Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Elfenlied

    Elfenlied Member

    The NIST investigation was about the collapse of WTC7, so if you want to judge their work, you really want to look at "collapse investigation protocols" (if those exist). Fire investigations are primarily about identifying the cause or culprit of the fire, collapse investigation is about cause or responsibility for the collapse: the owner using the building for a purpose it wasn't designed for, the engineer who delivered a faulty design, the architect who didn't consult a structural engineer, the contractor who didn't comply with engineering drawings and specifications, or shortcomings in the existing building codes. With different focus and objectives, the protocols of fire investigations have limited relevance imo.

    BTW: fire-proofing an explosive charge while still allowing radio signals to pass is relatively easy, a protective layer of vermiculite or asbestos (of sufficient thickness) will do the trick; you might even use refractory material to isolate the thermite from the column in such a way that upon ignition the molten iron would flow towards the column, make contact with the steel and melt it. Should be a piece of cake for the genius able to foresee a six hour blaze caused by a plane crashing in another building. And low frequency signals (few hundred kHz) will pass through a few inches of water.
    It's easier to debunk a theory by pointing out one specific technical detail that is impossible, than to show the impossibility of the total event, but apart from the Sci-Fi scenarios with energy weapons, CGI in the sky or nano-nukes, most of the details, like muffle the sound of an explosion, use thermite to cut a column, keep explosives cool in a six hour blaze.. they all could probably be achieved on their own (given enough resources), when they are the only imposed condition. It's the combination of all of them that is impossible.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    I tell you what. I'll give you an answer after you answer the following:

    As you obviously support the idea of water-cooling with a continuous stream of cold water from an external source, fed to a double-walled box surrounding each charge through heavily-lagged pipes, then perhaps you could tell me how the radio signal penetrated the water jackets to reach the receivers, to set off the igniters?
     
  3. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    Exactly so.

    Exactly so. Well nearly...

    I have the feeling that six (I thought it was seven) hours at temperatures above 600 deg C would defeat loosely-packed perlite, just as it obviously defeated the dry insulation applied to the floors, beams, and columns of WTC7. Hence my suggesting water-cooling, which would last as long as the water supply.

    But there was no water supply. So each charge would have required its own insulated header tank.

    And you could pass an insulated aerial through the water jacket. It would have to be a BIG low-frequency signal to be guaranteed to pass through the water in the jacketed charges throughout the skyscraper, and of course, the jackets couldn't be made of metal. And there again, aerials might well be burnt off by the fire, so they would need to stand within separate tubes of non-metallic fire-resisting material.

    Now were the talented and experienced engineers of NIST incapable of establishing this in the course of their investigation?

    I think not.

    Anyway, thanks for a dash of clarity there. :)

    The truther premise that the building couldn't collapse straight down, as it was a redundant structure, is totally false.

    It was nowhere near a redundant structure: the interior had no diagonal bracing and its columns stood on a bridge beam, which by definition made them non-redundant.

    Lateral loads were resisted by the exterior faces of the building, which is why the interior could easily collapse, leaving the exterior intact. Momentarily.

    The exterior buckled because the interior wreckage gathering within it, from the base upwards, pushed it outwards from within. Its own weight finished the job off.
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  4. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    And the cause or responsibility for the collapse, according to NIST, was not damage from the towers, but...?
     
  5. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    So you accuse me of
    and yet you want to drive the discussion up the garden path of what you think an alternative hypothesis (which I "obviously" support) demands before you answer a direct question?

    I don't need to support the thermate hypothesis to ask why NIST didn't test for accelerants when investigating the complete collapse of a building that was on fire.

    However I think any reasonable person would expect NIST to follow the best practice of fire investigation procedure, as codified in NFPA 921, and if you can explain why NIST failed to take the reasonable step of testing for accelerants in accordance with this code I suggest you do so.

    So at this point I'm asking you for the second time if your statement
    is your complete case for your assertion that it was wholly unnecessary to test for accelerants at WTC 7, and I am asking you if what you have said here is your full scientific rationale for ignoring the clear requirements of NFPA 921.
     
  6. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    jomper, You created a fantasy about what I said.

