Well ~~LORAX~~ What I find to be sad is, when someone thinks I have to agree with every single thing they believe and if I don't, I'm not a decent man and have TEAMED UP WITH THE DEVIL. What is wrong with you?

Did you read all of my posts? Obviously you did not. If by chance you did and you don't believe there were 4,000 F temp degree fires burnng in both of the towers, fires hot enough to melt steel beams, not just warp and bend them, then you are not as swift as I thought you were. It's your call if you wish to think badly of me, but don't ever bother to respond to any of my posts again. I don't know you.

Pass the popcorn.

NAMASTE It does not matter if that picture was taken from a video or not, it makes no sense at ALL and neither could a video it was taken from. A person on the same floor where massive fires burned and here comes a person out of the heat, smoke and dust and not a smude of evidence that she had been in a room full of smoke and fire. Her pure white slacks are still pure white, the building looks like a demolished ruins from WW-2. Explain it, I know you can.

Now if it was on a floor below the flor where the fuselage entered, where one of the wings entered the building and the people in those floors could have escaped being killed and were below the huge magnesium fires and later came out of hiding, I can almost accept that, but the sqeaky clean white pants? I do believe someone went to a lot of effort, to make a video somewhere that is a fake of the real event. We all are aware of what can be done with film now, people flying and giant bugs flying spaceships and eating people alive, etc.

On the firemen? You are saying things that I never said. I see you do have a reading disability. I percieve you as a very decent and nice person, but you are writing things that I never said. You should take that as constructive criticism. You are one who reads another's posts and if it's on a subject that you don't agree with that person, you don't read it properly.

The steel was QUICKLY sold off? Nonsense. There were over a hundred accident experts there at the site froM all over the country for days and weeks after the last fire burned out who could detect if a building was imploded and before any steel had been sold to "China". I do believe a lot of the steel was used to build a ship here in America.

There also were hundreds of firemen there, all are trained to detect explosive use. They broght firemen with explosive sniffing dogs from New York, Pennsylvania, Jersey, Maryland and Connecitut and no evidence was EVER found that explosives were used to bring down any of the three buildings. There would have been truck loads of explosive residue at the site and when that is brought up, someone tells us that the hundreds of firemen were given gag orders. ___ Oh my God.

That's Edna? I watched president Ford exit Air Force One once and walk to the Marine helicopter. Five minutes later, Gerald Ford exited Air Force one again. The two men were identical.

One more time, I want someone to tell me, the main fuselage of the 757s, didn't totally burn and that they probably were not lodged up against the central tower's cores as they burned. Some very importnat points and questions are answered, but most are not. Ignore those valid points that cannot be answered with any credence is the theme song. I'm amazed.

" ignoring the point."

See below.

"how does that describe or explain why the logical (physical world law of motion) necessity of it continuing to move, which didn't happen?"

Because if there are additional things going on with that macro feature that could account for why it didn't continue to rotate.

"You attempt to explain the flaw of my knowledge of physics, by stating: "… and further assuming that *nothing* else was going on."

Because, when considering other things going on nearby with respect to said macro feature, the simplified model you are sticking with no longer applies.

Your knowledge of physics is turning out like your knowledge of chemistry.

" we still get back to the obvious lack of any counter-force that conservation of momentum requires (for the theory that the building feel (mostly) straight down w/o explosives)."

See above, the model doesn';t hold true anymore when we add the additional complexities that you admit must have been occurring.

"You respond AS IF you actually could explain the massive dust clouds as compared to somewhat similar demolitions that actually acknowledged to use explosives"

The Vet wasn't "similar", they had no gypsum there, although I know for a fact there were large pieces of concrete in the pile there, I watched them clean it up. A "similar" collapse event would involve a structure with similar proportions of gypsum.

" - having at least an order of magnitude less dust, and you ignore my point of the rapid onset issue."

You have not made any case at all as to why it should have been any different than it was, merely alluding to other collapses with no specifics. The WTC towers were unique in all of the world.

"The observed reality cannot be explained by gradual deformation of collapsing floors"

What are you talking about here? I see nothing "gradual" about the "collapsing" floors.

"My point wasn't that there should have been fire at any particular area of the "sustained crash damage", but countering the assumption of massive (fire)"

It does not counter it as you say. It's an old point, debunked based on the idea that a cool spot in a large fire is not unusual and even to be expected.

" So why is it that you let KEM's statements stand unchallenged (with little or no substantiation), but dispute my own? "

I have no purpose in disproving statements by someone who is in general agreement with me on this issue, that is, that there were no controlled demolitions.

" and to deny obvious flaws in the debunking sites that you profess to use as counter proof."

You have yet to articulate a single said flaw, and I predict you will fail to do so still.

" BUt then we do have the 911 co-commissioner actually saying that not enough was collected, that the investigation was shallow & underfunded, and forced to occur too rapidly to really find out what happened."

Well good for him. I have not yet decided this issue and am not that interested in it. I do know that they never would have satisfied everyone anyway.

"Shoehorn yourself"

Like what you do, when you press together into an exponentially more complex plan, two different modalities of attack, with the one (airplane crashes) arguably jeopardizing the chances for the other ( controlled demolition) to work, with little good reason for the second in the first place. With only smoldering hulks of WTC1&2 still standing, the administration would have done the same vis a vis AQ.

"Jake- If there was no coverup, then why was the FORENSIC EVIDENCE called the structural steel quickly sold off before it could be examined. "

Because those in charge did not anticipate that Troothers would have demanded every piece, molocule, atom and sub-atomic particle be examined.

Kem -
I didn't say 'believe everything that I say', but the nonsense that you are spewing about magnesium fires and sagging steel beams shows that you have no clue what you are talking about. You are doing your part to help with the coverup and supporting more or less the official government story. If you support this story you are guilty of obstruction of justice relative to the deaths of more than 3000 American citizens. That means that you are NOT a decent human being.
I have read your posts for a long time and I don't think you are a willing servant of the neocon agenda. I do think that you have been tricked and I'm surprised at your gullability. I strongly advise you to do just a little research. Even the smallest amount of research will reveal that this 9/11 story is nothing but crap to cover up a government directed assault.
I have visited www.debunking911.com and I usually go back to it now and then when I want a good laugh. The entire site is nothing but a joke.
Note: Devil1 is a poster on here and my devil reference was to him, not 'the devil' which is nothing more than a fictional character.

~NAMASTE~ You keep saying the fires were extinguished. No, no they were not when the buildings fell, the still burnng magnesium fell right into the lower levels of the buildings and were ten totally covered with the remains of the upper floors which fell atop it all. Where there is smoke there is FIRE. There was gray smoke then, the fuel had burned out after the hour's time.

If there were NO extremely 4,000 degree hot and raging fires where the A/C fuselages lay in the buildings, why could no one get down the stariways from the floors, above the floors, where the aircraft entered the buildings? __ Answer that fairly. __ Pleae tell me again, exactly what YOU believe would have happened to the main fuselages of the two huge A/C after they entered the buildings.

Why was the woman's clothing and her exposed skin still spotlessly clean? Why were no bodies, or ANY remains of any bodies ever found of the hundreds of pasengers in the two aircraft?

If the aircraft didn't burn to powwder, as you are wont to believe for some reason, there would be body parts. Several dogs, highly trained to sniff out hman body parts, even buried human bones, never detected ANY. ___ Why were no huge aircraft parts ever found? ___ The answers you HAVE given to any of those fair and logical questions, are not at all logical or credible.

You obviously long ago, made your mind up on the issue of implosion and if boiled in oil, you would not attempt to even accept any other fair or logical reasons. You obviosly don't know squat about aircraft or aricraft crashes and fires, but you tell me I don't know the subject and you are absolutely wrong about that. You asked the "devil Busho loving" ~Jake~ why he didn't argue with MY comments. Perhaps he agrees with my comments, even though I don't agree with ALL of his. I don't agree with almost any of yours, becauee they mske no sense to me, and remember, you said Monday, that I was a rock of logic and a very sensible person. We cannot have it both ways now can we?

~Lorax~ I never knew that I would be classified as a criminal for stating that aircraft magnesium burning will melt steel beams.

Your ignorance is showing bud, I AM an expert on the subject of what happens in an aircraft crash and you obviosly are not. I find it very insulting that you would use witch hunting types of remarks about me. You have a nice day.

jakenewton at 1:24 pm today -- You're clearly not much of an expert on physics, when your response is "Because if there are additional things going on with that macro feature that could account for why it didn't continue to rotate."

Well, due your inability to delineate those "additional things", I guess I'll have to fill them in with something more plausible than the "nothing" that you are capable of providing.

One "other" thing that could possibly explain that (a neutralizing event), is an equal and opposite rotation of the same angular momentum applied to the same moment arm (axis of rotation), which would be obvious from seeing another 20 stories leaning the other way. But that's physically impossible for them both to occupy the same space, while also being the same 20 stories rotating in opposite ways (at the same time).

Beside this IMPOSSIBLE "other" thing, there is the possibility of the angular momentum being converted to another form or state, such as pulverized concrete pieces each rotating with same net angular momentum -- but that would imply the use of explosives to disintegrate those 20 floors.

"Because, when considering other things going on nearby with respect to said macro feature, the simplified model you are sticking with no longer applies. Your knowledge of physics is turning out like your knowledge of chemistry."
That's hilarious. You actually believe this is physics, this imaginary application to some missing more complicated model, of what? With no evidence, no model, and no supporting reason -- you actually expect people to believe you? And as far as my Chemistry knowledge, you have seen your credibility rust away in front of everyone's eyes, no more needs to be noted.

"See above, the model doesn';t hold true anymore when we add the additional complexities that you admit must have been occurring."
Of course other things were occurring, in the latrger universe around, but how does that address conservation of momentum, around a common rotational axis. That's 3 times hilarious, AS IF your attempts at trivializing my physics and repeating it trice makes it more believable?

Sorry JAKE, with no tikky there can be no takky. You fail to provide even a glimmer of an opposing force, and magically assert it must be there in a more complex model; where and what are you taking about?

"The Vet wasn't "similar", they had no gypsum there, although I know for a fact there were large pieces of concrete in the pile there, I watched them clean it up."

What twisted logic you use, when I argue for the existence of explosives at WTC on 911 (to explain the finely pulverized dust clouds and rapid onset), you reply that there were less dust and bigger chunks of concrete at the stadium (when we know that they used explosives).

So how could it be possible that WTC gravity causes powder, while Vet explosions provide chunks, while WTC gravity provides huge clouds, and the Vet has none?

Bravo JAKE -- you done a wonderful job PROVING MY POINT. Did you have a 3 martini lunch today, or do you have a fever to excuse your arguments and logic's demise?

"What are you talking about here? I see nothing "gradual" about the "collapsing" floors."Of course you don't see it JAKE, the collapse is applied over distance, and things in the real world change positions while operated upon by forces (like gravity's acceleration at g=10 m/s2). The actual distance of one floor level ~ 4 m = (1/2)(g)(t)2, which works out to t=0.64 seconds for that single floor collapse, while the dust clouds started near to simultaneously with the beginning of the collapse.

"two different modalities of attack, with the one (airplane crashes) arguably jeopardizing the chances for the other ( controlled demolition) to work, with little good reason for the second in the first place." SO? The possibility is consistent with actual evidence, as compared with you misguided appeal to authority and inertia of resignation and lethargy.

Your beyond disingenuous to ignore my often stated explanation of Silverstein's obvious economic suicide to purchase the WTC "white elephant's" lease, knowing of the current and ongoing WTC's failure to attract profitable lessees and the extreme costs to apply required asbestos hazard mitigation, prior to Universally acknowledged desired demolition. Not one iota of evidence to refute this, but nonetheless, JAKE says there's no incentive nothing even close to $5 billion WTC insurance payout (for investing 15 million to purchase lease 6 mo before)?

KEM states that "If the aircraft didn't burn to powwder, as you are wont to believe for some reason, there would be body parts."

No. Not necessarily, as I believe that powder pounding came from something other than heat. And it might surprise you to know that I do trust your knowledge and experience of A/C crashes - but you know very little physics, and your theory doesn't fit ALL of the evidence.

So you say within your own assumed reality, which doesn't include use of explosives although being agreeable to extreme basement temperatures that would have "baked-out" most traces of biologic materials.

Even a very large and solid rock - a Mountain - eventually does wear out, the breakdown product is called sand. I think that you still are a barometer of Americana, and the likelihood of resolving this set of mysteries is 50 or more years hence.

Your position is far easier to comprehend than JAKE's, and it is commendable that your principles are upheld throughout. I would NOT respect you, if you just bent over to agree, to something that didn't sit well with your beliefs.

It is my own limitations, the lack of the video experience for you, and general disinformation and propaganda that keeps us ALL from the TRUTH, but it will eventually come shining through the DARKNESS.

If not clear, let me state that ALL of the evidence is unclear (at some level) and arguing various positions, will naturally generate opposing counter positions - so the very adversarial process distorts truth. As Lao Tse said of the Tao, "the Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao".

