god damn not this shit again

ibtl

10/29/2006 8:09:34 PM

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

get to work debunking all of this, its pretty long. simply using the NWO cop-out will not suffice here. you'll need sound science.

you're a smart guy, i'm sure you'll do it without problem. one professor at BYU doesnt make up for hundreds of others. conspiracy theorists are very interesting. they use these theories, which are primarily only accepted by a few quack scientists and a couple important sounding people to create these theories that they accept as truth, making themselves feel like they're the smartest guys in the world and that they have all of the real answers. it's not enough for you to accept that there were outside forces that wanted JFK dead, instead you have to try to be "different", like those kids at hot topic try to be different, and all scream "OH NO IT WAS DEFINATELY A GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY". You put yourself above the general populace of intelligent people by using dubious information and you come out looking like the real seekers of truth.

WRONG. /lex luthor

[Edited on October 29, 2006 at 8:26 PM. Reason : .]

10/29/2006 8:20:56 PM

Quote :

"The North Tower was hit first but the South Tower came down first."

well holy shit, you convinced me right there.

10/29/2006 8:41:04 PM

[Edited on October 29, 2006 at 10:39 PM. Reason : what in the hell did you think would happen? --theDuke866]

10/29/2006 9:44:31 PM

Jesus was black, Ronald Reagan is the devil, and the government is lying about 9/11.

10/30/2006 7:46:50 AM

im a page away from bringing back the cheese movement in force

10/30/2006 9:51:44 AM

I would have thought that this guy would have been permanently suspended for being a salisburyboy alias by now. Exact same talking points, different user name. All to either avoid posting restrictions placed on the salisburyboy handle or to create "new" discussion because everyone stopped responding to anything said by salisburyboy.

10/30/2006 10:59:04 AM

^^ I feel like some cheese, this shit is really getting old.

10/30/2006 12:01:54 PM

^^actually, its a different guy. notice how this guy never says anything about the jews.

10/30/2006 12:14:29 PM

duke, will u please lock this shit. there are numerous threads already on this subject in which i have participated in. we do NOT need another damn thread by an alias no doubt.

10/30/2006 12:25:49 PM

the best part will be if i do rally the troops then he cant ever lock this because he cant let me "win"

10/30/2006 12:39:11 PM

Quote :

"Why did WTC #7 come down? It wasnt hit by a plane."

So buildings only collapse after they have been hit by planes? If you take the time to find pictures of the side of of WTC 7 facing the WTC 1 and 2 sites, you will see that a large portion of the building was scooped out by falling debris. Of course conspiracy sites don't show those pictures because it isn't nearly as exciting as seeing an apparently undamaged building fall.

Quote :

"If you watch the collaspe it looks like a controlled demolition."

Yeah, until you actually watch other controlled demolitions and notice the tremendous differences.

Quote :

" Why did both towers come down so quickly if it was from the fires?"

You already implied that they collapsed because they were hit by aircraft doing 400+ knots.

Quote :

"The North Tower was hit first but the South Tower came down first."

Thats directly related to the places of impact. I'm surprised that you didn't find the answer to that in all of your "research".

Quote :

"If you have really looked into all the anomalies surrounding 9/11, you would probably start to realize that the towers coming down from fires like they did is scientifically impossible."

The classic conspiracy theorist high horse. "Everyone would realize that this is the truth if only they were as smart as I am."

[b]Now if it was scientifically impossible, why don't you prove it right here and now?]/b]

Quote :

"Popular Mechanics did a very poor job in trying to debunk the 9/11 conspiracy theory."

How so? If you want to make claims like that you need to at least point out what was so bad about it.

Quote :

"Millions of Americans think that the government was somewhat complicit in the attacks and the subsequent cover-up."

Millions of Americans also think that cucumbers are better pickled. Is that proof that they are?

Quote :

"Steven Jones, physics professor at BYU found thermite and thermate on samples from the WTC wreckage."

There are between 10 and 20 college professors in the US who share your views. That is out of a total of about 100,000 college professors nationwide.

Quote :

"As time goes on, more and more whistleblowers will go public and more researchers will gather more evidence."

Have there been any whistleblowers at all who have come out to say "I am a government employee. I participated in the 9/11 attacks"?