    Thank you for pointing out that thread. A couple of points from it


    This is from another poster there.

    Please note this part
    Considered and dismissed, because the FACTS showed that the fires, the damage and the construction of the building was the cause. No explosives needed

    They were not investigating a fire, but a building collapse. With the info from the other thread, I now consider this part of the discussion closed.
     
  7. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    What is most significant about your post here Cairenn is you have avoided answering a simple yes or no question that is relevant to the topic -- for the second time. As I said, it is not a loaded question.

    This is the question for a third time, although I have no doubt you will again avoid a direct answer:

    Are you surprised that testing for accelerants is required once the fire and damage is of a certain magnitude? Does that seem unreasonable to you?

    What is less interesting is that you have re-posted the NIST material I responded to four pages back: perhaps repeating the same thing somehow makes it "true" in your mind: an allegation I know you'd like to level at "truthers".

    So here's some of what I wrote again.
    Yes, good question. Why not?
    Eh? Saying broader procedures may be required doesn't mean existing procedures should be ignored. Exactly how are the fires supposed to be much more than typical office fires? Isn't the NIST hypothesis that office fires are responsible for the collapse?

    And what explosions are being referred to here? The ones that NIST absurdly insists didn't happen?

    The application of the scientific method involves considering, among other things, the falsifiability of a theory. NIST has demonstrably failed to do this with respect to the best alternative hypothesis, which it has acknowledged but wholly failed to show it has investigated.

    It is as if NIST doesn't realise the evidence of the collapse of WTC 7 exhibits striking features which a layman would reasonably say makes it appear engineered, an opinion confirmed by independent experts.
    However, all physical evidence from the building, including physical evidence that showed WTC 7 steel had been subject to a "mysterious" attack was ignored.
    Neither of which are applicable to the alternative hypothesis
    which may be applicable but the precise consideration of this possibility is not documented...
    which is also not applicable to the alternative hypothesis.
    NIST first produced a hypothesis and then drylabbed a computer model to support it, a suggestion any true supporter of the scientific method would direct at an organisation that presents a computer model that cannot be verified as evidence of anything.
    An assertion so bare-faced and absurd it is laughable.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  8. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    No - not those ones.

    It's the ones that people like you insist did happen but for which there is exactly ZERO evidence.
     
  9. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    I was NEVER surprised, period, so why should I answer a question about being surprised? Do you really think I am that dumb?

    I will ask you this. Why do you think that some other method was used and what do you think it is?

    There is no evidence of a 'mysterious attack'. That has been explained in multiple places here and elsewhere.

    Did you read the article in Structure Magazine?

    Here is the link to it again

    http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf


    Are you going to ignore that again? or dismiss it? because it doesn't agree with your theory.
     
  10. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    It's good to laugh.
     
  11. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    So in fact it's what you fully expected. Thank you for that, Cairenn. I'm the same.

    So, since we agree that it is only to be expected that the gold standard of fire investigation codes would demand testing for accelerants if fire damage is beyond a certain magnitude, I'm sure you'll join me in calling for this important forensic testing to be done on all and any remaining evidence from the collapse of WTC 7 immediately.
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2013
  12. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    But not in contempt.
     
  13. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    That's because NIST examined exactly ZERO evidence from the building.

    I'm sure you'll dismiss the eyewitness reports and audio evidence.
     
  14. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    No - it is because there is actually zero evidence.

    Of course you are sure - because you know that they are either nonsense or debunked long ago.

    That fact that you failed to provide any actual eyewitness evidence shows that - Would you like to provide some? Because these links are not eyewitness reports, and the NIST did look at the audio evidence:

    There was no sound of explosions on any of het multiple recordings of WTC 7's collapse - see https://www.metabunk.org/threads/9-11-youtube-video-needs-debunking.1636/[/quote]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  15. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    jompur, you just proved my point for me. It was a 'have you stopped beating your wife question."

    I wasn't surprised because they were investigating a building collapse, not a fire of unknown origin. It was not the guideline for their investigation, so why would they follow it?

    I didn't think I needed to point out to you that a fire investigation is different than one for a building collapse. I guess I underestimated your blindness to facts.