Namaste

What's the point of this article again? That it's better to be paddled by the "Headmaster" of your expensive "Prep School" than be paddled by some ordinary principal in an underfunded public school?

KEM,
Give it up on this 'magnesium rims on the cars caused pools of molten metal in the sub-basements', already. I've already covered this ground before. Most rims on cars now are NOT 'mags' anymore, but aluminum, or steel.

Maybe there was a 1967 GTO muscle car show in the basement that morning.

A monster above and below
As it is in Heaven,

so it is on Earth

Namaste

I thought the world trade center disaster was in 2001, this is 2008. Mag wheels were VERY popular thru 2003-4 and still are popular with many sport models. Both of our vehicles had mag wheels as did our daughters cars at that time in history. There were thousands of vehicles in the towers basement garages, four times as many tires and likely in excess of 20,000 gallons of gasoline.

In addition, in almost every vehicle there are near fifty pounds or more of magnesium alloy, not counting any mag wheels. With just one thousand vehicles, that's fifty thousand pounds of magnesium or ten tons. Lotta heat there buddy and there were lots more than a thousand vehicles.

The basement fires would have been like a blast furnace heat. Spread out fires on several levels burned down there for several weeks and there would have been pools of molten metal found as indeed there were. So what exactly is your argument.

Some people seem to believe that if explosives were used, the result would be hours, days and weeks of hot fires. That is not how explosives work. A thermite grenade we used would burn for about a minute. So you and I have been over this many times and that means you are correct ~PAUL~ and I'm not?___ Really, imagine that, do you also think I'm a Bush loving neo-con traitor and guilty of killing three thousand people? Do you realize that sometimes you talk to me in front of other readers here as if I'm a child? How young do you think I am?___ Respect your elders son, you too Nam. Hey MIFTIN , tht's really funny, HAAAAAAAa HA. You another wizard who does not believe magnesium burns at 4,000 defrees F?

KEM -- I can see on other threads, and here that it hasn't been all joy for you today.

That's why you might consider reading my last to you, as I did acknowledge my *respect for you, which appears to be getting a bit tarnished with your now insistence of same.*respect doesn't imply agreement

"Well, due your inability to delineate those "additional things""

I don't have to. It's sufficient to know of their probability to make us realize that it is unlikely for the simple swivel movement model of yours to remain valid as things progressed. The real problem is where you assume that there are no such possibilities, and feel perfectly safe that the model still applies as things develop. See below.

"And as far as my Chemistry knowledge, you have seen your credibility rust away in front of everyone's eyes, no more needs to be noted."

I can clearly remember your inability to grasp that oxidizing metal can happen slowly, as with ordinary rusting, or quickly, as with metal actually burning, or at some rate in between, with the resulting release of energy in all cases having different effects. That's right, the same basic reaction occurs at different rates. I also remember that when I pointed that out just as I am doing here, you characteristically ignored the point.

"Of course other things were occurring, in the latrger universe around, but how does that address conservation of momentum, around a common rotational axis."

Why do you assume that the axis still exists at a later point in the progression? Why don't you allow that perhaps the part that had once served as the pivot has become broken?

"What twisted logic you use, when I argue for the existence of explosives at WTC on 911 (to explain the finely pulverized dust clouds and rapid onset), you reply that there were less dust and bigger chunks of concrete at the stadium (when we know that they used explosives)."

Back at you. Because the Vet, where we know they used explosives, there seemed to be less dust and there were in fact concrete chunks. Therefore, it doesn't help your case that there were explosives at WTC when they don't seem to cause those things in the first place, when the Vet is used as an example. When I first stated the important difference in composition of the Vet, you would have been better off to have conceded that and realizing that the Vet collapse couldn't possibly help your case for explosives at WTC.

"So how could it be possible that WTC gravity causes powder, while Vet explosions provide chunks, while WTC gravity provides huge clouds, and the Vet has none? "

The composition of the two are different, that's why. I already said it. Gypsum. It has nothing to do with explosives.

"Bravo JAKE — you done a wonderful job PROVING MY POINT."

Only in your backwards world. It's not my fault that you tried to compare the Vet implosion to prove something.

"Your beyond disingenuous to ignore my often stated explanation of Silverstein's obvious economic suicide to purchase the WTC "white elephant's" lease, knowing of the current and ongoing WTC's failure to attract profitable lessees and the extreme costs to apply required asbestos hazard mitigation"

Four different times I posted this link in the last thread explaining all the above. Yet you just repeat it and don't acknowledge the counter argument. Will you this time for once? And you call me disingenuous.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

And here:

9 1 1 m y t h s . c o m / h t m l / l o s i n g _ m o n e y _ a t _ t h e _ w t c _ . h t m l

I do respect you, Kem, and hope one day you will come to agreement on this issue, as we agree completely on so many other issues critical to our nation & world. Ok, since you seem not to want to believe me when I say most rims that were called 'mag' rims (even in 2001) were aluminum NOT magnesium, I'll try appealing to a good sense of logic I know you possess.

Please explain to me why, if there were tons & tons of magnesium on the plane that hit the Pentagon, there were no pools of molten metal found there? The official claim was there were no significant parts found because the plane 'vaporized', yet DNA evidence was recovered from almost all the passengers on that plane. How is this possible? If the plane 'vaporized' at the Pentagon why didn't this also happen at the WTC? If planes 'vaporize' when they hit something porous like a building then why is there always scattered debris when they crash into the solid rock of a mountain?

I anxiously await your logical explanation for these historical firsts and mysteries in chemistry & physics.

I'll contiue to debate you Namaste, it's cordial enough. The concrete floors turned to powder from the fall and weights which crushed them, but any steel beams or support trussed that weren't melted didn't trun ot powder fro the collapse. Thick magnesium aircraft parts wouldn't become powder either from the collapse of the building and I never suggested they did. As I said you either have a reading disability, or a problem with reading comprehension as so many who blog here do.

I contend the aircraft burned and became powder and the bodies became dust. Once again, you do not address my points. I pointed out that dogs trained to locate human bodies did not find any bodies, the few remains of human body parts found at ground zero would not fill a two gallon bucket. That is because the hundreds of people in those two aircraft burned to dust and the aircraft parts burned to powder, as I have personally witnessed occur on more than a few occassions.

Here are some truths that are not distorted.

1. Boeing 757 aircraft are primarily made of hundreds of TONS of magnesium alloy. If burned, it burns at 4,000 degrees. Any argument on that? ___ Just a simple (yes or no) will suffice before any go into a long disartation.

2. Instantly AFTER the aircraft completely entered the buildings, they exploded in huge balls of fuel fire. ___ Any argument?

3. The aircraft fuselages did not depart the bulldings after they penetrated one side, they stayed in the bulidings and huge fires erupted as soon as they had fully entered. Therefore, they stopped moving in the buildings. Where did they stop, what would have 'logically' prevented them from travelling (all the way through) the buldings, as they were moving at near 500 mph when they entered and each weighed hundreds of tons with fuel, cargo and passengers. Wherd do yu believe thay stopped moving as they were almost centered when they hit. Answer. the tower's central steel frame core. __ Any argument?

4. What od you suppose those aircraft looked like when the stopped? I'l tell you from experience, what I'm certain they looked like. Tehy wold ahve been crushed from the nose to the tail, like a crushed tin can which was probably only fifty some feet in length, maybe less. I twold have been as solid as a brick too. It would have been a huge mass of crushed up metal and in that mass of metal had been a large tank of jet fuel, which now had erupted into a mist and exploded in flames, as we witnessed when the aircraft did enter the buildings.

Did all of the center wing tank fuel explode and burn like a flash bulb?___ No, some did, much just stayed right there within thd confines of that floor, that horrible mess of crushed aluminum, tires, glass, wiring, bodies, luggage, etc, AND, and tons of magnesium, which began to burn in a fierce and very hot 4,000 degree fire. Black smoke billowed out of the top portions of the towers fo ran hour. No one put those fires out, EVER. They continued to burn, until nothing was left, except powder and dust.

Now if you don't buy that, PLEASE,__ ANYONE, tell us what YOU believe occurred, ___ please do. I have previously asked you NAMASTE, to tell us what you believe happened to the two aircraft, and you do not respond to that request, but instead just say I'm wrong. Be specific please and tell me where I am wrong with my assesment of what happened with those two aircraft. ___ PLEASE!

Or, ignore that request in this debate, and change the subject, or say something like, "I'm tired of this argument, we've gone over this before." No one has honestly replied to what I just wrote and have written several times.

Google magnesium and it plainly states, that MAG wehicle wheels are called "MAG wheels" becaue they are made of magnesium alloy. And I do know that is a fact. And if not a single vehicle in the basments had one Mag wheel, there would have been many tons of magnesium there and what difference does that make anyway in regards to the aircraft were indeed magnesium and they burned at 4,000 degree heat and melted steel beams.

Aircraft do not VAPORIZE at those speeds in a crash. That is a damn lie. Let us argue and debate the Twin Tower crashes. I never have spoken on the Pentagon crash.

Here's a link about the likely sequence leading to collapse. Have at it:

http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm

JAKE -- It is just so sad when the facts get in the way of your strongly held beliefs, isn't it:

Well arn't you the lying wicked twisted spider

You're conceited, arrogant, and now ignorant too, as exhibited by fully no comprehension of what the LAW of CONSERVATION of MOMENTUM is about.

== Perhaps it is not beyond you to comprehend that the LAW is the equivalent as saying that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but only converted into another form ?

== The rotational energy of 20 stories is actually a sizable chunk of energy to disappear so non-dramatically, and w/o explanation - perhaps you wish to reconsider?

Your outright lame explanation is: "perhaps the part that had once served as the pivot has become broken"

Let's see if I can explain angular momentum to you, as your false idea of a pivot point is irrelevant, to wit: If a figure skating dancer builds up a large linear velocity, and then plants a toe (with proper training), the forward motion is (mostly) converted into rotational or angular velocity. And as is typical, the dancer starts the spin with arms and leg extended, from central rotational axis. The moment of inertia is determined by integrating all elements of volumetric mass (density), and summing them proportionally to the distance of each mass element from the rotational axis. The best or highest density is therefore a ring (with as much mass distributed at the periphery, just like a fly-wheel). The twirling skater starts the rotation with maximal moment of inertia, to maximize angular momentum. The dance continues with the dancer gradually and gracefully bringing their body's parts tightly into aligning with the spin axis, which by conservation of momentum does what?

Of sorry, I guess it isn't that obvious that by decreasing the dancer's own angular moment of inertia, that the angular rate has to increase proportionally.

So, back to your caLAMEity of >"the pivot has become broken", guess what happens to all of the dancer's angular momentum if she were to twist her ankle and collapse? Perhaps not seen too often during the Olympics, there has got to be a place for that energy to go, and bones will perhaps break but of necessity there will be a violent counter-reaction (i.e. this is called a torque) to release the energy, causing arms and legs to be flung outward traumatically. Most might recognize that gyroscopes rely on this continuation of rotational energy, to navigate spacecraft and submarines inertially, and that that energy can actually resist external movement, that is orthogonal to axis of rotation. Isn't this just amazing that now you know why little spun-up tops, can get out of hand, when jerked around (or should I say JAKED around?)

So what would this mean to the upper 20 stories that got us here deep into physics?

Well decreasing the angular moment of inertia would occur for collapse, which would cause the structural unit to rotate faster, per Conservation Law - but we see it disapear w/o expected increase in angle and rate - this is quite surprising to occur, unless there might be a hidden force or energy source to counter these facts. Hmmm ?

This is so fun JAKE, we should do it more often, but there's is still much more, when you attempt to avoid being hoisted upon your own petard, by replying : "The composition of the two are different, that's why. I already said it. Gypsum. It has nothing to do with explosives."
Well, I actually know this to be completely the case. You again (so sad, when you do that) ignore the relative issue that bigger bang EXPLOSIONS makes for smaller pieces of concrete and more and denser dust clouds, so while you provide useful information about the Vet's concrete chunk size (thnaks!) you sidestep the issue of any impartial observer seeing less dust with the explosives used at the Vet.

So let me summarize, as this must be tough for you to follow along:

(1.) When explosives are used (along with gravity), big chunks of concrete are produced (you provided this fact, so I'll assume you still believe this to be true?)
(2.) Logical reasoning says that a larger charge of explosives would produce smaller pieces (size is ~ proportional to cube of energy expended)
(3.) When explosives are used, dusts are produced that mostly occur after the building is impacting the ground, as my video demonstrated at Vet.
(4.) Because we are told that no explosives were used to demolish WTC1/2, there is a big problem that the force of gravity alone somehow created only concrete dusts, with no pieces being much bigger than a fist (especially considering the benchmark of item (1.) explosives + gravity = large chunks).
(5.) This same dust phenomenon is quite puzzling that the vet (granted w/o dry-wall) had relatively limited production of dusts while using explosives AND gravity.
(6.) So how could WTC1/2 produce hundreds if not thousands of times more and thicker dust, if it had only gravity to produce that energy? Quite a big quandary here.
(7.) Perhaps the only consistent method to produce immense clouds of dust and no chunks is that someone injected explosive energy to WTC1/2.
(8.) Back to the dry-wall, which is cementitious board product, with a gypsum mix sandwiched between paper layers. This product is actually both hard, and allows fairly easy repairs and movement of electrical fixtures (etc), as well as having a high fire ratings to suppress flames spreading.

