Jesse Ventura Is A Lying Truther

[BmanMcfly]

They do ... they also hate us being there ... there is no lie here, although it IS much more complex that that, but there is hate for the Western world, its people, its cultures, its values ... ergo no lie ... maybe an utter simplification ... but no lie !!!

Even this is a complete distortion to the facts... You might as well say bank robbers rob banks not because they want the money but because they hate that the banks have a lot of money.

And some undoubtably would have been ... do you think they meant the whole stuctures fire-proofing ???

Of course that's what they meant because the further assumptions are BASED ON there not being ANY fireproofing left on the impacted floors.

Maybe it wasn't explained well enough, but do you seriously believe that at least "some" of it could not have been knocked off, or that spray-on foam is somehow indestructable ???

This is asinine...

Bush is a moron who couldn't chew gum and fart at the same time ... is it not possible he just made a gaff here ... wouldn't be the first time ???

Yes, a 'gaff'... he made 3 impossible lies within HOURS of the fact... it's not like he had to stretch his memory muscles that hard.

So, B'man you still cannot point out one single deliberate, blatent lie ... unlike Jesse whom does it so often he probably really does believe he was a SEAL !!!

WOW... why don't I just say the same thing... maybe jesse ventura made a 'gaff'... that's what we call being deceptive now, right?>?? Or does it only work when it's in support of your beliefs?

You still do not understand science ... past lab work is NOT the same as in heavy commercial production.

You'll just say anything to deny anything... I could tell you the sky is blue and you'll find a way to deny that.

But please do point out where any of these papers have progressed far beyond lab work ... this is now 2010, so please do show ???

Search it yourself... you deny anything I say, so search it yourself... and read the referenced papers too, you'll find out it was in the late 80's that the theoretical papers were written.

Sorry, but every single advance in human understanding, technology, engineering, medicine, etc, etc, etc comes from some branch of science.

Advances in science IS NOT the same as changes in the world and the political structures...

But none of your answers here responds to the simple fact that Jones FAILED to practise good science !!!

But you neglect the fact that the test he DID perform at the same time ALSO prevents the claim of 'it was paint'.... not that this type of distinction matters to you.

There are HUNDREDS, if not thousands of other explanations to be included beyond explosives and floor impacting ... just sayin' !!!

Yes... I was going to ask what you thought caused the red hot / molten steel that lasted for MONTHS after the attacks... but then I remembered, you for all intentions deny that this happened.

Where do you get this "billlions" from ... conspiracy sites ???

No, from knowing how much asbestos removal costs, and that I thought that it was completely asbestos... thanks for the correction. And for silverstein I was speaking very off the cuff... didn't expect you'd take that as a serious argument.

But you see B'man this is where I have problems with people whom, like you, keep believing and repeating the lies of the truther sites ... Silversteing NEVER received double payment, this is a FACT backed up by judgements in law published in the PUBLIC RECORD ... it is not a State Sekrit !!!

That was reported all over the media; New york times, CNN, FOX, my local station... don't blame me for the misreports without correction.

Truth is truth B'man, and there is a surprizing (and predictable) LACK of real, factual, reliable, accurate,credible, truthful information touted by Da Twoof ... so why do you still fall for it ???

I know you decide on reality... and everything that suggests that you MIGHT be wrong is a lie as part of a massive conspiracy to make you wrong...

"Something" does not mean bomb ???

It also does not mean 'NOTHING'... as you seem determined to proclaim. Don't forget that EVERY explanation you've offered as an alternative is violated by the video evidence on the scene at the time.

There are plenty of other legitimate answers which are entirely innocent B'man, so why do you think it could only be a bomb-type event ???

I didn't say bombs at this point... I am simply stating that there was SOMETHING... and to suggest that it was NOTHING is well... delusional in the face of the facts.

But wrong B'man, the lobby was damaged not "blown up" ... please show how it was blown apart ... windows broken and marble facings detatched is NOT "blown up" !!!

LMAO... for real??? The planes crashed some 8+ stories up, not in the main lobby, the elevators bottom WAS NOT the main floor... AND the windows were blown OUT... not in, not in a neat little pile, they were blown OUT.

Which ALSO helps explain the explosive noises heard at lower levels, it was the impact "sound" travelling through the structure faster than air ...

Including the ones from BEFORE the plane hit??

Oh! rubbish B'man, this is naive of you ... OBL was KNOWN to be involved in many terrorists attacks, years previously, he was KNOWN to have great animonsity towards the West, in particular the US, he was KNOWN to have issued a fatwa against the US ... they did not just pull his name out of a Lucky Bag !!!

Also a KNOWN CIA ASSET!!!

You can quote "concept" all you want B'man, this still does not show this exists beyond a YooToob, a vague patent, and a crappy website.

Oh it's all real, but they made a crappy website so it's fake... come on... you debunkers are worse then children denying that it's bedtime.

You are compltely misunderstanding this B'man ... it is not increased in POWER by making it nano-scale or adding stuff, it has the same POWER as before ... it just reacts faster ... why can you not get this ???

You didn't read the papers on the subject... so, you're making claims in ignorance of the topic at hand as though you're an expert and then using childish pseudo-language in an attempt to dsimiss my position so **** YOU!

I'm not even going to explain it to you because you are delusional, and demonstrably so, not just me making the claim as you've done many times... and if you ask I will demonstrate HOW you are delusional in a step by step fashion.

The regular thermite ignites and creates slag that drips down, and there's a mild expansion of the materials... BUT when that expansion happens 1000 times faster propelling the molten slag it WILL CUT through steel... but you won't read the papers on the subject and prefer talking baby nonsense sooper doooper thooper dulusionally like that makes your case any stronger.

Your position has no legs to stand on so you attack people's integrity to shift the focus... anyone with half a brain can see your agenda of lies and distortions plain as day....

Look B'man if you know anything about Eastern history of politics you can see they most certainly need no help to radicalize themselves ... they are rabid enough without any outside influence.

Again, this is so far over-simplified of reality that I can't help but laugh that you think this is the case.

So that's why they are barbaric enough to stone women to death, that's why girls get kidnapped and killed to satisfy male honour codes ...

Video of Stoning to Death - Islam in action
(Graphic nature warning ... sorry)

Robert Fisk: The crimewave that shames the world - Robert Fisk, Commentators - The Independent

They'll also cut your hands of for stealing, eye for an eye, murder for murder... and whenever there comes in a secular government that allows women to go without burkas then the CIA comes along and sets up a coup in the country to get the most radical regimes in place...

Honour ... right !!!

HONOR CODE... difference... not that you'll notice or care.

Such is the reality of life ... as shown throught history, unfair ... yes, immoral ... yes .... but it is so ... sorry about that, but until the petty egos of humankind have evolved further, then it is how human nature is !!!

Qui Bono... that solves 90% of crime. NO MATTER the situation... I can't believe I actually responded to your 5 pages of absolute tripe... waste of time... you made 1 good point that I hadn't been aware of, and the rest is absolute childish nonsense that I can't believe people are so incapable of independant thought to even realize just how asinine and apparent these distortions are...

On EVERY ANGLE... I don't believe it... How do I sign up for whatever you're on that lets you think you decide on so much of reality???

But, that's standard psyop procedure to put 10% of reality with 90% fiction in order to create an elaborate fiction.

 

[Ned Racine]

Even this is a complete distortion to the facts... You might as well say bank robbers rob banks not because they want the money but because they hate that the banks have a lot of money.



Of course that's what they meant because the further assumptions are BASED ON there not being ANY fireproofing left on the impacted floors.



This is asinine...



Yes, a 'gaff'... he made 3 impossible lies within HOURS of the fact... it's not like he had to stretch his memory muscles that hard.



WOW... why don't I just say the same thing... maybe jesse ventura made a 'gaff'... that's what we call being deceptive now, right?>?? Or does it only work when it's in support of your beliefs?



You'll just say anything to deny anything... I could tell you the sky is blue and you'll find a way to deny that.



Search it yourself... you deny anything I say, so search it yourself... and read the referenced papers too, you'll find out it was in the late 80's that the theoretical papers were written.



Advances in science IS NOT the same as changes in the world and the political structures...



But you neglect the fact that the test he DID perform at the same time ALSO prevents the claim of 'it was paint'.... not that this type of distinction matters to you.



Yes... I was going to ask what you thought caused the red hot / molten steel that lasted for MONTHS after the attacks... but then I remembered, you for all intentions deny that this happened.



No, from knowing how much asbestos removal costs, and that I thought that it was completely asbestos... thanks for the correction. And for silverstein I was speaking very off the cuff... didn't expect you'd take that as a serious argument.



That was reported all over the media; New york times, CNN, FOX, my local station... don't blame me for the misreports without correction.



I know you decide on reality... and everything that suggests that you MIGHT be wrong is a lie as part of a massive conspiracy to make you wrong...



It also does not mean 'NOTHING'... as you seem determined to proclaim. Don't forget that EVERY explanation you've offered as an alternative is violated by the video evidence on the scene at the time.



I didn't say bombs at this point... I am simply stating that there was SOMETHING... and to suggest that it was NOTHING is well... delusional in the face of the facts.



LMAO... for real??? The planes crashed some 8+ stories up, not in the main lobby, the elevators bottom WAS NOT the main floor... AND the windows were blown OUT... not in, not in a neat little pile, they were blown OUT.



Including the ones from BEFORE the plane hit??



Also a KNOWN CIA ASSET!!!



Oh it's all real, but they made a crappy website so it's fake... come on... you debunkers are worse then children denying that it's bedtime.



You didn't read the papers on the subject... so, you're making claims in ignorance of the topic at hand as though you're an expert and then using childish pseudo-language in an attempt to dsimiss my position so **** YOU!

I'm not even going to explain it to you because you are delusional, and demonstrably so, not just me making the claim as you've done many times... and if you ask I will demonstrate HOW you are delusional in a step by step fashion.

The regular thermite ignites and creates slag that drips down, and there's a mild expansion of the materials... BUT when that expansion happens 1000 times faster propelling the molten slag it WILL CUT through steel... but you won't read the papers on the subject and prefer talking baby nonsense sooper doooper thooper dulusionally like that makes your case any stronger.

Your position has no legs to stand on so you attack people's integrity to shift the focus... anyone with half a brain can see your agenda of lies and distortions plain as day....



Again, this is so far over-simplified of reality that I can't help but laugh that you think this is the case.



They'll also cut your hands of for stealing, eye for an eye, murder for murder... and whenever there comes in a secular government that allows women to go without burkas then the CIA comes along and sets up a coup in the country to get the most radical regimes in place...



HONOR CODE... difference... not that you'll notice or care.



Qui Bono... that solves 90% of crime. NO MATTER the situation... I can't believe I actually responded to your 5 pages of absolute tripe... waste of time... you made 1 good point that I hadn't been aware of, and the rest is absolute childish nonsense that I can't believe people are so incapable of independant thought to even realize just how asinine and apparent these distortions are...

On EVERY ANGLE... I don't believe it... How do I sign up for whatever you're on that lets you think you decide on so much of reality???

But, that's standard psyop procedure to put 10% of reality with 90% fiction in order to create an elaborate fiction.

YOU are actually devoting YOUR life to this Noble Cause.

 

[BmanMcfly]

YOU are actually devoting YOUR life to this Noble Cause.

Not sure which noble cause you're referring too... if you mean specifically towards 9-11 truth, then I would hope that you're wrong. I'd much rather focus on anti-globalization... not that I'm against the countries of the earth uniting under a single banner, but I am against world leaders just without debate or discussion just signing away national sovereignty to world super-governmental bodies that are an extra step removed from the needs and wants of the people of the world.

9-11 fits into this process as a catalyst that's intended to complete this conversion of a world of nation states to a single global state. In much the same way that european countries have had a great deal of their sovereignty signed away to the 'EU' government... I_gaze will disagree that this has happened because while these governmental bodies so far lack any real teeth, but it's all part of this process of transformation... in much the same way that Canada, US, and Mexico are gradually being pushed to think of themselves as 'north americans'.

