Thread: Video: World trade center 9/11 a modern MYTH!?

Memeticverb, how many of such experts are there in the world? Does that list plus the supposed hundreds of other experts cover more than .0001% of the experts in the world? Why are the masses so damn quiet?

And I still want to know your version of how remote control devices snuck on airplanes and fooled airplane and airport staff into thinking they were humans and disguised themselves as passengers to call passengers' friends and family members to give the impression that the airplanes had been hijacked. I would also like to know who Bin Laden, Al-Zarqawi, Al-Zawihiri, Sheik Muhammed, the "shoe bomber", the "20th hijacker", and all of the people at Guantanamo Bay REALLY are. Do you think you might dare to take a stab at it this time?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Memeticverb, how many of such experts are there in the world? Does that list plus the supposed hundreds of other experts cover more than .0001% of the experts in the world? Why are the masses so damn quiet?

And I still want to know your version of how remote control devices snuck on airplanes and fooled airplane and airport staff into thinking they were humans and disguised themselves as passengers to call passengers' friends and family members to give the impression that the airplanes had been hijacked. I would also like to know who Bin Laden, Al-Zarqawi, Al-Zawihiri, Sheik Muhammed, the "shoe bomber", the "20th hijacker", and all of the people at Guantanamo Bay REALLY are. Do you think you might dare to take a stab at it this time?

lol. What, afraid to call all those experts crazy and risk sounding like a fool? Go ahead, Im not stopping you. Do you, or do you not think that all these Structural Engineers, Architects, and Ph.D professors and scientists are crazy? Go ahead, i cant wait to hear you claim that some of the world's brightest minds are really fools.

Now as for your idiotic question you keep repeating like a broken record of why there MUST be more than hundreds and thousands of engineers boldly speaking out (when already many have been threatened and many firefighters who saw and heard high powered explosives have testified that they have been told to shut-up or face prosecution) the answer is even more simple than the highly controversial nature of a subject. Yes, the answer is simply that all the engineers havent yet heard the evidence.

Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth has regularly been giving presentations to Achitecture firms. When he is done he asks how many of them still believe th official story of how the WTC buildings collapsed. Can you guess how many that typically is? I think the most he said raised their hands was 2 out of 40 from his last presentation.

And besides, haven't you heard of the 13,000 rule in political demographics? This is when a political representative receives a letter about some issue, they can consider it worth 13,000 letters because they figure that for every person who feels strongly enough to write a letter, there are roughly 13,000 who feel the same way but are unmotivated to do anything.

Just taking the registered architects and engineers in AE911Truth, we have rought estimate of over 2 million others who feel the same way. Of course this doesnt prove that what they think is true,(they have already proven that through scientific and academic research) but the numbers are overwhelming. According to a recent Zogby poll, over 14 million Americans believe the the govt had a hand in 911. And many millions more who want a new investigation, and/or impeachment for the dynamic duo. Something to think about...

I don't know what to think.

If this is saying that the news and the government information is false and not to be believed, then what makes this oh so much more credible. The fact that a load of experts say things in it? They have no doubt omitted some crucial facts that did not play along with their story. I hate the way these things are made as well, just stupidly provocative and selective of sources.


"Do you think some people in a cave??? Do you think some people in a cave could make this happen?"
Sheesh what a quote. Because of course, it's not like they have houses or anything in Afghanistan!

Originally Posted by memeticverb

lol. What, afraid to call all those experts crazy and risk sounding like a fool? Go ahead, Im not stopping you. Do you, or do you not think that all these Structural Engineers, Architects, and Ph.D professors and scientists are crazy? Go ahead, i cant wait to hear you claim that some of the world's brightest minds are really fools.

Now as for your idiotic question you keep repeating like a broken record of why there MUST be more than hundreds and thousands of engineers boldly speaking out (when already many have been threatened and many firefighters who saw and heard high powered explosives have testified that they have been told to shut-up or face prosecution) the answer is even more simple than the highly controversial nature of a subject. Yes, the answer is simply that all the engineers havent yet heard the evidence.

Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth has regularly been giving presentations to Achitecture firms. When he is done he asks how many of them still believe th official story of how the WTC buildings collapsed. Can you guess how many that typically is? I think the most he said raised their hands was 2 out of 40 from his last presentation.

And besides, haven't you heard of the 13,000 rule in political demographics? This is when a political representative receives a letter about some issue, they can consider it worth 13,000 letters because they figure that for every person who feels strongly enough to write a letter, there are roughly 13,000 who feel the same way but are unmotivated to do anything.

Just taking the registered architects and engineers in AE911Truth, we have rought estimate of over 2 million others who feel the same way. Of course this doesnt prove that what they think is true,(they have already proven that through scientific and academic research) but the numbers are overwhelming. According to a recent Zogby poll, over 14 million Americans believe the the govt had a hand in 911. And many millions more who want a new investigation, and/or impeachment for the dynamic duo. Something to think about...

