Captain's Quarters -

One of the most ridiculous stories I've heard is, that there was actually only one plane (The one well documented by MSM) and not four. It was piloted by Dick Cheney, who jumped on a CIA issued invisible parachute just before the plain hit the tower. There are supposedly NO convincing signs of any other plane crashing.
Remind me again, why is it that we spend time paying attention, or even arguing with mental patients?

Eric says:
Captain, I think you mean to say, "Instead, their delusions have again been demolished by yet another Institution, Cambridge."

Institution after institution have lined up to prove these guys wrong. It’s not worth anybody’s time to continue. They don’t reason well and therefore, they can’t think well. I say, if they continue this nonsense, we may have to re-open all of the mental asylums that President Reagan closed in his first year in office. He freed 6 figures worth of borderline mental patients. They had children. Those children now believe that the Government collapsed the Twin Towers.

Let’s reopen the “hospitals” and be done with this.

Funny you should mention this-I am watching the 9/11 replay on MSNBC this morning, and I came in just after the first tower collapsed. The chattering heads on the tube (Brokaw and Katie) almost immediately noted that when such a huge building collapses, it doesn't collapse precisely in its own footprint. I'm sure this won't dissuade the WTC-7 nutbars...

TomB,

Because some forms of insanity are contagious.

Unfortunately, TomB, the mental patients (you are WAY too kind in that description) tend to influence others to their disturbed, twisted viewpoint. 20 years ago, they would have been small groups of wackjobs meeting in a dingy bar, refining their insane conspiracy theories. Now, with Gore's Internet (any lib, spare me. I know it is a joke), the nutters can band together across the world and do all they do.

But, you are right, Ed. The Truthers will never believe it. They will make some excuse, typically that the researchers are on Bush's payroll, or were made to say this. They are so wacked out that I have read threads at the DU and a few other sites were they say they will NEVER watch The History Channel ever again. I haven't searched, but, I wouldn't be surprised if there was an anti-THC site out there.

As Val McClatchey said they "have too much time on their hands, and they need to get a life."

Eric,

Although some mental institutions closed early in Reagans first term, I believe those closures were the work of the CarterAdministration. The closes under Reagan were simply carryovers.

I am being very serious in saying that we should re-focus our attention to the basis of the mental illness that is spreading throughout our country. It is apparent that a group delusion has engulfed a portion of our society. It has been called a derangement syndrome.

I am wondering if the cause could be found. I am challenging our medical community and our government to begin the investigation. Could it be a slow poisoning such as occurred to the Romans? They went crazy from lead. Is it caused by a medication that has become wide spread? Is it a food additive? Could it be an insidious agent developed by the Russians and put into Chinese toothpaste? Is it viral?

Can it be shown to have demographic or geographic concentrations? What is this syndrome?

And, if we can’t fix it, can we protect ourselves? Is it contagious? Do we need to quarantine the infected?

Maybe it is all the zombies? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoXgRtDysLY

About Reagan and the mental hospitals: I live in CA, and it was during his first term as governor that CA's major mental hospitals were closed.

Let me put the myth to rest: Reagan was against closing the mental hospitals. We had several very large ones. The Democratic Legislature wanted to close them and send the patients to half-way houses near their families. The Leg said it would appropriate the money for the half-way houses. Reagan agreed, signed the bill to close the hospitals, and.....in true Democratic fashion, the Leg never appropriated any money for half-way houses.

The mental institutions closed. The patients wandered the streets. They are still here - a large majority of "the homeless" in CA are crazy people with nowhere to go and no one to look after them.

Thanks, Dems.

How sad that we have to spend time on such a ridiculous topic.

Never forget, never forgive.

The "9/11 Truth Movement" is really a religious movement. It has very little to do with anything beyond blind faith--blind faith in anti-Americanism.

Thirty years ago, these people would probably be on a street corner chanting, "Hare Krishna Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna Hare Hare, Hare Rama Hare Rama, Rama Rama Hare Hare" till they got bored with it, and tried some other religious fad.

William,

I feel better now that I realize that the Predient is aware of the problem. I didn't realize that it was zombies, but that makes perfect sense.

I think maybe the new shower cleaner units (hang on the wall and spray a chemical on the shower after you're done) that came out a few years ago might be at cause. We should look into this further.

In the meantime -- don't buy one. Stay safe.

Captain Ed,
By arguing with them we play their game, they want it, they have their five seconds of fame. And they feel that they somehow "strike the nerve" (Government denies - yes, we become "The Government" - therefore they must somehow be right). There is no win in this game.
The bigger problem here is how easy our Academia and MSM are accepting and spreading this and other kinds of idiotic nonsense, unchecked by their own peers. Many years of unabashed leftist hiring by the schools and Universities produced this kind of intellectual environments, where propaganda and character assassination is equivalent with scientific argument as simply "another point of view" and where nobody dares to ask some questions not to get to the court of Inquisition.
I don't really know how to fight this situation, but my gut feeling is that we need something better, than disputing conspiracy theory number 1743.

There was a big movement in the 1960s, by well meaning Democrats and Progressives to deinstitutionalize the mentally ill who were not an imminent danger to themselves or others. Just part of the idea that whatever you do is fine. Even if you're a crazy person. Sadly, most of them wound up on the streets with drug and alcohol problems and then into the regular prison population.

But hey, at least they weren't being kept in a hospital just because they thought differently.

Fluoride. It's a commie plot. So says Gen. Jack. D. Ripper.

Hmm. Can't remember ANY federal mental institutions, only state run ones. Pennsylvania closed hers in the late 70's without any help from the FEDs.

BTW, I worked for a steel fabricator while in college and we made the connecting floor clips (24" C Channel) and the inner core columns for the WTC. The building design was changed to eliminate cross bracing between floors and solid core walls that would have made the inner core resistant to the severing of stairwells and infrastructure (comms, fire suppression, elevators)that it was originally designed to protect.

It really would be fascinating to have demographic statistics on the truthers. What is their average age? What is their common occupation? What is their average income? What is their average educational background?

I’m going to float an opinion of an answer: I guess average age to be 17. I guess average occupation to be student. I guess average income to be anything they want, provided by wealthy parents. I guess their average educational background to be grade 11, 12, 13, or 14, and public schools.

This type of movement happened a couple of times before.

In the 1920’s, during an uncommon economic boom lasting nearly a decade. The spoiled, non-working children of the new American wealth became addicted to all types of new drugs and cultural movements. This all came to an end with the collapse of the economy in 1929. They had to get jobs and get sober. They became conservative.

In the late 1960’s, during an uncommon economic boom lasting nearly 15 years. The spoiled, non-working children of the new American wealth became addicted to all types of new drugs and cultural movements. This came to an end with the economic collapse following the 1973 oil embargo. They had to get jobs and get sober. They became conservative.

In the early 2000’s, during the longest economic expansion in US history of 17 years. The spoiled, non-working children of the new American wealth became addicted to all types of new drugs and cultural movements. This came to an end with the economic collapse following the 2009 oil embargo. They had to get jobs and get sober. They became conservative.

Why the Left is in denial.

Dr. Sanity on why the American Left has gone paranoid.

Eric says:
In the early 2000’s, during the longest economic expansion in US history of 17 years. The spoiled, non-working children of the new American wealth became addicted to all types of new drugs and cultural movements. This came to an end with the economic collapse following the 2009 oil embargo. They had to get jobs and get sober. They became conservative.

Eric now says:
I’ve got a few minutes…let me play with that ending a little bit.

