LDS Freedom Forum

shadow wrote:

Col. Flagg wrote:In the pics above, notice how there is no smoldering, smoking pile with thermitic reactions occurring under the debris pile at L'Ambiance and the fact that the pieces in the debris pile are substantially larger than at ground zero with many floors still in tact. The difference: one was a gravity-induced collapse, the other was a highly unconventional, high-tech top-down demo job with military incendiaries.

The first part of your post was good but when you compare the damage of the less than 20 story building to that of a 100+ story building you're being dishonest if you think the damage should be equal.

I wasn't comparing the amount of damage - just the size of the pieces of steel and concrete and the fact that there was no smoldering, smoking pile that lasted for months with molten steel under it all for L'Ambiance.

Amen to our "Physics Lesson 1"!!!

Osama could not have suspended the laws of physics on 9/11. No matter how evil he is, he isn't a 'God'.

Period.

shadow wrote:

Col. Flagg wrote:In the pics above, notice how there is no smoldering, smoking pile with thermitic reactions occurring under the debris pile at L'Ambiance and the fact that the pieces in the debris pile are substantially larger than at ground zero with many floors still in tact. The difference: one was a gravity-induced collapse, the other was a highly unconventional, high-tech top-down demo job with military incendiaries.

The first part of your post was good but when you compare the damage of the less than 20 story building to that of a 100+ story building you're being dishonest if you think the damage should be equal.

That's funny.....aren't YOU the one who mentioned the building for comparison in the first place????????

:-\ :-\ :-\ :-\

and like Col Flagg mentioned before, gravity does NOT pulverize concrete and steel buildings into dust. So the only difference in the two IF you say the towers were brought down due to fires is that there should have been a BIGGER PILE of concrete and steel and pancaked floors which there obviously wasn't.

Army Of Truth wrote:

shadow wrote:

Col. Flagg wrote:In the pics above, notice how there is no smoldering, smoking pile with thermitic reactions occurring under the debris pile at L'Ambiance and the fact that the pieces in the debris pile are substantially larger than at ground zero with many floors still in tact. The difference: one was a gravity-induced collapse, the other was a highly unconventional, high-tech top-down demo job with military incendiaries.

The first part of your post was good but when you compare the damage of the less than 20 story building to that of a 100+ story building you're being dishonest if you think the damage should be equal.

That's funny.....aren't YOU the one who mentioned the building for comparison in the first place????????

:-\ :-\ :-\ :-\

I did, but only to show that a steel building collapsed without the use of explosives. I wasn't comparing the damage, the Col. did.

Army Of Truth wrote:and like Col Flagg mentioned before, gravity does NOT pulverize concrete and steel buildings into dust. So the only difference in the two IF you say the towers were brought down due to fires is that there should have been a BIGGER PILE of concrete and steel and pancaked floors which there obviously wasn't.

Like these buildings where explosives weren't used?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY3nj728WPY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prwvj-np ... re=related" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

shadow wrote:

Army Of Truth wrote:

shadow wrote: The first part of your post was good but when you compare the damage of the less than 20 story building to that of a 100+ story building you're being dishonest if you think the damage should be equal.

That's funny.....aren't YOU the one who mentioned the building for comparison in the first place????????

:-\ :-\ :-\ :-\

I did, but only to show that a steel building collapsed without the use of explosives. I wasn't comparing the damage, the Col. did.

Yes, but the L'Ambiance bldg was only a 16-story bldg that was HALF-WAY FINISHED. It wasn't even a full building! There is NO comparison.
#-o

shadow wrote:

Army Of Truth wrote:and like Col Flagg mentioned before, gravity does NOT pulverize concrete and steel buildings into dust. So the only difference in the two IF you say the towers were brought down due to fires is that there should have been a BIGGER PILE of concrete and steel and pancaked floors which there obviously wasn't.

Like these buildings where explosives weren't used?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY3nj728WPY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prwvj-np ... re=related" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Still don't know what these videos from some guy in France made in 2009 prove.
Were there dozens of EYEWITNESSES that heard explosions from these buildings like the WTC towers? I don't think so.
Was there MOLTEN METAL at the base of these buildings? I don't think so.