I don't know where you get that fraction. On something this huge, it would be more like 1/13,000 NOT speaking out. Plus, a lot less than 1/13,000 of the experts are speaking out. I know construction experts myself, and they don't say jack about this issue. Are you going to tell me that means they have been threatened?

Are you EVER going to answer my questions about who Bin Laden and the other Al Qaeda leaders and the people in Guantanamo Bay "really" are and how remote control devices passed themselves off as humans to so many staff members and what the friends and family members of the victims said about hijackings of the airplanes? You have ignored those questions about 12 times in a row now. Cat got your tongue?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't know where you get that fraction. On something this huge, it would be more like 1/13,000 NOT speaking out. Plus, a lot less than 1/13,000 of the experts are speaking out. I know construction experts myself, and they don't say jack about this issue. Are you going to tell me that means they have been threatened?

Are you EVER going to answer my questions about who Bin Laden and the other Al Qaeda leaders and the people in Guantanamo Bay "really" are and how remote control devices passed themselves off as humans to so many staff members and what the friends and family members of the victims said about hijackings of the airplanes? You have ignored those questions about 12 times in a row now. Cat got your tongue?

You are a troll. Your questions are strawmen based on nothing but your own delusions, Sorry to break it to you, but I doubt you even understand it yourself...a classic case of denial, like all the sheeple.

You havnt answered a single argument from dozens of experts (who are joined by hundreds if not thousands of academics). The number of prominent experts going out on a limb and risking public and political flack for simply researching this tragic event is nothing short of phenomenal.

That they have proven without a doubt that the WTC buildings, most glaringly WTC7 were controlled demolitions cannot be refuted. Did you know that Dr. Crocket Grabbe proved that explosions where blasting out of the WTC exactly like controlled demolitions and at the exact same rate? (about 160mph and extending over 70 feet). This is proof of high-powered explosions, seen here.

Dr. Grabbe's academic paper has not been refuted or even challenged. His credentials are impeccable, and he deals with the evidence and the science needed to understand its full significance in a manner that is easy for a layperson to understand.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

That they have proven without a doubt that the WTC buildings, most glaringly WTC7 were controlled demolitions cannot be refuted. Did you know that Dr. Crocket Grabbe proved that explosions where blasting out of the WTC exactly like controlled demolitions and at the exact same rate? (about 160mph and extending over 70 feet). This is proof of high-powered explosions, seen here.

Dr. Grabbe's academic paper has not been refuted or even challenged. His credentials are impeccable, and he deals with the evidence and the science needed to understand its full significance in a manner that is easy for a layperson to understand.

That video actually refutes itself. Looking at the example demolition it has several squibs and they appear to be set at regular intervals along the building's height. In the WTC the 'squibs' are fewer in number (despite it being a larger building) and go off a seemingly random intervals along the building.

The paper is operating under the assumption that the 'squibs' were explosions and not something else, such as blasts of air caused by the building above collapsing. All it shows is that high velocity material was ejected from the WTC which is not definitive proof of explosions. In fact that paper was mostly refuting the even nuttier directed energy weapon claims rather than giving conclusive proof of explosives.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

You are a troll. Your questions are strawmen based on nothing but your own delusions, Sorry to break it to you, but I doubt you even understand it yourself...a classic case of denial, like all the sheeple.

You havnt answered a single argument from dozens of experts (who are joined by hundreds if not thousands of academics). The number of prominent experts going out on a limb and risking public and political flack for simply researching this tragic event is nothing short of phenomenal.

That they have proven without a doubt that the WTC buildings, most glaringly WTC7 were controlled demolitions cannot be refuted. Did you know that Dr. Crocket Grabbe proved that explosions where blasting out of the WTC exactly like controlled demolitions and at the exact same rate? (about 160mph and extending over 70 feet). This is proof of high-powered explosions, seen here.

Dr. Grabbe's academic paper has not been refuted or even challenged. His credentials are impeccable, and he deals with the evidence and the science needed to understand its full significance in a manner that is easy for a layperson to understand.

In other words, you are not going to answer my questions. Dr. Grabbe's extreme minority talk has not been refuted by experts, in your nonexpert opinion. Cool. What does Dr. Grabbe say about how remote control devices passed themselves off as pilots and got onto four airplanes and created the illusion for victims' families that the airplanes were under hijack status? You don't have answers to my questions that have stumped you. Does he?

Your religious sheepery is not answering how the inside job happened. Tell the story, and include the parts I keep bringing up. I want to understand the story you claim happened, but you won't tell it. That makes me think you don't really believe it. So why do you keep pretending that you do?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

In other words, you are not going to answer my questions. Dr. Grabbe's extreme minority talk has not been refuted by experts, in your nonexpert opinion. Cool. What does Dr. Grabbe say about how remote control devices passed themselves off as pilots and got onto four airplanes and created the illusion for victims' families that the airplanes were under hijack status? You don't have answers to my questions that have stumped you. Does he?

Your religious sheepery is not answering how the inside job happened. Tell the story, and include the parts I keep bringing up. I want to understand the story you claim happened, but you won't tell it. That makes me think you don't really believe it. So why do you keep pretending that you do?

All the arguments you've ever used in this thread are bogus. You are aware of that arent you?

It doesnt matter if Dr. Grabbe's presentation of the proof of explosives, of which he gives an eloquent and rigorous scientific analysis, isnt adhered to by the majority of others (who's opinions havnt been solicited so the point is nonexistent anyways). When will you learn that that whether th majority believes something has no bearing on the truth of the belief in question.

As for the question of remote controlled aircraft Ive already answered it to the best of my knowledge. That you repeatedly ignore this and make a big deal out of nothing shows you to be a troll.


Firefighters Talk about Controlled Demolition

WTC7 Compared to CD

Molten Iron, impossible without explosives or incendiaries

Originally Posted by memeticverb

All the arguments you've ever used in this thread are bogus. You are aware of that arent you?

Then why are you so afraid to counter them?

Originally Posted by memeticverb

It doesnt matter if Dr. Grabbe's presentation of the proof of explosives, of which he gives an eloquent and rigorous scientific analysis, isnt adhered to by the majority of others (who's opinions havnt been solicited so the point is nonexistent anyways). When will you learn that that whether th majority believes something has no bearing on the truth of the belief in question.

You are missing my point again, probably intentionally. If YOU can understand that the biggest news story in history, which was about a big time tragedy, involves a false government demolition report, then so can the masses of experts. They would be picking up on it too. But they are being quiet. You have yet to explain why. This is not a simple matter of "The majority is right", like you keep trying to misconstrue my words to mean. It is a matter of "Experts usually understand better than nonexperts". It is like you and large numbers of angry coffee shop hippies saying something is wrong with a brain surgery report when the masses of brain surgeons don't seem to think so. If you were able to notice that something is wrong with a brain surgery report concerning the biggest news story and American shock of all time, the masses of brain surgeons would be talking very loudly.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

As for the question of remote controlled aircraft Ive already answered it to the best of my knowledge. That you repeatedly ignore this and make a big deal out of nothing shows you to be a troll.

Please quote where you answered it. I have yet to see a single thing about how remote control devices disguised themselves as humans and fooled many staff members as they snuck onto airplanes and headed down the runways past the flag men. I also asked you a lot more questions than that.

But again, please quote where you supposedly answered my remote control devices question.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then why are you so afraid to counter them?

You are missing my point again, probably intentionally. If YOU can understand that the biggest news story in history, which was about a big time tragedy, involves a false government demolition report, then so can the masses of experts. They would be picking up on it too. But they are being quiet. You have yet to explain why.

Nope, i simply disagree with you. And since this is a point that cannot be proven except by a poll of all structural engineers and other experts, then you are being fairly close-minded as trying to make it one of the strongest "arguments" against the 911 Truth movement.

Your fundamental assumption, which I might as well keep pointing out since you dont recognize it, rests on a fallacy. That fallacy suggests that the masses of experts MUST publicly denounce the govt's official reports in order to make the claims of hundreds of other experts true. This is pure nonsense. And if you only care about what the masses think then you are a sheep. I care about th best arguments for and against a position. That
"so and so believes it", or that some un-solicited, un-polled "masses" do not, has no bearing on what I allow to enter my consideration for truth.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

Nope, i simply disagree with you. And since this is a point that cannot be proven except by a poll of all structural engineers and other experts, then you are being fairly close-minded as trying to make it one of the strongest "arguments" against the 911 Truth movement.

Your fundamental assumption, which I might as well keep pointing out since you dont recognize it, rests on a fallacy. That fallacy suggests that the masses of experts MUST publicly denounce the govt's official reports in order to make the claims of hundreds of other experts true. This is pure nonsense. And if you only care about what the masses think then you are a sheep. I care about th best arguments for and against a position. That
"so and so believes it", or that some un-solicited, un-polled "masses" do not, has no bearing on what I allow to enter my consideration for truth.

That makes you a sheep for the claims of the microscopic minority of actual experts. Expert mass chatter would happen if your religious belief were true (about a major tragedy that is the biggest news story of all time). There is no such expert mass chatter. Therefore, your religious belief is not something I am going to take seriously. You are so narcissistic that you assume you understand ALL of the relevant demolition specifics and dismiss ALL of the counterarguments of the skeptical experts and assume you have covered ALL potential confoundings in the conclusion. I don't think you are expert enough to be positive of that. I know I am not. If you are not an engineer or such, you are just being delusional and blowing hot air.

I asked lots of questions other than that. What are your answers? You didn't quote your answer about remote control devices. What happened there? I really want a clear pictures of how those planes were flown and how so many people talking to the passengers heard from them and the background that hijackings were taking place and why the thousands of Pentagon workers have nothing bizarre to report other than the fact that a passenger airplane crashed into their building while they were at work and the passengers and staff of those airplanes were dead and had funerals. Explain this to me, if you really believe the religious dogma you keep chanting. Your evasiveness shows doubt.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That makes you a sheep for the claims of the microscopic minority of actual experts. Expert mass chatter would happen if your religious belief were true (about a major tragedy that is the biggest news story of all time). There is no such expert mass chatter. Therefore, your religious belief is not something I am going to take seriously. You are so narcissistic that you assume you understand ALL of the relevant demolition specifics and dismiss ALL of the counterarguments of the skeptical experts and assume you have covered ALL potential confoundings in the conclusion. I don't think you are expert enough to be positive of that. I know I am not. If you are not an engineer or such, you are just being delusional and blowing hot air.

I asked lots of questions other than that. What are your answers? You didn't quote your answer about remote control devices. What happened there? I really want a clear pictures of how those planes were flown and how so many people talking to the passengers heard from them and the background that hijackings were taking place and why the thousands of Pentagon workers have nothing bizarre to report other than the fact that a passenger airplane crashed into their building while they were at work and the passengers and staff of those airplanes were dead and had funerals. Explain this to me, if you really believe the religious dogma you keep chanting. Your evasiveness shows doubt.

I asked you to prove how "the masses not chattering" makes it CERTAIN that your position is true. And if you think the masses arent chattering you are asleep. Prove they are not. Your argument is fallacious anyways. The sad thing is you know this. Keep hurting your own position, its fun to watch.

Why are you asking questions about the Pentagon now? The only thing we can say is that an novice pilot performed a maneuver that should only have been possible by an expert, into the only side of the Pentagon renovated to better withstand a "missile" attack, doing a 270 degree turn to avoid the offices of the highest ranking Pentagon officials and destroying the accounting office with minimal casualties (except the valuable records that may have contained details as to the $2 Trillion Rumsfeld had admitted they lost.)

Oh hey, this is really neat. It was almost too long for me to watch, but I'm glad I did.
Do I believe it? mmm.. Maybe. Not sure.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

I asked you to prove how "the masses not chattering" makes it CERTAIN that your position is true. And if you think the masses arent chattering you are asleep. Prove they are not. Your argument is fallacious anyways. The sad thing is you know this. Keep hurting your own position, its fun to watch.

I said this in another thread...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What about local news stations in the world? What about the engineering firms all over the world? What about the social circles I come across all the time? What about all of the architecture firms in the world? What about local newspapers everywhere? What about my ex who is an architect? What about my construction supervisor former best friend? What about street protests and townhall meetings where enormous crowds of engineers could meet? Why not a million engineer march? What about a million demolition expert petition? Where is all of this? All you have are a few money and attention seeking Bush haters and your own amateur narcissism.

I leave a tiny bit of room for "what if" on everything. My positions are always matters of probability, often extreme probability. I don't think the lack of chatter alone proves the conspiracy did not happen. I think the lack of chatter proves (meaning "shows the vast probability, leaving microscopic probability for the alternative") that you do not have sastisfactory understanding that the conspiracy happened. I don't think you are noticing something the masses of experts are not noticing. My brain surgery report analogy is an illustration of where I stand on that.

I wrote this in another thread. It illustrates why I don't think the inside job happened with the key components the general conspiracy believers say happened, even if by some bizarre stroke of Oz you and a few others here are noticing something the masses of experts are not noticing and the government's explanation really is false.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The United States government wanted to take a very extreme risk and pull a Pearl Harbor type stunt so there would be an excuse to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan and get good oil money even though the oil would still belong to the people of those countries. So lots and lots of members of the White House staff, the FBI, the FAA, the CIA, Norad, the military, the news media, demolition crews, the Washington police, and other bodies all got together and took a big risk by talking about doing this, and everybody happened to agree to it, except maybe a few people who opted out yet decided not to talk about something so humongous and despiccably evil and devastating to their own country and economy. This enormous group of people who all turned out to happen to be far more evil than the worst of serial killers decided to make military airplanes to crash into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in the middle of nowhere. This would make it easy to blame everything on the terrorist group Al Qaeda, who just so happens to exist for the purpose of engaging in such attacks and had even done so in the past. Little did Al Qaeda know that they would soon finally get their big breaks as actors working for the very government they organized for the purpose of destroying.

All of the necessary bodies worked with the military to take military passenger airplanes that look just like commercial passenger airplanes, unknown military airplanes that were the only three in the world that fit that description, and painted the necessary colors and commercial labels on them since military green makes it look like the airplanes are not the airline company jets the passengers had tickets to board. Since nobody in the military was willing to die for somebody ele's outrageously large scale oil scheme, remote control devices were put in the airplanes. Passengers got onto the airplanes and were greeted by robotic stewardesses. Then the planes headed down the runways as the remote control devices smiled for the flag men on the runways, who reported nothing unusual. There was a problem with the fact that the actual airline companies sent the real airplanes to the airports with real airplane staff and passengers and communicated with airport staff about the arrangements, so the enormous oil conspiracy legion of people who just happened to all be more evil than serial killers decided to hide the real airplanes and staff under the airports when nobody was looking and replace the staff with robots who have all of the same memories and behavior patterns as the real staff. Much to the good fortune of the psychopath network of oil conspirators, nobody noticed when one of the airplanes passengers got on was actually a missile. Or maybe those people are buried under the airport too.

