LESLIE ROBERTSON AND STEVEN JONES DEBATE PT3.

[terrymanning1]

Truthers = retards

[74pbg]

I can understand Robertson, why would the government hide something that was done by a small group of officials? My doubt about the collapse was the rapid speed and the unusual sound of the collapse (sec. before)! I was there and i heard timed explosion sound's (no jumper or floor collapse)and hundreds of people near the tower's heard them too(initiation), there was no need for thermite, the new don't recorded this sound's of cut them out, what was the purpose of that?!

[JohnsaWozHere]

Good Debate - quite civilised.

I wish Dr. Jones had raised the issue of the lateral ejections of steel girders at high speed which can be seen on video during the tower collapses.

I think this is the most compelling indication of the use of explosives.

[SCODgreenhood]

Dr. Steven Jones OWNED Les Robertson! Thanks for this recording.

[TruthMakesPeace]

Dr. Steven Jones talked science. Les Robertson's only arguments were how difficult it would be (not difficult if Security was controlled, and ACE Elevator had full access to elevator shafts) and how some families want closure, basically fluff. Dr. Jones clearly won the debate.

[clownporn1]

@TruthMakesPeace - no, Steven Jones is a lying war profiteer who has no buisness in science. have you seen his resume

[TruthMakesPeace]

@clownporn1 Yes, his resume is very impressive, with about 50 studies published in peer reviewed scientific journals, plus being Professor Emeritus from BYU (they had no obligation to honor him in this way, unless he deserved it). He is against war, not for it. He has a comfortable retirement pension, and is not motivated by profit anyway. Besides, there is no big profit, if any, in 9/11 activism.

[clownporn1]

@TruthMakesPeace - look at all the SPIN lmao XD. just say he's a MORMON physicist who retired for acting like a bigger moron than his fellow Mormons and mars the memories of all those lost on that day" and exploits the public's anger and sadness. It shakes Americans' faith in their government at a time when that faith is already near an all-time low. It trafficks in ugly, unfounded accusations of extraordinary evil against fellow Americans. He sells books for profit hence profiteering.

[roquefortfiles]

I have TOTAL respect for Les Robertson!! I have NONE for Mr Jones!! Or Chandler or Gage!! or any other whack a doos who subscribe to the lunacy they push. FACT!! a linear shaped charge HIGH EXPLOSIVE is the ONLY thing going to cut these columns. That is in NO WAY a subtle or quiet event. Not even CLOSE! You don't make that claim and then have news cameras and other cameras within 1500 feet of this recording NOTHING prior to collapse.

Absolutely 110% NON SENSE!!

[punxsutawneybarney]

See at 4:55 where Mr. Roberston denies that anyone saw molten steel at Ground Zero. He told a different story in 2002, saying he saw a "little river of molten steel".

See my video:

The 9/11 "Deep Mystery" and the Crazy Engineers

[sandite26]

It's just too odd that so many subordinates were ready to act to stop it while it was happening, but they were all ordered to do nothing and let it happen. The problem with the truth movement is if you allow one bit of unsubstantiated "evidence" into the picture, all of the individual parts of the theory are discredited. The kids who made Loose Change are unfortunately responsible for damaging the efforts of individuals like Steven Jones.

[kousoulides]

LESLIE ROBERTSON says you would need a tons of explosives to accomplish that kind of Free- fall. At that speed.

So Ergo... the Free-Fall is explained by a mere airplane crash?



[piwacket33]

No, you can't just walk into someone's office and put explosives in the building.. unless, of course, the president's brother is in charge of the maintenance/security company, with unprecedented evacs and power outtages the weeks before the incident. Why would it take ENORMOUS amounts of explosives if, as Robertson claims, the metal was so weakened by the fires. THEN it should only take SMALL amounts of explosives,because HIS argument is that there were NONE!! how can he contradict himself so?

[Metamorphosis33]

Is it just me...or are people avoiding the facts and evidence because of the RAMIFICATIONS of what it means about the time of the tower collapse..quit IGNORING the evidence we live in THE GREATEST COUNTRY ON EARTH...a collage of ideas culture and spirituality...we have our flaws but if we could all come together...we could be the catalyst for change that every politician has promised us since the inception of this country...Too much death hes resulted from lies and mis-truths...

[phatcontrolla]

@truthinator, I have to say, you normally bring a good argument to the table when it comes to the government endorsed theory, but I actually feel slightly embarrassed on Leslie Robertson's behalf. Don't get me wrong, I'm not getting conspiratorial or anything, saying he was trying to cover up "the truth" but when he wasn't avoiding the question, he was admitting he just didn't have the answer. This seems to do more for the truther's argument than the believers.

[mbarnabeus]

The scientific results again showed by electronic microscope and chimic analysis(by the way showing for exemple that it can't be originated from paint):

it's high tech nanothermite! watch the stunning scientific evidences:

Steven E. Jones on Nanothermite - Part 8 of 12 - Sacramento, California, April 30, 2009

[mbarnabeus]

@thecandidate0607

sorry but this arg can't work any more, a complete analysis has been also done on a sample of dust from the appartment (owner named Janette Mac...) which was located just across the south tower, the windows broke during the final collapse and the dust flowed into her appartment! And guess what?