How about building 7 that you seem not to want to touch? There are videos of people saying it was going to be demolished before it was brought down. How do your videos prove anything about WTC 7 or anything else for that matter??

shadow wrote:

Army Of Truth wrote:and like Col Flagg mentioned before, gravity does NOT pulverize concrete and steel buildings into dust. So the only difference in the two IF you say the towers were brought down due to fires is that there should have been a BIGGER PILE of concrete and steel and pancaked floors which there obviously wasn't.

Like these buildings where explosives weren't used?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY3nj728WPY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prwvj-np ... re=related" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Very interesting, thanks Shadow. You'll note however that these buildings are pulled at the middle. The second one pulled 4th and 5th floors, leaving the top three to crush floors 6-9. Equal and opposite reaction. You can still see floors below were not devastated.

Watch this segment and notice 2 things: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4#t=00h59m35s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

1. The upper 15 floors could have crushed the 15 below, but would have left the remaining 50 or so floors standing. 15 can't take out 80+ floors.

2. As they point out, as the top floors begin to fall, they are disappearing into the remaining structure. Each floor should have crushed one equally below it. Watch closely, and you'll see the floors aren't being hit.

OK, here's 9/11 in 60 seconds...

The twin towers were aging dinosaurs, condemned structures and financial liabilities for its owner, the NY Port Authority. They were full of asbestos and toxic time bombs. In the late '90's, the city of Manhattan mandated asbestos abatement in all buildings. It was going to cost $2+ billion to have all the asbestos removed from the twin towers while they were already losing money via rented offices and decreased tourism to the area. The NY Port Authority tried 3 times to obtain a permit to have them demolished but were denied because of the asbestos and extreme height of the buildings. In the spring of 2001, the NY Port Authority sold the WTC complex lease to Larry Silverstein who then takes out a massive insurance policy against terrorist attack. On September 11, 2001, two planes strike both towers acting as the cover for the buildings' demolitions. Mr. Silverstein's asbestos-laden financial liabilities were now gone and instead of having to fork over $2+ billion to have them asbestos-free, he walked away with $4.5 billion in insurance money on a $300 million investment (who wouldn't want to make a 1,500% return on their money)? Mr. Silverstein had domestic and international political connections.

Building 7 housed thousands of investigative SEC case files involving massive crimes ranging from fraud and extortion to money-laundering and racketeering involving Washington, DC, the big banks and Wall Street (Enron and WorldCom were just the tip of the iceberg). Had many or all of the cases gone public, it could have brought down the entire establishment. Its destruction ensured all the investigations disappeared.

Over in Pennsylvania, flight 93 was shot down after passengers rushed the cockpit and seized control of the plane, compromising its final destination which, more than likely, was building 7 (to justify its demolition).

Then, at the Pentagon, the section that was struck housed a bunch of Auditors and Accountants who were investigating $2.3 TRILLION that Rumsfeld announced on 9/10/01 had gone missing. The attack destroyed all of the records, case files, computers and servers involved in the investigation and killed most of the individuals overseeing the investigation.

So you have covering up massive financial crimes and making billions as the motive while the U.S. military-industrial complex got a blank check going for itself in the form of no-bid defense contracts for firms with ties to neo-cons in the Bush administration, PNAC got its 'new Pearl Harbor' and it gave DC a reason to begin cracking down on our freedoms in an attempt to transform the U.S. into a fascist police state.

Any questions?

Col Flag. +1!

Thank you! Motive makes the difference.

pritchet1 wrote:Col Flag. +1!

Thank you! Motive makes the difference.

Yup... and thanks for the kudos Pritch! :ymhug:

From http://kauilapele.wordpress.com/2011/09 ... or-awhile/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Best 9-11 Video I Have Ever Seen (a 5-minute quickie 9-11 summary)
http://youtu.be/yuC_4mGTs98" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (9/11: A Conspiracy Theory)

“Out of Chaos”, by Jose Escamilla (each about 10 minutes long)
1. http://youtu.be/WPyiwibpRps" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (Out of Chaos Comes Order)
2. http://youtu.be/eVfXZss36sY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (A new Front Man at the White House)
3. http://youtu.be/9y9j-WzHXXY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (Men with no Morals)
4. http://youtu.be/i2yZB52BpI4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (Building 7, The Pentagon, AA Flight 77, UA Flight 175)
5. http://youtu.be/m1FuRm55RZc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (The Twin Towers Controlled Demolition)
6. http://youtu.be/tZE-_v6D5mI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (Heroes & Traitors)

These six provide, in my opinion, for the most part, excellent analyses of the observed events of 9-11. They are prepared in the careful, meticulous style of Jose Escamilla. Especially, in #1, which starts with a video of what the children were actually reading while President Bush was in their classroom (be prepared for “spookiness”, right at the beginning). And in #5, the slowed down videos of the collapse of the towers, showing the clear evidence for explosions, visible as bright flashes, on the faces of each of the collapsing towers. Also in #5, the clearly demonstrated inconsistencies (shall we call them “lies”?) by President George W. Bush.

(the only part that did not align fully for me was the Illuminati hand signals part (not sure which part that was in). I’m sure even many of us have accidentally made that same gesture at some point in our lives)

—————————————————————————

UPDATES
Added 110915, 1528 HST: http://youtu.be/OBKix7iMbCQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (WTC Building 7 Controlled Demolition (with Visible Explosions))

shadow wrote:

Rob wrote:Update: Regarding your latest post to me, I see where you quoted yourself from a different thread. We're talking about this latest conversation here on this thread. Do you see where what you posted could be taken the way it was?

Look at my two previous posts quoting myself prior to the one you're referring to. They were from this thread. Your post of my quotes don't prove a thing either way.

And it isn't my fault that you read more into my posts than what I actually post. For example-
1- I post that there is plenty of proof that 77 hit the pentagon. Your interpretation of my post is that I must think that Bin Laden did it.
2- I post that other buildings can fall into their footprint and be pulverized in the process. Your interpretation of my comment is that thermate wasn't used in the towers.

Take my comments for what they are and stop reading more into them and we'll do just fine :ymhug:

Hey, all I wanted was clarification, you clarified, time to hug it out --> :ymhug:

Col. Flagg wrote:

: He had eyewitnesses calling in, reporting the buildings fell in just seconds in perfect implosion. Said it looked exactly like a controlled demolition.

Eyewitnesses? You readily endorse their accounts here, but you (or at least your acolytes) reject eyewitness accounts of American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon. BTW, I've been wondering: If Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, ah, er, what happened to it and its passengers? Where is Renee May who called her mother from the plane and told her it had been hijacked? Where are the other passengers? Where is the crew? Where are the hijackers? Where is the aircraft?

: The U.S. 'government' and our mainstream media have successfully used the term 'conspiracy theorist' to designate anyone questioning or challenging the official fairy tale as a nutball. =))

The term "conspiracy theorist" has been part of the English language for a long time. It didn't first arrive on the scene as a result of 9/11, i.e.: "Belief in conspiracy theories has become a topic of interest for sociologists, psychologists, and experts in folklore since at least the 1960s, [with] the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy. . ." (Wikipedia, "Conspiracy theory"). And then there's this gem, dated 1936, from American commentator H. L Mencken: "The central belief of every moron is that he is the victim of a mysterious conspiracy against his common rights and true deserts. He abscribes all his failure to get on in the world, all of his congenital incapacity and damfoolishness to the machinations of werewolves assembled in Wall Street, or some other such den of infamy" (same source as cited above).

: Bluemoon, I've provided plenty of information and evidence - what you choose to believe from here on out is your own business. But I am done.

Promises, promises.

BlueMoon5 wrote:

Rob wrote:

: What about Quad4_72's comments led you to believe he/she is well-informed? I don't see it.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, you raised Quad4_72's reiteration of Oystein's post as a diversionary tactic.

And you have no proof of that. You were wrong in saying there were two. I called you on it. Moving on.

BlueMoon5 wrote:OK, let's dismiss Quad's post; forget I ever mentioned it.

Fair enough.

BlueMoon5 wrote: 1) "They ignited 4 similar-looking 'chips' and measured the energy release per weight unit. The results ranged from 1.5 to 7.5 kiloJoules per gram, a wide spread that makes 'high-tech nano-stuff' an unlikely explanation. More importantly, 2 of the samples released more than 4kJ/g of energy, which is the maximum energy thermite could possibly release due to the basic laws of the universe. This data alone [establishes] unequivocally that the material cannot possibly be the kind of thermite they claim to have found (aluminium + Fe203).