This all came to an end in 2009 after the world-wide economic collapse that followed the detonation of an Iranian nuclear devise in Saudi Arabia which effectively cut-off reliable oil to the western economies.

Or, how about….

This all came to an end in 2009 after a worldwide stock market collapse triggered by the detonation of a “dirty bomb” in Paris.

Or how about this…

This all came to an end in 2008 following the collapse of the Iraqi Government after US forces were removed by President Clinton, and following an increase in capital gains taxes that had the effect of moving American wealth, in large degree, to Australia and Mexico.

Any other suggested endings?

Larry,

Great blog -- American Thinker -- I will add it to my favorites.

You mean fire melts steel? Has anyone told Rosie?

Capt'n: I have a friend, who's father was an engineer involved in the original construction of the WTC.

His Dad told him, that right after the twin towers collapsed, the explanaition was very simple.

Back in the late 60's when these things were designed/built, they did not have all the fancy engineering they have know.

The fact is, TALL buildings, sway in the wind, especially ones as tall as the WTC, which were a genuine 110 stories tall.

Now, they have counter-weights and pendulums and computers, and some even use sophisticated computers to measure the sway, depending upon wind speed, and use vaccum pumps or even shift ballast around such as water or weight to counter the sway induced by the wind in tall bldgs.

Back then, they had nothing like that.

Their solution, back then, was simple, effective, and hindsight being 20/20 of course, would be ultimately tragic decades later during the attacks.

Each Tower, had a 300 TON concrete slab poured on top, to dampen the wind-sway effect, and keep it to a minimum!

Simple, effective, cutting edge (at the time); and deadly 30 years later!

If you watch the video of the towers collapsing, in slow motion, the first one collapses, and comes straight down, each floor rapidly collapsing on top of the one underneath it.

It's kind of like the video's of the Karate experts cracking boards, or blocks of ice, or cement blocks, stacked on top of each other.

Same effect, same basic laws of physics!

The other tower, when it collapses, you'll notice it almost looks as if the top is going to fall OVER, then off and down; but at the last second, it rights itself, and then collapses down on top of itself; THAT was the effect of the 300 ton slab forcing it to "right" itself, and then collapsing down!

I’ve been making some joking statements today, but I just watched the towers fall again. I force myself to watch once each year on this date. I never watch it at any other time because I just can’t – it hurts too much.

Each time I watch it, I realize that the towers should have, in my opinion, not stood as long as they did.

I have only one explanation. The hand of God held up the towers. Literally, held up by the hand of our God to give the people time to escape. That’s all that I can see now when I watch those towers fall, or rather, as I watch them stand.

Hey, where are all the liberal nut cases? Why not commenting today? Come on, I need a laugh, post somthing really insane.

Oh where, oh where has my little shyster gone?
Oh where, oh where can he be...?

well, fillistro posted in the 'where were you' thread, above this one. Her willingness to bring up inconsequential garbage on such a thread was enough to make me *spit*.

And now I must be getting ready for work.

You just posted the "pancake theory". It would hold water if there was evidence of floors stacked like pancakes on top of them, but there's not. Instead, everything was disintegrated. The fall doesn't create enough energy to do that.

Besides, if there's nothing to hide, why did they get rid of all evidence, and prevent anyone from accessing it? The government could put every conspiracy theory to shame if they just released the information that they have, but they won't.

Did you know there was almost 3 times as much spent on the investigation into Clinton's blowjob than in the investigation into 9/11?

Bingo! The first "one"!!!

Why would a 300ton slab on top minimize motion? I'd think it would make the building more top heavy and amplify movement.

Back in high school I had two years of bio and two of chem. No physics.

Rich

"...their theories on the impossibility of collapse just got demolished at Cambridge."

That's impressive. The Captain can determine this without reading the article.That must be how rational, sane people deal with things. Personally, I prefer to wait until the article is published so I can read it myself, and to give sufficient time for others to digest and respond to it as well. That's how us crazy truthers deal with things.

"In all senses, the collapse sequence was quite ordinary and natural. The World Trade Centre towers were designed to absorb an aircraft impact, but an accidental one with much less fuel and speed. It is widely acknowledged that the impacts on September 11th were extraordinary, which led to consequences well in excess of the design capacity for the buildings. -Seffen at admin.cam.ac.uk/news/dp/2007091002

In the preview articles, Seffen only seems to talk about the towers.I hope he also demonstrates his mathematics applies for WTC7 as well. WTC7 was not hit by a plane and also fell at slightly slower than free fall. If his math works for WTC7, it must work for all buildings (as he seems to be claiming, since the collapse was "ordinary and natural"), and all steel skyscrapers subjected to fire until the point of collapse must all fall at near free fall speed and result in total collapse. If so, building demoltion companies will be out of business, since Seffen will have proven that all one needs to do to cause a skyscaper to completely collapse within its own footprint is start a fire in it. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would have expected the building demolition companies to have assasinated Seffen by now.

Here's some examples of building collapses that for some reason did not fall according to Seffens theory:
911research.com/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/taiwan_six.jpg

mdb - Roll another big blunt bro!

The buildings fell exactly as one would expect, and left the debris exactly as one would expect.

The clean up was done quickly because of environmental concerns (a lot of building materials are toxic) along with the need to get the downtown city area functioning again.

No one was allowed to inspect it? What sis you want - to turn it into a playground where children could frolic and perhaps find the odd stray body part?

Rich,

It's a counter-balance. Try this at home:

Take some small gauge wire, like a car radio or CB radio antenna, hold it vertically. At a moderate speed and rhythm, move the base left and right. Observe the top of the wire in relation to the bottom as it moves. Also observe the "bend" or bow in the wire. Now, stick a tennis ball on the top of the wire and perform the same operation. The top of the wire will move to follow the bottom, but not as fast, nor as far as it will without the weight.

Counter-balancing has been used in tall building construction for many years. Some use dead-weight, some use a pendulum (a suspended weight), and some use variable water ballast tanks. Most are designed to damp vibration primarily from earthquakes, but do the same job due to wind forces.

Wow, all that and not 1 formula. I'm getting better.....

Joefrommass and swabjockey,

Ask, and ye shall receive...

Re 7 WTC:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5#wtc7

And why am I not surprised that dave is also a truther.

