WT7: Silverstein vs the Official Gov't Report

[SFC Ollie]

And then when you have your head full of spin and guesswork, we'll tell you the real truths again......

Sounds good Ollie. Are you my official 9/11 truther?

No i tell the real truth with real facts and common sense to back it up.

 

[KevinWestern]

And then when you have your head full of spin and guesswork, we'll tell you the real truths again......

Sounds good Ollie. Are you my official 9/11 truther?

No i tell the real truth with real facts and common sense to back it up.

Yes, I know. People who tell the truth are "truthers" and you just told me that you told the truth when it comes to 9/11, thus making you a 9/11 truther.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[daws101]

Hey I'm going to read both his book and the 9/11 commission report, don't understand what you're all excited about. I'm sure David Ray Griffin is perfectly capable of doing research, and if he presents something compelling I'll take note.

Did you read the book? If no, then don't knock it.

read all his other works of fiction does that count?

Sorry Daws, are you a David Ray Griffin expert? Have you read the book? Have you read any of his books?

Did you answer yes to any of these questions?

as I said before I read all his other works of fiction...do you need glasses..

 

[Derideo_Te]

David Ray Griffin
en.wikipedia.org
David Ray Griffin is a retired American professor of philosophy of religion and theology. Along with John B. Cobb, Jr., he founded the Center for Process Studies in 1973, a research center of Claremont School of Theology which seeks to promote the common good by means of the relational approach found in process thought. Griffin has published a number of books on the subject of the September 11 attacks, suggesting that there was a conspiracy involving some elements of the United States government.

can you say completely bias and totally lacking the required knowledge base....I knew you could...

Hey I'm going to read both his book and the 9/11 commission report, don't understand what you're all excited about. I'm sure David Ray Griffin is perfectly capable of doing research, and if he presents something compelling I'll take note.

Did you read the book? If no, then don't knock it.

Do you have an engineering background?

Because if you don't you might not understand all of the concepts in the official 9/11 documents. They are dealing with structures, loadings, factors of safety, etc. For a layman with no engineering background the reports don't do a very good job of explaining these concepts and how they applied.

A great deal of the conspiracy theories around 9/11 are based upon either the inability of the people postulating them to comprehend these engineering concepts or just misunderstanding what is being stated. And before you ask, yes I do have an engineering background which is why I am asking the question.

Before you begin reading the CT books you would be better served by asking all of your questions about the 9/11 reports before going any further. Only after you have a good understanding would I suggest that you delve into the CT books. Yes, they ask some legitimate questions that are outside the scope of the actual engineering issues involved. But from an engineering perspective they are all speculative and based upon a profound lack of knowledge and comprehension.

An example is the allegation of the use of "thermite" in the CT books. The entire island of Manhatten contains what could be misclassified as "thermite residue". This is because as one of the oldest and earliest industrialized parts of the nation it has chemical residues from old iron boilers that were coal fired, residue from the steel welding that was used to construct the skyscrapers, aluminium residue from garbage that was burned prior to EPA regulations and a host of other elements. It is possible to find what could be classified as "thermite" from the dirt on street corners in Manhatten because this stuff doesn't "dissolve". It is still there.

The CT allegation about the use of "thermite" is based entirely upon the misidentification of what was shown in 9/11 photos and videos and someone going around the 9/11 site and collecting some alleged "thermite samples" that were nothing of the sort.

So, by all means read the CT books. But understand that there is a perfectly valid and sound engineering explanation for all of the structural failures without any need for any explosives, thermite, stealth demolition teams or other CT allegations.

 

[KevinWestern]

read all his other works of fiction does that count?

Sorry Daws, are you a David Ray Griffin expert? Have you read the book? Have you read any of his books?

Did you answer yes to any of these questions?

as I said before I read all his other works of fiction...do you need glasses..

I might, need to check.

 

[KokomoJojo]

The CT allegation about the use of "thermite" is based entirely upon the misidentification of what was shown in 9/11 photos and videos and someone going around the 9/11 site and collecting some alleged "thermite samples" that were nothing of the sort.

So, by all means read the CT books. But understand that there is a perfectly valid and sound engineering explanation for all of the structural failures without any need for any explosives, thermite, stealth demolition teams or other CT allegations.

really? what was all that glowing stuff that flowed like a waterfall then? lead? silver, aluminum? silver

 

[KevinWestern]

Do you have an engineering background?

Because if you don't you might not understand all of the concepts in the official 9/11 documents. They are dealing with structures, loadings, factors of safety, etc. For a layman with no engineering background the reports don't do a very good job of explaining these concepts and how they applied.

