Jump to content

Sixteen years on and still no evidence for USGOCT


hot enough

Recommended Posts

In one of the strangest things that has ever happened in all of western societies' famous conundrums, we find that sixteen years after three WTC towers were blown up by people unknown, there is still not any evidence, none at all, that supports the United States governments' contentions that 19 Arab hijackers flew planes into targets. 

There is voluminous evidence that the groups charged with investigating these crimes lied, in a baldfaced manner, engaged in scientific fraud, and did what no scientist should ever do, keep their data secret. 

Quote
Where's your Evidence?
 
Gordon Ross, BSc ME, M.Eng
 
Yet here we are, more than seven years later, and not one single person has shown one single piece of physical or visual evidence that supports this latter claim. [the USGOCT claim] No detailed scenario of events exists, no meaningful theory of fire-caused collapse exists and no sensible explanations have been given for the very many unusual events which occurred immediately prior to and during the collapses themselves.
 
In contrast to this desert of information, the claim that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition has a wealth of accompanying argument. There are many pieces of evidence, all of which can easily be fitted into a meaningful explanation that shows a logical train of events and giving cause and effect for each of those evidential instances.
 
The towers were brought down by a combination of two types of charge and placement. One was a series of concussive explosives placed on the outer core columns adjacent to the core column welded joints every three stories, while the second was a series of incendiary charges placed on the corners of the perimeter column structure every fifteen to twenty storeys.
 
READ ON AT, 

 

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

What does Gordon have to say about the hijackers?  Does he support your contention that there were none?

What do you say about the hijackers? Do you support the contention that there were Arab hijackers? If so, could you please provide some evidence to prove such a contention. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks#cite_note-2

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/bin-laden-claims-responsibility-for-9-11-1.513654

Quote

In the 18-minute message, parts of which were played on Qatar-based Al-Jazeera just four days before the American presidential election, bin Laden accused U.S. President George W. Bush of negligence on the day 19 suicide hijackers took over four American passenger jets.

He also threatened new attacks if the policies of the U.S. government do not change.

According to translators, bin Laden told American voters: "Your security is not in the hands of [Democratic presidential candidate John] Kerry or Bush or al-Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands.

Bin Laden's confession and the FBI assessment align.  Case closed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I couldn't provide anything you haven't already seen.  What does Gordon say?

You are saying that you can't provide any evidence for the existence of the alleged hijackers. What might be causing you to continue to accept such a flimsy fable? 

I don't know exactly what Gordon says, but I'll suggest that he doesn't involve himself with such ludicrous notions when the science unequivocally says that Arab hijackers could not have melted/vaporized steel, caused the twin towers to fall as if the resistance of the lower undamaged sections of WTCs 1 and 2 equaled the strength of custard pudding. 

Do you think that it is sensible for the lower undamaged sections of WTCs 1 and 2 to have the strength of custard pudding?

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Not a thing in your quote, Michael, suggests that OBL confessed to anything. You're not usually this sloppy with your sourcing. 

Quote

Point G-1: A Claim Regarding Osama bin Laden

The Official Account

Osama bin Laden was responsible [1] for the 9/11 attacks.

The Best Evidence

The FBI did not list 9/11 [2] as one of the terrorist acts for which Osama bin Laden was wanted.

When asked why, Rex Tomb, when he was the head of investigative publicity for the FBI, stated [3] that the FBI had no hard evidence [4] connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.

Also, although Secretary of State Colin Powell, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the 9/11 Commission promised [5] to provide evidence of Bin Laden’s responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, they also failed. [6]

http://www.consensus911.org/point-g-1/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hot enough said:

You are saying that you can't provide any evidence for the existence of the alleged hijackers. What might be causing you to continue to accept such a flimsy fable? 

I don't know exactly what Gordon says, but I'll suggest that he doesn't involve himself with such ludicrous notions when the science unequivocally says that Arab hijackers could not have melted/vaporized steel, caused the twin towers to fall as if the resistance of the lower undamaged sections of WTCs 1 and 2 equaled the strength of custard pudding. 

Do you think that it is sensible for the lower undamaged sections of WTCs 1 and 2 to have the strength of custard pudding?

I can't provide evidence for the existence of the Sydney Opera House either, but from past experience I'm fairly sure it's there.

Couldn't you ask him his opinion on the hijackers?  He puts his email address on his website.  I'm sure you've been in touch concerning other aspects of the event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I can't provide evidence for the existence of the Sydney Opera House either, but from past experience I'm fairly sure it's there.

Couldn't you ask him his opinion on the hijackers?  He puts his email address on his website.  I'm sure you've been in touch concerning other aspects of the event.

Please try to be serious about these things. You, anyone, can provide evidence for the existence of the Sydney Opera House but you can't provide evidence for the alleged hijackers? 

Certain things really should cause thinking people to, well, think.

Do you think that it is sensible for the lower undamaged sections of WTCs 1 and 2 to have had the strength of custard pudding?

 

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again for clarity:

Quote

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/bin-laden-claims-responsibility-for-9-11-1.513654

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hot enough said:

Please try to be serious about these things. You, anyone, can provide evidence for the existence of the Sydney Opera House but you can't provide evidence for the alleged hijackers? 

Certain things really should cause thinking people to, well, think.