Anyway... can you clarify what you meant?

 

[usda select]

Not sure which noble cause you're referring too... if you mean specifically towards 9-11 truth, then I would hope that you're wrong. I'd much rather focus on anti-globalization... not that I'm against the countries of the earth uniting under a single banner, but I am against world leaders just without debate or discussion just signing away national sovereignty to world super-governmental bodies that are an extra step removed from the needs and wants of the people of the world.

9-11 fits into this process as a catalyst that's intended to complete this conversion of a world of nation states to a single global state. In much the same way that european countries have had a great deal of their sovereignty signed away to the 'EU' government... I_gaze will disagree that this has happened because while these governmental bodies so far lack any real teeth, but it's all part of this process of transformation... in much the same way that Canada, US, and Mexico are gradually being pushed to think of themselves as 'north americans'.

Anyway... can you clarify what you meant?

Remember this?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/82581-my-final-post-9-11-a.html

Apparently you have forgotten.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Remember this?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/82581-my-final-post-9-11-a.html

Apparently you have forgotten.

No, I haven't forgotten... I gave someone a thanks and then got sucked into it...

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

I'm open about MY agenda... what is YOUR agenda???

Why would I have any sort of "agenda" B'man, as a non-American there is certainly zero political bias, and having had some career knowledge that lets me see how correct what you call the "official version" is ... I simply do not like stupidity, and most truther (hell, most conspiracy guff) claims are grounded in nonsence and non-science.

I just like to correct a wrong ...

Listen, if a person comes up and says "I lost someone and when you're speculating about _____ I find it disrespectful, so could you tone it down in that light..." or something to that effect that demonstrated their pain I would understand, be able to apologize, and rephrase my statements accordingly... but that's not the statements that were made.

But by definition you are ... you are regurgitating faithfully what unqualified truther sites tell you what happened, so by extention repeating that in the glare of a public place you are speaking for others ... you still have not shown why you would not check with the survivors and families beforehand though !!!

It's not a fact, actually, this is you either unaware, in denial, or lying. Not to mention this delusional belief that you can decide on reality and who is credible or not.

Well then it should be easy for you to show this support from survivors and families then ... instead I get this rather vapid psuedo-psychology.

If it is not a fact that there is no support ... then show it ???

Ya... just create the meaning of their statements... as though their statements don't speak for themselves .

Ah! but the Devil is in the detail ... short quotes taken from a longer speech are NOT definative.

By taking only part of what was said it can be made to "seem" something else ... you NEED to read the FULL statments, to get the FULL meaning.

To do less is intellectually dishonesty.

No matter how you look at it, the results of their statements amount to a combination of bureaucrats covering their own asses or lying to the commission on account...

No B'man, covering asses is NOT the same as causing it ... and no matter how you twist that it is not so ... just because they covered their incompetence and failures AFTER an event is not the same as planning and execution OF the event.

Why do you fail to see this simple difference ???

I know you seem to think it's acceptable and doesn't affect the integrity of the document,

And what have I ever said that says I think it "acceptable" ???

Now you are twisting what I said ... not honest B'man !!!

BUT because of these facts and the lack of any subpoena powers the commissions report has 0 integrity because there's no way to verify what is accurate or not.

Oh! rubbish ... there is PLENTY of other evidence, including the scientific reports which help to substanciate this one.

Intelligence agencies from around the world were commenting and providing additional infomation ... this document is available globally and been examined globally.

Da US of A is not so powerful as to be able to prevent these other nations from finding fault within it ... and like the NIST ones, which also were examined globally, the simple fact that not one single nation has spoken up against it ... CAN be seen as a sign of its integrity and validity.

Like I have said numerous times, as a non-American I can tell you hand on heart there are many nations, big and small, whom would just love to stick it up you.

Look again to tiny wee Scotland which AGAIN defied the might and influence of America, by refusing to answer questions from your gubmint over the Lockerbie bomber.

Like with the scientific reports, this has been subjected to global planet-wide scrutiny.

Not on that aspect... BUT profiting from a crime is as criminal whether you commit the crime yourself or take advantage of someone else committing a crime.

Well, that is an entirely different matter to causing 9/11 ... and if you think you have proof of such, why not do something about it ... report it to the authorities.

There are INTERNATIONAL courts which are free from US constraints ... take everything you have to them ... nothing preventing you ... never has been !!!

So you approve of incompetence in government and cover-ups of criminality??? What does that say about you and your agenda concerning this subject??

And where does anything I wrote give the impression that I "approve" ???

Stop twisting ... it means you have nothing against what I said !!!

There is certainly no "approval" of incompetence and wrong-doing by a government, agency or even common person on my part ... but I DO understand and accept that this is one of the realities of how life in the real world is.

Accepting reality is not some sort of tacit approval of wrongdoing ... rape and murder are wrong ... by saying they do happen in reality is NOT saying I "approve" of it.

Accepting the failings of human nature and psychology, and the ineffieiency of large organizations is not me "approving" of it B'man !!!

Yet those two accounts have aspects that conflict with each other, as does Bazant's analysis, and the purdue university... .

Well point out any glaring inconcistances between them then ???

You won't be able to ... and do you know why ... because apart from a few MINOR differences in equations and calculus points ... they still AGREE in principle.

They STILL all come to the same conclusion !!!

Progressive collapse brought about by structural failure through impact damage and subsequent fires.

Now if the accounts all reached different conclusions you may have been on to something, but because they all, using different methods, methodology and equation models all reached the SAME conclusion ... is actually scientific corroboration.

the only people that got the story 'straight' is the media and the 'debunkers' who universally attack and belittle anyone who suggests the possibility that the analysis is innaccurate. You KNOW you're guilty of this too or delusively denying this fact.

No, B'man the reality is that YOU have not managed to point out one single flaw of the report.

You need MORE than anyone "suggesting" that it is "possibly" inaccurate ... as models of science, engineering and mathematics then if there were inaccuracies present then would be shown by REAL science, engineering and mathematics counter-points.

Do you have any ... or just the verbage from truther sites by people PATENTLY unqualified to know what they are talking about ???

Did you read the transcript ??

Of what ???

And a long history of being a CIA asset.

So what ... that is the nature of international power machinations, still doesn't say or prove anything about him not committing 9/11 !!!

Also, Causation is just the deepest level the conspiracy could be... 'allowing' the attacks to occur is bad but not quite as bad, and the lesser of the evils is profiting politically from the attacks after the fact. The latter of these is not up for debate... sure you'll still be capable of delusional denial of the situation but you can't debate.

Giving yourself some wriggle room here, are you ???

Read the downing street memo... "the intelligence is being FIXED around this issue." (my emphasis). It was a bald-faced lie... no debate just denials otherwise.

And just because Bush was weasel enough to lie about the threat of WMD's is still not related to 9/11, like I have always said using a situation to your own advantage afterwards is not somehow proof you caused it !!!

The secret Downing Street memo - Times Online

So, are you actually arguing that 9-11 was a good thing because it provided the atmosphere allowing the justification of Saddam's removal for crimes of 20 years before??

B'man ... why are you being so disingenous as to so such twisting of my words ... for what possible reason would you write that "I" am arguing that 9/11 was a good thing, show me WHERE I have EVER claimed, stated or inferred that 9/11 was "good thing" ???

Stop putting words into my mouth, it is dishonest of you and insulting !!!

I think 9/11 was a horrendous thing, but I do accept the reality of the horrors of life and the outright hatred of some that they would be willing to do such evil ... but that in no way condones it !!!

And such an event is no justification for even further death and horror ... I hate war, it is ugly, wasteful and saddening, but I accept the reality of human nature and the inherent beast within ... but that in no way says I think Bush was right to use 9/11.

Saddam WAS a despot and tyrannt ... but that is not our problem to fix.

The dosage is 20 TIMES higher then was initially reported... and yes, it MIGHT be an overstatement to call it dangerous (except for frequent flyers and the TSA workers)... but it's also delusional to call doses of radiation 'safe'. The comparison is with X-rays, not microwaves.

Again ... so what !!!

Seriously cigarettes and sunbathing is riskier, but as this is still very new technology and usage of, so there COULD be additional risks we have not yet come across ... the price of innovation I am afraid !!!

Airport body scanners deliver radiation dose 20 times higher than first thought | Mail Online

Replies to Use of full body scanners at airports

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Then why do you suppose that NIST went to such lengths to prevent the release of such videos??

Because those videos were the PRIVATE property of the individuals and companies whom submitted them ... they were NOT the property of NIST and as there were hundreds of different owners, whose individual permission need be sought and got FIRST ... that does not happen in an day !!!

Some of them show the clear editing out of sounds that could be interpreted as explosions? When I say 'clear', I mean amateur level editing where it's undeniable.

Prove it ... how do you know that this is going on, for don't forget that conversion between different recording media will result in changes as well ... how do you know it is not just that ???

All these were recorded on everything from cheap mobile phones to professional equipment, some had better audio pick-up than others ... you cannot treat such a vast range of media equipment by the same criteria ... you have to make allowances for that.

So how do you "know" for a fact there was manipulations, and how do you know it was carried out by NIST, how do you know it was not edited by the original owner before NIST got it ... considering that you say it was "clear amateur level" editing then would you not expect something a bit more professional from NIST ???

Show these videos then and prove it was edited by NIST ... should be easy since you've got the media and recording "expertise" of conspiracy sites to rely on ???

I never claimed nothing of the sort, I was looking forward to seeing some of these clips to see what was being kept from us for so long... and so far what's being kept is everything that might suggest that NIST did a bad thing slacking off on the tests for explosives.

Never said you personally did ... I did mention "truthers" ... et al !!!

And no, it shows no such thing ... it is, as was expected, the usual traumatized and panicked testimonies of people whom never really knew what was happening and, like as mentioned before, in the COMPLETE absence of physical evidence, can be taken as frightened people not really knowing or understanding what they were witnessing.

Did you ever notice how you'll ONLY dismiss the eyewitnesses that described and / or were injured in explosions??

Where ... and who ???

Of course when you don't test for explosives it's alot easier to make such a claim

Rubbish ... but nice try !!!

In the COMPLETE lack of physical evidence there is NO need to test for such, by that criteria then every single loud "boom" that gets described needs such testing ... people do use hyperbole to describe noises ... it cannot be taken as "evidence" of explosives.

Reality will always trump metaphorical !!!

The timing is wrong for your statment to have any merit.

And how so ???

"This is made up nonsense." Go read the papers on the subject... I've read over a dozen of them written over about a 15 year period with practical studies being performed in 1999.

15 ... eh !!!

Show them ???

Bet you don't, but try to squirm out somehow !!!

Yes he did... and that's not what he's lying about... THEY WERE BOTH BEING DECEPTIVE. End of story.

Not so, for your interpetation is not the end of story B'man ... it is your unturored and unknowledgable opinion ... which ultimately counts for nothing in scientific methodology.

Sorry !!!

I wasn't DEFENDING him... I was asking questions of clarification... how do you legitimize attacking a person for asking questions after claiming ignorance on a topic?

Ok, but you were as able as I am to find out whether or not he actually ever served as a SEAL yourself ... you obviously chose not to research it, so do forgive me that since I thought you would try to double-check the point and maybe I thought that having credited you with double-checking then you were just being defensive of an obvious lie.

Not my fault you chose to comment back without researching first !!!

Again, when you attacked his points you had about 2 legitimate points and a whole pile of nonsense.

I wrote FOUR short sentences B'man ... four, so to raise 2 legitimate points is pretty good in reality ... well done me !!!

You must be extremely intolerant to consider four sentences a "pile" of anything ... and of course you never, ever, ever waffle on past your point either, do you ???

NIST never got a peer-review either...

Prove it ... for I can show you dozens of papers which CITE the report.

You do understand what citation means in the scientific communities ???

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Even this is a complete distortion to the facts... You might as well say bank robbers rob banks not because they want the money but because they hate that the banks have a lot of money.

How in Hades is saying that any hatred there IS of the West is a "distortion" ???

