tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post6981384209911977987..comments2023-12-21T06:35:36.624-05:00Comments on Recursivity: 9/11 "Truthers" Meet their Waterloo - The Ron Craig TalkUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-30914547842983034742016-02-26T08:39:11.053-05:002016-02-26T08:39:11.053-05:00religion?, religion is Lie. Out religion and relig...religion?, religion is Lie. Out religion and religious from the Humankind´s Future!, and now "approval"tonyonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08253501266473243514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-34468424804843379072012-11-19T22:44:25.544-05:002012-11-19T22:44:25.544-05:00Watch this skyscraper which recently collapse to t...Watch this skyscraper which recently collapse to the earth in a blaze of hot building fire!<br /><br />http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2234694/Flames-engulf-luxury-34-story-high-rise-Dubai.html<br /><br />(or not.)<br /><br />Here are some of the top-rated comments:<br /><br />1) How come it hasn't collapsed into its own Footprint, they do in New York ???!!!<br /><br />2) Oh, i thought towers were meant to collapse when they caught fire!<br /><br />3) It will be interesting to see if this modern,high-rise,steel-framed building will collapse in its own footprint with a pyroclastic wave as a result of a fire, thus demonstrating the credibility of it having happened to towers 1, 2 and 7 in New york, 2001.<br /><br />7) Oh look another one that hasn't had a pinpoint perfect free-fall collapse from a bit of heat.<br /><br />8) The engineers of the 9-11 controlled demolition must be feeling verrryyy uncomfortable right now.<br /><br />9) Don't bother me until you've video of the building collapsing upon its own footprint at free-fall.<br /><br />10) Yea, don't buildings automatically collapse when they catch fire? Isn't that what they do to demolish buildings - just set them on fire and they collapse into their own footprint, no prob.<br />Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11165277170755988215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-6610304635019082322012-11-15T12:31:56.971-05:002012-11-15T12:31:56.971-05:00@annonymous -- "Demolition companies probably...@annonymous -- <i>"Demolition companies probably can't afford to crash planes into structures they wanted to demolish."</i> Think how easy it would be to smash few skyscraper columns and then light some fuel on a couple of floors. Demolition companies would be out of business once the word gets out! Keep this a secret please. No?<br /><br />@Shallit - <i>You</i> have STILL not explained the <i>free-fall acceleration</i> of WTC7. I'm waiting!<br /><br />Now let me correct my misstatement: According to NIST the planes' impact <i>did not cause</i> the Twin Towers collapses. In fact the [[impossibly]] hot office fires were essential to taking down the Twin Towers which would not have collapsed otherwise.<br /><br />Source: <a rel="nofollow">www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm</a><br /><br />NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:<br /><br />-- the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else [[that's false because there was a huge explosion in the lounge and bombs in the basement; but even IF so.. so what?!? demolitions can be engineered from the bottom up, inside out, or from anywhere else.]]<br /><br />-- 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, [[this is interesting -- did the plane use its kinetic energy to strip off the fireproofing, or to damage massively thick columns?]] and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations [[what about temperatures??]] and weaken the structure [[NIST never released any of their computer data models for scientific verification]] 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. [[office fires don't get hot enough to weaken steel buildings to totally collapse; perhaps partially (tipping over, etc.) but that's all. it's never happened before or after 9/11. ps if the towers had tipped I would have believed NIST's conclusions.]]<br /><br />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 City 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. [[that's a big big LIE; look at the huge ejection squibs! and the melted metal pooring out of the building just minutes before collapse! with the eye witness molten metal accounts, and photographs, and temperature maps!]]<br /><br />In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives. [[they later admitted that they never LOOKED for this, so of course they never found it. just read *** again. This is science?!?? The NIST report flies in the face of science.]]Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11165277170755988215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1861744819689588582012-11-15T10:29:48.221-05:002012-11-15T10:29:48.221-05:00Steve:
