Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
monolith
climber
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 11:10am PT
|
K-Man:
Sez who?? I know who, some dipshit liar.
K-Man:
Take a look at the pictures of the WTC Towers as they begin to collapse. You see lots of pulverized concrete, even before there's any chance of it being created by floors smashing into themselves.
The very first thing happening, even before the first floor hits. Yet No audio of explosions pulverizing an acre of concrete.
Just one floor crashing into another is going to start breaking up the concrete and drywall.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 12:20pm PT
|
Christ, what a waste of time...
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 12:41pm PT
|
That's right Ron. That's why I listed a set of facts, backed by the NIST report and videos. None of which anybody wants to touch.
Why is that?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 12:53pm PT
|
People GENERALLY believe what the WANT to believe regardless of the evidence...
You for instance...
Well Locker, that's what I am asking for. Official evidence that shows that explosives were not used to bring the buildings down.
We have a LOT of unofficial evidence that shows that explosives WERE used. Photographic evidence, eye witness reports, video evidence, tests of the dust, and more. We also have a lie by NIST for their reason they did not test for explosives.
In fact, all of this shows that I do NOT just believe what I am told. I have looked hard at the hard evidence. How about you?
What evidence do you have that explosives were not used?
None, zero. You don't have that evidence, so WTF are you talking about "regardless of evidence"?
But let me guess: Some chick in a mini-skirt told you the OCT. Yeah, you'd believe that "evidence."
I've shown why I question the OCT, now I expect you to tell me how YOU came up with your belief. I can't wait to hear it.
Until then, I must conclude that YOU DON"T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE that shows explosives were not used to bring down the buildings.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 01:39pm PT
|
Some interesting reading:
Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official Karen Kwiatkowski – who blew the whistle on the Bush administration’s efforts to concoct false intelligence about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction – wrote:
I have been told by reporters that they will not report their own insights or contrary evaluations of the official 9/11 story, because to question the government story about 9/11 is to question the very foundations of our entire modern belief system regarding our government, our country, and our way of life. To be charged with questioning these foundations is far more serious than being labeled a disgruntled conspiracy nut or anti-government traitor, or even being sidelined or marginalized within an academic, government service, or literary career. To question the official 9/11 story is simply and fundamentally revolutionary. In this way, of course, questioning the official story is also simply and fundamentally American.
http://www.laweekly.com/2004-02-19/news/soldier-for-the-truth/
From: Pentagon Papers Whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg Says that the Government Has ORDERED the Media Not to Cover 9/11
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/06/pentagon-papers-whistleblower-daniel-ellsberg-says-that-the-government-has-ordered-the-media-not-to-cover-911.html
K-man,
That is very interesting reading.
Ellsberg nails it. M$M will not talk about it. They have been told to keep their mouths shut as much as possible and not to discuss it. And journalists fear for their jobs and careers and will not make waves. M$M is Coporate owned. Truth went out the window with the fairness doctrine.
Independent journalism is the only truth we have.
They will ignore 9-11 truth. They will belittle 9-11 Truth. They will fight against 9-11 Truth. But in the end we win, as the saying goes.
(It may take till judgement day, but all lies, all crimes, all in-side jobs, all false-flags throughout man's history will be revealed in full glory to their shame in front of everyone. And I mean everyone. We will all know. Then GOD's justice will be dealt. I know it is hard to wait. Many of us would like that justice to be dealt now against the real perpetrators in this life.
But, its gonna take a while till we get there. We still have this life to live. All we can do is get as many people as we can to wake-up to the truth, and those who refuse to listen no matter what, no more can be done for them. Their minds are seared. However, we do have hope justice can prevail here on Earth as well. We have to demand it. NGU. It's what the Good Lord expects of us, and what he wants us to do.)
Rox,
I think it was Sibel Edmonds who indeed said that Osama Bin Laden was still a CIA asset up to 9-11-2001. I've read it too. It came from a very credible source. Will have to Google and find it again. I've even mentioned it here on ST in the past. Maybe there is a link there in the archives. Will have to look.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 01:40pm PT
|
Yes I do raymond. Why is the concrete pulverized at the very top of the buildings in the pictures showing the beginning of the collapse? At this point in the collapse, there should be huge pieces of concrete.
So you are ignoring the analysis previously linked to in this thread. Where are your analysis that show you claim above?
What about the lies in the NIST report? Gonna avoid that, aren't you?
I am just more interested in concrete.
