Jesse Ventura Is A Lying Truther

[505]

not quite... What is proven is the potential to 'cut' steel with thermite... that the results happen to corroborate eyewitness accounts is also a statement... and since all that is required is a piece of steel, it's not a matter of some 'high tech device'.

So, what you said about the debunking is accurate, but I didn't claim that it was proof, but what was discovered is consistent with eyewitness accounts while at the same time addressing alot of the 'anomalies' of the collapse.

Yeah now you just need to show how they could have rigged all these devices in the first place, how the triggers were not prematurely fired from the fires and/or plane impacts, and how hundreds/thousands of these devices were not found at ANY point after the collapses.

Rigging up a thermite cutting device 10 years later doesn't prove anything. He also doesn't draw any parallel as far as the actual SCALE goes. Remember, you guys are the ones who claim that progressive collapse is impossible, so in order for there to be "controlled demo" using these devices, there would need to be A LOT of them. If that actually happened they would have been found.

Plain and simple.

 

[usda select]

So... one of you is saying 'since there was no wreckage found of this item, that proves it was never there'... while the other is saying since there was no wreckage found of this item, it was obviously destroyed in the collapse and that proves it was there'...

No, 505 is stating that since there were none of these steel cylinders found in the wreckage--these steel cylinders that supposedly held the thermite; it proves that they werent there to start with. His position is one of common sense. I'd go a step further saying that the last thing a controlled demolition crew would want is a plane to crash into the building. If these cylinders were there; they'd be compromized immediately. I feel that is concrete proof that they were not there and anybody who propels such a crazy argument is probably due to have their medication refilled.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Yeah now you just need to show how they could have rigged all these devices in the first place,

Well, it's KNOWN that there was construction work being done in the towers on a continual basis, and the majority of construction in occupied buildings is done in such a way that the tradesmen are separate from the office workers, including the elevator shafts and lobby areas on the floors the planes hit... also, I don't believe that bomb dogs are trained to smell thermite... since it's just the chemical reaction of the aluminum and rust with heat as the catalyst.

I don't know how much more 'proof' you would expect??

how the triggers were not prematurely fired from the fires

Unless the intention was that the fireball of the explosion was intended to ignite the fuse, so to speak... Here's the catch though, the 'problem' I have with the official story is that there are two simultaneous, yet mutually exclusive phenomena that happened :
1 - We are told the fires caused trusses connections to the columns to fail allowing the floor to collapse, and
2 - That the remaining areas of the building that had in tact fireproofing, and / or completely undamaged got 'pulled down'

Then, it's explained that when the top collided with the bottom section that the forces were just too massive to stop total collapse...

These are mutually exclusive, because for 1 to fail means that the explanation for 2 is no longer possible because it had already 'released' it's load... Or maybe there was a remote controlled device at play in a different section of the building... I don't know precisely but you have to look carefully within the 3 frames before and after the collapse, and you can see what I mean... It's like
frame 1 : the most damaged area begins to fail... this much is expected, if there's a failure due to fire...
frame 2 : a plume of smoke is pushing out from the middle of the building, with no real indication of it's source
frame 3 : The rest of the, what might as well be a foot ball field area of the building's support structure failed and was dropping.

and/or plane impacts, and how hundreds/thousands of these devices were not found at ANY point after the collapses.

You know what... I'll find it again...
http://www.youtube.com/user/ae911truth#p/c/8C15985093AB07C1
This one's good too, but less relevant...



This ends the debate on the feasibility of thermite to act as explosive... you cannot insult your way out of this one.

He shows it all how it can be accomplished, pointing out that it corroborates virtually ALL of the evidence, down to the molten metal left over... Seriously... if you've shown that it HAD TO have happened... it doesn't matter HOW it happened, because the fact IS THAT IT DID HAPPEN. End of story. I hate to burst your bubble.

Rigging up a thermite cutting device 10 years later doesn't prove anything.

I hope you're just playing dumb here... Using 'regular thermite'... not even the high tech stuff, we've been told 'oh it can't cut steel'... and people like NatGeo and Mythbusters have all taken their shots... even the guy on ventura's show made a farse of an attempt to cut the steel...

The fact is that the high tech thermite DID exist at the time... and the forensics seems to show that this stuff was in the building. BUT, if you want to explain that a building collapsed by fire, you need to have SILENT ways to cut the supports... and the thermite as an explosive cutting force IS relatively quiet.

He also doesn't draw any parallel as far as the actual SCALE goes. Remember, you guys are the ones who claim that progressive collapse is impossible, so in order for there to be "controlled demo" using these devices, there would need to be A LOT of them. If that actually happened they would have been found.

Plain and simple.

Remember, NIST did NOT do any test for explosives... they felt it wasn't necessary and justified that decision early on in the NIST report.

Of course you'll try and smear some people, and say it's not possible, or not watch the video, for whatever reason you won't face facts... whatever, as time goes on the holes in the official story just get bigger and bigger, it's falling apart, and everybody knows it, not many people believe it anymore...

But, people DO tend to have short attention spans, because Obama got a surge in popularity after the Tucson Shooting, believe it or not... and I'm not saying that the government had anything to do with it. For the record, the evidence shows he was a psycho on hallucinogens almost constantly... if he was anything he was a liberal, but you couldn't use that to smear liberals even.... That said, it is the MO that mind control victims play the role of a psycho screwed up from the start, and he did ask for the same lawyer the helped other known MK ultra victims (ie:the unabomber). But, there's no way to prove that, so we'll call it random act of aggression from a psychopath.

 

[505]

Well, it's KNOWN that there was construction work being done in the towers on a continual basis, and the majority of construction in occupied buildings is done in such a way that the tradesmen are separate from the office workers, including the elevator shafts and lobby areas on the floors the planes hit... also, I don't believe that bomb dogs are trained to smell thermite... since it's just the chemical reaction of the aluminum and rust with heat as the catalyst.