[sssssjjjj1]

leslie robertson looks identical, not sort of like, but identical to the grinch. check him out. hahaha. Listen to this zion lieing for his life. These jews are wicked. Sorry, but look at what they've done to our beautiful country. They lie as their duty to the rothschilds. Read the talmud, I dare you. watch free on youtube "khazar conspiracy" look up "kosher tax"  This will wake you up. CAll me antisemetic I don't care. I call a murderer a murderer. These pencil necks don't scare me.

[OneHandHigh]

Leslie Robertson claims that it would be very difficult to plant explosives on a floor-by-floor basis in order to allow the building to collapse at free fall speeds.

Well, many survivors of WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7 said that strange evacuations of ENTIRE FLOORS we're conducted with all the security camera's deactivated !!

Also, "SUPER THERMITE" can be mixed into a wet, paint-like substance, and could be applied by a painter without any suspicion, and when it dries it's HIGHLY EXPLOSIVE.

[74pbg]

I agree totally! But i never heard that it's possible to applie it like paint! Really?

[thecandidate0607]

Would one application as thin as a layer of paint be sufficient enough to cut through and sever a 4 inch thick steel wall of a structural tube?

[thecandidate0607]

Also, thermite of any kind does not have explosive properties only incendiary. And the path of cutting is subject to gravity unless the heat is directed via an apparatus so vertical columns would prove to be rather tricky to cut.

[thecandidate0607]

@DarkwingScooter Tell me? The sidewalls of the columns were a little over 4 inches thick. How much thermite do you suppose it would take to cut through 4 inches of steel HORIZONTALLY. While you are thinking about that think about how that much thermite would get brought in to a building planted and not prematurely ignited upon impact by the aircraft? How did the perpetrators know exactly where to place the charges since the initiation of collapse obviously starts around the impact area?

[thecandidate0607]

@DarkwingScooter Try answering the question. How much thermite is needed to burn horizontally through 4 inches of steel?

[thecandidate0607]

@DarkwingScooter Why was there no obvious explosive evidence recovered from the site? By that I mean remaining fragments of detonation wire. Anyone that has worked a site, post implosion, and I have, knows that the site is literally littered with all kinds of stuff that indicates the building was imploded. So why has no such material been found? How does thermite turn concrete to dust? Why were no explosive charges recorded or heard?

[DarkwingScooter]

@thecandidate0607 "Why was there no obvious explosive evidence recovered from the site?"

Nobody looked. NIST, by their own admission, did not think it was worth their time to look. The scene was not open to the public.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially if you keep your eyes closed.

[thecandidate0607]

@DarkwingScooter What are the circumstances surrounding the collection of Steven Jones dust samples? How does certain different elements being present automatically indicate thermite when these elements were already common in the building? How were the truss to exterior column connection cutter charges planted without being noticed?  How many would it have taken to achieve free fall collapse?

[DarkwingScooter]

@thecandidate0607 "What are the circumstances surrounding the collection of Steven Jones dust samples?"

Exactly what you expect them to be given the circumstances of his investigation. He disclosed the conditions in his paper, there is nothing improper about not having perfect samples, there is no such thing in science.

"How many would it have taken to achieve free fall collapse?"

According to the official version? None at all. You can't have it both ways.

[thecandidate0607]

@DarkwingScooter So the fact that these samples were collected many days after collapse and after cleanup had commenced would have no bearing on the findings in these dust samples? And the fact that one of the dust samples came from someone whose apartment was rich in iron microspheres before 9-11 because of their occupation, obviously thats just a minor oversight, it has no bearing on the findings at all right?

[DarkwingScooter]

@thecandidate0607 "So the fact that these samples were collected many days after collapse and after cleanup had commenced would have no bearing on the findings in these dust samples?"

No, of course it does. But Dr. Jones had no control over the scene of the event and he used the best samples available to him.

The standard in science is falsification, not random accusation of rigging. There are two ways to falsify this result: 1) Test Dr. Jones' samples again [done], or 2) get better samples.

[thecandidate0607]

@DarkwingScooter So we are supposed to believe that a controlled demolition took place based on the findings of contaminated evidence? If you were being put on trial and the evidence the state was using against you was contaminated. Would you want that evidence to be allowed to be used against you?

[DarkwingScooter]

@thecandidate0607 Firstly, a trial is a different thing with different standards of evidence (more stringent and less) from a scientific investigation.

Secondly you are not expected to believe it on the basis of one particular piece of evidence. That is the whole point. The one who makes the claim must provide the evidence, the claim is that no-one in the U.S. government had any role.

This evidence is falsification of a claim by NIST that there were no accelerants, not a theory in itself.

[DarkwingScooter]

@thecandidate0607 The hypothesis of the thermite study is that their was something in the dust that should not be there according to the official version.

Just because you don't like the implication of a positive conclusion to that question is not sufficient reason to take it to be false.

Just because a theory constructed from that conclusion is not adequate (I do not believe there is an adequate theory at present) does not mean the conclusion is falsified.

Wiki "a priori congruity".