How about this: The NIST report says that in one second, WTC 7 fell 8 stories--in one second! The entire structure, at the onset of the collapse. That is, the entire building fell at free-fall speeds, actually accelerating, for over 100 feet. In your mind, does that coexist with several small office fires? Well, maybe in yours. Because that's what somebody told you. But folks that do the actual math--no, it is not possible without simultaneously removing all the 47 steel supports.
So where can I find that math? NIST have shown their math and simulations but I can't find the math and simulations that you are talking about.
"That is, the entire building fell at free-fall speeds, actually accelerating, for over 100 feet."
When I read this I wounder if you have even a basic knowledge about physics.
How'd that happen?? Well, poor Barry Jennings knows. And so does Hess, but he knew when to change his story. Barry's dead, Hess isn't.
Here's the interviews with Barry Jennings. Why don't you address these?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI
http://blip.tv/i-am-dylan-avery/barry-jennings-uncut-1071126
I read a transcript of that interview a couple of days ago. A couple of questions. How did he know that the towers where standing when he couldn't see them? I also believe that he later understood that the towers where falling because the rescuer run away. Not because he hard large noises or debris flying around or something.
My explanation of barry Jennings account is that the timeline is mixed up in some way. He arrived later than it seems or what they did took longer times than it might seem.
One large problem I have with the explosions he is talking about is that I really cant find any reason for someone except the terrorist to detonate bombs in a building before it has been hit.
Get back to me when you want to talk about the real issues.
I am interested in why you still cant admit that the pulverized concrete is not a good argument for your side. You are not looking at all evidence in an unbiased way and you also ignore questions that you rather want to ignore.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 01:52pm PT
|
Raymond,
Eric Lawyer answered you loud and clear and you ignored all the forensic fire science and the proper procedures to follow for the evidence of accelerants.
9-11 had all the signs of accelerants (still does, much of the evidence hasn't gone away): the physical evidence, the physical damage, the eye-witness testimonies, the visual evidence, the video evidence, the audio evidence, the nano-thermite explosive evidence in the dust of 9-11-2001. All of the evidence goes on and on. Yet you ignore all of it and say it doesn't exist. Apparently black is white in your world.
You just ignore it with the wave of your hand. You are being very dishonest.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 01:56pm PT
|
Klimmer, Eric lawyer has already been debunked and his claims in regard to pulverized concrete was ridiculous.
It is nice to see that you also ignore the article that analyzed that issue and instead believe a fireman that can't even read to code he talked about.
I feel very sorry for you students.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 02:00pm PT
|
raymond, thanks for addressing my questions. You're the first.
Sorry, I missed the analysis of the pulverized concrete earlier in the thread. Can you point me to it (sorry, I'm not trying to be evasive).
Also, you ask for an analysis to back up my claim. However, because no official analysis was ever done, I can only show unofficial claims and analyses. That is why I am asking for a real investigation into the events of 9-11, the official one did not take all evidence into account.
So where can I find that math? NIST have shown their math and simulations but I can't find the math and simulations that you are talking about.
The analysis of the 8-story fall in 1 second is in the NIST report. Can't look up the exact page right now, I'm at work. But it is in there.
"That is, the entire building fell at free-fall speeds, actually accelerating, for over 100 feet."
When I read this I wounder if you have even a basic knowledge about physics.
When things begin to free-fall, they accelerate. Do you know basic physics? There's even a formula for it, maybe you've heard of it.
As for Barry Jennings, to deny his account is the only thing The Believers will ever do.
I am interested in why you still cant admit that the pulverized concrete is not a good argument for your side.
Well, I don't see any way, other than explosives, to account for the fact that the cement in three modern steel structures was reduced to fine dust. This is a by-product of controlled demolition, and has not been witnessed in other buildings collapsing from their own weight. I don't understand why I need to explain that.
|
|
The Larry
climber
Moab, UT
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 02:01pm PT
|
I just watched an interesting show on 9/11 last night. A couple of french filmmakers were making a documentary on a young firefighter just starting out. They just happened to be filming during the plane crashes. One filmmaker was in building 1 when building 2 came down. They never once claimed that they heard explosions. In the extensive video that they have during the collapse you hear no explosions. None of the firefighters claimed there was explosions. They were right there, but hey what do they know.
Edit: You do hear the bodies of the jumpers exploding when they hit the ground. Gruesome.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 02:03pm PT
|
Klimmer, Eric lawyer has already been debunked and his claims in regard to pulverized concrete was ridiculous.
FASLE. I showed that the article "debunking" Laywer was a hit piece aimed to discredit Laywer, and not the arguments he was making.
