"Top Ten Photos 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts Hate"...

http://layscience.net/node/124



Pics and more commentary at the link. I'm not sure if all 10 have been posted here before, but many of them are familiar to the regulars here.

Sid

truthers with their deluge of disinformation are doing more than anyone else to help cover it up."

Here's an alternate link to the copy with no photos: http://thecurrentaffairs.com/index.php/911-conspiracy-top-ten-photos-nuts-hate/
The OP link isn't loading for me at the moment: www.layscience.net/node/124

but you're right, it's not coming up now.

OMG! I broke the tubes!

Sid

Bushco is in the business, maybe even the masters of disinfo. Do you think they might be doing anything to keep people from finding the truth?

Oops, meant to reply to that other OCTer, not you.

Good pics. Those of the collapsed WTCs are especially strong.

"The factuality of investigatative bodies.
Submitted by Devil's Advocate (not verified) on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 19:14.

Very good blog here.

When I have time, I would like to address all the photos.
But, as I only have a bit of time, I will just address the reference to FEMA, NIST and the 9/11 Committee.

The National Institute for Standards and Technology, has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study.

The study categorically stated that the temperatures reached in the towers didn't exceed 500 degrees, when any physicist can tell you that to cause steel to weaken is 1000 degrees and pure molten at 1500 degrees.

Staying with NIST,

"In August 2007, James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, called for an independent inquiry into NIST's investigation of the collapse of the twin towers.

Quintiere said NIST's conclusions were "questionable", that they failed to follow standard scientific procedures and that their failure to address Building 7 belied the fact that the investigation was incomplete."

Can we use NIST as a reliable source to quash conspiracy rumours?

The 911 Committee report has been pored over by Dr.Griffin, and his findings have thrown a different perspective upon its validity and substance.
Griffin found that, whilst going through numerous accounts and witness reports, it failed to take into account any witnesses which (on the face of it) could put a "spanner in the works."
Witnesses that came forward, or those who came forward with contrary reports were sidelined or outright discarded.

One example would be the outright exclusion of the evidence of a meeting between the President of Pakistan and CIA director, Tenet.
The report denied the well documented meeting with the words..."we have seen no evidence that any foreign government – or foreign government official – supplied any funding.”

Just quick, as I have an extra couple of seconds. The picture of workmen slicing beams is not the pictures of beams having been found sliced straight after the collapse of the towers."

The study categorically stated that the temperatures reached in the towers didn't exceed 500 degrees

They said no such thing.

There's an army of internet warriors who spam this stuff everywhere they go.

you found one. Good job. :rofl: did you find any with Martin's article? I did.

the question is, is it an error, a lie, or just laziness.

the melting point of steel! The Lay-Z Scientist it should read.

> "The National Institute for Standards and Technology, has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study."

Complete bullshit. NIST found what it believes to be the most probable cause of the collapse, and it referred to the structural analysis of Dr. Byzant for the explanation of why global collapse was inevitable after it got started. In other words, NIST considers it to be completely explained -- the exact opposite of what this jerk claims. Oh, and it wasn't free-fall.

> "The study categorically stated that the temperatures reached in the towers didn't exceed 500 degrees, when any physicist can tell you that to cause steel to weaken is 1000 degrees and pure molten at 1500 degrees."

The study stated no such thing, categorically or otherwise, and "any physicist" will tell you that the strength of steel decreases as the temperature increases. At even the 600^oC that NIST found, it's only half as strong as it is at room temperature. This guy is talking through his ass and pretending that physicists will back him up.

> "In August 2007, James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, called for an independent inquiry into NIST's investigation of the collapse of the twin towers.

Quintiere said NIST's conclusions were "questionable", that they failed to follow standard scientific procedures and that their failure to address Building 7 belied the fact that the investigation was incomplete."

Taken completely out of context for the explicit and deliberate purpose of deception. The part of the NIST study that Quintiere objected to was the part that said the buildings would likely have survived if fireproofing hadn't been dislodged by the plane crash. Quintiere believes the fireproofing was inherently inadequate, and the towers could have collapsed even if it had been intact. The reason that concerns Quintiere so much is that literally thousands of buildings have been erected using similar fireproofing codes.

> "Che 911 Committee report has been pored over by Dr.Griffin, and his findings have thrown a different perspective upon its validity and substance."

Yeah, if you consider distortion and propaganda a "perspective."

> "Griffin found that, whilst going through numerous accounts and witness reports, it failed to take into account any witnesses which (on the face of it) could put a 'spanner in the works.'
Witnesses that came forward, or those who came forward with contrary reports were sidelined or outright discarded.

Witnesses hardly ever agree on details -- a problem that juries constantly have to deal with. The customary way to deal with that is to determine which testimony is most consistent with other testimony and with the physical and documentary evidence.

> "One example would be the outright exclusion of the evidence of a meeting between the President of Pakistan and CIA director, Tenet.
The report denied the well documented meeting with the words...'we have seen no evidence that any foreign government – or foreign government official – supplied any funding.'"

A complete non sequitur. The quote from the report doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with "a meeting between the President of Pakistan and CIA director, Tenet," much less does it deny it.

This is where the "truth movement" has gotten us, wildbill: people like this (and you) walking around with heads full of bullshit that they read on some "truther" site and uncritically believed. Bullshit never did anyone any good.

video link

part one & three are available also.
:eyes:

The referenced comment was: "total free-fall collapse of the twin towers."

NIST's own tests showed that none of the steel samples reached temperatures higher than 500 degrees.

or speculation?

Which is it: "none of the steel samples reached temperatures higher than 500 degrees" as you claimed, or "only three locations had mud-cracking of the paint, indicating that the steel may have reached temperatures in excess of 250 °C" on the 21 panels tested, as the NIST report said?

Let's read that whole section, for context:



NIST says they didn't find any evidence of steel exceeding 600 °C, which is not what you claimed.

is a statement that says nothing, really, and it is certainly not what you claimed.

Whether is still "says nothing" would be a different issue, wouldn't it. But if it "says nothing" then why did you reference the NIST report at all? Do you think it "says something" if you put in the wrong number?

The quote

The study categorically stated that the temperatures reached in the towers didn't exceed 500 degrees

is far different than

NIST's own tests showed that none of the steel samples reached temperatures higher than 500 degrees.

Fahrenheit or Celsius.

500 C would equal 932 F.

Of the recovered core pieces, none showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C.

Of 170 examined areas on the perimeter column panels, only three showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C and for one of these three forensic evidence indicated that the high temperature exposure occurred AFTER the collapse.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf

This has been superceded by the final version, available here. Please avoid doing this in the future.

from another commentor on that blog.
LINKY

do you really think this Martin character is credible? Surely not. :crazy:

Nothing about the OP depends on the credibility of Martin.

1. A wheel hub consistant with one from a B757 was found in the Pentagon Rubble.

2. Debris from the tower collapse struck WTC7.

3. Debris consitant with a commercial airliner was found at Shanksville.

4. The WTC perimeter collumns began to buckle inwards prior to the collapse of the towers.

5. Workmen used torches to make diagonal cuts in the WTC base columns during the GZ cleanup.

6. The towers DID NOT FALL AT FREEFALL. Not even close!

and they most likely jumped because they were being deep-fat-fried from the inside out.
It's just nuts to contend that the towers floated to their demise.

An ugly death to be sure. What the people who made that choice must has been experiencing can only be described as horrible.



Did I miss something?

None of these prove the OCT.

... it's going to take a lot more than a vivid imagination to disprove the "OCT."

the Official Conspiracy Theory. :hi:

... similar to saying that you are a "truther" and a member of the "truth movement."

1) yes but doesn't prove how it got there. But yes it proves one was found there I guess. So what?

2) no one says it didn't that I know of...again so what.

3) it proves debris was found but the consistency is debatable. Unless you want to ignore the inconsistencies.

4) how so? I can only see a sagging acoustic ceiling grid. I have installed hundreds of those.

5) Maybe they did. It was still a CD though IMO. Nothing here disproves that possibility. And why does a worker do that? Why not cut it horizontally?
Perhaps it has something to do with the direction or buildup of the flow of the slag being produced?

6) The claim is "near" freefall. Also the NIST says you're wrong!
but believe what ever you want. 2.25 seconds of absolute freefall!

Those pictures also prove they were taken by a camera. So what. 9/11 was still allowed and assisted by individuals in government. Only a thorough and independent investigation will suffice.

"In stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This freefall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m(105 ft.), ......."

So you're saying NIST is wrong? :shrug:

Only the gov disinformationalists and misinformed truthers say no 757 hit the pentagon. The whole pentagon thing is disinfo because it has hundreds of video cameras yet no photos of a 757 have been produced. This is on purpose to mislead and deceive. It's very possible a 757 hit because the wall struck had just been up-armored so it would have disintegrated the wings making the hole smaller.


Real truthers don't deny that but it was barely hit. This pic is from an angle where you can't really tell how much it's getting hit. Show the actual photos of the damage, it's not even enough to cause collapse.


Again more disinfo. No one credible is claiming no plane at Shanksville. The question is whether it was shot down or crashed intact. The crash scene and the debri field show it was shot down. Show us a photo of the impact that's consistent with crashing in one piece. It doesn't exist.


disinfo. Immaterial to the collapse. What does it matter if beams are buckling? It doesn't prove or disprove cutter charges at other spots in the building. It doesn't explain vids of molten steel dripping from the crash floors. It doesn't explain fires that didn't go out for weeks. It doesn't explain pools of formerly melted steel found during the clean up.


Another weak photo just like the building 7 one. Inconclusive. You can barely tell where the cut is being made, it looks to be about 20 degrees from horizontal. The cutter charge photos are about 50 degrees from horizontal and the slag is more pronounced and dripping than a torch cut.


Another disinfo point. Immaterial, who cares how fast they fell? Only disinfo agents and uninformed truthers use this point. The question is initiation. The speed used as evidence of initiation is highly speculative.

besides that, it's great.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

:shrug:

Provide evidence of this.

...
:D

:hi:

On edit: Maybe you were referring to the Official Conspiracy Theorists. :shrug:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The notion that fire spread from 5 to 7 is particularly funny to anyone who was there that day or worked there. 5 burned for sure, but it is unlikely that spread to 7 and did not scorch the Post Office.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf

page 165

"Top Ten Photos 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts Hate"

The only conspiracy nuts are those who support the comically absurd farce which posits that 19 young Arab men, led by a
gent who was literally in the hospital only hours prior to the events of 9/11, and who somehow managed to defeat the entire
U.S. national security/defense systems.

There WAS a conspiracy, but supporters of the OFFICIAL Conspiracy theory would have to be nuts to support such a crazy fairy tale.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

For example photo #1. Actually 9/11 truthtellers love that photo. Lying scumbag edited out the fireman standing right next to it -- its true size is way too small to have been from Fl.77.

Photo #7, the seatbelt. I'm sure there are many pieces of an airplane scattered far and wide in that area. It seems a hot shot pilot made his own decision to protect America and shot the plane down (individuals thinking on their own are always a problem in security and military missions). There will be many, many pieces. It sure as hell didn't just happen to crash into an open strip mine. Flight 93 must have been intended to hit WTC7. They couldn't afford to let 7 stand because Giuliani's bunker was the command center. The Commission didn't even try to explain WTC7's collapse.

The site's a pile of stinking garbage.

They're very proud of that garbage. One man's garbage is another's treasure? :rofl:

BTW:
The second photo shows debris falling in front of #7. Surely some damage is done to that face of the building. I don't see any hitting on top. Now wouldn't a building that's lost it's balance and been damaged on one side fall to that damaged weaker side? Most likely. Why would the opposite undamaged side give way also at the same time?
How does a building like that fall straight down with one side weaker than the other? It doesn't! You can't make that happen anywhere else. The weight over the weaker side would pull down on the undamaged side as the weaker side collapsed. If the undamaged side then fails it's pulled by the other. To go straight down you have to take out all the support across the entire building's footprint.
CD!

Why, Bill, what a GREAT question.

How do you suppose that the north facade managed to fall toward the south and become draped over the wreckage of WTC7?



Notice the large portions of north facade in this shot as well:



Why... it looks as if the north face fell toward the south, as if the building fell toward the damaged side?

it shouldn't be hard.

"The Commission didn't even try to explain WTC7's collapse."

Why do you think that was?

Photos 4 and 5 according to the truffers shows a nuke's aftermath. It's sad really. Unless they used the Tsar Bomba with it's 98% fusion, there's going to be fallout. Easily detected fallout. Does that stop our intrepid investigators, no!