I did qualify it by saying hatred per se is a simplification, but it still did not detract from the fact that hatred of Western values and people exists ... those whom can easily murder their own sisters, wives, mothers up close and personal, seem capable of, at least some hate to me !!!

This is asinine...

How so ???

Yes, a 'gaff'... he made 3 impossible lies within HOURS of the fact... it's not
like he had to stretch his memory muscles that hard.

What memory muscles ... did he have any ???

Still doesn't show a gaff is a lie !!!

WOW... why don't I just say the same thing... maybe jesse ventura made a 'gaff'... that's what we call being deceptive now, right?>?? Or does it only work when it's in support of your beliefs?

Your having to try really hard to make this one B'man ... a gaff is different to a deliberate lie ... Bush said this thing ONCE ... that is a gaff ... Ventura makes claim to being a SEAL virtually every time he speaks ... MULTIPLE times is deliberate ... that makes it a lie ... see the difference yet !!!

How candid is Jesse Ventura, really?

You'll just say anything to deny anything... I could tell you the sky is blue and you'll find a way to deny that.

Damm right, because the sky is not blue ...

All light is actually WHITE ... the Sun casts UNPOLARIZED light which is WHITE light ... a mixture of all the colours of the rainbow, known as the visible spectrum.

We see colours as separate because they travel in different wavelengths.

Human beings have receptors in their retinas which respond STRONGEST to blue, green and then red.

So we perceive the sky as BLUE due to an effect known as RAYLEIGH SCATTERING ... which shows that the amount of blue "scattered" is far greater than red ... blue being a much SHORTER wavelength.

HyperPhysics

Rayleigh scattering

Search it yourself... you deny anything I say, so search it yourself... and read the referenced papers too, you'll find out it was in the late 80's that the theoretical papers were written.

I will deny it if it is wrong ... it truly is that simple B'man !!!

Nice dodge nonetheless ... !!!

But you are right in that I would deny them, for I could guarantee that those papers would not be saying what you think they are.

Advances in science IS NOT the same as changes in the world and the political structures...

Did I mention politics in the changes brought about by scientific advancement and achievement ???

Irregardless, science is still one of the MAJOR driving forces of change of the world and humanity going.

But you neglect the fact that the test he DID perform at the same time ALSO prevents the claim of 'it was paint'.... not that this type of distinction matters to you.

Which test ... for again, scientifically, it will not support what your conspiracy sites told you it meant ???

Yes... I was going to ask what you thought caused the red hot / molten steel that lasted for MONTHS after the attacks... but then I remembered, you for all intentions deny that this happened.

And when have I ever denied the possibility that there was in all probability some sort of molten material present ???

A huge rubble pile would act as an extremely efficient insulator preventing heat from escaping, and considering that those buildings contained millions of objects which can melt, there is a great possibility that such did exist.

But to definatively qualify it as steel is where we part company ...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...y-9-9-10-9-11-findings-10.html#post1058991736

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...9-11-speak-molten-steel-2.html#post1058944163

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...9-11-speak-molten-steel-2.html#post1058944213

No, from knowing how much asbestos removal costs, and that I thought that it was completely asbestos... thanks for the correction..

Your more than welcome ... but this shows you why you should just not take the claims of conspiracy sites verbatim .... ALWAYS double-check first !!!

And for silverstein I was speaking very off the cuff... didn't expect you'd take that as a serious argument.

"Right... Rather then LOSING BILLIONS of dollars to remove asbestos from the towers, Silverstein took the reigns and cashed in on double his insurance. That alone is justification for investigation."

Seemed very much like a claim to me ... does anyone else here get the impression this was a mere "off the cuff" remark ???

That was reported all over the media; New york times, CNN, FOX, my local station... don't blame me for the misreports without correction.

I don't .... but I do hold you to task for not doing adequate or proper research of conspiracy sites claims.

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

I know you decide on reality... and everything that suggests that you MIGHT be wrong is a lie as part of a massive conspiracy to make you wrong...

The science sure as Hades does not show me wrong, and without the science you have got nothing ... since this was a supposed deliberate intentional demolition jobby then the lack of scientific proof negates that claim.

The rest is just words ... empty rhetoric and supposition !!!

It also does not mean 'NOTHING'... as you seem determined to proclaim.

Indeed .... but BEFORE you loudly go proclaiming "bomb" you need eliminate those other possible explanations firstly.

But you have instantly gone for the least likely scenario as a given, before looking to other causes first .... that is not good nor adequate detective work !!!

Don't forget that EVERY explanation you've offered as an alternative is violated by the video evidence on the scene at the time.

How so ... in the physical absense of evidence of bombs or explosives, something which there always is left over ... then how does video overrule that ???

I didn't say bombs at this point... I am simply stating that there was SOMETHING... and to suggest that it was NOTHING is well... delusional in the face of the facts.

I gave you a list of possible explanations, I always have ... where is the delusion on my part then ???

LMAO... for real??? The planes crashed some 8+ stories up, not in the main lobby, the elevators bottom WAS NOT the main floor... AND the windows were blown OUT... not in, not in a neat little pile, they were blown OUT.

And yet there were people whom were in the lobby when these windows were "blown out" ... how did they survive then ???

How is it physically possible in reality for windows to be "blown out" but people not turned to mush ... were it any kind of explosive something ???

It was only SOME windows, there were only SOME "blown out" ... most were still in place, so please do show what kind of explosive something can be that specific in such an open space ???

Glass is an exceptionally brittle material ... twisting of the framework holding it in place can result in flying glass ... were it blown out by some sort of explosive it would be a LOT further away than it was.

It would have flown further like shrapnel ... yet there are multiple images and videos from inside that show the all glass did NOT get "blown out" much further than its own dimentions ... helluva weak explosives then !!!

Something which caused "blown out" windows yet leave greenery standing ...

Something which caused only some windows to be "blown out" yet left the rest and glass partitions intact ...


(From 3:42 mark)

Including the ones from BEFORE the plane hit??

And which accounts are these ???

Also a KNOWN CIA ASSET!!!

Again, so what ???

The twisted machinations of power and politics is not proof he was not behind 9/11 ... allegiances can and do change !!!

Oh it's all real, but they made a crappy website so it's fake... come on... you debunkers are worse then children denying that it's bedtime.

Were it "real" B'man it would exist beyond this !!!

So, a crappy website shows a level of proficiency which calls into real doubt its validity ... so instead of showing that it is a viable techology that existed in amounts and efficiency to be used in reality you get all snippy instead.

See I knew you couldn't show it did or ever existed beyond the crappy site !!!

You didn't read the papers on the subject... so, you're making claims in ignorance of the topic at hand as though you're an expert and then using childish pseudo-language in an attempt to dsimiss my position so **** YOU!

No need to get so worked up, is shows more I must have hit a nerve than I was wrong.

Nonetheless, please do feel free to show these papers on the subject and I will show you that you HAVE misunderstood them, besides theoretical papers are just that ... until they are hypothesized and falsified they are not yet accepted nor real !!!

I'm not even going to explain it to you because you are delusional, and demonstrably so, not just me making the claim as you've done many times... and if you ask I will demonstrate HOW you are delusional in a step by step fashion.

Nice dodge !!!

But, please do demonstrate my delusionality ... for I am all ears ...

The regular thermite ignites and creates slag that drips down, and there's a mild expansion of the materials...

What expansion of the materials ... this is an exothermic reaction, a change of heat energy is not an "expansion" ... so what expansion are you on about ???

BUT when that expansion happens 1000 times faster propelling the molten slag it WILL CUT through steel... but you won't read the papers on the subject and prefer talking baby nonsense sooper doooper thooper dulusionally like that makes your case any stronger.

Thermite has a MAXIMUM energy content of 4.0MJ/kg ... and it matters not what you do to it ... it can NEVER be more than this, as mentioned several times, by adding other chemicals or by reducing particle size does not increase this power level ... it can only ever be 4.0MJ/kg ... EVER !!!

Jet fuel has more energy content and potential ... paper has more energy ... sugar has more energy ... even horse-crap has more !!!

Chemical Potential Energy - The Physics Hypertextbook

And still none of this detracts from Jones et al FAILING to do the definative test ... thermites contain their own oxidizer, doing it in an inert atmosphere would prove a thermitic compound ... it's a MAJOR flaw in methodology.

But I have read some of these papers on this B'man, and they are not what you think though ... there is still ZERO applicability of thermite (again of whatever flavour) having the energy or duration to cut sideways in the physical realities of this Universe ... ever !!!

Those studies do NOT say what you think they do ... your lack of scientific tutoring leads you to misinterpretation of them ... simple as that !!!

Your position has no legs to stand on so you attack people's integrity to shift the focus... anyone with half a brain can see your agenda of lies and distortions plain as day....

Where did I attack your integrity ... do you have any scientific learning, training or expertise ???

The answer is no ... so your understanding is an untutored lay one, which can be and is wrong in this case ... that is not an attack on integrity B'man, but a statement of fact, there is a difference !!!

Again, this is so far over-simplified of reality that I can't help but laugh that you think this is the case.

So they are not rabid then ???

They'll also cut your hands of for stealing, eye for an eye, murder for murder... and whenever there comes in a secular government that allows women to go without burkas then the CIA comes along and sets up a coup in the country to get the most radical regimes in place...

But, but B'man you implied that they were not rabid nor radical not one comment ago ... and now they are only radical because the CIA makes them ... and you called me out for over-simplifying !!!

Arab nations have been doing these kind of things for CENTURIES before America even existed, so for you to say it is because of the CIA is your implified understanding showing.

Historically these nations and peoples have always been violent and radical ... my point stands !!!

HONOR CODE... difference... not that you'll notice or care.

Did you even read the article ... it clearly says honour codes of ancient origins ... so exactly how does your point deny mine ???

Is there some excusing this because it does not spell honour as you do or something else ... so what "HONOR CODE" are you on about ... is it one that somehow negates or supercedes the horror of 11 year old girls getting stoned to death ???

Qui Bono... that solves 90% of crime. NO MATTER the situation... I can't believe I actually responded to your 5 pages of absolute tripe... waste of time... you made 1 good point that I hadn't been aware of, and the rest is absolute childish nonsense that I can't believe people are so incapable of independant thought to even realize just how asinine and apparent these distortions are...

On EVERY ANGLE... I don't believe it... How do I sign up for whatever you're on that lets you think you decide on so much of reality???

But, that's standard psyop procedure to put 10% of reality with 90% fiction in order to create an elaborate fiction.

You know something B'man, by such an emotive response it shows more how I have got to you ... and that truth hurts !!!

You do not and never would have the power to illicit such a response in me ... because I can back up and prove my assertions, getting emotional shows a personal hurt, which usually comes from being shown wrong.

It is easy to get pissed off when your feelings or abilities have been shown flawed or wrong, and most people do not have the moral courage to admit such instead preferring to lash out.

This seems very much a lashing out ...

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

No, I haven't forgotten... I gave someone a thanks and then got sucked into it...

Sucked in by choice ... no-one held a gun to your head and forced you to respond.

You always have the choice to simply ignore !!!

 

[usda select]

Sucked in by choice ... no-one held a gun to your head and forced you to respond.

You always have the choice to simply ignore !!!

We all sort of knew he was lying when he said that would be his last post. I researched it and Creative dreams made the same claim on a diffrent message board; I think it is a genus trait; all truthers lie about giving up. Its in their DNA. They cant.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Why would I have any sort of "agenda" B'man, as a non-American there is certainly zero political bias, and having had some career knowledge that lets me see how correct what you call the "official version" is ... I simply do not like stupidity, and most truther (hell, most conspiracy guff) claims are grounded in nonsence and non-science.

I just like to correct a wrong ...

How many 'wrongs' have you corrected??? All I see is a long sequence of lies and distortions... also growing evidence of a failing memory. That's the problem when you arbitrarily 'decide' on reality...

You defend those that attempted to cover-up for others as something normal and not worthy of investigation on it's own merits, you vehemently oppose any form of reinvestigation, yet claim to be 'righting wrongs'.