2) "They claim to have found elemental aluminium, one key ingredient to thermite, in a fifth chip. However, this fifth chip is of a different material than the four others, as is proven by their own data presented in figures 6 and 14. They did NOT find free aluminium in any of the material that they ignited and claimed to be or contain thermite.

3) "They compared the exothermic behavior of their 4 ignition samples with that of real (nano-?) thermite found in literature, and claimed. . .the graphs are very similar. They are not: Compare figures 19 with 29 and note how the position of the peak differs significantly both on the X-axis (by more than 100 C) and the Y-axis (by a factor of 2 to 4.5). This result proves that their samples are not the kind of thermite known to science.

4) "Sunstealer has identified. . .that the crystaline structures we see in figures 8-10 resemble kaolinite and hematite. [These] have been used [for] ages and [are] still used today as key ingredients to red paint; there can be no doubt that the 4 red-grey chips from the ignition experiments is simply a red paint.

5) ". . .Steven Jones showed XEDS spectra of primer paint they had scratched from original WTC structural steel. This spectrum resembles the spectrum in figure 14 nearly to a 't'! Hence the fifth chip (which they soaked in MEK to find elemental Al) is thus proven to be primer paint from WTC steel

"These are the main points where Harrit, Jones, e.al. debunk themsleves."

(http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=203271" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

Here's some of Dr. Jones' comments regarding the paint chips, etc. (http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 45#p198664" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) There are more here on the forum, but you can find them on your own, if you feel so inclined. /:)

BlueMoon5 wrote:I don't claim to understand very much of the chemistry/science involved in Oystein's post. I suspect, however, that you don't either. What I do understand, however, is that Jones and his associate may not have presented all the relevant facts (intentionally or unintentionally); certainly that possibility exists. I'm not accusing, simply analyzing/observing. Perhaps an impartial chemist/scientist would care to comment.

Same here. As for presenting the relevant facts, the opposite may also be true. They may have presented them all. Certainly that possibility also exists, does it not? :-B

BlueMoon5 wrote:

Col. Flagg wrote:: Bluemoon, I've provided plenty of information and evidence - what you choose to believe from here on out is your own business. But I am done.

Promises, promises.

This from Mr. "stay tuned". /:)

Saw this on Infowars. Looks fake as all get out. Not sure why they posted it.

iamse7en wrote:Saw this on Infowars. Looks fake as all get out. Not sure why they posted it.

UMmmmmm YEAH. /:)

I saw that video too. It's fake because it's inverted. (the pent house at the top was on the opposite side). To be fair, they posted it with a disclaimer saying they did not know if it was real or not. They wanted people to have the chance to debunk it. Looks to me like an attempt by Cass Sunstein's little disinfo regiment.

Rob wrote:

: As for presenting the relevant facts, the opposite may also be true. They may have presented them all. Certainly that possibility also exists, does it not? :-B

Indeed it does. One wonders, however, why Jones and Harrit (with others) opted to have Bentham Science Publishers print their article, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe." Why wasn't the article published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society or one of 33 (all peer-reviewed) journals published by the American Society of Civil Engineers? Bentham is something less than a top-of-the-line publisher of science-based articles. Two specifics: 1) In 2009, Bentham published a nonsensical, computer-generated article submitted as a hoax by Philip Davis, a Cornell University graduate student. (Note than Bentham charges publication fees to authors of research papers.) Davis, joined by Kent Anderson (The New England Journal of Medicine), used SCIgen, a computer program that generates senseless science papers, to create "Deconstructing Access Points," the content of which made no sense whatsoever. It was subsequently published by Bentham's Information Science Journal. 2) Bambang Parmanto (U. of Pittsburgh information scientist) resigned from his editorship of the journal after learning of the hoax and that the article had not been peer-reviewed. Another Bentham associate, Marc Williams (stem cell researcher at the U. of Rochester School of Medicine), also resigned. (Enter into your search engine "CRAP paper accepted by journal" and "Editors quit after fake paper flap." Look for the link to New Scientist).