The "truthers" will NEVER be convinced, any more than the Trilateralists will ever be convinced, because facts mean nothing to them, logic is lost upon them, and they lack the requisite education to understand why everything they believe is not only wrong, but stupidly so.

~~~~~

My own recollection of the mental institutions being closed is that federal judges began ruling that people had the "right" to the least restrictive care and could not be confined against their will if they "posed no threat to themselves or others." States were then forced to release most of their "mental patients," who immediately became "the homeless." Some states acted before the precedents applied to them, and there had indeed been such a political effort underway for years, but it was the federal courts which precipitated the end of "mental institutions" as we knew them.

If so, building demoltion companies will be out of business, since Seffen will have proven that all one needs to do to cause a skyscaper to completely collapse within its own footprint is start a fire in it.

Well, they would have to purchase a Boeing 767, load it with fuel, and crash it into the building to be demolished at 500mph+. They may have determined that it is both cheaper and safer to use old-fashioned explosives.

But don't let me interfere with your fantasy world.

Limosine liberals live inside their bubbles,chauffeured to and fro. Their windows (as in minds), is shut tight. And, there's no view "out" either, due to tinted windows.

The Internet lets us grasp this. Just as books, after you leave school, lets you open up to the world. Want a lesson from history?

It's interesting enough.

Way back in 1824, the first MAN OF THE PEOPLE, got elected to the Presidency. By this I mean he had no special schooling. Didn't wait in line with the aristocrats; who were passing the presidency between them, like a baton.

So, Andrew Jackson wins. And, Henry Clay "out-foxes" him. Using Florida. And, the Congress. The second place "finnisher," John Quincy Adams," gets elected. BUT NOT BEFORE HENRY CLAY EXTRACTS HIS "DEAL."

Henry CLay gets to sit in John Quincy Adams' cabinet. The seat reserved for the Secretary of War.

Four years later, Henry Clay tumbles out. So does John Quincy Adams, who isn't "re-elected." For good measure Andrew Jackson's 1828 win is spectacularly higher in vote counts. (Think 2004.)

A man has one reputation. Like virginity; once it's gone you can't sew it back up, again.

Henry Clay RUINED the WHIG party. Famous as he was. And, even with Abraham Lincoln tying his interests, politically, to that party.

But the WHIGS had a terrible reputation, as time passed. (And, the insanities in congress continued; so no one put out the southern "sparks" that would later start a forest fire.)

Andrew Jackson won BOTH his terms. 1828. And, again, as an old man, in 1832.

Henry Clay managed to make other terrible calls. The "famous" pushed-thru compromise, among them.

Everyone pretty much knows the rest. Abraham Lincoln got stiffed by the WHIGS. So he did what Reagan was later to do. He got on the "platform," and found the train out to the republican party. Brand new, in its 1860 run.

Turkeys in congress?

Geez. If they only taught American kids history, well.

But you don't have to stop with the tripe you got fed in school. The books out there are just wonderful.

And, what did I do with my education? I became a life-long reader. So can you ...

While, history repeats itself. We're watching the Bonkeys at play. What strikes me as strange? Geez. The affirmative action crowd ain't poor, no more. Heck, Oprah sits on billions. But she still wants REVENGE!

Revenge for what?

For an auntie who had to be a maid to white folk.

Carried to extremes, you're seeing what happened to all those wonderful things promised up by LBJ, when he rolled out the 'new-new-thing,' to stop the south. From whatever.

So, we got the affirmative action prize. And, we stood back.

You think the Bonkeys are winning?

They're not even winning the arguments.

And, they dress up their old women, funny. Pink is for pigs, ya know, after you pass a "certain" age. And, your tits hang down to your knees. Are these knee-knockers?

It's still a free country.

And, we have the Internet. You choose. You want to be locked to your remote? Or you prefer "surfing?"

It's nice that I can surf, here, without even having to head out to the beach. Where I could drown. Or get sunburned.

Shipmates,

"dave" the shyster lawyer wannabe is different than the standard variety moonbat "troofer".

He spouts off the same gibberish, but he's much too clever to really believe any of it. He has different motives.

The commie shyster is on record saying that he supports the violent overthrow of our government. He admits that he “hates the U.S. Government" and everything it has stood for...and everything that it has done since WWII.

He supports the overthrow of our elected government...with basic motives like that, why would anyone trust ANYTHING that comes out of his suck?

Flenser:

"Well, they would have to purchase a Boeing 767, load it with fuel, and crash it into the building to be demolished at 500mph+."

No plane hit WTC7.

mdb:
The paper is probably a bunch of math thrown at the pancake theory which has already been shown to be crap. Have to wait and see.

DaleinAtalnta:

"The other tower, when it collapses, you'll notice it almost looks as if the top is going to fall OVER, then off and down; but at the last second, it rights itself, and then collapses down on top of itself; THAT was the effect of the 300 ton slab forcing it to "right" itself, and then collapsing down!"

Here's a pic of what you are talking about:
911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/fema_wtc2exp.jpg

You're saying that a slab of concrete on the top of the tilting piece of this tower caused the piece to right itself? Do you have any idea what the angular momentum of this falling piece must be?
And you people laugh at the "truthers". Hilarious.

The government could put every conspiracy theory to shame if they just released the information that they have, but they won't.

What information does the government have regarding 911 which it refuses to release?

Did you know there was almost 3 times as much spent on the investigation into Clinton's blowjob than in the investigation into 9/11?

You people have this amazing compulsion to say things which are not true.

Every time you feel like spending money an a Mark Cuban product just think of the twin towers collapsing and his drive to profit from the event. That will bring you to your senses.

dave, you are hilarious.

No plane hit WTC7.

No, a falling skyscraper hit it. I guess your hypothetical demolition experts have the alternative of building a one hundred story skyscraper next to the building they want to knock down, them collapsing that building onto the one they wish to demolish.

Again, simply taking out the target building in the conventional way is a lot cheaper and quicker.

Posted by Rich | September 11, 2007 11:58 AM

Why would a 300ton slab on top minimize motion? I'd think it would make the building more top heavy and amplify movement.

Back in high school I had two years of bio and two of chem. No physics.

Rich

Rich: sorry, not a scientist nor a physics major, nor a contrustion engineer, etc.!

All I know is, my friend is a smart guy, and the CTO of a company, and his Dad was a Construction engineer on the project.

Just for the record; he told me this within days of 9/11, and both he and his dad, are LIBERAL like you can't believe; HATE Bush, HATE the war, HATE everything about NeoCon's, "Christians", etc; they're as liberal/leftist as you can get!

And neither of them, for a second, has ever believed the "controlled demolition" crap; and still don't, and just laugh at their Leftist Nutbag Anti-American bretheren, like "dave" and "mbd" up here, when they bring this crap up?

Explain it? I can't explain it, but I trust an engineer who worked on the project, if he tells me.

I'd say the slab was there to "dampen" the motion, but that's the limit of my "expertise" on the subject!

Bob Mc's explanaition above, sounds good to me, but again, I don't know.

As far as "dave" above; another typical Anti-American/Pro-Jihadi Leftist Nutbag, and I won't even dignify his stupidity with an attempt at a reply!

Sedition and treason are truly, a mental disease that afflicts the Left!

Flenser:

"No, a falling skyscraper hit it."

The closest tower was 100 yards away from building 7. In between the tower and Building 7 was Building 6. Because building 6 was right next to the tower, it sustained very heavy damage. Building 6, however, remained standing. Here is a photo showing the damage to building 6:

thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc6/wtc6-side-aerial-hr.jpg

The empty space in the upper right is where Bldg 7 used to be. The rubble has already been cleared this photo. Isn't it amazing that the building right next to the tower that sustained extreme damage did not collapse, but Bldg 7 did?

In reality, bldg 7 sustained relatively little damage. So I'll update my comment on the demiliton companies. To take down a steel skyscraper, you first have to hit it on one side with a wrecking ball, then start a fire in it, and it will result in a total collapse at free fall speed. Cool.

watching the videos of the toweres collapsing i have the feeling that the upper floors were compressing the air and other material in the lower floors and as they went down they slowed in their vertical fall to some degree.