But by definition you are ... you are regurgitating faithfully what unqualified truther sites tell you what happened, so by extention repeating that in the glare of a public place you are speaking for others ... you still have not shown why you would not check with the survivors and families beforehand though !!!

Faithfully unqualified : Meanwhile there's more and more engineers and architects that are becoming more and more vocal about their positions... but you dismiss them all based on your personal attacks against Gage... just to offer a single example.

There are MANY victims families who are FAR more vocal then I am on the subject... and because you used the blanket term 'all', I simply have to provide a single victims family member who is seeking a reinvestigation to turn this whole argument moot.

Well then it should be easy for you to show this support from survivors and families then ... instead I get this rather vapid psuedo-psychology.

BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO KNOW THAT IT"S FALSE. But how could we expect someone who opposes truth to be honest?

If it is not a fact that there is no support ... then show it ???

In spite of this asinine request : 9/11 Family Member Manny Badillo Schools France 24 Video

Ah! but the Devil is in the detail ... short quotes taken from a longer speech are NOT definative.

YOU DISMISS ANYTHING that opposes your viewpoints... if you insist I'll backtrack through and demonstrate this... it's not about 'short quotes'... even LONG QUOTES and the pages BEFORE AND AFTER worth of text you would STILL claim 'out of context'.... and you wonder why I call you out on your dishonesty.

By taking only part of what was said it can be made to "seem" something else ... you NEED to read the FULL statments, to get the FULL meaning.

To do less is intellectually dishonesty.

Except when you do it of course.

No B'man, covering asses is NOT the same as causing it ... and no matter how you twist that it is not so ... just because they covered their incompetence and failures AFTER an event is not the same as planning and execution OF the event.

Why do you fail to see this simple difference ???

Yes, I see the difference : the former part WAS the point... the latter part is just a way to twist what I said to mean something other then what I said (aka strawman)

And what have I ever said that says I think it "acceptable" ???

Heres the logic :
- You oppose a reinvestigation
- You defend those 'covering up' details after the crime
Therefore, it's a reasonable conclusion that you approve of cover-ups and that these should not be investigated.

Oh! rubbish ... there is PLENTY of other evidence, including the scientific reports which help to substanciate this one.

So, they members knew they hadn't been told the whole truth... and since we can't verify in any way what was true and what was based on lies, then the whole document must be tossed out.

It's like in a court case... if a cop even misspells your name on the ticket then the case gets dismissed on the technicality, because it cannot be confirmed that YOU were the person getting the ticket.

Like with the scientific reports, this has been subjected to global planet-wide scrutiny.

It was written as though it was legitimate... the subsequent issues with the report may not have been as well publicized where this would be added into the scrutiny.

There is certainly no "approval" of incompetence and wrong-doing by a government, agency or even common person on my part ... but I DO understand and accept that this is one of the realities of how life in the real world is.

You should rethink the implications of not wanting to investigate the depth of any cover-up... and the way you defend those actions.

No, B'man the reality is that YOU have not managed to point out one single flaw of the report.

You simply deny any reality that you choose, so it doesn't surprise me that you've denied the flawed assumptions that are the basis of those reports that I've pointed out dozens of times, many of those times to you personally.

You need MORE than anyone "suggesting" that it is "possibly" inaccurate ... as models of science, engineering and mathematics then if there were inaccuracies present then would be shown by REAL science, engineering and mathematics counter-points.

I even went as far as using NIST's own documentation to make those points...

Do you have any ... or just the verbage from truther sites by people PATENTLY unqualified to know what they are talking about ???

Ya... all the engineers that have signed on to ae911truths petition are "patently unqualified" because Gage is the least qualified in the group... oh and cause you usurped legitimate credentials to prove that the site COULD be infiltrated...

So what ... that is the nature of international power machinations, still doesn't say or prove anything about him not committing 9/11 !!!

But it proves that he was working WITH the intelligence agencies UP UNTIL 9-11... why are you defending this?? Don't you see the implications of this point??? I'm not going to spell it out for you cause you'll call it insulting... and I don't actually think you had that intention... but really... re-read this statement and consider the implications of this point / counter-point...

Giving yourself some wriggle room here, are you ???

No... not wiggle room... I'm merely forcing you to point out how much corruption you support and how you're actually on the wrong side if your agenda is to 'right wrongs'... the funny thing is that so far all I've seen is you defending the wrongs as 'normal' to 'acceptable'. You may want to reconsider your statements and or your position.

And just because Bush was weasel enough to lie about the threat of WMD's is still not related to 9/11, like I have always said using a situation to your own advantage afterwards is not somehow proof you caused it !!!

First, it was not related to 9-11... Bush himself admitted that... HOWEVER, his justification for 'regime change' relied HEAVILY on the rhetoric that they were connected.

Second, I also pointed out that taking advantage of a crime after the fact is STILL CRIMINAL.

B'man ... why are you being so disingenous as to so such twisting of my words ... for what possible reason would you write that "I" am arguing that 9/11 was a good thing, show me WHERE I have EVER claimed, stated or inferred that 9/11 was "good thing" ???

By defending the necessity of regime change in Iraq, which WOULD NOT have been politically possible WITHOUT the post-9-11 atmosphere, then it's not a stretch to say that you're arguing that this was a good thing because it provided the justification for these actions.

Stop putting words into my mouth, it is dishonest of you and insulting !!!

Again, consider the implications of your arguments.

Again ... so what !!!

Seriously cigarettes and sunbathing is riskier, but as this is still very new technology and usage of, so there COULD be additional risks we have not yet come across ... the price of innovation I am afraid !!!

That's probably true... but 'so what' you gotta be virtually strip searched and dosed with radiation to board an airplane?? It violates child-porn laws in many countries, but so what?

I could go on... it's too bad that even if I told you what's next with these body scanners you won't believe it anyway, you'll say 'out of context' or something...

 

[BmanMcfly]

How in Hades is saying that any hatred there IS of the West is a "distortion" ???

I did qualify it by saying hatred per se is a simplification, but it still did not detract from the fact that hatred of Western values and people exists ... those whom can easily murder their own sisters, wives, mothers up close and personal, seem capable of, at least some hate to me !!!

It's a distortion because the hatred of western values as a determining factor is a small piece of the larger puzzle but more of a factor with more extreme religious sects... but bottom line, the conflict overall is a VERY complex issue. A larger piece would be that of western intervention into middle eastern politics (as a generality)...

Damm right, because the sky is not blue ...

All light is actually WHITE ... the Sun casts UNPOLARIZED light which is WHITE light ... a mixture of all the colours of the rainbow, known as the visible spectrum.

We see colours as separate because they travel in different wavelengths.

Human beings have receptors in their retinas which respond STRONGEST to blue, green and then red.

That's totally besides the point... you know what I meant... but you make my point.

Nice dodge nonetheless ... !!!

But you are right in that I would deny them, for I could guarantee that those papers would not be saying what you think they are.

Right... "I won't look into the facts myself so I can't simply push the deny button... but I'm still right"

Did I mention politics in the changes brought about by scientific advancement and achievement ???

Was I talking about science when I made the previous point?

And when have I ever denied the possibility that there was in all probability some sort of molten material present ???

LMAO!!!! This is a joke.

A huge rubble pile would act as an extremely efficient insulator preventing heat from escaping, and considering that those buildings contained millions of objects which can melt, there is a great possibility that such did exist.

Ya... it's just the hotspots from NASA's satellite imaging showed temperatures 2000 degrees several days later when the satellite was in position.

But to definatively qualify it as steel is where we part company ...

Let's see... you said 'not steel', 'not molten', 'not there'... depending on the point you were trying to counter... it's this type of dishonesty that I've grown used to and makes debating this issue pointless.

Your more than welcome ... but this shows you why you should just not take the claims of conspiracy sites verbatim .... ALWAYS double-check first !!!

I DIDN"T USE THAT NUMBER FROM CONSPIRACY SITES!!!!!! I derived billions of dollars on the basis of knowing the man-hour cost of asbestos removal, a rough understanding of the time involved and the size of the building, which I simply wasn't aware that it was only a fraction of the building fireproofed with asbestos.

I don't .... but I do hold you to task for not doing adequate or proper research of conspiracy sites claims.

Everythings a conspiracy site... I know it wasn't you, but I've even been told that Reuters was a conspiracy site when they printed certain stories...

 

[505]

I'm merely forcing you to point out how much corruption you support and how you're actually on the wrong side if your agenda is to 'right wrongs'...

Yeah, uh huh... so what does that make you then? YOU support a bunch of extremist terrorist scumbags that want your head on a pike. And corruption?... you're stupid enough to believe that you can somehow bring down a 110 story structure CD style... using thermite that can't even melt through a car and some sort of magic silent explosives. You cherry pick witness statements and have a gross misunderstanding of physics. You haven't shown even ONE single solid FACT that supports your theory. But nope it's just us evil NWO henchmen being all corrupt again. Yup.

Go back to your hole with your buddy CD... I thought you guys were "done", and "retiring"?

 

[BmanMcfly]

Yeah, uh huh... so what does that make you then? YOU support a bunch of extremist terrorist scumbags that want your head on a pike.

Well, no... in spite of the rhetoric of 'either you're with us or against us', this is not a coke vs pepsi type of issue. In effect, IF 9-11 was a legitimate terrorist attack then it was the result of blowback / retribution for the US's terrorist activities going on for the better part of a century, it's just when WE do it it's called 'foreign policy'.

On the other hand, if you're saying that regime change in Iraq was justified because Saddam Hussein was a monster, knowing that 9-11 was heavily implied as the reasoning and / or the lies about WMD's... and that this justification would never have passed scrutiny in a pre-9-11 atmosphere.... then it's logical to point out the implications of such a statement.

And corruption?...

Check the definition of corruption... Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com is pretty good... cause what your listing off next is not corruption.

you're stupid enough to believe that you can somehow bring down a 110 story structure CD style... using thermite that can't even melt through a car and some sort of magic silent explosives.

But I'm not talking about the type of thermite that you saw on mythbusters, NatGeo, or any other example. We're talking about something that is NOT something you can make at home. The nano-aluminum component of what was found is highly controlled on it's own.

You cherry pick witness statements

How?? Pretty much every witness reported some sort of explosion going off... I've even shown the video now where the FBI says their INITIAL RUNNING THEORY was that bombs at the base were timed to explode at the same time that the planes hit. The fact that NIST sat on that video and did NOT even ATTEMPT to explain WHY this FBI person was flawed in their running theory. That's a COVER-UP, EVEN IF the 'explosions' were simply caused by naturally occuring effects, it's only normal that they should offer an explanation.

Still it's better then this delusional mentality that EVEN THOUGH dozens of eyewitness described explosions that you STILL are so emotionally invested in the official version that you can't even consider the possibility.

and have a gross misunderstanding of physics.

HA!! I'll tell you a 'gross misunderstanding of physics :

WTC7, for 17 stories of the collapse that can be measured on video, the rate of accelleration of the collapse was within 3% of free-fall accelleration. WHILE pulverizing virtually ALL the concrete in the building.... a 45+ story building is up there in almost any city skyline, and yet 17 floors (at least) didn't offer any resistance to collapse beyond air resistance and a margin of error.

This is a PHYSICAL impossibility... without A) something removing the structure or B) a force beyond gravity pushing the building down. There IS NO EXPLANATION. End of story. It doesn't matter that there was a hole in the side of the building... it CANNOT collapse in on itself at that rate of acceleration. IMPOSSIBLE.

You haven't shown even ONE single solid FACT that supports your theory.

It's not my fault you have a strict list of accepted facts, and anything not on that list is 'conspiracy theory'.

But nope it's just us evil NWO henchmen being all corrupt again. Yup.

Well, I have to mention that supporting corruption (or not speaking out against it when it's known) isn't the same as being corrupt.

But no, at worst I figure there are some that are paid to post. Mostly I think useful idiots of the establishment (even if you got a high IQ), would be a bit more appropriate.

