CreateDebate


Stevedtrm's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Stevedtrm's arguments, looking across every debate.
-2 points
-2 points
-3 points
-2 points
-3 points
-1 points

The next president (Obama, I think) is merely Bush policies with a more polite face. He even has an excuse to leave troops in Iraq.

-1 points

I agree with this arguer, even though he doesn't provide any evidence. It IS obviously an inside job, but many Americans want to cling to their notion that the US government actually cares for them, so you have to proovide forensic proofs. Even then some still deny it.

0 points

You are correct, but that aint a BBC video. The BBC bit ends where they get a state terror apologist to claim that if you knew how the buildings were constructed you wouldn't doubt that they fell of their own accord.

The BBC is covering this up.

Theres a BBC hit piece on WTC7 on Sun 6th where they will try and make the proof that WTC7 was brought down by explosives go away with more silly arm-waving.

-1 points

False hope is NEVER desireable. Fear of betrayal at the hands of your freinds should ALWAYS drive to you want to determine their trustworthiness conclusively, and override any and every other emtoion involved. In this case those who dont bother will accept the government story. Some cowards are so scared of government that theyll revert back to the government story out of fear of ridicule or punishment.

You should only EVER WANT to beleive the truth. No matter how bad the truth is, its the only real starting point for improvements. Anything less is futile

-1 points

So you expect me to believe that the entire congress and the entire house of representatives are against America?

No. there are a few honest people: Gravel, Kucinich, Senator Karen S. Johnson. Most have been bribed, others were bullied with Anthrax traceable back to US military installations (remember the anthrax deliveries?) and a big group are simply ignorant. Bribery is how government keeps everyone in line, not just congress.

"And there is not one person powerful enough in government other than the president who can pull off something that big!"

THis was OBVIOUSLY NOT ONE PERSON. Congress doesn't get to hear about many of the worst government operations. The US government has been running terrorism in the middle east for decades, and people DO know about it. At least a quarter of Americans think 9/11 was an inside job. And they're right. The video evidence, forensic evidence and eyewitnesses prove it. Look here: 911blogger.com/node/10025 and search for presentations by Steve E Jones, David Ray Griffin and Kevin Ryan.

-1 points

George Bush is little more than a retarded chimpanzee acting as America's mascot, unable to control anything. How does that mean the government didn't do it?

0 points

It just so happens you are right that it needs even more than explosions. Controlled demolitions rely on steel cutting charges to eliminate the resistance from the structure.

"hell, no one's actually ever seen a fallen building with melted steel (intentional or not), it doesn't work like that."

Really? Perhaps you'd better explain that to the writer of patent number 20060266204

"Thermite reactions are well characterized ... The thermite reaction is an exothermic reaction that can produce temperatures of more than 4,000° F. These temperatures are well above the melting point of most metals....Applications for the invention include linear cut or curvilinear cuts in homogenous and non-homogeneous materials. Typical cutting operations include: Concrete, and reinforced concrete, in a variety of applications (cut into slabs or rubble); .... buildings—steel reinforcing (I-beams in concrete); steel bridges, steel hulls (ships for rescue applications and hostile applications); and general concrete removal."

and wikipedia:- "LSCs are commonly used in the cutting of rolled steel joists (RSJ) and other structural targets, such as in the controlled demolition of buildings."

The reason you dont think that steel cutter charges can melt steel is quite simply because the propaganda outlets you cited don't want you to be aware that they do. They don't want you to know about the witnesses or the videos either, and so NONE of them address that, choosing instead to argue against a straw man argument that collapses necessarily require melting. Do you have ANY references which address Gage's video and eyewitness evidence and Jones' proof that it was not aluminium from the planes? (even if that could explain the volumes and WTC7 molten pools.)

There are actually videos of molten steel flowing from the building just before it collapsed, and dozens of eyewitnesses listed and some videoed at ae911truth.org

Steven E Jones has found thermite residue and iron rich microspheres in the dust from the WTC collapses. Please watch the videos and look at the papers and presentations I directed you to.

0 points

"Near free fall speed"

Yes, it wasn't free fall.

Of course it wasn't PRECISELY free fall speed. Close enough to require explosives, though.

"can only occur where the resistance from the steel structure is removed by explosives."-argument from ignorance- "I can't think of any way therefore it's xyz."

No. To eliminate the resistance from those structures in that amount if time, huge amounts of steel had to be ripped apart from it ties with the rest of the structure and displaced at incredibly fast speeds. Theres nothing humans know of that will do that apart from explosives. Name one.

The world over, explosives are used to produce just this kind of demolition. It takes significant engineering skill to acheive- see the Jowenko interview.

---

""google William Rodriguez" because his account is completely reliable and accurate."

One persons account is never completely reliable and accurate. There are hundreds, including some who confirm Rodriguez story from the basement, and some of the 118 firefighters I linked you to, some of which explained in detail specific characteristics of CD they witnessed that day, and Jennings, inside WTC7, also(911blogger).

---

""WTC7 could only have fallen vertically if both sides of the structure was taken out simultaneously by explosives."

There's absolutely no other explanation (until one is found)."

Your mind set is one where you have been indoctrinated into beleiving hat everything is merely opinion, and there are no cold hard facts.

All of conventional science dictates that steel structures will topple to the side weakened if one side loses resistance even slightly before the other.

If you want to dump Newtonian physics or talk about space rays from mars, you are welcome to, but Newtonian physics is taken so seriously for very good reason- laboratory experimentation proves it to be an accurate model and it is independently verifiable as such.

----

"Streams and pools of molten iron and iron rich microspheres could only be caused by steel cutting incendiaries."

Or maybe the pressure of half a million tonnes or stuff crashing down.

Falling debris doesn't producing temperatures capable of melting structural steel. The heating of elements of steel pushing against each other when they collide are hardly even noticeable unless you specifically design a situation to maximise them.

"To think we have insufficient evidence"

There is insufficient evidence. Who do you think perpetrated this crime?

The government. The only people with the media to cover it up so that people like you havent realised it was them yet, and the only people with access throughout WTC7, with many governmental security agencies. Bush's cousin was head of security at the WTC.

-1 points

Those sites rely on you being too lazy and careless to spot their lies.

1) BPITU- cites PM and NIST, as I rememebr it

2) NIST- Doesn't and cant address molten iron. Lead engineer denies existence of molten iron.

Also doesn't address eye witness accounts of belt explosions

(see the Macqueen presentation at 911blogger)

3) PM: Also doesnt address molten iron - claims there didnt need to be molten iron for the collapse, but doesn't address the video and eyewitness accounts. Only 4 paragraphs - hardly even a serious analysis. Heres a more serious one for anyone willing to take the time: http://www.archive.org/details/ liftingthefog_2006_11_11_session2

4) LCG - let me know where it deals with molten metal, near free fall speeds, verticality of the WTC7 collapse and the 118 firefighters, and ill address those points.

While loose change made MASSES of serious and compelling points, it wasn't really a forensic film, and I dont think it went into nearly enough detail on the core forensic proofs.

Loose change guide, if nothing else, fails in that it doesnt challenge a more serious and systematic case, like that of Gage and Jones. I wont be bothering to defend 80% of the arguments in loose change because they don't constitute proof, even if some are powerful points.

-2 points
-1 points

No. I mean what I said. There are dozens of witnesses, some are listed at ae911truth.org in the presentation. Here's a forensic analysis:

http://www.archive.org/details/liftingthefog_2006_11_11_session2

-1 points

"It doesn't prove it."

Yes it does. You clearly don't know what constitutes proof.

"There could be perfectly reasonable, scientific explanations why the buildings fell - I just don't think there's enough evidence either way to prove the causes beyond a doubt."

Thats either because you are ignorant of the evidence or ignorant of the physics. There could be no such scientific explanations without throwing out all of Newtonian physics.

1) Near free fall speed collapses can only occur where the resistance from the steel structure is removed by explosives. The janitor witnessed explosions long before the collapse while in the BASEMENT BEFORE the planes hit. google William Rodriguez. Also see the Macqueen interview at 911 blogger.

2) WTC7 could only have fallen vertically if both sides of the structure was taken out simultaneously by explosives. Other explosions were witnessed in the building hours before the collapse. see the Jennings interview at 911 blogger.

3) Streams and pools of molten iron and iron rich microspheres could only be caused by steel cutting incendiaries. See the Dr. Steven E. Jones presentations

http://www.archive.org/details/liftingthefog_2006_11_11_session2

and the Richard Gage presentation at ae911truth.org.

"I think considering the events without adequate evidence will bear no fruit."

We have far more evidence than we will ever need. The government withholding AND destroying evidence is merely another component of the case against them, but alone, it doesnt constitute proof, like the above arguments do.

To think we have insufficient evidence, you have been watching media channels helping to cover it up and give precisely that impression.

-1 points

Kevin Ryan and Dr. Steven E. Jones debunk NIST relentlessly at the journal for 9/11 studies.

Jones has done extensive testing on the WTC dust, but he refutes your allegation that the molten metal witnessed was aluminium in this video:-

http://www.archive.org/details/liftingthefog_2006_11_11_session2

In short, he points to many eyewitnesses and video evidence of the streams of metal being orange, NOT silver as molten aluminium is. He performs several tests to refute NIST claims that organics can mix with molten aluminium to give a red glow, but I suggest you watch the whole video for yourself, and look at his responses at the journal.

In another video I have seen of one of his lectures. He identifies iron rich microspheres in the WTC dust, which are only produced where molten iron is present.

He also finds EXPLOSIVE RESIDUE- something called "nano-thermite", I think he says it is, in the dust, and can provide a chain of custody from the woman's apartment.

I'm sure you'll be able to find the other Steven Jones videos, but will return to post links when I find them.

This proves explosives brought down WTC 1 2 and 7, supported by seperate verticality and free fall speed proofs and much more supporting evidence eg 911blogger.com/node/15793

The destruction of evidence Jones and many others referred to, along with NIST withholding secret evidence, is clear evidence of a cover up, before we get to the pentagon videos, all of the other governmentally withheld, hidden(eg. Mineta testimony) and destroyed evidence and outright internal contradictions and story changes documented by David Ray Griffin.

-1 points

Oh and a second CRUCIAL point. You assume that people generally know what people close to 9/11 were saying at the time. They don't. The media is covering it up, I had to dig around in alternative media for the Scott Forbes interview. I suspect most Americans STILL don't even know there was a third building that collapse completely in on itself at 5:20 on 9/11. Thats not because it was a small event, but because the media has hardly reported on it since the day itself, and on the day itself they reported on it BEFORE the event happened. go watch the BBC, who were being fed form a script.

Also, for reference, take a look at 911blogger.com/node/15793.

Where have you heard THIS story reported? Just like every other story the government wants buried, very few have the time to dig past their propaganda distractions.

-1 points

The ORIGINAL conspiracy theory is the US government official conspiracy theory. They have never proved it. There are no videos of the terrorists getting onto the planes at airports, most of the steel from the WTC that would have exposed how the buildings came down has been destroyed and evidence that they promised to release has never been released. Your notion of what constitutes a conspiracy theory is a perverted US propaganda version of the phrase.

-1 points

Scott Forbes said EXACTLY that.

Look up the interview where he explains the unprecedented power down in the WTC the weekend before 9/11.

0 points

pissed myself when i saw the debate answers.

-2 points
-2 points

1 of 3 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]