http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw
Printable View
World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics
Waste more tax dollars chasing boogeymen.
Some times having a little knowledge is more dangerous than having none at all. If you have no knowledge of the subject then you believe what a person says. If you have a little knowledge you base your answer on the knowledge you do have but because it isn't complete you can often be wrong. Then when someone tells you are wrong, you resist it, because you feel you already came to a conclusion that makes sense.
That is the key issue here, that so many people seen and know of controlled demolition so they already jumped to that conclusion. Once people decide something, it can often be hard to change their minds, even if they are wrong.
There are over 1000 experts in the field of engineering and architecture demanding a new investigation as to how that building collapsed clearly for safety reasons so that they can build safer buildings in the future. And they all agree that building could not have collapsed due to fire alone. The full length documentary explains far more than the trailer in the OP.
WTC 7 was demolished. I saw it on one of the news channels on 9/11. An anchorwoman said "oh look they're demolishing WTC 7 for safety reasons". The real question is how did that paperwork get so lost that the government is now denying the demolition?
No, the question is how do you execute a perfect demolition which usually takes weeks to plan and coordinate only a few hours after the supposed justification? Unless you are insinuating that every building in Manhattan is wired to blow the moment shit hits the fan. The twin towers were also demolished, after all. The evidence is irrefutable at this point. Explosive debris found in ground zero = demolition.
I doubt you're qualified to judge whether or not a demolition was "perfect" from mere video footage. Is it possible to demolish a building with a few hours notice? Yes. Were people in a sufficiently panicked mindset (especially the owners of WTC 7 that maybe wanted more insurance money) to actually attempt a same-day demolition? Yes. Was WTC 7 demolished? Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Not only that, Jane Stanley, a correspondent for the BBC stated on live air that building 7 had collapsed when you can see behind her that it is still standing. Consider also that WTC 7 is (supposedly) the first skyscraper in history to have collapsed from fire alone it is incredibly disturbing for the BBC to say this. When investigative journalists asked to see the tape of that report the BBC claims they 'lost' it. Fortunately we can still watch it on YouTube.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
Another gobsmacking moment is when Larry Silverstein, landlord of the world trade centre, stated during an interview, 'we've had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collspse'
Now some people say that pull isn't a demolition term but it did used to be used as a demolition term about 50 years ago to pull a building over. Even if Silverstein wasn't referring to demolition it begs the question - what the bloody hell was he referring to?
And if that isn't what he was talking about, he wouldn't have said "and we watched the building collapse".Quote:
Originally Posted by mcwillis
Wanna know what helps?Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Having a brother heavily-involved in the upper echelons of security for the WTC complex.
Just another 'wacky coincidence' of 9/11, that we're all supposed to ignore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Just because people have the title "engineer" or "architect", doesn't mean they know anything about skyscrapers. Or even buildings in general. The official story seems to make as much sense to me as this conspiracy claim, and I can't see how a government that can't keep a blowjob secret could orchestrate something like that without someone blowing the whistle.
Prove it.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
That cartoon alleges that they would all have to have known the level to which the conspiracy existed, if at all.
It also alleges that all demolition experts involved in said allegation would have reservations about keeping it a secret (and must be considered alongside the fact that many heinous conspiracies - which completely undermine what you and I might consider 'common morality' - have been carried out over the centuries. How long was the Tuskegee experiment kept secret? Operation Gladio? What? We are tryin to paint the picture that multi-faceted conspiracies simply 'don't happen' in reality? Is that what you're suggesting? Oh, but wait, this was Nine Eleven! It was the most [insert desired hyperbole here] conspiracy in history and could not (ignoring lack of reference) be kept secret! Contract killers are incapable of keeping such secrets, and first responders are too sharp to be deceived by such a rouse, while in the midst of a senory-overloading situation!
Forgive me if I don't take "well, if it would have been a conspiracy, somebody would have told by now" as a foolproof debunking of the theory. *shrug*
All that being said, though, it is a cute cartoon. :)
Debunking implies the conspiracy story is supported by evidence.
Your post implies there is absolutely no evidence toward there being any kind of conspiracy, which is completely so far from reality that it's actually kind of sad that people are still able to say there is "No Evidence." I can be fine with people saying that there is 'no proof', because that would require that all evidence be completely conclusive. But to say there is absolutely 'no evidence' of any conspiracy is to admit that you (or anyone else making that claim) have simply not been paying attention to anything outside the official story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jookia
I've looked through various 9/11 sites, and none of the tales have been testable, refutable or backed by evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero
Testable? You mean like 'testing' the 9/11 rubble that was so quickly broken down and carted away before any actual investigation could be done (as would have been done at any other crime scene in American history)?
You mean testable like the official NIST report, which says it found 'no evidence of explosive material devices, before later saying it didn't actually test for any?
Evidence like allegations of the CIA meeting with Bin Laden in JULY of 2001? (CIA agent alleged to have met Bin Laden in July | World news | The Guardian Again, 'evidence' is not proof, simply something that SHOULD be investigated).
Evidence like the Administration telling our nation and THE WORLD that we could not have POSSIBLY thought about terrorists using planes to fly into buildings as a method of attack - when that was EXACTLY what many of our factions have been testing before, right before the bombings?
Evidence like the fact that, on the day of 9/11, drills were being run to tie up the FAA and NORAD (who would have been major players in preventing the attacks), in precisely the way that the police were holding drills on the exact same day of the 7/7 London Bombings, that tied up response. Those 'coincidences' alone imply that - at the very LEAST - the terrorists had prior knowledge to these drills, and timed their attacks accordingly. But of course, that's obviously what happened, because it's completely believable.
Actually, I'll just post this:
No evidence? None? Really?
Sure, I'll go with 'no proof'. But no evidence? Really?
No, I don't mean that. But even then, that doesn't mean you can fill up lack of knowledge with idiot guesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero
Allegations are not evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero
I'd like a source for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero
Did you read my post or just decide to post crackpot theories? All of your post is summed up as 'they didn't do X, which means that Y could've happened'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero
What I mean is that if I have a theory like 'eggs explode when they're eaten after midnight', I can test that and prove it to be false, or true. Could you show me something like that? Something I can hypothetically prove wrong.
I'm not sure how something like Tuskegee, which was first learned about about precisely because it was exposed by a whistleblower, is supposed to counter the comic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero
You know what, I give up. There's too much to argue against and I don't really think it'll change anybody's mind in the end.
___
|__|
|
White flag?
Your immediate labeling of 'idiot' guesses show how personal it is for you to not take anything against the official story seriously. If you're goin to immediately come out of the gate by insulting my intelligence over something like that (something which made perfect sense, by the way), then this exchange isn't going to last very long. I didn't say that X meant Y. I mean X leading to Z is something that should be investigated, as all evidence should.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jookia
Unless those allegations are made by a source you have faith in, yes?Quote:
[Allegations are not evidence.
It's in the video, which posts diagrams and clippings stating exactly that, which you are more than welcome to search for, yourself. That you aren't familiar with it doesn't give me a lot of confidence that you've put as much into 'looking through various 9/11 sites' as you've implied.Quote:
I'd like a source for that.
Something that You are going to test? How are you going to test something? I don't know exactly what you're looking for, really. Could you give me an example, as it pertains to 9/11?Quote:
Did you read my post or just decide to post crackpot theories? All of your post is summed up as 'they didn't do X, which means that Y could've happened'.
What I mean is that if I have a theory like 'eggs explode when they're eaten after midnight', I can test that and prove it to be false, or true. Could you show me something like that? Something I can hypothetically prove wrong.
Aren't you a mathematician, Xei?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
What question did I ask you, above? It was really pretty straight forward.
I asked you 'HOW LONG did it take for the Tuskegee experiment to come to public attention?' (paraphrase)
It took about FORTY YEARS.
How long has it been since 9/11?
So your implication of 'the fact that it hasn't come to light yet is evidence against it being conspiracy' is completely, utterly, ridiculously (stop me when you start to disagree) illogical.
And Jookia, I welcome the debate. I'm not trying to 'change anyone's mind' on a conclusion of whether or not it was a conspiracy. I'm simply trying to present that there is a lot more to some of the theories than some people (for whatever reason) are emotionally capable of even considering. That's all. :cheers:
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9...6x1xo1_400.png
Your implication is that a statistical, clinical study requires roughly the same resources as an aerial attack of a major American city. This is rather wrong.
I don't know your personal beliefs, but my problem is that there's just so many stories out there that aren't falsifiable. 'A missle hit the pentagon', then I show the plane pieces, the clipped lamp posts, then they go 'well that's part of the conspiracy too'. There's never a 'oh well I guess you're right, a missle didn't hit it'. The part where somebody goes 'well how convenient that X happened', yes, it is convenient. That doesn't mean the events are linked. Or when somebody goes 'they didn't test for X, which means it's a conspiracy'. Or even worse, 'they didn't test for X, and since my story says X was there and there's no proof against it, I'm going to say it was X'.
It's not a very personal thing for me. Two things I'd like to amend is that I don't really care about the 'official story', and that I don't trust any allegations, no matter if my best friend made them. They're allegations in the end, that's all.
As for an actual test, what I mean is that some wrestler could go 'thermite paint would've explained the building exploding like that, but they didn't test for it, which means it could've been there'
Regardless, I don't know why this hurts my head. Maybe it's too complex of a topic. When I was in to the conspiracy stuff, I believed something along the lines that the government planned it all for insurance money. But there was no way I could disprove it.