In a sense I can't say I blame people for buying the official story... it's a lot more comforting to think that it's middle eastern men with small arms and sandals pulled off something like that, then that this is part of a larger scheme to bring about a one world government... especially when ALL their documentation describes that this is just the means to the end... which is the extermination of about 80% of humanity for the good of the earth and so that they can have all the ressources split among the best of humanity

Go back to your hole with your buddy CD... I thought you guys were "done", and "retiring"?

Ya... I so wanted it to be the case... I allowed myself to get sucked back in, it's painful to see people spout out non-stop lies and distortions though... retiring would involve me getting paid... and as much as I would LOVE to get paid for posting on the subject of 9-11... all the money goes to those that are trying to keep whatever was covered-up under the covers.

It's like someone coming out and saying 'ya, the moon is made of cheese, and if you don't believe it your a stupid crazy tin hat fool conspiracy nutjob loon'

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

How many 'wrongs' have you corrected???

More than you ...

All I see is a long sequence of lies and distortions...also growing evidence of a failing memory. That's the problem when you arbitrarily 'decide' on reality...

Sure B'man ... please feel free to point out any lie or distortion on my part ... as well as where there is evidence of a failing memory ... this will be fun !!!

You defend those that attempted to cover-up for others as something normal and not worthy of investigation on it's own merits,

How so ... recognising the failures in communication and effectiveness is NOT a defense of such B'man ... any more than the fact that I accept the reality of rape a defence of such !!!

Your grasping !!!

you vehemently oppose any form of reinvestigation, yet claim to be 'righting wrongs'.

Methinks the "failing memory" lies more with yourself ... for I have NEVER vehemently opposed any new investigation ... in fact, within this very thread as well as NUMEROUS other times I have told you how to achieve your own truly independant inquiry, with links to scientific Institutes and Universities in Switzerland , I AGAIN told you to seek your own investigation ... how is that being "vehemently opposed" ???

"There are INTERNATIONAL courts which are free from US constraints ... take everything you have to them ... nothing preventing you ... never has been !!!"

I have also stated that I thought the Commission too hasty and not far-reaching enough ... but even if you got a new one, with all your subpoenaduces tecum powers ... do you really think it would not reach the same conclusion ???

Again how is that being "vehemently opposed" ???

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...-9-11-zero-hour-nat-geo-4.html#post1058658718

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...-9-11-zero-hour-nat-geo-4.html#post1058660220

Faithfully unqualified : Meanwhile there's more and more engineers and architects that are becoming more and more vocal about their positions...

Name them ... prove they are qualified ... show how they are more vocal ???

but you dismiss them all based on your personal attacks against Gage... just to offer a single example.

What personal attack ... is he qualified by career or expertise to comment on tall structures and collapse ... NO !!!

Ergo ... a truthful statement ... no attack.

Is he spending donated monies flying the globe and staying at fancy hotels ... when his information could just as well be disseminated by the internet ... YES !!!

Ergo, a truthful statement ... no attack.

Does he have as large a number of properly qualified people as his site claims ... NO !!!

Ergo, a truthful statement ... no attack.

Does he have a FLAWED verification process in place ... YES !!!

Ergo, another truthful statement which is no personal attack.

So which "personal attacks" are you on about ???

There are MANY victims families who are FAR more vocal then I am on the subject... and because you used the blanket term 'all',

Like who ???

"Our ultimate goal was to identify and subsequently correct those circumstances that contributed to the failure of our government to protect us and our loved ones."

"The signing of legislation implementing many of the 9/11 Commission recommendations represents a milestone for The Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Commission (FSC). The passage of this legislation is the culmination of the efforts of the FSC and the other family members who worked with us; the 9/11 Commission; the members of Congress who sponsored the bill; their staffs; the press whose coverage provided a conduit to the American people; and each and every person who wrote, called and faxed our elected officials on these issues."

Home

"The Peaceful Tomorrows Steering Committee is composed of the spouses, siblings, parents and other family members of victims of the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001."

Peaceful Tomorrows*:*About Us

"The September 11th Education Trust produces comprehensive, flexible, and engaging 9/11 and civic literacy education programs that protect the legacy and memory of the victims of the terrorist attacks"

WTC United Family Group

"The goals of the Skyscraper Safety Campaign are:

To have a Federal Comprehensive Investigation, with subpoena power, into the collapse of the WTC, including design, construction, evacuation procedures and fire fighting techniques."

" We are gratified to report that our first goal has been accomplished"

Skyscraper Safety Campaign

I simply have to provide a single victims family member who is seeking a reinvestigation to turn this whole argument moot.

Oh! you mean Manny ... because yes B'man, one single family member, he lost an uncle, is enough in your world to outweigh ALL the other family groups whom do not support you ... preponderance counts B'man ...

BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO KNOW THAT IT"S FALSE. But how could we expect someone who opposes truth to be honest?

Yes, because this answers the simple question of you to show support from supporters and families !!!

In spite of this asinine request : 9_11 Family Member Manny Badillo schools France24

Got anything better than a more than year old video from a nephew of ONE of the victims ???

YOU DISMISS ANYTHING that opposes your viewpoints...

Wrong ... I will dismiss psuedo-science and lies or mis-quotes.

if you insist I'll backtrack through and demonstrate this...

Go for it !!!

it's not about 'short quotes'... even LONG QUOTES and the pages BEFORE AND AFTER worth of text you would STILL claim 'out of context'.... and you wonder why I call you out on your dishonesty.

What dishonesty ... how exactly is stating that truthers RELY on shortened quotes, which by being taken wholly out of context do not give the full picture ... how is that my dishonesty ???

Except when you do it of course.

Where ... B'man, for I have always said read the FULL testimonies, again how is that dishonest ???

Yes, I see the difference : the former part WAS the point... the latter part is just a way to twist what I said to mean something other then what I said (aka strawman)

Except there was no twisting going on ... on my part leastwise !!!

Heres the logic :
- You oppose a reinvestigation

Where ... if you remember properly I have several times given you the means to achieve such for yourselves by going to another country to ensure zero influence from US governmental pressure ... remember ???

- You defend those 'covering up' details after the crime

Where ... for you firstly need PROVE a crime even has occured ... to date you have failed utterly to do so.

Therefore, it's a reasonable conclusion that you approve of cover-ups and that these should not be investigated.

Wrong ... that is just your pique showing !!!

So, they members knew they hadn't been told the whole truth... and since we can't verify in any way what was true and what was based on lies, then the whole document must be tossed out.

Grow up ... your personal incredulity is not enough to say it has not been verified, other sovereign nations lost citizens ... are you seriously thinking that this report has not been fully examined by these independent countries ... and that they are covering up Americas failures even when they lost their own ???

Seriously, grow up !!!

It's like in a court case... if a cop even misspells your name on the ticket then the case gets dismissed on the technicality, because it cannot be confirmed that YOU were the person getting the ticket.

But it wasn't a "court case" ... it was a bi-partisan investigation ... the analogy fails.

It was written as though it was legitimate... the subsequent issues with the report may not have been as well publicized where this would be added into the scrutiny.

How in Hades do you think a 10,000 page ENGINEERING report full of calculations, graphs and detailed technical analysis is written as though "legitimate" ... have you ever seen another engineering report by which to evaluate it against ???

That will be a ... no ... so this is just your unqualified opinion ... again !!!

And what do you mean by not being as "well publicized" ... are ALL reports ... from DRAFT through to FINAL not equally available ???

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

You should rethink the implications of not wanting to investigate the depth of any cover-up... and the way you defend those actions.

I need not "rethink" anything B'man for I do NOT "think" there was any sort of "cover-up" ... that ASSUMPTION is yours and yours alone.

You cannot judge me by YOUR beliefs ... and without proof you only have beliefs ... so I need not "rethink" YOUR beliefs, do I ???

You simply deny any reality that you choose, so it doesn't surprise me that you've denied the flawed assumptions that are the basis of those reports that I've pointed out dozens of times, many of those times to you personally.

But you have not in reality, or fact, ever been able to point out one single thing those reports got wrong ... have you ???

I have asked you several times to point out to one single factual error of NIST ... you have not managed to do so ... what you have given (and ONLY given) is your unqualified opinion of what you think was wrong, but in the real world you have never managed to point out one flaw of calculus or mathematics or violation of physics !!!

Not one B'man !!!

I even went as far as using NIST's own documentation to make those points...

Where ???

Ya... all the engineers that have signed on to ae911truths petition are "patently unqualified" because Gage is the least qualified in the group...

And what sort of "engineers" do they have ... the VAST majority of them have got nothing to do with structures.

Have you ever looked through his list of "engineers" to see if they do in fact have support from any significant number of structural engineers ... if you look through his blatently overblown site you find that the ENTIRE number of engineers whom are classed as "STRUCTURAL engineers" comes in at 30 ... 19 from the US and the rest from elsewhere ... the rest are as unqualified as being software and swimming pool "engineers" to legitimately be used as "authority" ... can you not see this ???

30 ... B'man !!!

Most people would expect such a group to be mostly made up of such, a site advertising itself as engineers and architects for the truth, an event grounded in STRUCTURAL engineering issues to be honest enough to have those people at the forefront ... and yet ALL different kinds of engineers are all just lumped together to make it seem as if they have larger support than they actually do ... can you not see this too ???

At least now Anders Björkman, who used to claim to be an SE is now more accurately classified as a “Naval architect & Marine engineer” ... he was one of their big names and touted as a structural engineer endlessly ... he is and never was a structural engineer !!!

(That therefore was a blatent LIE ... again, another one which adds to the expanding collection of blatent lies ... something which seems to happen too often with a group purporting to stand for "truth", do you not think ???)

Now to further narrow down this tiny group of actual structural engineers ... of the above thirty ONLY 14 of them claim experience with buildings ... and ONLY one ... JUST ONE ... Steven Merritt has cited working with TALL buildings.

So basically there is just support from ONE properly qualified structural engineer ... ONE !!!

The Lies of the Truth Movement: Richard Gage’s structural engineers

Real authority to speak of tall building collapse is simply not with Gages gaggle ... he engages in blatent misrepresentation of his level of genuine expertise and experts ... that is intellectually grossly negligent and dishonest ... why can you not see this ???

Irregardless of the TINY level of real structural engineers they in reality have ... they have still FAILED utterly in even getting ONE SINGLE paper from this group out there.

Not professional and not scientific ... considering that this is a bunch of questions answered in STRUCTURAL engineering terms then is would seem prudent and articulate for them to have spent a little time and effort is putting together a paper with their hypothesis to proper peer-review by OTHER structural engineers ... do you not think that would be a BETTER way to do things than what they have achieved so far ???

B'man, 30 (and after all this time and so many "presentations") is a very, very small number when you consider there are tens of thousands just in the US !!!

Considering that science and engineering questions are PROPERLY answered in scientific and engineering language ... a way to ensure further professional support ... then this amateurish appeal to LAY people (like Jones et al efforts) SHOULD give you cause for concern ... do you not see this ???

AE911Truth is one giant appeal to authority ... you can see that, can't you ???

But instead of "appealing" to authority and touting for signatures for an online, seemingly ENDLESS petition ... why have they NOT produced one single piece of a genuinely professional level of work or paper ... WHY have they not targetted engineering confrences and Journals ... instead sought out the more easily led members of an uneducated public ... WHY this public method ... instead of professionalism ???

At the end of the day B'man, are you in the LEAST bit able to provide me with some published scientific articles, in real, respectable Journals that substantiate any of this nonsense you subscribe to ???

That will be a big, fat ... NO ... why can you also not yet see this ???

oh and cause you usurped legitimate credentials to prove that the site COULD be infiltrated...

"Usurped" ... "infiltrated" ... its a frikkin' on-line petition ... not Mission Impossible !!!

But it proves that he was working WITH the intelligence agencies UP UNTIL 9-11... why are you defending this?? Don't you see the implications of this point??? I'm not going to spell it out for you cause you'll call it insulting... and I don't actually think you had that intention... but really... re-read this statement and consider the implications of this point / counter-point...