A great deal of the conspiracy theories around 9/11 are based upon either the inability of the people postulating them to comprehend these engineering concepts or just misunderstanding what is being stated. And before you ask, yes I do have an engineering background which is why I am asking the question.

Before you begin reading the CT books you would be better served by asking all of your questions about the 9/11 reports before going any further. Only after you have a good understanding would I suggest that you delve into the CT books. Yes, they ask some legitimate questions that are outside the scope of the actual engineering issues involved. But from an engineering perspective they are all speculative and based upon a profound lack of knowledge and comprehension.

An example is the allegation of the use of "thermite" in the CT books. The entire island of Manhatten contains what could be misclassified as "thermite residue". This is because as one of the oldest and earliest industrialized parts of the nation it has chemical residues from old iron boilers that were coal fired, residue from the steel welding that was used to construct the skyscrapers, aluminium residue from garbage that was burned prior to EPA regulations and a host of other elements. It is possible to find what could be classified as "thermite" from the dirt on street corners in Manhatten because this stuff doesn't "dissolve". It is still there.

The CT allegation about the use of "thermite" is based entirely upon the misidentification of what was shown in 9/11 photos and videos and someone going around the 9/11 site and collecting some alleged "thermite samples" that were nothing of the sort.

So, by all means read the CT books. But understand that there is a perfectly valid and sound engineering explanation for all of the structural failures without any need for any explosives, thermite, stealth demolition teams or other CT allegations.

To be absolutely honest, the bulk of my interest in the 9/11 theories lie beyond the implosion of the buildings themselves. I’m not an engineer, and after doing a bit of research, listening to some debates, I’m siding currently with the natural collapse theory (as I stated earlier). I really can’t understand all that stuff – given my lack of experience – and certainly cannot trust random youtube videos with “explanations” as to why things occurred the way it did.

To be honest, I’m more interested in some of the non-collapse related CT about 9/11 such as the NORAD exercise taking place on the same day, the hijackers funding coming from Saudi Royalty, the fact that the Bush family had close ties with the Bin Ladens, the insider trading, the talk to invade Iraq (which had no connection) within days of the attack, the fact they couldn’t find Bin Laden for 10 years, and when they did he was in a multi-million dollar fortress in some Pakistani Suburb, the fact a ridiculous amount of seals connected with the raid died under mysterious/tragic circumstances, etc.

The implosion thing is – honestly – not my main focus of interest. I believe hijackers flew planes into the towers, pentagon (not a "missile"/hologram guy), and that the towers were likely brought down as a direct result of this. However I believe that some trickery was afoot.

Anyways..

 

[KokomoJojo]

Do you have an engineering background?

I’m not an engineer,

I’m siding currently with the natural collapse theory

Anyways..

Then you are truly fucked.

thats why


99% of everything dabunkers do is bunk. of course you gotta be a sharp cookie to finger it all out as you are about to see

 

[KokomoJojo]

And then when you have your head full of spin and guesswork, we'll tell you the real truths again......

Sounds good Ollie. Are you my official 9/11 truther?

No i tell the real truth with real facts and common sense to back it up.

no you dont, you talk shit like every other OShugger out here

 

[KevinWestern]

Do you have an engineering background?

I’m not an engineer,

I’m siding currently with the natural collapse theory

Anyways..

Then you are truly fucked.

thats why


99% of everything dabunkers do is bunk. of course you gotta be a sharp cookie to finger it all out as you are about to see

Currently.

I'm just saying I'm not an engineer, so I'm going to have to see what the consensus of engineers say on the subject..

 

[Derideo_Te]

Do you have an engineering background?

Because if you don't you might not understand all of the concepts in the official 9/11 documents. They are dealing with structures, loadings, factors of safety, etc. For a layman with no engineering background the reports don't do a very good job of explaining these concepts and how they applied.

A great deal of the conspiracy theories around 9/11 are based upon either the inability of the people postulating them to comprehend these engineering concepts or just misunderstanding what is being stated. And before you ask, yes I do have an engineering background which is why I am asking the question.

Before you begin reading the CT books you would be better served by asking all of your questions about the 9/11 reports before going any further. Only after you have a good understanding would I suggest that you delve into the CT books. Yes, they ask some legitimate questions that are outside the scope of the actual engineering issues involved. But from an engineering perspective they are all speculative and based upon a profound lack of knowledge and comprehension.

