quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123

Haven't you seen the towers fall or heard any comments from fire fighters and other responders at the scene? Haven't you seen any of the videos on the internet or read papers on the internet describing these oddities and coincidences? Haven't you read or seen news reports of the damage done to surrounding buildings? Have you been living in a cave--with a guy with a long beard, perhapse?--since 9-11-01?

---

quote:

---

Do I really need to cite physics formulae?

---

quote:

---

I get that you don't want it to be true that our government had anything to do with this.

---

quote:

---

I don't want it to be true, either.

---

quote:

---

But at least have to balls to look at the evidence and use your brain to figure out what happened.

---

quote:

---

Or maybe you are just one of those people who needs a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing...

---

quote:

---

And I suppose you require your family to show you proof of identity before you let them in the house, too...

---

quote:

---

What a coincidence! Oh, and you say that in the month prior to 9-11-01 sections of the building were shut down for maintenace on the electrical system--so, since the security cameras run on electricity, there is no visual record of what type of "maintenance" was going on? What another coincidence!! Oh, and the bomb-sniffing dogs that were sop at WTC were taken off duty two weeks before 9-11--01?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by furshur

quote:

---

What a coincidence! Oh, and you say that in the month prior to 9-11-01 sections of the building were shut down for maintenace on the electrical system--so, since the security cameras run on electricity, there is no visual record of what type of "maintenance" was going on? What another coincidence!! Oh, and the bomb-sniffing dogs that were sop at WTC were taken off duty two weeks before 9-11--01?

---

Ergo you seem to be implying that the explosives could have been planted when the cameras were off. Hmmmmm very ingenious! Then they took the bomb sniffing dogs off duty 2 weeks AFTER planting the explosives. Oops, not so ingenious. But this does sound like something our mentally challenged administration might actually do.........

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123

Haven't you seen the towers fall or heard any comments from fire fighters and other responders at the scene? Haven't you seen any of the videos on the internet or read papers on the internet describing these oddities and coincidences? Haven't you read or seen news reports of the damage done to surrounding buildings? Have you been living in a cave--with a guy with a long beard, perhapse?--since 9-11-01?

---

This isn't about what I've seen or heard, it's about the evidence you want to use to support your pet theory. You haven't presented any evidence here for us to discuss. Not one tidbit.

quote:

---

Do I really need to cite physics formulae?

---

Well, I'm certainly not going to do your homework for you, so yes, you do.

quote:

---

I get that you don't want it to be true that our government had anything to do with this.

---

Actually, finding out that Bush is directly responsible would go a long way towards getting him out of office, which I would very much enjoy, but you won't present any evidence that the government was involved in any way.

quote:

---

I don't want it to be true, either.

---

Well, don't project your fears onto others.

quote:

---

But at least have to balls to look at the evidence and use your brain to figure out what happened.

---

I'll look at any evidence you care to present, which so far has amounted to nothing at all.

quote:

---

Or maybe you are just one of those people who needs a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing...

---

Hehehe, the weathermen get most of their data from the government, and they've got jobs at which they can be wrong half the time and not get fired. Really bad analogy on your part.

quote:

---

And I suppose you require your family to show you proof of identity before you let them in the house, too...

---

Again, this isn't about proof, this is about evidence. You've got no evidence whatsoever to back up your ridiculous statements, and you know it, so you refuse to present any links or page numbers. Some of your statements have already been shown to be completely false, so there is good reason to question the veracity of every one of the others.

So, where is your evidence? Not proof, just evidence?

---

quote:

---

Yes. Putting explosives on every floor (or even every 3rd floor, which would slice the steel supports into approximately 30 foot sectoins...) would take time.

---

quote:

---

It's like you would have to have the security company in charge of those buildings in on the whole thing. Oh, what's that? Bush's brother was chairman of that security company until just before 9-11-01, then it was another Bush relative after that? What a coincidence!

---

quote:

---

Marvin Bush was reelected annually to Securacom's board of directors from 1993 through 1999. His final reelection was on May 25, 1999, for July 1999 to June 2000. Throughout, he also served on the company's Audit Committee and Compensation Committee, and his stock holdings grew during the period. Directors had options to purchase 25,000 shares of stock annually. In 1996, Bush acquired 53,000 shares at 52 cents per share. Shares in the 1997 IPO sold at $8.50. Records since 2000 no longer list Bush as a shareholder.

---

quote:

---

Oh, and you say that in the month prior to 9-11-01 sections of the building were shut down for maintenace on the electrical system--so, since the security cameras run on electricity, there is no visual record of what type of "maintenance" was going on? What another coincidence!!

---

quote:

---

Oh, and the bomb-sniffing dogs that were sop at WTC were taken off duty two weeks before 9-11--01? What another coincidence!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paulos23

quote:

---

Yes. Putting explosives on every floor (or even every 3rd floor, which would slice the steel supports into approximately 30 foot sectoins...) would take time.

---

Yup, but the charges to cut the supports would weigh thousands of pounds and would only work if you strip the fireproofing off the columns according to Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition [Debunking 9/11 Myths pg 45-47]. You would need to move these explosives with forklifts. And even if you just put bulk explosives next to every column in a box or something it would just blow out the windows on that floor and maybe the floors next to it. It would not bring that building down.

Oh, and the time it would take? Two months and 75 men with unfettered access to three floors. And that is just the base floors to bring the building down. Imagine how much time it would take to do every third floor?

quote:

---

It's like you would have to have the security company in charge of those buildings in on the whole thing. Oh, what's that? Bush's brother was chairman of that security company until just before 9-11-01, then it was another Bush relative after that? What a coincidence!

---

If your talking about Marvin Bush he left his job there in 2000. http://www.physics911.ca/Burns:_Security,_Secrecy,_and_a_Bush_Brother

quote:

---

Marvin Bush was reelected annually to Securacom's board of directors from 1993 through 1999. His final reelection was on May 25, 1999, for July 1999 to June 2000. Throughout, he also served on the company's Audit Committee and Compensation Committee, and his stock holdings grew during the period. Directors had options to purchase 25,000 shares of stock annually. In 1996, Bush acquired 53,000 shares at 52 cents per share. Shares in the 1997 IPO sold at $8.50. Records since 2000 no longer list Bush as a shareholder.

---

There is a Wirt Walker who was chairman of the security firm from 1999 to 2003. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirt_Walker But even so, being the head of the company and being related to Bush isn't condemning in of itself. There needs to be more proof then that.

quote:

---

Oh, and you say that in the month prior to 9-11-01 sections of the building were shut down for maintenace on the electrical system--so, since the security cameras run on electricity, there is no visual record of what type of "maintenance" was going on? What another coincidence!!

---

The shutdown of the WTC electricity has been hard for me to trace. The best account I have gotten of it is here:
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=04/04/24/3472877

This is by one guy and he admits it was from the 48th floor up in tower two only, and only during the weekend of 8-9. Granted, there could have been other power downs on other weekends, but I haven't found any yet. I am not convinced that the explosives needed to bring down tower two could have been placed in that time frame.

quote:

---

Oh, and the bomb-sniffing dogs that

quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123

LOL! I'm not interested in proving that I've seen/have the same evidence you've seen/have.

---

quote:

---

I'm interested in getting to the truth--not pulling out the ruler to see who has bigger evidence.

---

quote:

---

I'm not interested in a contest.

---

quote:

---

I'm not interested in presenting evidence to someone who is just interested in proclaiming it as valid or invalid.

---

quote:

---

I'm not looking for someone to do my homework for me--I'm looking for someone to help. And what you are doing is not helpful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123

Maybe they did the wiring ahead of time and went in during the last 2 weeks with the explosives...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123

Controlled Demolition... where have I heard of that company before... Oh, now I remember. They are the company that got the contract to bring down the remaining WTC buildings. Not that there would be a conflict of interest there... And I guess the explosives CD uses are the state of the art explosives. The government probably doesn't have access to anything CD wouldn't have...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123

LOL! I'm not interested in proving that I've seen/have the same evidence you've seen/have.

---

I'm not interested in that, either, I'm interested in seeing the evidence that you have seen.

quote:

---

I'm interested in getting to the truth--not pulling out the ruler to see who has bigger evidence.

---

You can't get to the truth without laying your evidence out for all to see.

quote:

---

I'm not interested in a contest.

---

Neither am I.

quote:

---

I'm not interested in presenting evidence to someone who is just interested in proclaiming it as valid or invalid.

---

You're not interested in having me agree with you about your evidence? As I said: you're not interested in the truth, you're just on a romantic quest in a delusional fight against authority.

quote:

---

I'm not looking for someone to do my homework for me--I'm looking for someone to help. And what you are doing is not helpful.

---

If you're not going to present your evidence, then it is you who are impeding your own quest for the truth, not I. Dogging you about your evidence would be helpful if you actually had any evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123

Maybe they did the wiring ahead of time and went in during the last 2 weeks with the explosives...

---

Wild speculation. I thought you were interested in getting at the truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123

I came here LOOKING for evidence, remember? I don't NEED evidence to ask for evidence. So far all you have done is challenged my reasoning for requesting evidence and quote the NIST report, which I have shown deserves skepticism. If you have other evidence that would help us get to the truth that you are withholding for some reason that's your own deal.

---

quote:

---

But dogging me for evidence on why I want evidence is pointless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123

The problem with fitting the model to the observations is that A) it is a novel situation that might not fit the historical information the simulators are simulating. Models work well when interpolating--coming up with solutions WITHIN historic parameters. They are notoriously bad at extrapolating--coming up with solutions OUTSIDE of historic parameters.

---

quote:

---

We know we are dealing with events OUTSIDE the normal, historic parameters because up until 9-11-01, the only steel/concrete constructed buildings that have collapsed did so in earthquakes.

---

quote:

---

Beyond that, we have evidence (video, photo, eyewitness) that debris, including pieces of steel beam, being forcefully ejected from the towers. NIST says it was due to air being forced out the windows from the collapsing mass above. But that would require pancaking, which NIST say was NOT how the building collapsed. We also have extensive amounts of debris outside the footprint of the building, which is INCONSISTENT with a gravity-only collapse. Where is my evidence for these things--ON THE INTERNET and IN THE NIST REPORT. We have all seen it.

---