Get this, the entire Erik Laywer speech was aimed at showing that NIST did not fully investigate the collapse of the buildings. In fact, NIST lied about why they did not do explosive tests.
Now how about debunking the points that Lawyer was making, and not murder the messenger.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 02:04pm PT
|
None of the firefighters claimed there was explosions.
This is a lie.
|
|
The Larry
climber
Moab, UT
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 02:08pm PT
|
K-man I'm talking about the firefighters in the documentary. They never once say anything about explosions in the film during the collapses or after the fact.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 02:13pm PT
|
"When things begin to free-fall, they accelerate. Do you know basic physics? There's even a formula for it, maybe you've heard of it."
Yes, I know those formulas and I have also used them many times. I just didn't think what you wrote made much sense.
"As for Barry Jennings, to deny his account is the only thing The Believers will ever do."
Do you have an exact time line? Do someone have an exact time line?
Do you realize that you do the exact same thing that you accuse "the believers" for when you ignore the eyewitnesses at pentagon?
Isn't it strange that it is only one person that have heard explosions in wtc 7 before the first tower fell? Why should we believe what you think his experience implies when he doesn't even seem to know the time line himself?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 02:17pm PT
|
"Klimmer, Eric lawyer has already been debunked and his claims in regard to pulverized concrete was ridiculous.
FASLE. I showed that the article "debunking" Laywer was a hit piece aimed to discredit Laywer, and not the arguments he was making.
Get this, the entire Erik Laywer speech was aimed at showing that NIST did not fully investigate the collapse of the buildings. In fact, NIST lied about why they did not do explosive tests.
Now how about debunking the points that Lawyer was making, and not murder the messenger."
This starts to be boring. You have used and Klimmer is still using arguments from that video. Arguments that has been clearly debunked before in this thread. What else he said in the video is not important in this case.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 02:21pm PT
|
Do you realize that you do the exact same thing that you accuse "the believers" for when you ignore the eyewitnesses at pentagon?
I don't ignore them. I wonder why their eye witness reports and the photographic diverge so much. That's why I want the Pentagon to release the video they have of the attack. There are surveillance cameras lining the wall of the Pentagon that was hit. Why no fire damage to the building, when the official report claims that the fire was so hot it vaporized the plane?
Isn't it strange that it is only one person that have heard explosions in wtc 7 before the first tower fell? Why should we believe what you think his experience implies when he doesn't even seem to know the time line himself?
It would be strange, but of course it's a lie that only one person heard the explosions. Firemen were told to get out of the building due to secondary explosions.
You can see this in the latest Loose Change video. They have a very thorough analysis of WTC 7, it is impressive. Watch that and then remove the claim that "only one report of explosions" BS.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 02:22pm PT
|
ignore the mountains of hard data in opposition to your view point ...
- coz
coz, I find it amazing that you yourself claimed that everybody knew that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives.
You deny your own first-hand report.
Besides, view ALL of the evidence. Including the stuff that you don't want to believe.
If there is something fishy about the attacks, then you must also know that The Truther movement is filled with shills who put up false theories in order to discredit the movement. It's not easy to sift through all the different tales. But, look at the photos, the eye-witness accounts. The videos and news reels of the day.
This is the evidence that you cannot deny.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 02:24pm PT
|
K-man I'm talking about the firefighters in the documentary. They never once say anything about explosions in the film during the collapses or after the fact.
I also saw this documentary yesterday. You are both right and wrong but mostly right. One firefighter actually thought and said just after the south tower fell down that he had experienced a explosion. The fire chiefs in the north tower didn't seem to know that the south tower had collapsed before the north tower collapsed and they had a free view south.
Yes, the falling bodies was scary.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 02:28pm PT
|
"It would be strange, but of course it's a lie that only one person heard the explosions. Firemen were told to get out of the building due to secondary explosions."
Before the first tower collapsed? I talked about the time period before wtc 7 where supposed to have been hit by debris. The time period where Jennings is supposed to have experienced explosions.
One reason that I don't care that much people hearing explosions is that I don't find it strange if some explosions happens in a fire and that non explosions probably can sound like explosions.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 02:28pm PT
|
Of course YOU are CORRECT about ALL of this...
Say Locker. What am I correct about?? All I've said is that I don't believe the OCT and I've pointed out why I don't buy it.
I have not put forth any theory about why or who.
I have asked for a formal investigation that does not bury evidence.
The only thing I can be correct about is revealing why the 9-11 Commission Report and the NIST report are crocks. So, thanks for the endorsement.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!