An example is the allegation of the use of "thermite" in the CT books. The entire island of Manhatten contains what could be misclassified as "thermite residue". This is because as one of the oldest and earliest industrialized parts of the nation it has chemical residues from old iron boilers that were coal fired, residue from the steel welding that was used to construct the skyscrapers, aluminium residue from garbage that was burned prior to EPA regulations and a host of other elements. It is possible to find what could be classified as "thermite" from the dirt on street corners in Manhatten because this stuff doesn't "dissolve". It is still there.

The CT allegation about the use of "thermite" is based entirely upon the misidentification of what was shown in 9/11 photos and videos and someone going around the 9/11 site and collecting some alleged "thermite samples" that were nothing of the sort.

So, by all means read the CT books. But understand that there is a perfectly valid and sound engineering explanation for all of the structural failures without any need for any explosives, thermite, stealth demolition teams or other CT allegations.

To be absolutely honest, the bulk of my interest in the 9/11 theories lie beyond the implosion of the buildings themselves. I’m not an engineer, and after doing a bit of research, listening to some debates, I’m siding currently with the natural collapse theory (as I stated earlier). I really can’t understand all that stuff – given my lack of experience – and certainly cannot trust random youtube videos with “explanations” as to why things occurred the way it did.

To be honest, I’m more interested in some of the non-collapse related CT about 9/11 such as the NORAD exercise taking place on the same day, the hijackers funding coming from Saudi Royalty, the fact that the Bush family had close ties with the Bin Ladens, the insider trading, the talk to invade Iraq (which had no connection) within days of the attack, the fact they couldn’t find Bin Laden for 10 years, and when they did he was in a multi-million dollar fortress in some Pakistani Suburb, the fact a ridiculous amount of seals connected with the raid died under mysterious/tragic circumstances, etc.

The implosion thing is – honestly – not my main focus of interest. I believe hijackers flew planes into the towers, pentagon (not a "missile"/hologram guy), and that the towers were likely brought down as a direct result of this. However I believe that some trickery was afoot.

Anyways..

Thanks. Some of those questions certainly do deserve answers. Allowing the bin laden family to leave while all other aircraft were grounded immediately following 9/11 strikes me as requiring a legitimate investigation.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Ever seen what happens when a building is pulled?

WTC 9/11 building 6 pull it - YouTube

That's what pull it means...

Shoot it is another demolition term. (among several others)

Both pull it and shoot it mean destroy the building, not literally pull the damn thing with cables, though they do pull small buildings down with cables, or just run through them with a bulldozer.

So if someone says they decided to shoot it...and we watched the building collapse, does that mean they had a firing squad kill it or some stoopid shit like that?

Pull is very specific in it's meaning when you are talking demolition,,,but you go ahead and spin it in your head any way you care..It's alright, we understand....

Pull
PULL, verb transitive [Latin vello.]
1. To draw; to draw towards one or to make an effort to draw. pull differs from draw; we use draw when motion follows the effort, and pull is used in the same sense; but we may also pull forever without drawing or moving the thing. This distinction may not be universal. pull is opposed to push.
Then he put forth his hand and took her and pulled her in to him into the ark. Genesis 8:9.
2. To pluck; to gather by drawing or forcing off or out; as, to pull fruit; to pull flax.
3. To tear; to rend; but in this sense followed by some qualifying word or phrase; as, to pull in pieces; to pull asunder or apart. To pull in two, is to separate or tear by violence into two parts.
To pull down, to demolish or to take in pieces by separating the parts; as, to pull down a house.
1. To demolish; to subvert; to destroy.
In political affairs, as well as mechanical, it is easier to pull down than to build up.
2. To bring down; to degrade; to humble.
To raise the wretched and pull down the proud.
PULL off, to separate by pulling; to pluck; also, to take off without force; as, to pull off a coat or hat.
To pull out, to draw out; to extract.
To pull up, to pluck up; to tear up by the roots; hence, to extirpate; to eradicate; to destroy.
PULL, noun The act of pulling or drawing with force; an effort to move by drawing towards one.
1. A contest; a struggle.
2. Pluck; violence suffered.

~Websters


I suppose they are not only illiterate but in addition do not know how to read a dictionary either.

.... and the loony toons dablunder argument will go like this "but they didnt say pull down with explosives"..... or they will drop the conjuction or insert subjects / objects that are not there.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The CT allegation about the use of "thermite" is based entirely upon the misidentification of what was shown in 9/11 photos and videos and someone going around the 9/11 site and collecting some alleged "thermite samples" that were nothing of the sort.

