• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are All of These People Crazy?

mike2810 said:
I apologize to those reading this thread.
Click to expand...

How come you can't/won't own up to your abysmal ignorance and/or gross lies on what the FEMA scientists actually said, mike?
 
zyzygy said:
He has yet to present proof of the official story being false.
Click to expand...

There is voluminous proof that the USGOCT is false, zyzygy. First and foremost is the fact that all you of the USGOCT Zero Evidence Club can present no evidence to support it is has any veracity.

Then there is all the impossibilities within the USGOCT:

1. Nanothermite in WTC dust.

2. The by products of these thermitic reactions.

3. The molten/vaporized steel, the molten molybdenum, the vaporized lead, the iron microspheres.

4. The molten iron seen pouring out of WTC2 minutes before it was blown up.

5. WTC7 free fall.

6. Twin towers accelerating speed collapses.

7. ...
 
camlok said:
Another of your usual tricks, mike. zyzygy and Quag are dissing people left and right, you too and you pull this whiny crap, above. You have no shame whatsoever.

Why don't you apologize for your jabs at the A&E911 building professionals and the other scientists you always try to smear when it is you who knows so little, as evidenced by your huge lies and/or ignorance you have so recently shown.

Were you lying about the molten/vaporized steel, mike, or are you really this abysmally ignorant on the issues of 911?
Click to expand...

The DELTA Group from California was brought in at the request of perhaps the only conscientious federal employee there in NYC, and they began to sample the air quality. I think it was about 10 days after the Ground Zero event.

The spokesman Mr. Cahill compared the air samples to that found coming out of an industrial incinerator. That is what one would expect from a site with molten iron down below for 90 days.

And NIST said it was office fires and gravity.....:lamo
 
Thoreau72 said:
The DELTA Group from California was brought in at the request of perhaps the only conscientious federal employee there in NYC, and they began to sample the air quality. I think it was about 10 days after the Ground Zero event.

The spokesman Mr. Cahill compared the air samples to that found coming out of an industrial incinerator. That is what one would expect from a site with molten iron down below for 90 days.

And NIST said it was office fires and gravity.....:lamo
Click to expand...

The poor air quality is what would be expected from several large building filled with various materials burning and collapsing, not from your mythical 90 days of molten steel


Another swing and a miss from our resident "flight instructor"
 
Quag said:
The poor air quality is what would be expected from several large building filled with various materials burning and collapsing, not from your mythical 90 days of molten steel
Click to expand...

And the Bush liars lied about the air quality too when they knew it was as bad as Thoreau has related.

And Quag lies about the molten steel, again, right after he DIDN'T read the post where I illustrated mike was lying about the molten/vaporized steel too, with quotes from FEMA, the NYT, ... about the molten steel.

AND NOTE QUAG'S USUAL ZERO EVIDENCE.

It takes a special kind of delusion to deny molten steel when it is described by so many people who were actually there at Ground Zero.

Here is a list of many building professionals, fire men and first responders describing the molten steel.


Witnesses of Molten Steel at Ground Zero

https://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/Molten_Steel_Witnesses_FINAL_3_14_16_v2.pdf
 
Quag said:
and collapsing, not from your mythical 90 days of molten steel
Click to expand...

Buildings being blown up, Quag. Free fall for WTC7 couldn't have happened unless the 40,000 tons of structural steel was removed. The building had stood up since it was finished in 1987 and then all of a sudden free fall. You know full well that was a controlled demolition. As were the twin towers.

Why do you hate evidence so much?
 
mike2810 said:
and not answering questions asked of him.
Click to expand...

Ever the hypocrite, mike. You never answer any of the many questions pointing out to you the myriad total impossibilities of the USGOCT, the one that has no evidence to support it.

As I have told you many times but it just doesn't seem to sink into your brain, all you ask are diversions and distractions so you think you can avoid the fact that the USGOCT has no supporting evidence.


mike2810 said:
I apologize for believing he would discuss the topic instead of posting diversions
Click to expand...

The Zero Evidence Club is so bereft of supporting evidence for the USGOCT that all you can do is COPY my posts and use the same words as your "evidence". The Zero Evidence Club are the folks of diversions and distractions. That is almost all you ever do.

Now, in the last few pages you tried your hand at an actual "discussion" and all you did is, 1) show yourself to be totally incompetent or, 2) totally ignorant of the subject matter or, 3) you are lying to beat the band.

And all you have done to address these issues is diversions and more lies. When are you going to come clean and tell everyone what you have tried to do in the last few pages; 1, 2 or 3?
 
If you examine the individuals responsible for these [USGOCT supporting] debunking sites you will find mostly anonymous individuals who are clearly ill-equipped for the task that was set to them.
- Gordon Ross MEng

That's a dandy description, a completely accurate description. The USGOCT Zero Evidence Club member who frequent these 911 threads rarely produce any individuals who can provide any information about 911 or the science of 911.

When someone has been produced, as when mike2810 produced Frank Greening, he was quickly shown to be totally inept, miserably incompetent, in any and all analysis he did as regards the twin towers or WTC7.

There are none of these "debunkers", they are nameless bots wandering the web who post crazy, totally unscientific garbage, which the local Zero Evidence Club throws up every once in a long while, with no attribution or reasoned argument.

We have here recently seen what happens when a Zero Evidence Club member, mike2810, got involved in a short discussion wherein he quickly showed just how out of his depth he was. He didn't even know when the study was written and got terribly confused, or worse, mixing this study up with later discoveries.

He, mike2810, made a ludicrous suggestion, likely gleaned from one of those anonymous USGOCT debunker websites, which are never sourced, that the top flight scientists should do some goofy test, to, GET THIS, prove something they had long ago already proven, the existence of nanothermite in WTC dust, and the existence of the by products of those nanothermitic reactions.

When questioned on it, he disappeared and has yet to make any reappearance to defend his arrant nonsense.
 
If a lie is repeated a sufficient number of times, according to Goebbels, the incurious amongst us will believe it. Yes, some of the people can be fooled all of the time.
 
Thoreau72 said:
If a lie is repeated a sufficient number of times, according to Goebbels, the incurious amongst us will believe it. Yes, some of the people can be fooled all of the time.
Click to expand...

The thing is, Thoreau, mike and the USGOCT Zero Evidence Club aren't fooled. They know full well that the USGOCT is a total lie. If they were actually fooled they would be pounding their own story, the one they have been fed, showing how strong it is. They don't at all because they know their fable is just that.

Instead, ALL THEY DO, and this is the telling part, is try to attack the realities, the total impossibilities that show the USGOCT is fantasy, these things that, even individually, sink the USGOCT.

Put together, all these total impossibilities of the official story show the USGOCT to be a total fabrication.

But you know all this already.

Part 3 High Tech Incendiaries in WTC Dust - ESO - Experts Speak Out

 
Last edited:
All you thermite supporters have been fooled. You are wrong. Just ask French physicist Frederic Henry-Couannier.

"These chips dont react even when heated up to 900°C: remain red, burn most of their carbon but other elements remain in the same proportion. Photos, spectra and analyses"

http://www.darksideofgravity.com/marseille_gb.pdf

Frédéric Henry-Couannier
English translation:
"Why is it so important to establish whether it was to the same objects? because of my side and after multiple tests none of the red chips that I brought up to 900 ° C has responded by producing molten iron in complete contradiction with the result highlighted by the authors of the article, result which, I repeat, is the only truly reliable publication as the only one that can be verified by anyone independently! That the layer of red chips gray / red and red chips are one and the same may be confirmed by photos that show some chips with the red part is already widely separated. My negative result should be extended to all chips: they are not thermite particles may react with less than 500 ° C. I get the spectra after heating are clear: the iron and aluminum remained in the same proportions, only carbon has decreased very significantly: it burned with oxygen from the air.

In short, despite repeated efforts, I can not confirm the presence of particles in the dust nanothermitiques! Thus there are several possibilities: either my samples were falsified, or published studies are fraudulent or have been made from a material also forged ahead. From which my samples?: From what I understand, leaflets distributed in New York have prompted those still in possession of the WTC dust to give it the pretext of health studies. We received by mail in Marseille 4 samples from 4 different people, one of them m'ayant contacted directly by email to ask if the dust was a danger to his health and had enough air upset when I explained to him that it was collecting evidence of an inside job (apparently I Gaffé and I was called to order by the organizer of this collection was explained to me that I was not supposed to be in direct contact with shippers). This episode and the similarity of red chips that I found in all samples (and other particles such as dust microspheres) tends to convince me of the authenticity of them. The differences from sample to sample seem explained by the conditions of collection: some that have collected dust, others also gravel glass and concrete biggest ...

Why my samples had been falsified? so that I can not corroborate the study published? why as my role in this whole story is very modest? Moreover, the secret services of all countries may well get more reliable than me and the dust be analyzed ... those who participated in the inside job can not be hoped to hide this material and compromising deceive foreign intelligence services who have also all the elements to be long convinced of the reality of the inside job (free fall of WTC7 by example, or fighter aircraft that are not addressed by the 11 / 9)!

That is why I tend to think today that the samples are authentic, which means that all theses thermite or nano thermite may be borked and probably have been put forward to mislead. To deceive whom? Why? Certainly not the masses that all ways are completely under control of the media. Probably more foreign intelligence services that beyond the reality of the inside job (not hard to show for experts) would be rather interested in the type of technology used on 11 / 9. The nanothermite would be essentially a decoy? It is already clear that the nanothermite could not explain the explosive destruction of the towers, just possibly the initiation of a collapse of natural appearance with weakened (by heating it more efficiently than fire) of steel structures."

Not that I accept Frederic Henry-Couannier explanation anymore than I do Gage, et.al.
 
mike2810 said:
All you thermite supporters have been fooled. You are wrong.

Not that I accept Frederic Henry-Couannier explanation anymore than I do Gage, et.al.
Click to expand...

Geeze, mike, you can't even get the names of the people who did the study right. The Harrit et al study is the standing science of the day. It has not been challenged in any peer reviewed manner.

You still have all those major mistakes that you made to deal with. What you accept has no meaning whatsoever. You have illustrated time after time that you have zero expertise. You make the simplest mistakes, you offer no explanations for the myriad impossibilities of the USGOCT.
 
When AE911T discussed nanothermite, it is interesting how hypocritical they are.
AE911Truth ? Architects & Engineers Investigating the destruction of all three World Trade Center skyscrapers on September 11 - FAQ #8: What Is Nano-thermite? Could It Have Been Used To Demolish The WTC Skyscrapers?

"...it is however not logical to say something cannot have happened merely because it had not happened before: there has to be a first time for everything."

Seems it only applies to the CDOCT and not to any other explanation. :lamo
 
mike2810 said:
When AE911T discussed nanothermite, it is interesting how hypocritical they are.
AE911Truth ? Architects & Engineers Investigating the destruction of all three World Trade Center skyscrapers on September 11 - FAQ #8: What Is Nano-thermite? Could It Have Been Used To Demolish The WTC Skyscrapers?

"...it is however not logical to say something cannot have happened merely because it had not happened before: there has to be a first time for everything."

Seems it only applies to the CDOCT and not to any other explanation. :lamo
Click to expand...

Speaking of hypocrites, you take the cake, mike. That wasn't hypocritical at all. There doesn't have to be a first time for the totally impossible. Steel framed structures DO NOT collapse from hydrocarbon fires. How can you ignore the many steel framed structures that have burned for many long hours, some as long as a day, raging fires and most of these buildings are still in service?

There's your stunning hypocrisy!

You are being delusional to take the ludicrous position that it could happen three times in one day in the same city, ESPECIALLY when you ignore all the total impossibilities of the USGOCT, the ones that you can never address and when you do, you mess up royally.

Why are you ignoring all your blatant errors? Why haven't you addressed them?

Like the molten/vaporized steel described by the FEMA 2002 study, the study that you illustrated your great confusion on.

You have zero expertise, mike, you illustrate it whenever you actually attempt to discuss seriously; your continued charade is really laughable.
 
Last edited:
Funny how some attack the messenger rather than the message. Personal attacks add nothing to the thread discussion.

The problem the controlled demolition supporters have is there is so many different explanations regarding controlled demolition and the unwillingness to state which ones they believe are not true. Credit can be given to the CD supporters in that they stick together. They will not challenge or criticize another CD supporter with a different view. It seems the only sources they believe are the ones they use.

Here is a question for the controlled demolition supporters.

Supporters of CD say it is impossible for three buildings to collapse like they did due to fire, because it has never happened before. It had to be a controlled demolition.

What are the odds of three controlled demolitions collapsing WTC 1,2, and 7 as seen on 9/11/2001?

Especially considering the undisputed fact that WTC 1 and 2 were damaged by being struck by a high speed object with resulting fires. Also considering WTC 7 was damaged by falling debris and burned for hours before the alleged controlled demolition. No one has ever explained how they pulled the CD off. Heck they can't ever agree what was used.

Amazing the planners of the CD were able to totally demolish all three buildings and that the damage and fires did not disrupt the CD in any way.
 
camlok said:
Buildings being blown up, Quag. Free fall for WTC7 couldn't have happened unless the 40,000 tons of structural steel was removed. The building had stood up since it was finished in 1987 and then all of a sudden free fall. You know full well that was a controlled demolition. As were the twin towers.

Why do you hate evidence so much?
Click to expand...

More lies, no building collapsed at freefall
All you have is lies and insults.
 
Thoreau72 said:
If a lie is repeated a sufficient number of times, according to Goebbels, the incurious amongst us will believe it. Yes, some of the people can be fooled all of the time.
Click to expand...

Guess you and Cam have to repeat your lies a whole lot more because people just arent buying it
 
Quag said:
Guess you and Cam have to repeat your lies a whole lot more because people just arent buying it
Click to expand...

I don't know anyone who buys it. 911 is a part of history.
 
camlok said:
Geeze, mike, you can't even get the names of the people who did the study right. The Harrit et al study is the standing science of the day. It has not been challenged in any peer reviewed manner.

You still have all those major mistakes that you made to deal with. What you accept has no meaning whatsoever. You have illustrated time after time that you have zero expertise. You make the simplest mistakes, you offer no explanations for the myriad impossibilities of the USGOCT.
Click to expand...

The facts and evidence contradicting the NIST conclusion are overwhelming, especially if one has a basic understanding of chemistry and physics. The air samples collected by the DELTA Group, and the dust samples collected and analyzed all directly contradict the NIST claims as to what happened.

It is impossible to have a rational and adult conversation with one in deep denial of facts.

When highly motivated perps have access to the buildings for months in advance, the odds of 3 controlled demolitions happening in the same city block on the same day are 100%. It is the motivation and access that makes it so.
 
Thoreau72 said:
The facts and evidence contradicting the NIST conclusion are overwhelming, especially if one has a basic understanding of chemistry and physics. The air samples collected by the DELTA Group, and the dust samples collected and analyzed all directly contradict the NIST claims as to what happened.

It is impossible to have a rational and adult conversation with one in deep denial of facts.
Click to expand...

The irony
 
cuban smokes said:
9/11 Commission Report Questioned by Senior Military, Intelligence, and Government Officials

Many respected senior members of the military, intelligence services, and government have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report. Some even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. Below are the highly revealing public statements on this vital topic of over 50 prominent public servants with links for verification and further investigation.

The collective voices of these respected senior officials along with over 100 esteemed professors, over 250 pilots and aviation professionals, and over 2,000 architects and engineers give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed. These dedicated individuals from across the political spectrum are not irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by decades of service to their country, demonstrate that criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report is not only reasonable and responsible, it is in fact a patriotic duty


https://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former Air Force fighter pilot, over 100 combat missions. Commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Had previously flown the actual two United airplanes that were hijacked on 9/11.

"'The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S.' Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have 'descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall.'

'For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible,' said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727s to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737s through 767s, it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying."

"[Flight 77] could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won't go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous
Click to expand...

But it would do that if the control was being done by a military autopilot taken out of a missile and locked onto the laser designation point that was supposed to be the white house but had hit the shoulder of a security guard on the roof of the pentagon because he was not there when the laser was positioned in the air con unit.

At least that's the way I think it looks like.
 
mike2810 said:
Funny how some attack the messenger rather than the message. Personal attacks add nothing to the thread discussion.

The problem the controlled demolition supporters have is there is so many different explanations regarding controlled demolition and the unwillingness to state which ones they believe are not true. Credit can be given to the CD supporters in that they stick together. They will not challenge or criticize another CD supporter with a different view. It seems the only sources they believe are the ones they use.

Here is a question for the controlled demolition supporters.

Supporters of CD say it is impossible for three buildings to collapse like they did due to fire, because it has never happened before. It had to be a controlled demolition.

What are the odds of three controlled demolitions collapsing WTC 1,2, and 7 as seen on 9/11/2001?

Especially considering the undisputed fact that WTC 1 and 2 were damaged by being struck by a high speed object with resulting fires. Also considering WTC 7 was damaged by falling debris and burned for hours before the alleged controlled demolition. No one has ever explained how they pulled the CD off. Heck they can't ever agree what was used.

Amazing the planners of the CD were able to totally demolish all three buildings and that the damage and fires did not disrupt the CD in any way.
Click to expand...

Odd that there was no significant inquiry into the thing.

We are having a big public legal public enquiry into the recent Grenfill tower. That was the one that burnt all night at temperature which made the identification of remains almost impossible and sometimes utterly impossible, less left than after cremation, and did not fall down or buckle at all.
 
Last edited:
Tim the plumber said:
But it would do that if the control was being done by a military autopilot taken out of a missile and locked onto the laser designation point that was supposed to be the white house but had hit the shoulder of a security guard on the roof of the pentagon because he was not there when the laser was positioned in the air con unit.

At least that's the way I think it looks like.
Click to expand...

There was no reason to strike the White House. Its occupant was a cooperating individual. The only reason the Pentagon was struck was to get rid of financial records and individuals conducting an audit.

Project Hammer records were simmering just beneath the surface.
 
Thoreau72 said:
There was no reason to strike the White House. Its occupant was a cooperating individual. The only reason the Pentagon was struck was to get rid of financial records and individuals conducting an audit.

Project Hammer records were simmering just beneath the surface.
Click to expand...

Such records could be lost easily. Financial records have records at the bank as well as at the office.

The visual impact and emotion of seeing the White house blown up would have beed far more than the corner of the Pentagon. It was flying down the main road towrds the White house, just as though a cinematographer had planned it.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom