9/11

PolyNewbie · January 19, 2007

Black Dog: Ah yes, like you, I should spend my time reading crackpots on the internet. No thanks: your posts more than adequately fill that niche for me.

I get most of my info by listening to alternative media interview ex top memebers of the establishment like Paul Craig Roberts, Robert Bowman, etc - all people that have had top positions in the establishemnt and are now speaking against it. This also happened in Germany but you would not be familiar with people like this because mainstream ignores them because mainstream is controlled media.

Black Dog · January 19, 2007

My guess is that thermate was used to cut critical beams and a nuclear device was dropped from the top of the building and fell through the core vapourizing all the center core steel. Nuclear technology in the formn of mini nukes used for building demolition were developed in the 50's. This would explain the radioactive dust. Fortunately someone figured out how to do CD's and nukes are not commonly used.

And scene.

Canadian Blue · January 19, 2007

My guess is that thermate was used to cut critical beams and a nuclear device was dropped from the top of the building and fell through the core vapourizing all the center core steel. Nuclear technology in the formn of mini nukes used for building demolition were developed in the 50's. This would explain the radioactive dust. Fortunately someone figured out how to do CD's and nukes are not commonly used.

What about a giant phaser beam, isn't that what the Scholars for 9/11 Truth support, because as we all know that is the only possible explaination.

I get most of my info by listening to alternative media interview ex top memebers of the establishment like Paul Craig Roberts, Robert Bowman, etc - all people that have had top positions in the establishemnt and are now speaking against it. This also happened in Germany but you would not be familiar with people like this because mainstream ignores them because mainstream is controlled media.

Do you still use white nationalist websites such as VDare???

PolyNewbie · January 19, 2007

Black Dog:And scene.

Its post like this that let me know (and evryone else) that I am winning. It shows you cannot argue with facts so you turn to stupidity - a common tactic for neoliberal sycophant fascists.

Black Dog · January 19, 2007

Its post like this that let me know (and evryone else) that I am winning. It shows you cannot argue with facts so you turn to stupidity - a common tactic for neoliberal sycophant fascists.

If you're mother knew you were talking like that she might just pull your computer privileges. No more World of Warcraft for you, young man.

Riverwind · January 20, 2007

In a controlled demolition, concentrated explosive energy is used on critical supports and the building collapses under gravity due to the missing supports.

Your energy models make no distinction about where and how the energy is applied. If you want to argue that specially placed explosives that add an insignificant amount of additional energy to the system can trigger a collapse then it is also possible for a combination of fire and structural damage to do the same. IOW: your energy model proves nothing.

In any case, you are still demonstrating that your explanation is a whitewash because you have no explanation that shows how the buildings were wired, what explosives were used and how they were able to perfectly time the explosions in a building with major fires.

jbg · January 20, 2007

Black Dog, Canadian Blue, Riverwind - Don't feed the troll.

PolyNewbie · January 20, 2007

jbg:Black Dog, Canadian Blue, Riverwind - Don't feed the troll.

You are just a typical lawyer and you couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper bag. Thats why our legal system is all about procedure and little else. We have morons that can only see as far as their own wallet in the profession.

You just another idiot lawyer that is full of hot piss and vineger and has absolutely nothing of even the smallest detectable degree of intelligence to say.

I do not like you, you are absolutely right about that one thing but nothing else.

PolyNewbie · January 20, 2007

Riverwind:Your energy models make no distinction about where and how the energy is applied. If you want to argue that specially placed explosives that add an insignificant amount of additional energy to the system can trigger a collapse then it is also possible for a combination of fire and structural damage to do the same. IOW: your energy model proves nothing.

You are saying that the airplanes hit just the righjt spots at the top of the building to cause the necessary supports to fail at the base and throughout the building to cause a perfect downward colalspe at freefall speed - twice in one day.

Where is the energy to produce the dust ? Where did the enrgy come from to project it upwards and outwards ? Where did the energy come from to cause massive chunks of building to be thrown outwards and upwards ? I think the only possibility is bombs.

If the potential energy of the building caused it to collapse at very near freefall speed, an energy deficit exists to produce all these other effects. Energy deficits are not possible.

Have you read Seven Hours In September She is a Pentagon Colonel that was there at the time of the "crash". I'm sure you guys on this forum could teach her a few things but have a look at the document anyways. Just because she is a colonel does not mean she knows as much as you do - with all your expertise in physics & economics but have a look at it anyways.

PolyNewbie · January 20, 2007

Seven Hours In Sepetmber shows how the investigative group for the three trillion dollars that dissapeared from the Pentagon were all killed off except for one. The one remaining member of that group has been heavily promoted. The investigation is no longer being done and the three trillion dollars that magically dissapeared is gone. That is over 10,000.00 of additioal debt for every man, woman, & child living in the USA.

margrace · January 20, 2007

Unless one has had direct experience of how conspiracies work I would not believe in them. But having been the victim of one, albeit a small one as the world goes, I know that even if it takes 10 years evil people will figure out how to do it.

PolyNewbie · January 20, 2007

Watch 911 Mysteries Part1: Demolition and look at the evidence around 911 being a government conspiracy. There are piles of both circumstantial evidence for this as well as direct physical evidence.

There is no evidence that supports the official version - none at all. Zero. Zip. Its a fantasy.

frogs · January 20, 2007

I challenge government apologists everywhere to show that 911 was not an inside job.

I agree.. the carpenter's union was behind it all, but they had help from the steamfitters. But look at all the people that worked in the bldgs that can't steal our money anymore...

Riverwind · January 20, 2007

Where is the energy to produce the dust ? Where did the enrgy come from to project it upwards and outwards ? Where did the energy come from to cause massive chunks of building to be thrown outwards and upwards ? I think the only possibility is bombs.

