Great, so where is the evidence in this link http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm or the NIST Report misguided or flat out wrong or better yet, perpetuating a conspiracy?

Hersie, just save the effort. There's a few people in this thread that you can not possibly hope to win any argument with. They're actually crazy. Just leavfe XXXMovie4M or whatever is name is alone in his world. He's not going to join you in an argument based on reason or logic so just let it go.

Ah ok true you caught me... I wanted to see if my comment would be subjectively perceived, thus inflamatory, by anyone on either side of the "debate"

again i ask, how can fire cause a steel building to collapse? even buildings completely engulfed in fire for several days do not collapse.

sprinkler systems are run in parrallel, not series so knocking out one section won't disable the safety feature for the entire building!

buildings that have been attacked by missiles suffer severe damage and fire but yet they don't collapse.

i will accept the collapse if there is just one other case of it happening. we're not talking about a spontaneous freak of nature or an action of a person, we're talking about structural damage and fire to a steel building. how many steel structures exist today? how many have suffered similar damage? and finally, how many have collapsed as a result of the damage?

non one can provide an example of this because it's never happened before, yet we're expected to believe that not only did it happen for the first time in history, it happened three times on the same day.

if fire did bring WTC 7 down and it was the first time in history of it happening, why wasn't one single building code changed as a result of it?

i'm glad you finally agree that no other example of the WTC 7 collapse is available!

Sorry, i misspoke, it was the water lines to the building that were destroyed not the sprinklers themselves that failed.

Duh, no other 47 story building in history constructed the way this one was went with fires burning for several hours with part of its base knocked out...so yes, it was the first time in history this happened. But what does any of that prove on its own.

It's like you refuse to evaluate the evidence of why this was the first time in history that it happened. How can someone ever win an argument against your line of reasoning. That is why you adopt it rather than look to the actual evidence.

sprinkler systems are redundant so they have several sources of water, not just one.

it hasn't happened to any steel building of any size or type of design! have other steel buildings around the world suffered damage from fire, earthquakes, tornados, bombings, military attacks? out of these thousands of steel buildings has one ever collapsed into it's own footprint?

this collapse was recorded on video from several different angles, it's not something that just happened in a report. how can you watch that video and say it's not a textbook demo job? how can you watch that video and not agree that the two buildings came down in the exact same way?

You've pretty much just given the definition of how to argue in favor of a conspiracy theory. It works with pretty much all of them.

hey, i'm still waiting on that reply you owe me!

i simple "i'm sorry, i goofed up and didn't know what i was talking about" will suffice :thumbsup

44 story steel building, severe fire damage, NO COLLAPSE


47 story steel building, minor fire damage, COMPLETE COLLAPSE!



just a few words from an MIT Engineer, granted he probably just squeeked by with poor grades :thumbsup

bite a fart

Oh and to everyone else:
http://blog.enterpriseitplanet.com/g...d_facepalm.jpg

911 was a INSIDE JOB..

God... this is going to go on all night. Tomorrow's Monday and I have to get up early and do some work.

Ugh... Just found this:

"South Park 9/11 Truth episode, friend or foe?"
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/...th_friend.html

This guy is pissed off that South Park made fun of Truthers...

argh, argh..

no matter whar side you're on this is a hype sone.

how could NIST have done a thorough investigation on WTC 7 when they had no steel to examine?

they claimed they used steel from another 47 story building that collapsed that day but there was no mention of what building it was.

that would be like police doing an investigation using evidence from a "similar" crime!

Please stop responding to this moron...don't you fucking get it...he's fucked in his head. There is no point whatsoever to discuss this shit with the retard. I repeat no point whatsoever.

:thumbsup

I've already addressed that here, but just like 90% of the evidence concerning 9/11, you chose to ignore it in order to focus on the 10% that supports your cause.


