Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.
Ground Zero Building Catches Fire, Does Not Collapse
prisonplanet.com — The 40 story Deutsche Bank building next to the ground zero site in New York, where the world trade center once stood, caught fire yesterday and burned intensely for seven hours without collapsing
booyaman1- 476 diggs
- digg it
- Jockdoe, on 10/10/2007, -9/+67I don't understand why didn't it Explode? I've seen 3 buildings in lower Manhattan burn and they blew up?
- GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -32/+13Maybe because hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete didn't fall on it?
- Jockdoe, on 10/10/2007, -8/+26Maybe because hundreds of thousands of pounds of explosives didn't go off in it?
- imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -9/+9Do you have any evidence ot back up this claim?
- biggD, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=wtc+bombs+in+the+building+reports&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
- Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5no, we just come to conclusions like this overnight...
- Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4There has never been any evidence of any kind found that indicates that there were explosives of any kind found in the building. The theory of controlled demolition is wrong.
- biggD, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=wtc+bombs+in+the+building+reports&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
- imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -9/+9Do you have any evidence ot back up this claim?
- virtualdc, on 10/10/2007, -8/+13Hey Milktoast, you better recheck your facts. The Deutsche Bank Building did in fact suffer severe damage on 911. Lame attempt!
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -14/+7Did it also catch on fire? Also, it wasn't severe damage in the sense that it didn't impede the structural integrity of the building.
- virtualdc, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Check the headline agent Hornton. Perhaps you should concentrate on this digg exclusively. You're slippin'.
- ptrr, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10WTC5, next excuse Hortnon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnGt7Bd5sNo
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/World_Trade_Center_Site_After_9-11_Attacks_With_Original_Building_Locations.jpg - Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -11/+7No, I meant on 9/11/2001. At the same time it got damaged from debris.
- LadyKofNYC, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10Building 3 stood between the towers and was pummeled by both buildings. It was also on fire. Did it collapse?? NO!! It had to be bought down by controlled demolition a few weeks later. can you explain that?
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -14/+7Did it also catch on fire? Also, it wasn't severe damage in the sense that it didn't impede the structural integrity of the building.
- Jockdoe, on 10/10/2007, -8/+26Maybe because hundreds of thousands of pounds of explosives didn't go off in it?
- mrfreeziexp, on 10/10/2007, -21/+14How about we fly a plane into it and see how it fares?
- phenry50BMG, on 10/10/2007, -5/+25No plane hit WTC 7 yet it still fell at free fall speed within its own footprint.
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -17/+9No, it didn't.
- virtualdc, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15Oh yes it did agent hornton. Again you are here with the same old deny, deny, deny. Doesn't work anymore and you are not R Kelly.
- moogman5, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Yes it did fall into it's own footprint LIAR.
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -13/+6Yelling liar is the best proof I've seen you use yet.
- LadyKofNYC, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8It fell at free fall speed (between 6 and 7 seconds) straight down into its own foot prints.
- artemus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8Hort, Proof of what, exactly?
- Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Apparently these morons have never looked at a single picture of the debris pile from WTC7. Pathetic.
- virtualdc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4What is apparent is that you are a dis-info agent that is losing ground by the day. Your responses continue to degrade into pure baseless contradiction. Don't worry agent herkle, your GS4 pay will get you through.
- Jockdoe, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14All the worms are coming out of the woodwork.
- Jockdoe, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14Hi Horton, everyone say hello to agent Horton.
- theblueprint, on 10/10/2007, -7/+12Damn, Hort...
Early to start drinking on a Sunday. - moogman5, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Hey Horton...***** YOU!!
- theblueprint, on 10/10/2007, -7/+12Damn, Hort...
- imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -12/+8So you're telling me that the government flew two planes into WTC 1 and 2 and then decided to threaten their entire super secret conspiracy by using explosives in WTC7?
You're telling me that falling debris and an uncontrolled fire in WTC could never ever possibly cause the collapse WTC7?- jimmyb20032003, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12Imperium... I used to be skeptical, like you. I thought the truthers were retards. However, once I allowed myself to view just one or two videos, I realized there are some SERIOUS questions that need to be answered. Just look up WTC7 on youtube, you will view some shocking video. Ask people in the controlled demolitions industry what they think about WTC7. People ask how a conspiracy so vast could be contained in a shroud of secrecy. Well, I only recently discovered some of our government's illegal and unethical programs from DECADES ago. I only discovered them because of patriots, although eccentric, such as Alex Jones.
- moogman5, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9That's correct Imperium...There are Government witnesses who saw dead bodies in the 7WTC lobby and the aftermath of a huge explosion in the lobby of 7WTC before any of the Twin Towers blew up. Most of the damage to 7WTC came from the pre planted explosives which took out it's lobby and parts of the lower floors well before the Twins 'came down'.
Don't forget that plane at Shanksville...IT could have been on it's way to NYC as well....We just don't know for sure, but THAT's why we need arrests NOW and a new Investigation into this whole mess!
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -17/+9No, it didn't.
- moogman5, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14I agree with you mrfreeziexp...Let's fly a 767 fully fueled into an abandoned, condemned, steel frame skyscraper AS AN EXPERIMENT and see what happens. I bet $1,000 bucks that the buildings stays standing....Throw in a couple of tankers of jet fuel (kerosene) in there as well, who cares? Just yesterday they (whoever set the fires) couldn't bring down the old Deustche bank building! Two firefighters were killed and the building has already had Tower 2 slam into it 6 years ago, and now this big fire from yesterday...Guess whaat? That damn building is still there!!!
My money is on the buildings.
- phenry50BMG, on 10/10/2007, -5/+25No plane hit WTC 7 yet it still fell at free fall speed within its own footprint.
- kmckanna, on 10/10/2007, -4/+25I know why it didn't explode. Because a few weeks before, there weren't any "odd" evacuations of the buildings. The bomb sniffing dogs that are protecting the building weren't removed, because this time Bush and his culprits didn't plan on putting bombs in the building for a controlled demolition so Bush could get all of the power to make his Bills, and the other people involved could get rich off of the insurance policy that would have been put on the building literally weeks before it would have exploded. What I am trying to say is, this fire wasn't planned. WTC North South and WTC 7 were planned.
There we go.
I bet this sparks an entirely new investigation of burning buildings. How unlucky for Bush. Even though the WTC's had plenty more floors, WTC 7 wasn't much bigger from what I understand.
I have a feeling this is the next biggest step to finding out the truth besides the beautifully put together documentary, "Loose Choose 2nd Edition."- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -15/+8No, the documentary "Loose Change: Final Cut -We promise to stop revising the "facts" as they're debunked- Edition" will be the best yet!
- moogman5, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11Hortnon...I hate to say this again, but ***** YOU, YOU DAMN TRAITOR !!!
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -10/+6At least you took the time to refute my points!
Oh wait,.... - ajpalmieri, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4I would not call him a traitor. I believed the official story once too. I was tricked but I was not a traitor.
- dgmt4U, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Ohhhhh... OCTO-BURN! Caps lock insult is a sign of a true patriot.
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -10/+6At least you took the time to refute my points!
- LadyKofNYC, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7I seriously doubt you ever even watched loose change or any 9/11 truth documentaries.
- Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Well, then, you would be wrong once again, LadyK. But you should be used to being wrong by now. How could any of us so easily refute that trash if we hadn't watched it first?
- LadyKofNYC, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Do your self a favor Hornton/Herkimer and keep your user names straight. LMAO.
LOSER- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3It's pretty easy since I don't even know who Herk is beyond the username. And I'm not him.
- Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Again, if you're so convinced that we're the same person then by all means report os for TOS violations. If you're just talking out of your ass again then shut up and let the adults talk.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2I am actually LadyKofNYC, though.
- moogman5, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11Hortnon...I hate to say this again, but ***** YOU, YOU DAMN TRAITOR !!!
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -15/+8No, the documentary "Loose Change: Final Cut -We promise to stop revising the "facts" as they're debunked- Edition" will be the best yet!
- GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -32/+13Maybe because hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete didn't fall on it?
- Prodigal86, on 10/10/2007, -13/+69Obviously this building follows the old laws of physics, under which no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire. I guess it didn't get the memo on Sept. 11th that the world had changed. It can't cling to old laws of nature, the gov't will supply us with all the laws we need.
- Jockdoe, on 10/10/2007, -12/+7Very elegant remark, it was enjoyable to see the way that you got to the punchline of police state and spin.
Thanks - theblueprint, on 10/10/2007, -10/+8"Obviously this building follows the old laws of physics, under which no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire."
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095
Really? This building was comprised partially of steel, and had a concrete base. The portion of the building that was steel framed collapsed completely, whereas the concrete supported portion remained standing. Conclusive proof that fire weakens steel and causes collapses when said steel supports the weight of a building. - DucoNihilum, on 10/10/2007, -11/+10The WTC didn't collapse due to fire, it collapsed due to planes hitting it, AND a fire.
- LadyKofNYC, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Wrong, they collapsed due to well placed explosives.
- Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Prove it. Show me the trace evidence. Show me samples of debris displaying damage caused by an explosion. Show me residue from explosive devices.
- LadyKofNYC, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Wrong, they collapsed due to well placed explosives.
- Jockdoe, on 10/10/2007, -12/+7Very elegant remark, it was enjoyable to see the way that you got to the punchline of police state and spin.
- moogman5, on 10/10/2007, -6/+27Takes a lickin'....and another lickin'....and keeps on a tickin' ... =)
My condolences to the families of those poor lost firefighter victims of the bastards who purposefully set that building on fire.
We know who you are you bunch of evil murderous bastards!!- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -11/+6You know who they are? By all means, fill me in. I've been waiting for someone to find the people that planted the explosives. Y'know, real evidence?
- moogman5, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Your beloved president's little brother knows...He was there...Why don't you ask him?
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2No he wasn't. He left the company a year and three months before 9/11. And that company's WTC contract ended around 1998.
And he's most definetely not my 'beloved president'.
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2No he wasn't. He left the company a year and three months before 9/11. And that company's WTC contract ended around 1998.
- moogman5, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Your beloved president's little brother knows...He was there...Why don't you ask him?
- MrGrinchstick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Whats best is that they were actually dismantling it when the fire started.
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -11/+6You know who they are? By all means, fill me in. I've been waiting for someone to find the people that planted the explosives. Y'know, real evidence?
- orderoutofchaos, on 10/10/2007, -8/+35 NEW WTC 7 BOMBS WITNESS GO WATCH THE CLIP:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuUFAJ5Rrec - Bigtopher, on 10/10/2007, -0/+50God bless the firefighters that were lost.
- MasterThief117, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15God bless all the firefighters who risked their lives.
- cp833, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I think this is the one thing that we can all agree on here.