I don't know how much more 'proof' you would expect??

To get the results that you guys say are impossible would take thousands of devices. Miles of wiring. Impossible?... no. Super unlikely?... yes.

Unless the intention was that the fireball of the explosion was intended to ignite the fuse, so to speak...

Ok. An hour + delay fuse. Chalk up another improbability to your crackpot theory.

Here's the catch though, the 'problem' I have with the official story is that there are two simultaneous, yet mutually exclusive phenomena that happened :
1 - We are told the fires caused trusses connections to the columns to fail allowing the floor to collapse, and
2 - That the remaining areas of the building that had in tact fireproofing, and / or completely undamaged got 'pulled down'

Not mutually exclusive. One side of a connection breaks. The other side pulls down what it is still connected to. Physics. Get some.

Then, it's explained that when the top collided with the bottom section that the forces were just too massive to stop total collapse...

For the hundredth time. Those beams were massive. Each one could wreak absolute havoc on the structure below it.

These are mutually exclusive, because for 1 to fail means that the explanation for 2 is no longer possible because it had already 'released' it's load...

Released it's load? WTF are you talking about?

frame 1 : the most damaged area begins to fail... this much is expected, if there's a failure due to fire...

Wow we agree.

frame 2 : a plume of smoke is pushing out from the middle of the building, with no real indication of it's source

And here we part ways and head down different paths. No indication of it's source? Are you joking? One of the largest falling masses in history and you can't find a source? Physics. Get some.

You know what... I'll find it again...
http://www.youtube.com/user/ae911truth#p/c/8C15985093AB07C1
This one's good too, but less relevant...

Watched em. Doesn't change my mind in the slightest.

This ends the debate on the feasibility of thermite to act as explosive... you cannot insult your way out of this one.

He shows it all how it can be accomplished, pointing out that it corroborates virtually ALL of the evidence, down to the molten metal left over... Seriously... if you've shown that it HAD TO have happened... it doesn't matter HOW it happened, because the fact IS THAT IT DID HAPPEN. End of story. I hate to burst your bubble.

Burst my bubble? I thought I had literally JUST admitted that the guy accomplished his goal of building a steel cutting thermite device... and it only took you fools 10 years. Uhm, congrats?

even the guy on ventura's show made a farse of an attempt to cut the steel...

What? Oh go munch balls. You know damn well that they were specifically talking about thermite PAINT.

THAT stuff could be EVERYWHERE.

The fact is that the high tech thermite DID exist at the time... and the forensics seems to show that this stuff was in the building.

Seems to you maybe. Too bad Jones' paper is a pile of crap.

BUT, if you want to explain that a building collapsed by fire, you need to have SILENT ways to cut the supports... and the thermite as an explosive cutting force IS relatively quiet.

Relatively.

The rest of your post is irrelevant to the discussion so I chopped it.

 

[BmanMcfly]

To get the results that you guys say are impossible would take thousands of devices. Miles of wiring. Impossible?... no. Super unlikely?... yes.

Remote controls are a neat new invention... Further, likelihood is irrelevant if the evidence shows that there was explosive assistance in the collapse.

Ok. An hour + delay fuse. Chalk up another improbability to your crackpot theory.

I never said I had all the answers...

Not mutually exclusive. One side of a connection breaks. The other side pulls down what it is still connected to. Physics. Get some.

Ya... tell me to get some physics... what you're trying to tell me is the same as trying to tell me that a bungie cord will bounce after it's snapped.

For the hundredth time. Those beams were massive. Each one could wreak absolute havoc on the structure below it.

For the hundredth time, each beam below was still structural and yet there's no evidence of the collapse showing any slow down... you know, when the top part of the building was supposed to have collided with the lower undamaged part.

Released it's load? WTF are you talking about?

Let go. If you are holding up a weight and you let go, the weight can no longer pull your arm once it's been released...

Wow we agree.

Because you haven't decided that this was a conspiracy theory...

And here we part ways and head down different paths.1 No indication of it's source? 2Are you joking?3 One of the largest falling masses in history and you can't find a source? Physics. Get some.

1 - I mean the source of the cloud of pulverized debris that projects out from the middle of the building...
2 - I might not have explained it proper but no
3 - When, according to NIST, more then half of the structure was effectively undamaged , yes, there's no source for the extent of the destruction within the first second of collapse.

Watched em. Doesn't change my mind in the slightest.

Aww... isn't that cute how you can just disregard facts on a whim... is there a pill or something so I can enjoy these same delusions??

Burst my bubble? I thought I had literally JUST admitted that the guy accomplished his goal of building a steel cutting thermite device... and it only took you fools 10 years. Uhm, congrats?

Yes, that would burst your bubble, especially if you're one of those people that claimed that video to be impossible.

The length of time it takes doesn't matter... but the puzzle is now solved. So, ya, congrats are in order for this guy... punched another gaping hole in the official story. Eventually, you'll be forced to give up on your willful ignorance that the official story doesnt' even have a leg to stand on.

What? Oh go munch balls. You know damn well that they were specifically talking about thermite PAINT.

THAT stuff could be EVERYWHERE.

Classy... it's funny how you F.olks A.pproving G.overnment S.tories depend so strongly on insults to make a point.

Anyway, you're neglecting a couple major points :
1 - A splotch of the paint as a test was not designed to cut the steel... the energy is expelled erratically.
2 - The 'paint' could still be made to be focused in such a way that it would cut the beam...

So, that loser what calls himself a scientist is debunked. It might have taken 10 years, but it's now demonstrable that this guy is either :
a ) dumber then he looks, or
b ) intentionally deceptive.