    I am asking you again if you read the article in Struture magazine?
     
  16. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    It wasn't a loaded question, merely a question that you refused to answer because it exposed your irrational position on the NFPA 921 directive. However, since you are so sure it was a loaded question, you'll be able to quickly and easily expose how answering either yes or no was a false choice.

    Otherwise you'll just look silly, won't you?

    See post 204. If you can address that, show how this difference is relevant in this case, where these more applicable building collapse guidelines exist, and why these guidelines should not represent the application of the scientific method in the same way as the NFPA 921 guidelines I have quoted up thread.

    Otherwise you'll apologise for saying I'm blind, won't you?

    Yes. Again, nothing in it about NIST's failure to test for explosive residue or analyse the steel.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  17. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    Please show the section of the NIST report where the available physical evidence was analysed.

    Then you will be able to quickly and easily show where the evidence I directed you to has been debunked.
    This fact shows you did not look at the evidence you were offered
    I have addressed this point twice in this thread already, once here and a second time here; the second occasion was in direct reply to you, but you still failed to respond.

    Like Cairenn, you seem to think simply re-posting NIST statements that I have already dealt with will substitute for a rational response to my criticisms of them.

    This doesn't address the evidence I presented you with. However, even if it were true
    and the National Fire Protection Association would not accept your logic that the supposed absence of audible explosions is a good reason not to test the evidence for accelerants.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  18. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    What has that got to do with the lack of evidence for an explosion?

    I have already noted that the NIST tested computer simulations and they state in their FAQ that they did not examine any physical evidence.

    And neither did anyone else - ergo you have no physical evince to support your own claims.

    You are the one insisting explosions happened - despite the total and complete lack of any evidence to support that claim.

    You admit there is no noise - and yet you link to an "analysis" that claims there was an explosion.

    You admit there is no explosive residue found - by anyone - and yet you insist there is an explosion.

    Further there is no evidence of any explosives being set, no visible evidence of any explosion in the collapse, no evidence linking anyone to any conspiracy to demolish the building, no wistleblowers, no nothin'.

    I conclude that you are a troll.

    You are not actually interested in verifiable information - you do not actually argue for any errors in the NIST report beyond saying "it isn't true".

    There is nothing you have said that isn't debunked here and elsewhere - the NIST report itself debunks your assertions that there must have be an explosion because they looked at all the evidence that actually DOES exist - visual and auditory.

    One of the great things about trolls is that I can add you to ignore so the repetitive droning, lack of actual engagement in realistic discussion and repetitive stupidity doesn't distract me any more.

    Bye.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. jomper

    jomper Inactive Member

    You don't find what you don't look for.

    Alternative hypotheses are to be eliminated in the scientific method, as NFPA 921 indicates.

    Apart from FEMA, as noted upthread.

    No. I'm insisting NFPA guidelines should have been followed, and I'm pointing out that NIST greatly loses credibility for failing to do so.

    No, I pointed out that the National Fire Protection Association does not accept the logic that explosions are defined by how loud they are. The evidence I gave you suggests there were in fact audible explosions.

    NIST didn't test for any. The question that this raises is the reason Mick started this thread.

    General impoliteness duly noted. You're added to the list of people on this site who have been reduced to insulting me in this way.

    Can't say I'll miss you: you failed to address the points I directed at you and thereby "debunked" nothing.
     
  20. muttkat

    muttkat Banned Banned

    Being that the other WTC 7 forum has been closed and here is yet another WTC 7 forum which will be probably be closed or I will have insufficient privileges to comment here; its already happened to me twice, I wanted to get this in. Of course this might get deleted. There has been a considerable amount of proof that the NIST fairytale is just that as to your comment "ignoring the facts" that will happen because that doesn't fall within the belief consensus of this group, therefore there is not a fair kind of debate here and you get reprimanded for it or the thread gets closed. Its real simple, the temperatures in the 1000's of degrees underground for months. The hottest heat source came from under the buildings. That is not normal. Of course NIST never reaches those temperatures, therefore NIST data is WRONG. NIST didn't even study an actual collapse, the drew a computer model and stated thats the way it happened, even though this hasn't ever happened before.