somewhat like a shock absorber in a car.

C

To take down a steel skyscraper, you first have to hit it on one side with a wrecking ball, then start a fire in it, and it will result in a total collapse at free fall speed.

Essentially, this is correct.

It did not collapse at "free fall speed". And it was hit by something much more massive than a mere wrecking ball. But the principle is right.

According to the left-wing Wikipedia;

On September 11, 2001, the building [WTC-7] was heavily damaged by debris when the adjacent twin towers collapsed. Its structural integrity was further compromised by fire, which burned through the afternoon on numerous floors. The original 7 World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11 due to the combined effect of structural damage and fire.

If you damage the structural integrity of a building, then light a large fire at the bottom of it, and then allow it to burn out of control while making no effort to put out the blaze, then sooner or later that building will collapse.

I guess this is a shocking revelation in moonbat circles. Are there any other principles of basic physics you need help with?

I guess you need help with this.

Building 6, however, remained standing.

Bulding 6 was eight stories tall. Building 7 was 47 stories tall. That is an extra 39 stories worth of weight pressing downwards. A high building with a small footprint building cannot suffer from a partial collapse. One it starts to come down, the whole thing must fall.

Low and wide buildings, such as Building 6, are much more resistant to complete structural failure.

Building 6 also did not have thousands of gallons of diesel stored within it.

dave,

What do you think of this? Click on page 5.

about the "street people" in the 60's-70's.

i used to work on swing shift and lived in a batchlor apartment downtown in a major city.

i saw many of these folk in evidence as i would go home from work. (things are totally different during the small hours of the morning).

the winos and whackos would sleep on the streets, under bushes, in dumpsters etc. and the local police would keep an eye on them and when they got just to bad physically would scrape them into the paddy wagons (easily cleanable with a fire hose) haul them off to the drunk tank and the next morning the judge would send them to the county "farm" or the local veterans administration hospital if they were a veteran.

this kept them alive for many years longer than could be expected even in southern california.

then the ACLU got into the act and won a court case that being drunk was not illegal and got court orders restricting the police ability to gather these folk in.

in about a year and a half they were gone. smart money said that pneumonia got most, exhaustion coupled with morning traffic got more. in actuality it was do gooders that did them in. they like to blame it on reagan but it was still liberal dogooders.

C

Of course, if you start with the assumption that there couldn't have been a "conspiracy" explanation, then you'll have an awfully hard time envisioning it. Not very scientific.

But if you treat all possible explanations as equal, you can keep an open mind, consider all options fairly, and not arrive at conclusions prematurely.

Knowing your conclusion before you start your analysis is the enemy of sound reasoning (it's the approach of a lawyer, not an scientist). I did not start out assuming there was an "inside" conspiracy. I follow the evidence - ALL the evidence (including geopolitics and history) - and find the government story to be thin, to say the least. I don't claim to know what happened, but it is clear that the government story would require a very large number of strange anomalies to occur all on the same day. Probability tells us that as more non-independent low-probability events occur, the probability of all these things happening by chance becomes vanishingly small (because the total probability being the product of the individual probabilities). So the official account of what happened on 9/11 strains credulity well beyond "reasonable doubt".

There's no good reason why an "inside" conspiracy theory should be held to any higher standard of proof than the official "outside" conspiracy theory. This administration has proven itself to be repeatedly dishonest, secretive, and full of hidden agendas. Congress is corrupted and hardly worth listening to. Our government is practically lost to us, the normal people, so the only patriotic thing to do is to be skeptical. The question is, are you capable of believing that the system is that broken - that politicians are that bought - that there are such heartless people present in some key positions of power? If Americans can't believe such things are possible here, then we are leaving a very exposed flank to the types of people who are very happy to take a big, meaty bite out of it.

But if you treat all possible explanations as equal, you can keep an open mind, consider all options fairly, and not arrive at conclusions prematurely.

Fair enough. Lets consider the possibility that 911 was a secret conspiracy on the part of the Democrats.

Was that "clang" I heard your open mind snapping shut?

I don't claim to know what happened, but it is clear that the government story would require a very large number of strange anomalies to occur all on the same day.

I already know what your answer will be, having just browsed around some Truther sites. But for the benefit of other readers, please go ahead and list the "anomalies" which you are speaking of.

Fenser:
Here is the damage to building 7:
911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7Corner.jpg

If that is enough to bring down a building, I wonder why this one did not come down:
truthdig.com/images/reportuploads/oklahomacity_350.jpg

I know. No fire. Start a fire in that Murrah building and it would have come down in no time. I wonder why they blew up the Murrah building to bring it down? The damage part was already done. A small fire would have brought it down easily. Maybe its because Seffen's "proof" had not come out yet.

Here’s different views of the WTC7 fire:
stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/7wtc.jpg
ae911truth.org/images/gallery/wtc7fire.jpg
rense.com/general65/WTC7fireseastface.jpg

If that little fire can bring down a building, I wonder why this one did not collapse:
melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/windsor7_800c_peak.jpg

We must ask the Spaniards how to build skyscrapers.

charles quarles:
your link didn't get through

Jg:
“There's no good reason why an ‘inside’ conspiracy theory should be held to any higher standard of proof than the official ‘outside’ conspiracy theory.”

Here’s the key. People laugh at the “truthers”, but don’t realize they believe in their own conspiracy theory. The idea that some guy in a cave in Afghanistan was able to pull off 9/11 sounds pretty crazy as well.
Had the 9/11 events happened in North Korea, the people on this site would see immediately that the government must be responsible. People in general are not good at self-reflection (the idea that the actions of a person’s government reflects on the person has always been weird to me, but I’ve never been into the patriotism thing).

William Teach, that U-Tube link was divine. Shows ya, amateurs, at home can do marvelous work with some computer programming knowledge.

See? No longer left to the professional pundits, who swear Osama's FROZEN statements are "alive."

U bet. I copied & pasted the U-Tube link into emails that I sent out. May the word SPREAD!

jg:
A good example of "accepted" vs "crazy" truths is when the Heaven's Gate incident happened. The HG cult thought there was a UFO behind a comet and commited mass suicide. Everyone thought it was great fun making fun of their "crazy" beliefs, when many of these same people believe that 2,000 years ago a guy died and then came back to life. Now that's believable.

Dave says,

"The idea that some guy in a cave in Afghanistan was able to pull off 9/11 sounds pretty crazy as well.

dave,

Osama was not in a cave but in a large home in Khandahar with satalite phones and modern communication systems. He is NOW living in a cave probably in Waziristan somewhere.

In regards to the WTC, you may want to check with the architect and engineer who designed the buildings. I recall them explaining in great detail why the building failed and collasped as they did. The WTC was a very unique and controversial design at the time. When you get them on your team, maybe I will listen. Until that time, I will consider you a raving lunatic.

dave

I know. No fire.

If you know, what is the point in bringing up that example?

I wonder why they blew up the Murrah building to bring it down? The damage part was already done. A small fire would have brought it down easily.

As I'm sure even an idiot like yourself is aware, the bombers of that building were not in a position to start a fire there.

If there had been a six thousand gallon fuel tank present, and it had ignited, and the fire department had not fought the blaze, and the fire had been in the lower part of the building, and the building had been fifty stories high instead of ten, then it would have collapsed. Note that it would have taken more than "a small fire".

If that little fire can bring down a building, I wonder why this one did not collapse

You contine to refer to a "little fire" without any evidence to back it up.

