WTC7 again.

[Kaishowing]

....During an introduction at a viewing of his video he stated, about the victims of 9/11, "The people are really secondary.."

Are they really? Then why dedicate your film to those victims? ...

I'm fairly sure that quote's been taken out of context.

Would you say the 2,403 victims of the Pearl Harbour attacks were secondary on a global level??
Or would you say that the US entering into WW II on the back of the attack was more important on a global level?

The loss of life detracts nothing from the fact that on an historical level the US entering into the conflict is the more important fact.

I've never heard anyone say that the loss of life on 9/11 was nothing other than tragic who wasn't in sympathy with the terrorists. Are you suggesting that Dylan Avery is a closet supporter of Al-Quaeda? Because that's a rather extreme statement even for this thread.

You applaud people for flexing their right of freedom of speech, but at the same time point out that you think it's disgusting how that freedom is used.

Well part of that freedom is that he's allowed to do that, and you're allowed to critisize him....But you and others seem to get so bent out of shape when people here use that same freedom when it's not something you agree with.
You may be opposed to what they say and vice versa, but when posts become exercises in how to get as close as possible to saying 'you're an idiot and a liar' without actually saying it, then why bother posting?

I hardly think by belittling someone that you'll change their point of view.

[MadPict]

I'm fairly sure that quote's been taken out of context.

You mean like the Conspiracy Theorists argument? Most if not all their 'evidence' is taken out of context. They quote a line from a page and say that is evidence it was a NWO conspiracy. They concentrate on one small fragment of an image and claim that is evidence the buildings were demolished.

I don't know what Avery is. I think he is a kid who just got mixed up with the wrong people. Alex Jones is not the sort of person I would want to have round for dinner. In fact I wouldn't micturate on him if he was on fire...
Dylan Avery made a big point that his video was in memory of the victims of 9/11 but it seems when interviewed by fellow CTs he soon forgets that those were real people that died and laughing and joking about them on a radio show does not make me think he is that sincere.

When they are not trying to show what serious filmmakers they are on shows that might pick holes in them, they revert back to being kids out for a laugh.

I feel that dishonours those who died. And their relatives are still around and can still be hurt by this whole "TruthTwister" movement.

You may not think it is such a big deal. Fair enough. I do.

Freedom of speech is about being allowed to air your views. Even if they are totally unbelievable. But while fred continues to post his material which questions the events of 9/11 I reserve the right (along with many others here) to point out the inconsistencies of his 'evidence'. If only to ensure that someone reading this thread gets a balanced viewpoint as opposed to just the view from fred's side of the fence.

Now I can't call anyone an idiot or a liar because some folk would jump down my throat and accuse me of abusing my position as a Mod blahblahblah...

And I hardly thing I'm going to change the views of fred etc. They are pretty entrenched in their beliefs. He says he knew on 9/11 it was an inside job. I'm glad he could cut through the sheer horror of watching those planes fly into the WTC to come to such a cut and dried conclusion.

And fred knew what reaction his creating this thread would get after the last WTC 7 - so if you can't stand the heat don't go into the kitchen - or should that be don't stand too close to the molten metal?....

[JAWS]

I knew on 9/11 it had to be an inside job and it wasn't entirely unexpected. I'd already read the Neocon manifesto when Bush was declared President by the Conservative judiciary in 2000. I knew the records of Cheney and the people he appointed to his staff from the 80s, I knew then the world was in big trouble.

I think that says it all. Roughly translated what fred is saying is, "Before anybody had the slightest idea what had happened (because on 9/11 nobody did have the slightest idea of anything other than it involved planes and buildings) I had already made my mind up that Bush and those close to him were to blame!"

I recognise the technique, it is one which has been used time and again down the centuries, "You will be found guilty and sentenced, all we have to do is find some sort of evidence and then we will hold the trial!"

This is the same person who insists that it is others who are the ones with closed minds.

[sweetheart]

The thing just collapsed, plus a lot of the dust spread over a wide area.

..but rheghead, you're a chemist. How many gallons of JP4 does it take to
melt 47 columns box columns 36 x16 inches 5 inches thick. I supposed in
your chemistry, buildings fall faster in the path of most resistance, high
tensile steel just 'melts' like butter and your house is powered by perpetual motion. The number of apparently scientifically literate persons who believe
that steel just flys apart in mushroom clouds from 1/2 hour fires is really
shocking.

