critical thinking about September 11, 2001

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

Trillions are already offshore, hidden away to avoid taxes....have been for decades. There is a cult of greed in our societies that has been growing rapidly since the industrial revolution.

Nah, there's been more back and forth than people think. Rockefeller in his prime was worth roughly half a trillion bucks in today's dollars. Nobody here touches that level of wealth today.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Nah, there's been more back and forth than people think. Rockefeller in his prime was worth roughly half a trillion bucks in today's dollars. Nobody here touches that level of wealth today.

Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederic...re-study-says/

Exhaustive Study Finds Global Elite Hiding Up to $32 Trillion in Offshore Accounts
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/3...l_elite_hiding

[DenverBrit]

Hey, Gaffney, where's the FEMA report that concludes Bldg 7 was demolished by thermite??

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Nah, there's been more back and forth than people think. Rockefeller in his prime was worth roughly half a trillion bucks in today's dollars. Nobody here touches that level of wealth today.

The capitalist pig devil stole it, I'm sure.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

How many scientists did YOU contact directly?

The sources are given in my articles and books. Hundreds of footnotes and links -- many to original sources.

Unfortunately, just as Allen Dulles stated in his defense of the Warren Commission cover up, [stupid] "Americans do not read reports.."

Most do not read. Period.

MHG

[DenverBrit]

Gaffney, where is the phantom FEMA report you claim vindicates the troofer looney theory that Bldg 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition and traces of thermite were found??

Come on, don't pull your usual stunt of avoiding the issue every time you're schooled.

Step up so we can get back to Gage and why the AIA, disowns him and his crackpot theories.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

The sources are given in my articles and books. Hundreds of footnotes and links -- many to original sources.

Unfortunately, just as Allen Dulles stated in his defense of the Warren Commission cover up, [stupid] "Americans do not read reports.."

Most do not read. Period.

MHG

In other words you didn't speak to any scientists like you've demanded that others should. Just checking.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

In other words you didn't speak to any scientists like you've demanded that others should. Just checking.

Wrong. I did. For example, I consulted with Ron Hamburger, who authored one of the chapters of the FEMA report. I also consulted with scientists at NIST.

And many others.

It's all discussed and documented in my book The 9/11 Mystery Plane. Some of it is also covered in my critique of the NIST Report.

I've posted the link here many times.

The problem is that clowns like you are not serious about finding out what really happened. You don't give a hoot. You'd rather just suck down beer and watch fooooball.

Same old shyte. MHG

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Wrong. I did. For example, I consulted with Ron Hamburger, who authored one of the chapters of the FEMA report. I also consulted with scientists at NIST.

Here's what gaffe claims is the support of a NIST or FEMA or other scientist:

"Ring ring"
NIST scientist: "Hello?"
gaffe: "I'm Mark Gaffney and I'm doing some research and I've figured out that the earth is pretty much a sphere. Is that correct?"
NIST scientist: "Yes, it is."
gaffe: "Thanks!"

How gaffe reports it:

"I contacted a NIST scientist and they verified my analysis."

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Wrong. I did. For example, I consulted with Ron Hamburger, who authored one of the chapters of the FEMA report. I also consulted with scientists at NIST.

And many others.

It's all discussed and documented in my book The 9/11 Mystery Plane. Some of it is also covered in my critique of the NIST Report.

I've posted the link here many times.

The problem is that clowns like you are not serious about finding out what really happened. You don't give a hoot. You'd rather just suck down beer and watch fooooball.

Same old shyte. MHG

FEMA report Gaffney, where is it??

Can't handle having your bluff called? You run away like a scolded little girl?

Step up, put your report where your mouth is, or admit, that you fabricated the lie, just like very other lie you've told here.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

FEMA report Gaffney, where is it??

Can't handle having your bluff called? You run away like a scolded little girl?

Step up, put your report where your mouth is, or admit, that you fabricated the lie, just like very other lie you've told here.

I just sent R R Biederman an email. He was one of the three materials scientists who did the appendix for the FEMA report. The three scientists documented an anomalous eutectic phenomenon.

We will see if he responds.

You clowns are too lame to lift even a finger to find out the truth.
MHG

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

I just sent R R Biederman an email. He was one of the three materials scientists who did the appendix for the FEMA report. The three scientists documented an anomalous eutectic phenomenon.

Copy your email and his reply verbatim here.

None of your typical **** about how scientists "verify" your analysis when in fact nothing of the sort took place.

[DenverBrit]

Back to the hero of this thread, Gage.

For years, this con man has been spouting nonsense while promoting his membership in AIA (American Institute of Architects). He is one of Gaffney's main sources whenever he needs an idiot to validate his own crackpot theories. Gage had been low grade architect and primarily a renovation supervisor of schools and strip centers until 911 when he saw an opportunity to make money with the troofer scam.

Finally, AIA had enough of his con and attempts to use AIA as a 'cover' and implied endorser of his lunacy. So on July 19th, 2012, they published an article in 'Architect,' the associations magazine.

Here are some of the 'highlights.'

Architects Shy From Truther 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
Architects didn't show up for a 9/11-architecture-conspiracy documentary screening—and the AIA doesn't want its name associated with Trutherism

The accusations of Gage’s organization are the typical hodgepodge of pseudo-scientific claims. Along with other esoteric and debunked technical arguments.......All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

“I can’t tell you how grateful we were to have been accepted to be here in the boardroom at the national headquarters,” Gage said. “We hope this is the beginning of a very productive relationship.”

Aside from Gage, though, there was not a single other architect in the room, much less an official from AIA, or even another member. The 80-strong crowd was made up largely of members of the local 9/11 Truth movement and other political activists.

Gage was once warned by AIA not to spread the misimpression that there is a relationship between the two organizations, after he wrote a letter to Congress stating that more than 100 members of AIA who signed his petition were demanding a new investigation into 9/11.
“It is somewhat troubling that he sort of portrays the notion that we have a relationship when we certainly do not,” Frank said

Gage should not expect those invitations any time soon, according to Frank: “There is absolutely zero relationship … [between our groups], nor will there ever be in the future.”

The full article.
http://www.architectmagazine.com/arc...-theory_2.aspx

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

I just sent R R Biederman an email. He was one of the three materials scientists who did the appendix for the FEMA report. The three scientists documented an anomalous eutectic phenomenon.

We will see if he responds.

You clowns are too lame to lift even a finger to find out the truth.
MHG

Couldn't find it in the FEMA report? The report you claim I didn't read?

Didn't think so.

[mhgaffney]

What did the FEMA Report say? Read on.

The 2002 FEMA report can be downloaded here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/fema_wtc/index.html

Chapter Five was devoted to WTC-7.
Download here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/...ema403_ch5.pdf

On page 5-31 the chapter concluded:

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.

In other words, FEMA was unable to show how fires caused the collapse -- and called for further study. But the "best fire hypothesis" in FEMA's view had only a low probability.

The important metallurgical analysis by Barnett, Biederman and Sisson can be downloaded here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/...ema403_apc.pdf

On page C-13 the authors concluded:

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.


The authors thus were at a loss to explain the eutectic phenomenon. Something lowered the melting point of steel by ~700 degrees F

Notice, the authors state that the corrosion of the steel may have occurred BEFORE the collapse. This leaves the door wide open to explosives.

They called for further research -- yet -- NIST conspicuously ignored their analysis.

In a post above I incorrectly stated that thermate includes sodium. I meant sulfur. It is the presence of sulfur that causes the eutectic phenomenon -- lowering the melting point of steel.

Even though the use of explosives was the most obvious and logical explanation, NIST refused event to consider it. The NIST report was biased from the get go -- and thus cannot be considered conclusive or comprehensive.

It was in fact a cover up.

MHG

[DenverBrit]

Gaffney, you're posting the conclusion I already posted. This is all you have??

Where's the FEMA report that mentions 'demolition' or 'thermite'??

Only the uneducated and unqualified troofers, motivated by greed, invented the 'demolition' and 'thermite' story, a fairy tale that has been debunked repeatedly and years ago.

Your fellow con man, Gage has been outed and disowned by AIA, yet here you are, the organic gardener, spouting and speculating about things of which you have absolutely no knowledge.

You're a joke.

As usual, you chose to ignore the conclusions of the report that dealt with the twin towers. Why?

It's obvious, the report blows the troofer conspiracy bull**** out of the water.

From Chapter 8.

The large quantity of jet fuel carried by each aircraft ignited upon impact into each building. A significant portion of this fuel was consumed immediately in the ensuing fireballs. The remaining fuel is believed either to have flowed down through the buildings or to have burned off within a few minutes of the aircraft impact. The heat produced by this burning jet fuel does not by itself appear to have been sufficient to initiate the structural collapses. However,as the burning jet fuel spread across several floors of the buildings, it ignited much of the buildings’ contents, causing simultaneous fires across several floors of both buildings. The heat output from these fires is estimated to have been comparable to the power produced by a large commercial power generating station. Over a period of many minutes, this heat induced additional stresses into the damaged structural frames while simultaneously softening and weakening these frames. This additional loading and the resulting damage were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures.[69]

Nice try, Gaffney.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

Gaffney, you're posting the conclusion I already posted. This is all you have??

Where's the FEMA report that mentions 'demolition' or 'thermite'??

Only the uneducated and unqualified troofers, motivated by greed, invented the 'demolition' and 'thermite' story, a fairy tale that has been debunked repeatedly and years ago.

Your fellow con man, Gage has been outed and disowned by AIA, yet here you are, the organic gardener, spouting and speculating about things of which you have absolutely no knowledge.

You're a joke.

As usual, you chose to ignore the conclusions of the report that dealt with the twin towers. Why?

It's obvious, the report blows the troofer conspiracy bull**** out of the water.

From Chapter 8.



Nice try, Gaffney.

We have been talking primarily about Building 7 -- which suffered no plane impact -- hence no jet fuel.

The metallurgical paper was a study of steel samples from WTC-7. As I have just shown, the authors were at a loss to explain how steel was melted -- even evaporated. The samples looked like Swiss cheese.

You have posted claims that the sulfur causing the eutectic phenomenon came from burning organic compounds in the building.

You pulled this material from your favorite debunker site -- without even giving the name of a scientist. So which expert reached this conclusion?

Anonymous experts are a joke. Serious scientists attach their names their work.

MHG

[DenverBrit]

One question, Gaffney.

Is FEMA correct about the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers?

Simple question, give a direct answer to it.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

One question, Gaffney.

Is FEMA correct about the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers?

Simple question, give a direct answer to it.

If you read the FEMA report you know that FEMA never resolved how the WTC collapses occurred. FEMA did its report on a shoestring budget.

FEMA did conclude that the best fire scenarios for the collapse of WTC-7 had only a low probability of occurrence.

Did you hear what I just said? It's right there in the FEMA report.

You should also know that FEMA's experts also did not have free access to the WTC site. THis shocking fact ought to make clowns like you question your own leaders -- but I suppose this is why you are a clown in the first place.

FEMA was only allowed on site in a very controlled and supervised manner. This was totally outrageous. This is why FEMA had few to none samples of steel to examine.

Even as FEMA attempted to make the best of this bad situation -- the WTC steel was being shipped to China on a fast boat.

Thus most of the crucial evidence that would have answered all of the questions about the collapse was being destroyed.

The destruction of evidence is itself a very serious crime -- yet one that the clowns on this board have never protested.

Fortunately, FEMA did acquire a very few steel samples from WTC-7 -- and these were the basis for the important metallurgical paper which you cited -- by Barnet and Biederman.

Their conclusions ought to make you question everything you thought you knew - but of course -- being a clown you swallowed all the lies.

MHG

[W*GS]

Wasn't FEMA part of the conspiracy?

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

If you read the FEMA report you know that FEMA never resolved how the WTC collapses occurred.

MHG

Gaffney, you're an idiot of epic proportions.

They had no difficulty resolving the collapse, had YOU read the report, you would know this.

I posted a paragraph from the FEMA report on Towers 1&2 right here: http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpos...&postcount=191

Over a period of many minutes, this heat induced additional stresses into the damaged structural frames while simultaneously softening and weakening these frames. This additional loading and the resulting damage were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures.[69]

Now, is FEMA correct or not?? Simple question, so answer it.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

Gaffney, you're an idiot of epic proportions.

They had no difficulty resolving the collapse, had YOU read the report, you would know this.

I posted a paragraph from the FEMA report on Towers 1&2 right here: http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpos...&postcount=191

Now, is FEMA correct or not?? Simple question, so answer it.

If FEMA resolved the issue of the WTC collapse -- then why did NIST take up the issue again in late 2002 -- just after the FEMA report was released?

You need to admit that you never read either report. You're spewing out of your a-hole.

The only thing worse than a stupid American is a stupid American on steroids (hint: like you, Brit).

MHG

[W*GS]

Since a GUT doesn't yet exist, the moon is made of cheese. It has to be.

[orangeatheist]

"Stupid American!"

"Bwaaaaaak!"

"Stupid American!"

"Thermite!"

"Twin Towers!"

"Bwaakkkk!"

"Zionist Conspiracy!"

"Mini Nukes!"

"Bwaaaaakkk!"

"Stupid American!"

Wassa matter, Gaffie? Gaffie wanna cracker?

"Stupid American!! Bwaaaaakkkkkk!!!!"

[W*GS]

gaffe's spew is an insult to anything with a brain.