While in the air, the government turned on their background hijack noises and swung metal balls from the ceiling with remote control devices so the passengers would be hypnotized into thinking they were being hijacked and call their friends and relatives to cry while saying goodbye. Then all of the crashes happened. One of the crashes, the one that involved a horrendously loud blow into the U.S. governments' Department of Defense building, involved a missile hit during work hours. Thousands of people were working in that building, but none of them reported that it was a missile that hit the building, even after they soon realized that the biggest news story in the history of the world, one that concerned a missile attack on their work building while they were at work, was false. That is because they all wanted to keep working at the building that was hit by a missile that was deliberately fired by their bosses while those workers were in the building.

The World Trade Center was hit by the government's remote control passenger airplanes instead of missiles just for the sake of randomness, but it was strategically placed bombs that made the buildings fall. The claims of the government and many experts about how the buildings fell was wrong, and the incorrectness of those reports was so obvious and undisputable that even amateur punks on the internet go off about it with complete certainty and are totally correct even though the vast, vast majority of engineers, construction supervisors, architects, and demolition supervisors don't agree with the claim and have the insanely bizarre idea that those people are just punks on the internet, or else just don't really care, even though the United States and its coalition are fighting two wars right now because of the illusory terrorism threat and the major influence of what so many people are crazy enough to believe were terrorist attacks of all things.

The government now has many actors who got fired from Days of Our Lives and after school specials playing members of Al Qaeda along with actual Al Qaeda members and taking credit for the attacks on video as well as threatening to pull more attacks, which they have done in many places in the Middle East and Europe, because they are trying to get roles on sitcoms and jobs hosting reality shows. The mass network of conspirators has kept a very tight lid on what they all know really happened in the horrific tragedy that was the subject of the biggest news story in the history of the world and the major influence of two WARS that are going on right now.

I don't think that really happened.

Universal, the fact that you don't know anybody who is capable of understanding what happened and has the necessary information to make judgment does not mean that this sort of person does not exist. The fact is, structural engineers have spoken out on the issue and one reason why many more haven't may come down to not enough people having enough information to make a judgment. Just because someone is a structural engineer does not mean that they have seen all of the evidence.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but I remember seeing you say you were from Mississippi and so I'm assuming your architect friends are from that area as well. Did they visit New York shortly after the attack? Did they get a chance to collect evidence on the subject? Have they done extensive research? Its just as easy for an engineer or an architect to be uninformed as it is for the rest of us.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Universal, the fact that you don't know anybody who is capable of understanding what happened and has the necessary information to make judgment does not mean that this sort of person does not exist. The fact is, structural engineers have spoken out on the issue and one reason why many more haven't may come down to not enough people having enough information to make a judgment. Just because someone is a structural engineer does not mean that they have seen all of the evidence.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but I remember seeing you say you were from Mississippi and so I'm assuming your architect friends are from that area as well. Did they visit New York shortly after the attack? Did they get a chance to collect evidence on the subject? Have they done extensive research? Its just as easy for an engineer or an architect to be uninformed as it is for the rest of us.

My point is that nonexperts in the vast majority of cases do not have the ability to read the reports Memeticverb is talking about and understand the full scope of the issues better than the masses of experts. You don't have to have been to ground zero to understand the depths of the scopes of the reports. It only takes a few experts to spread the word on something that would be so incredibly huge. It didn't happen. If it did, the attacks themselves would no longer be the biggest news story in history (in the form of all media and coffee chat and phone conversations and the rest of it). The government's role in the attacks would. It would be bigger than a story of Godzilla destroying Manhattan.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

My point is that nonexperts in the vast majority of cases do not have the ability to read the reports Memeticverb is talking about and understand the full scope of the issues better than the masses of experts. You don't have to have been to ground zero to understand the depths of the scopes of the reports. It only takes a few experts to spread the word on something that would be so incredibly huge. It didn't happen. If it did, the attacks themselves would no longer be the biggest news story in history (in the form of all media and coffee chat and phone conversations and the rest of it). The government's role in the attacks would. It would be bigger than a story of Godzilla destroying Manhattan.

But what I'm asking you isn't about the official reports, since if the conspiracy was correct, of course the reports would be misleading and possibly untruthful. If this were the case, it would require an expert to collect their own evidence in order to form an accurate opinion of what happened. Were any private investigations conducted? Was any evidence collected by private investigators independently from the the government investigation?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

But what I'm asking you isn't about the official reports, since if the conspiracy was correct, of course the reports would be misleading and possibly untruthful. If this were the case, it would require an expert to collect their own evidence in order to form an accurate opinion of what happened. Were any private investigations conducted? Was any evidence collected by private investigators independently from the the government investigation?