The laws of physics just don't keep with 'the thing just collapsed'. How much
heat does it take to make an unextinguishable fire that lasts for 100 days and
register an earthquake of 2.7 tonnes of TNT (wtc1). Surely as a chemist,
you could caclulate the heat to turn 700 people in to sub-centimeter
fragments of dust and lodge them in an air conditioning vent on another
building. 700 people do not turn to dust in a building collapse.

[Kaishowing]

You may not think it is such a big deal. Fair enough. I do.

Freedom of speech is about being allowed to air your views. Even if they are totally unbelievable. But while fred continues to post his material which questions the events of 9/11 I reserve the right (along with many others here) to point out the inconsistencies of his 'evidence'. If only to ensure that someone reading this thread gets a balanced viewpoint as opposed to just the view from fred's side of the fence.

You're contradicting yourself while simultaneously puting words into my mouth that I never said. Who says men can't multi-task!

You get as outraged as a maiden aunt when someone suggests there's a clique of people unwilling to listen to non official theories (with the implication you're a member), but quite happily throw around 'Truth-Twisters' without batting an eye.
To look at it honestly, there IS a clique of people in this thread...two in fact, but I don't recall those who believe the oposite to you calling you a liar (which is what you're doing with the 'truth-twister' crack even indirectly).

And just to clear something else up, I never said you called anyone an idiot or a liar (although by implication you come close as early as post #20), what I said was :

but when posts become exercises in how to get as close as possible to saying 'you're an idiot and a liar' without actually saying it

But that the game now though isn't it? That's the only reason some people post here.

[Rheghead]

..but rheghead, you're a chemist. How many gallons of JP4 does it take to
melt 47 columns box columns 36 x16 inches 5 inches thick. .

Well that is the whole point isn't it? I don't think that the steel structure did melt so that is end of discussion as far as I am concerned. What I do think is that the fuel and materials did burn with such a ferocity that the heat lowered the G modulus of the steel to such a point that the structure buckled. The momentum just took over with all the weight above, that is physics.

Is it such a coincidence that the high-rise WTCs collapsed while WTC 4,6 didn't?

[MadPict]

I use the term "TruthTwister" not to indicate fred but those self styled "TruthSeekers" who take the truth, pick little bits out of it and present it as the whole fact. They are not seekers of truth in my opinion (which after all is what this whole discussion is about, opinion) but the twisters of facts.

And I couldn't give a flying toss about a clique here so the "maiden aunt" bit is erroneous - others have a bee in their bonnet about this mysterious clique.

If there is a clique here I suspect they look through a glass darkly.....

But that the game now though isn't it? That's the only reason some people post here.

Hey, it's easy - just don't click on the thread if you don't want to read anymore....

[fred]

You mean like the Conspiracy Theorists argument? Most if not all their 'evidence' is taken out of context. They quote a line from a page and say that is evidence it was a NWO conspiracy. They concentrate on one small fragment of an image and claim that is evidence the buildings were demolished.

Did you know that on the 10th of September 2001 Donald Rumsfeld announced that 2.1 trillion dollars was missing from the defence budget? That's more than a lot of money, put it in perspective, a million dollars is a lot of money, a million seconds is over 11 days, a trillion seconds is over 30,000 years, think about it.

What do you suppose happened to all that money? Where did it go? We will never know, by some strange coincidence the next day the area of the Pentagon which housed all the records, including the computers, was hit by a plane.

The entire story of 9/11 is one of one fantastic against all the odds coincidence after another. People like you take them one at a time and say "it's possible", people like me look at the entire picture and know it isn't.

Video footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon is among the evidence still being withheld, only one clip which shows nothing has been released but it should have been caught on several cameras.

All the truth movement, which includes family members of some of those killed on 9/11, want is a propper investigation with all the evidence made available. What have you got against that?

[Kaishowing]

If there is a clique here I suspect they look through a glass darkly.....

OUCH! Luaghed so hard a broke a rib!
Back into your Black helicopter Biggles!

[MadPict]

What have you got against that?

I'll be out of a job as a Nanobiotechnician working on Black Helicopters....

Chocks away....

[sweetheart]

Is it such a coincidence that the high-rise WTCs collapsed while WTC 4,6 didn't?

Really rheghead, do you know it takes a long time (longer than the fire) to
weld 2 railway sections using professional welding rig. Jet fuel cannot reduce
the modulus of steel... especially such a small amount without a blast furnace.