    Responders heard explosions. Barry Jennings was inside WTC 7 trapped from explosions before the collapses. That point gets ignored and the responders don't know what they're talking about according to this site, so being the official story has been DEBUNKED, its time to lay the cards on the table and DEBUNK THE OFFICIAL GOVT LIE.
     
  21. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Why don't you start a thread, under the new posting guidelines, that debunks one piece of the NIST report?
    https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/
    Just one mind. One bit at a time.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 2
  22. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    I thought this thread had stopped. Maybe my life depended on it. Just joking. And how. :)
     
  23. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    Oh, yes, please, make it stop. ROFL.
     
  24. muttkat

    muttkat Banned Banned

    I think the NIST report has been debunked already. When you mention on forums that things are being repeated and close them, the WTC 7 is being repeated.

    Heres an comparison:

    Ads from the 50's: Dentists and doctors recommend Camel cigarettes. (This is like NIST).
    It is well known that cigarette smoking causes cancer & doctors don't recommend Camel cigarettes, so that invalidates that claim, same with NIST.

    NIST either needs to come up with a Scientific Hypothesis (one that can be proved) or confess and its not going to that. Even Thomas Kean of the 911 Commission stated the govt lied to them. It lied to everybody. If I remember right, I think certain data pertaining to 911 was limited to a select few of the 911 Commission. The official govt story is full o lies and I'm working of showing another example of that.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  25. muttkat

    muttkat Banned Banned

    You may die old, before the official story is debunked on this site. lol Oh, oh this is off topic.
     
  26. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    Talking to yourself, Jazzy?
     
  27. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Sorry - I obviously missed it - could you point or link or provide some information supporting this - such as one or more conclusions of the report and the verifiable evidence that debunks it/them?

    Ta
     
    • Like Like x 1
  28. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    Probably.

    Just to straighten out your kinks a little:

    I detest the States and almost everything it stands for*. YET I'm aware that the greatest number of the most able individuals live there, possibly barring China. And it's a beautiful country.

    I could never stand the CIA, G H W Bush and his blowout son, or the rest of the cronies, Reagan, Nixon, the peanut guy. Or the dancing star of the FBI, or any of the Kennedys. (I'm still amazed that they didn't hit the nuclear button in the early sixties). There hasn't been a US politician I have respected since Roosevelt Eisenhower. Considering what they could be doing, Americans, as a body of people, are just - dross. All the cleverest people, and still no proper social, health, and education services, WTF?

    If you happen to be British, let me tell you something: monarchy IS fascism. So go f--- yourself some more. Be as stupid as you like.

    The only reason to debunk bunk is because it's bunk**. While it hangs around it distracts from what people really need to know. I honestly believe that the 911 truth movement is backed by the remnants of the Bush junta. It has worked very well to protect the incumbents from proper prosecution. It's not as though they weren't criminally incompetent.

    It's a massive shame on all of us. We are all responsible.

    * except of course its insistence on individual liberty, which is its saving grace. Religious fundamentalism, and the countries that apply this, is/are so much worse.

    ** And you Grieves and you Muttkat, promote it. That's you down there, then. Minions of the people you despise. "Useful ------".
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  29. dirk

    dirk New Member

    Seeing the previous posts, it is clear that the guidelines are not for everyone....
     
  30. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    It's useful fill-you-in material. I may get banned but at least you'll know. I don't support the ptb. I do support the NIST findings, because they make sense. Engineering sense. The counter-arguments do not.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  31. muttkat

    muttkat Banned Banned

    You may die old, before the official story is debunked on this site. lol Oh, oh this is off topic.
    Then you're saying that NIST failed to test for explosive residue. That says it all. NIST failed at using an actual model and instead used a computer generated model. NIST failed to report on actual temperatures at WTC 7. USGS did. Therefore NIST's data is wrong.
    OK, the US really sucks now, I detest it too. I can agree with your dross statement and most of that paragraph except Kennedy tried to do the right thing as with Exec Order 11110 but got assassinated.

    As far as the truth movement back by the Bush junta....Come on, could we get a little more absurd? Being me and Grieves are minions of the people we despise????? Myself, I don't believe the official story because all the lies I've uncovered. Being you believe the NIST story...which is from the remnants of the Bush junta if anybody was to be a "useful " it would be you.

    As far as "you down there" are you speaking down to me from your pedestal from the heavens above?

    OK, back to 7.

    COMMERCIAL PROPERTY: The Salomon Solution; A Building Within a Building, at a Cost of $200 Million
    By MARK McCAIN
    Published: February 19, 1989


    BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space.

    The work, which began last month at Seven World Trade Center, reflects both the adaptability of steel-framed towers and the extraordinary importance of fail-safe...... According to many real estate experts, no company has ever made such extensive alterations to a new office building in Manhattan.

    The issue of molten metal, which was discovered under both the twin towers and WTC 7, suggesting an extremely hot burning agent was used in the demolition process, is completely ignored in NIST’s report, despite it being acknowledged in Appendix C of FEMA’s World Trade Center Building Performance Study, which stated:

    Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel… The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.

    Speaking during a press conference that was called to counter NIST, Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and a member of the American Institute of Architects, dismissed the report.

    “Tons of [molten metal] was found 21 days after the attack,” said Gage in an interview with a Vancouver, Canada television station. “Steel doesn’t begin to melt until 2,700 degrees, (Faranheit) which is much hotter than what these fires could have caused.”

    Being you believe NIST's fairytale, do you think NIST based its evidence after the building was retrofitted? Of course not.

    FEMA states there was a severe high temperature. What are NIST's temperatures? 572 degrees F?

    Why do fires collapse hi rise building but don't collapse Kerosene heaters?

    All-Pro Portable Kerosene Torpedo Heater, heats 29,000 ft.3 building
    All-Pro kerosene outdoor construction heaters are for use only with kerosene, No. 1 & 2 diesel fuel oil, JP-8 fuel or Jet A fuel.
    165,000 BTU Kerosene Outdoor Torpedo / Salamander Heater

    https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/drjudywood.com_articles_DEW_dewpics_pk165t.jpg[​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  32. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    There was NO molten steel found on the site. That is a fallacy that has been debunked here and elsewhere.

    Since it has been debunked on this site, I see no reason to debunk it again in this thread.

    This thread is about explosive residue. Can you discuss it?
     
  33. muttkat

    muttkat Banned Banned

    Yes there was and that fallacy was not debunked so quit making things up. I proved that on my nuclear forum but of course that was put in the corner of the rambles section and was not debunked. As far as explosive residue, there was. I do recall asking you some questions and you never answered and reminded you about that and you never answered so throw your little snippets somewhere else.
     
  34. muttkat

    muttkat Banned Banned

    If you don't support the PTB, where does the NIST report come from?
     
  35. Alchemist

    Alchemist Banned Banned

    Don't forget that 9/11 truth movement is also composed of 9/11 victim family members who want an independent, scientific investigation. The HEAD of 911 Commission has openly stated that government officials have LIED to them. Questioning criminal elements within certain government institutions doesn't make you unpatriotic. I love my country, I love the people and I love the constitution. I see myself as a patriot and I think it's the duty of every patriot to question criminal elements within their government. These are the same criminal elements who were responsible for engineering lies such as Gulf of Tonkin (it didn't even happen according to recent declassified documents) which left more than 50,000 Americans & millions of Vietnamese dead. However Brown & Root (which later became Halliburton) made BILLIONS from the war and it's come out that LBJ received massive cash payments from them. These were the same criminal elements JFK & Eisenhower warned us about. Questioning them doesn't make you unpatriotic.

    In Rome, whenever a crime was committed, the judges asked one question: Cui Bono? Who benefits? A think-tank composed of people such as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney & Paul Wolfowitz openly stated in their PNAC document (September 2000): "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor." They got their new Pearl Harbor a year later which they were able to exploit to advance their global agenda. Private corporate interests and military industrial complex likewise exploited 9/11 to make billions of dollars while murdering millions of innocent civilians while simultaneously turning our great country into a police state where our every phone call and e-mail is collected and stored without a warrant (even in Russia they need a warrant to collect such personal info). All under the pretense of "those irate jihadists attacked us because they hate our freedoms" (if that's the case then they won because our constitutional freedoms and liberties are being eliminated as we speak ... look up NDAA). It's all about profit and centralization of power for the few. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars were almost completely privatized.

