The Forum > General Discussion > 9/11 Truth
9/11 Truth
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 39
- 40
- 41
- Page 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- ...
- 81
- 82
- 83
-
- All
Posted by daggett, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 1:43:47 PM
| |
Dagget
Tell me HOW the theory, that it is the upper part of the building pushing through the areas on fire that caused the orange flash, is substantially implausible. Waving websites at me will only lead me to do the same. Duelling websites, POINTLESS. I haven’t offered the pancake theory. I have however shown you some evidence of floors compacted together. If you had a clue you would know that NIST threw out the Pancake theory. Its not news. Their theory, and it has been accepted in PEER REVIEWED engineering journals everywhere, is >> that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm Here you go with another lie, You say >> “ Even the official 9/11 Commission Report puts the probability of that having occurred at 54,000,000 to 1.” Really? It wasn’t Barry Zwicker who put that number forward was it? Here’s the 911 Report http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf where is it? Your problem, Dagget, among many, is that you refuse to go to the PRIMARY sources. You prefer your conspiracies tales spoon fed to you on the alternet and you therefore are stuck with trusting the people who’s stories you want to spread. But we’ve caught them out lying already. You quote Becker >> “The collapse hadn't begun, but it was not a fire any more up there. It was like -- it was like that -- like smoke explosions on a tremendous scale going on up there." That isn’t evidence of explosives, or explosions. Notice the keyword like, he doesn’t say it was explosions and he is clearly referring to the fires. And your pathetic attempt to suggest that Becker agrees with the conspiracy nut jobs is HOLLOW. McQueen used Beckers testimony in his 118 witnesses paper. He later admitted that all of them, bar Schroeder, believed the official story and he suggested that they had been “gotten at” Posted by Paul.L, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 12:04:28 AM
| |
Paul.L, in regard to the 54,000,000 to one figure, you are right in one sense. I had rashly assumed that when Barrie Zwicker said,
"That could happen only two ways. Either it was staggering multiple simultaneous coincidental incompetence at all levels in many agencies, defying known laws of averages, a 54-million-to-one chance, which is the 9/11 Commission official story. ..." ... he had obtained the figure directly from the 9/11 Commission. Paul.L wrote, "Your problem, ..." Why don't you get off your own high horse and acknowledge your own dishonesty, which I have already drawn to your attention more than once, not to mention your constant shifting of goalposts? For my own part, I haven't intentionally lied once in regard to the facts of the 9/11 controversy. --- Paul.L wrote, "Duelling websites, POINTLESS." It's not about duelling websites. You were shouting and screaming at me as if your novel explanation of fire having been suddenly pushed out, that had not occurred to any observer at the time as far as I can tell, was the only possible explanation that could be countenanced. I was pointing out that that the alternative explanation, that it was an explosion, as attested to by observers, was born out by solid evidence and scientific reasoning. In any case, are you also going to insist, contrary to the recorded evidence, that no explosions were observed immediately prior to the collapse of the first tower, WTC2? --- Paul.L wrote, "(Graeme MacQueen) later admitted that all of them, bar Schroeder, believed the official story ..." Where did he admit that? I certainly couldn't find it. Are you going to present the PRIMARY sources for this assertion? Are you going to insist that all those four firemen I quoted above accepted, and accept to this day the official explanation of the collapse? Paul.L wrote, "I haven't offered the pancake theory. ..." Well, you sure fooled me (tobecontinued) Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 8:29:34 AM
| |
Dagget,
Constantly shifting goalposts? It’s you that is shifting the goalposts every time I rebut one of your simplistic assertions. Eg. Molten steel – you have provided no evidence except hearsay – you even had the temerity to post a photo of red hot steel and claim it to be molten. How is it that all of this molten steel was not photographed when it was finally removed from the site? I mean it didn't reform into 'I' beams after it cooled down did it? Like the guy in the terminator. If it was molten at some stage it would have lost ALL of its shape and there would be great globs of it solidified. How were the external columns ( you know the ones on the outside of the building which everyone could see) cut by this “super thermite” without it being visible? You said >> “What, other than an explosion, would have suddenly pushed the side of the tower at the point of the initiation of the collapse?” – you haven’t acknowledged that explosive cutting charges don’t PUSH buildings anywhere. You said >> Curiously that explosion occurred at the precise moment and precise location that the tower began to collapse. – But it clearly didn’t occur at the precise moment of the collapse. It occurred well after the building was moving. You said >> If Paul.L had given this more than 3 seconds … there is no rule set in concrete which prevents anyone from timing explosions to occur in whatever sequence they please. – Yes there is if you want to demolish the building in a controlled manner. You can’t just wing it. You say >> “Note the word 'explosions', Paul.L.” - 16 First responders used the term “explosions” to describe the impact of jumpers hitting the ground. Do you actually think that they were suggesting that the jumpers were filled with explosives? http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard Here is a video which shows half a dozen tall buildings being demolished, go to 2.5 minutes in, after the “truther made” doctored collapse video which has had audio of explosions added. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926 Posted by Paul.L, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 12:02:34 PM