- MasterThief117, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15God bless all the firefighters who risked their lives.
- biggD, on 10/10/2007, -11/+27Digg brother is watching. He doesn't want Prison planet or Infowars or Jones report stories becoming "popular" and hitting the main page, even if they regularly get 300 to 500 diggs in 24hrs, totally dwarfing the majority of lame stories that do make the main page.
Praise Digg brother. He cares for the people enough to make sure they think the right thoughts and aren't overburdened with pesky details like honesty and integrity in reporting.- vault, on 10/10/2007, -9/+9So is it possible to disagree with you prisonplanet readers without being a hopeless government-kool-aid drinking sheep afraid of the truth? I mean seriously, is it? Because these stories always end up the same way.
Has it occurred to you some people are just not conspiracy theorists, don't work for the NWO, think Alex Jones means well but sensationalizes everything, and we just simply disagree with the rantings here? Or you've decided in advance everything is a lie and a conspiracy, and anyone who disagrees isn't worth the time of day?- tedez, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5All governments have a history of disinformation and sensationalizing everything that will advance their agenda. And willing participants will do government's bidding for their pieces of silver. That is a fact easily proved by reading the history of any government from the first government to the present, from national government to the selectmen on the town council. Why would not an intelligent thinking individual conclude that all government is sly and cunning and bear considerable watching.
- Herostratus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The fact that you still use the term conspiracy theorist means that you will be lumped in with the shills and bury brigadeers. Truther is the preferred nomenclature. If however you would like to use the word conspiracy, which many seem to enjoy using, then use it in conjunction with something other then theorist due to the pejorative use that this term has come to carry after so many Fox Newspeak specials. Thesist is my preferred word. Conspiracy thesist. It indicates something more then just an idea without base, and basis there is.
Strats
- GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -14/+9Alex Jones is watching this story too, hoping it'll get to the front page so that his ad revenue creeps a little higher.
Alex Jones is smarter than most people give him credit for -- he's smart enough to trick morons like you into making him rich.- Jockdoe, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Your ilk make me puke, so you must hate capitalism eh.
'Thou shalt not covert' comes to mind.- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5Hahahaha
Best.Retort.Ever.
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5Hahahaha
- Jockdoe, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Your ilk make me puke, so you must hate capitalism eh.
- theblueprint, on 10/10/2007, -8/+8"Digg brother is watching"
Don't flatter yourself. Most Diggers know the drill with Alex Jones sites, and bury this *****. Sensationalist headlines and allegations that are never supported by any verifiable evidence... let me know when Jones says something that can actually be proved.- artemus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Most Diggers? I don't even buy half. It would be nice to see how many diggers would vote for/bury a story like this- provided that the Diggbots didn't bury it before it reached the frontpage.
- vault, on 10/10/2007, -9/+9So is it possible to disagree with you prisonplanet readers without being a hopeless government-kool-aid drinking sheep afraid of the truth? I mean seriously, is it? Because these stories always end up the same way.
- plumber3, on 10/10/2007, -9/+23buildings only fall from fire when a govt./ worker or neo-con shill/welfare recipient says so
- dukeeeey, on 10/10/2007, -7/+34If you check the NIST report, they admit the building 7 fell in 7 seconds. If you do the math, you will see that if you dropped a ball in a vacuum from 228 metres up (height of wtc7) it would take 6.8 seconds to fall. So INCLUDING air resistance and the core of the building, only managed to offer 0.2 seconds resistance to the fall of the building, which is frankly obsurd.
If you dropped a ball from 228 metres up, it would probably take over 7 seconds to fall due to air resistance alone. Looking only at the collapse time, I can't see how it could be anything other than controlled demolition, unless the laws of physics were suspended on 911.- GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4Wait, so there were explosions on the top that pushed the building down?
- DucoNihilum, on 10/10/2007, -9/+5Well then, I guess you've proved the laws of physics wrong.
I don't understand this whole "OH WELL IT FELL TOO FAST, THUS EXPLOSIVES" thing.- HippyInASuit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Watch some video of a building undergoing a pancake style collapse, then watch video of a controlled demolition. There is absolutely no mistaking the two. A pancake collapse, which is the only "official" explanation of how the twin towers and WTC7 came down, can take hours and would certainly take several minutes at least. A controlled demolition is the only way you will see the building come down near free-fall speed.
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Pretty sure NIST debunked themselves on the pancake collapse theory...
- HippyInASuit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Watch some video of a building undergoing a pancake style collapse, then watch video of a controlled demolition. There is absolutely no mistaking the two. A pancake collapse, which is the only "official" explanation of how the twin towers and WTC7 came down, can take hours and would certainly take several minutes at least. A controlled demolition is the only way you will see the building come down near free-fall speed.
- macweirdo42, on 10/10/2007, -7/+8So what, the laws of physics were in on the attack? What the HELL are you getting at?
- dukeeeey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Imagine if you had a tree, 228 metres high. Can you imagine ANY scenario in which this tree would fall at free fall speeds. It would have to fall straight vertically into the ground to be able to fall at free fall speeds, because if it toppled the tree would offer an upwards force counteracting the force of gravity up to a point. This really is what we are talking about with WTC 7. Unless the tree spontaneoulsy turned into saw dust in mid air, i can't see how it would be possible for it to fall at freefall speeds. To me it seems a no brainer that it was blown up. It looked identical to classic controlled demolition, yet the propaganda has convinced people that apples aren't apples anymore, they are oranges.
- macweirdo42, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4Why the ***** would the government use a controlled demolition? If their goal is destruction and chaos, that's the last thing they want, numb nuts. Sorry for the language there, but your lack of logic absolutely astounds me. Even in the event that the government was responsible for 9/11, these crackpot theories make no sense. Why controlled demolitions? Why target specific buildings and be careful not to damage others? Do you realize what you're suggesting? Why would the government go to all that effort when they could just ram a couple of jets into a couple of buildings?
Oh, that's right, because if the government did just ram planes into buildings, there wouldn't be much evidence to support your idiotic conspiracy theory, and you wouldn't have anything to ramble about - I mean, sure, you could speculate about motivations, but that's about it. - imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3False analogy. A building is over 90% air. A tree is not. You take out the base of a building, it collapses, not topple over,
- macweirdo42, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4Why the ***** would the government use a controlled demolition? If their goal is destruction and chaos, that's the last thing they want, numb nuts. Sorry for the language there, but your lack of logic absolutely astounds me. Even in the event that the government was responsible for 9/11, these crackpot theories make no sense. Why controlled demolitions? Why target specific buildings and be careful not to damage others? Do you realize what you're suggesting? Why would the government go to all that effort when they could just ram a couple of jets into a couple of buildings?
- towne420, on 10/10/2007, -8/+27You can show the obvious and people still won't wake up!!!
- DucoNihilum, on 10/10/2007, -10/+7I feel the same way. No mater how many times the 9/11 truth movement gets debunked as stupid, they stick to their belief that it was an inside job.
- borepstein, on 10/10/2007, -5/+18It is a shame that those two firefighters died... RIP - and the speediest recovery to their colleagues who got injured - though, luckily, it sounsd like their injuries are not that severe.
As for the building's performance - let's not forget that it was considerably damaged on 9/11/2001, partly deconstructed, no longer properly equipped with fire protection - and yet it never collapsed after burning for much longer - and, possibly, at higher temperatures - than the fires of 9/11. - satanatnmtedu, on 10/10/2007, -26/+20It proves nothing. Did this building have it's insulation blow off by the impact of a plane? Was this building built at the limits of Engineering at the time? Did this building have an external steel structure that was part of the strength holding the building up?
You can't compare tow completely different incidents and use it to "prove" your insane rantings. If you believe that 9/11 was an inside job, then you have faith based on no scientific evidence. So, you are no better than a religionist (including atheists) who make statement based on faith rather than rational reasoning.- moogman5, on 10/10/2007, -13/+17Last dying words of a hopeless fanatical government apologist...
- nplace1, on 10/10/2007, -14/+6Come on, man. You can't honestly believe that because a building was on fire for several hours and didn't collapse, it proves that the twin towers had thermonuclear devices in the basement or whatever it is you troofers chant over and over. This post is a stretch of a stretch.
- Jockdoe, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8No i think the ignorant and afraid will always cling to the hope government isn't bad, but in your gut you know it. You must realize you are now in the minority which further riles your kind.
- macweirdo42, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4No moron, even if the government was behind 9/11, they wouldn't use controlled demolitions. That's just the most retarded thing I've ever heard of. The official cover story is two jets, the government would use two jets.
- Jockdoe, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8No i think the ignorant and afraid will always cling to the hope government isn't bad, but in your gut you know it. You must realize you are now in the minority which further riles your kind.
- nplace1, on 10/10/2007, -14/+6Come on, man. You can't honestly believe that because a building was on fire for several hours and didn't collapse, it proves that the twin towers had thermonuclear devices in the basement or whatever it is you troofers chant over and over. This post is a stretch of a stretch.
- terdblossom, on 10/10/2007, -5/+26WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane and it was 47 stories high. You need to understand that the steel in buildings in Manhattan is very flammable. Hence, there is a smoking ban in NY, so that the steel buildings aren't constantly catching on fire and exploding.
- GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -8/+8It wasn't hit by a plane, it was hit by hundreds of thousands of tons of falling steel and concrete from a building that had just been hit by a plane.
- mesogen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7So was this Deutsche bank building aka Bankers Trust, which had a huge gash down the entire side of it.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch6.htm- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3A gash?! o noes!
WTC7 had an entire corner missing, in addition to a massive ***** hole. - card51short, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7O noes! A massive hole! A "gash" i could see not coming down...but a "massive hole", OH THAT'S DEFINITELY GONNA FALL.
If WTC7 had "an entire corner missing", why wouldn't the building fall towards the damaged corner? Why is there NO clear pictures of "an entire corner missing"?
There is one picture you are talking about and it's concealed in smoke. Then you look further into it, AND IT'S NOT EVEN BUILDING 7. Show me pictures and I'll dismantle everything you say.
Why would over a hundred architects and engineers think it was controlled demolition? WWW.AE911TRUTH.ORG.
wtc7 was further from buildings 4, 5, 6 and the deutsche bank building. Why didn't those buildings fall yet building 7 imploded onto itself in 6 seconds with a few scattered fires?
Why does NIST still not have an explanation 6 years after the fact?
Why did FEMA say the building collapsed "due to fires"? This would mark the first time in history a steel framed structure had collapsed due to fires. Why no immediate investigation to see why a building can fall due to fire? Why didn't fire codes and insurance policies immediately change due to this new fact that fire can bring down huge buildings at near free fall speed? Oh yeah, but it was an architectural nightmare built on an Indian burial ground, right, deniers? The building's constructors failed to recognize it's one weakness: FIRE! That's plausible.