SO what ... just because previously he was an asset and now that allegiance has changed does not show complicity by the US gubmint in causing 9/11 ???

Why can you not see you are trying to make the most TENUOUS of links bigger than reality ???

Shifting policy, commitments and allies happens !!!

I'm merely forcing you to point out how much corruption you support and how you're actually on the wrong side if your agenda is to 'right wrongs'... the funny thing is that so far all I've seen is you defending the wrongs as 'normal' to 'acceptable'. You may want to reconsider your statements and or your position.

I have no need to reconsider anything, for acceptance of the realities of life is no way an endorcement of the wrongs of reality ... for you to think so shows more your emotional and intellectual immaturity of life !!!

First, it was not related to 9-11... Bush himself admitted that... HOWEVER, his justification for 'regime change' relied HEAVILY on the rhetoric that they were connected.

So what B'man, none of that shows a guilt of causing 9/11 ... so why is it even part of this discussion ???

Second, I also pointed out that taking advantage of a crime after the fact is STILL CRIMINAL.

So why are you bleating about it here ... go to the Police !!!

Is it not also a crime to WITHHOLD evidence of a criminal act, by not taking such evidence of this crime to the authorities are you not also guilty of a crime ... especially since it is "indisputable", as creative likes to phrase it ???

By defending the necessity of regime change in Iraq, which WOULD NOT have been politically possible WITHOUT the post-9-11 atmosphere, then it's not a stretch to say that you're arguing that this was a good thing because it provided the justification for these actions.

Bull crap ... there was necessity for regime change ... but there was nothing to say it could only come from US involvement ... just because I think he needed outing does not mean I supported AMERICAN intervention !!!

That's probably true... but 'so what' you gotta be virtually strip searched and dosed with radiation to board an airplane?? It violates child-porn laws in many countries, but so what?

I could go on... it's too bad that even if I told you what's next with these body scanners you won't believe it anyway, you'll say 'out of context' or something...

Yes, flying involved some discomfort and hassle beforehand, and entering or leaving the US is a pain in the proverbial nowadays ... but flying is still a priviledge and not a right, so to ensure better safety and security I think it is a small price to pay.

Some inconvience is a pain, and there is still necessity to have better methodology involved which is a bit less intrusive, but this is still very much all just the kneejerk responses put into place before better evaluation ... it will come in time.

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

It's a distortion because the hatred of western values as a determining factor is a small piece of the larger puzzle but more of a factor with more extreme religious sects... but bottom line, the conflict overall is a VERY complex issue. A larger piece would be that of western intervention into middle eastern politics (as a generality)...

How is a simplification a distortion ???

I have several times now CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCABLY stated this hatred exists but in forms too complex to simply go into ... nevertheless that hatred does exist.

Middle Eastern history and politics are hugely complex and convoluted, simplifying that to a few short sentences about the hatred for Western values does not in any way deny that.

but you make my point.

You are more than welcome ...

Right... "I won't look into the facts myself so I can't simply push the deny button... but I'm still right"

B'man there is NOTHING, not one single thing that you have brought up that has not been looked at to death already ... the simple fact is that your interpretation of those papers would be flawed, they would not be saying what you think.

Was I talking about science when I made the previous point?

You brought politics into a comment I made regarding scientific achievement ... I merely responded in kind !!!

LMAO!!!! This is a joke.

No, it was a question ... for I have never denied the probabilty of molten SOMETHING ... just the impossibility for it to be wholly steel within such a mixed rubble pile.

Ya... it's just the hotspots from NASA's satellite imaging showed temperatures 2000 degrees several days later when the satellite was in position.

And how does this negate that a huge pile can act as an insulator preventing heat loss ... you do know that by preventing heat from escaping will cause an increase in it ???

Let's see... you said 'not steel', 'not molten', 'not there'... depending on the point you were trying to counter... it's this type of dishonesty that I've grown used to and makes debating this issue pointless.

How exactly is me asking you to show definitively that is was molten STEEL somehow my dishonesty B'man ???

When speaking of this before I have always said it was more likely other things which can and do melt at lower temeperatures than steel ...

"There were a LOT of materials in the WTC, and a LOT of them were metals that were fairly easy to melt (tin, zinc, etc.) that also glow orange and have the shiny metallic appearance which would get mistakenly called "steel"."

"So, yes, there could have been a whole host of molten stuff in the burned-out rubble of the WTC ... but that doesn't mean in any way it was molten "steel"."

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...e-9-11-speak-molten-steel.html#post1058936675

"Finding molten "anything" from plastics through metals and glass proves NOTHING except the rubble pile got hot (understandibly so) and the layer of rubble acted as INSULATION ... which PREVENTED heat from escaping ... it is NOT any kind of evidence of explosive or incendiary usage ... period !!!"

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...e-9-11-speak-molten-steel.html#post1058942128

"There is a difference ... and you cannot escape that ALL molten materials will glow around the same temperatures ... so just because something "looked" shiny and metaly does NOT make it "steel" ... it could be glass ... it could be concrete ... it could be plastic ... it could be zinc ... it could be copper ... it could be aluminium ... it could be steel !!!

For it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to correctly identify molten materials by sight alone ... period !!!

So no ... no-one here thinks or believes those eyewitnesses "fabricated" those testimonies ... just that they MISTAKENLY thought it was steel !!!"

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...9-11-speak-molten-steel-2.html#post1058944213

So, which dishonesty of mine are you banging on about here ???

I DIDN"T USE THAT NUMBER FROM CONSPIRACY SITES!!!!!! I derived billions of dollars on the basis of knowing the man-hour cost of asbestos removal, a rough understanding of the time involved and the size of the building, which I simply wasn't aware that it was only a fraction of the building fireproofed with asbestos.

Did I say just the cost alone from conspiracy sites ... it was a comment covering more than just "costs" !!!

Everythings a conspiracy site... I know it wasn't you, but I've even been told that Reuters was a conspiracy site when they printed certain stories...

And of course by being told such a thing makes it true for some !!!

 

[BmanMcfly]

How is a simplification a distortion ???

When the simplification distorts the fact that it's not like the middle east was just pissed off cause they stubbed a toe and raged against the US... the west's interventionist policies in the middle east CANNOT be neglected as factors in this hatred.

I have several times now CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCABLY stated this hatred exists but in forms too complex to simply go into ... nevertheless that hatred does exist.

Middle Eastern history and politics are hugely complex and convoluted, simplifying that to a few short sentences about the hatred for Western values does not in any way deny that.

Again, the problem is because it's not completely unjustified hatred.

B'man there is NOTHING, not one single thing that you have brought up that has not been looked at to death already ... the simple fact is that your interpretation of those papers would be flawed, they would not be saying what you think.

Ya.. and plus, you'd probably just go to the single paper that Jones posted in his defense of his findings, which was written years too late AND was written hypothetically... that's not all of them.

No, it just says "when we burn this size these are the properties observed" and puts the graph which shows the relationship of the size of the particles used in the concoction versus how the energy and material is used up...

No, it was a question ... for I have never denied the probabilty of molten SOMETHING ... just the impossibility for it to be wholly steel within such a mixed rubble pile.

Of course it wouldn't be wholly steel, because the steel melts much hotter then the plastics, the lower gauge steel studs, the aluminum, copper, etc... but when the people say 'molten steel' they don't mean exclusively steel in scientific purity... BUT that molten steel was a part of the equation and there is NO REAL way that the heat could have been hot enough to melt ANY steel in that manner makes a point that SOMETHING was missing in NIST's report... especially when even the position YOU made here... EVEN THAT opposes NIST's account... they simply deny the molten material existed. End of story.

So, by that merit, YOU SHOULD be asking for that aspect to be investigated... pushing NIST for clarification of that issue.

And how does this negate that a huge pile can act as an insulator preventing heat loss ... you do know that by preventing heat from escaping will cause an increase in it ???

Right... except consider the locations of the fires... we're talking near the top of the debris pile, not all the way into the basement... not to mention where the firefighters had witnessed this slag...

How exactly is me asking you to show definitively that is was molten STEEL somehow my dishonesty B'man ???

Because in a strictly scientific sense EVEN IF it was shown that it was molten steel (even though you can see the girders being picked up that are red hot and soft (ie, not fully liquid)), you'll be able to find SOME way to negate that... and I know that's how you intend to do it... and THAT is dishonesty, because by ANY statement made on the subject you've preplanned this so that you can offer a 'debunking' .

Now, the 'molten stuff', was obviously there, the NASA photos showed hotspots several thousands of degrees for WEEKS... and they kept finding hotspots for months. It is dishonest also because your implications of saying that either there was 'nothing molten' or 'whatever was molten wasn't steel', avoids discussion of the fact that the temperatures recorded were FAR above and beyond what could be produced by jet fuel and office fires.

When speaking of this before I have always said it was more likely other things which can and do melt at lower temeperatures than steel ...

"There were a LOT of materials in the WTC, and a LOT of them were metals that were fairly easy to melt (tin, zinc, etc.) that also glow orange and have the shiny metallic appearance which would get mistakenly called "steel"."

Remember for forklift pulling out a girder that was red hot where it maintained it's shape yet soft enough that it wasn't holding it's shape??

So no ... no-one here thinks or believes those eyewitnesses "fabricated" those testimonies ... just that they MISTAKENLY thought it was steel !!![/I]"

And you don't see the double statement here??? You're saying both "We don't know what it was" but "we know it wasn't steel"

So, which dishonesty of mine are you banging on about here ???

The clever dishonesty that might fool someone that just glances over your comments without analytical thought.

Did I say just the cost alone from conspiracy sites ... it was a comment covering more than just "costs" !!!

You made the comment specifically about costs... and in the timing of when the building was built is not only a 'conspiracy' topic... it's part of public record. So the only thing it COULD have been for in proper context WAS the funds...

But I suppose your comments were more that 'conspiracy sites are wrong because they are conspiracy sites'.

And of course by being told such a thing makes it true for some !!!

Ok... so you'll discredit the validity of news sources if they oppose your views also?? is that really what you're saying?

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

When the simplification distorts the fact that it's not like the middle east was just pissed off cause they stubbed a toe and raged against the US... the west's interventionist policies in the middle east CANNOT be neglected as factors in this hatred.

Yes the Middle East does not want Western intervention or presence on their land but that in no way says I "distorted" anything even in utter, utter simplification.

Again, the problem is because it's not completely unjustified hatred.

And who said it was ... not me, that that hatred exists is a fact, that there are numerous reasons for that hatred also exists ... simplifiying it as part of an unrelated discussion does not detract from that !!!

Your just wanting the last word in !!!

Ya.. and plus, you'd probably just go to the single paper that Jones posted in his defense of his findings, which was written years too late AND was written hypothetically... that's not all of them.

Which paper B'man for I was speaking more of the kind of genuine studies which have been published in genuine Journals ... not anything Jones has done.

There are certainly plenty of opportunities to have good and credible work published in reputable and respected Journals out there ... there are literally thousands of article dealing with nano-technologies ... so do you not find it strange that, to date, Jones, Harrit, Basile et al, have STILL not managed to even get as much as a letter published in any of these better quality places ...

IOPscience::.. Nanotechnology

ACS Publications - Cookie absent

Small - Wiley Online Library

Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology

Journal of Nanotechnology — An Open Access Journal

Home : Nature Nanotechnology

Journal of Nanotechnology, Science and Applications - Dove Press

International Journal of Nanotechnology (IJNT) - 1 - 1/2

And all with high impact factors too !!!

So which paper of Jones are you on about then ???

No, it just says "when we burn this size these are the properties observed" and puts the graph which shows the relationship of the size of the particles used in the concoction versus how the energy and material is used up...

And how do you know that those "properties observed" have any significance whatsoever B'man ???

Is it this graph ...

Do you know what it means ???

Of course it wouldn't be wholly steel, because the steel melts much hotter then the plastics, the lower gauge steel studs, the aluminum, copper, etc...

