The REAL 9/11 Conspiracy!

[Bern80]

where did you see thes objective arguments take place..on fox ?..cnn

No, it's called weighing the validity of an argument. Quite honestly most of them are formed by listening to the counter arguments of the likes of yourself and weighing everything about what is said. First and foremost what is clear from the outset is that truthers are amazingly non-credible. You take a very non-scientific approach to a rather scientific set of problems. You started with a conclusion and worked backwards. That's not science because one will do as you so clearly have done. You will and have ignored the information that doesn't fit your conclusion and you will and have give greater weight to that which does support your conclusion. How can a group of such unobjective people really claim to be after the truth?

Secondly I ask again okay this is what the truthers believe happened, what must be true in order for that theory to be correct? And the answer again is of the two oppossing the evidence for what was observed to have happened far outweighs the evidence of a conspiracy.

so you find ngo doing a bogus experiment as a small section of their show more compelling than 9/11 commission members calling the 9/11 commission report a fraud and the lead fire investigator of NIST saying essentially the same thing...how odd

no one would ever claim that enough heat on steel for a long enough duration could cause some waking...that why the experiment was a psyop-joke...test must be done on scale with the temperature actually present at wtc for durations of time approx to the wtc fires or ti is a pointless ..meaningless exercise that proves nothing except the disingenuous nature of those that produced it

Why would they not claim it when they were able to actually do it? It proves that steel can be weakened when exposed to the heat of jet fuel flame. Know we don't know the temperature the flames were in the WTC and that the beams were not identical. But there is one unavoidable problem with your theory here. The fact that you dismiss this piece of evidence out of hand again says far more about your objectivity than anything. Because the fact remains while the exact conditions were not replicated, flame can weaken steel. The FACT remains while you may not like the evidence there is still more of it than there is to support any type of explosive detonation.

other than the bush/Cheney story and popular mechanics what evidence do you have that says that the towers and building 7 collapsed due to fire and bin laden was the mastermind
and this all happened without prior knowledge..I would like to see it

I repeat I don't care or can say that I ever seen the 'Bush/Cheney story'. Just out of curiousity where can I find this book? Where is this 'Official Bush/Cheney Story' piece anyway. As far as bin Laden? Um he took credit. Personally I find many of the things in the Popular Mechanics article and the NGO program to be compelling and in saying so, once again your lack of objectivity is revealed.

it is not some truther..it is highly respected scientist with some of the highest honors the nation has to give for service and academic achievement...that is an indisputable fact you need to wrap your head around

There are far more respected scientists that have explained and been able to build models (see the Purdue University work) that the planes taking down the building was indeed quite possibly and even likely. Again you aren't after the truth eots. You're after proving your theory and going about it poorly. Anyone with a modicum of objectivity can see this. How do I know the truthers aren't after the truth? Because again you do exactley what someone with a preconceived idea would do and you have been observed doing it over and over again. You dismiss what doesn't fit your view and lend greater weight to that which doesn't.

If it could be shown that you or any truther is even mildly objective we would have a starting point. But you just plain aren't.

 

[eots]

[
]

There are far more respected scientists that have explained and been able to build models (see the Purdue University work) that the planes taking down the building was indeed quite possibly and even likely. Again you aren't after the truth eots. You're after proving your theory and going about it poorly. Anyone with a modicum of objectivity can see this. How do I know the truthers aren't after the truth? Because again you do exactley what someone with a preconceived idea would do and you have been observed doing it over and over again. You dismiss what doesn't fit your view and lend greater weight to that which doesn't.

If it could be shown that you or any truther is even mildly objective we would have a starting point. But you just plain aren't

there was one such simulation done at perdue..that yielded such results in a tweaked simulation...other simulations have yeild other results...this is why James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division is not overly impressed with simulations and requested scale floor test...it was his mandate to determine the official cause of the collapse...not national geographic or popular mechanics

 

[Gamolon]

no one would ever claim that enough heat on steel for a long enough duration could cause some waking...that why the experiment was a psyop-joke...test must be done on scale with the temperature actually present at wtc for durations of time approx to the wtc fires or ti is a pointless ..meaningless exercise that proves nothing except the disingenuous nature of those that produced it

Your star witness, James Quintiere, seems to think otherwise. Towards the end of Mr. Quintiere's paper is this quote:

An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts
the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation. Something NIST says
was not an issue.

Uh oh!!! Now what eots?