So, by all means read the CT books. But understand that there is a perfectly valid and sound engineering explanation for all of the structural failures without any need for any explosives, thermite, stealth demolition teams or other CT allegations.

really? what was all that glowing stuff that flowed like a waterfall then? lead? silver, aluminum? silver

What are planes made from? How many tons of aluminum were melted by those raging fires? How many tons of magnesium was set alight by those raging fires? Do you know what temperature magnesium burns at?

 

[KevinWestern]

Thanks. Some of those questions certainly do deserve answers. Allowing the bin laden family to leave while all other aircraft were grounded immediately following 9/11 strikes me as requiring a legitimate investigation.

Yea, I think there's a lot of very strange things that occurred on that day that sparked the interest of a lot of rational, logical people. 3,000 Americans died and the Bin Laden family is getting a safe trip back home when it was a Bin Laden that was responsible for the attack? I don't care if they have no direct connection with the son, they're staying and being interrogated!

Problem is there's so many outlandish theories (like the planes were holograms, or that a missile was fired into the pentagon) that I think the credibility of anyone questioning any part of the official story is diminished. The demolition theory is a little less outlandish, and I've heard some decent points that are brought up from time to time. The collapse of WTC 7 does look like a controlled demo, and it was ODD that reporters reported the building as collapsed 20 minutes prior to it happening.

However, I realize there are a lot of intelligent people (likely the consensus of most engineers) that side with the natural collapse theory.

Anyways..

 

[KokomoJojo]

I’m not an engineer,

I’m siding currently with the natural collapse theory

Anyways..

Then you are truly fucked.

thats why


99% of everything dabunkers do is bunk. of course you gotta be a sharp cookie to finger it all out as you are about to see

Currently.

I'm just saying I'm not an engineer, so I'm going to have to see what the consensus of engineers say on the subject..

ok so if you are not an engineer how do you know which engineer is correct, or how can you tell who is or is not an engineer out here? I mean we all know that OS Huggers and dablunkers are "experts"!

 

[KevinWestern]

Pull

But even if the buildings did naturally collapse, that doesn't mean that 9/11 went down exactly as the story was told, right? I think there are a lot of interesting areas to dive into.

9/11 is a literal goldmine of anomalies and strange occurrences.

The NORAD exercises? The fighter jets that would have been used to subdue the rogue planes were (strangely) in a planned simulation that was nearly identical to the actual activities occurring on that day. Coincidence? I don't know. What's the odds of that anyways?

It's funny, the "exercise phenomena" occurs quite frequently. The day of the London Subway bombings the police were taking part in a bombing drill occurring in London subways. The day of the Boston Marathon Bombing the police were talking part in a similar drill involving a rogue person setting off a bomb in the Boston area.

Strange stuff...


.

 

[KokomoJojo]

What are planes made from? How many tons of aluminum were melted by those raging fires? How many tons of magnesium was set alight by those raging fires? Do you know what temperature magnesium burns at?

you have to contain aluminum to get it to glow, otherwise it just flows away like water while it is still SILVER.

I guess you arent real up on the facts?

Magnesium? Good question!

You tell me!

How many tons did it take to do this?






they accidentally forgot to show you that on tv

 

[KevinWestern]

ok so if you are not an engineer how do you know which engineer is correct, or how can you tell who is or is not an engineer out here? I mean we all know that OS Huggers and dablunkers are "experts"!

I believe I used the word consensus. From all my research this week, it appears the consensus supports natural collapse.

 

[KokomoJojo]

ok so if you are not an engineer how do you know which engineer is correct, or how can you tell who is or is not an engineer out here? I mean we all know that OS Huggers and dablunkers are "experts"!

I believe I used the word consensus. From all my research this week, it appears the consensus supports natural collapse.

what consensus? not a consensus of facts LOL

If you enjoy dreaming the impossible dream go for it.

 

[KokomoJojo]

The building was never prepped. There was no controlled demolition. There is zero proof of any controlled demolition. WTC7 fell because a 110 story building fell outside its own footprint and landed on it. It had uncontrolled fires burning for 7 hours or so and the steel finally gave up......

Simple facts.......

what makes you think buildings have to be prepped? they dont.

yeh there is proof, 7 freefell, NIST could not duplicate the real building in their fea model proving freefall cannot occur from fire. lol

Now the facts:
The facade of wtc7 did fall at freefall for just over 2 seconds. Because there was nothing left behind it to hold it up. Honestly, why do truther videos leave out the first 9 seconds of the wtc7 collapse? Because that proves the building did not fall anywhere near free fall, just the facade...

yeh thats the latest from lunarville!

Hate to tell ya but paint falls at freefall too when the walls its sticking to come down at freefall. DUH!

9 seconds?

How long did it take for this one to freefall?