And ... what does that tell you ... logic says that things that melt at lower temperatures will melt FIRST ... so logic also determines that those would be the first visible sign of molten stuff !!!

Ergo is it not possible then that people saw and MISUNDERSTOOD and MISINTERPRETED what they saw "as" steel ... as has been demonstrated to you before ALL materials look similar when molten, it is physically impossible to tell the difference VISUALLY between molten aluminium, copper, gold, silver or glass ... they all look exactly the same.

but when the people say 'molten steel' they don't mean exclusively steel in scientific purity...

But truthers do ... to them "claims" of molten steel can only be real steel, same as for "explosion" can only mean bomb !!!

BUT that molten steel was a part of the equation and there is NO REAL way that the heat could have been hot enough to melt ANY steel in that manner makes a point that SOMETHING was missing in NIST's report...

What equation B'man ... I have lost count of the number of times I have asked this ... what does molten ANYTHING mean regarding explosive, deliberate demolition ???

How does molten steel/thermite/fairy dust become part of an "equation" dealing with demolition ???

What does molten "anything" demonstrate ???

they simply deny the molten material existed. End of story.

Because it means NOTHING !!!

So, by that merit, YOU SHOULD be asking for that aspect to be investigated... pushing NIST for clarification of that issue.

Why B'man ... finding molten anything means, demonstrates and proves NOTHING ... except the rubble pile stayed hot for a long time ???

Do Fire Fighters need damp down a burning structure for a long time after the flames are put out ... why ???

Because things stay hot ... that is why !!!

And do you not think that in such a HUGE pile with such a HUGE amount of combustibles present then, by scale alone, it would explain both the higher than normal temperature and the length of time it stayed so.

How does a compost heap work B'man ... how is its internal heat self-substaining ???

So why should NIST need look into this ... for what does molten ANYTHING prove or point to anyway ... finding molten stuff in a hot pile is NOT suspicious.

This is a complete non-sequitur B'man ... it means nothing ... so why are truthers so hung up on it ???

Right... except consider the locations of the fires... we're talking near the top of the debris pile, not all the way into the basement... not to mention where the firefighters had witnessed this slag...

And you know this how, B'man ???

Oh! yes conspiracy sites say so ... so how do you know it was near the top as well as it was Fire Fighters supposedly witnessing it, especially since first person reports seem not to exist ???

Because in a strictly scientific sense EVEN IF it was shown that it was molten steel (even though you can see the girders being picked up that are red hot and soft (ie, not fully liquid)), you'll be able to find SOME way to negate that... .

And even if unequivocably and scientifically shown to be steel ... then what ???

Do explosives produce molten steel ???

Does themite (of any flavour) ???

Explain EXACTLY what molten steel "means" B'man ???

Anyways, there is a huge difference between incandescent and molten ... how do you know that it was actually a piece of steel anyway ... could have been a glowing lump of wood for all you can tell.

For you have learnt by now, that ALL materials will glow when hot ... so how do you know by dint of a fuzzy photograph it is a piece of steel ... because conspiracy sites told you ???

and I know that's how you intend to do it... and THAT is dishonesty, because by ANY statement made on the subject you've preplanned this so that you can offer a 'debunking'.

No, because it is a logical argument I am making B'man ... for science and reason tell us it is PHYSICALLY impossible to tell the composition of a glowing material by sight alone ... science says that ... not some "pre-planned debunk" by me ... science B'man !!!

Now, the 'molten stuff', was obviously there,

So what ... for what does molten ANYTHING prove ... that is was hot ???

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

It is dishonest also because your implications of saying that either there was 'nothing molten' or 'whatever was molten wasn't steel', avoids discussion of the fact that the temperatures recorded were FAR above and beyond what could be produced by jet fuel and office fires.

I am not avoiding anything B'man, for I have always said the possiblity of molten stuff in a very hot rubble pile is real ... where we disagree is where you say it is steel and what that shows anyway ???

Molten steel means nothing to the question of whether explosives were used, it is an entirely moot point anyway.

So no, it is not dishonest for I am making a scientifically valid point ... it is impossible without precise examination to state what molten anything was and the further MORE important point is that molten anything has got NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with thermite or explosives.

Thermite does NOT leave left over molten anything for months ...

Explosives do NOT leave pools of molten anything EVER ... so what is the big fuss about this for ???

That a common COMPOST HEAP can self-generate heat for months explains this better than any truther non-science can !!!

For you do know that a composite MIXTURE of materials will always burn hotter than individually ... and do you not think that there was more present than just office furniture and jet fuel present.

What of people, you are aware that as fatty carbon based creatures we have more energy density and potential than even thermite does ???

Remember for forklift pulling out a girder that was red hot where it maintained it's shape yet soft enough that it wasn't holding it's shape??

I think you should re-read this for comprehension.

You just made two mutually exclusive points in one sentence !!!

WTC Molten Steel

And you don't see the double statement here??? You're saying both "We don't know what it was" but "we know it wasn't steel"

No, I am not ... that is you desperatly trying to spin things !!!

We know it could NEVER be steel or anything else in isolation because it was NOT in the control of a foundry enviroment ... as well as the simple scientific fact that there are HUNDREDS of other elements, minerals, chemicals, plastics or metals which melt and turn molten at far LOWER temperatures than steel.

So in a mixture of objects the MOST likely one is the one that melts at the LOWEST temperature ... for it is nonsense to say that those things would not melt to gloop to allow it to be wholly steel ... can you not see this ???

The clever dishonesty that might fool someone that just glances over your comments without analytical thought.

So "glancing" that I respond to each and every single point and virtually sentence you make, kind of one then !!!

You made the comment specifically about costs... and in the timing of when the building was built is not only a 'conspiracy' topic... it's part of public record. So the only thing it COULD have been for in proper context WAS the funds...

No, it was originally part of a much longer reply that addressed YOUR comment as to costs as well as personal gain through insurance.

Shall I repeat your exact words which claimed Silverstein commited insurance fraud as well as deliberate demolition to prevent him paying for abatement of asbestos ???

And yet here you are, trying to deflect what you said as being only contextual to "cost" ... more than a little weak do you not think !!!

But I suppose your comments were more that 'conspiracy sites are wrong because they are conspiracy sites'.

No ... it is because they were wrong ... wrong about information that is easy to find out and correct ... that shows wilful dishonesty.

But you are right in that I do find conspiracy sites untrustworthy ... something to do with so much stuff to sell and donate buttons ... the cynic in me questions the great need to sell a dog bowl for Da Twoof kinda thing ...

£18.50 for a dog bowl ... that is extortionate !!!

Large Pet Bowl > Pilotsfor911truth.org : pilotsfor911truth.org gear

And especially in the glaring difference of debunker sites whom seem able to put out their information WITHOUT recourse to the hard sell !!!

merchandise - 911guide

Go on B'man, show me one conspiracy site without something to sell !!!

Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Homepage

Journal Of Debunking* 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

911Myths

911guide

Ok... so you'll discredit the validity of news sources if they oppose your views also?? is that really what you're saying?

Dear God B'man, I make a statement regarding how some people believe anything they are told and here you are trying to make it seem like MY belief ... seriously why do you need to twist everything to make it seem as if I say something else ???

YOU ... B'am made claim to how YOU had been told Reuters was a conspiracy site when they printed certain stories ... YOUR words ...

"but I've even been told that Reuters was a conspiracy site when they printed certain stories..."

And I responded, in sarcasm, that some people will believe anthing ... and here you are again engaging in spin ... you should work in politics as a Spin Doctor ... better pay than construction too !!!

(Before getting all snooty that also was sarcasm)

 

[BmanMcfly]

I am not avoiding anything B'man, for I have always said the possiblity of molten stuff in a very hot rubble pile is real ... where we disagree is where you say it is steel and what that shows anyway ???

Except you say it in a way as to avoid the discussion as to WHY there would be such molten / red hot material in the first place. (Yes, I know I know 'insulation' as though the reasonably explains the facts of the situation)... and for the length of time that there were areas SO HOT that occasionally there had to be stops in the work because it was too dangerous for the workers. Afterall, we're told that this was office furniture that was left burning... well, can you explain a mechanism where office fires would remain burning WHILE covered by debris AND get SO HOT that it produces molten material for MONTHS after the fact??

Molten steel means nothing to the question of whether explosives were used, it is an entirely moot point anyway.

IT IS, however, consistent with the repeated findings of thermitic material with nano-aluminum powders... remember, a thermitic reaction WILL create temperatures consistent with the recordings from NASA, and with the insulation of the debris that you mention prevent this slag from cooling down for that length of time (potentially).

So no, it is not dishonest for I am making a scientifically valid point ... it is impossible without precise examination to state what molten anything was and the further

I CAN agree with this much here... it is a valid point that you couldn't say definitively that it was steel, except for the portions of steel that were photographed from the site where it was red hot and still partially in the shape of the steel beams.... but ya, anything with a melting point below the 2000 degrees that was recorded would have melted and/ or boiled off .

MORE important point is that molten anything has got NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with thermite or explosives.

Then what do you propose created this difference : 800 degree office fires - > 2000+ degrees FOR MONTHS.

Thermite does NOT leave left over molten anything for months ...

Well no, because the insulation effect you mentioned IS valid... it does NOT explain a drastic INCREASE in temperatures without SIGNIFICANT flow of fresh air to feed the fires.

Explosives do NOT leave pools of molten anything EVER ... so what is the big fuss about this for ???

I agree here as well... but the fuss is that it does not compute.

That a common COMPOST HEAP can self-generate heat for months explains this better than any truther non-science can !!!

Oh ya, that's like the time I made a compost heap and accidentally created a foundry in my back yard.

For you do know that a composite MIXTURE of materials will always burn hotter than individually ... and do you not think that there was more present than just office furniture and jet fuel present.

Ya... apparently there was a foundry and a compost heap in there too????

What of people, you are aware that as fatty carbon based creatures we have more energy density and potential than even thermite does ???

Yes, but being filled with 70% water makes ignition somewhat difficult.

I think you should re-read this for comprehension.

You just made two mutually exclusive points in one sentence !!!

Oh, ya, the wording was a little bit off... but the fact is I was wrong anyway... the metal was literally dripping off the larger piece.

WTC Molten Steel

This site is THE BIGGEST JOKE site of the 9-11 anti-truth campaign... just sneaking in 'arbitrary' debunks "We have X, Y and Z, and we can just dismiss Z for no reason, and X and Y both punched hookers in their youth, so Bin Laden did it." I'm exaggerating, but not by much.

No, I am not ... that is you desperatly trying to spin things !!!

We know it could NEVER be steel or anything else in isolation because it was NOT in the control of a foundry enviroment ... as well as the simple scientific fact that there are HUNDREDS of other elements, minerals, chemicals, plastics or metals which melt and turn molten at far LOWER temperatures than steel.

So in a mixture of objects the MOST likely one is the one that melts at the LOWEST temperature ... for it is nonsense to say that those things would not melt to gloop to allow it to be wholly steel ... can you not see this ???

Oh I get it... your opinion decides reality. Gotcha.

And yes, I know what you're saying... but what I AM saying is that EVEN THE LOWEST temperature molten metals ARE MUCH HOTTER then the flames COULD HAVE provided in ideal circumstances (IE; burning in a blast furnace), not as a flame buried in debris with little to no oxygen circulating.

So "glancing" that I respond to each and every single point and virtually sentence you make, kind of one then !!!

You couldn't even get that one right... I meant for the person reading your posts without applying critical analysis to the implications and connotations of the statements... THOSE PEOPLE are glancing through the posts, and they are the ones that might be taken in and fooled by the cleverly disguised deceptions.

No, it was originally part of a much longer reply that addressed YOUR comment as to costs as well as personal gain through insurance.

Shall I repeat your exact words which claimed Silverstein commited insurance fraud as well as deliberate demolition to prevent him paying for abatement of asbestos ???

And yet here you are, trying to deflect what you said as being only contextual to "cost" ... more than a little weak do you not think !!!

Wow... just wow... let's just call this one lost in translation.