Those towers were 1 acre per floor, your thermodynamics simply does not
compute with the sheer amount of energy involved. We're talking about a
5x5x4 meter room of petrol here. I challenge you, that you could not produce
any forumula that would show how the tank of fuel managed to melt the
structure. The NIST hasn't. No physicist will put their reputation on the
line with such bollocks... are you? Explain how a 5x5x4 meter volume of JP4
vaporized 1 acre * 110 floors of 5 inches of conccrete in to dust,
and melted 60 foot sections of the core; AND dissolved 200,000
gallons of water that disappeared from the roof tank.

As well, your physics is really odd when WTC7 took 2 times as long to fall
as WTC 1... bigger falls faster, huh? Wow, were newton alive, even he
would turn in his grave.


But the most odd, you must confess, is how 2 asymetrical events caused
2 perfectly symetrical collapses when had you done any testing, an asymettric
even on a balanced tower causes an asymetric collapse.

You must please explain how a 5x5x4 volume of JP4 melted all 47 columns
to their modulus of total collapse in 1/2 an hour; even standard UK
university courseware says that's impossible:
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pro...teelMember.htm

[JAWS]

Quite right fred, Donald Rumsfeld did make that announcement on 10 Sept 2001.
What you are not mentioning is that the last time the Defence Departments Books were subject to audit prior to that was in 1995, in other words at the start of the Clinton Presidency.
You also fail to mention that there had been complaints from high ranking Officers in the Military complaining about poor accounting methods as long ago as 1975.

As usual, in order to support the idea of massive conspiracies by Bush and Rumsfeld etc. a small, specially selected part of a story has been plucked out as if it were the whole story.

A simple check reveals that the money had not suddenly disappeared but had been slowly lost over a period of decades. It would appear that, contrary to what you would like people to believe, Rumsfeld was not involved in some kind of Conspiracy but was putting into the Public Domain what others have been covering up for at least thirty years and probably far longer.

[sweetheart]

Notice how the hemel hempstead fire of significantly more fossil fuels melted
less steel and did not burn for 100 days. No serious person of science can
actually defend the official story. Its not even valid with A level physics,
let alone the need for university qualification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_He..._Terminal_fire

[JAWS]

The Hemel Hempstead fire? I didn’t realise that it involved any sky-scrapers or that it involved a couple of million tons of debris.

The biggest problem at that incident would have been from a Bleve from one surrounding tanks.

The circumstances bore no resemblance to one another.

[scorrie]

No, the case is still burst wide open Scorrie as thousands of responders and New Yorkers are dying from numerous types of cancers and will continue to do so for the next generation

Do thousands of people dying from abnormally high rates of cancer hold any evidence for you Scorrie?

I used to be an analytical chemist within the Nuclear Industry but I haven't lifted a pipette in anger in over 20 years so I am not up-to-speed with the latest DIY Nukeyersel possibilities.

I do remember that they used to use Tritium as a nightlight in LCD watches in the late 70's, so I am assuming that it is not that carcinogenic in nature. As far as 9/11 resulting in a cancer "hotspot" I can only refer to Chernobyl 20 years on and the fact that there is now no proven link with cancers, contradicting what was first thought.

As the American expert on the Horizon documentary so succinctly put it,

"Chernobyl is a piss-poor carcinogen"

[Rheghead]

I do remember that they used to use Tritium as a nightlight in LCD watches in the late 70's

There was a chemotherapy clinic on floor 78 in the North Tower, I am fairly certain that there could be the odd isotope there?

Also, tritium is used in specialist instruments like remote operated clinometers and theodolites. It is very probable that the WTC engineers used this type of equipment.

[Rheghead]

Really rheghead, do you know it takes a long time (longer than the fire) to
weld 2 railway sections using professional welding rig. Jet fuel cannot reduce
the modulus of steel... especially such a small amount without a blast furnace.

Those towers were 1 acre per floor, your thermodynamics simply does not
compute with the sheer amount of energy involved. We're talking about a
5x5x4 meter room of petrol here. I challenge you, that you could not produce
any forumula that would show how the tank of fuel managed to melt the
structure. The NIST hasn't. No physicist will put their reputation on the
line with such bollocks... are you? Explain how a 5x5x4 meter volume of JP4
vaporized 1 acre * 110 floors of 5 inches of conccrete in to dust,
and melted 60 foot sections of the core; AND dissolved 200,000
gallons of water that disappeared from the roof tank.

