conspiracy theories

[pinoy_09]

---

Who said Obama lied?

According to the news, he's saying that somebody's dead.
And the issue is weather2x it's right or wrong.

And it's up to you to figure out what's right or wrong..

I paid P290 for cable tv, It must have been the truth. Olrayts!!!

No need to go all sarcastic with me. It's clear from your post that you don't believe Osama is dead. Don't give me excuses.

[Sand Man]

2. "Gage declined to engage with audience questions speculating as to who might be responsible for the controlled demolition in his answers."

Well of course, because, as you say, they refused to speculate. They are architects. They stressed that the official report was erroneous and was full of omissions based on their professional opinions. They said how the building collapsed was inconsistent with how NIST described it.

They only wanted to re-open the investigations.

Here's the video (for anyone who is interested -- and have the time)

National Press Club Richard Gage Mike Gravel 9/9/2010 Video

[pinoy_09]

Well of course, because, as you say, they refused to speculate. They are architects. They stressed that the official report was erroneous and was full of omissions based on their professional opinions. They said how the building collapsed was inconsistent with how NIST described it.

They only wanted to re-open the investigations.

Here's the video (for anyone who is interested -- and have the time)

National Press Club Richard Gage Mike Gravel 9/9/2010 Video

I did a little google search on Richard Gage... the architect on your video. And here's what I found:

Richard Gage, Charlatan and Liar. - Ed Schultz Message Board

[Sand Man]

... it is also quite ridiculous to think when the tower collapsed the average laymen thought "Hey, no way those towers collapsed, they must have been demolished!!!" yet they don't have the proper training/education to conclusively state that the towers were indeed demolished. And these are the same people who continuously disagree with the engineers and architects who spent YEARS in school studying the design and construction of buildings.

Well, today's your day.

Here's a bunch of people who "have the proper training/education". And they're all saying the buildings were demolished.

National Press Club Richard Gage Mike Gravel 9/9/2010 Video

Skip forward to the 27th minute of the video.

[Sand Man]

I did a little google search on Richard Gage... the architect on your video. And here's what I found:

Richard Gage, Charlatan and Liar. - Ed Schultz Message Board

Yep. Looks like robert thel liberal is taking a beating in that thread.

Did you read it?

[Soul Doctor]

Nice try.

Here's why I don't accept this BS from the architects and engineers in that article:

1. The architects and engineers are members of the 9/11 Truth movement. Of course they will say that the towers were demolished.

2. "Gage declined to engage with audience questions speculating as to who might be responsible for the controlled demolition in his answers."

WOOPS!!

3. There were no other architects and engineers present in this convention other than members of architect and engineers of the 9/11 Truth Movement. So medyo BIAS ni sila. It would have been better kung naay other professionals present para ma debatehan gyud ug maayo.

Hahaha. this guys logic sounds familiar.
the number 2 statement is *****ic.
Its not their job to answer who is responsible.
all they knew is that is was a controlled demolition.
I told you, ask any engineer and they'll know it.

you can not see pancake effect at freefall speed as with what happened in WTC.
That doesnt need a genius to figure it out.

[Soul Doctor]

At least nadugangan na ang mga tawo nga gagamit sa ilang utok diri.

This is what this thread is for.

Stimulate the mind to think given one situation.

How can you spot the difference between a fact and a lie?

I dont know why these people keep putting the other down.
Stay with the facts.

Fact 1.
Jet fuel in an open air combustion is not hot enough to melt steel.
It also burn within minutes, that is not long enough to melt steel.
Your kerosene stove produce the same BTU as jetliner.
If in open air that fuel can melt steel, then your pots in the kitchen (since you are cooking with it everyday) have already melted a long time ago together with your stove.

Fact 2.
Those imbedded steel columns were wrapped with concrete, and concrete is known to be fire resistant.
so, there's no way those heat could get to the steel at the questioned temperature.

Fact 3. If a few steel column would melt at a certain point, the building would not collapse because of its design. The other support columns and also the steel frame on the outside of the building would share the load. And if the metal column melted at a certain point, the building would just fall to its side because the beams will sure to bend (assuming that the steel melted).

If you melt a steel column at a certain point, will it disintegrate all the way as they say it happened in WTC 911 "attack"?

Fact 4.
The whole area was covered with dust. It even travels across the lake.
Dust came from exploded concrete.
Where would you get such volume of dust, if the building was not demolished by controlled demolition?

Fact 5.
World Trade Center Building no. 7 was not hit by a jetliner yet it collapsed at freefall speed.
Clear sign of controlled demolition.

Fact 6.
Fire fighters, rescue workers and news reporters on the ground of WTC heard secondary explosions from the base of the buildings.

Those are just some of the facts.

[pinoy_09]

Yep. Looks like robert thel liberal is taking a beating in that thread.

Did you read it?

Well, today's your day.

Here's a bunch of people who "have the proper training/education". And they're all saying the buildings were demolished.

National Press Club Richard Gage Mike Gravel 9/9/2010 Video

Skip forward to the 27th minute of the video.

I did. Did you?

Here's another one on Richard Gage:

ae911truth - 911guide

So, either he's a huge fraud or he's making money off of those speaking engagements and DVD's... take your pick.

Hey, we all have to make money one way or the other, right? Even if it means fooling the public. You ever heard of Greg Mortenson?

[pinoy_09]

Hahaha. this guys logic sounds familiar.
the number 2 statement is *****ic.
Its not their job to answer who is responsible.
all they knew is that is was a controlled demolition.
I told you, ask any engineer and they'll know it.

It's not their job to answer who is responsible yet they gravely claim that the building were demolished? Seems like a convenient abrupt end to an argument they themselves created.

you can not see pancake effect at freefall speed as with what happened in WTC.
That doesnt need a genius to figure it out.

I believe I have answered your doubts with the pancake effect on the previous pages. Do I need to repeat it?

[pinoy_09]

At least nadugangan na ang mga tawo nga gagamit sa ilang utok diri.

This is what this thread is for.

Stimulate the mind to think given one situation.

How can you spot the difference between a fact and a lie?

I dont know why these people keep putting the other down.
Stay with the facts.

I love it when conspiracy theorists undermine other's capabilities to think, as if they're the only smart ones. Conspiracy theories and thinking is like a contradiction to me---no offense.

Fact 1.
Jet fuel in an open air combustion is not hot enough to melt steel.
It also burn within minutes, that is not long enough to melt steel.
Your kerosene stove produce the same BTU as jetliner.
If in open air that fuel can melt steel, then your pots in the kitchen (since you are cooking with it everyday) have already melted a long time ago together with your stove.

I agree that Jet fuel is not hot enough to melt steel because it only burns 800 to 1500 degrees F. However, the steel frames didn't NEED to melt for the building to collapse; they just had to lose some of their structural strength.

Fact 2.
Those imbedded steel columns were wrapped with concrete, and concrete is known to be fire resistant.
so, there's no way those heat could get to the steel at the questioned temperature.

The fire-resistant insulation were knocked off resulting in the metal beams being more exposed to the jet fuel. Logic follows that the more exposed it is, the bigger the damage to the metal.

Fact 3. If a few steel column would melt at a certain point, the building would not collapse because of its design. The other support columns and also the steel frame on the outside of the building would share the load. And if the metal column melted at a certain point, the building would just fall to its side because the beams will sure to bend (assuming that the steel melted).

If you melt a steel column at a certain point, will it disintegrate all the way as they say it happened in WTC 911 "attack"?

Steel loses its strength at about 1100 degrees F and that was ultimately the cause of the collapse. There is simply no scientific basis to conclude that controlled demolition brought the towers down.

Fact 4.
The whole area was covered with dust. It even travels across the lake.
Dust came from exploded concrete.
Where would you get such volume of dust, if the building was not demolished by controlled demolition?

The force progressed downward resulting in a chain reaction. The towers had huge amount of air in them. When you have several floors coming down it follows that there would be significant volumes of air ejected from the building.

Fact 5.
World Trade Center Building no. 7 was not hit by a jetliner yet it collapsed at freefall speed.
Clear sign of controlled demolition.

There was significant damage to the south face of the building. The collapse was caused by intense fire and severe structural damage. This is what happened to WTC 7: Progressive collapse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fact 6.
Fire fighters, rescue workers and news reporters on the ground of WTC heard secondary explosions from the base of the buildings.

Those are just some of the facts.

Were you there when it happened?