No ... it is because they were wrong ... wrong about information that is easy to find out and correct ... that shows wilful dishonesty.

Not necessarily...In cases, yes... definitely. But not as a generalization.

But you are right in that I do find conspiracy sites untrustworthy ... something to do with so much stuff to sell and donate buttons ... the cynic in me questions the great need to sell a dog bowl for Da Twoof kinda thing ...

The anti-truth has all the media funding it should ever need to push it's agenda, and a whole pile of useful idiots to pick up any extra slack... I don't find a person wanting to cover costs as something inherently evil. I am a capitalist as well.

And especially in the glaring difference of debunker sites whom seem able to put out their information WITHOUT recourse to the hard sell !!!

Right... no need to sell anything when you've got the likes of George Soros, and other media giants using proxies to fund them.

Go on B'man, show me one conspiracy site without something to sell !!!

What about those asking for donations?? Does that make them evil too?? Does selling chicklets at 5X the cost make the little mexican girl evil?

I just fail to see the connection that attempting to raise funds in whatever ways makes a person immoral??

Dear God B'man, I make a statement regarding how some people believe anything they are told and here you are trying to make it seem like MY belief ... seriously why do you need to twist everything to make it seem as if I say something else ???

YOU ... B'am made claim to how YOU had been told Reuters was a conspiracy site when they printed certain stories ... YOUR words ...

"but I've even been told that Reuters was a conspiracy site when they printed certain stories..."

And I responded, in sarcasm, that some people will believe anthing ... and here you are again engaging in spin ... you should work in politics as a Spin Doctor ... better pay than construction too !!!

(Before getting all snooty that also was sarcasm)

You missed the '?' at the end.

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Except you say it in a way as to avoid the discussion as to WHY there would be such molten / red hot material in the first place.

And how so B'man ... for numerous times I have asked you to explain what molten anything means in relation to explosives or thermite ... you have yet to answer, so how am I the one "avoiding" discussion ???

(Yes, I know I know 'insulation' as though the reasonably explains the facts of the situation)... and for the length of time that there were areas SO HOT that occasionally there had to be stops in the work because it was too dangerous for the workers.

So what ... the simple fact is that a huge rubble pile WOULD act as insulation and another simple fact is that if you prevent heat from escaping from a continuing fire then the temperature has to rise correspondingly.

An insulating heap of rubble is an entirely logical explanation !!!

Afterall, we're told that this was office furniture that was left burning...

Except to think office "furniture" is one-dimentional thinking ... for alongside that furniture, there were foodstuffs, cleaning chemicals, maintenance chemicals and equipment, catering equipment, medical equipment and chemicals, computer chemicals and equipment, as well as people as fuel and thier clothing and innocent things they used in everyday life, such as perfume, hairspray, cosmetics, deodorants, clothing, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc !!!

And do not forget to add the many vehicles and containing petrol parked in the underground garages and contents of the many shops in the mall levels ...

well, can you explain a mechanism where office fires would remain burning WHILE covered by debris AND get SO HOT that it produces molten material for MONTHS after the fact??

As long as there is fuel (present in the enormous quanties of all kinds of above combustible items) and oxygen available fires will continue to burn.

Underground fires can last a long time ...

"After a three-year effort and untold quantities of water, Chinese firefighters have extinguished a fire that had been burning underground in a coalmine for more than 50 years"

Coalmine fire put out after half a century - Times Online

"Sometimes a fire just won't go out. Uzbekistan is home to a place called Darvaz, nicknamed by locals "the door to hell." It's a semi-underground gas fire that's been burning nonstop for 35 years"

Underground Fires that Burn For Decades

"There is enough coal in the eight-mile vein to feed the fire for up to two hundred and fifty years, but it may burn itself out in as few as one hundred years."

Damn Interesting • The Smoldering Ruins of Centralia

Now all these above fires are underground, but the are still able to have be oxygenated ... much the same as was most of the rubble in the Towers ... don't forget there were underground levels into which much rubble fell into, and there was subways under there too orom which there would be ample air feeding through from ... as well as that fire is greedy and sucks oxygen readily from wherever possible.

The rubble pile was NOT one solid mass without air gaps, void spaces or pockets, or having no service channels, such as underground telephone and electricity lines, from which to be fed oxygen through.

B'man, ALL fire needs to keep burning is fuel and oxygen ... there is no need to appeal to some complex "mechanism" ... a fire will continue to burn as long as there is fuel and oxygen there ... it is that simple !!!

IT IS, however, consistent with the repeated findings of thermitic material with nano-aluminum powders...

How so ... to find aluminium and oxides thereof in a structure full of such materials proves nothing of the sort ???

remember, a thermitic reaction WILL create temperatures consistent with the recordings from NASA, and with the insulation of the debris that you mention prevent this slag from cooling down for that length of time (potentially).

But you are forgetting that a thermitic reaction is extremely short-lived, there is simply no-way that a reaction somehow triggered to initiate collapse would have ANY heat energy left over to even warm the rubble pile ... never mind keep it hot for months after.

I CAN agree with this much here...

So why can you not also see that those witnesses may just be simply mistaken and giving and untoutored opinion which is to be expected in that most people will call ANY shiny, vaguey shiny looking gloop "melted metal" ... as well as that most people would consider steel in a known steel-framed building to be the first metal they maybe think about ???

Then what do you propose created this difference : 800 degree office fires - > 2000+ degrees FOR MONTHS.

But it wasn't just an office fire ... was it ???

There were literally MILLIONS of combustables present which had nothing whatsoever to do with "office" stuff ... there were medical practises, gyms, restaurants, shopping malls, garages, etc there too.

Add to that the known fact that a MIXTURE of materials will always burn at a higher temperature than those individual materials would in isolation.

Add to that the known fact that by preventing heat loss temperatures can only rise.

See, simple when you think it through !!!

Well no, because the insulation effect you mentioned IS valid... it does NOT explain a drastic INCREASE in temperatures without SIGNIFICANT flow of fresh air to feed the fires.

And how do you reckon there was insuficient oxygen available ... was the rubble a solid mass or a jumbled, twisted, random heap ???

but the fuss is that it does not compute.

Why so ???

For surely the more sensible and logic thought is that as this molten stuff has nothing whatsoever to do with explosives ... so it is ANOTHER factor to add to the list negating explosives.

Don't forget that truther sites are the ones making the enormous leap in logic as to the importance of this molten stuff as being evidentiary of explosives ... when exceptionally simple reality dismisses it as anything to do with explosives !!!

Molten stuff (whether plastic, glass, aluminium, zinc, steel ... anything) demosntrates nothing except the pile got hot ... a fact which considering how MUCH fuel and oxygen was available is not unexpected.

All molten anything proves it is got damm hot in there ... go ask any Fire Fighter !!!

Yes, but being filled with 70% water makes ignition somewhat difficult.

Water is easily driven off ... by this then cremation should not be able to occur.

The human body burns at temperatures of 850 to 970°C, reduced to nothing more than fine ash and bone fragments in as little as a couple of hours in a modern crematorium.

Cremation Process

This site is THE BIGGEST JOKE site of the 9-11 anti-truth campaign...

How so ???

Please point out one single factual error of theirs ???

And although not part of this discussion but helps demonstrate how they seem able to maintain and produce a web-site and information WITHOUT the truther tactic of stuff to sell and donate button ???

Oh I get it... your opinion decides reality. Gotcha.

How is stating factual information my "opinion" on "reality" B'man ???

For it is a fact that by not being in the controlled enviroment of a foundry or mill than whatever metal would not be pure.

For it is a fact that there ARE hundreds of elements and materials which have a far lower melting point than steel.

For it is a fact that a conglomerate mixture of materials will always have the ones with the lowest melting point melt first.

How is this my "opinion" ???

And yes, I know what you're saying... but what I AM saying is that EVEN THE LOWEST temperature molten metals ARE MUCH HOTTER then the flames COULD HAVE provided in ideal circumstances (IE; burning in a blast furnace),not as a flame buried in debris with little to no oxygen circulating

So by your criteria nothing can ever burn in less than "ideal" conditions !!!

And how do you surmise that there would be little or no oxygen present ... was the rubble pile a solid mass ???

Was it solid and fused together somehow without any gaps ... for it sure as Hades looks to me like there would be plenty of oxygen circulating through the jumbled, twisted heap ...

You couldn't even get that one right...

Ya got me there ... relish it !!!

I meant for the person reading your posts without applying critical analysis to the implications and connotations of the statements... THOSE PEOPLE are glancing through the posts, and they are the ones that might be taken in and fooled by the cleverly disguised deceptions.

How so B'man ... how would they be taken in by some kind of deception on my part ... is my information not scientifically valid, is is all just made up on my part and not able to be verified.

You keep making this kind of accusation ... that I am deliberately lying or being deceptive ... and yet despite repeated requests from me to show such, you still have not managed to show so ???

It's generally wrong to make accusations against people without any evidence to support those accusations, wouldn't you agree B'man ????

"Innocent until proven guilty" is the prevailing philosophy of civilized societies ... if you have any evidence that anything I have said here is a deliberate lie on my part ... then present it.

If not, then admit that these accusations have zero merit !!!

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Wow... just wow... let's just call this one lost in translation.

Is this a dodge ... for is it not a fact that you did clearly make claim to Silverstein being involved in deliberate demolition to save money "billions" on asbestos abatement ... or not !!!

Is it also a fact that I responded to that by showing how much it would cost the Port Authority to abate asbestos in ALL its properties would be much less than one billion ... all properties included WTC7.

Did you also claim that Silverstein cashed in on double the insurance ... an accusation of fraud ... or not !!!

To refresh your memory again, here is your EXACT words ...

"Right... Rather then LOSING BILLIONS of dollars to remove asbestos from the towers, Silverstein took the reigns and cashed in on double his insurance. That alone is justification for investigation."

Shall we ask other posters whether or not they think this comment is about more than just you using your own judgement as to abatement costs and nothing else ...

So how, again, is my detailed reply showing the exact asbestos coverage of the Towers and the cost for abatement of such ... as well as a detailed break-down of the actual insurance awards themselves ... getting "lost" in translation B'man ???.

What you really are doing here is, knowing how pwned you were over this trying to make it seem as though I went overboard and replied to more than you commented over ... such a pity that wee tactic is show to be without merit !!!

Not necessarily...

How so B'man ???

How is not correcting or updating wrong information not willfully dishonest ... how is the deliberate act of not rewriting factually mis-information somehow not "necessarily" a wrong ???

I don't find a person wanting to cover costs as something inherently evil. I am a capitalist as well.

How much do you think it actually takes to cover costs, from the look of most conspiracy sites they seem not to be updated too often, and yet keep touting for donations.

How much do you really think it costs to burn and distribute DVD's ... certainly no-where near the exorbitant cost and amount of stuff they sell ???

Right... no need to sell anything when you've got the likes of George Soros, and other media giants using proxies to fund them.

And of course you are fully able to prove this claim !!!

What about those asking for donations?? Does that make them evil too??

Does it not make you suspicious, for surely if they were truly noble and honest they would make public the amounts raised and what it was used for ... it is how other more credible charities, groups and non-profits work.

Transparancy shows legitimacy ... for you know for a fact you are not being fleeced.

Why do truther sites then not show such openess of funding and how they spend YOUR donations and purchases ... for maintaining a web-site is NOT that expensive ... so why do you not wish to know better what they do with what at the end of the day is YOUR money ???

Landing page - What information must trustees send us this year?

AE911Truth.INFO : AE911Truth Fundraising

Zeitgeist, the movie Debunked - Cost - Conspiracy Science - Conspiracies and Myths Refuted, Debunked, and Explained

I just fail to see the connection that attempting to raise funds in whatever ways makes a person immoral??

But there is a difference between genuinely funding an organisation or group and fleecing a gullible audience ... it is called accountability.

There seem to be none of that at any of these sites, for there is zero way of ensuring these monies are being used legitimately and honestly !!!

Without public accountability and scrutiny then, yes, it is immoral !!!

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]