Seems to you maybe. Too bad Jones' paper is a pile of crap.

No, seems to the world of reality, where nano-aluminum sol-gels were available for about 10 years before 9-11...

"pile of crap" or not, it's been peer-reviewed and hasn't been debunked. Also, there's so much corroborating evidence it's amazing that you still believe that conspiracy theory that 19 hijackers pulled off 9-11 including all the anomalies of the official investigation.

Relatively.

The rest of your post is irrelevant to the discussion so I chopped it.

THere are literally dozens of film clips of sounds that could be called 'explosive'... so, well, ya... relatively quiet, in spite of it still generating noise.

 

[505]

Remote controls are a neat new invention... Further, likelihood is irrelevant if the evidence shows that there was explosive assistance in the collapse.

Thousands of devices set off in perfect sequence by remote... in a building flooded by radio signals. Just listen to how stupid that sounds.

I never said I had all the answers...

Yet you claim to know more than experts and scientists. Not a good way to do things.

Ya... tell me to get some physics... what you're trying to tell me is the same as trying to tell me that a bungie cord will bounce after it's snapped.

No, I am telling you that a 10 thousand lb beam can pull stuff down when one side of it's connection is severed. Bungie cords and bouncing have ZERO relevance.

For the hundredth time, each beam below was still structural

Structural does not mean it is designed to withstand the dynamic load.

and yet there's no evidence of the collapse showing any slow down... you know, when the top part of the building was supposed to have collided with the lower undamaged part.

Yes there is. If there was no slow down, the building would have collapsed at exactly freefall... not freefall minus (x).

Let go. If you are holding up a weight and you let go, the weight can no longer pull your arm once it's been released...

Once again you are thinking about it the wrong way. The right way is to imagine that you and I are BOTH holding up the same large weight. One of us on each end. I let go of my end, and the weight is now too much for you to hold up. The weight pulls your arm down.

1 - I mean the source of the cloud of pulverized debris that projects out from the middle of the building...
2 - I might not have explained it proper but no
3 - When, according to NIST, more then half of the structure was effectively undamaged , yes, there's no source for the extent of the destruction within the first second of collapse.

Yup, largest falling mass in history. It can do all of that.

Aww... isn't that cute how you can just disregard facts on a whim... is there a pill or something so I can enjoy these same delusions??

Who is the one here disregarding facts? If I told you I could jump over my house, and then tried to prove it by jumping 3 feet off the ground, you would agree that I can jump 3 feet in the air. Same thing applies here... youtuber claims the towers were brought down using thermite, then tries to prove it by cutting/weakening a single beam.

Yes, that would burst your bubble, especially if you're one of those people that claimed that video to be impossible.

Problem is that I clearly admitted that he cut/weakened a single beam.

Eventually, you'll be forced to give up on your willful ignorance that the official story doesnt' even have a leg to stand on.

Is that leg from your stupid chair analogy?

Anyway, you're neglecting a couple major points :
1 - A splotch of the paint as a test was not designed to cut the steel... the energy is expelled erratically.
2 - The 'paint' could still be made to be focused in such a way that it would cut the beam...

So we have one video showing thermite when applied as paint can't cut or even weaken a beam. We have another with a comparatively elaborate device that resembles a cutter charge. In mcflyland the paint can somehow magically work because the more elaborate device does... wtf mate?

 

[BmanMcfly]

Thousands of devices set off in perfect sequence by remote... in a building flooded by radio signals. Just listen to how stupid that sounds.

Funny thing about radio signals is that there are many different usable frequencies, and military have a whole other subset of potential frequencies... I can't prove that this was how it was done... but as I've repeated many times, "if you can show that it WAS done it's not necessarily important to show HOW it was done." Meaning, if a person was killed and the body destroyed to the point that you can't establish HOW the person died, if you can establish who killed the person, the how is less important.

Yet you claim to know more than experts and scientists. Not a good way to do things.

No, I don't claim that, I'm claiming that those at NIST were corrupt and knew exactly the lies that they were trying to sell. After that, the hidden assumptions that NIST used get shifted to both sides either to show how the collapse initiated, or how it fell through the building... though none have been able to go from how the collapse started to collapsing through the entire structure...

So, combination of people complicit after the fact, and useful idiots not wanting to be considered in the "against US" category as Bush told the nation.

No, I am telling you that a 10 thousand lb beam can pull stuff down when one side of it's connection is severed. Bungie cords and bouncing have ZERO relevance.

No, it's completely relevant because for intentions your saying that once the connections are broken that an object can still exert force over another object to which it is no longer connected.

The bungie cord is simply an illustration of that... its not specifically relevant to the collapse,but it is relevant to pointing out what you're trying to say is expected.

Structural does not mean it is designed to withstand the dynamic load.

Right, there is the momentum, but there's also the 'work' factors... it takes 'work' to pulverize concrete, if it can be demonstrated that the 'work' involved in breaking the structure + air resistance (which is low relatively) is MORE then 40% of the force of the building collapsing through... well, then you need extra energy, which can only conceivably come from explosives...

Yes there is. If there was no slow down, the building would have collapsed at exactly freefall... not freefall minus (x).

Learn some physics... there was no vacuum surrounding those towers... there is ALWAYS a level of air resistance at a minimum.

Once again you are thinking about it the wrong way. The right way is to imagine that you and I are BOTH holding up the same large weight. One of us on each end. I let go of my end, and the weight is now too much for you to hold up. The weight pulls your arm down.

No, you're telling me that if we're both holding that weight that if YOU let go of your end, the weight will PULL you down with it.

Yup, largest falling mass in history. It can do all of that.

Prove it.... but also consider that you'll be taking on a task that even NIST didn't want to bother with.

