Post Reply
Page 5 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Firefighters, Architects & Engineers Expose 9-11 from May 8, 2010
4 years ago  ::  Jan 27, 2011 - 7:46AM #41
Hatman
Posts: 9,634

Jan 27, 2011 -- 6:06AM, Istvan wrote:

Hatman,


No need to be petulant. I'm just wondering how seriously I should take your pronouncements on highly technical issues like structural steel failure, jet fuel combustion, and controlled demolition.


Bullshit.  And if you don't WANT a ration, don't hand one OUT.

Like I asked before, where did you train in these highly specialized disciplines? Do you have a degree in structural engineering? Do you have experience in preparing a building for deliberate demolition? How is it that you know exactly what we should expect when a fuel-laden jet hits a steel-framed skyscraper? How is it that you can differentiate between a building collapsing due to steel structural failure and controlled demolition?


-Istvan


First, i never addressed a single one of your "concerns" in my post; i mentioned multiple inconsistencies to/omissions from the "official" report.
Second, if you believe the gov't line, there ain't no help for ya. 
Third, when you're ready to address the ACTUAL content of my post, man up.

With goodwill to all the People-

Hatman

"History records that the moneychangers have used every form of abuse, deceit, intrigue, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance."
-- James Madison(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 27, 2011 - 8:16AM #42
Istvan
Posts: 124

Hatman,


Easy now. I thought truthers were all about free inquiry. Why are you so upset at someone asking questions?


I'm just wondering how you know what these "inconsistencies" in the official record mean. Have you got a degree in some engineering discipline? Do you know what effect fire has on structural steel? Have you ever assisted in the controlled demolition of a huge steel-framed skyscraper?


To address a couple of the points you made, have you ever seen a controlled demolition create "pools of molten steel" from the detonation? Is this really what happens in a demolition?


How likely would it be that a crew could saw through support beams in the WTC towers without being detected? How are you sure that the beam wasn't sawn during the cleanup after the building collapsed?


I'm just asking questions, Hatman, if that's still allowed.


-Istvan

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 27, 2011 - 2:39PM #43
Hatman
Posts: 9,634

Jan 27, 2011 -- 8:16AM, Istvan wrote:

Hatman,


Easy now. I thought truthers were all about free inquiry. Why are you so upset at someone asking questions?


Because i've been in these conversations dozens of times since 911 here, and i'm sick to death of jackasses who refuse to see what's staring them in the face.

I'm just wondering how you know what these "inconsistencies" in the official record mean.


i've got a brain, and i use it; i have eyes, and i use them. 

Have you got a degree in some engineering discipline? Do you know what effect fire has on structural steel? Have you ever assisted in the controlled demolition of a huge steel-framed skyscraper?


No to all of the foregoing questions.  i have seen multiple videos and examined the evidence provided by those who HAVE such disciplines, however.

To address a couple of the points you made, have you ever seen a controlled demolition create "pools of molten steel" from the detonation?


i have never personally seen such a thing; however, this question does not address the FACT of molten pools of metal under the towers.  Now, let me ask YOU a question in return: how do YOU think they got there, given the fact that jet fuel CANNOT melt steel?

Is this really what happens in a demolition?


Generally, from what i've been given to understand, thermite is used to swiftly slice through support columns in the controlled demolition of a steel-framed structure; since that compound MELTS steel, it is entirely likely that pools of it would form at low points, especially in buildings with LOTS of steel being melted.

How likely would it be that a crew could saw through support beams in the WTC towers without being detected?


Not likely at all; it's FAR more likely that late-night crews planted thermate and explosive charges.

How are you sure that the beam wasn't sawn during the cleanup after the building collapsed?


Again, simple common-sense.  If one desires to do demolition, one saws through the shortest point, not diagonally and in a vertical direction; OTOH, if one wishes to get a steel-framed building to fall, they will ensure that the cut beam will slide past itself with a diagonal cut rising vertically...but such a cut was never "sawn" at all; it was MELTED via thermate and a timed ignition charge.

I'm just asking questions, Hatman, if that's still allowed.


