I don't think we're going to manage a group effort, although we do have one more meeting the night before. I'm planning to put something about the dust/FRs in my car window, at the very least.

I had a great time at Pioneer Courthouse Square this afternoon, incidentally, during the "die-in." I hung with a guy who had a cool 9/11 sign and a lot of people approached us with questions. I had a big stack of "911 Mysteries" to hand out, and I had a very interesting conversation with two guys, one from China and one from Mexico, who are here to do biology research. They wanted to know all about demonstrations in the US. I think the guy from China was pleased that we could just show up and hand out stuff and carry signs without being carted off to have our organs harvested, but the Mexican guy was comparing our action to demos in Mexico and was like, why don't you have 500,000 people and shut down the city center? Sorry, dude -- Portland ain't Oaxaca. Yet.

Quoting the NIST FAQ I see.

That has to be one of the most hilarious documents ever posted on the internet.

I quote:

"6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

…the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation."

NIST just said that it's possible to break the laws of physics.  An object can crush itself at the same speed as if you dropped it through thin air!

See Conservation of Momentum.

How much were they paid to utter this nonsense? 

Top 10 reasons the NIST report is absurd:

#10. Their theory is that “widely-dislodged fireproofing” was the primary reason the towers collapsed.²

#9. This theory ignores the fact that no steel framed building had ever completely collapsed due to fire in history.³

#8. They disproved their own “widely-dislodged fireproofing” theory with a shotgun experiment.⁴

#7. They ignore massive eyewitness testimony.⁵

#6. Their theory ignores a foundational law of physics.⁶

#5. Their steel tests contradicted their own theory and showed that the towers should not have collapsed.⁷

#4. They “proved” their theory with computer models that they refuse to release.⁸

#3. Their computer simulations used exaggerated data.⁹

#2. Their 10,000 page, 43 volume report explains (only in a footnote!), that their theory is a pre-collapse theory—they do not attempt to explain the “structural behaviour of the tower” after the collapse began!¹⁰

NIST’s most absurd blunder of all?

#1. Their 10,000 page, 43 volume report can’t find the space to discuss molten and evaporated steel; outrageously claiming that it was “irrelevant to the investigation”!¹¹

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Your a frustrated loser thats probably an alcoholic thats never gotten laid by a hot girl.

THe concrete on the top 30 floors turned to dust. Greening is a phd in physical chemistry,. Greening "accounts" for the bottom 70 floors turning to dust, not the part above the impact zone, loser. Thats what DR. JOnes pointed out but you were to stupid to answer, because you dont have an answer. You conveiently ignore witnesses of molten metal. I clearly stated above why most experts support the official story but your to dumb and drunk to mount a response. youre a washed up wannabe Robert Novak thats never made it big. Gordon Ross debunked greening bogus calculations, Dr. greening wants us to beileve that 80 floors of cold undamaged steel offered no more resistance than air.

IS THERE ANY OBJECT IN THE WORLD THAT WOULD OFFER NO RESISTENCE THAN AIR EVEN THOUGH IT OUTWEIGHED THE OBJECT THAT WAS DOING THE CRUSHING BY TEN TIMES? YOU IDIOT.

YOU MUST BOW TO STEPHEN JONES HE IS OUR GALILEO, GET EDUCATED GO TO COLLEGE LOSER.

I like the short, truncated phrases more than paragraphs (even short ones.) I'm going to be saving your posts to use as an open mic pseudo-hipster poetry act. Thanks.

why bother — Angel is next — security stripped — over an hour — nation under attack — POTUS hung out — threatened — surrenders — takes orders to this day — molten steel or no molten steel — Agnel is next —won't go away

when you need a poet, ask a real poet
at your service - jtg

i ask them that all of the time and have yet to get a real answer from any of them. the non-answers say a lot though.

so what drives you to do boring stuff like recycle nonsense with us all the time?

Good answer

No, I don't think that firefighters would demean themselves by assaulting you physically. That sort of behavior is illegal, incidentally. They would, however, demand to know what motivates a person completely ignorant of the physics of burning buildings to fabricate absurd theories to slander officials of the American government. Your purpose is to smear America and exonerate the jihadists who attacked this country. Your absurd falsehoods can't expose an imaginary conspiracy. Conspiracy liars have zero interest in what actually happened on 9/11/01, their only purpose being to sow confusion. Do you seriously imagine that you will try to tell men who risk their lives extinguishing fires that nothing explodes when a building burns? Please, stick to conning the mindless America-hating rubes who will swallow uncritically all sorts of preposterous nonsense. Don't ever dream that you can peddle your snake oil to people who understand their work.

Q: Tell what it means? "Angel is next."

I hope that those that do are getting something positive out of it.

The bunkers' concerted effort does indeed seem to indicate that we are right on target. They seem desperate and absurd.

What is the point of citing a list compiled by an ignoramus? Every one of the ten "objections" is utter nonsense, produced by a scientific illiterate who hasn't read the NIST Report. There isn't anything there that you could show to someone who works at NIST without being told that all of this is very silly.
If you want to know what NIST claims, read the FAQ, then download NIST NCSTAR 1.

"imagine that the collapse of WTC 7 looks like controlled demolition"

Imagine? Everyone who has seen a CD can see it *is* precisely like a CD. Even the TV reporter Dan Rather said in CBS News (09/11/01):

"For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down."

I'd like to see a single good picture of the south side of WTC 7. There was almost seven hours between the collapse of the North Tower and that of building 7. The lack of pictures of WTC 7 is strange.

Not that asymmetrical damage could easily explain a symmetrical total collapse at free fall speed (cf. Murrah building, which remained standing after about half of it had been carved out and the rest had burned in the bombing).

You didn't comment on the collapse time argument that 8 floors per second doesn't really leave any time for structural crushing to take place.

If you read my blog, you might understand why I just cannot believe the official story. And I don't enjoy that state of affairs, not at all. This is not an intellectual game for me (and I don't think it is for many of the people here). But are you really even interested in understanding why people disbelieve the official story and if the actions of authorities might also have something to do with that?

Ronald wrote:
"Jowenko was shown photos of the undamaged North side of building 7. He was not informed that the South side of the building had a twenty-story gash from which dense smoke was billowing. Why Jowenko has not repudiated the deceptive information he was given remains a mystery."

LIES^^^

Danny Jowenko absolutely was informed about (and shown diagrams of) the alleged damage to the south side of WTC-7. This can be seen in the extended interview with Mr. Jowenko.

Forward to 5:30 of this video clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNzLZInbjU&eurl=

Mr. Jowenko makes the following remarks after examining the government's claims of damage to WTC-7's south face:

DANNY JOWENKO: "On this the building will stand. Guaranteed. Guaranteed."

After Jowenko makes those remarks, the camera pans down and clearly shows a NIST diagram detailing their best guesstimate of damage to the south face of the building:

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/8522/wtc7damageguess1jt.jpg

He is also told throughout the interview that the building was on fire and that the south side had suffered damage from falling debris.

The entire interview w/ Danny Jowenko concerning Building 7 can be found here:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/3231

Shame on you Ronald. You're a despicable liar who is helping cover-up the murders of nearly 3,000 people on 9/11. How do you look at yourself in the mirror? Do you see what the rest of us see when we look at you?

I LOVE this comment above by Ronnie. Because finally we're getting somewhere. Read through his post and notice how he mixes all his (their) arguments--the weak with the ultra-weak. See, they don't have to prove anything because OBVIOUSLY everything happened as they say. Because air-traffic controllers can tell by a blip on the screen the difference between a plane full of Binghams and Beamers from a drone broadcasting a a forged transponder signal, or a war game false inject doing the same.

Note the smug assertion that we "are put into the vile position...etc." The vile position in all o ft his is the one that claims Arab Muslims did it so that they can go murder hundreds of thousands of men women and children.

Ronnie is what we can call a paleo-shill. He helps us because he, unlike the shills who infiltrate our movement by pretending to be one of us, has to support every last idiotic claim of the official conspiracy theory. Ronnie is a gem, and if he didn't exist I would have had to create him myself, because it is so refreshing to not have to argue with the 57 varieties of domestic shill in order to clear up what real truthers believe and what poser truthers claim to believe (NPT, space beams, etc.)

I'm not sure what Ronnie represents, either a new tactic on the part of the same folks, or as I intimated earlier, a fully evolved "perfect dupe" someone who is so far gone that they actually believe and can argue with conviction that the official conspiracy theory is 100% accurate. A true 16 percenter in other words! Quick kids, get the camera!

Finally, let me comment on this "truthiness" thing. A word invented by Comedy Central shill Steven Colbert, that in order to give it a significance it does not have on its own merit was picked as word of the year by someone unimportant, so that the New York Times et al could pretend that Colbert is an American phenom (kind of like when they had him pull the stunt at the White House PRess (sic) Corps dinner and everyone pretended to be amazed at how brave he was. I noticed around that time that shills were starting to call it the 9/11 truthiness movement on sites like Daily Kos. Remember--ostensible diversity masking an actual uniformity. Plant that silly little word in a bunch of different shill outlets, create a buzz--pure marketing tactics 101 for the New American Century. These days PR hacks spend as much time tagging buildings and hanging out in chat rooms as they do o crafting copy for lazy pseudo-journalists.

The beauty of all of this is that these shills have come to believe their brain, Karl Rove, that they really do create reality for everyone else, when really they only create their own, and then try to sell it to people. Falling readership and viewership of the print and radio outlets they use show conclusively how Americans and the world are rejcting their crap, yet they continue to harbor feelings of grandeur based on the mistaken belief that everyone still thinks the New York Times is a real newspaper.

As we reach out to more and more people, the average person when confronted with Ronnie's little rant above gets the message loud and clear--these people are and have been real freaks in the employ of liars. Whether they are paleo like Ronnie or designed to appeal to slightly more discerning thinkers, like Jon Stewart fans, they have been fooled or otherwise convinced to go to bat for the 9/11 perps, without knowing what they're facing on the mound.

Again, Ron, thanks for being here and helping us set the record straight. I look forward to more of your posts. You might consider, for example, telling us how the Pentagon matched the DNA allegedly found there to that of the alleged hijackers. That question comes from Davin Coburn, who totally struck out while batting for the OCT and wishes to do better next time. Help out your comrade, Ronnie. Help Mr. Coburn figure out why he can't explain a simple alleged fact of the theory he so strongly advocates!

Or just make something up yourself--I'll be waiting!

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force