Quote :

"Hopefully then, people like you will begin to wake up or maybe you will just ignore it, click your heels 3 times, and say there's no place like home-and poof, the bad guys will go away"

SPEAK UP! I CAN'T HEAR YOU FROM WAY UP THERE ON YOUR INFLATED HIGH HORSE!

10/30/2006 1:13:17 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, until you actually watch other controlled demolitions and notice the tremendous differences."

No, not really. I'm not seeing any tremendous differences. Obviously, this doesn't mean it was a controlled demolition.

Look, the fact that both towers came down is a little odd. Most experts did not expect it to happen. This acknowledged by folks who don't believe the conspiracy theories.

Quote :

"You already implied that they collapsed because they were hit by aircraft doing 400+ knots."

I thought accepted theory is that both the initial damage from the impact and the fires got the process of collapse started.

Quote :

"The classic conspiracy theorist high horse. "Everyone would realize that this is the truth if only they were as smart as I am.""

Well, according to polls, a lot of American are dubious about the official 9/11 story. Of course, I doubt most of them agree with our friend here.

OEPII1 won the thread a while back:

Quote :

"The complete truth will come out in the next 20-30 years."

Though I think it could easily take longer.

10/30/2006 4:07:19 PM

Quote :

"No, not really. I'm not seeing any tremendous differences."

I posted this in salisburyboy's thread a while back:

Here are some videos of actual building implosions:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3734778582740389904&q=implosion

Hear the deafening explosions long before the building even moves?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6979955002470780153&q=implosion
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6209867556562706196&q=implosion
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5446838557512388694&q=implosion
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5360235832416833797&q=implosion

This is the same building. Notice the clearly visible explosions all over the building? Notice how the building collapse begins at the bottom instead of the top falling first?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5515424451823800690&q=implosion

Same features, different building. Loud explosions. Collapse begins at the bottom, not the top. I know that you love to point out the cloud of dust shot from the window during the collapse of the WTC, but the simple fact is that there is absolutely no need to set off additional explosions as the building is collapsing - momentum will do the job.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8719593880031165898&q=implosion

Heres the same thing in Raleigh, no less. There is no need to set off more charges during collapse. What you saw during the WTC collapse was air being forced out as the floors pancaked.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7000444892387259083&q=implosion

Heres a building in Las Vegas. Notice the many clearly visible sequenced explosions? Where were those when the WTC came down? One plume of dust coming out of a window is not evidence of a controlled demolition.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6449270076349123045&q=implosion

Heres another one. Notice the explosions all took place before the collapse, not during.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4451252877216031192&q=implosion

Heres a dorm in Minnesota. Loud and clearly visible sequenced explosions prior to collapse. There are even plumes of dust ejected from the windows during collapse, just like the WTC. Notice that you don't hear any explosion accompanying the dust plume.

There are a lot more videos out there if you want to see more. All of those buildings were significantly smaller than the World Trade Center, yet still produced deafening explosions. How many tons of explosives would have been needed to bring down two 110 story skyscrapers? Why doesn't a single video of the event include the sound of sequenced explosions?

Look at the explosions themselves. They all happened before the collapse. In every single video you see and hear charges going off followed by a dead silence, and then the collapse of the building. Ever single piece of evidence that you bring to the table lacks this. Instead you point to puffs of dust near windows as the prrof of explosives. Find me a video that features explosives being set off underneath a collapsing structure as it falls.

All of these building begin collapse at the bottom. The tops of the WTC (above the point of impact) fell into the rest of the builing with sufficient momentum to bring the towers down. Find me a video of this technique being used to collapse a high rise.

Quote :

"Look, the fact that both towers came down is a little odd. Most experts did not expect it to happen."

I heard a number of people say on 9/11 and have read other testimonies since that they expected it to collapse.

Quote :

"I thought accepted theory is that both the initial damage from the impact and the fires got the process of collapse started."

It is. DissentNOW pointed out that WTC 7 collapsed even though no plane hit it. Then he asked why WTC 1 & 2 collapsed due to fire. It seemed like a rather ignorant series of statements.

Quote :

"Well, according to polls, a lot of American are dubious about the official 9/11 story."

Fair enough. However the conspiracist explanation that others don't understand because they aren't as smart or don't care enough is ridiculous. It completely ignores the fact that others do care and are as smart or smarter, yet have come to a different conclusion.