[Metamorphosis33]

@DarkwingScooter agreed number 1

[runelord37]

@thecandidate0607 nano thermite can be used to cut with precision. look it up

[thecandidate0607]

@runelord37 With the correct apparatus to direct the heatflow from the ignition. Yes it absolutely can be precise but the amount of thermite required to cut through the wall thickness of the inner core columns would have been a huge apparatus that was hard to conceal and how exactly was it supposed to cut around the entire column. Plus your response after nearly a year from your previous response leaves a little to be desired. Tells me you put a lot of thought into it.

[thecandidate0607]

@runelord37 OH and HERES the best part. How were all of these pre-placed thermite devices supposed to survive the airplane impact and subsequent fires without igniting prematurely. Since its obvious that the the collapse initiated from the impact area and clearly there was a plane, unless you're one of these no planer nut jobs.

[runelord37]

@thecandidate0607 no there were 2 planes by my count. that however is irrelevant as the building itself would have fallen much differently due to structural fires ( not that that is really possible anyway). your question seems slightly fair, however just because one site on the building was impacted would not somehow demand that all the charges would have gone off. they would have been dispersed throught the beams at unknown intervals. your point is moot

[thecandidate0607]

@runelord37 Your basis on how the building should have fell is based on what historical precedent. One could argue that the empire state building had a similar situation occur but even if the circumstances of that event were the exact same as 9-11. The empire state building was constructed traditionally whereas the twin towers used an open floorplan design requiring less steel which means less members to heat and also less resistance in a collapse.

[Lietuvispartizan]

"LESLIE ROBERTSON OWNS STEVEN JONES" - if a person is not debating about the facts and the physics furthermore he is debating with a raised voice - his manner was defiant .

Steven Jones was polite and didn't interrupt Leslie Robertson. He brought the issue of molten metal, molten iron - this is evidence and the importance of knowing the truth.

[grandmastershek]

no one tested the molten "metal". steven jones's tests were visual comparisons by photo. any number of things can be molten. robertson was arguing based on his expertise as the building engineer. all jones's research is conducted & reviewed by he & his cronies. so essentially we are supposed to just take his word for it.

"There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." Noam Chomsky

[xpaderom]

Could someone please tell me when this debate happened?  Perhaps the person who posted the vid could put that information in the description?

[xpaderom]

Both of the experts in this debate treat each other with considerable respect. Why can't those of us with less expertise than they have--which is to say, almost all of us--treat each other similarly? How about we all drop the "all 911-truthers are morons" and "all 911-truth-debunkers are sheep" crap? Let's have civil discussion on this topic or none at all.

[yewutube]

I agree Xpaderom, but on numerous occasions debunkers have been content to lob a steady stream of personal insults and bigoted remarks in my general direction while avoiding specific discussion. I understand that its hard to accept an inside job view. Its very difficult. I was there once. But i can't help the feeling that some of the debunkers are on the clock, if you know what i mean.

[HardcoreJungFunk]

@xpaderom agree!!

[gtg309v]

Op Northwoods called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington DC, Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.

[Owleyes888]

this is a great series

[MrXenomorphosis]

go research The theory of Xenomorphosis and then look up NO PLAGUE LIKE HOME and then ask yourself why jealous POS like edward przydzial and shaman911 are working overtime to distract people from the connection between Illuminati and 911 that is made on that video

[xxxxdarksidexxxx]

robertson on molten. "Ive never run accross anyone who had seen molten" again, NYPD and NYFD testify on video about the FLOWING OF MOLTEN METAL

ALSO do not forget the how many times the clean up crews of 911 had to OFFICIALLY STOP WORK because of the dangerous molten pools of metal making it deadly to work around. i guess that was all fake too huh? dam fool

FINE SO IF IT WASNT CONTROLLED YOUR TELLING THE WORLD THIS WAS a random act? give me a mother fucking break

[Hochdorff]

Which steel framed building was hit by a large plane and burned for nearly one hour burned and didn't collapse?

[gtg309v]

What steel framed high rise ever collapsed due to fire alone before or after 9/11? None. But I guess you think WTC7 did.

You can start your own demolition company. All you need for a complete and total symmetrical collapse of a steel framed high rise is a few matches. You can make millions. Gogo

[wightboy12345]

Can we say "horrible oversimplification"?

Seriously, you sound like the creationists saying life should spring out of peanut butter.

[gtg309v]

I oversimplified did I? Well if that's the case, then you're all alone in saying that, since even NIST admits that structural damage had little effect on the collapse of WTC7. Fail.

[wightboy12345]

Um.... I'm pretty damn sure only the twin towers were hit by planes, which were what he was commenting on and you responded to with "matches." "Matches" IS a horrible over simplification of being hit with planes at ~500 mph and burning jet fuel.

You just misdirected my response to WTC 7 instead of the twin towers like both Hochdorff and I were originally commenting on. Stay on topic.

[gtg309v]

His comment ignored WTC7, which wasn't hit by any plane. Hence his comment is useless, which was the purpose of my comment on his comment. I didn't misdirect anything, since my comment is about WTC7. If you can't deal with the topic of WTC7 and you can only deal with the twin towers, then don't bother responding.

[wightboy12345]

"...appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, NIST's interim report on 7 World Trade Center displays photographs of the southwest façade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The report also highlights a 10-story gash in the center of the south façade, toward the bottom, extending approximately a quarter of the way into the interior."

Ten story gash a quarter of the way in.

[gtg309v]

Are you claiming that NIST still says that structural damage from falling debris was significant to the collapse of WTC7? If you're not claiming this, then what is the point of your quote.

[wightboy12345]

Collapses by definition are caused by structural damage. I think what you're trying to say is that the debris was not the cause of the structural damage.

A ten story gap a quarter of the way in is going to weak any building. Fires will generally weaken buildings. It could have easily been a combination of the two. And honestly, who the fuck cares about WTC7? There were no casualties associated with the collapse and the twin towers are obviously more important. Do you have a motive for WTC7?

[gtg309v]

Well you're all alone in your claim that structural damage from falling debris was significant to the collapse of WTC7. Even NIST had to retract that claim because it's not true. If WTC7 was a controlled demolition, then obviously the official story isn't telling us the truth and there needs to be an independent investigation. If you want motive, look at who profitted from all of this. I am not profitting from any of this, so I don't see why you ask for my motive. I just want the truth.

[wightboy12345]

I meant, can you give a motive for anyone to destroy WTC7, I simply hit the character limit. Really, who did profit from the collapse of WTC7? A single person? It's not significant enough for terrorists to target since no one cares. I highly doubt that type of debris damage did not impact the structural stability of the building. More likely that the MAJORITY of structural weakening was fire related and so they withdrew debris from being the MAIN cause.

watch?v=flDxFt70aTs&feature=ch­annel_page

[gtg309v]

You don't know a single person who profitted from the collapse of WTC7? You need to do some better research... And I don't really care if you highly doubt that structural damage from falling debris wasn't significant to the collapse of WTC7. Your doubts aren't based on any expert opinion so who cares what you doubt.

Why would you point me to a video like that? Is this where you are getting your arguments from? That explains a lot...

[wightboy12345]

No. The burden of proof is upon you to provide a person who benefited because I frankly don't give a damn about WTC7. Also, the reason the I'm doubtful that falling debris played no part in the collapse is that floors do rely on vertical supports to some extent no matter the design. Most of the debris damage was at the bottom. I'm sure you can figure out that connection.

I pointed you to that video because you need to take what's being said into perspective. Who cares about WTC7?

[wightboy12345]

Why bother 'pretending' that a plane hit a building to collapse it and then setting up explosives on the inside instead of just providing the 'fake' terrorists with means to take down the buildings? I'm halfway through loose change and I'm severely disappointed in it. A cruise missile?!? WTF? Isn't more likely that he just didn't understand the situation instead of a fucking cruise missile fired at themselves.

[gtg309v]

I already explained why WTC7 matters a few comments back... If WTC7 was a controlled demolition, then the official story is clearly not true and highly likely a cover up. Here's a better question, why do they refuse to release any of the video they confiscated that would show the plane crashing into the Pentagon? Who profits from hiding these videos? A freedom of information act request revealed that there are something like 80+ videos not being released that would show the crash.

[gtg309v]

Why would I feel compelled to show you people who profitted from the collapse of WTC7 if you already acknowledge that you don't give a damn about it anyway? I have no burden of proof on me, since I am not here to prove anything to you. Text comments on youtube don't prove anything. I don't expect much from you if you weren't able to discover from your own research that Larry Silverstein made a fortune off of the insurance policy he had on WTC7, which fortuitously covered acts of terrorism.

[wightboy12345]

You're arguing that things are different than they appear; the burden of proof is on you to show that, since the obvious explanation is always the null hypothesis. I don't care about WTC7 because there's no good reason to. That "fortune" on WTC7 is being spent building the new trade center. He lost money on that, and he lost money during the down time, and he will lose money still because people will still be afraid his building will be hit by another attack. He only lost from this, not gain

[gtg309v]

Larry Silverstein did not lose from this, he made billions of dollars. You must be mental.

Im not arguing that things are different than they appear. WTC7 appears to be a controlled demolition in every sense.

Also the Pentagon doesn't appear to have had a commercial jetliner crash into it. No large airplane pieces, like the engine or parts of the wing, were in there. Why dont they release the videos?

This cab driver doesn't want you to believe your lying eyes.

watch?v=3GHM5f9lVho

[wightboy12345]

"...requires [Silverstein] to continue paying $102 million annually in base rent [on WTC]." [after destruction]

[Rebuilding]

"Lack of financing had prevented construction from commencing earlier. The proceeds of the insurance policies arising from the destruction of the previous buildings were insufficient to cover the cost of rebuilding all the insured buildings."

Also, why would they bother faking the trajectory of the plane? There's no motive.

[gtg309v]

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million.

That's before the billions of dollars he made from the insurance policy. Do the math.

So why won't they release the videos? It's obvious, which is why you cant answer.

You are arguing that things are not what they appear.

[wightboy12345]

And you COMPLETELY ignored my point. It's going to cost ridiculous amounts of money to rebuild as he had INSUFFICIENT funds to. Yea, that's a really big number he got, but you have to consider how much more money he would've made if business had just continued as normal. Also, legal fees. He took on a dozen insurance companies.

[wightboy12345]

Are you talking about the videos of the pentagon?

They don't let people photograph inside the pentagon. There are even buildings that they don't let people photograph the outside of and don't tell you what those buildings are until after you've photographed them to stop people from trying to take pictures of them. Security departments like their secrecy, go figure. And no, it appears that planes hit several buildings, that is the obvious explanation. Cruise missile is not.

[gtg309v]

So why won't they release the videos again?

[wightboy12345]

One strange thing (I will admit until a better explanation comes up that that is strange; it still could do with not releasing the content structure of the wall [some wall structures are highly guarded]) does not logically follow to cruise missile. Nor does refusing to release on the pentagon logically follow to planes not hitting the twin towers or lead to a controlled demolition of WTC7. You've been hopping away from the main issue, being the twin towers, and keep bringing up other things.

[gtg309v]

I have not hopped from the twin towers. I haven't been talking about the twin towers at all.

Why did the Pentagon only release one video, which doesn't show a commercial jetliner? What harm is there in releasing the other videos that would show the plane crash? Do you have any common sense?

[wightboy12345]

Yes, I admitted it was strange, but one strange occurrence does not a bonafide conspiracy make.

[gtg309v]

Silverstein Peroperties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. They got $861 million. What are you babbling about? What is this "ridiculous amounts of money to rebuild" that you are talking about?

And how much money would he have made if it didn't happen? 4+ billion dollars you claim? That's pretty funny.

[wightboy12345]

Again, you're ignoring reconstruction cost and money lost from the down time in between.

It's been almost 8 years since 9/11 and so he's had to pay about 800 mil. on the lease for the WTC since that time, negating WTC7 money

He got 4 bil at once, but how much money would he have made from one of the largest and most prestigious office buildings in the US over 8 years? I'm not being funny. Actually think about it. The opportunity cost isn't worth it since he also has to pay for rebuilding.

[gtg309v]

I am not ignoring reconstruction cost. That is why Silverstein Properties' got $861 million. What are you babbling about?

800 million doesn't negate 4+ billion dollars. Learn math please. He made more money from his insurance policy than you'll ever see in your life.

Why don't you tell me how much he would have made over 8 years? His investment in WTC7 was $386 million. Are you saying he would have made 10X his investment in 8 years? You don't know what you're talking about.

[wightboy12345]

The 861 mil got from WTC7 is negated by the 800 mil in rent, which is what I was saying.

Actually, to get 10X his investment in 8 years, it would take an interest rate of about 10% [if I got the math right: Log(8) of 10 then minus one and times by 100]. Additionally, it's only been 8 years so far. We must add how much more time it will take to rebuild and the fact that he had insufficient funds to rebuild, meaning the insurance didn't cover the reconstruction cost; yes, all 4 bil of it.

[wightboy12345]

My math is probably wrong on that, let me double check it.

[wightboy12345]

Yep, it would be closer to 30% [I should have taken the 8th root of ten and not the log]. But you are still not taking into consideration that he had insufficient funds for reconstruction, which means that no matter what he got out of it, if he intends to rebuild (which he is) he got negative money from this, meaning he can't possibly have an incentive to.

[gtg309v]

What is this bullshit about him having insufficient funds to rebuild? 861 million to rebuild. End of story.

4+ billion minus 800 million gives you what? 3+ billion dollars profit. That's 3 thousand million dollars. Get it?

[wightboy12345]

NO! He's paying 800 million over these 8 years simply for the LEASE on the ground and that is completely divorced from the cost of reconstruction or the towers. The cost of reconstruction EXCEEDS, repeat, EXCEEDS, the money from all his insurance, which means the 4 bil.

[gtg309v]

"The cost of reconstruction EXCEEDS...the 4 bil."

You're just pulling this shit out of your ass. Construction was completed in 2006 at a cost of $700 million. Though Silverstein received $861 million from insurance on the old building, he had $400 million remaining in mortgage to pay off.Costs to rebuild were covered by $475 million in Liberty Bonds, which provide tax-exempt financing to help stimulate rebuilding in Lower Manhattan and insurance money that remained after other expenses.

[wightboy12345]

"On March 13, 2006, workers arrived at the World Trade Center site to remove remaining debris and start surveying work."

"In May 2006, architects Richard Rogers and Fumihiko Maki were announced as the architects for Towers Three and Four, respectively.[138] The final designs for Towers Two, Three and Four were unveiled on September 7, 2006. "

"On June 22, 2007 the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey announced that JP Morgan Chase will build Tower 5"

[wightboy12345]

Construction complete my ass. They've barely started surveying or unveiling designs.

[gtg309v]

Construction of the new WTC 7 was completed. The building I've been talking about the entire time. The building which he got $861 million dollars to reconstruct, plus $475 million in Liberty Bonds. He made hundreds of millions of dollars off of WTC 7 alone. No time to waste with your foolishness, moving on.

Give one reason why they refuse to release any of the 80+ videos which would show a commercial jetliner crashing into the Pentagon. When you come up with nothing, admit you have no sense.

[wightboy12345]

Yea..... No. You've been citing the 4 bil from the TWIN TOWERS, which have not been rebuilt yet. He's spent an equivalent amount that he got from WTC7 insurance on rent for the land without the cost of construction, that's extra. He lost money especially when considering that no one had been renting that space for years.

No, I don't have to admit any such thing. I admitted that it was strange, but by itself it doesn't prove anything other than they won't show it.

[wightboy12345]

It doesn't prove conspiracy and it doesn't prove cruise missile. It just proves that they don't release those videos. And unless you provide a solid reason behind that, you can not take it as evidence for conspiracy or motive or why they just wouldn't fly a remote controlled Boeing plane into the pentagon. Seriously, there's no motive which is what the video I linked to was satirizing the "truth" movement for.

[gtg309v]

"I admitted that it was strange, but by itself it doesn't prove anything other than they won't show it."

What is the nature of secrecy? Why does anyone ever keep something secret? Look in yourself, and ask why you ever kept a secret. For control, that's why. If you don't understand this, then you're ill equipped to even be considering the implications of what I'm telling you. That said, you are not worth my time.

[wightboy12345]

Um... fuck you.

You're telling me that they don't let people know which car the president is traveling in for control? That's secrecy, too. That they don't let people know the exact position of submarines or troops during wars to be controlling and not to preserve lives? That they have military secrets to control citizens instead of preventing other countries from obtaining them?

You may say that's for control of the situation, but that doesn't necessarily mean something nefarious.

[gtg309v]

Those are all forms of control... You keep secrets so that others will not have the ability to act according to their own will based on the knowledge being kept. So, who is being controlled by not releasing these videos showing what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11? The answer is obvious, if you understand the nature of secrecy.  Releasing the video wouldn't be revealing of anything that people cannot see for themselves by visiting the Pentagon. All it would reveal is what really happened.

[wightboy12345]

Unless it would release information of exactly how the wall reacts to that type of force and explosion and so keeping it secret would prevent someone from building on that knowledge; I'm not claiming to know, but you're instantly discarding all other possible reasons and focusing on just a motive of treachery. There are many possible reasons.

I will admit that I don't concretely know why they wouldn't show the plane coming in, but then again, I highly doubt that you do either.

[gtg309v]

They keep the videos secret because it would show how a wall reacts to that force? That is the dumbest shit I have ever heard. We saw what happened to the wall... Are you retarded? No, there aren't "many possible reasons" you idiot. Well, maybe there are "many possible reasons" if I keep asking a mentally handicapped person like yourself for a reason... sigh

[wightboy12345]

Let me clarify. How the wall would react to that force at each stage of the collision. That is actually much more useful for developing a penetrating weapon than seeing only the aftermath.

[gtg309v]

Video showing the plane crashing into the Pentagon wouldn't tell you diddly shit about developing penetrating weapons. You wouldn't "see" anything happening at each wall. All you'd see is the back of the plane as it goes into the building... Besides, anyone developing penetrating weapons isn't going to find it interesting how walls react to a commercial jetliner crashing into them... I don't know where you come up with this nonsense.

[wightboy12345]

You're telling me out of those "80+" videos that none of them showed anything but the back of the plane? And even if something only showed the back, you could still see the front. Do you know how many of those 80+ videos actually would've caught the plane or were motion sensitive and would've only caught the interior of the pentagon?

They wouldn't care that it's a jetliner, but they might care to see how specifically how what the pentagon uses reacts. And again, it's a plausible reason.

[wightboy12345]

Again, there are probably things that neither or us are considering, but you have a huge sense of superiority to yourself (as shown by the posts riddled with insults) and claim to KNOW that it HAD to be a conspiracy without even consideration of other possibilities.

[gtg309v]

Sorry, your reason is not plausible. That's a guarantee. The Pentagon uses steel-reinforced concrete, no surprise there... And I don't need to see all the videos. All that I want is for them to release just one showing the plane crash into the Pentagon. There are 80+ videos that would have shown the plane, as from a freedom of information act request. These aren't just video from the Pentagon itself, but other videos confiscated around the area, such as from gas stations and hotels etc....

[wightboy12345]

Yea, the government has been secretive about many things, a good part of them pointless. Also, bureaucracies tend to enforce blanket policies that would effect all videos even if the reasons don't apply to all videos. Your reason, IMHO, is not as likely as what I possibly do not know at this time and you have failed to explain why I should other than "they're keeping something secret" which is obvious since they kept the videos. That shows no implication of why. Null hypothesis is still plane

[wightboy12345]

Can you show a motive for why they wouldn't just fly the missing plane into the pentagon instead of a cruise missile? Is there a single good reason for that?

[wightboy12345]

/watch?v=Q20NmYGE-T4&feature=r­elated

0:46 claims to have 2 videos of a plane.  I couldn't see very clearly, but make of it what you will.

[gtg309v]

I didn't see a plane in that video. Unless if you're claiming it was a chameleon plane that blends right into the background... Omg, we know what a plane looks like sir. Take a look at the plane flying into the towers. Quite clear what a plane would look like. No video showing a plane hit the Pentagon.

[wightboy12345]

Actually I did see a long silver shape that fans out at the back on the first video and there's a large shape that moves very quickly in the second.

[Hochdorff]

Hi wightboy12345, gtg309v is one antisemitic asshole (by stating Silverstein profited from 9/11 and I'm pretty sure he think 'pull it' has something to do with controlled demolition). Those people state that some gaps in the explanation make the whole worthless, but by doing so every car crash could become part of a conspiracy theory. They spinning in circles and everybody of them thinks he is a genius by comming up with the same old bullshit claims (like Operation Northwoods).

[gtg309v]

Hochdorff, a video not showing a plane hit the Pentagon is a pretty big gap. And somehow you claim I am antisemitic? How do you accomplish that feat? You're a shill.

[Hochdorff]

...of course, I'm a shill. But the US-government is one heck of a lousy payer. Till today I didn't get payed one dollar for over seven years of work.

But why should the US-government pay a foreigner?

The Pentagon is no gap, it clearly shows a plane altough the quality is bad, but this is fully understandable if you consider the type of camera. A rocket would not knock of five light poles and a large generator.

[gtg309v]

Light poles were staged, as seen from this cab driver's interview. This cab driver doesn't want you to believe your lying eyes.

No plane can be distinguished in the Pentagon videos. Claiming that "it clearly shows a plane" is a an outright lie. If you weren't told that a plane hit the Pentagon, and only saw that video, there is no chance that you would say that what you saw in the video was a commercial jetliner; no chance.

Claiming that I'm antisemitic proves that you're a jackass.

[gtg309v]

Cab driver interview:

watch?v=3GHM5f9lVho&feature=ch­annel_page

[Hochdorff]

At first, I don't know if you're a fulltime antisemite, what I tried to say is, that you reproduce antiseitic stereotypes, if keep on doing this, then you have to be considered as a antisemite.

Well, then where are the people that died in the plane that hit the Pentagon?

[gtg309v]

I don't reproduce anything. I pointed out facts. I don't even know if he is Jewish. Just because someone's last name has stein doesn't mean they believe and/or practice Judaism. Whether he is Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, or whatever, is completely irrelevant to the point.

You're an idiot, ignored.

[Hochdorff]

The claims about Silverstein came from far-right people for obvious reason. You didn't 'research' anything you're just repeating, hence you reproduce.

But now you have a fine way out ignoring the other things I said.

[wightboy12345]

Thanks, Hochdorff, although it might not be antisemitism (I didn't even make the connection of the suffix -stein until you pointed it out).

[Hochdorff]

Don't get me wrong it isn't because of the name. Its a stereotype, that claims 'the jew takes profit out of every bad' and a second that 'he causes all this bads by himself'. See the whole 'pull it' thing.

The ADL has a very sophisticated paper out about this topic. You can get it as PDF at their website.

[gtg309v]

My reason for them keeping the videos secret is not as likely? Ever hear of Operation Northwoods? They have actually discussed hijacking planes by remote control and staging attacks to get us to go to war. That's more evidence that they were involved than there is evidence that Osama bin Laden was involved. Those videos need to be released even if there is the slightest chance that they were involved, and there obviously is.

[wightboy12345]

Yes, I've heard of it in 'loose change', but that was 40 years ago. Is every accident or terrorist involvement with a plane now going to grounds for blaming a conspiracy of the government? Remember the Red Scare? People were scared shitless of 'commies' and were pretty damn desperate, but even in that hysteria, the guy who came up with it was fired from his rather higher up position.

[gtg309v]

"that was 40 years ago"

So? That shows that they discussed carrying out terror attacks on the American people. They are literally guilty of conspiracy. And you try to tell me "it's not likely", when they literally have discussions about these things, and have carried out false flags in the past. If they carried out Operation Northwoods 40 years ago, you would be making the same bullshit arguments defending these murderers. They'd keep secrets, and you wouldn't care.. go along to get along

[wightboy12345]

No, that ONE person is guilty of attempting to start a conspiracy. That is not a conspiracy since he was shut down when he presented his idea. Let me ask this, would it matter to you if it had been 60 years, 80 years, 200 years? Very few people are even still in the government who were in then.

[gtg309v]

One person?... ignorance. The plans were signed by all the members of the Joint Chief of Staff. So you had all the senior military officials in the US government signing off on this conspiracy against the American people. Why did you capitalize "ONE"? Was that to highlight your ignorance on the topic? Do you not know the history of false flag attacks? It is all throughout history, and continues today. Watch Terrorstorm for a brief introduction on the subject. Look at the history of CIA..

[wightboy12345]

Yea, CIA are sneaky bastards who've done a lot of bad, but it doesn't mean they did it this time. And again, how long would it take for you to no longer consider it as a likely simply because of Op Northwoods? Can you even give a rough estimate, or is it never?

[gtg309v]

First off, it is not "simply because of Op Northwoods" that it is likely. False flag attacks are used as a pretext for wars throughout history, and they will continue to be used as long as there are enough people like you.

Why do you even try to make a point about only ONE person being guilty? I would assume that you were trying to make the point that since there weren't multiple people in on it, then it wasn't relevant. But I corrected you and suddenly you don't care about your own point.

[wightboy12345]

Ok, I'll concede that I was wrong about how many people were involved 60 years ago. That doesn't change the fact most if not all of them are out of the gov.

Will you concede all the points that you "suddenly don't care about" anymore since you dropped them?

[Hochdorff]

Terrorstorm is a bullshit video of this moron Alex Jones, its full of non-facts, fiction and lies.

And again, 'Operation Northwoods' was considered a really bad idea, therefor it was dismissed and declassified. What do you think, someone someday said: 'Hey look, there is this bullshit idea from forty years ago, lets try this.' and some other guy or gal says: 'We're lucky that its declassified, so that everybody can read it and agree with us.'

I forgot, I'm a shill. Maybe I was the guy or gal.

[Hochdorff]

You don't get it, no one should be killed in the Operation Northwoods scenario. This is a characteristic of so-called 'false flag' operations, they were carried out with a low or no casualty rate. The perfect example of such an false flag operation was carried out by the germans in order to start WW II. This was the assault on the broadcast station 'Gleiwitz'.

[gtg309v]

My reason is not as likely? Ever hear of Operation Northwoods? That shows you that they have actually discussed doing these things. They are literally guilty of conspiring against the American people. That is more evidence that they may have been involved than there is evidence that Osama bin Laden was involved. And you don't think the videos need to be released? That is asinine.

[cbat36]

Robertson said Oh dont ask questions your hurting the families, but the Families would like answers that they haven't got

[911TRUTHINATOR]

robertson built the towers, he knows exactly what happened .

what are you?

a janitor at borat's pizza palace?

[DARTHeeek]

No, I invent stories about magic fuel that melts building structure. I did invent the sunscreen that aloud people to walk around in the magic heat caused buy the super long life burning fuel and escape unmelted unlike the super weak steel they used to build the trade towers. I

[911TRUTHINATOR]

what about the burning plane in each tower? go research plane fires.

[bweazel]

He "helped" build the towers. There were many others on the project. His speciality should be strength of materials and tension and all that junk. Did his explanation in any of these videos sound like science? Or worse did it sound like he knew what he was discussing as well as he should? It did not and you know it. This is not a man that should be building skyscrapers. Or maybe he is and he's just a liar. Either way he's rotten.

[DARTHeeek]

holy shit dsglop! how many different pages do you have on youtube???? This one is your best I think. Full of funny videos about magic planes with killer fuel.

[DARTHeeek]

mmmm...yes. osama invented the magic airplanes with the super special magic fuel that burned all of the structure of the trade towers. Buildings that were built like a 'fly screen'...So what your saying is: the trade towers are the weakest buildings to have ever been built...because no other buildings have ever fallen from fires. They looked quite strong to me...but tower 7....now there is a weak building. fucka came down from having fires on a few floors is what your saying. mmmm...ok.

[911TRUTHINATOR]

"no other buildings have ever fallen from fires"

LMAO.

"having fires on a few floors "

you don't trust your lying eyes do you?

[jizzmonger]

Yowsers, so Steven Jones is arguing with a guy who doesn't know the speed the buildings fell at.

His argument is dead in the water since the buildings took about 23 seconds to fall.

[AssaultKalashnikov]

this is copy pasted directly from the fbi top ten most wanted terrorist page. the number one most wanted is usama bin laden.

"The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice. Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001."

zapproo, osama bin laden is wanted for 9/11 it says it right on their website go check it out

[zapproowsdower]

my favorite little logical puzzle with this whole 9/11 mess is this: the FBI's Most Wanted poster lists Usama Bin Laden (they spell it with a 'U') of course, but what they don't list is any mention of the attacks of 911. Digging a little deeper, apparently the FBI responds by saying that they require hard evidence before listing an offense on those posters. I can see how the man might be near impossible to find, but simple evidence?

And at least 7 hijackers are still alive. Stolen passports.

[ModelMonkey7]

Jones is a con man...who even buys his long ago debunked non-science any longer?

Get off the internet, 911 twoof is invisible.

[Skeptic121]

"Jones is a con man..."

So tell us what he has published that is not true. Please explain why his SEM and XEDS measurements are not valid. Are you aware that the USGS and the RJ Lee group found the same microspheres that Jones did? If you call someone a con man you should be able to explain what lies he told. Otherwise, you are no better than a con man yourself.

[alt132000]

who owns who??? you live in fantasy land. can any of who tell me how a few floors at the top fall straight to the ground without resistance by floors below that are perfectly intact. did osama wave a magic wand and make the lower floors disappear? may you all choke on george bush's balls, go see the devil and choke on his balls for eternity.

[NWOshill]

Steven Jones is a complete plonker!

[CHAS1422]

Steven Jones is proof that charletans can rise to any level of certification. Bernie Madoff made it to the top of NASDAQ. Robertson is a REAL Engineer. Shame on CU for keeping fools on staff. Leslie R should mention that professional demo experts partially cut the steel columns, remove the interior column covers, drywall, & fireproofing then place the charge directly against steel. None of the 20,000 building occupants noticed 'secret agent contractors' doing this work? This is patently absurd!

[TGWMPE]

Steven Jones is the King of charletans. He is a turd.

[LIBREPUB]

Steven Jones is a turd, but its fun to listen to him get his ass handed to him.