I don't know. But that is irrelevant to the fact that the conspiracy claims state that the report involved impossible statements. It was not necessary for there to be nongovernment investigators at the scene for my point about supposed falsehoods in the reports being debunked. Your question is only relevant to whether the truth of the government reports could be trusted, not whether they involve impossible statements.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't know. But that is irrelevant to the fact that the conspiracy claims state that the report involved impossible statements. It was not necessary for there to be nongovernment investigators at the scene for my point about supposed falsehoods in the reports being debunked. Your question is only relevant to whether the truth of the government reports could be trusted, not whether they involve impossible statements.

Wrong answer(s). There were, and continue to be independent investigations involving real evidence taken from the crime scene (such as the pieces of molten metal, video and photographic evidence which scientifically contradicts the official reports).

The NIST report contains multiple errors and by its own admission doesn't even try to explain how the towers collapsed. One impossible statement made by NIST is that the uniform ejections of debris 20 floors below the collapse zone were from pressure building up ahead of the collapsing building.

Two academic papers prove this impossibility and contradiction, among other things.

Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and
Widespread Impact Damage

High Velocity Bursts of Debris From Point-Like Sources in the
WTC Towers

Originally Posted by memeticverb

Wrong answer(s). There were, and continue to be independent investigations involving real evidence taken from the crime scene (such as the pieces of molten metal, video and photographic evidence which scientifically contradicts the official reports).

The NIST report contains multiple errors and by its own admission doesn't even try to explain how the towers collapsed. One impossible statement made by NIST is that the uniform ejections of debris 20 floors below the collapse zone were from pressure building up ahead of the collapsing building.

Two academic papers prove this impossibility and contradiction, among other things.

Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and
Widespread Impact Damage

High Velocity Bursts of Debris From Point-Like Sources in the
WTC Towers

However, non of this actually proves anything. You are just posting links to opinions on the matter and passing them off as your proof because someone smarter than you typed them. I can however bring some proof as this has been discussed to death on other forums.

I will say that it is really interesting to see how some derive their beliefs. With little evidence that is. That is why these videos and reports work so well to gather the numbers of audience that they do. All they have to do is point out some little photo they took and people yell, "There's my evidence, it's real!" Even though the photo doesn't actually prove anything. The authors use persuasive techniques with limited details to enforce their statements. But all they are really doing is convincing you about something you know nothing about to begin with. In essence, you respond like a school child being taught by his math teacher in that he knows more than you, so therefore it is correct to believe what he says.

To me it seems that you really don't question anything, you just agree with it. To think that you used the term "sheeple" about others is unjustified, because you seem to act a good definition of one yourself. I'm not trying to get mean towards you to intensify a point, so don't hold a grudge. I just feel that one can always open himself just a bit more.

First, the NIST video does no better than to prove that the man answering questions is indeed irritated by his audience. That doesn't prove there were explosives in the building. I myself would be irritated too in my response when trying to explain explosive events in lamen terms to idiot biased reporters, who are simply there to unsettle you to begin with. The reporter couldn't even read his question let alone make a good point. You can't use two people who don't agree as basis for any proof, I'm sorry to say.

The NIST engineer knows how sensitive of a subject it is. He knows how easily "dumb" doors get opened. He is very cautious with his responses, and I know exactly why. He has people riding on his back, but in a different sort of way. It doesn't mean he's an inside man just because of this, or that the CIA is threatening him.

I'll next hit on the pools of steel. First, pools of steel aren't relative to explosives. Explosives create massive heat, yes. But, the time period that heat lasts is over the course of milliseconds due to the speed of gas expansion. In other words, large amounts of high explosives being detonated never results in a puddle of orange molten steel. As people realized that this wouldn't make a good arguement, they had to throw another idea out there for the wonderful public to question: thermite.

It's obvious someone had to say thermite sometime. But, for any scientist, that is quickly batted out of the air as well.

Thermite is a 50:50 mixture of CuO and FeO (copper oxide and iron oxide). Both are the oxidating products of steel and copper - something the building had very much of, what do you know! Thermite residue thus should be easy to find, it should be everywhere. But if they would have told you that, it may have changed your opinion. So that's a no no.

I won't settle with leaving you just half of the details now like your fellow reporters, I'll go just a bit further. Let's say that there were amounts of thermite placed around the massive beams. It would take a very large bag of thermite to actually melt the distance through that beam. Not to mention a good amount of time. Thermite reactions will speed themselves up in large amounts, meaning that they will produce even more heat but for a shorter period of time. The problem is it produces so much heat, nothing can contain the thermite. Sure it would melt the beams, if you could somehow hold it in place. Since there is gravity, the thermite piles would instantly drop through the floor burning, and through the next floor and so on. As you can imagine, this would have little effect on the beams. You can toss the thermite idea.