Respectful and non-snarky, non-bullshit questions will be answered; generally, with types like yourself, i see ZERO addressing of the veracity of any points raised, just "innocent" questions followed by holding up the answers given to ridicule, demeaning, and other base and scurrilous tactics.

Would you also like to address the seismic records of that day?
How about the multiple eyewitness accounts of additional explosions just prior to the in-the-footprint collapses?  Of all THREE buildings?
How about the recorded evidence of the newest renter of WTC 1&2 and 7, Silverstein(iirc) saying "pull it," in reference to building 7?

But i've seen how these debates go; generally, they proceed through 5 phases:
1.  Evidence is introduced that contradicts the "official" story.
2.  Said evidence is doubted, and demands for proof are issued.
3.  Proofs are provided, whereupon the credentials of those providing the proofs are questioned and doubted.
4.  Counter-arguments are raised, citing "official gov't sources."
5.  Debate deteriorates into divergent claims by contradictory "experts," none of which are the debaters themselves.

If this is where you intend to take this thread, count me out.  It's like trying to teach a pig to sing; a thorough waste of time, AND it annoys the pig.

If you are a proponent of the gov't story, which is full of bullshit intended to baffle the credulous and whip up anger against "da Moooslums," that makes you full of what they've handed out.

With goodwill to all the People-

Hatman

"History records that the moneychangers have used every form of abuse, deceit, intrigue, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance."
-- James Madison(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 27, 2011 - 4:08PM #44
Istvan
Posts: 124

Jan 27, 2011 -- 2:39PM, Hatman wrote:

Jan 27, 2011 -- 8:16AM, Istvan wrote:

Have you got a degree in some engineering discipline? Do you know what effect fire has on structural steel? Have you ever assisted in the controlled demolition of a huge steel-framed skyscraper?


No to all of the foregoing questions. i have seen multiple videos and examined the evidence provided by those who HAVE such disciplines, however.


Okay. It just seems like this is the most unnecessarily complicated plot in history. Conspiracies require subterfuge, but when the subterfuge becomes redundant, my bullshit alarm goes off.


If you want to mock up a terrorist attack, don't you want to make it look like a previous terrorist attack? If you want the WTCs demolished, why not just blow them up with explosives and blame the terrorists? That's exactly what terrorists had tried to do before, right? Then you don't have to hide the fact that it was a controlled demolition, rendering all this discussion of thermite and molten metal absolutely irrelevant.


The scenario you're proposing is just way too complicated to imagine anyone proposing it. Why have the buildings rigged for demolition, then fly planes into them? Wouldn't this disturb the demolition apparatus? Why let the buildings burn for an hour, with people running in and out the entire time, risking dismantling or exposure of the demolition equipment? Wouldn't it be better to just bring the buildings down instantly? Why make it so you have to have the Twin Towers each collapse from the point of the jets' impact? Why not initiate the collapse from the bottom, like every other controlled demolition in history? Why let building 7 burn for hours before you bring it down, then deny that it was a controlled demolition as well?


Does this seem like any controlled demolition that's ever taken place before? Does it seem like the kind of plot anyone would consider likely to succeed?


-Istvan

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 27, 2011 - 6:13PM #45
JoliverJOLLY
Posts: 440

Jan 26, 2011 -- 8:29PM, Hatman wrote:

Jan 26, 2011 -- 6:51PM, JoliverJOLLY wrote:


Jan 26, 2011 -- 4:36PM, Hatman wrote:


Shem- You may find this essay quite informative; i have verified it's content from multiple sources over many years, and this author is quite meticulous with his annotations in his books(albeit not in this essay). www.silverbearcafe.com/deception.html Look especially for the "Agitate - Insulate - Facilitate" strategy, in the sections concerning deceiving the People into fighting their wars and making the PtB barrels o' dough. There are just so many things that the "911 Commission"(meet the Warren Commission---in hell, you bastards)



 what can I say to that?


Did you read the linked essay?




I skimmed through it, the war on terrror a jounrey through history, a kinda how we got here piece the main stuff on 911 being at the end. 


