ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 13th October 2017, 05:29 AM   #121
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,302
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
Never happened! Once again, there was no sound of explosions on video or audio nor even detected by seismographs and remember, no CD explosive hardware found at ground zero because no such events occurred.
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
They didn't look.
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
False:
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Sounds like they were looking for human remains and personal affects.
Still false:
It also bears repeating that the men and women who actually deconstructed and removed the debris from Ground Zero were not part of a clandestine cartel of government stooges working to obstruct justice. Rather this collection of several hundred workers represented some of the country's most experienced and highly respected demolition veterans (recall the impressive fact that no one was killed during the clean-up). Most quickly became consumed by the project and worked on site from the first day to the last, stressing marriages and families to the breaking point. But their consistent presence - combined with their vast collection of past experiences working on explosive demolition projects - made them precisely the group of people who would have been most likely to spot and call attention to abnormalities in the debris had there been any.
http://www.implosionworld.com/Articl...09-8-06%20.pdf
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 06:48 AM   #122
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 526
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post


An excellent report that again points to the fallacies of the CT's concerning the destruction of WTC1,2 and 7.

Perhaps if MJ read it, (s)he might want to re-think the illogical posts presented by MJ in this thread.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 07:02 AM   #123
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 12,153
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Depends on the exord and the detonator type - traditional fuse type caps will go at about the same instant the main charge would ignite through fire exposure, and the device would work more or less as intended.

A charge using electrical caps may only result in conflagration due to the explosive material igniting before the electrical cap detonates - take a piece of secondary high explosive and hit it with a match - it will ignite quickly. An electrical cap will detonate through exposure to flame/heat but not as quickly as secondary HE.
Yeah, but the original post you said "high explosives burn", I was just clarifying that bit. Secondary explosives burn, pretty much across the board (not claiming 100% on that, but I'm not aware of any). But there are primary high explosives, which can be set off by heat. Either way, the point you made stands. If traditional secondary explosives are used, they would go boom from fire. If primaries were used, they'd go boom from fire. Either way, the command detonation systems would be damaged by fire, removing the ability for the type of coordinated detonation required for CD.

Wasn't disagreeing so much as attempting to clarify, which looks like it didn't quite get there
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 07:28 AM   #124
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,368
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Perhaps if MJ read it, (s)he might want to re-think the illogical posts presented by MJ in this thread.
I suspect a more likely response would be to declare Brett Blanchard a member of the conspiracy and abuse him for lying (meaning, in this as in every other instance, "saying things I don't want to believe").

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 07:57 AM   #125
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 526
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I suspect a more likely response would be to declare Brett Blanchard a member of the conspiracy and abuse him for lying (meaning, in this as in every other instance, "saying things I don't want to believe").

Dave
One can be hopeful,
but you're probably correct.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 12:24 PM   #126
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,089
Originally Posted by StackOverflow View Post
You should stand in front of a mirror and repeat the above for, let's say, 5000 times.
And even the phrase they wrote is basically lifted from the Joseph Welch/Joseph McCarthy exchange during the Army-McCarthy hearings.

Is there an original thought in their head?
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus

Last edited by BStrong; 13th October 2017 at 12:26 PM.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 12:25 PM   #127
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,089
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
Yeah, but the original post you said "high explosives burn", I was just clarifying that bit. Secondary explosives burn, pretty much across the board (not claiming 100% on that, but I'm not aware of any). But there are primary high explosives, which can be set off by heat. Either way, the point you made stands. If traditional secondary explosives are used, they would go boom from fire. If primaries were used, they'd go boom from fire. Either way, the command detonation systems would be damaged by fire, removing the ability for the type of coordinated detonation required for CD.

Wasn't disagreeing so much as attempting to clarify, which looks like it didn't quite get there
Wasn't trying to throw rocks - no worries.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 06:35 AM   #128
MicahJava
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,632
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
You do know, don't you, that all the debris removed from the WTC site to Fresh Kills was fingertip searched by the FBI for anything that might be of interest, and that this extensive and detailed search didn't reveal any components of explosive devices? And do you realize that, at a demolition site, such debris is extensive and unmistakable, not least the metal straps used to position the charges?

Dave
The FBI didn't test for molten/evaporated steel or concrete despite having possible physical specimens for it, so I don't know what you're implying they would find. The thing about explosive devices is that they tend to explode. It sounds like you're distorting something that wasn't a proper arson investigation at all. If there was anything that could even barely qualify as a preliminary examination of the physical evidence for the use of explosives or arson with incendiaries, you would be waiving it around. But you must resort to some whisper of a time some FBI dudes walked through Fresh Kills landfill.

Remember what I said about the heating element idea, with incendiaries or electricity (I bet you could rip-off the mini-nuke theory and say they used nuclear power to supply the demolition charges) designed to heat the weld splices of the thick columns in a very short amount of time, followed by a small kicker charge knocking them out of place.

You have asked why even have the explosives if the heating elements alone would work. The explosives would avoid axial column collision, which would happen whether or not the ends of the columns were deformed. They could also destroy any trade of the device itself. And if you're talking about a conspiracy like this, you would want to do overkill to make sure it would work.

Last edited by MicahJava; 16th October 2017 at 08:29 AM.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 06:38 AM   #129
MicahJava
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,632
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I suspect a more likely response would be to declare Brett Blanchard a member of the conspiracy and abuse him for lying (meaning, in this as in every other instance, "saying things I don't want to believe").

Dave
I would recommend Jim Hoffman's lengthy response to Blanchard's essay.

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 06:46 AM   #130
heymatto70
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 74
Why would they test for evaporated steel? They knew that jet fuel didn't burn hot enough to melt steel, and they knew none of the steel melted, so why would they test/search for evaporated steel?
heymatto70 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 07:02 AM   #131
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,302
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The FBI didn't test for molten/evaporated steel or concrete despite having possible physical specimens for it, so I don't know what you're implying they would find. The thing about explosive devices is that they tend to explode. It sounds like you're distorting something that wasn't a proper arson investigation at all. If there was anything that could even barely qualify as a preliminary examination of the physical evidence for the use of explosives or arson with incendiaries, you would be waiving it around. But you must resort to some whisper of a time some FBI dudes walked through Fresh Kills landfill.
You seem to keep thinking that an arson investigation was granted.

Let me put it this way. It is announced in the news that a meteorite is going to fall on a certain area in 15 minutes; many people are looking at the sky as a result, and the event is watched by hundreds of witnesses. It falls on a certain house and starts a fire in it, with the result that the house collapses due to the fire. The police hears the witness testimonies about the meteorite. Do you think an arson investigation is necessary, in order to find out what started the fire?

Hint: the answer is no.

Do you think an explosives investigation is necessary?

Hint: the answer is no.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
(I bet you could rip-off the mini-nuke theory and say they used nuclear power to supply the demolition charges)
Hilarious. Keep it up, watching you make things up is funny entertainment.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 07:11 AM   #132
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,368
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The FBI didn't test for molten/evaporated steel or concrete despite having possible physical specimens for it, so I don't know what you're implying they would find.
What do you mean by "test for molten/evaporated steel"? Some molten metal was observed, as would be expected. The debris was examined, and no specimens of steel were found that showed morphology consistent with having melted and then re-solidified in the debris pile (although truthers are perfectly willing to lie that some pieces of concrete were actually molten steel); however, aluminium was observed that had clearly melted and re-formed. Corroded steel was also observed. But of course, you're playing the usual truther bait-and-switch game here where you flip between two or three different theories to pretend you have a point. Thermite doesn't go bang; explosives don't create molten steel; and nanothermite won't either cut or melt steel, because it creates a low velocity explosion that will do neither.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The thing about explosive devices is that they tend to explode.
The thing about explosive devices after exploding is that they leave identifiable debris. None was found.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
It sounds like you're distorting something that wasn't a proper arson investigation at all. If there was anything that could even barely qualify as a preliminary examination of the physical evidence for the use of explosives or arson with incendiaries, you would be waiving it around.
You're generating strawmen. A search for anything of interest was carried out. At no point were the agents searching the debris told, "You're looking for anything except evidence of explosives, so if you find anything like that, ignore it."

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
But you must resort to some whisper of a time some FBI dudes walked through Fresh Kills landfill.
From someone who flies off the handle with accusations of lying the moment anyone says something factual and obviously true that he doesn't want to hear, the hypocrisy of describing a fingertip search through the debris as "a time some FBI dudes walked through Fresh Kills" is utterly staggering. If you're trying to brand yourself as a barefaced liar who'd make up any story he wants to give the false impression his fantasies are worth paying attention to, you're doing a great job with a lie that shameless.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Remember what I said about the heating element idea, with incendiaries or electricity (I bet you could rip-off the mini-nuke theory and say they used nuclear power to supply the demolition charges)


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You have asked why even have the explosives if the heating elements alone would work.
Not exactly; I've pointed out that the heat of a building fire can cause the building to collapse, something that's well-known from numerous cases before, during and after 9/11.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The explosives would avoid avail column collision, which would happen whether or not the ends of the columns were deformed. They could also destroy any trade of the device itself. And if you're talking about a conspiracy like this, you would want to do overkill to make sure it would work.
If you're unimaginably stupid, yes, you'd want to make the whole thing as complicated as possible. If you were actually trying to simulate an attack on America without getting caught, it would be much simpler to crash planes into the Twin Towers and not bother whether they fell down or not; there's absolutely no reason to bother with weld heaters, kicker charges and precisely timed series of detonations whose only function seems to be to make the rate of collapse of the towers unrealistically fast thereby signaling to armchair engineers that something was afoot. The conspiracy you're describing, as with all your made-up conspiracies, are really, really stupidly put together. One wonders what the common factor might be.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 07:12 AM   #133
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,302
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I would recommend Jim Hoffman's lengthy response to Blanchard's essay.

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/
And what does Hoffman have to say about the paragraph I quoted?
[...] But their consistent presence – combined with their vast collection of past experiences working on explosive demolition projects – made them precisely the group of people who would have been most likely to spot and call attention to abnormalities in the debris had there been any.
[Hoffman's commentary] The dedication and heroism of the Ground Zero workers has nothing to do with charges that those managing the crime scene undertook illegal and unethical suppression and destruction of evidence.
Hoffman does not dispute that the the cleanup workers were "precisely the group of people who would have been most likely to spot and call attention to abnormalities in the debris had there been any".

Try again.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 07:12 AM   #134
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,368
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I would recommend Jim Hoffman's lengthy response to Blanchard's essay.
I wouldn't. It's basically an exercise in holding his breath till his face turns blue because he doesn't like what Blanchard's saying. Now whom does that remind me of?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 08:39 AM   #135
MicahJava
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,632
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
What do you mean by "test for molten/evaporated steel"? Some molten metal was observed, as would be expected. The debris was examined, and no specimens of steel were found that showed morphology consistent with having melted and then re-solidified in the debris pile (although truthers are perfectly willing to lie that some pieces of concrete were actually molten steel); however, aluminium was observed that had clearly melted and re-formed. Corroded steel was also observed.
Only on internet forums has the question of whether temperatures at ground zero got to 2700+ degrees been taken so seriously. Even Pete Bakersky was quoted in a newspaper casually mentioning 2700 degrees. A couple of the cleanup crew workers mentioned seeing the end of a steel beam literally dripping. Thermal reading on Ground Zero once showed surface temperatures hot enough to melt aluminum, indicating that the temperatures beneath that were hotter. Several news articles and even credible witnesses such as Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl have mentioned seeing molten steel, taking for granted that there would be such a major internet controversy later. Astaneh also later vocally criticized the push to recycle as much steel as possible so fast.

There has been no official investigation looking into the existence of temperatures over 2700+ degrees in the towers before collapse or at ground zero. There should have been. Stephen Jones has tested two samples of iron-based substance which have been melted out of shape, and they were purportedly from Ground Zero.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 08:41 AM   #136
MicahJava
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,632
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
You seem to keep thinking that an arson investigation was granted.

Let me put it this way. It is announced in the news that a meteorite is going to fall on a certain area in 15 minutes; many people are looking at the sky as a result, and the event is watched by hundreds of witnesses. It falls on a certain house and starts a fire in it, with the result that the house collapses due to the fire. The police hears the witness testimonies about the meteorite. Do you think an arson investigation is necessary, in order to find out what started the fire?

Hint: the answer is no.

Do you think an explosives investigation is necessary?

Hint: the answer is no.

Hilarious. Keep it up, watching you make things up is funny entertainment.
You've had your say, but what does the NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations say?

(A) Terrorism.
The targets set by terrorists may appear to be at random; however, target locations are generally selected with some degree of political or economic significance. Political targets generally include government offices, newspapers, universities, political party headquarters, and military or law
enforcement installations. Political terrorists may also target diverse properties such as animal research facilities or abortion clinics. Economic targets may include business offices, distribution facilities of utility providers (e.g., atomic generation plants), banks, or companies thought to have an adverse impact on the environment. Fires or explosions become a means of creating confusion, fear, or anarchy. The terrorist may include fire as but one of a variety of weapons, along with explosives, used in furthering his or her goal.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 09:00 AM   #137
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,368
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Only on internet forums has the question of whether temperatures at ground zero got to 2700+ degrees been taken so seriously.
That's because the suggestion is actually quite absurd, and the instances of it quoted don't actually make sense. Everywhere else, it's generally understood that no such temperatures existed. Sorry, but you don't get to pretend that something's universally believed to be true when outside the world of conspiracy theorists it's universally known to be false.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Even Pete Bakersky was quoted in a newspaper casually mentioning 2700 degrees.
Ah, the good old conspiracy theorist's "even". Is this the equivalent of Alex Jones's "It's admitted"?

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
A couple of the cleanup crew workers mentioned seeing the end of a steel beam literally dripping.
Which can realistically mean that something other than steel was dripping off it; like, for example, aluminium, which we know was present in large quantities. It's practically impossible for it to have been steel dripping off the end of a steel beam, because if the steel beam were hot enough to keep the steel molten then it wouldn't be a beam, it'd be a puddle. One of the most absurd suggestions that 9/11 conspiracists have come up with is that it's possible to pull molten steel out of the ground; it's a liquid.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Thermal reading on Ground Zero once showed surface temperatures hot enough to melt aluminum, indicating that the temperatures beneath that were hotter.
Look up the difference between the melting points of steel and aluminium.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Several news articles and even credible witnesses such as Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl have mentioned seeing molten steel, taking for granted that there would be such a major internet controversy later.
Firstly, people often say "molten" when they mean "red hot." Secondly, people reporting molten steel have no way of knowing whether the molten substance they saw was actually steel. Thirdly, you're lying again with your "taking for granted..." clause; you've simply made that up.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Astaneh also later vocally criticized the push to recycle as much steel as possible so fast.
Which has nothing to do with the question of temperatures at ground zero, but if the straw's there I suppose you have to clutch at it.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
There has been no official investigation looking into the existence of temperatures over 2700+ degrees in the towers before collapse or at ground zero.
Nor have there been any looking into the existence of fairies, unicorns or mermaids in either of those two locations.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
There should have been. Stephen Jones has tested two samples of iron-based substance which have been melted out of shape, and they were purportedly from Ground Zero.
Stephen Jones has made a lot of extremely dishonest pronouncements. I would be disinclined to believe that his samples were from Ground Zero or that he actually tested them. In fact, I'd seriously doubt that something he identified as iron was actually iron. He certainly likes to blur the difference between molten metal and molten steel, and between iron-rich compounds and iron itself.

Yes, to save you asking. I am calling him a liar.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 16th October 2017 at 09:20 AM.
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 09:09 AM   #138
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,368
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You've had your say, but what does the NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations say?
The NFPA says:

Originally Posted by NFPA, commenting on NIST's WTC7 investigation
The level of effort, study, analysis and examination of the Building 7 collapse was an apparent and obviously complex endeavor due to the myriad and complex circumstances involved. NIST is commended for also taking the time to consider, and ultimately discount alternative and unconventional scenarios such as the controlled demolition theories. The members of the National Construction Safety Team (NCST), the contributing NIST staff, as well as the private contractors and consultants are to be applauded for their commitment to this project as well as the public members of the NCST Federal Advisory Committee for their oversight of the project.
I realize conspiracy theorists read that and see "We think NIST's behavior was nothing short of criminal," but sane people understand that the NFPA endorsed NIST's approach fully.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 09:11 AM   #139
MicahJava
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,632
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
The NFPA says:



I realize conspiracy theorists read that and see "We think NIST's behavior was nothing short of criminal," but sane people understand that the NFPA endorsed NIST's approach fully.

Dave
And NIST's WTC 7 report is a proven fraud now. What are you trying to say, the NFPA has lowered their standards? I think the excerpt I quoted is from the 2001 edition of the NFPA 921.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 09:15 AM   #140
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,368
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
And NIST's WTC 7 report is a proven fraud now.
Only in the wet dreams of conspiracy theorists. Again, you don't get to make up your own reality.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 09:16 AM   #141
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 526
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
And NIST's WTC 7 report is a proven fraud now. What are you trying to say, the NFPA has lowered their standards? I think the excerpt I quoted is from the 2001 edition of the NFPA 921.
Exactly who "proved" that the NIST WTC 7 report was fraud. Cite your "evidence" and then watch that evidence be destroyed by those participating.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 09:43 AM   #142
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
And NIST's WTC 7 report is a proven fraud now.

Claims that explosives were used to take down the WTC buildings have been proven undeniably false, which is why truthers have failed to provide such evidence after 16 years.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 09:59 AM   #143
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Only on internet forums has the question of whether temperatures at ground zero got to 2700+ degrees been taken so seriously. Even Pete Bakersky was quoted in a newspaper casually mentioning 2700 degrees.

From what source?


Quote:
A couple of the cleanup crew workers mentioned seeing the end of a steel beam literally dripping.

Could not have been molten steel because you cannot lift a molten steel beam in one piece. Plain old-fashioned common sense, you understand.


Quote:
Thermal reading on Ground Zero once showed surface temperatures hot enough to melt aluminum, indicating that the temperatures beneath that were hotter.

Just to give you a heads up.


Quote:
Endothermic and Exothermic Reactions

"Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire. That’s because the iron is rusting, which means it is burning very, very slowly. Iron rusts in a chemical reaction called oxidation. That means the iron reacts with oxygen gas from the air. Oxidation is the chemical reaction that occurs when anything burns in air. Like most oxidations, rusting gives off heat."

https://www.thoughtco.com/endothermi...actions-602105


Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/

Let's also remember that fires smolder.


Quote:
Queensbury warehouse fire still smoldering two days after start

QUEENSBURY — Firefighters were still dousing hot spots Monday at a blaze that began more than two days ago in warehouses rented by SCA Tissue. "It's the biggest fire in our history as far as a big commercial building," said West Glens Falls Fire Chief Mike Gordon.

http://www.timesunion.com/business/a...wo-4250472.php


Fire at Yuma-area packing shed to smolder for days

YUMA, AZ (AP) -
A fire that destroyed a group of produce packing sheds east of Yuma is expected to smolder for days as piles of burned cardboard cools and foam building insulation continues to send up smoke.


Great Chicago FireGreat Chicago Fire

Once the fire had ended, the smoldering remains were still too hot for a survey of the damage to be completed for days.

http://www.azfamily.com/story/201698...older-for-days

Last edited by skyeagle409; 16th October 2017 at 10:01 AM.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 10:01 AM   #144
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,526
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
And NIST's WTC 7 report is a proven fraud now. .
Where is this proven? I've asked you this already and you failed to provide the proof. I now assume it's because you have none.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 10:14 AM   #145
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The FBI didn't test for molten/evaporated steel or concrete despite having possible physical specimens for it, so I don't know what you're implying they would find.

Why would they when no such evidence was noted as steel beams were shipped out from ground zero?


Quote:
The thing about explosive devices is that they tend to explode.

And, explosions make a lot of noise that can be heard for miles.


Quote:
Remember what I said about the heating element idea, with incendiaries or electricity (I bet you could rip-off the mini-nuke theory and say they used nuclear power to supply the demolition charges) designed to heat the weld splices of the thick columns in a very short amount of time, followed by a small kicker charge knocking them out of place.

You have asked why even have the explosives if the heating elements alone would work. The explosives would avoid axial column collision, which would happen whether or not the ends of the columns were deformed. They could also destroy any trade of the device itself. And if you're talking about a conspiracy like this, you would want to do overkill to make sure it would work.

Once again, just a reminder that explosives make a lot of noise when detonated.


The Sound of an Explosion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfmNErY0FIU


And, another reminder that explosives failed to bring down WTC 1 in 1993.


Quote:
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 10:54 AM   #146
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,842
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
And NIST's WTC 7 report is a proven fraud now.
  1. Please provide a sensible, applicable definition of "fraud". It will likely consist of several elements.
  2. Then provide evidence that each of the elements are fact in the case of the WTC7 report.
I predict you will fail already at No. 1. - you have not yet given any thought about what your claim even means.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 10:54 AM   #147
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,302
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You've had your say, but what does the NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations say?

(A) Terrorism.
The targets set by terrorists may appear to be at random; however, target locations are generally selected with some degree of political or economic significance. Political targets generally include government offices, newspapers, universities, political party headquarters, and military or law
enforcement installations. Political terrorists may also target diverse properties such as animal research facilities or abortion clinics. Economic targets may include business offices, distribution facilities of utility providers (e.g., atomic generation plants), banks, or companies thought to have an adverse impact on the environment. Fires or explosions become a means of creating confusion, fear, or anarchy. The terrorist may include fire as but one of a variety of weapons, along with explosives, used in furthering his or her goal.
Doesn't matter. Does it say "even when the cause of the fire is obvious, it must be investigated"? No? Bad luck.

The weapon used by the terrorists was planes. The planes started the fires. The event did not grant application of NFPA 921; there was never any need for a fire investigation. See my meteorite example.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.

Last edited by pgimeno; 16th October 2017 at 10:56 AM.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 12:50 PM   #148
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23,382
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
And NIST's WTC 7 report is a proven fraud now. What are you trying to say, the NFPA has lowered their standards? I think the excerpt I quoted is from the 2001 edition of the NFPA 921.
I thought we were talking about the completely discredited and non-existent "boom" at the South Tower?
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 04:59 PM   #149
FFTR
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 61
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You've had your say, but what does the NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations say?

(A) Terrorism.
The targets set by terrorists may appear to be at random; however, target locations are generally selected with some degree of political or economic significance. Political targets generally include government offices, newspapers, universities, political party headquarters, and military or law
enforcement installations. Political terrorists may also target diverse properties such as animal research facilities or abortion clinics. Economic targets may include business offices, distribution facilities of utility providers (e.g., atomic generation plants), banks, or companies thought to have an adverse impact on the environment. Fires or explosions become a means of creating confusion, fear, or anarchy. The terrorist may include fire as but one of a variety of weapons, along with explosives, used in furthering his or her goal.
Is that from the 2001 NFPA edition or the current?

You may be interested in
http://www.experts.com/content/artic...s-NFPA-921.pdf

"NFPA 921 is an NFPA Guide. It is “a document that is advisory or informative in nature and that contains only non-mandatory provisions. A guide may contain mandatory statements such as when a guide can be used, but the document as a whole is not suitable for adoption into law.”3
"

Main point. Part 921 is not mandatory and is only a guide.
CT supporters misrepresent part 921
FFTR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 10:12 PM   #150
MicahJava
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,632
Originally Posted by FFTR View Post
Is that from the 2001 NFPA edition or the current?

You may be interested in
http://www.experts.com/content/artic...s-NFPA-921.pdf

"NFPA 921 is an NFPA Guide. It is “a document that is advisory or informative in nature and that contains only non-mandatory provisions. A guide may contain mandatory statements such as when a guide can be used, but the document as a whole is not suitable for adoption into law.”3
"

Main point. Part 921 is not mandatory and is only a guide.
CT supporters misrepresent part 921
The truth from a debunker: Standard protocol doesn't have to be followed because f%*$ conspiracy theorists and f!&% over 3000 victims whose deaths deserve the clarity of history. Transparency in history should be a right. Things like inside jobs and conspiracies need to be investigated on a routine basis. Concerned citizens and survivors deserve to know. But here we're just talking about standard arson investigation protocols as outlined in the NFPA. I think a proper investigation that isn't a fraud should be done, even if there's no legal inclination to.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 10:21 PM   #151
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,910
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The truth from a debunker: Standard protocol doesn't have to be followed because f%*$ conspiracy theorists and f!&% over 3000 victims whose deaths deserve the clarity of history. Transparency in history should be a right. Things like inside jobs and conspiracies need to be investigated on a routine basis. Concerned citizens and survivors deserve to know. But here we're just talking about standard arson investigation protocols as outlined in the NFPA. I think a proper investigation that isn't a fraud should be done, even if there's no legal inclination to.
It is guide, and since some have read it who worked the fire investigation, oops, you are full of BS.

Fire caused the collapse, and standard protocol was followed. The only people who can't comprehend the truth, are 9/11 truth believers, the CD fantasy fanatics.

NFPA was followed, and it was terrorism, 19 terrorists, four planes. darn, you lost this gish gallop of woo, and will never find evidence for your fantasy CD inside job false flag dumbed down conspiracy theory based on BS.

better luck with bigfoot

What is stopping you from breaking the big CD story? lol, evidence, you don't got evidence, and you can't figure out it was 19 terrorists in four planes. Can't wait for your Pentagon, and Flight 93 BS. How many years will it take for 911 truth to join reality? lol, never
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 16th October 2017 at 10:23 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 10:25 PM   #152
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The truth from a debunker: Standard protocol doesn't have to be followed because f%*$ conspiracy theorists and f!&% over 3000 victims whose deaths deserve the clarity of history.

16 years have gone by and still, you have yet to post a single shred of explosive evidence. Why?! Because none exist and your claims have been nothing more than fabrications.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 10:48 PM   #153
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,565
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The FBI didn't test for molten/evaporated steel or concrete despite having possible physical specimens for it,.
Evaporated steel? Okay...
Quote:
The thing about explosive devices is that they tend to explode.
I have 12,000 acres of US Army base that says you're wrong.


Quote:
It sounds like you're distorting something that wasn't a proper arson investigation at all. If there was anything that could even barely qualify as a preliminary examination of the physical evidence for the use of explosives or arson with incendiaries, you would be waiving it around.
WTC7 wasn't arson. They know how the fire started. Nobody died. Nobody cares.

Quote:
But you must resort to some whisper of a time some FBI dudes walked through Fresh Kills landfill.
FBI was at Fresh Kills from start to finish.

Quote:
Remember what I said about the heating element idea, with incendiaries or electricity (I bet you could rip-off the mini-nuke theory and say they used nuclear power to supply the demolition charges) designed to heat the weld splices of the thick columns in a very short amount of time, followed by a small kicker charge knocking them out of place.
You're adorable when you talk about explosive devices that don't exist, and can't do the things you think they can.

Quote:
You have asked why even have the explosives if the heating elements alone would work. The explosives would avoid axial column collision, which would happen whether or not the ends of the columns were deformed. They could also destroy any trade of the device itself.
No. All explosives and explosive devices leave trace evidence.

Quote:
And if you're talking about a conspiracy like this, you would want to do overkill to make sure it would work
Overkill would mean plenty of evidence to be found. Overkill means that the explosives would have been obvious because you can't bring a building down without advance prep, so there would have to be 20,000 pounds or various charges in the building.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 12:23 AM   #154
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,565
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
And NIST's WTC 7 report is a proven fraud now.
Nope. The guy who published the first paper making this claim also wrote a book proving Jesus walked in America.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 12:42 AM   #155
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,565
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The truth from a debunker: Standard protocol doesn't have to be followed because f%*$ conspiracy theorists and f!&% over 3000 victims whose deaths deserve the clarity of history.
Protocol was followed to the letter by FDNY, NYPD, NYPAPD, FBI, ATF, and everyone else. You have no basis to make this claim.

And no one believes you care about the 3000 victims, your actions here are proof. By 12pm on 9-11-2001 everyone knew what had happened. Al Qaeda had hijacked four commercial jets and crashed three of them into targets in NYC and D.C.


Quote:
Transparency in history should be a right.
This is impossible for CTists because they choose their truth, and don't accept the facts.


Quote:
Things like inside jobs and conspiracies need to be investigated on a routine basis.
They are when warranted.

The FBI, SEC, ATF routinely roll up actual conspiracies every month. A quick check of the FBI, and any AUSAG's office website confirms this should you bother to look.


Quote:
Concerned citizens and survivors deserve to know.
Interesting you place concerned citizens ahead of victims. Says so much...

Quote:
But here we're just talking about standard arson investigation protocols as outlined in the NFPA.
It wasn't arson.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 01:32 AM   #156
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,368
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The truth from a debunker: Standard protocol doesn't have to be followed because f%*$ conspiracy theorists and f!&% over 3000 victims whose deaths deserve the clarity of history.
I suggest you go back and re-read the post that you're blatantly and dishonestly misrepresenting in this manner. I don't really understand why you lie so obviously, you know; you've even quoted the post so everyone can see you're lying. Do you think it'll give you a reputation for honesty?

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Transparency in history should be a right. Things like inside jobs and conspiracies need to be investigated on a routine basis. Concerned citizens and survivors deserve to know.
No. Insisting that every half-brained conspiracy theory be investigated fully would be a nutters' charter that would waste unlimited amounts of time and money, because there's a host of idiots with mutually inconsistent fantasies that they will defend ad nauseam however strongly the evidence is weighted against them by claiming that whoever investigates is in on the conspiracy. There have been numerous investigations by the FBI, FEMA, NIST, the 9/11 Commission and various independent engineering studies conducted for iinsurance companies, all of which agree in their major conclusions. A bunch of delusional nutters don't get to demand infinite do-overs.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
But here we're just talking about standard arson investigation protocols as outlined in the NFPA.
And yet you're rejecting the advice of the NFPA as to how those protocols should be guidelines rather than mandatory provisions. You're not standing up for proper adherence to the NFPA, you're throwing a tantrum because the grown-ups don't agree with you.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I think a proper investigation that isn't a fraud should be done, even if there's no legal inclination to.
We all know, though, that your definition of "fraud" means "an investigation that gets a different result to the one I want." That's why you call the NIST WTC7 investigation "a proven fraud"; it doesn't support the conspiracy theory, and in conspiracist world anything that doesn't support the theory of the week is defined as fraud.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 03:43 AM   #157
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,842
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
  1. Please provide a sensible, applicable definition of "fraud". It will likely consist of several elements.
  2. Then provide evidence that each of the elements are fact in the case of the WTC7 report.
I predict you will fail already at No. 1. - you have not yet given any thought about what your claim even means.
MJ accuser the NIST report of "fraud", but failed to even define what it means. Micah, please reply:
[*]Please provide a sensible, applicable definition of "fraud". It will likely consist of several elements.[*]Then provide evidence that each of the elements are fact in the case of the WTC7 report.[/list]I predict you will fail already at No. 1. - you have not yet given any thought about what your claim even means.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 11:24 AM   #158
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,910
No boom, someone thinks explosives evaporate steel

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The FBI didn't test for molten/evaporated steel or concrete despite having possible physical specimens for it, ...
9/11 truth fraud continues
Where is the boom?
LOL, so sad, there was no melted steel, there was no macro evaporated steel. And no melted concrete.
There was a study of the steel which you say was melted and evaporated, it was found to be corroded in fire at 800 to 1000C, much colder than thermite, and Explosives Don't evaporate steel unless you are using an A-bomb, or H-bomb.


Are you saying there was a Nuke used? Explosives don't evaporate steel, fire corroded the steel, fires after the collapse, BTW.

Big fail, no boom, 16 years of failed fantasy false flag CD.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 12:01 PM   #159
FFTR
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 61
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The truth from a debunker: Standard protocol doesn't have to be followed because f%*$ conspiracy theorists and f!&% over 3000 victims whose deaths deserve the clarity of history. Transparency in history should be a right. Things like inside jobs and conspiracies need to be investigated on a routine basis. Concerned citizens and survivors deserve to know. But here we're just talking about standard arson investigation protocols as outlined in the NFPA. I think a proper investigation that isn't a fraud should be done, even if there's no legal inclination to.
You still misrepresent NFPA part you quoted.

So who would you have do the "proper investigation"?

You have shown nothing that the investigation that was done was a "fraud".
FFTR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2017, 12:05 PM   #160
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,526
Originally Posted by FFTR View Post

So who would you have do the "proper investigation"?
Obviously someone that believed the same thing and would stop a nothing to make it believable......
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:24 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.