I am saying you conclusion is BS because explosives could not add enough energy to the system to make up any energy 'deficit'. If you want to argue that the placement of the explosives was significant then you are basically saying your energy deficit analysis is irrelevant.

If the potential energy of the building caused it to collapse at very near freefall speed, an energy deficit exists to produce all these other effects. Energy deficits are not possible.

It is not possible to draw any meaningful conclusions by calculating the total energy of the system because there are way too many variables. For example, how can you know exactly what percentage of the concrete was pulverized in the initial collapse?

PolyNewbie · January 20, 2007

Riverwind:I am saying you conclusion is BS because explosives could not add enough energy to the system to make up any energy 'deficit'. If you want to argue that the placement of the explosives was significant then you are basically saying your energy deficit analysis is irrelevant.

You need both types of explosives - one type to cut critical beams and make the building go straight down, another type to convert everything to dust so that all those financial records go missing. Even hard drives were converted to dust in this explosion.

The existence of conventional building demolition explosives has been proven but there was another energy source to make this all happen the way it did. The enrgy deficit is real.

Riverwind:It is not possible to draw any meaningful conclusions by calculating the total energy of the system because there are way too many variables. For example, how can you know exactly what percentage of the concrete was pulverized in the initial collapse?

We know that nearly all the concrete was pulverized to dust. There was no a great big pile of debris after the collapses - the building practically dissapeared. Typically there is the 1/3 rule where the debris pile is 1/3 the height of the building. If you have seen ww2 pics after a bombing, piles of debris are where buildings used to be.

Riverwind · January 20, 2007

The existence of conventional building demolition explosives has been proven but there was another energy source to make this all happen the way it did. The enrgy deficit is real.

There is no conclusive proof of explosives so don't waste time claiming there is - the sulfur on the beams means nothing. You have demonstrated that the energy deficit is not real because you claim that a small amount energy added by explosives could cause a collapse.

Typically there is the 1/3 rule where the debris pile is 1/3 the height of the building.

Typically? Give me break. You have no facts. You are simply making up data to suit your hypothesis. There is simply not enough data to make anything more that an wild guess when it comes to calculating the energy of the system.

PolyNewbie · January 20, 2007

Riverwind:There is no conclusive proof of explosives so don't waste time claiming there is - the sulfur on the beams means nothing. You have demonstrated that the energy deficit is not real because you claim that a small amount energy added by explosives could cause a collapse.

Yes, but this could not account for the dust and the dissapearance of most of the building mass. When you look at ground zero in photos after the accident, one question immediately comes to mind: "where did all the building parts go". Its obvious that much of the buildings in the case of wtc1 & wtc2 just dissapeared.

No wonder no one could take pics at ground level right after the collapse....

Riverwind:Typically? Give me break. You have no facts. You are simply making up data to suit your hypothesis. There is simply not enough data to make anything more that an wild guess when it comes to calculating the energy of the system.

I don't know where I got it from but its called the "1/3 rule" in demolition. I think it was a Discovery Channel show on CD's

Riverwind · January 20, 2007

I don't know where I got it from but its called the "1/3 rule" in demolition. I think it was a Discovery Channel show on CD's

The 1/3 rule is not a fact - it is a guess that may or may not apply in all situations. Any 'scientific' analysis that presumes the 1/3 rule applies to the WTC towers is worthless.

PolyNewbie · January 20, 2007

Riverwind:The 1/3 rule is not a fact - it is a guess that may or may not apply in all situations. Any 'scientific' analysis that presumes the 1/3 rule applies to the WTC towers is worthless.

I'm not depending on that in any way. Anyone that looks at the evidence of 911 can see that much of the building was converted to dust and was not on the site after the accident. So therefore the buildings just didn't fall down.

Guthrie · January 21, 2007

I have avoided this thread til now. I've read just a few of the posts, mostly on the last page. I was going to ask a question. I am not going to ask a question. I do not want to know. I don't want there to be a conspiracy. I don't think it's a fun topic to speculate on.

jbg · January 21, 2007

jbg:Black Dog, Canadian Blue, Riverwind - Don't feed the troll.

You are just a typical lawyer and you couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper bag. Thats why our legal system is all about procedure and little else. We have morons that can only see as far as their own wallet in the profession.

You just another idiot lawyer that is full of hot piss and vineger and has absolutely nothing of even the smallest detectable degree of intelligence to say.

I do not like you, you are absolutely right about that one thing but nothing else.

Where did that piece of sh*t post come out of?

I said nothing about you;
I didn't mention you;
I didn't try to have anything to do with you.

guyser · January 21, 2007

I'm not depending on that in any way. Anyone that looks at the evidence of 911 can see that much of the building was converted to dust and was not on the site after the accident. So therefore the buildings just didn't fall down.

Guess you have never seen the videos of buildings being demolished ? Lots and lots of dust present.

Guess you have never been to Freshkills NJ where most of the steel , bargeload after bargeload was transported for inspection?

And of course , you did not for a second think about the fact that the WTC had basement levels? So there goes the 1/3rd arguement.

And we all know that the pile was only about 2 feet high , and that the workers cleaning the site fooled us by being sneaky and not working for the year and a half it took to clean up the site. They used a D9 and it was done in a day.

Psssssssssst......in wasn't built out of paper mache.

PolyNewbie · January 21, 2007

guyser:Guess you have never seen the videos of buildings being demolished ? Lots and lots of dust present

Exactly my point. Much of the building got converted to dust. This requires a lot of energy. Most of the dust created was projected away from the building at high speed, where did the enrgy for this come from ?

As far as the steel being shipped away, I'm not so sure of that. There is evidence for it, but this takes a long time to ship that much steel off site and early photos of ground zero do not show much building there.