Next we have these squibs. Ok. We portray any event from a window as a squib, that's easy enough for the media to do. Compare it to a real blast, and you can quickly find that this is just what we thought: media hype. You aren't going to place a squib or two every 30 floors in a real demolition if you actually plan to bring it down. Neither do they simply detonate them at random intervals. In a real demolition implosion, the building is brought down at once. Generally, all the supporting beams are hit before the momentum interia even begins. They take out a bunch of layers so many individual sections begin their fall. This makes the building sandwich together as it falls. It levels with much less force and tremor to the earth. The trade towers were completely the opposite. It was obviously a type of collapse where each individual floor collapsed, and the total inertia gained and gained until the entire pile hit at once. This creates a much more uncontrolled fall, with much more energy when it all impacts. This also creates the toppling effect at the top, where huge debris piles fall outward due to air pressure rushing out of the center.

Speaking of air pressure, that's another great topic. Air pressure will find a way out of the building in a collapse like this, whether you like it or not. Air which is trapped in passageways with little leakage locations will blast when it reaches its maximum structural holding pressure. That pressure can be transferred down passageways and out the front doors of the building if it finds a path. This easily explains floors below blowing the massive pressure off in the fall. You can just imagine what hundreds of thousands of cubic feet of compressed air at elevated PSI will do. Little dirt clouds out windows below are nothing compared to the air pressure along the shockwave of the collapse zone. So you had best not just pass them off as squibs because some media moron told you so. By the way, those papers you posted prove nothing towards this being impossible. They butter you up with a bunch of formulas, but the data is all simple relative conclusion.

Then there is the misleading "slag steel" on the cut beams. Oh no, it must be from explosives! Not. Actually these people are complete idiots. Hot steel that shears leaves a ripped and torn appearance exactly characteristic of the photo, but nothing even close to what a shaped charge cut looks like.

Below I will post the photo that they show the public of the ever so controversal slagged steel:



Now look at how crappy and slaggy of a tear that is. It is certainly impossible for a shaped charge to make a cut line like that. The metal is formed completely different than could ever be possible from an explosive. If anyone could tell you this from first hand experience, it is me. That is how I dispute media bullshit.

Now below are photos of real shaped charge cuts. One is a charge on a steel plate that penetrated cleanly and sliced the plate. Notice how precisely the jet cuts the steel; it is absolutely not jagged. It is like a waterjet cut. Below it is another photo of a linear shaped charge which didn't penetrate all the way through, but still demonstrates the cleanliness of an explosive cut on steel.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

Wrong answer(s). There were, and continue to be independent investigations involving real evidence taken from the crime scene (such as the pieces of molten metal, video and photographic evidence which scientifically contradicts the official reports).

The NIST report contains multiple errors and by its own admission doesn't even try to explain how the towers collapsed. One impossible statement made by NIST is that the uniform ejections of debris 20 floors below the collapse zone were from pressure building up ahead of the collapsing building.

Two academic papers prove this impossibility and contradiction, among other things.

Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and
Widespread Impact Damage

High Velocity Bursts of Debris From Point-Like Sources in the
WTC Towers

I have addressed that area a thousand times already. You know what my point is. If you can't successfully counter my point regarding demolition specifics, at least address the flaws in my satire. You keep dodging the story I wrote. It shows the abusurdity of the 9/11 conspiracy idea. Stop dodging it. You claim you believe in it. Tell me the details of how it could have possibly happened.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I have addressed that area a thousand times already. You know what my point is. If you can't successfully counter my point regarding demolition specifics, at least address the flaws in my satire. You keep dodging the story I wrote. It shows the abusurdity of the 9/11 conspiracy idea. Stop dodging it. You claim you believe in it. Tell me the details of how it could have possibly happened.

I see many flaws in your satire. The most glaring one is that it is written purposely to be outlandish and there are many more plausible explanations, the best being that our government dealt with the 9/11 attacks the same way they dealt with the attack on Pearl Harbor. They didn't orchestrate it, they didn't carry it out; but they did know about it in advance and did nothing to stop it because it suited their goals.

Originally Posted by Dream Sailor

However, non of this actually proves anything. You are just posting links to opinions on the matter and passing them off as your proof because someone smarter than you typed them. I can however bring some proof as this has been discussed to death on other forums.

I will say that it is really interesting to see how some derive their beliefs. With little evidence that is. That is why these videos and reports work so well to gather the numbers of audience that they do. All they have to do is point out some little photo they took and people yell, "There's my evidence, it's real!" Even though the photo doesn't actually prove anything. The authors use persuasive techniques with limited details to enforce their statements. But all they are really doing is convincing you about something you know nothing about to begin with. In essence, you respond like a school child being taught by his math teacher in that he knows more than you, so therefore it is correct to believe what he says.

To me it seems that you really don't question anything, you just agree with it. To think that you used the term "sheeple" about others is unjustified, because you seem to act a good definition of one yourself. I'm not trying to get mean towards you to intensify a point, so don't hold a grudge. I just feel that one can always open himself just a bit more.

