullshit.
You don't make claims.....but you do say the government is complicit.
You don't assert an explanation....even though you claim the government is "complicit".
You insist you only want an investigation -- as there hasn't been one -- but you assert, as a fact, that the government is complicit.
You talk bullshit. You talk out of both sides of your mouth.
Make your claims or don't. Don't make claims and then pretend you don't.
Don't pretend you make no claims and then proceed to make them.
Thanks for the example of your hypocrisy ----
lenin:
"Social-Democracy, therefore, must give most emphatic warning to the proletariat and other working people of all nationalities against direct deception by the nationalistic slogans of “their own” bourgeoisie, who with their saccharine or fiery speeches about “our native land” try to divide the proletariat and divert its attention from their bourgeois intrigues while they enter into an economic and political alliance with the bourgeoisie of other nations and with the tsarist monarchy.
The proletariat cannot pursue its struggle for socialism and defend its everyday economic interests without the closest and fullest alliance of the workers of all nations in all working-class organisations without exception.
The proletariat cannot achieve freedom other than by revolutionary struggle for the overthrow of the tsarist monarchy and its replacement by a democratic republic. The tsarist monarchy precludes liberty and equal rights for nationalities, and is, furthermore, the bulwark of barbarity, brutality and reaction in both Europe and Asia. This monarchy can be overthrown only by the united proletariat of all the nations of Russia, which is giving the lead to consistently democratic elements capable of revolutionary struggle from among the working masses of all nations.
It follows, therefore, that workers who place political unity with “their own” bourgeoisie above complete unity with the proletariat of all nations, are acting against their own interests, against the interests of socialism and against the interests of democracy.
Post a Comment