As well, your physics is really odd when WTC7 took 2 times as long to fall
as WTC 1... bigger falls faster, huh? Wow, were newton alive, even he
would turn in his grave.


But the most odd, you must confess, is how 2 asymetrical events caused
2 perfectly symetrical collapses when had you done any testing, an asymettric
even on a balanced tower causes an asymetric collapse.

You must please explain how a 5x5x4 volume of JP4 melted all 47 columns
to their modulus of total collapse in 1/2 an hour; even standard UK
university courseware says that's impossible:
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pro...teelMember.htm

The explanation is fairly straightforward if I give you an example.

It is possible that a light person can stand on top of an empty Coke tin if they stand carefully. If someone just happens to touch the can slightly and assymetrically on the side of the can then the can will crush symetrically. The disturbance doesn't need to be a lot, just a redistribution of the load will cause collapse. The WTCs were like a coke can, all the weight was mainly on the outside edges. In fact the hardest thing for them to do was to topple over as there wasn't any side ways force acting upon them.

In other words, the fuel and materials weren't needed to soften a large part of the framework to bring it down, just a small part to start the load redistribution process with all the weight above. I thought you were an engineer?

[scotsboy]

Roy wrote:

No, the case is still burst wide open Scorrie as thousands of responders and New Yorkers are dying from numerous types of cancers and will continue to do so for the next generation but, they are mostly ailing with blood cancers otherwise known as leukaemia caused by low levels of white blood cells which is exactly what exposure to radiation (including tritium which is a radioactive isotope) does to the human body. As proven horrifically in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do thousands of people dying from abnormally high rates of cancer hold any evidence for you Scorrie?

I read the report Roy, the highest sample analysis indicated 3.53nCi/L of tritium. If I can convert the nCi to Becquerels [Bq] (the SI unit for radioactivity – those Yanks still insist on Imperial Units), there are 37 Bq in one nCi, therefore at 3.53nCi we have around 130Bq l-1. I checked the Annual limit of intake for Tritium - that is the amount which if you took inot your body would give you equivalent of the whole body dose limit for a radiation worker (currently 20milliSievert (20mSv) – and it is 1.1GBq, so therefore about 100000000 times greater than the 3.53nCi level – but that was 3.53 nCi per litre so if someone was to drink quite a few thousand litres of the water, then they would get a dose of around 20mSv – the risk of which (for fatal cancer) is around 1 in 1 250.

[scotsboy]

Roy wrote:

No, the case is still burst wide open Scorrie as thousands of responders and New Yorkers are dying from numerous types of cancers and will continue to do so for the next generation but, they are mostly ailing with blood cancers otherwise known as leukaemia caused by low levels of white blood cells which is exactly what exposure to radiation (including tritium which is a radioactive isotope) does to the human body. As proven horrifically in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do thousands of people dying from abnormally high rates of cancer hold any evidence for you Scorrie?

I read the report Roy, the highest sample analysis indicated 3.53nCi/L of tritium. If I can convert the nCi to Becquerels [Bq] (the SI unit for radioactivity – those Yanks still insist on Imperial Units), there are 37 Bq in one nCi, therefore at 3.53nCi we have around 130Bq l-1. I checked the Annual limit of intake for Tritium - that is the amount which if you took inot your body would give you equivalent of the whole body dose limit for a radiation worker (currently 20milliSievert (20mSv) – and it is 1.1GBq, so therefore about 100000000 times greater than the 3.53nCi level – but that was 3.53 nCi per litre so if someone was to drink quite a few thousand litres of the water, then they would get a dose of around 20mSv – the risk of which (for fatal cancer) is around 1 in 1 250.

[sweetheart]

The WTCs were like a coke can, all the weight was mainly on the outside edges.

That's not true rheghead. There were 47 load bearing columns in the center
of the structure that carried the dead weight load. They just disappeared
apparently by your account and the NIST account... probably melted by
a fusion warhead about the only thing with the power to do such a thing
to such thick steels in such a short time.

Here is a result of an engineering test i ran, the big rock is your 'foot' on
a coke can. This failure is being caused by blowtorch as a previous
fossil fuels fire could not cause any damage to the steel.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...l-wtc-bent.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...l/P1180023.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...l/P1180027.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...l/P1180005.jpg