First, the NIST video does no better than to prove that the man answering questions is indeed irritated by his audience. That doesn't prove there were explosives in the building. I myself would be irritated too in my response when trying to explain explosive events in lamen terms to idiot biased reporters, who are simply there to unsettle you to begin with. The reporter couldn't even read his question let alone make a good point. You can't use two people who don't agree as basis for any proof, I'm sorry to say.

The NIST engineer knows how sensitive of a subject it is. He knows how easily "dumb" doors get opened. He is very cautious with his responses, and I know exactly why. He has people riding on his back, but in a different sort of way. It doesn't mean he's an inside man just because of this, or that the CIA is threatening him.

I'll next hit on the pools of steel. First, pools of steel aren't relative to explosives. Explosives create massive heat, yes. But, the time period that heat lasts is over the course of milliseconds due to the speed of gas expansion. In other words, large amounts of high explosives being detonated never results in a puddle of orange molten steel. As people realized that this wouldn't make a good arguement, they had to throw another idea out there for the wonderful public to question: thermite.

It's obvious someone had to say thermite sometime. But, for any scientist, that is quickly batted out of the air as well.

Thermite is a 50:50 mixture of CuO and FeO (copper oxide and iron oxide). Both are the oxidating products of steel and copper - something the building had very much of, what do you know! Thermite residue thus should be easy to find, it should be everywhere. But if they would have told you that, it may have changed your opinion. So that's a no no.

I won't settle with leaving you just half of the details now like your fellow reporters, I'll go just a bit further. Let's say that there were amounts of thermite placed around the massive beams. It would take a very large bag of thermite to actually melt the distance through that beam. Not to mention a good amount of time. Thermite reactions will speed themselves up in large amounts, meaning that they will produce even more heat but for a shorter period of time. The problem is it produces so much heat, nothing can contain the thermite. Sure it would melt the beams, if you could somehow hold it in place. Since there is gravity, the thermite piles would instantly drop through the floor burning, and through the next floor and so on. As you can imagine, this would have little effect on the beams. You can toss the thermite idea.

Next we have these squibs. Ok. We portray any event from a window as a squib, that's easy enough for the media to do. Compare it to a real blast, and you can quickly find that this is just what we thought: media hype. You aren't going to place a squib or two every 30 floors in a real demolition if you actually plan to bring it down. Neither do they simply detonate them at random intervals. In a real demolition implosion, the building is brought down at once. Generally, all the supporting beams are hit before the momentum interia even begins. They take out a bunch of layers so many individual sections begin their fall. This makes the building sandwich together as it falls. It levels with much less force and tremor to the earth. The trade towers were completely the opposite. It was obviously a type of collapse where each individual floor collapsed, and the total inertia gained and gained until the entire pile hit at once. This creates a much more uncontrolled fall, with much more energy when it all impacts. This also creates the toppling effect at the top, where huge debris piles fall outward due to air pressure rushing out of the center.

Speaking of air pressure, that's another great topic. Air pressure will find a way out of the building in a collapse like this, whether you like it or not. Air which is trapped in passageways with little leakage locations will blast when it reaches its maximum structural holding pressure. That pressure can be transferred down passageways and out the front doors of the building if it finds a path. This easily explains floors below blowing the massive pressure off in the fall. You can just imagine what hundreds of thousands of cubic feet of compressed air at elevated PSI will do. Little dirt clouds out windows below are nothing compared to the air pressure along the shockwave of the collapse zone. So you had best not just pass them off as squibs because some media moron told you so. By the way, those papers you posted prove nothing towards this being impossible. They butter you up with a bunch of formulas, but the data is all simple relative conclusion.

Then there is the misleading "slag steel" on the cut beams. Oh no, it must be from explosives! Not. Actually these people are complete idiots. Hot steel that shears leaves a ripped and torn appearance exactly characteristic of the photo, but nothing even close to what a shaped charge cut looks like.

Below I will post the photo that they show the public of the ever so controversal slagged steel:



Now look at how crappy and slaggy of a tear that is. It is certainly impossible for a shaped charge to make a cut line like that. The metal is formed completely different than could ever be possible from an explosive. If anyone could tell you this from first hand experience, it is me. That is how I dispute media bullshit.

Now below are photos of real shaped charge cuts. One is a charge on a steel plate that penetrated cleanly and sliced the plate. Notice how precisely the jet cuts the steel; it is absolutely not jagged. It is like a waterjet cut. Below it is another photo of a linear shaped charge which didn't penetrate all the way through, but still demonstrates the cleanliness of an explosive cut on steel.

But what about this picture?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I see many flaws in your satire. The most glaring one is that it is written purposely to be outlandish and there are many more plausible explanations, the best being that our government dealt with the 9/11 attacks the same way they dealt with the attack on Pearl Harbor. They didn't orchestrate it, they didn't carry it out; but they did know about it in advance and did nothing to stop it because it suited their goals.

That is not the idea I was satirizing, though I don't agree with you. And satire is meant to be outlandish. That is exactly the point of it. Satire illustrates outlandishness by being outlandish.