Bentham has a reputation for aggressively soliciting research papers and for inviting scientists to join its editorial board. That was the case with Davis. Hence, a question: If their paper was of such importance to the scientific community, and if it had any validity, why did Jones (and the other authors) settle for a second-rate science publisher? Did they even try to have it accepted by a top-ranked journal?

BlueMoon5 wrote:If their paper was of such importance to the scientific community, and if it had any validity, why did Jones (and the other authors) settle for a second-rate science publisher? Did they even try to have it accepted by a top-ranked journal?

I'm not sure, but going after the reputation of the publishing company instead of debating the science in the paper is ad hominem. Can't argue the science in the paper? Fine. Moving on.

Which thread on all of LDSFF has the most pages?

iamse7en wrote:Which thread on all of LDSFF has the most pages?

EARTHQUAKES!!!

Col. Flagg wrote:OK, here's 9/11 in 60 seconds...

The twin towers were aging dinosaurs, condemned structures and financial liabilities for its owner, the NY Port Authority. They were full of asbestos and toxic time bombs. In the late '90's, the city of Manhattan mandated asbestos abatement in all buildings. It was going to cost $2+ billion to have all the asbestos removed from the twin towers while they were already losing money via rented offices and decreased tourism to the area. The NY Port Authority tried 3 times to obtain a permit to have them demolished but were denied because of the asbestos and extreme height of the buildings. In the spring of 2001, the NY Port Authority sold the WTC complex lease to Larry Silverstein who then takes out a massive insurance policy against terrorist attack. On September 11, 2001, two planes strike both towers acting as the cover for the buildings' demolitions. Mr. Silverstein's asbestos-laden financial liabilities were now gone and instead of having to fork over $2+ billion to have them asbestos-free, he walked away with $4.5 billion in insurance money on a $300 million investment (who wouldn't want to make a 1,500% return on their money)? Mr. Silverstein had domestic and international political connections.

Building 7 housed thousands of investigative SEC case files involving massive crimes ranging from fraud and extortion to money-laundering and racketeering involving Washington, DC, the big banks and Wall Street (Enron and WorldCom were just the tip of the iceberg). Had many or all of the cases gone public, it could have brought down the entire establishment. Its destruction ensured all the investigations disappeared.

Over in Pennsylvania, flight 93 was shot down after passengers rushed the cockpit and seized control of the plane, compromising its final destination which, more than likely, was building 7 (to justify its demolition).

Then, at the Pentagon, the section that was struck housed a bunch of Auditors and Accountants who were investigating $2.3 TRILLION that Rumsfeld announced on 9/10/01 had gone missing. The attack destroyed all of the records, case files, computers and servers involved in the investigation and killed most of the individuals overseeing the investigation.

So you have covering up massive financial crimes and making billions as the motive while the U.S. military-industrial complex got a blank check going for itself in the form of no-bid defense contracts for firms with ties to neo-cons in the Bush administration, PNAC got its 'new Pearl Harbor' and it gave DC a reason to begin cracking down on our freedoms in an attempt to transform the U.S. into a fascist police state.

Any questions?

Nice job! Might mention that all that asbestos was used in the insulation of the steel beams (was used in brake pads for decades due to ability to withstand heat)....

Rob wrote:

BlueMoon5 wrote:If their paper was of such importance to the scientific community, and if it had any validity, why did Jones (and the other authors) settle for a second-rate science publisher? Did they even try to have it accepted by a top-ranked journal?

: I'm not sure, but going after the reputation of the publishing company instead of debating the science in the paper is ad hominem. Can't argue the science in the paper? Fine. Moving on.

The "science in the paper" is precisely the point. Apparently, it was not good enough, not credible enough, not well-grounded enough to be acceptable to the best chemical/civil engineering/mechanical engineering
journals. Hence, Jones & Company apparently had to settle for second best.

Is Consumer Reports guilty of ad hominem attacks when it advises readers to avoid certain used cars, or when it criticizes new models? Of course not. ad hominem attacks occur most commonly in the give-and-take of debate about an issue of public concern. If one of the debaters is unable to argue a point on the merits, he/she may resort to personally attacking the other debater.