Why did the 9/11 Comission Report fail to describe anything about the collapse of WTC7?
Wake up, people...
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3A gash?! o noes!
- LadyKofNYC, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Building 7 stood a football field length away from the towers and there was a building between it and the towers.
Building 3 stood right between the 2 towers and basically had both towers fall on top of it. It was also on fire. Yet it did not collapse. Rather, it had to be brought down by explosives weeks after 9/11.
Building 6 stood right next to tower 1, and building 4 stood right next to tower 2. Both buildings 4 and 6 were on fire and suffered MUCH greater damage than WTC 7. Yet they did not collapse. They too had to be bought down by controlled demolitions weeks later.
Here's a map of the WTC campus, notice how buildings 3,4,5,& 6 were all much closer to the towers than building 7 was: http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/wtc_map.htm
The notion that WTC 7 spontaneously collapsed due to damage and fire is RIDICULOUS.
- mesogen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7So was this Deutsche bank building aka Bankers Trust, which had a huge gash down the entire side of it.
- GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -8/+8It wasn't hit by a plane, it was hit by hundreds of thousands of tons of falling steel and concrete from a building that had just been hit by a plane.
- BrianGO, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Do you even care about science? Or are you just afraid what family and friends think? Man up.
Molten steel was RECORDED on tape coming out of one of the Twin Towers. Man up to that.
Its orange color could NOT have been from computers or drywall or carpet or aluminum computers or desks. Man up to that. Don't be afraid.
The chemical composition of 911 dust has been found to have THERMATE compound in it. This is used to CUT STEEL LIKE BREAD. Man up to that.
NO ONE HAS COUNTERED THE ABOVE FACTS WITH ANYTHING. Man up to that and think for yourself for a change instead of blindly following the parade with its one liners and anecdotes.
Go along to get along did not win the Revolutionary War. I say this and I am a REGISTERED Democrat!!! However, I will probably vote for Paul.
- moogman5, on 10/10/2007, -13/+17Last dying words of a hopeless fanatical government apologist...
- nplace1, on 10/10/2007, -25/+18Dude...this building didn't have a jet crash into it. How is this evidence that 9/11 was an "inside job"?
Oh, it's not.- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -4/+20Jones is comparing this structural fire to the fire that took down WTC7, in which no aircraft was involved.
- jcm267, on 10/10/2007, -12/+6but debris from the other 2 towers was an issue.
- greenback1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10the Winter Garden, basically a giant glass green house, was at the same distance from the towers as was wtc 7 and withstood the debris and did no collapse. wtc 5 & 6, the buildings which stood between the towers and wtc 7, managed to stay standing after the north tower literaly fell on top of them causing massive fires and structural damage. 5&6 stayed standing and had to be brought down with controlled demolition weeks later. come on, get over yourself and stand up for your country. 9/11 was controlled demolition.
- Look4Truth, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Debris does not cause a structure to defy physics and implode Vegas-style within seconds. It's not rocket science folks.
- theblueprint, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Nope, it's physics, engineering, and architecture. Also, it's a lot of facts.
Things that you've openly ignored pushing the "controlled demo" ***** that Alex Jones endorses. - card51short, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8www.ae911truth.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
Many people agree that 9/11 was an inside job or needs to be investigated.
I can't believe people are saying debris brought it down when NIST themselves still can't find an answer. THINK ABOUT IT: HOW CAN DEBRIS NOT BRING DOWN BUILDINGS THAT WERE CLOSER TO THE TOWERS, SUFFERED MORE DAMAGE, BURNED FOR MUCH LONGER (AFTER 911), AND WERE MUCH SMALLER WHEN BUILDING 7 COLLAPSED ONTO ITSELF IN AROUND 6 SECONDS.
Couple that with the fact that Silverstein SAID "PULL IT"
Oh, right, he was talking about the firefighters. The fire chief was calling the building owner to ask what he should do with his men. His men were inside an evacuated building fighting fires during 9/11, the worst attack on history.
If you believe that Silverstein was talking about "pulling" the firefighters, then you have to ask yourself why firefighters would be inside a building where "an entire corner is missing" fighting fires while a huge rescue effort is taking place.
Why does it just so happen that "pull it" is a demolition term for bringing a building down?
Why is Silverstein's VERY next sentence "so we made the decision to pull then we watched the building come down". How does pulling firefighters make a building fall?
Wow people are in denial...
- theblueprint, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Nope, it's physics, engineering, and architecture. Also, it's a lot of facts.
- jcm267, on 10/10/2007, -12/+6but debris from the other 2 towers was an issue.
- BrianGO, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Oh, but it is.
If WTC7 imploded due to thermate compounds and/or explosives, then SOMEBODY IS LYING!!! HELLO? Anybody home???
If they lied about WTC7 then this obviously shreds up some of the wonderful credibility you think our government has. They knock down ONE building, but NOT the other two. Sure. Try harder. Your blind faith in the government is disturbing.
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -4/+20Jones is comparing this structural fire to the fire that took down WTC7, in which no aircraft was involved.
- XxFinalexX, on 10/10/2007, -22/+14Jesus Christ.
Did a plane smash into this building?
Could that have attributed to it not collapsing?- Jockdoe, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12Not according to the architects that designed the buildings no. http://www.jpradio.com/Archive/2001/09/11/asx/010911swi.asx
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5Slow moving, empty gas tanks, 707's.
Not fully-loaded 757's flying at ~500mph.
Fail, again and again, Jockdoe. You suck at this.- Jockdoe, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7If your in the fire your doing well. What you say only strenghtens the point i was making, of course wtc 7 didn't have a plane crash in to it, neither did the latest building that had fires at least equal to the wtc7 fire. I implore everyone to listen to the above news interview with one of the architects from the afternoon of 9/11.
- Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4And did any of the buildings have more than 12,00 gallons of diesel fuel stored in them besides WTC7? No, of course not. But please don't let that little fact stand in the way of your fantasies.
- Jockdoe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Oh of course its a fantasy that WTC 7 fell without a plane hitting it and without 100's of gallons of kerosene.
- card51short, on 10/10/2007, -1/+712,000 gallons of diesel fuel stored in a government building housing the NSA, CIA, FEMA, etc.
So where were the raging fires caused by the diesel fuels?
How would fire bring it down in 6 seconds?
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5Slow moving, empty gas tanks, 707's.
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -3/+20I believe Jones is comparing this structural fire to WTC7, which did not in fact get hit by an airplane.
- theblueprint, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5I believe Jones is making a huge stretch to continue pimping the tragedy of 9/11 by perpetuating lies.
- card51short, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7do you believe the family members are pimping the tragedy of 9/11? Bill Doyle, head of the largest group of 9/11 victim's families says the majority of his group thinks 9/11 was an inside job.
Watch 9/11 Press for Truth made by family members.
Do they not deserve to have their questions answered? What about the heroes of 9/11: firefighters, police and rescue workers who still state to this day that 9/11 was an inside job?
Are they pimping it?- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Yeah, they are.
- artemus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Really, in spite of the fact that they aren't making any money off of it? Wow, that's some kind of stretch. I mean, pimping something that doesn't actually benefit you in any way. What a concept!
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Yeah, because people don't crave that "15 minutes"
No, never.
- subman697, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Yeah, less than 1% of the families are involved, but I don't see you saying 99% of the families do NOT support Bill Doyle. Now why would that be?
- LadyKofNYC, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4More than 50% of the families want a new investigation. And if it wasn't for the families there wouldn't have been an investigation to begin with. Imagine that the biggest crime in US history, and our government had no intention of conducting and investigation. As it was, the families had to fight for over a year to get an investigation started. Conveniently, the investigation started after the crime scene had already been scrubbed clean.
- card51short, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7do you believe the family members are pimping the tragedy of 9/11? Bill Doyle, head of the largest group of 9/11 victim's families says the majority of his group thinks 9/11 was an inside job.
- Jockdoe, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Gouliani is the only person pimping 911 and perpetuating lies.
- Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4*****. Alex Jones, David Ray Griffin and the others are making a fortune off of you morons. That's what the truther movement is all about.
- Jockdoe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Allways money to your type, i guess that's why you do what you do.
- artemus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Do actually have an argument Herk, or do you think your lame brained comments actually pass for one?
- theblueprint, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5I believe Jones is making a huge stretch to continue pimping the tragedy of 9/11 by perpetuating lies.
- simbolo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4plus official story claims fire brought down the buildings not the impact of the planes.
FACED!!- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Faced?
The impact of the planes contributed to the fire bringing down the buildings.
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Faced?
- Jockdoe, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12Not according to the architects that designed the buildings no. http://www.jpradio.com/Archive/2001/09/11/asx/010911swi.asx
- Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -25/+12This is what happens when you get a bunch of truther idiots together unsupervised. They keep posting and reposting the same old lies and congratulating each other for being witless morons that swallow every scrap of garbage that Alex Jones and his lying buddies throw to them. This is just pathetic.
- virtualdc, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11Folks, Agent Herkimer has decided to bless us with his presence and worldly knowledge. Hi agent Herkimer.
- kag9000, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12This kind of thing happens when you get a bunch of Digg idiots who would rather peddle a flawed Inquiry and willingly let their masters subvert and corrupt the Constitution in return to be allowed to try to drag every other citizen down to their base unquestioning subservient level.
They keep posting the same old Government sponsored media lies and congratulating themselves for being the witless morons they are. That really is pathetic, - Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -9/+6Who's unquestioning? You people swallow this crap from Alex Jones with no question, no thought and no intention of finding out for yourselves if what he's telling you is true. Truthers are just mindless, ignorant herd animals that believe whatever their masters tell them.
- card51short, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Well are you going to tell us what evil alex jones is lying about or just call him a liar?
OK, we're just mindless. Go back to American Idol. Don't post here. - Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6The entire truther movement is based on lies. You insist that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition but there is exactly zero evidence to support your theory. You insist that Bush and company planned and carried out the attack and you have zero credible proof to support that theory. In fact, the truther movement has never produced any kind of real, credible, verifiable evidence to support any of their theories and those theories started with Alex Jones. So, yes, Alex Jones is a liar and a conman and you're a gullible idiot for buying his crap.
- Jockdoe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Man you have issues.
- artemus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Someone's touched a nerve, eh Herk? By the way, before you accuse any one of being an unquestioning moron, be sure to check yourself in the mirror, first.
- 1776jedi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Because only NIST, a Federal Government Agency, is capable of generating credible evidence when the Federal Government is suspect.
Nevermind that the office of the presidency has used 911 as an excuse to become the most powerful arm of the federal government, eliminated the constitutional protections afforded to the American People, or launched a preemptive war of agression on a nation that had nothing to do with even the "official" explanation of the events of 911. It is truther conspiracy ***** that PNAC, a think tank run by top Bush adminsration members, authored a paper the cited a "new pearl harbor" as neccessary to expand American hegomony around the globe, a year before 911. Dick Cheney, former Haliburton executive, was co-author of that document and stands to profit greatly from the war through no-bid cotracts handed to his former employer. Continuity of government plans, have been rewritten by the president to give him absolute authority, despite the fact that the entire point of COG is the continuation of the federal government in the event of the ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT IS WIPED OUT IN ONE FELL SWOOP. The simple fact that the PRESIDENT and his military Industrial Complex Cronies have vastly benefitted from the 911 attack throught the expansion of their power over the nation and the deficit spending given to defense contractors is all fabricated by Alex Jones in his quest to sell un-copyprotected DVDs to moronic sheep that have burned more copies of his movies than the original manufacturer has.
According to you Herk, it is profiterring when Alex Jones fear mongers about the government, but good journalism when billion dollar corporate news outlets fear monger about Osama hiding in a cave plotting his next big attack. Rupert Murdoch has probably made as much or more money from 911 than ten thousand Alex Jones' could.
But alas, I am merely an unquestioning moron that one day woke up to the fact that the only ones that have profited from 911 are the very people who promise to turn my nation into a police state and routinely ignore the Laws, balance of power, and Bill of Rights set forth in the Constitution to protect me from "terrorists" that hate me for my "freedom".- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1If you're just going to discredit any investigation that has any part of the government involved, you'll never get an investigation that you'll approve of.
- 1776jedi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Because only NIST, a Federal Government Agency, is capable of generating credible evidence when the Federal Government is suspect.
Nevermind that the office of the presidency has used 911 as an excuse to become the most powerful arm of the federal government, eliminated the constitutional protections afforded to the American People, or launched a preemptive war of agression on a nation that had nothing to do with even the "official" explanation of the events of 911. It is truther conspiracy ***** that PNAC, a think tank run by top Bush adminsration members, authored a paper the cited a "new pearl harbor" as neccessary to expand American hegomony around the globe, a year before 911. Dick Cheney, former Haliburton executive, was co-author of that document and stands to profit greatly from the war through no-bid cotracts handed to his former employer. Continuity of government plans, have been rewritten by the president to give him absolute authority, despite the fact that the entire point of COG is the continuation of the federal government in the event of the ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT IS WIPED OUT IN ONE FELL SWOOP. The simple fact that the PRESIDENT and his military Industrial Complex Cronies have vastly benefitted from the 911 attack throught the expansion of their power over the nation and the deficit spending given to defense contractors is all fabricated by Alex Jones in his quest to sell un-copyprotected DVDs to moronic sheep that have burned more copies of his movies than the original manufacturer has.
According to you Herk, it is profiterring when Alex Jones fear mongers about the government, but good journalism when billion dollar corporate news outlets fear monger about Osama hiding in a cave plotting his next big attack. Rupert Murdoch has probably made as much or more money from 911 than ten thousand Alex Jones' could.
But alas, I am merely an unquestioning moron that one day woke up to the fact that the only ones that have profited from 911 are the very people who promise to turn my nation into a police state and routinely ignore the Laws, balance of power, and Bill of Rights set forth in the Constitution to protect me from "terrorists" that hate me for my "freedom".
- card51short, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Well are you going to tell us what evil alex jones is lying about or just call him a liar?
- 1776jedi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Cue: Herkimer56 with adhominem attack
"Truthers are ignorent morons that are making Alex Jones rich by listening to his show free on the internet."
/sarcasm
- jcm267, on 10/10/2007, -23/+12Buried as spam.
- amdathlon65, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Why is it spam? Because you hate free speech?
- DucoNihilum, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Free speech is great, but we have a right to not like YOUR speech.
- artemus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Nor do you have a right to suppress viewpoints because they don't happen to be your own.
- Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Why did you bury his comment? Because you hate free speech?
- artemus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2No because it was an attack on HIS free speech.
- DucoNihilum, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Free speech is great, but we have a right to not like YOUR speech.
- Herostratus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3NO NO NO NO NO
You dont understand... Its spam because its a Digg not based primarily on a (PIC). DIGG is a (PIC) site. DIGG has always been a (PIC) site.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS HERKIMER- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Someday you people will realize that that kind of argument gets you nowhere.
- amdathlon65, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Why is it spam? Because you hate free speech?
- greenback1, on 10/10/2007, -6/+14Strange, how come the building didn't vaporize like wtc 1,2 & 7. Are we sure that the 40 story Deutsche Bank building was constructed with steel?
- Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5You do realize that the buildings didn't "vaporize" as you claim, don't you? If they had it wouldn't taken more than a year to clear ground zero. Do a little research.
- card51short, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8concrete was pulverized into dust. What caused enough energy to cause all that concrete in both towers to be smashed into powder?
If it was the plane impact, why didn't they come down right away? You're saying that continued burning fire pulverized concrete which is impossible.
And don't give us the pancake theory, even NIST has backed away saying it was "impossible" because of the speed of the collapse time.- Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3It's called "kinetic energy". Look it up.
- Jockdoe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yes but there wasn't the "potential energy" to start with, look it up.
- Herostratus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3DURRRRRR STEEL MELT HOT! DURR, FIRE HOT, DURR FIRE MELT STEEL. DURRRR, TROOFER STOOPID. ME HERKERMER
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS HERKIMER- CaptainNoPants, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3nap time over already? What now, show and tell?
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1You know, that doesn't make you look any smarter or more credible.
Just sayin'...
- card51short, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8concrete was pulverized into dust. What caused enough energy to cause all that concrete in both towers to be smashed into powder?
- Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5You do realize that the buildings didn't "vaporize" as you claim, don't you? If they had it wouldn't taken more than a year to clear ground zero. Do a little research.
- fitzgerald11, on 10/10/2007, -5/+16Well, its obvious it was controlled demolition that brought WTC 1,2,7 down. If you put all the evidence about the inside job "theory" right in their faces, still stupid neocons and shrewd zionists would say the bin ladins did it, and the foreign government in the US is the one who will save us all. Wiretapping, gun confiscation, cameras everywhere, your police state is here to protect you, neocons!
- jcm267, on 10/10/2007, -9/+8I'm a "guns for all" type. I think you should be allowed to own a tank if you would like to... Well, maybe not you guys.
Any more assumptions about us people who don't believe in Alex Jones' fairy tales? - Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4Obvious how? There isn't a single shred of evidence to support your controlled demolition fantasy so how is it obvious?
- subman697, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3All the evidence? You found a blast cap? wiring? The team of dozens of people that would have been needed to place the explosives? Video of the trucks delivering the explosives?
Oh, sorry, conjecture passes for EVIDENCE with you?
- jcm267, on 10/10/2007, -9/+8I'm a "guns for all" type. I think you should be allowed to own a tank if you would like to... Well, maybe not you guys.
- Look4Truth, on 10/10/2007, -4/+18Imagine that. Anyone else waking up?
- macweirdo42, on 10/10/2007, -16/+7God people are retarded. Even if the government WAS in on the whole 9/11 attack, why the ***** would they need to plant explosives? The collapse of the buildings wasn't necessary - I think ramming the planes into both of the towers would have been good enough on its own. Besides, it's a lot easier to cover up something if both theories have the exact same set of events.
- jcm267, on 10/10/2007, -13/+6oh boy! We have someone trying to defeat the troofers with logic! They are immune to facts and logic, all I find I really can do is bury their submission and ridicule it and their comments. It keeps them too busy trying to "show me" to go out and recruit more idiots to join their movement.
- virtualdc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Logic?! What logic?! You have none, zero, nada! All you have is the same lame old Monty Python response. "This is not an argument." Go big or go home jcm.
- theblueprint, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4Ok. if it's so cut and dried...
Why would the government need to blow up the towers instead of just ramming the planes into them? It's a legitimate argument raised in the comment jcm was replying to. Go big, or go home, virtualdc.- virtualdc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Oh, don't worry agent bluepen, I will always bring it full throttle. First, just because you claim something is legit, does not make it so. Second, don't bother me with this lame tripe as we all know why the towers where done. Third, why is it that you have to step in to fight for jcm? You don't have the juice bluepen.
- moogman5, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7M O N E Y and C O N T R O L ....!!!!! That's why they needed to blow the hell out of those buildings on 9/11.
- jcm267, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5blah blah blah Alex Jones blah blah Inside Job
- theblueprint, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3"Oh, don't worry agent bluepen"
http://bayimg.com/BAfkLAABo - 1776jedi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Simple,
1. Just ramming the planes into the buildings would not have been nearly as spectacular and
demoralizing, being necessary to garner support for offensive wars, ala PNAC.
2. Bringing the buildings down did a real good job of destroying the planes used, and covering
the evidence that they were not commercial jet liners full of passeners, but jet planes
modified to home in on a laser designator like a smart munition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB0msfbPecE - Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Any evidence that it was that kind of jet?
What about the people that saw a commercial jet hit the Pentagon?
- theblueprint, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4Ok. if it's so cut and dried...
- artemus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Blah, blah.blah, nutjob, blah, kook, blah.blah troofer, blah, you-have-no-facts- blah, blah, blah.
- virtualdc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Logic?! What logic?! You have none, zero, nada! All you have is the same lame old Monty Python response. "This is not an argument." Go big or go home jcm.
- moogman5, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Because the Government NEEDED those Towers to come down since the 1980's!! Go do some research for God's sake. Look up WTC Corrosion, WTC asbestos problem, etc. Use your head man! Silverstein's billions in insurance settlement don't exist either huh? Close to a Trillion Dollars in funding for two wars overseas??!!! Anything clicking yet?
- jcm267, on 10/10/2007, -13/+6oh boy! We have someone trying to defeat the troofers with logic! They are immune to facts and logic, all I find I really can do is bury their submission and ridicule it and their comments. It keeps them too busy trying to "show me" to go out and recruit more idiots to join their movement.
- MrGrinchstick, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16And the stink from lower Manhattan intensifies. Are there ANY firefighters anywhere who still believe the story we were told about 9/11 ?
- felchdonkey, on 10/10/2007, -19/+7OMG THIS PROVES IT THE JOOOOOOOS DID 9-11 AND BUSH HELPED THEM OMG OMG
/morons - babcat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18This is simply further confirmation that fire will NOT cause steel frame buildings to collapse! It's absolutely clear the buildings that collapsed on 9/11 did so because they were DEMOLISHED via controlled demolition! They did NOT collapse due to fire. Additionally, they fell at free fall speed. The only explanation for that is that explosives were used in a controlled demolition.
- imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4Was jet fuel involved? Are the buildings identical?
- moogman5, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Explosives were involved also and there is clear, documented evidence of thermate being used to melt the steel before, during, and after the events.
- imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4Was jet fuel involved? Are the buildings identical?
- felchdonkey, on 10/10/2007, -17/+6Consipiracy theorists follow a very similar logic to Creationists and other religious fundamentalists.
Religious nut: "I don't understand this, therefore GOD"
Conspiracy nut: "There are unanswered questions, therefore CONSPIRACY"- theblueprint, on 10/10/2007, -12/+5You're close, but not quite there.
Conspiracy nut: "I would like to believe that I have knowledge that makes me special. See? I'm special". - Look4Truth, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Brainwashed: "The government says, therefore it is."
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4Fixed:
"The science says, therefore it is" - theblueprint, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5It's not the government's word I'm taking... it's all of the combined experts that endorse the official account that I believe.
Siding with the people who know the most? Yeah, that's me. I don't go to commercialized websites hawking "cures" to imaginary ills.- artemus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4It's not a commercial site. How do you think websites stay online, anyway? Blind faith?
- artemus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4No, more like "The leader says, therefore it is". Not that you would know the first thing about science, anyway.
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4Fixed:
- virtualdc, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Belchdonkey is regaling us with words of wisdom. All hail Belchdonkey.
- theblueprint, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5His comments are invalid because you came up with a lame rhyming nickname? Convincing argument.
- virtualdc, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Both are statements not an arguments Bluepen. Is this the best that you can muster? Go back and work on your propaganda because this ain't gettin' it done hoss.
- artemus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5We're still waiting for you to make even one argument- minus ad hominem attacks and character assassination, of course.
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1See above. If you haven't seen any of our evidence you're blind and/or retarded.
Claiming here that we haven't presented evidence may fool people only looking for your comments, but it doesn't fool anyone with a brain.
- theblueprint, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5His comments are invalid because you came up with a lame rhyming nickname? Convincing argument.
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5Be prepared to be called a government shill/agent, a neocon socialist, and a sheep. Then you'll be told to wake up.
I mean, you disagree with them, so it must all be true.- Jockdoe, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5"For those with the eyes to see and ears to hear"
- Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4And brains to think
- artemus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Of which, you have very little.
- Jockdoe, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5"For those with the eyes to see and ears to hear"
- theblueprint, on 10/10/2007, -12/+5You're close, but not quite there.
- theNazz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Kraftwerk had it right all along... Interpol and Deutsche Bank, FBI and Scottland Yard, CIA and KGB, controlling data, memory ... computer world...
- Jockdoe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Yeah Vitamin by Kraftwerk pokes at the pharmaceutical industry too.
- macweirdo42, on 10/10/2007, -12/+7Either the government was responsible or terrorists were responsible.
Either two jets blew up the buildings, or controlled demolitions did.
Now, troofers, I want you to pay very close attention here. The buildings didn't have to be blown up with controlled demolitions for the government to be responsible. You keep arguing as if those two facts are inseparable. The government could've used two jets, just like the terrorists. It's all quite simple.
My point - either the government was responsible or not, and it has nothing to do with the method used to blow up the buildings. So how come there aren't any troofers out there arguing that the government just used two jets, huh? Seems to me there'd be a huge scism in the "truth" community over which method was used to blow the buildings up, but you never hear about it. Kinda leads to a loss of credibility there... Oh well, just my rambling.- moogman5, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7But they were blown up and the jets did minor damage to a tiny part of the whole structure...So YOU need to either do some research or stop taking a paycheck from the bastards that did it, ok? Happy now?
- macweirdo42, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Look, just go home and come back when you're willing to be rational. What the hell are you talking about? If the government did it, I'm of the opinion that they used jets. It makes far more sense. But apparently suggesting any other theory than the official troofer catch-phrase is being in complete support of the government. I'm willing to consider the possibility that it was an inside job, but I just find the troofer version of events to be absurd. It makes no ***** sense. Why the ***** wouldn't they use jets?
- imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3What is wrong with you? The jets only did minor damage? Where the hell did you pull that out from? What the hell were those huge gaping holes in the buildings from? You're claiming that high speed jets weighing thousands of tons did only minor damage?
- artemus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Minor structural damage, yes. The planes could not have gotten at the under infrastructure of the building.
- imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3What do you mean by that? The core center structure or the base structure at the bottom of the building?
- artemus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Minor structural damage, yes. The planes could not have gotten at the under infrastructure of the building.
- BrianGO, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You know the people in the truth movement are not paid corespondents, their not professionally paid skeptics or any of that stuff.
Obviously the government will deny. Obviously skeptics who are paid to write skeptical articles will deny.
Science does NOT EVER EVER EVER deny. You can make all the suppositions you want about ANYTHING, but until you back it up with SCIENCE and or LOGIC it really does not matter. Thermate was found in the WTC dust. A skeptic would say, "well that was from the thermate they used to cut up and hall away the pieces." Problem is the dust was found several blocks away. If you cut up a steel beam with thermate it might "travel" a few feet.
The truth movement needs to focus on the strongest evidence instead of getting caught up with all the back and forth. DEBATE THE RAW SCIENCE. Once you get past the science then you can worry about the WHY and the WHO. Until then science and nothing but science.- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Thermate was not found. Sorry.
- moogman5, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7But they were blown up and the jets did minor damage to a tiny part of the whole structure...So YOU need to either do some research or stop taking a paycheck from the bastards that did it, ok? Happy now?
- Look4Truth, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15It's interesting to read the bashers comments on here. It's so strange how some people are so brainwashed that they can't see an imploded building when they see it, even when it's compared to one of the many demolished buildings. The government says "X caused Y" and they believe it. Heh, it would be funny if it weren't so tragic. Gotta hand to the NWO, they sure do know how to brainwash people. But thankfully people are starting to wake up from their slumber. The question is, is it too late? That's a question I don't like to ponder.
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4On behalf of the NWO, I thank you. Our use of science and evidence is really amazing. If only we could just flat-out lie and make ***** up like the truthers, than we'd really get somewhere.
- theblueprint, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Yeah, we Illuminati get stuck with poisoning the water supply with fluoride. And contract murders.
- card51short, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6www.patriotsquestion911.com
are these twoofers making ***** up?
owned.- theblueprint, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4It's a combination of truthers making ***** up, taking quotes out of context, and general douchebaggery.
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Yes, they are.
A website existing != proof of a global conspiracy.
- card51short, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6www.patriotsquestion911.com
- theblueprint, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Yeah, we Illuminati get stuck with poisoning the water supply with fluoride. And contract murders.
- Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6It's not the government's story, it's the information from reliable, credible sources that convinced me that you people are totally wrong. You drew your conclusions first and then went in search of facts to support those conclusions. However, the facts clearly do not support your conclusions so you simply ignore the facts or deny that they're true. You have yet to provide even one piece of credible, verifiable evidence that supports your theories but you continue to insist that you're correct. Being ignorant is no sin but choosing to remain ignorant when the truth is right in front of you is tragic.
- 1776jedi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3How is the NIST report not the governments story. NIST is an agency of the Federal Government.
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4On behalf of the NWO, I thank you. Our use of science and evidence is really amazing. If only we could just flat-out lie and make ***** up like the truthers, than we'd really get somewhere.
- cp833, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12OK so... let me get this straight now.
No building had ever collapsed into its own footprint before 9/11, yet Building 7 did even though it wasn't struck by a plane, and had fires on only one side.
The BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 before it happened, and also managed to say with 100% accuracy the reasons for its collapse, even though it hadn't actually happened yet and this kind of thing was unprecedented.
'Lucky' Larry Silverstein just so happened to take out a multi-million dollar insurance cover against terrorism in the weeks and months before the attacks.
'Lucky' Larry Silverstein went on camera saying the decision was made to 'pull it'
Many firemen testify to hearing explosions coming from Building 7.
Building 7 is completely omitted from the 9/11 commission report, as though it never happened.
Years later, another building catches fire in the same area, yet this time does not collapse. Not even a little.
So all of this, yet.... some people STILL choose to deny there is anything wrong here. Just how much does it take?!
Every new thing that comes out like this in general seems to make the official version harder and harder to believe. But some of you still choose to deny there is anything wrong!! I'm not trying to argue with you I am just genuinely curious exactly WHAT it would take before you finally stop and think 'maybe there IS something not quite right here..'
And before you say 'where's your evidence'... it's called 'connecting the dots'.. a logical conclusion reached from taking into account all the factors. It's how all the best detective work is done.
1+1=2.- imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4That is just stupid. Here are the points you stated::
WTC7 collapsed unusually in a situation that has never happened before.---explosives?
The BBC made a false report during a bad/chaotic day.---BBC was told of a collapse of a minor building as part of the conspiracy?
Silverstein renewed his insurance policy which all big buildings are required to have. ----yes and what?
Silverstein said 'pull it'...----and what?
Firemen and people testify to hearing explosion-like sounds but never seeing any.---and these sounds couldnt have been falling debris or bodies?
WTC7 was not a goal of the 9/11 report.----What was you point with this omision?
A different building burns under completely different cicumstance and doesn't collapse.---what was your point?
If you call it detective work, you're a bad detective. You've made bad logical leaps and deductions without any evidence to support any of your assertions. - moogman5, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8This forum is infested with people who take money from the Government or are contractors making tons of money from 9/11's aftermaths...How else could you explain such insane, illogical loyalty to the official story ?
- salvadordali, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"imperium 2000" The name says it all.
Enough said to that drone.
- salvadordali, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"imperium 2000" The name says it all.
- imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Now I'm a government shill? This shows your complete intellectual dishonesty and how disingenuous you are. Anyone questions your beliefs, you call them part of the conspiracy.
- artemus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3No, it's the way you defend them. If you can manage to make sane, rational arguments without resorting to name calling, or scorn- then we'll start to take you seriously. Until then, tough luck.
- imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Have I resorted to name calling? Scorn definitely since his statement was illogical but I have yet to call him anything more...yet.
- BrianGO, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Well you said, "it was just STUPID." So yes.
- cp833, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I fail to see what is 'illogical' or 'stupid' about it. What is illogical and stupid are the constant excuses you debunkers keep coming up with in a desperate attempt to justify the official version even though some of them are REALLY pushing the boundaries of credibility, perhaps even to the point of being insulting to the intelligence.
It's like a kid who gets caught stealing sweets and has to make up some really lame excuse like 'it wasn't me, i tripped and as i was falling down the wind blew them into my hand just at the same time you saw me'.
WTC7 collapses.. the CTer's say 'how did this happen? could it be explosives?' but according to you this is an outrageous claim. What REALLY happened was, random debris fell down into the building, which just so happened to strike some gas canisters. This caused an explosion which in turn caused a fire, which eventually spread out evenly across the entire building causing it to collapse in perfect symmetry. Believable? Apparently, according to you.
Larry Silverstein says the decision was made to 'pull it'. I have read your sides attempts to 'debunk' this (notably Popular Mechanics), it is frankly ridiculous. Apparently its so obvious that he meant 'the firemen' when he said 'it'. Yeah of course he did, because a group of people are commonly referred to as 'it', aren't they? It is outrageous to think he would be referring to a singular object as 'it', since when do people do that?
So instead of saying on camera 'we decided to get everyone out', he said 'we decided to pull it', but obviously was talking about the same thing. And he was very lucky in that he also happened to make a huge profit from the collapse of those buildings. What a lucky guy. Yeah, that's what happened.
And the BBC's 100% accurate prediction of Building 7's collapse, this has to be the most laughable explanation yet. Once your side had stopped screaming 'blue screen!! its a fake!! got to be a FAKE!' and were proven wrong, it then became 'yeah but it was the CONFUSION!! In the midst of all the chaos they just made a mistake!!'.. even though this was some hours later and the scene was much calmer, they reported everything 100% accurately, and Jane Stanley's feed just happened to be cut right before the building collapsed... again, must have happened because of the CONFUSION!!
I don't know why I have bothered to write so much because I doubt you will even for a second stop to think that maybe the version of events you choose to believe is a little ridiculous. Oh well, at least I tried to restore some sanity I guess.. - cp833, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3FFS... WHY does Digg's new system condense it all into one paragraph? How incredibly irritating.
- salvadordali, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Oh no, "imperium 2000" how could anyone ever think that you might be a government shill!!
- artemus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3No, it's the way you defend them. If you can manage to make sane, rational arguments without resorting to name calling, or scorn- then we'll start to take you seriously. Until then, tough luck.
- BrianGO, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4cp833. We need to refrain from subjective evidence because it can always be defended. For example, OJ Simpson defended himself because the defense shifted to motives and race instead of evidence.
We really need to stick with raw science because I would LOVE to hear them refute science. You can always have a semantics boxing match. But you can NEVER refute raw science, you can only say, "well even though the science says that I still don't believe it because our government is too nice to do a thing like that."
- imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4That is just stupid. Here are the points you stated::
- onetimer, on 10/10/2007, -14/+5Wanna know why this ***** was buried again, you truther idiots? Because your fuzzy science and total lack of physical evidence does not fool the smarter part of the digg population. You will NEVER get this kind of ***** to the front page as long as I'm here.
- Jockdoe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5You have a rather large opinion of yourself ^^
Digg cant stop the truth, some people wont except it even when it becomes released by F.O.I.R in 30 years.- Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3I think, rather, that he has a low opinion of the truthers. I know that I do.
- moogman5, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Go ***** yourself onetimer!! We're getting to the very bottom of this and there's not a damn thing you can do to stop this investigation and case against the bastards that blew the hell out of those buildings and recently set fire to the Deustche bank building. Who owns the mainstream media onetimer?! Can you even begin to answer me that one question?! You suck man...pathetic!
- card51short, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5notice the anger from the deniers when they post on digg. I mean you can actually see them frothing mad that someone is questioning their government.
They are so brainwashed they think that the government paces around nervously thinking of ways to protect them and would never do harm when it's the only constant entity in HUMAN HISTORY that has caused severe amounts of destruction and pain throughout the world. Of course, they usually start meaning well.
I just am amazed at such anger and hate from people with alternate theories concerning 9/11.
You realize there are tons of family members, fire fighters and rescue workers who all say the same thing as us "twoofers" right? Are they insane?- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5How much money have you given to Jones? I'm assuming it's a lot, based on your comment.
- artemus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Really, is that the best you can come up with? Really I'm disappointed. You act like a robot controlled to act on demand To use a football analogy- stop going by the play book, and improvise a bit.
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2What else am I supposed to say to as nonsense a comment as he made?
- 1776jedi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Exactly $21.95 for a copy of Terror Storm. ($1.96 went to UPS for shipping because they're money grubbing bastards that only send things if you pay them first). Which I have now duplicted and distributed around 50-60 copies, not including any second generation copies that may have been duped from my distribution.
In fact I've given more money to Wal-Mart for blank DVDs than Alex Jones for that one copy I bought. And you know what? I'm ***** glad to have bought it, as there are at least a hundred people that I've helped to wake up. If I had more money I'd buy a copy of every movie he had, but alas I must watch them for free on youtube instead. Oh yeah, i also gave $2.00 to Arron Russo for three copies of America From Freedom to Fascism, and downloaded Loose Change 2nd Ed for free and have been giving them away too. How much Money have you given to the Federal Reserve System Horton? $40,000 $50,000?
- artemus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Really, is that the best you can come up with? Really I'm disappointed. You act like a robot controlled to act on demand To use a football analogy- stop going by the play book, and improvise a bit.
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5How much money have you given to Jones? I'm assuming it's a lot, based on your comment.
- Jockdoe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5You have a rather large opinion of yourself ^^
- imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4That is just stupid. Here are the points you stated::
WTC7 collapsed unusually in a situation that has never happened before.---explosives?
The BBC made a false report during a bad/chaotic day.---BBC was told of a collapse of a minor building as part of the conspiracy?
Silverstein renewed his insurance policy which all big buildings are required to have. ----yes and what?
Silverstein said 'pull it'...----and what?
Firemen and people testify to hearing explosion-like sounds but never seeing any.---and these sounds couldnt have been falling debris or bodies?
WTC7 was not a goal of the 9/11 report.----What was you point with this omision?
A different building burns under completely different cicumstance and doesn't collapse.---what was your point?
If you call it detective work, you're a bad detective. You've made bad logical leaps and deductions without any evidence to support any of your assertions. - Clintoon, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13Ounce again more evidence that the official story is a lie. Wake up America!
- macweirdo42, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6***** off, moron. You people are really beginning to piss me off. I'm utterly convinced that the government is evil. They sent how many thousands of soldiers off to die in the desert? And that wasn't covered up at all. So you see, I'm clearly not a government apologist. Numb nuts, there are other reasons to be against this ridiculous theory, but you've got your head so far up your own ass that you can't see the light of day.
Now, *****, if you were truly concerned with the pursuit of the "truth," you wouldn't be so concerned with pursuing this absurd theory on nothing more than blind faith. You "truther" jackasses simply came up with a theory, and then proceeded to struggle to make the evidence fit the theory. Anyone truly concerned with the truth would see that this issue would realize that this is not a black and white situation. There are many possible alternatives, but no one on your side seems interested in pursuing those. For example, maybe the government was responsible, but merely crashed two jets into the buildings. Or maybe they secretly supported the terrorists. Or maybe, who knows, maybe they found out, and just didn't do anything to stop it. There are many possible theories, but you jerk offs are so fanatical you can only look at this through tunnel vision. Anyone who claims anything different from your story of events is a government-led sheep. You ***** nuts, so concerned with the "truth," have done nothing more than create a false dichotomy, and then blow off anyone who disagrees. And this is why I have not one ***** ounce of respect for the goddamn "truth" campaign. You're not concerned with the truth at all, only in being right.
Who the hell knows? Maybe, just maybe, the government IS responsible, and brain-dead morons like yourself are merely providing a distraction. Oh hell, maybe the government's even responsible for the conspiracy theories - make them sound so absurd that no one thinks twice. No place better to hide than right out in the open, eh?- moogman5, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Hey man...The firefighters, police, 9/11 victims families, survivors, etc. are mostly ALL on our side. So when you call people in the truth movement names and insult them...YOU'RE ALSO INSULTING THE THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES AND HUNDREDS OF SURVIVORS & FIRST RESPONDERS who believe the official story is a LIE. Have you watched some of these documentaries? Have you read Prof. Steven Jones chemical analysis on the WTC steel? Have you talked with people who were there when it happened? Come on man, don't support the people in Government who hate you...We're in the same boat here man...They (the White House) are laughing at us!!
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1No they're not. Stop lying blatantly.
- salvadordali, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3
what are you talking about?
You say the Gov may be responsible, but the "truthers" are idiots for trying to find out?
So what shoud they do, just write viscious, hopeless attacks on Digg against people who are actually doing something to find out, even if they aren't perfect? - LadyKofNYC, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Macweirdo42, it sounds like you've just recently begun to wake up to the government's lies about 9/11 and you're confused and very angry about it. So angry in fact that you don't know where to direct your anger.
- moogman5, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Hey man...The firefighters, police, 9/11 victims families, survivors, etc. are mostly ALL on our side. So when you call people in the truth movement names and insult them...YOU'RE ALSO INSULTING THE THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES AND HUNDREDS OF SURVIVORS & FIRST RESPONDERS who believe the official story is a LIE. Have you watched some of these documentaries? Have you read Prof. Steven Jones chemical analysis on the WTC steel? Have you talked with people who were there when it happened? Come on man, don't support the people in Government who hate you...We're in the same boat here man...They (the White House) are laughing at us!!
- macweirdo42, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6***** off, moron. You people are really beginning to piss me off. I'm utterly convinced that the government is evil. They sent how many thousands of soldiers off to die in the desert? And that wasn't covered up at all. So you see, I'm clearly not a government apologist. Numb nuts, there are other reasons to be against this ridiculous theory, but you've got your head so far up your own ass that you can't see the light of day.
- MisterMills, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Can someone post the link the metallurgical analysis that 'Investigation' put out. I remember reading it a while back and being fairly surprised at the sulfur content. In any case I though I would point a few things out. If I recall correctly the WTC buildings were constructed using ASTM A36 grade structural steel and certified fire resistant to another ASTM standard. To get more to the point, it is very unlikely that there was enough heat generated by that fire to cripple the steel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel
JET A-1 (Commercial Jet Fuel) Open air burning temperatures: 260-315 °C (500-599 °F) Maximum burning temperature: 980 °C (1796 °F)
Maximum burning temperature can only be achieved by creating the perfect air/fuel ratio which is very unlikely to occur inside of a building.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phase_diag_iron_carbon-color_temp.png
Looking at the jet fuel open air burning temperate versus the Iron-Carbon phase diagram it is pretty easy to see that the temperature reached would not even put a tinge in the steel's colour. I would be interested in seeing some elevated temperature K1H (fracture toughness) values for A36 steel as well as some elevated temperature tensile tests.
I'm no structural engineer but I am a welding technologist/metallurgist. The whole WTC/7 collapse thing just doesn't sit right with me. - card51short, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17TIME TO OWN ALL THE HATER TROLLS ON THE BOARD:
WWW.PATRIOTSQUESTION911.COM
WWW.AE911TRUTH.ORG
Please tell me why 500+ professionals (some even on the 9/11 Comission before resigning) have serious questions about 9/11 and believe there is a huge cover up?