Now eat a dick, take your meds, and STFU.

i'm talking about the comment you made about me saying i didn't believe planes hit the towesr. you have no fucking clue what you're talking about and randomly make up shit in an attempt to "fit in" but the truth is you jumped into a conversation you know nothing about.

your only evidence is a report written by a government agency to cover up a crime committed by the government.

i'm glad they at least acknowledged the fact that they didn't even have samples of the metal from WTC 7. this was the only time in history that a steel building collapsed from fire and yet they started removing evidence before investigators had a chance to examine it.

you're living proof that we need better schooling here in the US.

hey, dirty fuckstick...don't be upset because you can't provide one example. i'm sure you looked and couldn't find anything so the only thing you're left with is "boo hoo, he's a moron, he's a fagot, he's fucked in the head, he's crazy...boo hoo"

if you can't provide any facts then just move along to another thread. this obviously doesn't concern you and you're not smart enough to participate so go talk about how you're going to stop tubes!

You're proving my point again and again that you only see what you want to see when you read something.

All you have is "can you tell me another example of a building that did thus and so?", and since nobody has an example, that means that you're right about everything you've said?

Since something happened for the first time on 9/11 that means it didn't really happen?

You ask for scientific evidence about things, and then when it's given to you, you dismiss it because it's "a government report"....and then you continue to say over and over that nobody can prove you wrong.

Well yeah, considering the only thing that's apparently "credible" in your eyes are things that agree with the viewpoint you already hold, that makes it impossible to prove you wrong, regardless of how wrong you are.

Welcome to wonderland, tell Alice I said hi.

Peer reviewed paper
"Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7"

http://debunking911.com/paper.htm

As for the "scholars" who insist that it was a controlled demolition

• None of the conspiracy "scholars" have passed a peer reviewed paper in a respected scientific journal saying the collapse of the towers was impossible.
• Many peer reviewed papers have been passed in respected scientific journals saying the towers collapsed from impact and fire alone.
• The few scholars who say they are structural engineers and are conspiracy theorists are not working in the field.
• Dr. Fetzer wrote books on JFK and moon landing conspiracies.
• Prof. Jones was a physicist who worked on cold fusion and not structural or civil engineering.
• Prof. Judy Woods was a dental engineer and did not have a job in structural engineering.
• Gordon Ross is not a structural engineer. None of his so called "papers" have passed peer review by a respected scientific journal. He hasn't made a single attempt in a respected journal.
• The scholars for 9/11 truth created their own journal which has no impact to the scientific community and is created by and for the conspiracy theorist community.
• Conspiracy theorists haven't tried to pass a peer reviewed paper in a respected scientific journal. This proves they have little faith in their own work.
• Structural engineers in Jones own university call his hypothesis "very unreliable".

It's really hard to imagine that all of those papers that say it wasn't a controlled demolition have passed peer review but not a single paper has been put forth for review that claims it was a controlled demolition....IF it was actually a controlled demolition or if it was impossible for the building to collapse into it's own footprint from fire and impact damage alone.

</discussion>

progressive collapse is an interesting "theory". it's interesting that he wrote that entire report without having looked at one piece of evidence from the scene. the truth is, no one was able to examine the evidence before it was destroyed.

if this is the first time progressive collapse has ever brought down a steel building, how did the firefighters and police at the scene know that the building was going to collapse? did they consider the "progressive collapse" theory before he did?

********************

In late 2007 a British academic, Dr. Keith Seffen of the University of Cambridge, published a new mathematical analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Centre ? however the paper contains several ridiculous claims. Now a formal request has been made by Mr J A Blacker MSc IMI, who recently debunked the paper, to Dr. Chris Burgoyne, the Head of the Department of Engineering at Cambridge University, highlighting these errors and appealing for the misleading paper to be corrected.

The request points out that Dr Seffen?s paper defies several key laws of physics, i.e. conservation of momentum and conservation of energy.

Mr Blacker?s request also states:

?All the floors offered the same flimsy resistance, when in fact each had different construction characteristics, is beyond any logic as the lower floor core columns were over double the thickness compared to the upper floors.?

Such glaring errors should be an embarrassment to one of the world?s oldest and most prestigious universities.

Dr Seffen?s paper essentially claims that a falling body can fall through the path of most resistance. Such a claim is ludicrous and defies all logic or honest scientific integrity.

Another inaccuracy in the paper is the fact it does not take into account the energy needed to convert the 300,000 tons of concrete and steel to dust.

?The Seffen analysis is based on the columns being a hollow box construction. What about cross bracing?? states Mr Blacker.

?The Seffen paper claims that burning jet fuel in air can weaken ALL the steel girders evenly (hence symmetrical collapse due to gravity of all columns perfectly), yet both ends of these outer and inner massive columns were outside the fire zone to differing degrees hence heat would have conducted up and down very efficiently at different rates, and many columns were not even subjected to any significant fire. Are we really expected to believe that fire can weaken steel evenly despite the core columns conducting heat efficiently at varying rates away from varied regions of temperature??

Simply put, for the University of Cambridge to continue supporting this absurd theory is to present a fictional view of physics.


http://www.rinf.com/multimedia/Cambr...ffen_Paper.pdf

********************

Snake Doctor, you know you can't win this argument with him. Just stop responding to the lunacy.

I think this the most amazing footage of the demolition of tower 1.


Whats causing the floors 10 stories below the collapse to give way?

i wouldn't worry about it if i were you, i'm sure costa rica isn't a primary target for any attack!

the government got rid of all the evidence from WTC 7 because they knew exactly what brought it down and they knew if anyone else examined the debris they would know too.

why is it so hard for you guys to accept the government staging this attack? you're totally in denial to the mountains of evidence that clearly show this was planned yet you find it more believable that it was done by a small group of middle-eastern rebels because as bush put it "they hate our way of life".

so basically they only got bragging rights? all that time and money spent to say "ha ha".


who else benefitted from the attack? hmmm, lets see....

US Government
the government got the approval from congress they have been desperately seeking to invade iraq...again, yet to this day they have not been able to produce any evidence that iraq has or ever had WMD!


US Military
nuff said!


Larry Silverstein & Group
the towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built. Other New York developers had been driven into bankruptcy by the costly mandated renovations, and $200 million represented an entire year's worth of revenues from the World Trade Towers.

instead of renovation, silverstein is rebuilding, funded by the insurance coverage on the property which 'fortuitously' covered acts of terrorism. even better, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy, based on the two, in Silverstein's view, separate attacks. the total potential payout is $7.1 billion, more than enough to build a fabulous new complex and leave a hefty profit for the Silverstein Group, including Larry Silverstein himself.

It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings.

there you have it. the government supplied nano explosives and the resources for a massive explosion and the coverup so silverstein would not have to pay for costly asbestos removal.

now that's a bailout!

This point alone debunks your entire theory that 9/11 could have been an inside job.

How could the same government be cunning enough to pull of a controlled demolition that slaughtered 3000 civilians and make it look like a terrorist attack, yet at the same time be so incompetent that they couldn't plant some weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to justify the war?

Also again, funny how you ignore everything I posted and instead decide to focus on some minutiae that is inconclusive enough for you to create the illusion of wrongdoing or a cover up.

That being said, this is a waste of my time and it's like pissing into a fan (from the wrong side) so xxxmoviecospiracyidiot, welcome to my ignore list.
I'd say it's been nice knowing ya, but I don't like to lie.

because the inspections were done by the UN, not the US government.

This link presents some evidence, not all.

It also shows bulding six took much more damage than building seven yet building seven went down like butter.

The NIST report contradicts itself. Read it.

:D

Not true; read:

http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm

You say:
This isn't true. There IS a peer-reviewed scientific paper:

http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm

Click "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"

No, there aren't. In fact NIST and FEMA reports weren't even peer reviewed because they wouldn't pass.

This is wrong; on top of firefighters and family members of 9/11 there are active structural engineers, architects, demolition experts, and more:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Fetzer isn't the only one who doubts the Warren Commission; I don't know what you're referring to about moon landings (apparently, neither do you); Jones is well respected.

Fetzer has his own enemies in "the movement", and most fact-based researchers assign him a second-tier importance, though his research is apparerently sound.

Irrelevant, and you're disregarding any facts. There has been at least one peer reviewed paper regarding non-bin-laden "theories", which surpasses the number by people who claim that the buildings collapsed by airliner fuel and collateral dammage alone.

The rest of what you say is irrelevant or repeats the incorrect statements you made earlier.

Things like:
are clearly misinformed or misguided. Do a little more research...

:D

so why would you think the US government would have to provide any evidence of WMD? they invaded iraq and are currently there. the only time they ever made comments about WMD is when asked during press conferences.

the only thing they had to say is "they got them, we know they got them" and eventually people stopped asking.

just like after 9/11, the government kept our minds busy with revenge so we wouldn't ask too many questions and eventually people will stop asking about that too.

11 pages. wow.

The anti-911 guys have lost this fight...

They wanted video proof, it was posted. They wanted articles, it was posted. They wanted documents, it was posted. They wanted scientific articles, it was posted.


No amount of posting of 'proof' will change the minds of sheep. It's like they think our Gov has always told the truth, like they haven't attacked us already...

Weeeee are Sheep - Sheep, sheep - sheep! Weeeee are Sheep - Sheep, sheep - sheep!

couldn't the other side say the same?

VIDEO PROOF I REPEAT VIDEO PROOF

CLEARLY SEE FLASHES GOING OFF

North Tower incredible flashes and pops
https://youtube.com/watch?v=cCAoJuDw2Ic

http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/218...rmov04bns3.jpg

this thread got pretty quiet after the evidence was provided.

acts like 9/11 is the real reason why so many countries hate the US. if we can do stuff like this to our own people, just imagine what we do to other countries but never hear the truth.

the only convincing evidence that has come to light is the fact that you're a lunatic. you've made us all believers!

interesting stuff

I read on the internet that nearly 20% of the population suffers from some form of mental disease. Discuss??:)

and the government knew the other 80% would believe anything they fed them regardless of how ridiculous it is.

10-100 tons? to those who dunno what a ton is thats 2,000 pounds per ton....
100 tons is 200,000 pounds of explosives... 200,000 1 pound bags..

There's a reason why the world is like it is.. people believe what the smarter people tell them..

Not many people know that 80% of us prefers Pepsi over Coke in a blind test, but if you know you're tasting Pepsi and Coke 80% likes Cokes the best.. in fact the pleasure center in the brain shows we enjoy/like Coke more if we know that's what is in the glass.. that is what branding does to you - it alters your reality - for real.

Alot of peoples reality is generated by the media.. they haven't got a fucking clue what the real world is like

Obviously if this were a legitimate debate the 911 troofers would have long ago given up as their absurd claims and outlandish theories have been discredited time and time again....... but you need to remember that you are dealing with sick people here. They need treatment and regular medication. Engaging with them in a serious manner only feeds into their mania. They will dismiss the mountains of facts which contradict their predetermined conclusions as "propaganda" and eagerly embrace even the flimsiest shred of "evidence" which supports their delusions. People arguing with them only reinforces their almost religious belief in the grand conspiracy and how many of us are in on it.

With that logic,why would the government actually care about what the population thinks.

If only that were true then this thread would have ended a long time ago and a number of posters would be currently getting the help they need. :1orglaugh

The problem is that inbred idiots with a 6th grade education and a lot of misfiring synapses see a couple of youtube videos on the interwebs and then the brainless fools go about regurgitating the simplistic illogical nonsense every chance they get to anyone who has the misfortune to listen.

Better education and mental healthcare is the only solution to this problem....... or else stupid people could just start listening to smart people and shutting the fuck up. Either way. :upsidedow