10/30/2006 4:15:53 PM

Quote :

"How many tons of explosives would have been needed to bring down two 110 story skyscrapers?"

about two jetliners worth of fuel

10/30/2006 4:33:45 PM

Quote :

"How many tons of explosives would have been needed to bring down two 110 story skyscrapers?"

I've heard various figures, ranging from a lot to not much at all. Anyway, this brings up one of my favorite conspiracy theories, that pure fusion devices were used to take down the Twin Towers.

Quote :

"I heard a number of people say on 9/11 and have read other testimonies since that they expected it to collapse."

And I've heard plenty of people say they thought it looked like a controled demolition, both on 9/11 and afterward. That line about the fires getting hot enough to melt steel was also tossed around in the media.

According to Bazant and Verdure, who discount talk of controlled demolition, the collapse surprised the hell out of structural engineers.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/ProgressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf

Quote :

"about two jetliners worth of fuel"

No, without the damage from impact, that probably wouldn't have have gotten the job done.

10/30/2006 6:17:12 PM

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
diagram of composit wtc floor system

Diagram of Composite WTC Floor System

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

*

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

*

the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

[Edited on October 31, 2006 at 2:06 AM. Reason : -]

10/30/2006 6:38:28 PM

^i posted that up top

i think we either made the kid realize how dumb he is, or he's not posting b/c we're all too stupid for him

10/30/2006 6:50:36 PM

no the NIST is a Government organization, the j00s did it.

10/30/2006 9:42:04 PM

Quote :

"the best part will be if i do rally the troops then he cant ever lock this because he cant let me "win""

go ahead, rally the troops. i'll suspend every one of them as quickly as i can copy and paste their user names, beginning with yours. furthermore, if you fuck with me in the least, i will not only suspend you, but i will re-suspend you if anyone EVER lets you out (which i doubt they will, if i post in the mod forum explaining why. finally, any alias that i'm reasonably sure is you will be subject to the same treatment.

i'll lock this thread if at any point people decide that they don't want to contribute decent discussion in it. the reason it's still open has nothing to do with the worthiness of the subject (or the demands or threats of you, JonHGuth). clearly it's fucking retarded...but if people want to present reasoned arguments as to why that's the case, i'm not going to stop them.

10/30/2006 10:15:59 PM

-

[Edited on October 31, 2006 at 2:03 AM. Reason : -]