 


Jan 26, 2011 -- 8:29PM, Hatman wrote:


Jan 26, 2011 -- 4:36PM, Hatman wrote:


failed to even address, much less prove or disprove, e.g. the seismic recordings from that day that showed additional explosions just prior to each collapse, the aerial infrared photography which showed pools of molten metal under the Trade center buildings for WEEKS after the demolition(even though it's rather common knowledge now that jet fuel canNOT melt steel), the military-grade therMATE dust which was found in the wreckage(therMITE is usually used to cut through steel columns like butter; therMATE burns faster and hotter), the DIAGONAL CUTS visible in some of the main support beams(visible in photography from the sites), the IDENTICAL collapse of Building Seven into IT's own footprint, and on and on and on. With goodwill to all the People- Hatman


Thankyou Hartman



You're welcome, but there's no "r" in "Hatman." Warmest regards- Hatman(no r)




Sorry Hartman without an R.


wont happen again

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 27, 2011 - 6:33PM #46
JoliverJOLLY
Posts: 440

Jan 27, 2011 -- 8:16AM, Istvan wrote:


-Istvan




This is chomsky on Afganistan, taken from BBC hard talk interview.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw3byxA8v8U&feat...


"Afganistan was not invaded to overthrow the taliban it was attack because George Bush demanded that the Taliban handed over Osama Bin Laden and associates to the united states, the Taliban.... said they might consider it, if America provided evidence, but america refused to provide evidence"


1.30 "8 months after 9-11 the head of the FBI said they believed that the plot was hatched in Afganistan but they couldn't prove it".


What was the evidence used at the time do you remember? It was a dodgy video with bad sound, and subtitles telling us what Bin Laden was saying, and that's it.


----


Besides that today we know that Bin laden had no real involvement at all, other than funding. If the line given by america is true that is.  


www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI2Uwm3ScR0


   

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 28, 2011 - 9:09AM #47
Istvan
Posts: 124

Jan 27, 2011 -- 6:33PM, JoliverJOLLY wrote:

Besides that today we know that Bin laden had no real involvement at all, other than funding. If the line given by america is true that is.  



I thought "the line given by America" is that bin Laden initially denied responsibility, because the Taliban were getting pressure to extradite him from Afghanistan. As soon as he was safely back in the mountains with his warlord allies, he admitted responsibility.


And the video that soldiers found in 2004 shows bin Laden acknowledging his involvement. If he's nothing but a fall guy, then why wouldn't the USA have aired this video right after 9/11? Why wait until long after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq?


-Istvan

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 28, 2011 - 4:14PM #48
JoliverJOLLY
Posts: 440

Jan 28, 2011 -- 9:09AM, Istvan wrote:


Jan 27, 2011 -- 6:33PM, JoliverJOLLY wrote:

Besides that today we know that Bin laden had no real involvement at all, other than funding. If the line given by america is true that is.  



I thought "the line given by America" is that bin Laden initially denied responsibility, because the Taliban were getting pressure to extradite him from Afghanistan. As soon as he was safely back in the mountains with his warlord allies, he admitted responsibility.


And the video that soldiers found in 2004 shows bin Laden acknowledging his involvement. If he's nothing but a fall guy, then why wouldn't the USA have aired this video right after 9/11? Why wait until long after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq?


-Istvan




Why would they have aired a video that they didn't have?(if your saying it would just be a fabrication, so why not realise it) They did air a video right after 9-11 claiming Bin Larden took responsibility, or rather that he was speaking about the attacks.  Why wait? added evidence found in cave.


Doesnt matter we know he wasn't really involved today anyway, as stated before.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 28, 2011 - 7:57PM #49
Istvan
Posts: 124

Jan 28, 2011 -- 4:14PM, JoliverJOLLY wrote:


Doesnt matter we know he wasn't really involved today anyway, as stated before.



How do we know this? I'm interested to hear.


-Istvan

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 29, 2011 - 10:21PM #50
JoliverJOLLY
Posts: 440

Jan 28, 2011 -- 7:57PM, Istvan wrote:


Jan 28, 2011 -- 4:14PM, JoliverJOLLY wrote:


Doesnt matter we know he wasn't really involved today anyway, as stated before.



How do we know this? I'm interested to hear.


-Istvan




Oh so basically you don't actually read what I say or look at the links, and just keep on defending the americans governments line.


Are you employed to defend it?

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook