The Strongest Public Domain Evidence of 9-11 Fraud

[BlueMoon5]

. . . During the free fall there was no twisting my friend. Watch it again. . . .

You're correct inasmuch as you use the conditional during the free fall. What is relevant in explaining the collapse is to understand what was happening before the building began to fall. Note the following eyewitness accounts.

"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated the building's integrity was in serious doubt. . . .
It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area around to protect our members." --Daniel Nigro, FDNY Chief of Operations [In other words, the building showed signs of pending collapse but no CD-type explosions were heard. Those signs were manifest for at least three hours before the collapse.]

More from Chief Nigro: "There had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good. . . . Debris was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they [firefighters] pulled back too. . . . The building didn't look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. . . . this other officer I'm standing next to said, '[the] building doesn't look straight.' . . . I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right. [When] we were about a hundred yards away. . .Butch Brandeis came running up. He said 'forget it, nobody's going into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there." Another firefighter said to Nigro: "They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 WTC. . . . Finally they pulled us out." Still another firefighter said: "Seven WTC was burning from the ground to the ceiling, fully involved." And yet another: "There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say probably a third of it, right in the middle of it" [emphases added]. (Multiple sources; enter "firefighters' eyewitness accounts of WTC7" into your search engine.)

The building burned for about seven hours. It showed signs of pending collapse for three hours before it fell. No CD-type explosions were heard before it immediately collapsed. Moreover, it didn't fall neatly into its own footprint. The claim that pre-planted explosions were used to reduce it to rubble is rubbish.

[BlueMoon5]

: First of all not just the "north face of the structure free-fell" but the entire building: i.e. all faces of the structure, including the roof. Secondly, the support. . . .

Here are some more eyewitness accounts re. the collapse of WTC7:

"I had a clear view down Washington Street of 7, which was on the north edge of the site. All 47 stories were on fire. It was wild."
--Ground Zero Superintendent Charlie Vitchers

"We walked over by number Seven. . .as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors." --FDNY Lt. Robert Larocco

"When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories." --FDNY Asst. Chief Harry Meyers

"Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because 7 was really roaring." --FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly

Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy was asked if flaming debris from one of the towers set 7 on fire. He responded: "Correct. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building 7 and the corners of the building missing and what not. . . . you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that's an entire block."

"We spoke to a FDNY chief [who] informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent." --PAPD P.O. William Connors

Source for all of the foregoing: eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires - wtc7lies.

Truthers like to characterize the flames inside WTC7 as "small office fires." That appears to be something less than accurate. Why do at least some of them use that description? To justify their CD claim.

[Col. Flagg]

: First of all not just the "north face of the structure free-fell" but the entire building: i.e. all faces of the structure, including the roof. Secondly, the support. . . .

Here are some more eyewitness accounts re. the collapse of WTC7:

"I had a clear view down Washington Street of 7, which was on the north edge of the site. All 47 stories were on fire. It was wild."
--Ground Zero Superintendent Charlie Vitchers

"We walked over by number Seven. . .as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors." --FDNY Lt. Robert Larocco

"When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories." --FDNY Asst. Chief Harry Meyers

"Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because 7 was really roaring." --FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly

Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy was asked if flaming debris from one of the towers set 7 on fire. He responded: "Correct. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building 7 and the corners of the building missing and what not. . . . you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that's an entire block."

"We spoke to a FDNY chief [who] informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent." --PAPD P.O. William Connors

Source for all of the foregoing: eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires - wtc7lies.

Truthers like to characterize the flames inside WTC7 as "small office fires." That appears to be something less than accurate. Why do at least some of them use that description? To justify their CD claim.

=)) Your 9/11 truth 'debunking' is priceless BM...




Yep, look at all 47 stories on fire... what an inferno! #-o All too easy. And please think this through BM... why would a supposed 'gravity-induced collapse' =)) of the WTC's cause a building 150 yards away to ignite? Think... I know you can do it.

[BlueMoon5]

: First of all not just the "north face of the structure free-fell" but the entire building: i.e. all faces of the structure, including the roof. Secondly, the support. . . .

BlueMoon5: Here are some more eyewitness accounts re. the collapse of WTC7:

"I had a clear view down Washington Street of 7, which was on the north edge of the site. All 47 stories were on fire. It was wild."
--Ground Zero Superintendent Charlie Vitchers

"We walked over by number Seven. . .as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors." --FDNY Lt. Robert Larocco

"When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories." --FDNY Asst. Chief Harry Meyers

"Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because 7 was really roaring." --FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly

Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy was asked if flaming debris from one of the towers set 7 on fire. He responded: "Correct. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building 7 and the corners of the building missing and what not. . . . you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that's an entire block."

"We spoke to a FDNY chief [who] informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent." --PAPD P.O. William Connors

Source for all of the foregoing: eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires - wtc7lies.

Truthers like to characterize the flames inside WTC7 as "small office fires." That appears to be something less than accurate. Why do at least some of them use that description? To justify their CD claim.

=)) Your 9/11 truth 'debunking' is priceless BM...

: Yep, look at all 47 stories on fire... what an inferno! #-o

At what point, during the 6-7 hours the building burned, was your posted photograph taken--and from what angle? Obviously (why do I need to say this), the whole building wasn't engulfed in flames in hours 1 or 2 or even 3. But we have abundant eyewitness testimony from firefighters themselves that eventually the building became an inferno; one firefighter said it was "like a torch."

: And please think this through BM... why would a supposed 'gravity-induced collapse' =)) of the WTC's cause a building 150 yards away to ignite? Think... I know you can do it.

According to you (or at least some of your companion conspiracists) the so-called "explosions" propelled beams horizontally out of the towers. Why is it difficult, then, for you to believe that flaming debris could reach a building 150 yards away? And, gosh, wouldn't those ultra-hot "pyroclastic clouds," traveling far and wide, have a tendency to set all sorts of things on fire? (I'm just turning one of your claims against your own position; the clouds were not pyroclastic.)

The fact is the building showed clear evidence of collapsing hours in advance of actually doing so--as a result of fire, and, yes, gravity. The Truthers' apocryphal tale of a controlled demolition had nothing to do with it.

[LoveIsTruth]

[In other words, the building showed signs of pending collapse but no CD-type explosions were heard. ... No CD-type explosions were heard before it immediately collapsed. ]

That strangely contradicts this eyewitness account at 1:30 mark where he describes a "clap of thunder" right before the free fall and then "a shock-wave ripping through the building":


So explosions were heard. Perhaps not as loudly as conventional demolition with RDX (the whole reason for using metal cutting incendiaries instead of conventional high explosives, which would neatly answer to the molten metal in the basement of the building found afterwards!).

More from Chief Nigro: "There had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.

Where are the pictures of this "hole?" All we have are these, with some damage to the corner. And since damage was on the corner why didn't the building collapse toward the corner, but instead fell neatly and symmetrically down as evidenced by video footage?

"Seven WTC was burning from the ground to the ceiling, fully involved.

That contradicts Chief Nigro's statement you just posted that the fire was only "on several floors." Where is the photographic evidence of that inferno? All we have is some unidentified smoke, but no actual flames "from the ground to the ceiling."

"When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories." --FDNY Asst. Chief Harry Meyers. [The building was] an inferno; one firefighter said it was "like a torch."

This building was completely engulfed in fire, burned "like a torch" and it did NOT collapse.



This is the photograph of WTC7 SECONDS before its collapse. It does not look engulfed in fire at all!


Plus, let me repeat: NO modern steel framed, high-rise building EVER completely collapsed due to fire, much less at free fall speed!

The photographic and video evidence of symmetry and free-fall acceleration of the collapse (as well as nano-thermate signature in the dust and molten metal in the basements) can only be explained by ONE mechanism: CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. NONE other explanation fits the available evidence.

Also don't forget Barry Jennings' testimony (from beyond the grave now) that there were massive explosions in WTC7 BEFORE either tower WTC1 or WTC2 collapsed (which collapses supposedly ignited WTC7)!

The Testimony of Barry Jennings:

[Col. Flagg]

: And please think this through BM... why would a supposed 'gravity-induced collapse' =)) of the WTC's cause a building 150 yards away to ignite? Think... I know you can do it.

According to you (or at least some of your companion conspiracists) the so-called "explosions" propelled beams horizontally out of the towers. Why is it difficult, then, for you to believe that flaming debris could reach a building 150 yards away?

Hey, maybe we're getting somewhere? OK BM, think here - if multi-ton beams were thrown laterally at 60 mph which embedded themselves into surrounding buildings, is that something you would expect gravity to accomplish? If no, then what else might achieve something like that? Right... very powerful explosive ordnance, which has already been identified as nano-thermate. Could nano-thermate have caused building 7 to ignite? What kind of temps does nano-thermate produce? 4,000+ degrees. Could heat like that set fire to another building 150 yards away? Do you see the problem? I know you can, come on now.

And, gosh, wouldn't those ultra-hot "pyroclastic clouds," traveling far and wide, have a tendency to set all sorts of things on fire? (I'm just turning one of your claims against your own position; the clouds were not pyroclastic.)

The pyroclastic clouds were pulverized concrete - it wasn't a volcano for heaven's sakes.

The fact is the building showed clear evidence of collapsing hours in advance of actually doing so--as a result of fire, and, yes, gravity. The Truthers' apocryphal tale of a controlled demolition had nothing to do with it.

)

[Col. Flagg]

This is definitely weird. :-\ Coincidence?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/pro ... 11802.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The unveiling of pictures of planned luxury residential towers scheduled to be built in Seoul, South Korea, has sparked instant controversy. The reason is obvious. The towers, which include a so-called “cloud” feature connecting them around the 27th floors, clearly resemble the World Trade Towers in the process of collapsing following the 9/11 attacks.

The designers of the towers, Dutch architectural firm MVRDV, have responded to the controversy by quickly publishing an apology in English. “It was not our intention to create an image resembling the attacks,” the designers insist, “nor did we see the resemblance during the design process.”

They did not see the resemblance during the design process? The problem with this assertion – apart from its inherent implausibility – is that they have admitted the contrary in Dutch. Thus Jan Knikker of MVRDV told the Dutch newspaper Algemeen Dagblad, “I have to admit that we also thought of the 9/11 attacks.”

[BlueMoon5]

[In other words, the building showed signs of pending collapse but no CD-type explosions were heard. ... No CD-type explosions were heard before it immediately collapsed.