10/30/2006 10:30:22 PM

Objective 2: Determine why the injuries and fatalities were so high or low depending on location,
including all technical aspects of fire protection, occupant behavior, evacuation, and emergency
response.
• Approximately 87 percent of the estimated 17,400 occupants of the towers, and 99 percent of
those located below the impact floors, evacuated successfully. In WTC 1, where the aircraft
destroyed all escape routes, 1,355 people were trapped in the upper floors when the building
collapsed. One hundred seven people who were below the impact floors did not survive.
Since the flow of people from the building had slowed considerably 20 min before the tower
collapsed, the stairwell capacity was adequate to evacuate the occupants on that morning.
• In WTC 2, before the second aircraft strike, about 3,000 people got low enough in the
building to escape by a combination of self-evacuation and use of elevators. The aircraft
destroyed the operation of the elevators and the use of two of the three stairways. Eighteen
people from above the impact zone found a passage through the damaged third stairway and
escaped. The other 619 people in or above the impact zone perished. Seven people who
were below the impact floors did not survive. As in WTC 1, shortly before collapse, the flow
of people from the building had slowed considerably, indicating that the stairwell capacity
was adequate that morning.
• About 6 percent of the survivors described themselves as mobility impaired, with recent
injury and chronic illness being the most common causes; few, however, required a
wheelchair. Among the 118 decedents below the aircraft impact floors, investigators
identified seven who were mobility challenged, but were unable to determine the mobility
capability of the remaining 111.
• A principal factor limiting the loss of life was that the buildings were only one-third occupied
at the time of the attacks. NIST estimated that if the towers had been fully occupied with
Draft for Public Comment Executive Summary
NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation xlv
25,000 occupants each, it would have taken about 4 hours to evacuate the buildings and over
14,000 people might have perished because the stairwell capacity would not have been
sufficient to evacuate that many people in the available time. Egress capacity required by
current building codes is determined by single floor calculations that are independent of
building height and does not consider the time for full building evacuation.
• Due to the presence of assembly use spaces at the top of each tower that were designed to
accommodate over 1,000 occupants per floor for the Windows on the World restaurant
complex and the Top of the Deck observation deck, the New York City Building Code would
have required a minimum of four independent means of egress (stairs), one more than the
three that were available in the buildings. Given the low occupancy level on
September 11, 2001, NIST found that the issue of egress capacity from these places of
assembly, or from elsewhere in the buildings, was not a significant factor on that day. It is
conceivable that such a fourth stairwell, depending on its location and the effects of aircraft
impact on its functional integrity, could have remained passable, allowing evacuation by an
unknown number of additional occupants from above the floors of impact. If the buildings
had been filled to their capacity with 25,000 occupants, however, the required fourth stairway
would likely have mitigated the insufficient egress capacity for conducting a full building
evacuation within the available time.
• Evacuation was assisted by participation in fire drills within the previous year by two-thirds
of survivors and perhaps hindered by a Local Law that prevented employers from requiring
occupants to practice using the stairways. The stairways were not easily navigated in some
locations due to their design, which included “transfer hallways,” where evacuees had to
traverse from one stairway to another location where the stairs continued. Additionally,
many occupants were unprepared for the physical challenge of full building evacuation.
• The functional integrity and survivability of the stairwells was affected by the separation of
the stairwells and the structural integrity of stairwell enclosures. In the impact region of
WTC 1, the stairwell separation was the smallest over the building height—clustered well
within the building core—and all stairwells were destroyed by the aircraft impact. By
contrast, the separation of stairwells in the impact region of WTC 2 was the largest over the
building height—located along different boundaries of the building core—and one of three
stairwells remained marginally passable after the aircraft impact. The shaft enclosures were
fire rated but were not required to have structural integrity under typical accidental loads:
there were numerous reports of stairwells obstructed by fallen debris from damaged
enclosures.
• The fire safety systems (sprinklers, smoke purge, and fire alarms,) were designed to meet or
exceed current practice. However, they played no role in the safety of life on September 11
because the water supplies to the sprinklers were fed by a single supply pipe that was
damaged by the aircraft impact. The smoke purge systems were designed for use by the fire
department after fires; they were not turned on but they also would have been ineffective due
to aircraft damage. The violence of the aircraft impact served as its own alarm. In WTC 2,
contradictory public address announcements contributed to occupant confusion and some
delay in occupants beginning to evacuate.
Executive Summary Draft for Public Comment
xlvi NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation
• For the approximately 1,000 emergency responders on the scene, this was the largest disaster
they had even seen. Despite attempts by the responding agencies to work together and
perform their own tasks, the extent of the incident was well beyond their capabilities.
Communications were erratic due to the high number of calls and the inadequate performance
of some of the gear. Even so, there was no way to digest, test for accuracy, and disseminate
the vast amount of information being received. Their jobs were complicated by the loss of
command centers in WTC 7 and then in the towers after WTC 2 collapsed. With nearly all
elevator service disrupted and progress up the stairs taking about 2 min per floor, it would
have taken hours for the responders to reach their destinations, assist survivors, and escape
had the towers not collapsed.

10/30/2006 10:30:46 PM

Objective 3: Determine what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction,
operation, and maintenance of WTC 1 and WTC 2.
• Because of The Port Authority's establishment under a clause of the United States
Constitution, its buildings were not subject to any external building code. The buildings were
unlike any others previously built, both in their height and in their innovative structural
features. Nevertheless, the actual design and approval process produced two buildings that
generally were consistent with nearly all of the provisions of the New York City Building
Code and other building codes of that time. The loads for which the buildings were designed
exceeded the code requirements. The quality of the structural steels was consistent with the
building specifications. The departures from the building codes and standards did not have a
significant effect on the outcome of September 11.
• For the floor systems, the fire rating and insulation thickness used on the floor trusses, which
together with the concrete slab served as the main source of support for the floors, were of
concern from the time of initial construction. NIST found no technical basis or test data on
which the thermal protection of the steel was based. On September 11, 2001, the minimum
specified thickness of the insulation was adequate to delay heating of the trusses; the amount
of insulation dislodged by the aircraft impact, however, was sufficient to cause the structural
steel to be heated to critical levels.
• Based on four standard fire resistance tests that were conducted under a range of insulation
and test conditions, NIST found the fire rating of the floor system to vary between 3/4 hour
and 2 hours; in all cases, the floors continued to support the full design load without collapse
for over 2 hours.
• The wind loads used for the WTC towers, which governed the structural design of the
external columns and provided the baseline capacity of the structures to withstand abnormal
events such as major fires or impact damage, significantly exceeded the requirements of the
New York City Building Code and selected other building codes of the day. Two sets of
wind load estimates for the towers obtained by independent commercial consultants in 2002,
however, differed by as much as 40 percent. These estimates were based on wind tunnel tests
conducted as part of insurance litigation unrelated to the Investigation.

- http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1ExecutiveSummary.pdf

10/30/2006 10:31:29 PM

Quote :

"posted here is an animated gif of the video provided by prisonplanet.com: taking the gif frame by frame: as anyone with an objective mind can see, the shot that salisburyboy so often uses in his arguement: is in fact taken from the end of the video..NOT the beginning. he has demonstrated a ploy to use this as "evidence" that this particular still is taken at the beginning of the clip causing the "controlled demolition." this is a blatant use of resources to meet one's personal agenda and beliefs disregarding all credible and logical explanations. those "squibs" are the result of the building collapsing, NOT the cause. this is a new low and now this is real evidence of the lengths he goes to to convince others and himself of this grand conspiracy of the US government. "

10/30/2006 10:42:24 PM

-sorry for the multiple post, it was the easiest to read this way

10/30/2006 10:44:07 PM

No this is not another one of Salisburyboy's alts. There are a lot people out there, including myself obviously that think we have been lied to about 9/11/01. I apologize if I cannot defend myself sooner with a speedy reply. I do happen to be in school and work full-time. Therefore, my life is not devoted to this site, although I do find it interesting and a good place for debates even if I am on my own on this one.

About World Trade Center Buliding #7 (Salisburyboy probably already posted a lot of this, but here it goes again):

here is a slowed-down video of the collapse

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc-7_1_.gif

The building comes straight down in about 6 seconds.

it fell into its own footprint-a trademark of controlled demolitons

This building housed the Secret Service, Department of Defense, US securities and Exchange Commision, Mayor's Office of Emergency Management, IRS, and the CIA.

Larry Silverstein, leaseholder of the WTC complex said on TV that we PULLED the building. to PULL a building is a demolition term for bringing down the building w/ explosives.

"I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.' Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

See the video here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7he_sAVs0A

An eyewitness report-
Reporter: "I'm here with an emergency worker. He's a first year NYU medical student. He was down there; he was trying to help people. His name is Darryl."
Darryl: "Yeah I was just standing there, ya know... We were watching the building [WTC 7] actually 'cuz it was on fire... the bottom floors of the building were on fire and... we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder... turned around - we were shocked to see that the building was, ah well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out... it was horrifying... about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that... we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground... we were in shock." -1010 WINS NYC (09/11/01)

here's what Dan Rather said about watching WTC #7 coming down:
“Amazing, incredible, pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”
CBS News anchor Dan Rather commenting on the collapse of Building 7 - September 11, 2001 at approx 5:30pm EST.

Quote :

"So buildings only collapse after they have been hit by planes? If you take the time to find pictures of the side of of WTC 7 facing the WTC 1 and 2 sites, you will see that a large portion of the building was scooped out by falling debris. Of course conspiracy sites don't show those pictures because it isn't nearly as exciting as seeing an apparently undamaged building fall."

It is commonly believed that "ancillary damage" from the collapses of the Twin Towers led to the collapse of WTC 7. In fact Building 7 was separated from the North Tower by Building 6 and Vesey Street. A photograph of its north facade taken in the afternoon shows isolated small fires, and not even a single window was broken.

The team that investigated the collapse were kept away from the crime scene. By the time they published their inconclusive report in May, 2002, the evidence had been destroyed.

Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most mysterious engineering failure in world history, and why has the media remained silent? (http://www.wtc7.net/)

[image]http://http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/wtc7_northface.jpg[/image]
[image]http://http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/b7_east_fire2.jpg[/image]

And for the NIST-here are some good arguments against their case
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Why-NIST-hasn't-Answered-its-own-Questions.html
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyNISTFactSheetWontDo.html
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Comments-on-Some-of-NISTs-FAQs.html
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/NISTandThe%20FootOfGod.html
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Experiments-to-test-NIST-orange-glow-hypothesis.html

I know it's alot, but have a look.

There is also a ton of more info on WTC #7, but due to time I did not include all of it of course.

10/30/2006 10:53:02 PM

[Edited on October 30, 2006 at 10:58 PM. Reason : .]

10/30/2006 10:57:34 PM

also, I am not affiliated w/ Salisburyboy in anyway, whatsoever. he makes very good 9/11 points except for placing all the blame on the Jews (Zionists). Looking at his profile tells me he is very prejudiced and probably a racist to boot. People like him give others (like me) trying to expose 9/11 a bad name by equating us with holocaust non-believers, Jew-haters, and radical white (right) wing Christians. So, please, do not equate me with him. Thanks.

10/30/2006 11:03:52 PM

TO ALL THOSE PLAYING ALONG AT HOME, DISSENTNOW'S REPLY'S ARE ALMOST SALISBURYBOY REPLIES VERBATIM FROM AROUND PAGE 38 OF THE OLD THREAD

THEY MIGHT ACTUALLY BE VERBATIM I JUST DIDNT FEEL LIKE CHECKING

new goal: i wonder how many pages i can get this to


and its funny because i know how bad you want to post those infowars .wmv's but you cant because then this hole fake alias thing will be too transparent

[Edited on October 30, 2006 at 11:07 PM. Reason : .]

10/30/2006 11:03:57 PM

Quote :

"searching sites specific to the demolition trade does not support this meaning of 'pull'. The following Google searches of the two best known controlled demolition sites in October of 2003 did not return any results indicating that pulling and demolition are synonymous. * site:controlled-demolition.com pull * site:implosionworld.com pull Searching Google with the query demolition pull and filtering out sites referring to the Silverstein pull-it remark returns only one result in about 10 pages of results that uses 'pull' to mean demolish: "City staff have contacted the property owner by phone to request that he obtain a demolition permit and pull down and demolish the building"""

10/30/2006 11:08:52 PM

Wow, Scholars for 9/11 truth! They are some experts on engineering, science, history, and foreign relations, arent they? I see we've got scholars in RADIOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY, LAW, BIOENGINEERING, ENGLISH, and ECONOMICS, all of which are very applicable to this situation.

Apparently anyone can be a "scholar" these days, which sucks for those of us who plan on being true scholars, I guess

Oh, here's my favorite experts from "Scholars" for 9/11 Truth:

Quote :

"Joe E. Adams (AM) Active American"

WOW! An ACTIVE AMERICAN! Surely he'll get to the bottom of this!

Quote :

"Matthew Orr (FM) Population Biology, Evolution and Ecology, University of Oregon "Is the War on Terror Fraudulent?""

OH COME ON. I'm as skeptical of our war on terror as anyone, but how in the hell is a BIOLOGY prof. qualified to write this topic?



[Edited on October 30, 2006 at 11:12 PM. Reason : .]

10/30/2006 11:09:19 PM

Just in case anyone did not notice the NIST is a government agency. THEY ARE NOT AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION TEAM. Therefore they will be biased in all of their research! If my replies look to be verbatim to that of S.Boy is because these are all well-known rebutals.

10/30/2006 11:09:51 PM

NIST SHOULD NOT BE TRUSTED

BUT BIOLOGISTS SHOULD, WHEN IT COMES TO 9/11!

10/30/2006 11:12:07 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "searching sites specific to the demolition trade does not support this meaning of 'pull'. The following Google searches of the two best known controlled demolition sites in October of 2003 did not return any results indicating that pulling and demolition are synonymous. * site:controlled-demolition.com pull * site:implosionworld.com pull Searching Google with the query demolition pull and filtering out sites referring to the Silverstein pull-it remark returns only one result in about 10 pages of results that uses 'pull' to mean demolish: "City staff have contacted the property owner by phone to request that he obtain a demolition permit and pull down and demolish the building""""

America Rebuilds: A Year at Ground Zero - PBS (09/10/02)

Unidentified construction worker 1: "Hello? Oh, we're getting ready to pull building six."

Luis Mendes, NYC Dept of Design and Construction: "We had to be very careful how we demolished building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and then damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area."

Unidentified construction worker 2: "Well they got the cables attached in four different locations going up and they'll be pulling, pulling the building to the north. It's not everyday you try to pull down an eight story building down with cables."

watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBDcXm7bc24



Phrasal Verbs: pull down - To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.



Phrasal Verb: pull down 1. To pull down or break up so that reconstruction is impossible: demolish,

destroy, dismantle, dynamite, knock down, level, pulverize, raze, tear down, wreck

10/30/2006 11:13:41 PM

TO OUR PLAYERS FOLLOWING ALONG AT HOME, WE ARE NOW HALFWAY DOWN THIS PAGE: http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=398061&page=39

the only difference is that he just mentioned the pbs thing instead of posting this:

Quote :

"[b]WTC Complex Leaseholder Larry Silverstein admitted in PBS documentary that WTC 7 was brought down in controlled demolition: 1 minute video clip: http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV"

like he really wanted to

10/30/2006 11:19:02 PM

Quote :

"THEY ARE NOT AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION TEAM"

Quote :

"including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia"

10/30/2006 11:20:13 PM

DissentNoW is overthrower

bank on it

10/30/2006 11:20:59 PM

well you are too slow, i guess it takes longer when you have to disguise the cut and paste

i wasnt planning on posting any tomorrow, i was bored with this site again. thanks for giving me what im sure will be loads of entertainment again.

10/30/2006 11:29:36 PM

Dude stop thinking this is an alias for someone else on this site. Whether you like it not, many other people simply do not believe the official story. So get your head outta your ass on that one. Like I mentioned before a lot of respectable people disagree with the official story on 9/11. Maybe not on this website, but all over the world. I just pray someone big-time comes foward on this. It probably won't happen because they will be knocked-off before they can go public, but still I pray. And you can throw any argument my way about this topic. However, nothing will convince me that what we were told is nothing but a fairytale.

10/31/2006 12:56:23 AM

Quote :

"Unidentified construction worker 2: "Well they got the cables attached in four different locations going up and they'll be pulling, pulling the building to the north. It's not everyday you try to pull down an eight story building down with cables.""

Maybe I'm crazy, but have you considered that this quote could actually be in the context of physically pulling a building down, maybe with the use of cables?

10/31/2006 2:47:21 AM

So what if it is. It still means bringing the building down in a controlled fashion. This does not add any credence to your argument, so why even mention it?

10/31/2006 2:57:21 AM

Quote :

"Wow, Scholars for 9/11 truth! They are some experts on engineering, science, history, and foreign relations, arent they? I see we've got scholars in RADIOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY, LAW, BIOENGINEERING, ENGLISH, and ECONOMICS, all of which are very applicable to this situation."

Well, Steven E. Jones isn't a structural engineer, but he is a physicist. That's at least getting close. Supposed he did some decent work in cold fusion, though that doesn't really apply to the 9/11 attacks.

Quote :

"Apparently anyone can be a "scholar" these days, which sucks for those of us who plan on being true scholars, I guess"

10/31/2006 4:04:28 AM

im just waiting for the fake bin ladin pics to be posted....

10/31/2006 6:40:29 AM

"I think you are a god damn looney"

-Jon Guthrie
Active American

10/31/2006 7:15:41 AM

DissentNoW what would it take for you to give up saying the government is lying about 9/11?

I have a strong feeling no evidence can convince you otherwise.

10/31/2006 7:48:45 AM

Quote :

"WTC Complex Leaseholder Larry Silverstein admitted in PBS documentary that WTC 7 was brought down in controlled demolition:"

So how can this be/has been explained?

10/31/2006 7:51:30 AM

Quote :

""I think you are a god damn looney" -Jon Guthrie Active American "

HAHAHAHA

10/31/2006 8:03:53 AM

Quote :

" So how can this be/has been explained?"

the wonderful art of creative definitions

10/31/2006 8:26:13 AM

my favorite part is learning that the building was pulled down with cables

10/31/2006 8:59:17 AM

"my favorite part is learning that the building was pulled down with cabals"

10/31/2006 9:13:58 AM