Stop lying. NIST never "[admitted] t...Steve:<br /><br />Stop lying. NIST never "[admitted] that the planes' impact did not have anything to do with the Twin Towers collapses". Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-82220080131780707822012-11-15T09:16:45.098-05:002012-11-15T09:16:45.098-05:00@anon: We're talking about WTC7 which was not ...@anon: We're talking about WTC7 which was not even hit by a plane. <br /><br />Also, NIST admits that the planes' impact did not have anything to do with the Twin Towers collapses, as they stood for aprox. an hour afterward that, and finally collapsed long after the jet fuel had been all burned up. (Think of the Chrysler building.) Therefore NIST claims office fires caused the skyscrapers to collapse symmetrically, which is just silly but people believe it anyways. If I'm wrong give me examples where fires have totally brought down skyscrapers (besides on 9/11).Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11165277170755988215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-55780962057829266552012-11-15T05:23:01.784-05:002012-11-15T05:23:01.784-05:00Winston Wu said "If an entire skyscraper can ...Winston Wu said "If an entire skyscraper can be destroyed and pulverized into dust by fire alone in a few hours..." Actually, as I understand it, the WTC towers were destroyed not by fire alone, but by large planes crashing into them at high speed. Demolition companies probably can't afford to crash planes into structures they wanted to demolish. (I could be wrong, though.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-72070817713610227042012-11-14T20:48:42.555-05:002012-11-14T20:48:42.555-05:00Amen Winston! This blogger is either full of bunk ...Amen Winston! This blogger is either full of bunk or guile. The experts have spoken out, and the evidence needs to be investigated. WTC7 free-fall acceleration = massive removal of building material simultaneously. Period.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11165277170755988215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-20946538849203556802012-11-14T20:28:09.027-05:002012-11-14T20:28:09.027-05:00If an entire skyscraper can be destroyed and pulve...<i>If an entire skyscraper can be destroyed and pulverized into dust by fire alone in a few hours, then why would demolition companies need several months to rig it with explosive charges to bring it down?</i><br /><br />Possibly because they want it to collapse neatly into its own footprint, and not take half a city block around it? Duh.<br /><br />(I know, I shouldn't waste time on fools. But that was too obvious to pass up.)<br />Steve Watsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06022832831084750602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-78126001607678950132012-11-14T13:12:35.813-05:002012-11-14T13:12:35.813-05:00Sorry you guys are totally wrong and deluded.
Her...Sorry you guys are totally wrong and deluded.<br /><br />Here is a common sense question: If an entire skyscraper can be destroyed and pulverized into dust by fire alone in a few hours, then why would demolition companies need several months to rig it with explosive charges to bring it down? Wouldn't they be out of business since all that trouble could be saved by just lighting a few floors on fire for a few hours? Duh.<br /><br />The jet fuel at best could only ignite office fires, which are about 1000 degrees Farenheit and far from the 2700 degree temperature required to melt steel. But even if it did melt the steel or caused it to weaken, still, it would not have caused the huge structural resistance underneath it to implode with no resistance and pulverize the concrete to dust. There is no basis for that. No miniature models have ever been able to replicate this.<br /><br />A building on fire deforms gradually and unevenly. And if parts of a building collapse, they will topple OVER to the side, not fall symmetrically straight down. That's a key point that the 9/11 propagandists can't explain or address. Not one 9/11 anti-conspiracy site has ever explained how fire could cause such a rapid collapse with no resistance from the structures. They can't because it's not possible to do so. Therefore, the authors of these anti-conspiracy sites must be either delusional, ignorant or agenda-driven. Many internet debunkers could also be paid shills and trolls. Google "FBI Cointelpro" to find out how the FBI has run infiltration programs on the internet.<br /><br />What the anti-conspiracy propagandists do is use cheap red herrings to try to dodge the fact that they can't explain this collapse. For example, they use the onset of the WTC and Building 7 collapse to add a few seconds to the time of their collapse, using those few extra seconds as a basis to try to discredit the notion of "free fall". But this is an irrelevant red herring, because the fact is, adding extra seconds to the collapse time does NOT change the fact that fire absolutely CANNOT account for this collapse in any way at all. In fact, fire cannot account for any of the 10 key features of the collapse (see AE911Truth.org for a description of all 10), whereas the controlled demolition hypothesis can. <br /><br />The masterpiece film by AE911Truth.org entitled "9/11 Blueprint for Truth" (which you can see on YouTube or at AE911Truth.org) goes over this point by point using the scientific method. Their new film "9/11 Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out" (also available on YouTube) is a must see and clincher. It features 50+ highly credentialed architects, engineers and scientists who explain why the official fire collapse theory given by the government and media has been totally debunked and why a new objective investigation is needed.