Do you think that it is sensible for the lower undamaged sections of WTCs 1 and 2 to have had the strength of custard pudding?

 

I can only provide evidence for the Sydney Opera House by Googling it and posting the pictures, and maybe a Wiki page.  I can do that with the hijackers too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, hot enough said:

The first is an example of evidence, the second is not. I shouldn't have to point that out to you. 

They are both examples of a Google search.  Their status as evidence is something we decide upon ourselves.  I could also Google alien abductions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

They are both examples of a Google search.  Their status as evidence is something we decide upon ourselves.  I could also Google alien abductions.

That is not how evidence works, except on the most base pedestrian level. If that is what you operate on then there is no use discussing anything with you. 

You already knew I was referencing legal evidence, something substantial, something you know you can't find as regards alleged hijackers. 

Sensible people have an inherent "smell test" to discern real evidence from fake. Sensible people can combine "evidence" with rational thought. It's the basis of our jury system. 

Before you spend a lot of time consider how you expect to provide evidence that the alleged hijackers melted/vaporized steel [2750/4900F] when the maximum steel temperatures in the twin towers were 1000F short of that. 

Then consider how you expect to gather evidence to show these same alleged hijackers managed the same thing in WTC7 when they never came within two football fields of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Once again for clarity, Michael, that is NOT evidence. 

Meanwhile, you totally ignore all the science that says the USGOCT is simply not possible. 

As I said to sapper; 

"Sensible people have an inherent "smell test" to discern real evidence from fake. Sensible people can combine "evidence" with rational thought. It's the basis of our jury system."

Anyone who clings to such dodgy "evidence" and refuses to look at the science is not really being honest with themselves or everyone else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

Once again for clarity, Michael, that is NOT evidence. 

Meanwhile, you totally ignore all the science that says the USGOCT is simply not possible. 

As I said to sapper; 

"Sensible people have an inherent "smell test" to discern real evidence from fake. Sensible people can combine "evidence" with rational thought. It's the basis of our jury system."

Anyone who clings to such dodgy "evidence" and refuses to look at the science is not really being honest with themselves or everyone else. 

Still waiting to hear how all that explosive got installed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

They are both examples of a Google search.  Their status as evidence is something we decide upon ourselves.  I could also Google alien abductions.

The twin towers fell, being exceedingly generous to the USGOCT, as if the resistance of the lower undamaged sections of WTCs 1 and 2 equaled a vacuum to the strength of custard pudding. 

Is this logical to your brain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

The twin towers fell, being exceedingly generous to the USGOCT, as if the resistance of the lower undamaged sections of WTCs 1 and 2 equaled a vacuum to the strength of custard pudding. 

Is this logical to your brain?

But they didn't "freefall"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, hot enough said:

That is not how evidence works, except on the most base pedestrian level. If that is what you operate on then there is no use discussing anything with you. 

 

If you define "use" as getting me to see your point of view then I suppose there isn't. 

As I've already stated, I'll believe evidence outlining what would undoubtedly be the biggest news story of the century so far when a respectable journalist working for a respectable news agency presents it.  Not when some anonymous poster on an internet forum tells me it is so.  No offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Omni said:

Still waiting to hear how all that explosive got installed.

In the largest elevator update in modern history.

Drive%20to%20the%20top.jpg

Why would this company, obviously a top flight company, I mean who would give a contract to a fly by night company to do this big a renovation on the largest buildings in the world go bankrupt in 2006?

Quote

Workers had access to unoccupied areas by day, and in occupied areas by night, and on week ends.  Workers from the A.C.E. Elevator Company in the WTC elevator shafts from 1994 until 9/11/2001 were not even mentioned in the final reports.  Neither was LVI Services, working on the asbestos removal project.  Nor were the fireproofing workers. 

http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/AceElevator/

Why would this company doing this highly secure work never be mentioned by the 911 Commission or NIST? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

If you define "use" as getting me to see your point of view then I suppose there isn't. 

As I've already stated, I'll believe evidence outlining what would undoubtedly be the biggest news story of the century so far when a respectable journalist working for a respectable news agency presents it.  Not when some anonymous poster on an internet forum tells me it is so.  No offense.

And here I thought you were an open minded individual who was willing to look at the evidence. You show yourself to be someone who is terribly frightened to find out the truth.  

Surely, you can think, can't you? 

How does the tiny, in comparison, upper section of WTC1 fall thru the hundreds of tonnes of much much much stronger structural steel in the lower sections at accelerating speed?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

And here I thought you were an open minded individual who was willing to look at the evidence. You show yourself to be someone who is terribly frightened to find out the truth.  

Surely, you can think, can't you? 

How does the tiny, in comparison, upper section of WTC1 fall thru the hundreds of tonnes of much much much stronger structural steel in the lower sections at accelerating speed?

 

Just look at how the buildings were constructed and you'll how. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

No you didn't!

And you didn't surprise me one bit, sapper. I had thought, "give the guy a chance, anyone who follows the evidence/science will be able to see that the USGOCT has zero evidence supporting it". 

Again, how did that tiny upper chunk of WTC1 go thru all that structural steel as if it was a ball dropped in a vacuum, or, to err greatly for the side of the USGOCT, to a pile of 900 foot custard pudding?

Does this make sense to you?

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...