The photo you offer here is of a building in Spain in which the topmost stories are engulfed in flames. Of course, none of the structural members were destroyed either by a falling building or a crashing airliner in this case.

If that same fire had occured in the bottom of that same building, it would have collapsed. Especially if some of the buildings structure had also been badly damaged, lets say by a crashing airliner. This gets back to those basic principles of physics which you don't understand.

Take a tall and narrow heavy object. Weaken its structure at the very top. It is unlikely to fall.

Do the same thing but weaken the structure lower down. The structure is much more likely to fall. This is because the weakened lower structure now must hold up not only itself, but the tens of thousands of tons of undamaged building above it. For some reason this seems to be beyond your ability to grasp.

Do you have any backgound in the hard sciences dave? I know that the guy behind that WTC7 website is a software developer.

Please list for me all the high rise buildings which have been severely physically damaged and then suffered a large fire which was not in any way contolled by firemen, but which still continued to stand. None of your examples so far meets that description. None of them ever will.

Tim, Shipmate. You're making an understandable...but nonetheless mistaken assumption when you say the worthless shyster is a "raving lunatic".

Is is anything BUT a lunatic.

The little commie shyster has an objective. He is very consistent and unrelenting in his desire to bring down our government. He longs greatly for his tyrannical utopian society to be thrust upon us all.

I only wish he wasn’t a coward. I wish he’d come out from his hidey hole and actually DO SOMETHING to carry out his desires…too bad he doesn’t want to get his shysterly hands dirty.

Guys, seriously....

Don't argue with the troofers. It just will never get you anywhere.

They will eventually cross the line, at which time, their behavior will become criminal and they will go to jail. Or, they wont.

But at any rate, engaging them is futile. They don't think properly because they are often time emotionally or mentally out of center (Rosie is a great example.) Rosie crossed a line and got fired from the best job she ever had. One by one, they will all have some form of problem related to their condition. Or, something else will happen and they will jump to the next subject and fixate on that for awhile -- never remembering their days as troofer.

How did Bush convince the investigators of the NYPD and NYFD to cover up a conspiracy that murdered hundreds of their colleagues?

Bribes? A lot of beer? Dates with Hooters chicks?

How about all the Democrats in the law-enforcement and intelligence branches of the federal government? You'd think they'd be smart enough to know that by exposing Bush's plot, they could ensure Democratic control of the country for the next century. So why haven't they come forward with even one iota of evidence?

Hopefully the purveyors of truth will apply their amazing brains to these questions and inform all us hilarious idiots out here.

The idea that some guy in a cave in Afghanistan was able to pull off 9/11 sounds pretty crazy as well.

Mohammad Atta and friends were here in the US, not in a "cave in Afghanistan". They are the ones who "pulled off" 911.

Had the 9/11 events happened in North Korea, the people on this site would see immediately that the government must be responsible.

Now you are likening the US to a Communist dictatorship? By this "Truther logic" everything which happens in America is the result of government action. Including the OKC bombings.

WHY did Clinton destroy the Murragh building? He "must" have been responsible, according to you.

The 9/11 Troof movement is a commercial enterprise.

It's raking in the bucks. Call it wacky capitalism.

Cults do the same thing and the chosen few make a killing.

I have no objection to smart business people screwing total idiots out their money.

dave wrote:

The empty space in the upper right is where Bldg 7 used to be. The rubble has already been cleared this photo. Isn't it amazing that the building right next to the tower that sustained extreme damage did not collapse, but Bldg 7 did?

Why is that amazing? Are the two buildings contructed in exactly the same manner, have the exact same number of floors, did the building that collapsed hit them in exactly the same way.If a building is structured or designed differently than another building then depending on the impact it will be effected differently. also the two buildings are not on top of one another in the same exact space, so falling debris will hit one building on one spot and another building from a completely different angle. You make it sound like to 500 ton towers collapsing on building should produce demonstrable results that will always be the same on completely separate buildings which are constructed differently. THat makes no sense whatsoever.

In reality, bldg 7 sustained relatively little damage. So I'll update my comment on the demiliton companies. To take down a steel skyscraper, you first have to hit it on one side with a wrecking ball, then start a fire in it, and it will result in a total collapse at free fall speed. Cool.
again you're going under the assumption that both buildings were hit exactly the same way, with the exact same amount of debris, under the exact same circumstances, at the angle same angle and that the buildings were designed exactly the same way. In the picture you provide of WTC it looks like parts of the building did collapse but the overall structure remained standing. But yet there's another red building right next door that looks like it suffered even less damage. Explain that logically then.I would assume, following your rationale, that the damage suffered in both buildings should be exactly identical and yet 6 WTC looks decidedly worse for wear. Must be some conspiracy.
and how about 5 WTC?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_World_Trade_Center
damage results from 2001 attack.

according to wiki floors 4 to 9 suffered damage and partial collapse while floors 1-3 were undamaged. Does that mean that the govt put charges in floors 4 to 9 but they didn't all go off, or does that simply mean that based on how the towers collapsed on the building it suffered damage on floor 4-9 while floors 1-3 were untouched. And based on the structural damage due to impact some floors partially collapsed while others didn't.One question, if they (the nefarious govt entities planting the charges) were seeking to cause WTC 7 to collapse then why single out 7 WTC and not 5 WTC. I note that 5 WTC suffered severe damage, and 6 WTC also suffered severe damage without charges going off bringing the buildings down. So then why was it imperative to bring down 7 WTC at all? Why not simply let the towers collapse cause damage to 7 WTC just like it caused it to 5 WTC and 6 WTC. Did they just really really hate 7 WTC?

Seriously, explain the logic to us. SO they used charges to bring down 7 WTC. How were they able to time it so that it coincided with the collapse of the buildings. Why didnt' they use charges on 5WTC and 6WTC, and if they didn't why did both buildings suffer exreme damage anyway and partial collapse? And why was the damage different between 5 WTC and 6 WTC anyway? Or DID they use charges on 5 WTC and 6 WTC. Then why didn't they collapse just like 7 WTC considering all demolitions obviously occur exactly the same way according to dave logic. I'm just not clear on the logic of why charges were needed on 7 WTC, but not on 6WTC.Or is there some other significance for needing to make 7 WTC not just suffer extreme damage, but actually collapse. Explain it to us Dave.

As to the real reason as to why 7 WTC collapse the link I provide goes into it in detail. Since you obvioulsy didn't read from it I'll quote from it:
NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

and
But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

and

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5#wtc7
(providing the link again just so you can see the additional reasons as to why 7 WTC came down, that have nothing to do with charges being planted.

But anway, 7 WTC was constructed differently than 6 WTC and suffered damage differently than 6 WTC, and because of progressive collapse and a combination of factures (where the damage was, how long the fire burned) the building fell.

Flenser,

My hat's off to you, shipmate. You had me ROFLMFAO. But 'tis a waste of time with the shyster. He's not a "Democrat". Throwing Clinton's name about doesn't do anything for the shyster. In that respect, he's much different than most of the Capt's trolls.

Remember: He's on record as hating the US Government...that includes both Repubs and Dems. The fact that the rest of the trolls on this site (Dhimmi shills for the most part) seem to agree with him most of the time is simply because BushHitler is in the WH. When Hildabeast is in the WH it will only cause a tactical change in Shysterly MO...not strategic.

“You contine to refer to a "little fire" without any evidence to back it up.”
I gave you three pictures of the fire in WTC7. If you think that is a large fire capable of collapsing a building, then you have a problem with comparing “large” and “small”. Maybe your wife can back me up on that.

“Do you have any backgound in the hard sciences dave?”
I have a PhD in Chemistry. A couple more classes in physics could have got me a minor in undergrad, but I didn’t want to go another semester.
Look at this map of the debris coverage:

studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/Images/Fig8.jpg

Do you see how WTC7 falls in the lighter, larger debris circle for WTC1? Now look at the debris circle for WTC2. Do you see how the Bankers Trust building falls within the smaller debris circle for the other tower? The Bankers Trust building certainly must have been more heavily damaged than WTC 7. Here is a pic of the Banker Trust building:

attivissimo.net/11settembre/wtc-bankers-trust/bankers-trust-03.jpg

There is simply not much damage. WTC 7 was less damaged than this, considering it was much further away. But yet that damage and a small fire brought it crumbling down. If you believe that. Then we have different opinions, and maybe should leave it at that.

"Ask your wife about small?"

"Then we have different opinions, and maybe should leave it at that."

All that shysterly flailing about...and we're left with this? LOL.

Talk about penis envy.

Those people have waaaay too much time in their hands. I agree: "Get a life!"

The sig.other and I watched the "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" show on the History Channel last Sunday. When we saw the filmmaker for that fraud of "Loose Change", I heard him say, "This guy knows the "truth"?!? He still has f---ing zits!"

I tell y'all. Those people will never hear reason. That movement is nothing but collective insanity that deserves to be shocked to their very foundations in order to bring them back.

Off-topic: Did you all hear Dennis Kucinich in Syria? Or, how about this piece of news:

WASHINGTON — Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Democratic presidential candidate and no stranger to contrarian views, was the sole congressman Tuesday to vote against the House's Sept. 11 commemoration resolution.

The pig always returns to the mud. His district will do itself a favor by getting rid of him.

Jr565:
“…so falling debris will hit one building on one spot and another building from a completely different angle…”

I don’t know what your saying in the first paragraph. Bldg 7 was further away (100 yards) from the tower than Bldg 6. Bldg 6 was in between the two (see my map in the last post). If you don’t believe than a building further away from the tower will get hit by less debris, then I think you’re wrong. I live in Boston, and my house did not get hit by any debris, due to distance from the falling building.

“you're going under the assumption that both buildings were hit exactly the same way, with the exact same amount of debris”

I am going under the assumption that Bldg 7 was hit with less debris than Bldg 6. Tell me how it can be otherwise.

“But yet there's another red building right next door that looks like it suffered even less damage. Explain that logically then.”
The red building is further away. Why can’t you grasp this concept? The red building is the Verizon building. Look at the map. The Verizon building was hit with about the same amount of debris as Bdg7. It stood just fine.

You start to ramble here, and I cannot respond to it all….

“On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.”
Show me the photo or any other evidence of this, or is it just a statement of random words?

Just because an alternative explaination, no matter how unlikely, is possible, doesn't mean it should be given the same respect as the official explaination which we all witnessed with our own eyes.

It's possible that a mosquito crawled up my ass and bit me but I think it is far more likly that I've got hemorrhoids.

Dave

I know you don't view yourself as insane, but insane people usually don't realize that they are insane. Take it from me, or not, but you're insane.

Joe, Sorry to hear about your problem. I can relate. Almost 25 years of sitting on metal airplane seats will do it to the best of 'em. Cut back on the coffee...that may help.

Our admittedly inept and incompetent government tells us:

The skyscraper collapsed because it was structurally damaged from falling debris and then further weakened by an uncontained POL-fed fire.

“dave” the shyster (and his lackey minion “troofers”) tells us:

Bush and Cheney strapped on their cat burglar masks and planted explosive charges in all the WTC buildings…then waited and assisted some unnamed individuals to fly planes into the buildings (or were they radio controlled missiles?).

Since “we have different opinions, and maybe should leave it at that” I pray that doesn’t mean the shyster will stop posting comments? My boys and I still haven’t located his hidey hole. I need more postings…although it has been helpful that vast majority of his activity comes from the same computer. That helps a lot. Maybe after we bilk the taxpayers into getting us some better hardware, that’ll be the ticket. One o’ these days…

dave wrote:
I don’t know what your saying in the first paragraph. Bldg 7 was further away (100 yards) from the tower than Bldg 6. Bldg 6 was in between the two (see my map in the last post). If you don’t believe than a building further away from the tower will get hit by less debris, then I think you’re wrong. I live in Boston, and my house did not get hit by any debris, due to distance from the falling building.

and yet in your very picture that you provided right next to 6 WTC is a building (the red one) literally next door that looks like it suffered almost no damage.Meanwhile, white 6 WTC ended up standing it looks like it was pretty much demolished in certain parts.So then if they were both roughly in the same spot wouldn't you see the same damage on both buildings. HOW CAN IT BE?
And wow, the buildings were a hundred yards apart! That's like, er... 300 feet. What a distance. How coudl the debris ever reach that far. And of course the WTC is how many stories tall? Funny I seem to recall video of the the towers collapsing and people running blocks away getting completely engulfed by the dust and debris which spread like a cloud for miles (certianly more than 300 yards).So if people blocks away are engulfed by the debris why would a building right in the footprint of WTC somehow be immune. And I'd be wiling to bet that if you looked at cars along the blocks some suffered massive damage,and some suffered minimal damage,and sometimes right next to each other. Because when a 500 ton hundred plus story building falls, debris doesn't discriminate.Its going to cover an area. Just like when a bomb goes off and some people get killed by shrapnel and some people barely suffer a scratch even if they're right next to each other.

Also, to add to the whole 7WTC conspiracy, in addition to the logical inconsistency of why it was even necessary to put charges on 7WTC (but not on 5 WTC or 6 WTC)considering both 5WTC and 6WTC were both severy damaged, aren't demolitions supposed to be controlled? Lets go back to when the buildings collapsed on top of 7 WTC. IF they had planted charges prior to the towers collapsing how did they no the exact degree of damage that 7WTC woudl suffer due to the collapse alone. Would it impact on the demolitions they had placed in the building. What if debris caused floors 5-7 to collapse and the had charges on the 5th floor. How did they know that those cahrges would survive the collapsing towers and that they could still set them off later. They're just that good I guess.
Also, didn't 7 WTC collapse hours after the towers collapsed? Why did they wait so long? And by that time the fire was raging in the building and the firemen were trying to put it out. How did they know then the in additon to the collapsing building that the fire wouldn't cause problems for their demolition operation. How come the firemen didn't notice all the engineers scurrying around trying to figure out how to set off the demolitions after the building had both been severly damaged as well as on fire. And don't forget all the dust and debris around. OR WERE THE FIREMEN IN ON IT?!?
also considering the firemen are standing around for hours trying to put out the fire at 7 WTC,and considering they're also looking at the building trying to assess the damage, you'd think one or more might notice some dynamite that got jarred loose when perhaps 25% of the building collapsed. Also, though the building collapsed on itself, I'm sure there was some debris left over that could be sifted through. How come the the various firemen combing through the wrecakge couldn't find any instance of dynamite anywhere.How come they couldn't even find forensic evidence. Usually when a bomb goes off they can still find enough debris where they can make a guess as to how the bomb was constructed and what knid of bomb it was etc etc. Here, nothing. Because I guess the saboteurs were just that good. So good that noone prior to 9/11 complained about or noticed all the workers laying dynamite around so that it would be in place when the airlines hit the towers on 9/11. They're just that good I guess.

I see that Ron Paul and his Army of Truthers are having a very bad day today!

Mwalimu Daudi,

You're right. The only thing good about 9/11 is that it's the one day of the year that you just can't get anyone to believe this truther non-sense.

Joefrommass says:
Dave
I know you don't view yourself as insane, but insane people usually don't realize that they are insane. Take it from me, or not, but you're insane.

Eric says:
So true...so true.

dave the raving lunatic wrote:
Bldg 7 was further away (100 yards) from the tower than Bldg 6. Bldg 6 was in between the two (see my map in the last post). If you don’t believe than a building further away from the tower will get hit by less debris, then I think you’re wrong. I live in Boston, and my house did not get hit by any debris, due to distance from the falling building.