(9.) I've dropped this material from the roof of my home, and although it does make a small cloud of dust, I've never seen it turn into a cloud of dust due solely due to gravity, and usually requires high speed reciprocating saw to make it into dust.

(10.) Perhaps your experience is similar? Probably not, as you appear to inhabit an entirely different world where the laws of physics follow JAKE and not ISAAC Newton's LAWs

Well, this is all the fun I can stand tonight, I don't know about you. WHIP IT JAKE, WHIP IT SO GOOOD

Namaste

I see you are not going to reply to my questions again. Not at all surprised. That's really no skin off of my nose and I won't lose a bit of sleep over it.

I do believe I posed some fair arguments however and not any that deal with building twists or curls or powdered concrete. It did mostly powder but why woild that have to be from explosives? When a buliding is imploded, they don't set explosives all over the concrete floors.

"Your outright lame explanation is:"
"perhaps the part that had once served as the pivot has become broken"

You had made quite a point about other events I said must have occured to render your simple pivot model no longer valid. You went on and on about how that it was dumb to not specify any. I simply put that forward as an example.

Now look at the link I just posted above. From there:

"The trusses/floor system, sagged in the middle because the columns were preventing the trusses from expanding in their direction. That led to the bowing of the exterior columns."

Then:

"After the columns bowed, the weight was no longer going straight down. Like taking a straw and bowing it in the middle, it no longer can hold the same weight as it did when it was straight. The building tried to transfer the load to the core columns and massive hat truss on the roof. The weakened core, weakened by fire and impact, couldn't hold the massive weight from tilting. As with the perimeter column, the massive load on the deformed core columns gave way."

So we have a sequence of failed systems, and once this leads to total collapse, we can't even see those top floors after just a couple seconds to know exactly what it did.

Now you will please provide your very best critique of the page I posted.

KEM -- You're not being ignored, it's just time sharing of my limited resources, about …
America's NEW Whipping boy for 911:

JAKE -- I'm sorry about that hyperlink failing for those still logged on to enter comments, but to simplify things, I'll just copy and paste the relevant details where I mentioned R U S T prior to your disclosure, as I nearly fell out my chair laughing at the absurdity of it:

April 10th, 2008 1:24 pm, JAKE — I’m LOL ROFL … … …
I finally realized that the chemical reaction that you and your sources are using to explain “the meteorite” is commonly called

_ R U S T I N G _
Wow, this sets a new low for you JAKE.
Namste
… … … 
jakenewton April 10th, 2008 1:32 pm
“is commonly called
_ R U S T I N G _”
Gold Star for you. See above.
What were you saying again about your knowledge of chemestry …

So JAKE it appear that your vast knowledge of CHEMISTRY doesn't include how to SPELL it?

"So how could WTC1/2 produce hundreds if not thousands of times more and thicker dust, if it had only gravity to produce that energy? Quite a big quandary here."

Not really. You made an apples to oranges comparison between disimilar buildings. It is up to you to show that the dust cloud is somehow "too big" or that it's onset was "too fast". You have not done that. This is anctually a point I have not heard much about. Perhaps you can reference a site that makes a better case than you, around the quantity of dust.

""Your beyond disingenuous to ignore my often stated explanation of Silverstein's obvious economic suicide to purchase the WTC "white elephant's" lease, knowing of the current and ongoing WTC's failure to attract profitable lessees and the extreme costs to apply required asbestos hazard mitigation""

"Four different times I posted this link in the last thread explaining all the above. Yet you just repeat it and don't acknowledge the counter argument. Will you this time for once? And you call me disingenuous."

Yup, you ignored it again.

"I finally realized that the chemical reaction that you and your sources are using to explain "the meteorite" is commonly called "Rusting".

Which is basic knowledge, you should not *finally* have realized it it instead should have been second nature. Plus, it was not used to explain the meteorite, plus, you are *still* neglecting cases where essentially the same reaction occurs at a much higher rate, as with the burning of steel, or in the case of creating hydrogen and heat from steam and hot steel, a mechanism you have never been able to disprove.

"So JAKE it appear that your vast knowledge of CHEMISTRY doesn't include how to SPELL it?"

LOLOLOL!!!! Very good! Great catch! Gold Star for you!!!!

This isn't a spelling bee. And you should have written "appears" not "appear". You should just go to bed.

Hi ~PAUL~, no pools of metal were found at the pentagon? Well, for one thing, the wings and most of the fuel didn't enter the Pentagon building. I do believe the fires the aircraft caused were put out before the magnesium had burned for an hour or more, that aircraft wasn't burnng up in a high rise. I never have given that crash any serious thought, except to know the aircraft did not vaporize.

It may have broken all to pieces and not crushed into a solid mass and someone then used the word "vaporized", but that is a poor choice of words or a lie, not your lie, a lie by whomever said it, intentionally or not. There are some very strange things about that crash investigation, if what I have read about it is factual. It stinks.

The fires in the towers basements burned for weeks, and it was hot enough down there to melt steel. There were rubber tires, gasoline, all types of metal, including magnesium and there would have been molten metal and there was molten metal. That in no way proves explosives of any type.

When explosives explode, there is a flash explosion and fire and it's over. If thermite is used as a slow burnng explosive, it burns rather quickly and that's it. It can and does melt steel. So does magnesium and when it's a magnesium alloy, it burns for a long time, very heavy magnesium parts can burn for hours, even days, it burns far slower than thermite and near the same temps, 4,000 versus 4,500 and leaves a similar trace on metal that has not melted. Thermite welds leave the same traces and Thermite welding is common in construction.

I am not arguing molten metal was found at the world trade center, or arguing that some say molten metal flowed fron the side of the building. I would say that is likely. I will also say, that in no way proves explosives were used. It could have been magnesium, it's very likely it was and there is no valid argument for any ot say the aircraft weren't constructed with tons of magnesium and they didn't burn to powder. They had to have burned to dust or powder, as I have seen to have occured several times.

Enough chasing the rotational energy monster around. Here is a paper that addressess it.

http://www.debunking911.com/ProgressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf

From the above paper, a verbal explanation:

"Before disappearing from view, the uppermost part of the South tower was seen to tilt significantly and of the North tower mildly. Some wondered why the tilting did not continue, so that the upper part would pivot about it's base like a falling tree. However, such toppling to the side was impossible because the horizontal reaction to the rate of angular momentum of the upper part would have exceeded the elastoplastic sheer resistance of the story at least 10.3"

So it busted at the place it was pivoting. Have at it dude. It also contains a lot of other interesting stuff.

"Well arn't you the lying wicked twisted spider"

And you sir, are a scoundrel, relative only to a common naïve. And you spelled "aren't" wrong. I haven't been able to load that bloated thread in days, so your point is lost on me.

KEM -- I apologize for making some fun of this, but that is for me preferable to my becoming angry, and I didn't intend any disrespect by arguing the details with you. Where I mis-quoted you (not maliciously) I have attempted to clarify, and when I skipped over your arguments, it was simply a triage technique as I'm not retired (yet). I have some time now, so let me go through your last posting:I'll contiue to debate you Namaste, it's cordial enough. The concrete floors turned to powder from the fall and weights which crushed them,
(a.) That doesn't jibe with the Vet stadium collapse (video), where as I explained to JAKE explosives + gravity made substantially less dust and bigger concrete chunks. I'm certain that you can google for still pictures of the collapse, if you're interested - or I can assist you perhaps?
(b.) I frankly don't get it about gravity and concrete being so different at WTC, so my natural tendency to question authority discovered what I stated above (to JAKE).
(c.) Some of the concrete floors certainly did turn into dust as you describe, but much of the mass would have retained its chunkiness, especially when understood that energy applied has to go as the (inverse) cube of the smaller size dusts being produced - gravity just doesn't have it in it to do so (so totally pulverized).
(d.) The dust EJECTA (yes the technical term for dust clouds) was much as seen with asteroid collisions, and other high energy activity, and cannot be explained to be due to gravity alone. Again the video evidence is extremely clear that prior to collapse of the floors, there were very large billowing outward fast moving clouds of dust. And very curiously, at this time, there has yet to any direct collisions between floors, and we're most likely in the plastic deformation stage (if gravity and hot fires alone) of the beams twisting and collapsing (if the official theory were true)
(e.) The free fall acceleration due to gravity is the only source of "movement" energy, which means the actual temperature is a secondary issue, although no doubt having a substantial energy quantity
(f.) I calculated for the initial one floor collapse onset, to be slower than 0.6 seconds, which is far longer than the observed instantaneous generation of the pyroclastic dust cloud.
(g.) How do you explain this (preemption of both the logically and physically mandated timeline)?

You continue: but any steel beams or support trussed that weren't melted didn't trun ot powder fro the collapse. Thick magnesium aircraft parts wouldn't become powder either from the collapse of the building and I never suggested they did. As I said you either have a reading disability, or a problem with reading comprehension as so many who blog here do.
(a.) We are agreed, that gravity and A/C heat (alone) have no mechanism for turning metal into powder.
(b.) We are agreed, that thick magnesium parts share this same resistance to becoming powder, and collapse alone couldn't do so.
(c.) We are agreed, that you never suggested they did.
(d.) I do likely have a reading problems and mental aberrations, commonly called mental health issues - and I may crazy, but I'm not stupid.
(e.) Many "nerdy" guys and gals are "on" the spectrum of Perceptual Disability Disorders (PDD)

You continue:I contend the aircraft burned and became powder and the bodies became dust. Once again, you do not address my points.
(a.) We are agreed in the end result, just not as to how that state was achieved.
(b.) I actually agree with your knowledge, and start with the conflagration and A/C crash information that you have provided
(c.) We diverge when that HEAT energy becomes insufficient to explain the observed phenomenon, even if it could described and predict partial floor collapse, it doesn't go nearly far enough for progressive and totally destructive collapse.
(d.) Perhaps you see now, in fully details that we aren't so far apart in our ideas and understandings

You continue: I pointed out that dogs trained to locate human bodies did not find any bodies, the few remains of human body parts found at ground zero would not fill a two gallon bucket. That is because the hundreds of people in those two aircraft burned to dust and the aircraft parts burned to powder, as I have personally witnessed occur on more than a few occassions.
(a.) We are agreed that human remains were almost completely absent, which is a pretty extraordinary situation.
(b.) We are agreed that your personal experience is truthful and accurate.

You continue: Here are some truths that are not distorted.
1. Boeing 757 aircraft are primarily made of hundreds of TONS of magnesium alloy. If burned, it burns at 4,000 degrees. Any argument on that? ___ Just a simple (yes or no) will suffice before any go into a long disartation.
2. Instantly AFTER the aircraft completely entered the buildings, they exploded in huge balls of fuel fire. ___ Any argument?
(a.) We are agreed that huge fires were started on impact.
(b.) There was less fuel inside of WTC's 2nd collision with South tower, due to the angle of entry.

You continue: 3. The aircraft fuselages did not depart the bulldings after they penetrated one side, they stayed in the bulidings and huge fires erupted as soon as they had fully entered. Therefore, they stopped moving in the buildings. Where did they stop, what would have 'logically' prevented them from travelling (all the way through) the buldings, as they were moving at near 500 mph when they entered and each weighed hundreds of tons with fuel, cargo and passengers. Wherd do yu believe thay stopped moving as they were almost centered when they hit. Answer. the tower's central steel frame core. __ Any argument?
(a.) We are agreed that the A/C wreckage would make it to and possibly through some of the central core columns.
(b.) The North tower's hit was the shortest distance to the core, and may have split in nearly in two. I seem to recall some damage on the opposite side, perhaps some titanium from turbine blades made it all the way through?

You continue: 4. What od you suppose those aircraft looked like when the stopped? I'l tell you from experience, what I'm certain they looked like. Tehy wold ahve been crushed from the nose to the tail, like a crushed tin can which was probably only fifty some feet in length, maybe less. I twold have been as solid as a brick too. It would have been a huge mass of crushed up metal and in that mass of metal had been a large tank of jet fuel, which now had erupted into a mist and exploded in flames, as we witnessed when the aircraft did enter the buildings.
(a.) We are agreed that the impact would have massive compression and violence to erupt the remaining fuel, like a fuel air bomb (search for MOAB - mother of all bombs, for something really scary).

You continue: Did all of the center wing tank fuel explode and burn like a flash bulb?___ No, some did, much just stayed right there within thd confines of that floor, that horrible mess of crushed aluminum, tires, glass, wiring, bodies, luggage, etc, AND, and tons of magnesium, which began to burn in a fierce and very hot 4,000 degree fire. Black smoke billowed out of the top portions of the towers fo ran hour. No one put those fires out, EVER. They continued to burn, until nothing was left, except powder and dust.
(a.) We are agreed that the impact likely killed all sprinklers, except those on the next higher floors, and that the floor's sprinklers storage tanks would likely have NOT been capable of being re-filled, due to core damage, design redundancy is unknown factor.
(b.) Although we are agreed that the ignition of magnesium would be self propagating, I cannot agree that this is sufficient energy to take the building down.
(c.) Buildings are over design, usually a factor of six beyond the sum of static (dead) and dynamic (live) loads - which is approximately a 10-fold factor, that given an "ideal situation" of equally distributed forces and torques - that each story could support the 10 stories above it, while of course the core columns carried all of that weight at each floor.
(d.) The periphery wall was only for dynamic wind loading, not gravity loads - except the top cap which distributed the TV antenna's load down the outside tube wall columns.
(e.) The periphery wall was over designed so that one entire face could be completely removed, and still meet WIND loading (hurricane lvl 3) specs (given that the corners were still functional)
(f.) We are agreed, that w/o another outside factor, that much of the impacted floors would burn to dust (if given enough time)

You continue: Now if you don't buy that, PLEASE,__ ANYONE, tell us what YOU believe occurred, ___ please do. I have previously asked you NAMASTE, to tell us what you believe happened to the two aircraft, and you do not respond to that request, but instead just say I'm wrong. Be specific please and tell me where I am wrong with my assesment of what happened with those two aircraft. ___ PLEASE!
(a.) We are agreed that the A/C wreckage would likely do as you suggest, if there were no other factor introduced
(b.) We are NOT agreed that this would likely bring two well designed buildings down.
(c.) I recall reading that each floor weighed close to that of the A/C, so the collision force relative to the building strength, was shared or distributed through all of the 243 columns, and all of the 100+ floors.
(d.) From my simplified perspective, each A/C was meet eventually with a withstanding net building inertia of approximately 100:1 of the A/C weight - so the building as an overall structure barely felt its being RUNG, even when crashing into the central core area

You continue: <blockquoteOr, ignore that request in this debate, and change the subject, or say something like, "I'm tired of this argument, we've gone over this before." No one has honestly replied to what I just wrote and have written several times.
(a.) I am tired, but very happy at whipping JAKE so thoroughly tonight, almost nothing could bring me down from that high
(b.) As in previous squabbles betwixt us, it comes down to perceptual differences, that given enough time and effort, are no where close to insurmountable

Namaste

JAKE -- All that you've busted is what ever remaining prestige you might have been able to assembly

Your silly argument (was already addressed above), when you rant (with deBUNK'STER vehemence):"However, such toppling to the side was impossible because the horizontal reaction to the rate of angular momentum of the upper part would have exceeded the elastoplastic sheer resistance of the story at least 10.3"

So it busted at the place it was pivoting. Have at it dude."

If you'd bothered to actually read my postings -- you might heaven forbid, actually learn something.

As far as your HOT argument, it matches so muych else of your roto-routerhetoric, all covered in slime and effluent. Perhaps you can now read what I posted yesterday?

April 15th, 2008 9:38 pm
Well, most watching the video might notice that even when using some explosives, that a very strong structures DID NOT EVER produce billowing clouds above the top of the collapse, until after it had touched the ground. Never in that video, with the use of explosives, was the initial collapse obscured.

Do you have any un-biased power to perceive?

Without a countering FORCE the laws of physic INSIST that the top 20 floors continue rotating,

And NOT as Bazant choose to assume (rotation) starting at the very bottom (AS IF an integral monolithic pillar, still connected through the crash floors), but just the top 20-stories (as the photo I know you've seen from the previous thread clearly showed.

…

You've been WHIPPED, so please just take your lashes in style (whatever that means for you, I really wonder).

I sure hope that I haven't jeopardized your pending promotion, or anything really important?

Take care, you really do have it within you (somewhere?, maybe try the wizard in Empire City)

Namaste

JAKE -- Graciously accepts defeat at 11:11 tonight saying
so your point is lost on me.Which is hardly at all surprising, considering what you know of IT

All brainwashing aside, if you could find ten top experts in controlled demolitions who have been living on Mars with no contact with Earth for the past seven years, and if you were to simply show them the films of 1, 2, and 7 collapsing, probably every one of them would just shrug and say: "Well, looks like a big job. I wish my company had gotten it....right in the middle of Manhattan to boot!"

miftin -- Very funny,

the only thing is the neoCONuts, forgot their 2-story high big banner flying on the top flagpole, one cannot buy such good advertisement, anywhere. That was such a big mistake, as NY is all above name recognition, and those that are hip

KEM, I guess I'll weigh in again (Good work Namaste, BTW), and I think you really need to research the Pentagon crash because all the deceptions are related.

Please explain, "Well, for one thing, the wings and most of the fuel didn't enter the Pentagon building." Well where did it go then? There was very little recovered outside the building, and the hole in the inner second ring of the Pentagon was only about 15 feet in diameter. One smaller engine was brought out of the building & displayed, BUT it didn't match the tyype of engine that 'supposedly' crashed into the building.

"I do believe the fires the aircraft caused were put out before the magnesium had burned for an hour or more, that aircraft wasn't burnng up in a high rise."

The WTC buildings didn't burn much more than an hour either, so if pools of molten metal were found at the WTC why were there none at the Pentagon?

There were an estimated 85 cameras filming around the Pentagon, yet the public has only gotten to see 5 (very questionable) frames of film. If everything were above board about the crash & investigation, don't you think some film would have been released by now to quash the belief of a full 25% of Americans that the events of 911 were a government contrived event? Why did the FBI come into the gas station across from the Pentagon and immediately confiscate film from their survelliance camera...and where is it? What was the other huge explosion, heard an hour AFTER the crash, about?

Here's something never fully explained about the WTC. It has been determined there was between $1-150 billion in gold bullion, and $450 million in silver bullion under the WTC, very malleable substances especially when concentrated in ingots. Gold, especially, will bend, squash, flatten into a pancake, even liquify, but it rarely completely disintegrates into thin air..if ever. Silver, granted, has different properties because of hardness or whatever.

Explain why only $230 million was recovered? Even if it was ground into dust doesn't most of it come out of the ground as dust anyway?

~Paul~, the magnesium fires at the world trade center didn't stop burning when the buildings fell. Read all of my prior posts if you wish to debate or discuss the crash at he WTC, I believe most or all of my arguments are alresdy written. Do you say there were no pools of molten metal at the world trade center? There definelntly were.

I told you I had not read much about the Pentagon crash and am not prepared to debate that issue. NO two plane crashes are identical, the two that hit the towers were very, very similar. The Pentagon crash would have been TOTALLY different. There is no comparrison, so I won't bother to reply to that. I'll read about it and give it some thought, but it's a different subject as far as I'm concerned. I've heard there was a lot of strange things concerning it. Probably were.

As to the wings coming off? The only crash I ever was a team member investigating that hit a concrete building, and several I've read about, the wings came off when it hit the building. They didn't at the Twin Towers, those weren't re-inforced concrete buildings.

No, KEM, I will take issue also with anyone who calls you anything like a troll, but I will say you need to take my advice and get to a high speed connection so you can watch some of the videos that document various points of contention. You just can't see what all needs to be seen through stills, text, or even watching the collapses in real time. Slow motion, close ups, different camera positions, and testimony from experts & people on the scene are necessary.

You chastised namaste for not answering the questions you posed...well what about the ones I asked you in these posts:

PaulMagillSmith April 16th, 2008 9:04 pm

PaulMagillSmith April 17th, 2008 1:15 am

KEM, you're confused on this one. I ALWAYS said there were large pools of molten metal below the WTC, in fact I've even seen a picture of a huge chunk of fused metal, concrete, & other debris (a conglomerate) after it had cooled. I'd like to see an analysis of the composition, though, and that would solve your molten magnesium theory one way or another. Tell you what, I'm going to try to research that question, and maybe you can, too.

Kem-
I'm tapping my pencil reading all these posts and trying to reason this out. We're entering a very dark time for this country. I consider you a pretty intelligent guy and I need you on my side.
Regardless of just how much "experience" we may have, the best we are able to come up with on the 9/11 issue is conjecture and theories. Only a team of professional investigators working together will be able to determine exactly what happened.
In an effort to reach common ground I'll ask if you can agree with me on these points:
1. The manner in which the attack was conducted and the manner in which the buildings collapsed can be construed as suspicious.
2. The subsequent investigation was poorly conducted and incomplete.
3. A non-partisan, thorough investigation of the 9/11 event needs to be conducted so the case can be closed.
I appeal to your intelligence and your humanity, not to agree with me on every issue, but to demand a more serious investigation of this event. If you can do that then we are standing together instead of on opposing sides regardless of our point of view.

Jake-
www.debunking911.com is a complete joke. It reads like a high school physics project.
That site and Popular Mechanics are your only references. You just parrot whatever they write.
That isn't investigation.
Most of what I have done is read and research. I've only performed one actual experiment and you can easily do this too. Take a cell phone with you the next time you fly anywhere and see if you get a signal. If you manage to get one at all it will be 1 bar and only over a major city. Everyone I've talked to (that I know isn't lying) that has actually tried has failed. Yet all these 'debunkers' manage to get perfect signals every time. 5 bars no less! There were no cell phone calls from those aircraft. A 5 minute experiment by an amateur showed at least that part of the 'official story' was BS. The script writing was good, especially the part about Todd Beamer saying the Lord's Prayer with the operator. (Rolls eyes) Also don't forget the cockpit voice recording of the hijackers saying "Allahu Akbar!" before the plane hit the ground instead fo the Shahada. How stupid do they think people are?

"If you'd bothered to actually read my postings — you might heaven forbid, actually learn something."

Translation: "Now I realize that all my previous ranting ignored fundamental points neatly addressed in the Bazant and Verduere paper. There's no way I'll be able to address the paper, published in Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 133, No. 3, March 1, 2007, a respected peer reviewed professional journal, and still claim explosive charges nonsense."

Namaste, All you were doing was piggy backing on Brian Brademeyer comments:

"And if the center of mass is dropping AND moving laterally, as it appears to me in the photo of the rotated South Tower, just what force is there that could possibly stop the lateral component of this motion??"

"None that I can see, which is why that block had to be "vaporized".

No Brian, Namaste, "shearing" explains what happened, better than "vaporized".

"I am tired, but very happy at whipping JAKE so thoroughly tonight,"

In your dreams. The Bazant and Verduere paper is on the table unscathed. Further discussion from you on this issue will address that paper. Going forward, your argument is with *them*, not me. I'll make popcorn while you get that together.

"Jake-
debunking911.com is a complete joke."

I predict you will make no specific criticism against that paper, which is why your sweeping generalization is much easier for you to do. You certainly will have notheing to say about the Bazant and Verduere paper that I linked from there.

" Take a cell phone with you the next time you fly anywhere "

Not this again. It's been thoroughly debunked, years ago. You are way behind:

9 1 1 m y t h s . c o m / h t m l / t h e _ 9 _ 1 1 _ c a l l s _ w e r e n _ t _ r e a l . h t m l

The idea, Lorax, is for you to already have known this, and then to address it, not repeat the original "point".

"mechanics of progressive collapse"

" predict you will make no specific criticism against that paper,"

I, of course, meant the debunking911 site as well.

Jake-
Your effort to continuously parrot these debunking sites and blow off everything as "debunked long ago" is futile. There is no evidence, report, equation, reasoning, or reference that would ever make me believe that 9/11 was anyhting other than a deliberate, skillully executed attack on America by the US Government. I do not believe any 'terrorists' were on those planes. I do not believe there were any phone calls.
Please do not waste your time quoting any form of infomation to me regarding the collapse of the buildings.
The only thing that would convince me otherwise is a serious non-partisan, non-government funded investigation into the event, covering all aspects with a result different than what I believe. Since there's a MASSIVE cover up and sealed information concering the event, that's not likely to happen is it?
So live in your little debunking world and believe whatever you want. I'm not fooled.

"Your effort to continuously parrot these debunking sites and blow off everything as "debunked long ago" is futile. "

And your lack of specific criticism is duly noted, and consistent with my prediction. You can no longer claim ignorance, you are blatantly disengenuous, which is *much* worse. That you will continue to repeat the points already debunked and not address the counter arguments is dispicable and harmful. No popcorn for you, have a nice day.

JAKE -- So what's this supposed to mean:
"No Brian, Namaste, "shearing" explains what happened, better than "vaporized"."
¿ Did you finally realize that the_ w o l f _ in _ s h e e p ' s _ clothes,

had the _ s h e a r __ N E R V E _ to cut the poor fluffy's curls away,

Just to pull the _ W O OL _ over _ o u r _ E Y E s ?

Namaste: Address the peer reviewed paper in question, describing explosiveless collapse. Do it. Enough of your prancing around the issue.

Evidently you didn't read all of my posts before you blasted me ~LORAX~.

I had said we needed an honest investigation long before you showed up. I even offered the names of people I'd like to see on the panel.

Of course your opinions are the only valid ones, so it isn't necessary ot read 'exactly' what others have written.