<br /><br />In contrast, NONE of the apologists of the official 9/11 story that debated Richard Gage (Founder of AE911Truth.org) on various radio shows (including Coast to Coast AM) were ever able to explain how fire accounted for all the data. Not one. All they did was use red herrings to try to nitpick Mr. Gage's hypothesis, but offering no hypothesis of their own. This can only mean that their job was to discredit rather than to find the truth. Even if they were to prove Mr. Gage wrong (which they didn't) it would still not prove their fire collapse case. These apologists have also used lies and false facts. For example, Ron Craig claimed that the collapse of the Delphi building was the same type as the WTC collapse. Yet any cursory viewing of that collapse on video shows that it wasn't and that he was wrong. But as we've seen before, parroting false facts and lies is typical of anti-conspiracy propagandists.WWu777https://www.blogger.com/profile/04368933194799864846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-74593752573522102622011-01-17T05:10:08.661-05:002011-01-17T05:10:08.661-05:00Serval witness testimonies of molten steel at Grou...<i>Serval witness testimonies of molten steel at Ground Zero, including several members of NYFD:</i><br /><br />You're kidding, right? You can't just look at molten metal and say "Hey, that's steel." Most metals look alike, and molten steel doesn't like substantially different from any other molten metal. Without testing, it would be impossible to know if the metal was steel.<br /><br />As for critical thinking, I see no sign that you, nor any other truther, is capable of it. No truther has even given any viable scenario for why the government would both (1) set explosives and (2) attack with planes when evidently (1) would suffice.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-79753699383750864122011-01-17T02:29:47.437-05:002011-01-17T02:29:47.437-05:00Serval witness testimonies of molten steel at Grou...Serval witness testimonies of molten steel at Ground Zero, including several members of NYFD:<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM" rel="nofollow">click to see</a><br /><br /><br />Most tower wreckage from the crime scene was shipped away ASAP, only few evidence pieces remaining:<br /><a href="http://www2.ae911truth.org/images/gallery/moltenmetal.jpg" rel="nofollow">click to see</a><br /><a href="http://www2.ae911truth.org/images/gallery/swisscheese.jpg" rel="nofollow">click to see</a><br /><a href="http://www2.ae911truth.org/images/gallery/bentsteel.jpg" rel="nofollow">click to see</a><br /><a href="http://www2.ae911truth.org/images/gallery/moltensample.jpg" rel="nofollow">click to see</a><br />(<a href="http://www2.ae911truth.org/twintowers.php" rel="nofollow">more</a>)<br /><br /><br />Windsor Tower fire (high-rise steel buiding)<br /><a href="http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/news/library/wdt.jpg" rel="nofollow">click to see</a><br />--It collapsed at the top, but the building remained standing significantly unlike WTC 1,2,7.<br /><br /><br />Mandarin Oriental Hotel fire (high-rise steel buiding)<br /><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/09/beijing-mandarin-oriental-fire" rel="nofollow">click to see</a><br /><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jiYN6LpVvxs/TS-5YXx33TI/AAAAAAAAArE/Ux-BNMwwxfw/s1600/Mandarin+Oriental+Hotel.png" rel="nofollow">click to see</a><br />--Still under constructor, engulfed by 3-hour inferno; structure remained standing and intact.<br /><br /><br />McCormick Center fire (<b>!!NOT!!</b> a high-rise steel building, but an exhibition hall!)<br /><a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/mccormick.html" rel="nofollow">click to see</a><br /><br /><br /><b>In conclusion:</b> I'm still patiently waiting for you to find your critical thinking cap, which you proudly profess to posses everywhere on your blog. When you do, let me know and we'll continue to explore important unresolved issues and justice that can heal this country.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11165277170755988215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-74104661533469546352010-12-23T17:28:31.878-05:002010-12-23T17:28:31.878-05:00Molten steel claims debunked here: http://www.911...Molten steel claims debunked here: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.htmlJeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-37849719768382360752010-12-23T16:32:31.491-05:002010-12-23T16:32:31.491-05:00Steve:
Your response is a good example of the lie...Steve:<br /><br />Your response is a good example of the lies "truthers" have to resort to.<br /><br />Lie #1:<br />No one has produced a sample of the claimed "molten steel". There were other metals that could have easily been confused with steel. That was my point, which you ignored.<br /><br />Lie #2: The WTC is <i>not</i> the first and only time a fire has brought down a steel-frame building. Read about, for example, the McCormick Center.<br /><br />All "truthers" have is lies.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-20330218447609029742010-12-23T12:40:54.386-05:002010-12-23T12:40:54.386-05:00In fact: Your assertion has NOT been adequately ad...In fact: Your assertion has NOT been adequately addressed scientifically in the public discourse of 9/11 events.<br /><br />"Jet fuel is more than adequate to melt many metals that were in the structures."<br /><br />This is a highly deceptive comment. Of course SOME fuels can melt SOME metals. But jet fuel is a kerosene fuel. <a href="http://mepetroleum.com/jet_fuel.htm" rel="nofollow">Look it up</a>. It is not able to significantly weaken construction-grade steel (which was tested and approved by Underwriter Laboratories), let alone melt it. Furthermore, all metal wicks away/disperses heat. Therefore, the localized, organic fires moving around on a few floors cannot take down a building -- in a symmetrical, smooth descent -- as was witnessed on 9/11. IMPOSSIBLE.<br /><br />Need more examples? Look at this recent <a href="http://in-the-name-of-the-law.blogspot.com/2010/11/chinas-recent-towering-inferno-does-not.html" rel="nofollow">building fire in China</a>. I would like you to compare the buildings, and then explain to me why a ratty communist apartment building under renovation did not collapse from an 8-hour inferno, but 2 award-winning American buildings did after two hours on 9/11. And a third building that afternoon. For the first and last time in history. Seriously, explain all of this. :)<br /><br />Also, your denial of the vastly large melted steel at the base of all three towers for weeks after the demolition -- both photographic evidence and witness testimony -- IS truly pathological.Stevenhttp://ae911truth.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-67584332515386316592010-12-23T08:01:15.594-05:002010-12-23T08:01:15.594-05:00Clark:
All those issues have been addressed long ...Clark:<br /><br />All those issues have been addressed long ago. For example, jet fuel is more than adequate to melt many metals that were in the structures. <br /><br />If there is any pathology, it is in the truther crackpots that do not want to consider the evidence.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-21349001126468495032010-12-23T06:52:28.103-05:002010-12-23T06:52:28.103-05:00Watch 7 come down.
Watch all the videos of the col...Watch 7 come down.<br />Watch all the videos of the collapse, there are many of them. <br />Free fall speed...admitted to by NIST.<br />Molten metal for weeks under ALL THREE bldgs.<br />Where are the center collumns?<br />Dozens of witnesses claiming there were "explosions".<br />"News" reporters announcing explosions.<br />"Waterloo"?<br />You people are exhibiting a pathological level of denial.Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03412390189002556116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-38415435797126389442010-01-14T20:13:43.807-05:002010-01-14T20:13:43.807-05:00Steve:
Feel free to leave. No one here, as far a...Steve:<br /><br />Feel free to leave. No one here, as far as I can see, thinks you have much to contribute.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-23409569144252025762010-01-14T19:18:36.749-05:002010-01-14T19:18:36.749-05:00Or, people who are just tired of wasting time with...Or, people who are just tired of wasting time with complete idiots.<br /><br />And that wasn't a condition, it was actually a question. QED.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11165277170755988215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-46925281974587233282010-01-14T19:08:45.046-05:002010-01-14T19:08:45.046-05:00So, after I do explain it to you in a coherent and...<i>So, after I do explain it to you in a coherent and simple simple way for you, you'll agree to sign the petition for a new investigation? </i><br /><br />Only morons & liars place conditions on explaining themselves.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-91702076461546931942010-01-14T18:33:07.561-05:002010-01-14T18:33:07.561-05:00Not until you explain, in a coherent way, why molt...<i>Not until you explain, in a coherent way, why molten metals of low melting point cast any doubt on the generally-accepted account of what happened.</i><br />So, after I do explain it to you in a coherent and simple simple way for you, you'll agree to sign the petition for a new investigation? Did I read that right? Is that what you are saying?? If so, I'd be happy to.<br /><br />But somehow... I doubt that very much.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11165277170755988215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-87476308733933466502010-01-14T17:49:08.116-05:002010-01-14T17:49:08.116-05:00So, doesn't this mountain of testimony and evi...<i>So, doesn't this mountain of testimony and evidence call for a new investigation that logically considers and accounts for said evidence?</i><br /><br />Not until you explain, in a coherent way, why molten metals of low melting point cast any doubt on the generally-accepted account of what happened.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-78798686274634551482010-01-14T17:29:03.933-05:002010-01-14T17:29:03.933-05:00Eyes Wide Shut: Gross Negligence with NIST Denial ...<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM" rel="nofollow">Eyes Wide Shut: Gross Negligence with NIST Denial of Molten Metal on 9/11</a><br /><br />I hope you consider this important testimony very carefully.<br /><br /><i>They saw nothing in the week they were there that made them think that anything but what was reported at the time happened.</i><br /><br />I understand. I would have believed that same story at that time too. However, other firefighters DID see the molten metal. They gave testimony to it. As did many others who were there.<br /><br />So, doesn't this mountain of testimony and evidence call for a new investigation that logically considers and accounts for said evidence?Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11165277170755988215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-4713243113924164632010-01-13T21:38:44.658-05:002010-01-13T21:38:44.658-05:00Steve wrote
Would you then also agree that molten...Steve wrote<br /><br /><i>Would you then also agree that molten metal was probably found at Ground Zero? And that it even remained very hot for weeks after 9/11?</i><br /><br />Given the volume of material from the towers on the ground it wouldn't surprise me at all that the fire burned in the debris for days or weeks. And the finding of melted metal remains wouldn't surprise me a bit either. Whether it was still molten -- i.e., still liquid -- weeks later is not clear to me from the reports. That I'd have some doubts about.<br /><br />Incidentally, my department sent a 4-man specialist S&R team to the site just two days after the towers collapsed. They saw nothing in the week they were there that made them think that anything but what was reported at the time happened -- aircraft impacts on the towers with the structural failures attendant on fuel fire weakening the structure. In the photographs of the scene it's clear that the fires were well-ventilated and thus burned very hot.RBHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13562135000111792590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-84589514860436939462010-01-13T16:56:33.270-05:002010-01-13T16:56:33.270-05:00@RBH
Thanks, I appreciate your comments and your s...@RBH<br />Thanks, I appreciate your comments and your service as a volunteer firefighter for 30+ years. I would expect that someone more rude and idiotic than I to flat-out refute documented testimony here or elsewhere.<br /><br />But I would certainly not do a thing like that. i.e. I'll simply trust who you say you are. And what you say you saw. Benefit of the doubt, as they say. Testimony is a very valuable piece information in my books.<br /><br />Let me be honest with you here, and tell you that I am a software engineer, not qualified to give an expert opinion about building fires or collapses or metal droplets; instead, I refer people to the <a href="http://www.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/30min/slideshow.php?i=51&lores=1" rel="nofollow">testimonies of those who <i>are</i> qualified</a>, and who saw many amazing things on 9/11 that haven't been officially explained or accounted for yet. In fact, I've done this repeatedly here on this blog post, to no seeming avail.<br /><br />I am indeed amazed by your claim that you found molten metal drops in the debris of the inferno you fought. But I won't even deny or dismiss that fact. I trust your testimony because I believe that you have experience and nothing to gain from lying.<br /><br />Would you then also agree that molten metal was probably found at Ground Zero? And that it even remained very hot for weeks after 9/11? <br /><br />That is the testimony of witnesses who were at Ground Zero.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11165277170755988215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-56751361921682146612010-01-13T16:40:09.551-05:002010-01-13T16:40:09.551-05:00Thanks, RBH.
I find the truther obsession with &q...Thanks, RBH.<br /><br />I find the truther obsession with "molten metal" truly bizarre - as if there were no sources of combustion in the WTC towers that could burn hot enough to melt metals such as aluminum and and magnesium which were probably present. <br /><br />And similarly with "hot fires" - in such a volume of material, why would it be unlikely that some fires would continue to burn for days?Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.com