Its not so simple to suggest that merely because a building is closer it will receive more damage than one that is slightly furhter away. First,its not like 6 WTC is at ground zero and 7WTC is across town on the east side. They are in fact right next to one another (and I used to work at the WTC, in fact I worked at 6 WTC about 6 months prior to 9/11). And how large were the towers?1727 feet. If both towers fell, both buildings would be right in the area and would have tons of debris fall on top. The difference of 100 yards between buildings woudl be insignificant when a building that is 1727 falls on top of both.
But building dont fall in a straight line and in a perfect formation, thus its possible that a building furhter away could receive more damage than one closer, though a building wont suffer damage. But you could have a building fall, and while its falling chunks break off and due to trajectory or size of debris one building might get harder hit. also the angle of the collapse will determine the damage suffered as well as the position of the building in relation to the position of the falling building(s).Also the height of the building being hit with debris will determine damage and numerous other factors wil also determine damage suffered. How was each building constructed. (if you read the article linked 7 WTC had a very unique construction) Does the debris hit the building support in a certain way that it causes a portion to collapse,how is the building constructed to withstand fire for example.. Simply because one building is slihtly further away is not the only criterion that is at play and it doesn't stand to reason that it will suffer the exact same degree of damage or less, simply because its a bit furhter away.
Finally as discussed, 7 WTC didn't immediately collapse but stood for a while while various fires were raging inside and it had suffered structural damage. SO then the degree of structural damage will also determine whether a building falls or not. IF for example a building falls and punctures a gas line causing an explosion, that will be far different than if a debris falls and takes out a wall that isn't used for support.

dave

I gave you three pictures of the fire in WTC7.

It's like talking to a small child. Or a Truther.

Look at the pictures of WTC-7. According to the information written on one of the pictures, floors 7,8,9,10,12,12, 22, 23, and 29 were in flames. At 12:20. Five hours before the building fell. That is a bigger fire than the one you found on the Truther website of the building in Spain. It may not look as spectacular, but it is a bigger fire. It covered, at a minimum, nine floors of WTC-7.

Although this seems to be beyond the comprehension of a guy with a "Phd in Chemisty", it matters where the fire takes place. The lower floors of a building have to hold up all those above it. A fire lower down is far more threatening to a building than one at the top.

Also, your Spanish building did not suffer severe physical damage to the bottom stories.

More on the Spanish fire.
Link.

Against the night sky, bright orange flames shot out the sides and top of building, producing thick columns of black smoke. At about 3 am (0200GMT), at least six of the upper floors collapsed in a shower of flaming metal debris.

What is this? You said this fire proved that there could not be a collapse. Yet, there was one! Does this mean that the CIA secretly planted explosives in an office tower in Spain? Help us out here, dave. This conspiracy may be even wider than you previously thought.

Trutherism comes down to 4 simple facts (setting aside the "wacko who should be committed one)

1. They have a serious case of BDS.

2. They really do not like America as it is

3. A small group of nutters with access to the internet and todays media and technology can make enough noise to make other weak minded people who are predisposed to find fault with America wonder (notice I did not write "think") about the what happened in some situation, not just with 9/11.

4. Since they feel, not think, you can never dissuade them with evidence and rational thought.

Now, the funniest-though not ha ha-is that these same wacko's who think that the government could do this think that the Fed government should be in total charge of everything, such as healthcare.

Dave wrote: "...I’ve never been into the patriotism thing."

Talk about overstating the obvious.

One mystery about the truthers controlled demolition theory that I've never gotten a clear answer on:

The truthers state that the airplane fuel couldn't have burned hot enough to melt steel, but that melted steel was found in the wreckage.

If the building was brought down by demolition, what caused the fires? As we know from many controlled demolitions done every year, using explosives to bring a building down doesn't usually cause that building to catch on fire.

Do the truthers claim that the government (or whomever) did the controlled demolition also filled the building with fuel to create a fire that would be hot enough to melt steel?

Why? Collapsing the building should be enough - why go to all the extra work to set it on fire too.

What fuel could have been used? We know that hundreds of gallons of jet fuel (according to truther legend) wouldn't get the fire hot enough.

I get so frustrated with them.

Don't get frustrated, Lokki. Just throw them a quick fact, then laugh derisively at them. There is little point in treating them like rational, thoughtful adults.

Look, I spend lots of time trolling the serious leftard sites, and, if I took all their stuff to heart, I would constantly be in a bad mood. Don't let them get to you.

Dave wrote: "Everyone thought it was great fun making fun of their "crazy" beliefs, when many of these same people believe that 2,000 years ago a guy died and then came back to life. Now that's believable."

So you're a bigot, too.

Flenser:
The Madrid fire started about one-third of the way from the top. In case you did not notice, the Madrid fire was slightly different than those in NYC. If you do not see a difference in the pictures I posted, there’s not much more I can say. The fires in the towers, after the initial explosion, were giving off nothing but black smoke. Obviously an oxygen starved fire which is not burning very hot. On the other hand, the Madrid fire was extremely intense, had plenty of oxygen, and lit up the entire city (see the pic in your link). The Madrid fire, at its peak, burned at 800 degrees C. The fires in the towers, according to the NIST, burned at 1000 degrees C. If you believe that, you’re an idiot. Yes, there were some partial collapses, but that only proves my point. Even though parts of the building collapsed, the intact structure below stayed standing. When the top part of the WTC tower collapsed, it fell to the ground at free fall speed. Spains building completely resisted part of the buildings disintegration, but the US building put no more resistance to the partial disintegration than air would. I think we should bring in Spaniards to design the replacement building.

Loki:
"If the building was brought down by demolition, what caused the fires?"
Thermite

Dave, your position of "angular momentum" mightwork- were it not for several empiricals that you overlook: gravity, mass, velocity, and resistance.

Even if an object was diverted from its natural trajectory- that is, towards the center of gravitational pull (meaning, straight down), the force of gravity will continue to draw the object towards the center of its force. And the greater the mass of the object, the more kinetic energy has to be overcome by the source of resistance. If the mass, density, and kinetic energy of a falling object are greater than the force of resistance, the object will continue straight down. And energy and mass accumulate as underlying structures are taken out and join the downward trajectory. So the energy and mass increase exponentially.

I don't care who you talk to. They cannot overrule the laws of physics. People can say whatever they want about something, but that does not change the unchangeable.

The buildings did not collapse in a vacuum. However, it appears that you view your world in one.

ERNurse:
Every time I start wondering why I post here, I read something like you last post, and it always keeps me coming back. Thank you.

dave

Yes, there were some partial collapses, but that only proves my point. Even though parts of the building collapsed, the intact structure below stayed standing.

No, you dope, it does not prove your point. For one thing, your point was that a fire could not cause the floors in a steel framed building to collapse. They did so in the Spanish case. Why? Was there thermite planted there? A yes or no answer would be nice.

Second, the part of the building which collapsed were the the topmost floors, and they collapsed onto the intact and undamaged lower floors.

This is the opposite of the case at WTC-7, where the floors which were on fire and collapsed were at the bottom of the building. Once they collapsed the forty stories above them came down also.

On the other hand, the Madrid fire was extremely intense, had plenty of oxygen, and lit up the entire city (see the pic in your link).

One of the many things you missed was that the Madrid fire occured at nighttime, while the 911 attacks occured in bright daylight. That is why you see such vivid flame in one picture and not in the other. I can't believe I have to explain this to a guy with a doctrate in Chemistry.

The fires in the towers, after the initial explosion, were giving off nothing but black smoke.

From a distance it may have appeared that way. I was there and saw plenty of flames. I saw streamers of molten aluminum from the melted planes flowing down the sides of the towers. Please don't lecture me about events which you only know from photographs.

The fires in the towers, according to the NIST, burned at 1000 degrees C. If you believe that, you’re an idiot.

I see we have moved on from WTC-7 to the Twin Towers themselves, and you now want to argue that they were destroyed in a controled demolition.

Each tower collapsed from the point where it was struck by a plane. Is it your contention that explosives were planted on the 95th floor of the North Tower, and on the 70th floor of the South Tower?

Would not the impact of the planes and the resulting fireball have set off the explosive charges? How did the explosives remain intact in the fire for up to an hour afterwards?

How were the explosives installed in each Tower without anyone noticing?

Oh Thermite! Silly me!

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia

How much money would it take to bribe 200 technical experts and the crews to plant the thermite, and the companys who made the thermite, and the companies that transported the thermite, and the companies who made the fusing and the control units for setting off the explosions and the fires.... and

Oh, never mind

You're a crackpot and it's a waste of time to even try to discuss this with you.

The Madrid fire started about one-third of the way from the top.

No, it did not. Read the article I linked to.

Fllenser:
Pics of 800 degree fire:

www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html

Pics of a supposed 1000 degree fire. I suppose this would have lit up New York had it been nighttime (I dont think you can get much closer than the second photo. Were you closer than that?):

pollutionissues.com/images/paz_02_img0223.jpg

signs-of-the-times.org/signs/above_top_secret_files/wtcimpact.jpg

If we go camping and see two campfires, one of which has huge orange yellow flames and the other has a small little flame plus a whole lot of black smoke, you can go the the one with all the black smoke with your marshmellow. I'll take the one with the huge orange-yellow flames.

Lokki:
Your question 12 is addressed here:

journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/Answers-to-Frequently-Asked-Questions-Regarding-Thermite-by-Robert-Moore.pdf

Flenser:
"No, it did not."

Yes, it did so:

"The newspaper said the 21st floor of the 31-storey Windsor Tower in Madrid's financial center, where the fire started, was devoid of firefighting equipment, which had been in the process of being installed since 2003."
Agence France Presse -- English
February 15, 2005 Tuesday 2:08 PM GMT
Gutted skyscraper did not have sprinklers on all floors: Spanish paper
DATELINE: MADRID Feb 15

"The fire was believed to have been started by a short circuit on the 21st floor."
AFX European Focus
February 13, 2005 Sunday
Madrid office block in danger of collapse after fire
SECTION: GENERAL
DATELINE: MADRID

"The fire broke out on the 21st floor and was soon blazing out of control."
Turkish Daily News
February 14, 2005
MADRID'S BIGGEST FIRE DESTROYS SKYSCRAPER

Right...

journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/Answers-to-Frequently-Asked-Questions-Regarding-Thermite-by-Robert-Moore.pdf

Answers all the questions... Right...

A device patented in February 2001 could have been made the thermite explosions possible.

Right.

Right.

Right.

Dave...."I've never been into the patriotism thing."
Surely you jest...............I'm shocked, shocked ,I tell you !!!!!

Jr565

I seem to recall video of the the towers collapsing and people running blocks away getting completely engulfed by the dust and debris which spread like a cloud for miles (certainly more than 300 yards)

When was the last time a building or car was severely damaged by fog/cloud on a windy day?

NO NO NO! Its not truther the proper term is TROOFER got it? What a bunch of morons.

Lokki:
Whoever is responsible for 9/11 may not have been concerned about the legalities of whether or not a certain technique is patented or not. Patents issue many years after technology is available.

Folks, please do not attempt to give rational, factual, thoughtful responses in depth to the troofers. Unless you are just working on typing skills. Otherwise, it is a waste of time. They WANT America to be the bad guy.

William,
Concur all the troofers deserve is our pity and scorn with emphasise on the scorn. They are so far gone into an alternate BS reality they are not worth any sane persons time. Quick someone call the guys in white smocks woth straight jackets!

Yes, let's close this debate by making one last obvious point:

Each of the Troofers ( I Noted the correct spelling, see?) points is a beautiful soap bubble. Very pretty to look at, but very fragile. Yet it IS possible to create them and possible to create many of them - one for every point raised by the the rationals.

However, for the Troofers theory to work, dozens of these pretty soap bubbles have to be strung together into a chain, without any of the bubbles bursting.

Hey, Dave!

Do you have any physics or engineering background at all? Or do you just barf the stuff you read without comprehending a bit of it?

Evidently the former, as most of us construction engineers have been laughing at that stuff for five years now.

Get help! Quickly.

The rest of you can look at his links and examine them for what they're worth, but the accompaning
explanations are completely bogus, derived BEFORE the data was analyzed.

FYI, Denial of what really happened on 9/11 will not make us "truthers" shut up. People a lot smarter than you, mainly individuals with doctoral degrees in physics agree that steel building DO NOT collapse. So go ahead, run your right wing propaganda smack, but be forewarned, what you fail to realize is that morons like yourself will be the last ones to know when the truth eventually gets out. Don't believe me, just wait. The truther revolution is coming so you might as well get the hell out the way. Peace

ok sharpshoote,
if i am wrong, why wont our government profesionals debate truther scientists and why is there a complete media blackout concerning the events of 9/11? what happened to building wtc seven? still working on that one too?

while we are at it dullshooter,
why were we running anti-terror drills the morning of 9/11 where in no one knew what was real and what was exercise. can you explain the large amount of american airlines that were dumped just prior to 9/11? can you tell me why osama bin laden is NOT wanted for the 9/11 attacks? get back to me when you pull your head out of your ass

Sharpshooter:
"Do you have any physics or engineering background at all?"

A little. I answered that question above. What's your background?

Sharpshooter:
Besides, you do not need to have a physics or engineering background to understand the issues involved. You simply need to read. All the physics courses I had didn't teach me one stich in relation to the events of 9/11. All I needed to know I read.
There are plenty of engineering and physicist "truthers" as well.

Posted by DavidChase | September 12, 2007 3:25 PM
ok sharpshoote,
if i am wrong, why wont our government profesionals debate truther scientists.

Well because you troofers are a bunch of mental midget whack jobs, why would any sane person debate someone who has the mental acuity of a schizophrenic two year old? You troofers are not worth the time nor energy, hell the only reason I am posting in reply to your stupidity is because it is so much fun mocking you bunch of Tards.

I know one thing
I never want to go to the school that gave Dave his supposed Diploma.

Thermite? test for molten aluminum and iron oxide in a building made of iron and aluminum that suffered a firestorm from kerosene and plenty of wick material?

Troofers are morons.
Any that claim to have degrees are either lying, making claims outside their field, or are very poor in their field.
It's a wonder they made it out of grade school

Dave is right about one thing.....
One Really Does Not Need A Degree to see the truth.
In fact. It looks like having a degree is no insurance from being a complete and total moron.
Dave proves that every time he posts.
I have no degree's, but in my life have seen diesel fires kerosene blow torches, and a few small burnings of jetA(airport fire depts use diesel, non-road diesel, most of the time for some reason). Jet A (what was in the planes Dave...in case you don't know) is very close to diesel and kerosene. All three will run a diesel engine or a jet turbine.
A tanker load of jetA rolled and caught fire on a bridge in St Rose, Louisiana and amazingly the tank(aluminum) and much of the truck and tank frame(steel) were melted and warped from the heat of the fire...shocker. There wasn't even the chimney effect or all that added material from the offices to add to the fire . Musta been Bush and his cronies! wait, that was in 1987 or 1988. . . .
I've also managed to weld metals just buy using wood fires (primitive blacksmithing..fire melts steel? say it ain't so!)

Oldcrow is right. Debating a troofer is worse than a regular liberal. Your better off convincing the tides to stop. Granite has more give than the rocks they keep for brains and it doesn't make as much noise