Who is the one here disregarding facts? If I told you I could jump over my house, and then tried to prove it by jumping 3 feet off the ground, you would agree that I can jump 3 feet in the air. Same thing applies here... youtuber claims the towers were brought down using thermite, then tries to prove it by cutting/weakening a single beam.

But unlike your example, you can't jump 3 ft and then jump another 3ft from midair... whereas, by cutting / weakening the columns sufficiently that a single one fails can be placed on a number of columns as needed to get the desired result.

Problem is that I clearly admitted that he cut/weakened a single beam.

Exactly, and if it can be done to a single beam, a single column, the same technique could be applied 47 times per floor + the 100 or so exterior columns.

Is that leg from your stupid chair analogy?

No, it doesn't even have that leg to stand on.

So we have one video showing thermite when applied as paint can't cut or even weaken a beam. We have another with a comparatively elaborate device that resembles a cutter charge. In mcflyland the paint can somehow magically work because the more elaborate device does... wtf mate?

1 - The debunkers claim that thermite in any form cannot cut a column horizontally, not with nano-thermite, nothing... this video makes the case that EVEN WITH regular thermite, by using a simple technique to focus the heat and energy released IS capable of cutting columns.

2 - Yes, the sol-gel incendiaries CAN be 'painted' on, or sprayed on with an airless compressor... that doesn't necessarily change that the energy must be focused somehow in order to cut the steel...

3 - That these crude steel devices can cause explosive effects creates the means through which this incendiary could have separated from the stuff that was reacting in such a way that it was still reactive.

But then you add in how that corroborates with the alleged explosions in the basement that saw people being extremely burned, also why there would be no barotrauma because the explosions would be focused into what they were designed to destroy.

Yes, the only problem is that the man hours involved in getting that all done without anyone noticing... and that those responsible didn't talk, though somehow I would expect that those involved would be sent on some suicide mission somewhere...

But, when you look at the evidence that points to flaws in the official report as a whole... I mean, to look at any one piece you could brush it off as a 'coincidence' or whatever, but to look at the mass of evidence, I don't see how any reasonable person could oppose a new investigation?

 

[505]

but as I've repeated many times, "if you can show that it WAS done it's not necessarily important to show HOW it was done."

You haven't even shown that it WAS done.

No, I don't claim that, I'm claiming that those at NIST were corrupt and knew exactly the lies that they were trying to sell. After that, the hidden assumptions that NIST used get shifted to both sides either to show how the collapse initiated, or how it fell through the building... though none have been able to go from how the collapse started to collapsing through the entire structure...

Ok yeah sorry... here I thought you were trying to be smarter than the scientists, when in reality you just think everyone is out to get you. My bad.

No, it's completely relevant because for intentions your saying that once the connections are broken that an object can still exert force over another object to which it is no longer connected.

Mcfly. Read my E-lips. EVERY SINGLE BEAM HAS TWO CONNECTIONS. Or more. Cripes.

Right, there is the momentum, but there's also the 'work' factors... it takes 'work' to pulverize concrete, if it can be demonstrated that the 'work' involved in breaking the structure + air resistance (which is low relatively) is MORE then 40% of the force of the building collapsing through... well, then you need extra energy, which can only conceivably come from explosives...

And yet NEVER have you tried to do the WORK yourself and figure it out. You take Jones/Jones/Ventura and whatever paranoid crap they are spewing and parrot it. You haven't once tried to form an original thought (except for the stupid chair analogy) and won't even hash out your full hypothesis on what went down that day. You're just asking questions and want the taxpayers to fork over the funds to the government so they can investigate it. AGAIN. Whatever.

Learn some physics... there was no vacuum surrounding those towers... there is ALWAYS a level of air resistance at a minimum.

Haha. Cute. Mcfly telling ME to learn some physics... then promptly destroying any and all doubt about whether or not he is a total boob. So the 12+ seconds of delay was due to "air resistance" Mcfly? lol. Thanks. I best be getting back into some physics classes because I definitely missed that lesson.

No, you're telling me that if we're both holding that weight that if YOU let go of your end, the weight will PULL you down with it.

Uhm, except... I'm really not. Over and over and over I have been trying to tell you that a beam will fail at the bracket. It FAILS on one side. THAT end of the beam FALLS. The OTHER end pulls down what it's connected to. Come on man... this **** aint that hard to follow. Keep up.

Prove it.... but also consider that you'll be taking on a task that even NIST didn't want to bother with.

Prove what? That it was the largest falling mass in history? Or that the largest falling mass in history can eject air/glass/dust/debris from below it as it falls?

But unlike your example, you can't jump 3 ft and then jump another 3ft from midair... whereas, by cutting / weakening the columns sufficiently that a single one fails can be placed on a number of columns as needed to get the desired result.

Ok. And then we end up again with thousands of these things needed for the job. Thousands of them not being detected while being installed. Thousands of them not going off from random radio signals. Thousands of them not going off from jetliner impact. Thousands of them not going off from fire. Thousands of them going off in perfect sequence. It is fantasy. No matter how many movies you watch that make you think otherwise, this is not realistic whatsoever. Much less ten years ago.

Exactly, and if it can be done to a single beam, a single column, the same technique could be applied 47 times per floor + the 100 or so exterior columns.

147 per floor times a hundred floors is how many Mcfly? x2 for the towers and then throw in building 7. Yup. Thousands.

NWO henchmen: It's really simple sir we just need about 35,000 thermite cutter charges that we'll install on all the beams.

NWO boss: 35,000 eh? That seems excessive.

NWO henchmen: Nah it'll be perfect. We totally need that thing to fall at near freefall speeds to strike fear into the hearts of the populace.

NWO boss: Why don't we just fly a ****ing plane into it and let gravity do the rest?