: That strangely contradicts this eyewitness account at 1:30 mark where he describes a "clap of thunder" right before the free fall and then "a shock-wave ripping through the building":

A "clap of thunder" does not necessarly mean that the eyewitness heard an explosion. It's noteworthy that he doesn't use the word "explosion."

: So explosions were heard. Perhaps not as loudly as conventional demolition with RDX (the whole reason for using metal cutting incendiaries instead of conventional high explosives, which would neatly answer to the molten metal in the basement of the building found afterwards!).

Things were blowing up inside the building. Moreover, those "explosions" were not evenly paced, as one would expect in a CD; they were random.

More from Chief Nigro: "There had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.

: Where are the pictures of this "hole?"

For starters, go to http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

: All we have are these, with some damage to the corner.

(Follow the above link. For even more pictures of the hole, enter into your search engine "Hole in South Side of WTC-7," or similar wording.)

: And since damage was on the corner why didn't the building collapse toward the corner, but instead fell neatly and symmetrically down as evidenced by video footage?

(See above.)

"Seven WTC was burning from the ground to the ceiling, fully involved.

: That contradicts Chief Nigro's statement you just posted that the fire was only "on several floors." Where is the photographic evidence of that inferno? All we have is some unidentified smoke, but no actual flames "from the ground to the ceiling."

The eyewitness accounts are not in chronological order. That probably explains what you think there's a contradiction between Chief Nigro's statements. For photographic evidence of the inferno, go to http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; BTW, you realize that "where there's smoke, there's fire"--right?

"When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories." --FDNY Asst. Chief Harry Meyers. [The building was] an inferno; one firefighter said it was "like a torch."

: This building was completely engulfed in fire, burned "like a torch" and it did NOT collapse.

[This is the photograph of WTC7 SECONDS before its collapse. It does not look engulfed in fire at all!


I wasn't there, and, I assume you weren't there. Asst. Chief Meyers was there. You state, based on the photograph, that "it does not look [emphasis added] engulfed in fire at all." I'll take Chief Meyers' first-hand account over your ability to interpret the photograph.

: Plus, let me repeat: NO modern steel framed, high-rise building EVER completely collapsed due to fire, much less at free fall speed!

That would be a meaningful statement if it included the conditions associated with WTC-7: 1) Burned for 6-7 hours. 2) Hit by flying/flaming debris from one of the towers, resulting--among other damage--in a 20-story long gash in its south side. 3) Serious design flaw at Column 79.
4) No water supply; hence, fire continued unabated.

: The photographic and video evidence of symmetry and free-fall acceleration of the collapse (as well as nano-thermate signature in the dust and molten metal in the basements) can only be explained by ONE mechanism: CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. NONE other explanation fits the available evidence.

Free-fall is in dispute, even though (as I recall) NIST has accepted it. The idea that it fell into a neat pile in its own footprint is false. There is, for example, photographic evidence that shows perimeter columns sticking out of the rubble and debris scattered well outside the footprint. And are you aware that reasonable questions have been raised re. the claim of NT in the dust and the nature of the molten metal in the basements? I'm not saying you're wrong; I am saying your CONTROLLED DEMOLITION conclusion continues to be open to challenge by some well-qualified professionals.

: Also don't forget Barry Jennings' testimony (from beyond the grave now) that there were massive explosions in WTC7 BEFORE either tower WTC1 or WTC2 collapsed (which collapses supposedly ignited WTC7)!

I haven't found testimony from eyewitnesses that collaborates Jennings' testimony. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but the eyewitness accounts I have listed (chosen at random) include no mention of "massive explosions." If there were such explosions, why did it take 6-7 hours for WTC-7 to collapse? (Or have I misunderstood you?)

The Testimony of Barry Jennings:

[LoveIsTruth]

More from Chief Nigro: "There had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.

: Where are the pictures of this "hole?"

For starters, go to http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

Ok. The pictures and videos on that side only support our side of the story! There was no significant fire, neither were there pictures of "20 stories tall" whole! Do you even look at the links you are offering?!

All we have are these, with some damage to the corner. And since damage was on the corner why didn't the building collapse toward the corner, but instead fell neatly and symmetrically down as evidenced by video footage?

(See above.)

Are you kidding me? "See above?!" These questions are NOT answered above! Besides they cannot be answered honestly without conceding the debate!

For photographic evidence of the inferno, go to http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; BTW, you realize that "where there's smoke, there's fire"--right?

Wrong! You can have plenty of smoke (to create a cover) and almost NO fire! The link shows no flames, only unidentified smoke. If I had to guess it was more of the the theatrics to sell the "great structural damage caused the collapse" lie.


Again I say, this one in (Beijing or Madrid?) was a true inferno, and IT DID NOT COLLAPSE!



[This is the photograph of WTC7 SECONDS before its collapse. It does not look engulfed in fire at all!

I wasn't there, and, I assume you weren't there. Asst. Chief Meyers was there. You state, based on the photograph, that "it does not look [emphasis added] engulfed in fire at all." I'll take Chief Meyers' first-hand account over your ability to interpret the photograph.

And if he tells you the Moon is made of green cheese you will believe him too?

: The photographic and video evidence of symmetry and free-fall acceleration of the collapse (as well as nano-thermate signature in the dust and molten metal in the basements) can only be explained by ONE mechanism: CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. NONE other explanation fits the available evidence.

Free-fall is in dispute, even though (as I recall) NIST has accepted it.

No, my friend. Free-fall of WTC7 for over 8 or 9 stories is an unassailable fact, which even the lying NIST was FORCED to concede under the overwhelming weight of conclusive and irrefutable evidence. The only thing that is in dispute, at this point, is your integrity!

I'm not saying you're wrong; I am saying your CONTROLLED DEMOLITION conclusion continues to be open to challenge by some well-qualified professionals.

Controlled demolition conclusion can only be disputed by professional liars. This conclusion is inescapable for any one with rudimentary understanding of high-school physics and engineering. This is why you have over 1,600 architects and engineers, at great personal risk to themselves, PUBLICLY give their names demanding a new investigation. Where will you find even a few dozens of certified architects and engineers willing PERSONALLY and PUBLICLY give their NAMES to support the official lie? NOWHERE! In this regard, our side outweighs yours OVERWHELMINGLY!

: Also don't forget Barry Jennings' testimony (from beyond the grave now) that there were massive explosions in WTC7 BEFORE either tower WTC1 or WTC2 collapsed (which collapses supposedly ignited WTC7)!

I haven't found testimony from eyewitnesses that collaborates Jennings' testimony. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but the eyewitness accounts I have listed (chosen at random) include no mention of "massive explosions." If there were such explosions, why did it take 6-7 hours for WTC-7 to collapse? (Or have I misunderstood you?)

Jennings testimony has been collaborated by his co-worker, Hess (spelling?) (the man who pulled him out from WTC7). It took 6-7 hours to collapse because the controlled demolition of it, after the initial pre-softening of the building, was timed to give an appearance of "fire induced collapse" lunacy.


The Testimony of Barry Jennings:
[/quote][/quote]

[BlueMoon5]

: And please think this through BM... why would a supposed 'gravity-induced collapse' =)) of the WTC's cause a building 150 yards away to ignite? Think... I know you can do it.

According to you (or at least some of your companion conspiracists) the so-called "explosions" propelled beams horizontally out of the towers. Why is it difficult, then, for you to believe that flaming debris could reach a building 150 yards away?

: Hey, maybe we're getting somewhere? OK BM, think here - if multi-ton beams were thrown laterally at 60 mph which embedded themselves into surrounding buildings. . .

That is your claim, not one I have made. Is there photographic evidence of those beams embedded in surrounding buildings?

: is that something you would expect gravity to accomplish?

Gravity alone? No. Compression pressure? Yes. Try this: Remove the cap from a full tube of toothpaste. Put the tube on a concrete surface, and then stomp on it. Obviously, toothpaste will be propelled--with substantial force--for a substantial distance. Similarly, multi-tons of compression force could drive beams into surrounding buildings.

: If no, then what else might achieve something like that? Right... very powerful explosive ordnance, which has already been identified as nano-thermate.

True, NT could accomplish the phenomenon you describe. But as I have explained, so could compression pressure.

: Could nano-thermate have caused building 7 to ignite? What kind of temps does nano-thermate produce? 4,000+ degrees. Could heat like that set fire to another building 150 yards away?

The embedded columns would be extremely hot and powerfully propelled (your scenario). Why couldn't they set fire to a building 150 yards away? But whether they did or not, flaming/falling, wind-driven debris was the principal fire-starter, and firefighters on the scene have so testified.

And, gosh, wouldn't those ultra-hot "pyroclastic clouds," traveling far and wide, have a tendency to set all sorts of things on fire? (I'm just turning one of your claims against your own position; the clouds were not pyroclastic.)

: The pyroclastic clouds were pulverized concrete - it wasn't a volcano for heaven's sakes.

You have claimed in earlier posts that the clouds were pyroclastc.

The fact is the building showed clear evidence of collapsing hours in advance of actually doing so--as a result of fire, and, yes, gravity. The Truthers' apocryphal tale of a controlled demolition had nothing to do with it.

[LoveIsTruth]

I'm not saying you're wrong; I am saying your CONTROLLED DEMOLITION conclusion continues to be open to challenge by some well-qualified professionals.

You remind me of this guy:

48 Now Korihor said unto him: I do not deny the existence of a God, but I do not believe that there is a God; and I say also, that ye do not know that there is a God; and except ye show me a sign, I will not believe.
49 Now Alma said unto him: This will I give unto thee for a sign, that thou shalt be struck dumb, according to my words; and I say, that in the name of God, ye shall be struck dumb, that ye shall no more have utterance.
50 Now when Alma had said these words, Korihor was struck dumb, that he could not have utterance, according to the words of Alma.
51 And now when the chief judge saw this, he put forth his hand and wrote unto Korihor, saying: Art thou convinced of the power of God? In whom did ye desire that Alma should show forth his sign? Would ye that he should afflict others, to show unto thee a sign? Behold, he has showed unto you a sign; and now will ye dispute more?
52 And Korihor put forth his hand and wrote, saying: I know that I am dumb, for I cannot speak; and I know that nothing save it were the power of God could bring this upon me; yea, and I always knew that there was a God.
53 But behold, the devil hath deceived me; for he appeared unto me in the form of an angel, and said unto me: Go and reclaim this people, for they have all gone astray after an unknown God. And he said unto me: There is no God; yea, and he taught me that which I should say. And I have taught his words; and I taught them because they were pleasing unto the carnal mind; and I taught them, even until I had much success, insomuch that I verily believed that they were true; and for this cause I withstood the truth, even until I have brought this great curse upon me.
...
60 And thus we see the end of him who perverteth the ways of the Lord; and thus we see that the devil will not support his children at the last day, but doth speedily drag them down to hell.
(Alma 30:48-53, 60)

Like Korihor "always knew that there was a God," so do you know that we are right, but like Korihor you have other priorities, and like Korihor you will receive your reward of him whom you serve, and you will not like it in the end.

[natasha]

My personal opinion...not speaking for anyone else...I think it's pretty arrogant for anyone to state that they know who someone else is "serving"...especially with reference to the adversary. I wish many here on this forum would stop doing that. Sometimes it even "appears" that one does it with glee!

[Mark]

I'm not saying you're wrong; I am saying your CONTROLLED DEMOLITION conclusion continues to be open to challenge by some well-qualified professionals.

You remind me of this guy:

48 Now Korihor said unto him: I do not deny the existence of a God, but I do not believe that there is a God; and I say also, that ye do not know that there is a God; and except ye show me a sign, I will not believe.
49 Now Alma said unto him: This will I give unto thee for a sign, that thou shalt be struck dumb, according to my words; and I say, that in the name of God, ye shall be struck dumb, that ye shall no more have utterance.
50 Now when Alma had said these words, Korihor was struck dumb, that he could not have utterance, according to the words of Alma.
51 And now when the chief judge saw this, he put forth his hand and wrote unto Korihor, saying: Art thou convinced of the power of God? In whom did ye desire that Alma should show forth his sign? Would ye that he should afflict others, to show unto thee a sign? Behold, he has showed unto you a sign; and now will ye dispute more?
52 And Korihor put forth his hand and wrote, saying: I know that I am dumb, for I cannot speak; and I know that nothing save it were the power of God could bring this upon me; yea, and I always knew that there was a God.
53 But behold, the devil hath deceived me; for he appeared unto me in the form of an angel, and said unto me: Go and reclaim this people, for they have all gone astray after an unknown God. And he said unto me: There is no God; yea, and he taught me that which I should say. And I have taught his words; and I taught them because they were pleasing unto the carnal mind; and I taught them, even until I had much success, insomuch that I verily believed that they were true; and for this cause I withstood the truth, even until I have brought this great curse upon me.
...
60 And thus we see the end of him who perverteth the ways of the Lord; and thus we see that the devil will not support his children at the last day, but doth speedily drag them down to hell.
(Alma 30:48-53, 60)

Like Korihor "always knew that there was a God," so do you know that we are right, but like Korihor you have other priorities, and like Korihor you will receive your reward of him whom you serve, and you will not like it in the end.

I think I am starting to see a pattern develop here from some on this forum. Don't believe in a controlled demolition on 9-11? Bye Bye SOP! (Son of Perdition) Like Mitt Romney? Burn in hell sucker along with SOP Mittster! Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.. @-)

[LoveIsTruth]

I think I am starting to see a pattern develop here from some on this forum. Don't believe in a controlled demolition on 9-11? Bye Bye SOP! (Son of Perdition) Like Mitt Romney? Burn in hell sucker along with SOP Mittster! Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.. @-)

Well, Mark, you are wrong. Did I attribute this quote to say natasha? No. Because I think at least she is sincere in her delusion. BM5, on the other hand, strikes me as a man who actually KNOWS we are right, but his agenda does not include truth. Hence I compared him to a man who was likewise engaged in the past. So the comparison is generally valid, and similitude is an uncanny one.

[BlueMoon5]

BlueMoon5: More from Chief Nigro: "There had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors."

: Where are the pictures of this "hole?"

For starters, go to http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

: Ok. The pictures and videos on that side only support our side of the story! There was no significant fire, neither were there pictures of "20 stories tall" whole! Do you even look at the links you are offering?!

You didn't scroll down through the entire site.

All we have are these, with some damage to the corner. And since damage was on the corner why didn't the building collapse toward the corner, but instead fell neatly and symmetrically down as evidenced by video footage?

No that isn't all we have. Go to MailOnline, "Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building 7 consumed by fire." Will you accept that? No, of course not, just as you won't accept the eyewitness accounts of Chief Nigro, Asst. Chief Meyers, and their firefighters.

Look at the second photograph on the MailOnline site. It shows flames on the lower floors of WTC7, AND it shows something more. Look at the exterior metal beams. What's happening to them? They are buckling from the heat generated by the fires. That buckling caused the floors to fall in on one another, thus collapsing the building. The site states: ". . .investigators say that after the South Tower fell at 9:59 a.m. and the North Tower at 10:28 a.m., the pieces of the rubble did irreparable damage to Building 7, causing it to burn floor by floor, getting progressively weaker along the way." Remember, WTC7 burned for 6-7 hours (possibly longer), and it was about half the height of the towers.

For more photographic evidence of the inferno, go to http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; BTW, you realize that "where there's smoke, there's fire"--right?

: Wrong! You can have plenty of smoke (to create a cover) and almost NO fire!

". . .almost NO fire"

: The link shows no flames, only unidentified smoke.

". . . unidentified smoke?" What's unidentified about it? It's coming from the building.

Note the following: "Richard Gage and other 9/11. . .conspiracists like to show an NYFD photograph of small fires on the north face of Building 7. That's not the side where tons of flaming debris from the towers smashed into the south face, creating huge gashes and fires on multiple floors. In our debate, Gage claimed that the videos I played showed smoke but no fire. When the fire first started on the southwest corner of the Building 7, the dust was blocking the view. NIST reported that many fires burned themselves out in 20-40 minutes and then moved on. The fires left behind not only burned out areas, but structurally weakened areas as the beams and columns expanded, sagged, and contracted again. Then the fires started moving to the interior of the building. Is [Gage] suggesting that all that smoke wasn't evidence of fire, or that burned-out areas went back to full structural strength?" (Skeptic magazine, Chris Mohr, Sept. 7, 2011)

: If I had to guess it was more of the the theatrics to sell the "great structural damage caused the collapse" lie.

Amusing. So now you seem to suggest the government planted smoke bombs to cover evidence of a fire. Gut-wrenchingly funny! The conspiratorial mind: 'tis an awesome thing to behold.

: Again I say, this one in (Beijing or Madrid?) was a true inferno, and IT DID NOT COLLAPSE!

It wasn't hit by flying debris, and--as I recall--it didn't burn for seven hours, nor was its water supply non-functional.

: This is the photograph of WTC7 SECONDS before its collapse. It does not look engulfed in fire at all!

I wasn't there, and, I assume you weren't there. Two NY fire department chiefs were there, together with some of their firefighters. You state, based on the photograph, that "it does not look [emphasis added] engulfed in fire at all." I'll take the first-hand accounts of the fire department personnel any day over your photographic "documentation."

And if he tells you the Moon is made of green cheese you will believe him too?

I wouldn't, but I'm aware of some people who would; they inhabit this very thread.

: The photographic and video evidence of symmetry and free-fall acceleration of the collapse (as well as nano-thermate signature in the dust and molten metal in the basements) can only be explained by ONE mechanism: CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. NONE other explanation fits the available evidence.

Free-fall is in dispute, even though (as I recall) NIST has accepted it.

: No, my friend. Free-fall of WTC7 for over 8 or 9 stories is an unassailable fact, which even the lying NIST was FORCED to concede under the overwhelming weight of conclusive and irrefutable evidence.

The "overwhelming weight" (thanks for using that term), combined with severe damage to the building from the towers, combined with about seven hours of burning which buckled the columns, combined with the fact that 7 showed signs of collapse hours before it actually did--all of that makes the argument about free fall virtually moot.

: The only thing that is in dispute, at this point, is your integrity!

Ah, yes, when all else fails--when you cannot win an argument based on its merits--turn to character assassination and personal attacks. That's the mature, civil, rational thing to do--right?

: Controlled demolition conclusion can only be disputed by professional liars.

Here again you find it necessary to engage in character assassination. Do you seriously believe that those who disagree with your CD theory are "professional liars"? Seriously? So that would include the MIT professor of engineering who holds15 patents. . .the editors of Structure magazine, Mark Roberts, the editors of Implosion World, Ramon Gilsanz, every member of the 9/11 Commission, Zdenek Bazant, Frank Greening, the circa 300 professionals who authored the Popular Mechanics article, The James Randi Educational Foundation, and on and on and on (not to mention the overwhelming number of professional engineers who have kept their distance from outfits such as A&E). All of those people--and legions of others who don't "buy" your CD theory--are "professional liars." I am constrained to ask again, are you
serious?

[BlueMoon5]

I think I am starting to see a pattern develop here from some on this forum. Don't believe in a controlled demolition on 9-11? Bye Bye SOP! (Son of Perdition) Like Mitt Romney? Burn in hell sucker along with SOP Mittster! Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.. @-)

: Well, Mark, you are wrong. Did I attribute this quote to say natasha? No. Because I think at least she is sincere in her delusion. BM5, on the other hand, strikes me as a man who actually KNOWS we are right, but his agenda does not include truth. Hence I compared him to a man who was likewise engaged in the past. So the comparison is generally valid, and similitude is an uncanny one.

Mark's point was that many Truthers link acceptance of their 9/11 conspiracy theory to one's worthiness as a Latter-day Saint. The documentation for that tendency is extensive on this very thread. Yep, I'm going to burn in hell, clasping my temple recommend to my chest as I do so. So, too, presumably, will some of Prof. Jones' BYU colleagues.

[LoveIsTruth]

The "overwhelming weight" (thanks for using that term), combined with severe damage to the building from the towers, combined with about seven hours of burning which buckled the columns, combined with the fact that 7 showed signs of collapse hours before it actually did--all of that makes the argument about free fall virtually moot.

FREE FALL is not moot. FREE FALL means there was exactly NO RESISTANCE to the falling structure. Which means ALL of the supporting columns were COMPLETELY SEVERED. Which means CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. Which means inside job.

Ah, yes, when all else fails--when you cannot win an argument based on its merits--turn to character assassination and personal attacks.

No my friend, you LOST this argument a long time ago. I am simply reminding it to you and to the readers.

Here again you find it necessary to engage in character assassination. Do you seriously believe that those who disagree with your CD theory are "professional liars"? Seriously? So that would include the MIT professor of engineering who holds15 patents. . .the editors of Structure magazine, Mark Roberts, the editors of Implosion World, Ramon Gilsanz, every member of the 9/11 Commission, Zdenek Bazant, Frank Greening, the circa 300 professionals who authored the Popular Science article, The James Randi Educational Foundation, and on and on and on (not to mention the overwhelming number of professional engineers who have kept their distance from outfits such as A&E). All of those people--and legions of others who don't "buy" your CD theory--are "professional liars. I am constrained to ask again, are you
serious?

Only a hand-full of professionals came forward and GAVE THERE NAMES INDIVIDUALLY AND PERSONALLY to support the official lie. On the other hand we have over 1,600 certified architects and engineers who, at great personal risk, came forward and GAVE THEIR NAMES INDIVIDUALLY AND PERSONALLY, opposing the official lie. So our side, in this regard, outnumbers yours mightily. It is false to presume that all who did not personally gave their names to support the official lie, are in agreement with it.

[Fairminded]

Ah, yes, when all else fails--when you cannot win an argument based on its merits--turn to character assassination and personal attacks.

When a person is buried under a mountain of evidence to the truth and continues pushing unsupported falsehoods, any reasonable person only has two choices: consider him a liar, or consider him a fool.

I don't believe in false dichotomies...you could easily be both.

[BlueMoon5]

The "overwhelming weight" (thanks for using that term), combined with severe damage to the building from the towers, combined with about seven hours of burning which buckled the columns, combined with the fact that 7 showed signs of collapse hours before it actually did--all of that makes the argument about free fall virtually moot.

FREE FALL is not moot. FREE FALL means there was exactly NO RESISTANCE to the falling structure. Which means ALL of the supporting columns were COMPLETELY SEVERED. Which means CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. Which means inside job.

Ah, yes, when all else fails--when you cannot win an argument based on its merits--turn to character assassination and personal attacks.

No my friend, you LOST this argument a long time ago. I am simply reminding it to you and to the readers.

Here again you find it necessary to engage in character assassination. Do you seriously believe that those who disagree with your CD theory are "professional liars"? Seriously? So that would include the MIT professor of engineering who holds15 patents. . .the editors of Structure magazine, Mark Roberts, the editors of Implosion World, Ramon Gilsanz, every member of the 9/11 Commission, Zdenek Bazant, Frank Greening, the circa 300 professionals who authored the Popular Mechanics article, The James Randi Educational Foundation, and on and on and on (not to mention the overwhelming number of professional engineers who have kept their distance from outfits such as A&E). All of those people--and legions of others who don't "buy" your CD theory--are "professional liars. I am constrained to ask again, are you
serious?

Deflection won't work. Answer the question I have underlined above. You have imprudently claimed that anyone who doesn't agree with your conspiracy theory is a "professional liar." The decent, responsible thing to do is to admit that you were wrong (there's no shame in doing that).

[natasha]

I think I am starting to see a pattern develop here from some on this forum. Don't believe in a controlled demolition on 9-11? Bye Bye SOP! (Son of Perdition) Like Mitt Romney? Burn in hell sucker along with SOP Mittster! Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.. @-)

Well, Mark, you are wrong. Did I attribute this quote to say natasha? No. Because I think at least she is sincere in her delusion. BM5, on the other hand, strikes me as a man who actually KNOWS we are right, but his agenda does not include truth. Hence I compared him to a man who was likewise engaged in the past. So
the comparison is generally valid, and similitude is an uncanny one.

You are ever so wrong, LIT...you see...I know Blue...you attribute attributes to him that are false. Between you and my friend Col. Flagg (and a couple of others) you seem to proclaim that you know what is in other people's hearts and minds. That is a dangerous path and will bear you no good fruit.

[BlueMoon5]

The "overwhelming weight" (thanks for using that term), combined with severe damage to the building from the towers, combined with about seven hours of burning which buckled the columns, combined with the fact that 7 showed signs of collapse hours before it actually did--all of that makes the argument about free fall virtually moot.

: FREE FALL is not moot. FREE FALL means there was exactly NO RESISTANCE to the falling structure. Which means ALL of the supporting columns were COMPLETELY SEVERED. Which means CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. Which means inside job.

If free fall is of pivotal importance, and if it did, indeed happen (and there is clear evidence that it did), it does not axiomatically follow that it was achieved by means of a controlled demolition, as you wishfully suppose.* Colonel Flagg's wetpaint source (posted on Sun., Dec. 4, 6:12 p.m.) states: Anyone with a little common sense will realize that the top of a building does not pass through concrete and steel that comprises the lower portion of the building at the same rate as it falls through air. This just doesn't happen, unless, of course, the lower part of the building has lost its structural integrity (and this is USUALLY [emphasis added] due to the detonation of a multitude of SMALL [emphasis added] explosive charges as seen in controlled demolitions). Did you see the photograph of the buckled columns in the sixth-floor area of WTC-7? Does that tell you anything? * BTW, Prof. Jones claims that while the towers fell at nearly free-fall speed, WTC-7 fell at free-fall speed (no modifying adverb). However, the site 9/11 Physics Truth states: "The collapse of WTC-7 happened in near free-fall time overall."

Ah, yes, when all else fails--when you cannot win an argument based on its merits--turn to character assassination and personal attacks.

: No my friend, you LOST this argument a long time ago. I am simply reminding it to you and to the readers.

Is that an admission that you're OK with character assassination and personal attacks? No? Then why do you employ them?

:]Only a hand-full of professionals came forward and GAVE THERE NAMES INDIVIDUALLY AND PERSONALLY to support the official lie.

They didn't have to come forward. . .to support what you call the "official lie." By not proactively aligning themselves with the Truther position, they sent a clear message easily summarized in two words: "It's bunk."