Or why 150+ architects and engineers would put their names on the line to "make up *****" about the collapsing of the buildings on 9/11?
Just do some investigating with an open mind. Think about it. All of history is ruled by tyrannical government. 200+ million alone were killed last century by governments alone around the world. Our government enslaved a race of people.
Not all government is bad and evil but when people aren't active in politics, corruption ALWAYS seeps into places of power. It's human history. Just realize that it can happen here and to inform yourself. Or you can just simply laugh it off and deny it. That's easy.
I was for Bush and for the wars 3 years ago. I have completely done a 180 now that I actually participate in politics and study profusely.
Of course the very idea sounds insane. Why would the government want to hurt us? Then you study history and what freedom really is then you find out who has the motive and the means.
I'm sorry we have to bring you guys this news, trust me, we're not happy about it.
911 was an inside job.- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4ae911 allows anyone to sign up and claim they have any credentials. There's no credibility.
- puto, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6And of course they changed that however you keep using it in your argument. Very dishonest on your part.
- card51short, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4If you had any investigative skills, you would find out that 140 of the members are VERIFIED architectural and engineer degree holders. There are 309 people that just signed up as "students" involved in architecture but don't have their degrees yet.
If you think they are fake people with no credentials, then PLEASE, PLEASE investigate EACH member for yourself and then show us your findings. Don't simply write them off as nonsense with no investigation. That is the worst thing you could possibly do when trying to win an argument.
Didn't hear any problems with the second website (www.patriotsquestion911.com). Are they just people who signed up?
- card51short, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4If you had any investigative skills, you would find out that 140 of the members are VERIFIED architectural and engineer degree holders. There are 309 people that just signed up as "students" involved in architecture but don't have their degrees yet.
- puto, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6And of course they changed that however you keep using it in your argument. Very dishonest on your part.
- theblueprint, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3I find your use of caps intimidating.
- subman697, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Conspiracists: are these people liars, dupes, or shills?
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E.
Alan Rosa, P.E., S.E.
Allyn Kilsheimer, P.E.
Amit Bandyopadhyay, S.E.
Amy Zelson Mundorff
Anamaria Bonilla, S.E.
Andrew McConnell, S.E.
Andrew Mueller-Lust, S.E.
Andrew Pontecorvo, P.E.
Anthony Kirk US&R Structural Specialist
Anthony W. Chuliver, S.E.
Antoine E. Naaman, Ph.D.
Antranig M. Ouzoonian, P.E.
Arlan Dobson, FEMA Region 2 DAS
August Domel, Ph.D., S.E., P.E.
Bernie Denke US&R Structural Specialist
Bill Cote
Bill Coulbourne, P.E., S.E.
Bob Gray (I.U.O.E.)
Bonnie Manley, P.E., S.E.
Boris Hayda, P.E., S.E.
Brian Lyons, Tully
Brian McElhatten, S.E.
Brian Smith (Col.), Chief Deputy Medical Examiner, Dover AFB
Charles Hirsch, M.D.
Charles J. Carter, AISC
Charles Thornton, P.E.
Charlie Vitchers
Christopher E. Marrion, P.E.
Christopher M. Hewitt, AISC
Chuck Guardia, S.E.
D. Stanton Korista, P.E., S.E.
Dan Doyle (IW 40)
Dan Eschenasy, P.E., S.E.
Dan Koch Jr.
Daniel A. Cuoco, P.E
Daniele Veneziano, P.E.
David Davidowitz, ConEd
David Hoy, S.E.
David Leach, USACE
David M. Parks, ME
David Peraza, P.E., S.E.
David Ranlet
David Schomburg
David Sharp, S.E.
David T. Biggs, P.E.
Dean Koutsoubis, S.E.
Dean Tills, P.E.
Delbert Boring, P.E.
Dennis Clark (IST)
Dennis Dirkmaat, Ph.D.
Dennis Mileti, Ph.D.
Dennis Smith
Dick Posthauer, S.E.
Donald Friedman, P.E.
Donald O. Dusenberry, P.E.
Ed McGinley, P.E.
Ed Plaugher, Chief, Arlington FD
Edward A. Flynn, Arlington Police Chief
Edward Depaola, S.E.
Edward M. DePaola, P.E.
Edward Stinnette, Chief, FCFD
Fahim Sadek, P.E., S.E.
Farid Alfawakhiri Ph.D.
FDNY Battalion Chief Frank Vallebuono
FDNY Captain Anthony Varriale
FDNY Chief Frank Cruthers
FDNY Chief Frank Fellini
FDNY Chief Joseph Callan
FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro
FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti
FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
FDNY Firefighter Sam Melisi
Francis J. Lombardi, P.E.
Frank Gayle, Sc.D
Gary Keith, V.P. NFPA
Gary Steficek, S.E.
Gary Suson
Gary Tokle, Asst. VP, NFPA
George Tamaro, P.E., S.E.
Gerald Haynes, P.E.
Gerald Wellman US&R Structural Specialist
Guy Colonna, P.E., NFPA
Guylene Proulx, Ph.D.
H.S. Lew, P.E., S.E.
Hal Bidlack, Col. USAF (ret.)
Harold E. Nelson, P.E., FSFP.E.
Harry Martin, AISC
J. David Frost, Ph.D., P.E.
Jack Brown Deputy Chief Loudoun County (Va.) Fire Rescue Department
Jack Messagno, WTC project Manager (Tully)
James A. Rossberg, P.E.
James Chastain US&R Structural Specialist
James H. Fahey, S.E.
James Lord, FSFP.E.
James Milke, Ph.D., P.E.
Jan Szumanski, IUOE
Jason Averill, FSFP.E.
Jeffrey Hartman, S.E.
Jim Abadie, Bovis
Joel Meyerowitz
John Gross, Ph.D., P.E.
John Hodgens, FDNY (ret.)
John J. Zils, P.E., S.E.
John L. Gross, Ph.D., P.E.
John Lekstutis, P.E.
John M. Hanson, Ph.D, P.E.
John McArdle NYPD/ESU (DTC)
John Moran, NYPD/ESU (NTC)
John O'Connell
John Odermatt (NYC OEM)
John Ruddy, P.E., S.E.
John W. Fisher, P.E.
Jon Magnusson, P.E., S.E.
John Ryan, PAPD
Jonathan Barnett, Ph.D
Joo-Eun Lee P.E., S.E.
Joseph C. Gehlen, P.E., S.E.
Jozef Van Dyck, P.E.
Juan Paulo Morla, S.E.
Karl Koch III
Karl Koch IV
Kaspar Willam, P.E., S.E.
Kenneth Holden
Kent Watts
Kevin Brennan, OSHA
Kevin Malley, FDNY (ret.)
Kevin Terry, S.E.
Kurt Gustafson, P.E., S.E.
Larry Keating (IW 40)
Lawrence C. Bank, Ph.D., P.E.
Lawrence Griffis, P.E.
Leo J. Titus, P.E.
Leonard M. Joseph, P.E.
Leslie E. Robertson, P.E., S.E.
Long T. Phan, Ph.D., P.E.
Lou Mendes, P.E., S.E.
Louis Errichiello, S.E.
Manny Velivasakis, P.E.
Mark Blair
Mark Kucera, USACE
Mark Tamaro, P.E
Mark Volpe, IW 40
Marty Corcoran
Matthew G. Yerkey, P.E., S.E.
Merle E. Brander, P.E.
Mete A. Sozen, Ph.D., S.E.
Michael Burton, P.E.
Michael Dallal
Michael Hessheimer, S.E.
Michael Tylk, P.E., S.E.
Mike Banker, FDNY Capt. (SOC)
Mike Marscio, P.E.
Miroslav Sulc,, P.E., S.E.
Mohammed Ettouney
Morgan Hurley, FSFP.E.
Nestor Iwankiw, Ph.D., P.E.
Nick Carcich
Norman Groner, Ph.D.
Pablo Lopez, P.E., S.E.
Paul A. Bosela, Ph.D., P.E.
Paul F. Mlakar, Ph.D., P.E.
Paul Sledzik
Paul Tertell, P.E.
Pete Bakersky
Peter Chipchase, S.E.
Peter Rinaldi, P.E.
Pia Hoffman
Rajani Nair, S.E.
Ramon Gilsanz, P.E., S.E
Randy Lawson
Raul Maestre, P.E., S.E.
Raymond F. Messer, P.E.
Reidar Bjorhovde, Ph.D., P.E
Richard Bukowski P.E., FSFP.E.
Richard G. Gewain, P.E., S.E.
Richard Gann, Ph.D.
Richard Garlock, P.E., S.E.
Richard Kahler US&R Structural Specialist
Robert C. Sinn, P.E., S.E.
Robert F. Duval (NFPA)
Robert Frances US&R Structural Specialist
Robert J. McNamara, P.E., S.E.
Robert Ratay, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
Robert Shaler, M.D.
Robert Smilowitz, Ph.D., P.E
Robert Solomon, P.E.
Robert Wills, AISC
Ronald Hamburger, P.E., S.E.
Ronald J. LaMere, P.E.
Ronald Rehm, Ph.D.
Ronald Spadafora, FDNY D.A.C
Ruben M. Zallen, P.E.
Russell "Rusty" Dodge Jr, Asst. Chief, Fort Belvoir FD
S. Shyam Sunder, P.E., S.E.
Saw-Teen See, P.E.
Shankar Nair. P.E., S.E.
Shawn Kelly, Arlington County Fire Marshal
Socrates Ioannides, P.E., S.E.
Sonny Scarff
Stan Murphy, P.E.
Stephen Cauffman
Steve Rasweiler, FDNY B.C. (SOC)
Stuart Foltz, P.E.
Terry Sullivan, Bovis
Theodore Galambos, P.E.
Theodore Krauthammer, Ph.D., P.E.
Therese P. McAllister, Ph.D., P.E.
Thomas Hawkins Jr, Chief, AFD
Thomas Schlafly, AISC
Todd Ude, P.E., S.E.
Tom Scarangello, P.E.
Tom Stanton (IST)
Tony Beale, P.E.
Valentine Junker
Venkatesh Kodur, Ph.D., P.E.
Victor Hare, P.E.
Vincent Dunn, FDNY (ret.)
W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
W. Lee Evey
Wallace Miller
William Baker, P.E., S.E
William Grosshandler, Ph.D., ME
William McGuire, P.E.
Willie Quinlan, IW
Zdenek Bazant, Ph.D., S.E.
9/11 Commission & Staff
Thomas H. Kean, Chair
Lee H. Hamilton, Vice Chair
Richard Ben-Veniste
Fred F. Fielding
Jamie S. Gorelick
Slade Gorton
Bob Kerrey
John F. Lehman
Timothy J. Roemer
James R. Thompson
Joanne Accolla
Alexis Albion
Scott Allan
John Azzarello
Caroline Barnes
Warren Bass
Ann Bennett
Mark Bittinger
Madeleine Blot
Antwion Blount
Geoff Brown
Daniel Byman
Dianna Campagna
Sam Caspersen
Melissa Coffey
Lance Cole
Marquittia Coleman
Marco Cordero
Raj De Counsel
George Delgrosso
Gerald L. Dillingham
Thomas Dowling
Steven Dunne
Thomas Eldridge
John Farmer
Alvin Felzenberg
Gordon England
Lorry Fenner
Susan Ginsburg
T. Graham Giusti
Nicole Grandrimo
Doug Greenburg
Barbara Grewe
Elinore Hartz
Len Hawley
Christine Healey
Karen Heitkotter
Walt Hempel
Michael Hurley
Dana Hyde
Michael Jacobson
Bonnie Jenkins
Reginald Johnson
William Johnstone
Stephanie Kaplan
Miles Kara
Janice Kephart-Roberts
Hyon Kim
Christopher Kojm
Katarzyna (Kasia) Kozaczuk
Gordon Lederman
Daniel Leopold
Sarah Linden
Douglas MacEachin
Daniel Marcus
Ernest May
James Miller
Kelly Moore
Charles Pereira
John Raidt
John Roth
Peter Rundlet
Lloyd Salvetti
Kevin Scheid
Kevin Shaeffer
Tracy Shycoff
Dietrich Snell
Jonathan Stull
Lisa Sullivan
John Tamm
Cate Taylor
Yoel Tobin
Emily Walker
Garth Wermter
Serena Wille
Philip Zelikow, Executive Director
The Congressional Joint Inquiry on 9/11
Senate Members
Bob Graham, D - Florida, Chairman
Richard C. Shelby, R - Alabama, Vice Chairman
Carl Levin
Jon Kyl
John D. Rockefeller
James M. Inhofe
Dianne Feinstein
Orrin Hatch
Ron Wyden
Pat Roberts
Richard J. Durbin,
Mike DeWine
EvanBayh
Fred Thompson
John Edwards
Richard Lugar
Barbara Mikulski
Al Cumming, Staff Director
William Duhnke, Minority Staff Director
House Members
Porter J. Goss, Chairman
Nancy Pelosi
Doug Bereuter
Sanford D. Bishop
Michael N. Castle,
Jane Harman
Sherwood L. Boehlert
Gary A. Condit
Jim Gibbons
Tim Roemer
Ray LaHood
Silvestre Reyes
Randy Cunningham
Leonard L. Boswell
Peter Hoekstra,
Collin C. Peterson
Richard Burr
Bud Cramer
Saxby Chambliss
Terry Everett
Timothy R. Sample, Staff Director
Michael W. Sheehy, Democratic Counsel
Staff
Eleanor Hill
Rick Cinquegrana
David Barton
Ann Bennett
Daniel Byman
Michael Davidson
George Ellard
Rahul Gupta
Kay Holt
John Ivicic
Michael Jacobson
Everette Jordan
Miles Kara
John Keefe
Thomas Kelley
Dana Lesemann
Patti Litman
Arthur Menna
Lewis Moon
Patricia Ravalgi
Alonzo Robertson
Robert Rosenwald
Michael Smith
Catherine Williams- card51short, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6OK agreed. So we have experts on both sides. Doesn't that warrant a new investigation or is all of our side instantly written off as crazy?
That's fair...- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Any of your side's papers been peer-reviewed? No?
That's why it's always ignored.
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Any of your side's papers been peer-reviewed? No?
- salvadordali, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Subman - which conspiracists, official conspiracy theory, or other theories?
And what are all those names about?- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1A list of people that do not believe Jones' *****.
- card51short, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6OK agreed. So we have experts on both sides. Doesn't that warrant a new investigation or is all of our side instantly written off as crazy?
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4ae911 allows anyone to sign up and claim they have any credentials. There's no credibility.
- imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -12/+7500+professionals have questions about 9/11? This is out of the millions in the US?
150+ ALLEGED architects and engineers compared to the tens of thousands who actually studied and investigated the collapse?
I detest Bush and I have many questions about 9/11 but I don't jump to absurd conclusions. Just because something is possible, doesn't mean it happened.- moogman5, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9List just a thousand of these so called 'Tens of Thousands' you mention....You're lying through your teeth and you don't even realize it...Or maybe you do?
NOBODY, NOT ONE GODAMNED MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION LOOKED AT BUILDING 7....NONE ZIP!!!! - imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -7/+7Would you like me to list all the engineers, architects and other experts from NIST, FDNY, insurance companies, university researchers, FAA and multitude of other agencies and private organizations investigating the collapse?
The Commission was not tasked with investigating WTC7. Their primary reason was the investigate the intelligence failures and to recommend any changes to building construction, so they only looked at WTC 1 and 2.
Is WTC7 all you have left once all the BS from WTC1, 2 and the Pentagon got debunked? What will happen when NIST releases it final report?- alciadanet, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5WTC1, WTC2 did not get "debunked". I suggest you should read the NIST report before you make such claims.
The only thing they showed (although they didn't release the computer models) was that it was possible for the initial collapse (i.e. one floor) to happen. But the big question is about the total collapse in free-fall speed which was addressed by no agency so far.
And this is bad science. They presupposed that the planes caused the total collapse so they just showed that the initial collapse happened because of the planes and concluded that the total collapse was caused by the planes without even looking further into the total collapse.- card51short, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Actually, NIST was DEAD wrong about their initial report. They said it was a pancake collapse and had to retract it.
As for the you, imperium, are you saying the very members of the 9/11 Comission Report who are saying the report was compromised don't matter?
Does it not warrant a new investigation?
- card51short, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Actually, NIST was DEAD wrong about their initial report. They said it was a pancake collapse and had to retract it.
- alciadanet, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5WTC1, WTC2 did not get "debunked". I suggest you should read the NIST report before you make such claims.
- moogman5, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9List just a thousand of these so called 'Tens of Thousands' you mention....You're lying through your teeth and you don't even realize it...Or maybe you do?
- moogman5, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Right on man!! I can't believe how pathetic and insane some of these haters are on here! No...a government would never put people on trains and mass exterminate them for profit and for war...oh no.....
Some of you people on here who call us serious patriots and concerned citizens 'twoofers' should be ashamed of yourselves and you can bet you're going to look back at this and shrivel up in shame! SHAME ON YOU!!!- imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5Shame on me for what? Questioning your claims? You're making a claim. You need to justify it with evidence. You haven't even gotten close to crossing the burden of proof.
I don't take outrageous claims at face value just because obnoxious people scream at me and call me a shill or a traitor.- moogman5, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Imperium...I'm not saying that to you...I'm saying it to the other people on here who refuse to ask questions. I'm not making any claims here. I'm repeating the accounts from eyewitnesses and experts who YOU should check out for more info on this. I'm angry at the already exposed traitors on Digg who take money from the Government to attack members of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Want evidence? Get on the web and start doing some research and WATCH 9/11 MYSTERIES , TERRORSTORM, LOOSECHANGE, etc. Just take a few hours to look at these documentaries and at the forensic chemical analysis by Dr. Steven Jones that proves without a doubt that Thermate was used to melt the WTC steel before, during, and after 9/11/01. Thanks for using your head. You're not a traitor imperium if you're willing to at least look at both sides and make your own opinion. Just start doing your homework asap! This movement is growing exponentially every single day!
- alciadanet, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4It cannot be proven without a proper, public investigation in a court of law.
But the burden of proof lies on the side of those who demand action because of 9/11 (i.e. wars, police state etc.).- moogman5, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5I agree...I totally agree...That's why we need a new, official investigation made up of people who aren't business partners with members of the White House cabinet or the Bin Laden's for that matter. HOW HAS BUSH AND CO. PROVED THAT THE FIRES AND PLANES BROUGHT THOSE BUILDINGS DOWN? Why have they ignored the UL experiments on the unprotected floor trusses that proved otherwise?!
- alciadanet, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4That's the neat thing about alleged suicide terror attacks - the state does not have to prove that the accused has commited the crime but can act on the momentary outrage of the people. This way those in power can circumvent the law / constitution and act on the will of the people. And if that happens - if you have a state that acts on principles on democracy instead of principles of law - you have tyranny.
- moogman5, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5I agree...I totally agree...That's why we need a new, official investigation made up of people who aren't business partners with members of the White House cabinet or the Bin Laden's for that matter. HOW HAS BUSH AND CO. PROVED THAT THE FIRES AND PLANES BROUGHT THOSE BUILDINGS DOWN? Why have they ignored the UL experiments on the unprotected floor trusses that proved otherwise?!
- imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5Shame on me for what? Questioning your claims? You're making a claim. You need to justify it with evidence. You haven't even gotten close to crossing the burden of proof.
- imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -11/+7I posted this above and not a single one of you answered. Lets try again.
To all you Conspiracy Theorist. Please clearly state:
1)Was WTC 1 and 2 hit by planes or destroyed by lasers, explosives etc.?
2)Were all the hijacked planes filed with civilians and piloted by arabs or remote controlled or something else?
3)What was the purpose of destroying WTC7?
4)Was WTC7 destroyed by explosives, Thermite, lasers or some other means?
5)What was the purpose of 9/11?
6)Was the Pentagon hit by a plane or a missile?
Once you get your conspiracy straight, get back to me.- moogman5, on 10/10/2007, -4/+91- Hit by Planes AND blown to hell by Thermate, C4, etc.
2- The planes were only filled with approx. 20% capacity (normally would have been cancelled flights, but oh well)
3- 7WTC housed dozens of federal alphabet agencies' offices, as well as Giuliani's FEMA command bunker on the 23rd floor, case files on Worldcom and Enron, etc. etc.
4- 7WTC was demolished by explosives and thermate...Forget about the stupid disinfo lasers junk...There are zero witnesses to the supposed lasers.
5-Almost 1 Trillion dollars in residuals by way of Afghanistan, Iraq, Opium trade industry, Oil price fixing, Billions in WTC insurance fraud by Silverstein AND the insurance companies who participated, kickoff / pretext for the hugely expensive War on Terror, Scaring the hell out of dumb Americans into supporting Bush's policies, Increase military spending to never before seen levels in history, inflate taxes across the board, etc. etc. I can keep going for at least a couple of paragraphs more if you like.
6- We still don't know exactly what hit the Pentagon...Most likely it was a missile fired from the 757 given that the black box data reveals that the 757 flew over the Pentagon and NOT into it. Check out pilotsfor911truth.org
----I'll be happy to answer any more questions you might have during the next 15 minutes...Thanks for your
- moogman5, on 10/10/2007, -4/+91- Hit by Planes AND blown to hell by Thermate, C4, etc.