NWO henchmen: Because sir there is just no way that a ten thousand lb beam can do anything to the structure below it... it's all STRUCTURAL and stuff!!!11!!

NWO boss: Doh, ok call up thermitechargesRus and put it on my account. I'll call up Franky and he can install them. This is going to be cool.

 

[BmanMcfly]

You haven't even shown that it WAS done.

Because you willingly ignore all the facts that don't support your case... Much like NIST did when they withheld several terabytes of video and audio files, with like 90% of them having even more eyewitness accounts of explosions / explosives going off, some videos that corroborate the stories of other witnesses, etc... and that doesn't even warrant a MENTION in the reports as to WHY they were discarded... On the face of it NIST was lying by omission. New investigation is the only solution.

Ok yeah sorry... here I thought you were trying to be smarter than the scientists, when in reality you just think everyone is out to get you. My bad.

The mafia must never have existed by your logic. The mafia is not out to get me, the mafia is out to protect it's own interests and only wants to get me if I am interfering... it can be relatively easily proven by other means that those at NIST came at the investigation with the cause in hand and combed through the debris for the evidence to back up that story.

Mcfly. Read my E-lips. EVERY SINGLE BEAM HAS TWO CONNECTIONS. Or more. Cripes.

Yes... and once those connections are severed as the pancake theory REQUIRES then those CONNECTIONS HAVE FAILED ALREADY AND ARE NO LONGER PART OF THE STRUCTURE!!!! Once you let go of your side of the weight, that weight has NO MORE AFFECT ON YOU... Once you let go, the weight and you are two seperate objects and the weight can NO LONGER exert force...

This is so asinine a child can understand this... why do you insist on saying that the weight, once you've dropped it can pull you over???

And yet NEVER have you tried to do the WORK yourself and figure it out.

I've done a surprising amount of work demonstrating how ridiculous the crap some of you anti-truth people spew out... I was challenging you to do something that even NIST didn't bother to do. I guess when something is trapped in a corner of logic it lashes out with insults or worse.

You take Jones/Jones/Ventura and whatever paranoid crap they are spewing and parrot it.

No, they each came to the same conclusions through independent means and are actually performing as best of an independent investigation as can be performed with the available evidence...

Meanwhile, if we ask for your sources you'll trot out NIST (who didn't even acknowledge molten material) and the 9-11 commission (whose majority of members have spoken out against the report using varying language)... so, who is the parrot again??

You haven't once tried to form an original thought (except for the stupid chair analogy) and won't even hash out your full hypothesis on what went down that day.

Right... coming from someone that is so scared of truth that you will lie to yourself in the face of evidence to say that it's not evidence of anything... and then get so scared when the truth is staring you in the face that you resort to this pathetic ad hom attack.

You're just asking questions and want the taxpayers to fork over the funds to the government so they can investigate it. AGAIN. Whatever.

Again... it's a SIMPLE matter to PROVE that the government has lied, and covered up information regarding what happened on 9-11... there's enough evidence to PROVE that there was more then what the official story says going on that day... there are FURTHER questions that have NOT been answered in any meaningful way, and only someone that would spit justice in the face would want to deny attempting to answer those questions which MANY of the families of those that died are still asking.

Of course, if you are willingly ignorant and decide, delusionally, that you get to choose what is fact or not... then ya, it's definitely more comforting to believe that men with turbans and beards pulled off everything, including the anomalies, including getting Mossad to document the events, including the congressional testimony against Cheney, in spite of the thinly veiled admission of complicity found in the PNAC document, as being ALL A MATTER OF COINCIDENCE!!!

Whatever man, you can keep your head in the sand all you want, just don't lash out at me because you're too scared to face facts.

Haha. Cute. Mcfly telling ME to learn some physics... then promptly destroying any and all doubt about whether or not he is a total boob. So the 12+ seconds of delay was due to "air resistance" Mcfly? lol. Thanks. I best be getting back into some physics classes because I definitely missed that lesson.

Haha cute, now you resort to a simple strawman. I didn't say that 12+ seconds was air resistance... but you further demonstrate your real physics mastery when you seem to deny that air does not create drag.

Uhm, except... I'm really not. Over and over and over I have been trying to tell you that a beam will fail at the bracket. It FAILS on one side. THAT end of the beam FALLS. The OTHER end pulls down what it's connected to. Come on man... this **** aint that hard to follow. Keep up.

Ok... but this process takes TIME... Not a single frame... not 0.05 seconds... cause that's all the time it took for the remainder of the columns to fail... there was no 'groaning' in the metal from the extra stresses, there was no time for loads to shift causing further failures... NO. One failure on 1 corner of the first tower started to collapse causing 100's of other support beams to fail simultaneously. Not in the real world, I'm sorry.

Prove what? That it was the largest falling mass in history? Or that the largest falling mass in history can eject air/glass/dust/debris from below it as it falls?

Prove that the mass was enough to crush through the lower undamaged structure.
Since you're a master of physics and all, this should be a piece of cake.

Ok. And then we end up again with thousands of these things needed for the job.

Again, now with what was filmed and witnessed being corroborated with a method to produce these effects... the question isn't so much HOW they got in there because the fact is something to that effect WAS in the buildings.

Thousands of them not being detected while being installed.

I've yet to see evidence that dogs are capable of associating aluminum and rust as explosives... beyond that, if the supervising manager for the building was in on the plans (someone like Marvin Bush), then the ways around security would be known.

Thousands of them not going off from random radio signals.

I was offering a potential explanation, not a definite... but you can have signals that are tuned VERY precisely.

Thousands of them not going off from jetliner impact.

Thermite is not exactly easy to light.

Thousands of them not going off from fire. Thousands of them going off in perfect sequence.

You only see the glowing red and molten metal spewing out from the hole just prior to the first collapse, and the explosion that shoots out on the collision floor with the second collapse...

It is fantasy. No matter how many movies you watch that make you think otherwise, this is not realistic whatsoever. Much less ten years ago.

No, it's not a fantasy, it's an evidence based explanation, since most of the raw evidence is destroyed, this is the best explanation given the evidence, you know, occams razor. The simplest explanation GIVEN ALL THE EVIDENCE, is usually the correct one. You might be telling the 'simplest explanation'... but you are NOT accounting for all the evidence.

147 per floor times a hundred floors is how many Mcfly? x2 for the towers and then throw in building 7. Yup. Thousands.

But were thousands of them necessary?? was EVERY floor required?? More likely just the base of the structure, to ruin the core structural support, designed to carry MANY TIMES redundancy for the weight of it's load... THEN, enough to cause the top of the building to drop a few floors to get enough momentum, and then within the rest of the building, just around the core columns... so probably still several hundred devices in each building... but again, that, for the building to collapse as it did, looking for explosives should have been the FIRST line of investigation... not reduced only to mentions to explain the reason why they did not look for explosives.

NWO henchmen: It's really simple sir we just need about 35,000 thermite cutter charges that we'll install on all the beams.

NWO boss: 35,000 eh? That seems excessive.

NWO henchmen: Nah it'll be perfect. We totally need that thing to fall at near freefall speeds to strike fear into the hearts of the populace.

NWO boss: Why don't we just fly a ****ing plane into it and let gravity do the rest?

NWO henchmen: Because sir there is just no way that a ten thousand lb beam can do anything to the structure below it... it's all STRUCTURAL and stuff!!!11!!

NWO boss: Doh, ok call up thermitechargesRus and put it on my account. I'll call up Franky and he can install them. This is going to be cool.

1 - The government has demolition companies that it goes through first... these companies are given a high level security clearance because of their expertise... if you ask them a question like : "How would you take down a building that's on fire and make it look like the fire caused the collapse?"
2 - You get useful idiots to do the work under the supervision of someone who is also highly controlled and proven a capacity to keep secrets... and / or loyalty to the larger objective (ie: a collectivized world under a single government)... once they've finished the work, you make sure the low-level help have a series of 'accidents' before they have a chance to blow the whistle.
3 - Get an intelligence asset to recruit martyrs for their cause, which actually helps your own cause.
4 - Make sure that there's a ton of military activity set for the day of the event to cause a level of confusion to guarantee that noone accidentally prevents the attacks... this also makes it so that if anyone finds out what is going on "Oh, nvm that, that's just a drill we're conducting." Then "OMG the drill turned to a real event... get to work people."

Believe it or not, people can be manipulated...

 

[505]

But, when you look at the evidence that points to flaws in the official report as a whole... I mean, to look at any one piece you could brush it off as a 'coincidence' or whatever, but to look at the mass of evidence, I don't see how any reasonable person could oppose a new investigation?

Looking back on this statement, I see the perfect example of WHY you still don't get it. Even after all these years.

I saw loose change when it first came out and was kind of a truther for about a month. I was bombarded by a bunch of stuff that seemed intriguing and mysterious and it left me with a lot of questions. I broke down all these questions I had into SEPARATE things. One by one I researched, and one by one they ALL fell down.

You on the other hand, you got bombarded with all the same mystery, and instead of breaking it all down you left it as one giant entity. Even when shown that one piece of the puzzle doesn't fit you have countless others to fall back on. Enough time passes and you forget that the bogus piece doesn't fit, keeping the giant entity fully intact.

I have debated this topic with you for over 2 years now. In her time here IGATB has brought a ton of solid points to the table and usually explains her thoughts better than I do. No matter what it's always the same pattern. You lose an argument, move the goalposts, lose that one, move the posts again, lose, go back to the first one, wash rinse repeat. I seriously don't get you man. Why do you keep bringing up things that have been clearly shown to be the opposite of what you believe?

Take Jones paper for example. Not that long ago it was (yet again) fully spelled out for you how bogus it was. Yet here you are once again, claiming that it was properly peer reviewed in this thread. It was absolutely, 100% without a doubt PAID TO PUBLISH. Zero peer review. The chief editor flat out says so. Why do you keep bringing this stuff up and more importantly, why can't you ever just lose an argument and CHANGE YOUR MIND? Is this some sort of security blanket for you? Does it make you feel warm inside to be so paranoid?

Whatever. Going over, and over, and over this with you has long ago gotten old, stale, and worthless. I used to think of you as a smart person and hoped to help you see the "light" like I did. Now I am pretty much out of hope, as you can't even just once let something so stupid go and die... hell you even defend that POS Ventura and his SEAL claims for no reason other than he is on your paranoid conspiracy buddy list.

Being wrong is okay Mcfly. Everyone is wrong at some point or another. STAYING wrong is another matter, and I feel sorry for you that you keep up with this unfortunate pattern. I don't see things ending up well for you.

 

[505]

This is so asinine a child can understand this... why do you insist on saying that the weight, once you've dropped it can pull you over???

Ugh, I was about to go through and once again try to point by point explain things since you posted it while I was replying, and then I got to this. How many times do I need to say it? I AM NOT ****ING SAYING THAT! You're the one here that thinks all of those connections severed simultaneously. Not me. I have many times said that MY theory is that the tower failed in more of a cascading sequence rather than all at once. If a connection fails for a single beam it still has another connection. If a connection for a entire floor fails it has LOTS of other connections.

Not once did I say that a beam or floor can pull down the thing that it is no longer connected to. It is the OTHER side. Not once Mcfly. In the case of the floors, they are what give the perimeter columns and the core their LATERAL strength. Taking out the floors means BOTH tubes fall down. This wasn't a nice and neat collapse. Tons of different interactions are going on. Partially disconnected beams are pulling things they are still attached to. Partially collapsed floors are pulling on things that THEY are still attached to. Core columns pulling on floors and vice versa. Perimeter columns pulling on floors and vice versa. Floors crashing into other floors. Fully disconnected beams smashing through lower floors. Huge chunks of perimeter columns smashing through everything.