[Jason]

You are ever so wrong, LIT...you see...I know Blue...you attribute attributes to him that are false. Between you and my friend Col. Flagg (and a couple of others) you seem to proclaim that you know what is in other people's hearts and minds. That is a dangerous path and will bear you no good fruit.

Of course you make claims about Blue that when called on....you never backed up.....speaking of fruit and dangerous paths...

I seem to recall another good quote that has something to do with "bearing false witness".

Have I done that - i.e. have you answered the question yet?

Please honor your making your last attempt with me...I assume you mean what you say...and I will do likewise.

Sure (although that was just in terms of trying to get some truth through your barrier) -

I've made my last effort to get through your emotional barriers to truth and get you to think about what you are saying and what has been stated!

But since you seem to prefer that I quit responding to your posts period....I can do that as well although if you could please humor me (or at the very least clearly state your position for the record with no room for any gross misunderstanding before witnesses)...for just this one final bit o'truth....as my understanding based on what you have stated (noted below) is that Bluemoon5 was correct on the Fluoride conspiracy -

No, he is anything but ignorant.

as well as

Jason...I did read through it.

So in conclusion a simple yes or no answer to the following simple question in which you confirm or deny my understanding:

You watched the videos, did the google searches, read through the links and information in the post.....and you believe Bluemoon5 is correct (not ignorant with regard to this issue) and that fluoride is harmless (a baseless conspiracy theory) - Yes/No???

[LoveIsTruth]

All of those people--and legions of others who don't "buy" your CD theory--are "professional liars. I am constrained to ask again, are you
serious?

Deflection won't work. Answer the question I have underlined above. You have imprudently claimed that anyone who doesn't agree with your conspiracy theory is a "professional liar." The decent, responsible thing to do is to admit that you were wrong (there's no shame in doing that).

Again, English professor, if you didn't understand my English: Any professional architect or engineer who denies Control Demolition (after being presented the facts of free fall of WTC7) is a professional liar. And again, our side MIGHTILY outnumbers yours, if you count professional architects and engineers, who PERSONALLY gave their NAMES in the support of the position.

[LoveIsTruth]

You are ever so wrong, LIT...you see...I know Blue...you attribute attributes to him that are false. Between you and my friend Col. Flagg (and a couple of others) you seem to proclaim that you know what is in other people's hearts and minds. That is a dangerous path and will bear you no good fruit.

Are you saying I cannot have the spirit of discernment? That is a bold statement on your part. Did you receive a revelation about it? Otherwise how can you know? Seems to me you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of!

[LoveIsTruth]

FREE FALL is not moot. FREE FALL means there was exactly NO RESISTANCE to the falling structure. Which means ALL of the supporting columns were COMPLETELY SEVERED. Which means CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. Which means inside job.

If free fall is of pivotal importance, and if it did, indeed happen (and there is clear evidence that it did), it does not axiomatically follow that it was achieved by means of a controlled demolition, as you wishfully suppose.* Colonel Flagg's wetpaint source (posted on Sun., Dec. 4, 6:12 p.m.) states: Anyone with a little common sense will realize that the top of a building does not pass through concrete and steel that comprises the lower portion of the building at the same rate as it falls through air. This just doesn't happen, unless, of course, the lower part of the building has lost its structural integrity (and this is USUALLY [emphasis added] due to the detonation of a multitude of SMALL [emphasis added] explosive charges as seen in controlled demolitions). Did you see the photograph of the buckled columns in the sixth-floor area of WTC-7? Does that tell you anything? * BTW, Prof. Jones claims that while the towers fell at nearly free-fall speed, WTC-7 fell at free-fall speed (no modifying adverb). However, the site 9/11 Physics Truth states: "The collapse of WTC-7 happened in near free-fall time overall."

FREE FALL of WTC7 for 8 or 9 stories is an established, settled, and incontrovertible fact supported by multiple videotapes. It is inescapable obvious and conclusive. You might as well assert that the Sun doesn't shine, or that it does not rise in the East. It will not change the fact. FREE FALL means there was EXACTLY NO RESISTANCE to the falling structure. This is Newton's law, so argue that one with him. The ONLY mechanism that accounts for observed evidence is CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. No other conclusion is possible, if you know rudimentary laws of physics and engineering, unless you are a liar.

Ah, yes, when all else fails--when you cannot win an argument based on its merits--turn to character assassination and personal attacks.

No my friend, you LOST this argument a long time ago. I am simply reminding it to you and to the readers.

Is that an admission that you're OK with character assassination and personal attacks?

No, my friend, YOU assassinated your own character when you trampled the truth and became a shill for liars, murderers and tyrants!

Only a hand-full of professionals came forward and GAVE THERE NAMES INDIVIDUALLY AND PERSONALLY to support the official lie. On the other hand we have over 1,600 certified architects and engineers who, at great personal risk, came forward and GAVE THEIR NAMES INDIVIDUALLY AND PERSONALLY, opposing the official lie. So our side, in this regard, outnumbers yours mightily. It is false to presume that all who did not personally give their names to support the official lie, are in agreement with it.

They didn't have to come forward. . .to support what you call the "official lie." By not proactively aligning themselves with the Truther position, they sent a clear message easily summarized in two words: "It's bunk."

Rather, either: "I am uninformed" (most of them) or "I am a coward and/or cannot afford to make my views known" (the rest).