| |
(continuedfromabove)
The video you pointed me to at http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm clearly showed a simulation of the pancake theory as I pointed out (although, curiously, it seems to have since been removed as if someone there had woken up the stupidity of what was being depicted). You didn't take the opportunity then to renounce the 'pancake theory'. Instead, you absurdly tried to defend it, stating: "Its funny, the photograph you posted shows the remnant of the central core, ..." ... but ignoring my point that the pancake theory required ALL of the central core to be there whether erect or at least toppled one way or the other and not just a 'remnant'. Whatever theory you now support, there is certainly none, other than the controlled demolition theory, which can possibly explain how the whole of both towers fell to the ground as dust in, at most, 15 seconds, in the process, crushing and pulverising the whole solid inner core as well as the outer supporting wall. --- I note Paul.L's further hysterical rant just now. If he can't see evidence of molten steel in http://wtcinvestigation.com/#%5B%5BWorld%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots%5D%5D linked to from http://ae911truth.org let's hope he never obtains employment as a forensic scientist. The crime rate in this country would surely soar. --- Paul.L wrote (earlier), "Here is a building being demolished. Note the building collapses because the columns at the base of the building are cut." (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlGmnKvOhlg) So, when were you intending to acknowledge that the observed collapse of WTC7 exactly conforms to what you insist is the only possible way a building can be demolished? Also, as you are adamant that there is some laws of physic that states that, somehow, if detonations occur in a different order that the demolition cannot be as smooth, clean and symmetrical as we observed with the twin tower collapses, then we will have to agree to disagree and leave it to others to decide which of the two of us is more objective and more rational. --- I may have to leave it to others to spot the remaining illogicalities in Paul.L's posts for now. Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 1:27:14 PM
| |
Posted in this thread by daggett on Friday, 31 October 2008 3:17:01 PM, was this link: http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres5/GRIFFIN-Newpearlharbor.pdf
It is a link to a site from which you can download, as a PDF file, a copy of the complete book "The New Pearl Harbour", by David Ray Griffin. It is a 1.7MB file. The electronic book consists of 110 pages in 10 chapters, each with copious footnotes and references as to sources. I have now read this book. I recommend it. These are its concluding paragraphs: [An early Presidential nomination candidate] "... a Republican named John Buchanan,has said in a stump speech: "I stand here as a 9/11 Truth Candidate and some may thus dismiss me as a single- issue candidate and in a narrow sense that is true. But if you consider that 9/11 has led us into fiscal ruin, endless war and constitutional twilight, my issue is the mother issue of our age." Saying that "[w]e have all been lied to about 9/11," Buchanan recited many of the facts reported in the present book. He then closed his speech by urging his hearers to support Ellen Mariani as "one of the heroes of this cause" and to read Nafeez Ahmed's The War on Freedom and Paul Thompson's 9/11 timeline. >65 Buchanan is highly critical of the mainline press for not questioning "the scores of 9/11 lies and contradictions" or even telling the public that there are "still unanswered questions." This same press may now be reluctant to tell the public about the existence of "a 9/11 truth candidate." But his very existence, combined with the fact that millions of Americans will know about him through other sources, provides yet another reason for concluding that a full investigation, one that examines the evidence for official complicity, is a necessity." Hardly a nutcase, wingnut, moonbat, or fruitloop, I would think, even if he did not win the nomination. Hopefully President elect Obama will duly institute such proper inquiry. Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 10:41:38 PM
|
"So, we ran as a unit to the overpass, and we took a look up, and it was like one -- it was like, holy 5h!t. It was like -- I guess the building was kind of -- I don't remember specifically, but I remember it was, like, we got to get out of here. Some I think that the building was really starting to melt. We were -- like the melt was beginning. The collapse hadn't begun, but it was not a fire any more up there. It was like -- it was like that -- like smoke explosions on a tremendous scale going on up there."
Note the word 'explosions', Paul.L.
Had you failed to notice this in your close scrutiny of the document to find evidence to back up your claim that Becker had been quoted out of context?
So, when do you intend to retract your misleading statement "No one actually saw any explosions ..."?
Of course, I won't hold my breath waiting.