You look for nice and neat. I see messy and chaotic. This difference will never be resolved... that is unless you wake up and see the forest for the trees.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Ugh, I was about to go through and once again try to point by point explain things since you posted it while I was replying, and then I got to this. How many times do I need to say it? I AM NOT ****ING SAYING THAT!

It's all the same, what you were going to say is wrong anyway....

You're the one here that thinks all of those connections severed simultaneously. Not me. I have many times said that MY theory is that the tower failed in more of a cascading sequence rather than all at once. If a connection fails for a single beam it still has another connection. If a connection for a entire floor fails it has LOTS of other connections.

Here's the problem : If you believe the floors 'pancaked', that REQUIRES that EITHER the trusses connection to the columns failed and dropped (leaving the core columns effectively untouched). If you believe that the trusses 'pulled' the columns down, then the collapse initiated too quickly... it takes time for loads to shift, and since the failure was towards the corner on the first tower, the collapsing top structure should have continued to accelerate towards that corner, in other words, the video archived facts betray this explanation.

Not once did I say that a beam or floor can pull down the thing that it is no longer connected to. It is the OTHER side. Not once Mcfly. In the case of the floors, they are what give the perimeter columns and the core their LATERAL strength. Taking out the floors means BOTH tubes fall down. This wasn't a nice and neat collapse. Tons of different interactions are going on. Partially disconnected beams are pulling things they are still attached to. Partially collapsed floors are pulling on things that THEY are still attached to. Core columns pulling on floors and vice versa. Perimeter columns pulling on floors and vice versa. Floors crashing into other floors. Fully disconnected beams smashing through lower floors. Huge chunks of perimeter columns smashing through everything.

Right, but the weakest point IS that connection point... so, if the sudden strain on that connection is more then that connection can carry, it also snaps off. On the other hand, if it IS pulling a columns, then you will hear the metal 'groan' as it bends to the forces acting on it.

Much like while we're holding that weight, the weakest point is that of your hand, if a sudden force acts on your hand after I drop my end, the force will cause you to drop the weight.

ALSO, if you make it a bit more real and have a grid of people holding up the grid with a set weight... now, 3 people in 1 corner drop their end... well... how does that CAUSE the weight being held on the OPPOSITE CORNER to DROP his weight, when if anything, his portion of the load would be lessened.

You look for nice and neat. I see messy and chaotic. This difference will never be resolved... that is unless you wake up and see the forest for the trees.

Ya, I"m sorry but even with WTC 7... there was a 2,5 seconds of time where there was free-fall acceleration (within a 3% margin). This is IMPOSSIBLE without explosives on it's face.... as in this violates the laws of physics if this building collapsed in on itself into a pile of rubble. That is, it violates Newtonian mechanics.

And it doesn't matter if it's the 'largest falling object in the world ever', that doesn't change the laws of physics... no matter how you might try to spin that to keep your fuzzy world view.

 

[usda select]

Looking back on this statement, I see the perfect example of WHY you still don't get it. Even after all these years.

I saw loose change when it first came out and was kind of a truther for about a month. I was bombarded by a bunch of stuff that seemed intriguing and mysterious and it left me with a lot of questions. I broke down all these questions I had into SEPARATE things. One by one I researched, and one by one they ALL fell down.

You on the other hand, you got bombarded with all the same mystery, and instead of breaking it all down you left it as one giant entity. Even when shown that one piece of the puzzle doesn't fit you have countless others to fall back on. Enough time passes and you forget that the bogus piece doesn't fit, keeping the giant entity fully intact.

I have debated this topic with you for over 2 years now. In her time here IGATB has brought a ton of solid points to the table and usually explains her thoughts better than I do. No matter what it's always the same pattern. You lose an argument, move the goalposts, lose that one, move the posts again, lose, go back to the first one, wash rinse repeat. I seriously don't get you man. Why do you keep bringing up things that have been clearly shown to be the opposite of what you believe?

Take Jones paper for example. Not that long ago it was (yet again) fully spelled out for you how bogus it was. Yet here you are once again, claiming that it was properly peer reviewed in this thread. It was absolutely, 100% without a doubt PAID TO PUBLISH. Zero peer review. The chief editor flat out says so. Why do you keep bringing this stuff up and more importantly, why can't you ever just lose an argument and CHANGE YOUR MIND? Is this some sort of security blanket for you? Does it make you feel warm inside to be so paranoid?

Whatever. Going over, and over, and over this with you has long ago gotten old, stale, and worthless. I used to think of you as a smart person and hoped to help you see the "light" like I did. Now I am pretty much out of hope, as you can't even just once let something so stupid go and die... hell you even defend that POS Ventura and his SEAL claims for no reason other than he is on your paranoid conspiracy buddy list.

Being wrong is okay Mcfly. Everyone is wrong at some point or another. STAYING wrong is another matter, and I feel sorry for you that you keep up with this unfortunate pattern. I don't see things ending up well for you.

I guarantee that EVERY relationship he has ends with the other person throwing up their hands and walking away.

 

[Whovian]

This ends the debate on the feasibility of thermite to act as explosive... .

actually, no... it doesn't.







I know.. I know... your videos are real, not faked, and they are 100% proof positive... while my videos are not... right?

 

[BmanMcfly]

actually, no... it doesn't.







I know.. I know... your videos are real, not faked, and they are 100% proof positive... while my videos are not... right?

Video 1 : was directly addressed in the video... and anyway, as pointed out, the energy is not focused in any way to cut the beams.

Video 2 : That one picture being misconstrued as evidence does not mean that the entire point is wrong...

Video 3 : People have shown through experimentation that regardless of how hot aluminum gets when it's molten once you pour it out is silvery color... even though, when it's in a container it does have the coloration as depicted in the video. Even if you add debris into the aluminum, it doesn't glow as bright as the stuff flowing out had been. Further, in the video he also demonstrates how it only requires a relatively small amount of thermite to actually cut through a beam when the energy is properly focused.

So, it's not that those sources are not good, they are simply wrong... I mean, they try to cover for the official version, but unfortunately they are wrong.

Since that video I sourced is actually quite recent, it effectively addresses those 3 videos either way.... and doesn't even bring up that photo of video 2.

 

[RedAkston]

Moderator's Warning:

Let's keep things civil and not so personal.

 

[505]

Ventura's back at it again. His latest episode dealing with 9/11 was about how all the phone calls were faked. Funny how he yet again uses real experts and twists their results to get what he wants.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Ventura's back at it again. His latest episode dealing with 9/11 was about how all the phone calls were faked. Funny how he yet again uses real experts and twists their results to get what he wants.

What he did was got the person do the study blind... by not knowing he was talking specifically about 9-11 he wouldn't allow any particular bias to come into play.

There were a few caveats that would allow for something to be done, but that requires alot of assumptions and speculation.

It is curious though still how cell phones worked at those altitudes... but I thought that some of the calls were also made on the on-board phones... I don't quite recall all the specifics. Also, whatever the truth on this particular issue doesn't necessarily impact the larger issues on the whole.

 

[usda select]

Ventura's back at it again. His latest episode dealing with 9/11 was about how all the phone calls were faked. Funny how he yet again uses real experts and twists their results to get what he wants.

Even the expert calls it BS. I'm sure there will be those who swear the expert isn't really an expert. It literally never ends with these morons

 

[mertex]

The title assumes the possibility that there is a non-lying truther out there.... Enquiring minds need to know!

Ha,ha, that is the same impression I got.

Truthers, birthers, they are all rather loony tunes.

 

[505]

What he did was got the person do the study blind... by not knowing he was talking specifically about 9-11 he wouldn't allow any particular bias to come into play.

lol. Yeah I'm sure that's what he was doing. Oh wait. He cropped out his last expert saying that the thermite "paint" can't harm a steel beam for no other reason than it would cast major doubt on his entire episode. Yeah let's get an expert in here to do a single test and not tell him anything about the actual conditions we are trying to tie the results to in the real world. Excellent way to prove a point.

Also, whatever the truth on this particular issue doesn't necessarily impact the larger issues on the whole.

Yup. Keep watching all of the different things that cast doubt on the people that are peddling this crap, pretending that it doesn't matter. If you were actually keeping an honest score over the last couple years you'd realize that the vast majority of your "larger issues" all have zero merit, and amount to absolutely nothing. Because of this, your movement will never be taken seriously and will never get any further than internet message boards and crappy TV shows that are made solely for "entertainment".

 

[BmanMcfly]

lol. Yeah I'm sure that's what he was doing. Oh wait. He cropped out his last expert saying that the thermite "paint" can't harm a steel beam for no other reason than it would cast major doubt on his entire episode. Yeah let's get an expert in here to do a single test and not tell him anything about the actual conditions we are trying to tie the results to in the real world. Excellent way to prove a point.

That's how studies are done in the real world... but that was only a single blind study.

Yup. Keep watching all of the different things that cast doubt on the people that are peddling this crap, pretending that it doesn't matter. If you were actually keeping an honest score over the last couple years you'd realize that the vast majority of your "larger issues" all have zero merit, and amount to absolutely nothing. Because of this, your movement will never be taken seriously and will never get any further than internet message boards and crappy TV shows that are made solely for "entertainment".

Even the scientist said, "he's making a tv show, cut him some slack"... and frankly, if you had something more detrimental to the whole case, not picking apart some irrelevant piece...I mean, if you had some of the major eyewitnesses determined to be lying, well, that's a different story.

Is X technology feasible? Was the question posed on the show.

The answer by the expert on the show was, YES. His answer after the fact was : Yes, but you would not easily be able to use such methods to effectively fool a large number of people.

In the previous one the question was : Does nano-thermite exist?
The expert answered, YES. Then made an overly-simplistic explanation as to how it would NOT damage the WTC steel...

WHich is a reality, as we've since discovered, because the energy from the thermite needs to be FOCUSED on the heavy steel beam, not as simple of the matter of painting on a small section and expecting it to create massive damage.

So, you keep 'debunking' stuff that doesn't even change the larger picture... it'd be like if I walked up to you and told you that metal boats are impossible because Steel is heavier and more dense then water. Well, in the strictest sense I would be correct, but even being correct doesn't change that the shape of the metal makes a difference.

Finally, there's some stuff that you've made a case about, that I really don't even discuss unless I've been pressed to... and the phone-calls was one of those that was just superfluous... it's an extra layer of complication that isn't 'necessary'. Also, that the episode has been out for 6 months and this small area that's of negligible importance gets found to be wrong... that's like getting the bonus question wrong on a test and aced the rest so you still got 100% on the test.

Here's a BIG difference with information contrary to the viewpoints :
- I have looked through EVERY debunking piece, most of them worse then trash... and analyzed them ALL... even when someone comes up and says 'oh see, you believe in 9-11, then you believe KFC is a plot sterilize people'
- Then I put facts that get glossed over or ignored in the official reports, and the anti-truthers WILL NOT look at it, will not discuss it... cannot even put an independent thought on it because of NISTS refusal to do so...

And yet, even when I'm right, it' gets framed as though I am wrong...