    The official story isn't based on any real facts. It's a fairy tale upheld by interests who stood to benefit from it. We're talking about trillions of dollars at stake here which are dependent upon the official story being 100% true.

    Here is a talk from someone I knew personally in high school who lost his father on 9/11:

     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  36. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    We've been through this before. WTC1 was WTC7's "accelerant". They dealt with fire. The model reflects the video history with sufficient accuracy, and tells the story.

    Well, I'm an engineer sufficiently to know that you interpret engineering as "lies". NIST doesn't mean "remnant of the Bush junta". It means National Institute of Science and Technology. As far as I know, Bush's boys weren't very science-orientated.

    I bet you they spent a while stabilizing beams before they started cutting. Had they not done so, it would have dropped.

    Is a "truther" invention. The only molten metal seen was the melted aluminum alloy pouring from the floor where a fierce fire and aircraft fragments were located.

    Actually it doesn't. It suggests that was where the potential energy of the building (sufficient to raise 500 tons of steel to melting point) finally gave itself up as heat.

    Because it happened after collapse, whereas the report concerned events leading to collapse.

    High temperatures, iron, water, air and thousands of trace materials and time will always produce severe corrosion.

    Is as accurate as your spelling of Fahrenheit.

    Gibberish.

    Simply because the fire never touches the steel. A sheet of cold moving air intervenes. The same principle is used in stoves and jet engines. You should get out more.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  37. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    You must distinguish between officials lying to avoid accusations of lack of due diligence in the performance of their normal duties, and those doing so for worse reasons. But you don't.

    Baselessly accusing people of being criminals makes you a criminal. It's a crime called slander (when spoken) and libel (when written).

    Isn't an automatic route to truth. Undertakers benefited. Did they conspire?

    Has nothing to do with how WTC7 fell.

    AE 911 T isn't based on any real facts. It's a fairy tale upheld by interests who stood to benefit from it. We're talking about thousand of bucks at stake here which are dependent upon the truther story being 100% true.

    No there isn't.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2013
    • Like Like x 2
  38. muttkat

    muttkat Banned Banned

    [/quote]

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  39. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    Monarchy *can be* fascism. So can democracy.

    First of all, I'm glad to discover you've a sensible regard for the Bush cartel. Could certainly have fooled me. But do you seriously believe the 'truth movement' is what's protecting them from prosecution? So far as I know they're the only people within North America adamantly calling for it with any level of consistency. There are certainly a fair share of crazies and AstroTurfers who have been associated with the 'truth movement', and yes, they can be counter-productive when used to represent the truth movement as a whole, but who's doing the using? Come on, Jazzy. You're a clever guy. What billion-dollar industry has been covering Bush and his cronies collective ass from September 12th on? It sure as hell wasn't the truth movement.

    Down where? In the hole? In the muck? H-E-doublehockeysticks? Well if we're servants of evil bogging down the steps of the real soldiers of justice with our clods of bullshit, perhaps you could point out this bunkless crusade to prosecute those who failed to protect from, respond too, and investigate one of the most tragic mass-murders in American history, using it to engage in illegal and brutal Warfare without reprisal? Who's tireless efforts am I impeding, exactly? Because outside of the 'truth movement', foibles and all, I don't see a single other collective American effort in that direction. Still, if you're going to look down on us, where/whatever down entails in this instance, and cast the blame for America's failure to prosecute at our lowly feet, perhaps you should take a moment to glance upward?

    I know you know this isn't true, so why say it? Or are you just quoting your fellow engineer, John Gross, a head engineer of NIST who stated he'd heard nothing about and received no reports of molten metal years after the fact? Multitude of eye-witness accounts, photographic evidence in spite of the 'no pictures!' rule, but a head of NIST six or so years on hasn't heard word one about it. Thorough.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  40. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    Show the 'molten steel'. Glowing red metal is not molten.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.