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.
That pic was also cute. I forgot that this is the Internet, where using caps to illustrate a point automatically means that you're upset (and where being the first to capitalize on a chance to make that seem to be the case, gains you big points! Well played!).Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
And was it any more wrong than your assertion that it is wrong? You seem to know exactly what resources and channels the T.Experiment had to go through, and exactly what channels and resources a 9/11 conspiracy would have to go through. Enough to perfectly pit them together and tell that the former would be easier to keep secret than the latter. You must have really done some extensive research on both, to make that assertion.
I don't think most of that is a fair assessment of what I'm doing here. I'm not saying 'Well they didn't test for thermite, so it was probably there. It goes a little further than that.Quote:
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'
This is evidence. What should be done is that the claim should be investigated (unless you want to disregard the credentials of the scientist interviewed, as well as the school he represents, completely).
The dane didn't seem all that credible too me. He seems to state that nano-thermite can be made into an explosive with additives, and then goes on to speak of it as an explosive the rest of the interview without stating that said additives were found in the thermite from ground zero. Further more he seems way to certain of the implications of this and goes on to state that this means all three of the WTC buildings were brought down by thermite. Also he claims that everything but the steel frame of the building was pulverized, which is plainly wrong. Of course this is just a TV interview and judgement should be based on the contents of the research paper, but on the face of it I find him untrustworthy.
Quite fair enough, and I don't feel anyone should take him completely at face value. I believe, like you said, that the conclusions put forth are at least credible enough to be investigated. IF WTC7 was brought down by explosives, is it not within the realm of possibility that the others could have been as well? What I have a problem with, is when the conversations tend to end at "well, those are just allegations", as if those (often credible) allegations have 0 evidence to support them and - more dangerously - don't even warrant the type of actual investigation that is performed on any other crime, by rule of thumb.Quote:
Originally Posted by khh
What we know, as point of fact, is that the West has ample motive for either staging this type of attack, or allowing it to happen. I would absolutely love to see someone try to refute that. That point, alone, implies that any call for investigation - no matter who is making the call - is a little more than 'crackpot paranoia'. In any other situation, it would be par for the course.
I'd like to concur with Jookia; this topic is obviously a very poignant one to Americans and either side tends to get rather upset and nasty in these conversations. It's not a passion of mine either, so I'll just step out and leave the people who spend time talking about this to hopefully have a measured conversation.
I hope you're not basing your argument on what some anchorwoman said with no context other than a vague referral to "safety reasons."Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
Hmm. Let's avoid confusion. What do you think my argument is?Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives...sanz-Nov07.pdfQuote:
Originally Posted by mcwillis
Their wrong. Similar building has collapsed from fire alone.
Quote:
About 50 firefighters tackled the blaze at the ESP plant in the Enigma Business Park, near Malvern, which started on Wednesday morning.
The roof collapsed inside the building and flames leapt 45ft (14m) into the sky in a strong wind, Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Service said.
A spokesman for the fire service said the blaze had resulted in a black smoke cloud which could be seen for miles.
He added: "Intense heat buckled the steel girders holding the roof."
LOL. The person who said pull was a fire chief... and that was pulling his men out of the building.Quote:
And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collspse'
God people believe anything they read online nowadays.
Critical thinking much?
Well.. There is no evidence that the WTC was taken down as part of an inside job. There is no evidence of explosives, there is no evidence of actually anything the internet conspires towards 9/11.Quote:
Quote Originally Posted by Jookia View Post
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.
P.S. They didn't test the WTC for residue of Cthulhu; perhaps.. he woke from his slumber for a snack?
It could be.. the real conspiracy.. the governments hiding his existence!!
What you said:Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
Quote:
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".
You can repeat that statement as many times as you like, and it still won't make it true.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
Right, because the feasibility of WTC7 (at the very least) having been brought down by explosives is just equal to the feasibility of the government hiding Cthulhu. Isn't it? I really hope this is not the same type of logic you use in every exchange you make... It's not, is it? :?Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
State my argument in your own words.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
"I claim WTC 7 was demolished. As evidence, I refer to an anchorwoman's statement."Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
Would anyone care to explain how explosive residue was found in the rubble without a demolition?
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Well you can repeat that statement as many times as you like, and it still won't make it true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero
The difference; you're the one making the claim and I'm the one asking for proof.
Actually it has just about the same feasibility; you and your internet detectives have just as much proof for their being explosives used at WTC7 as I have for Cthulhu destroying WTC7 from the dark nether dream world.Quote:
Right, because the feasibility of WTC7 (at the very least) having been brought down by explosives is just equal to the feasibility of the government hiding Cthulhu. Isn't it? I really hope this is not the same type of logic you use in every exchange you make... It's not, is it? :?
It wasn't. You want people to explain something that didn't happen. Don't believe everything you read online.Quote:
Would anyone care to explain how explosive residue was found in the rubble without a demolition?
Um. Lol. So now you're blatantly denying documented evidence just because it was presented via online sources.
I'm afraid you're judging the source of information based on the fact that you don't like the information, but that doesn't make it wrong. Do some reading. Refute these sources for me. I'm curious to see how you could.
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/t...002/7TOCPJ.pdf
Explosive Residues: Energetic Materials and the World Trade Center Destruction
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...lyCollapse.pdf
We are talking about skyscrapers here and not small paper factories. Look at the image of the inferno below at the Beijing Mandarin Oriental hotel. About 100 feet shorter than WTC 7 and it is still standing perfectly the next day. Skyscrapers are designed far differently to low level buildings such as the paper factory in the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
http://1.2.3.12/bmi/911research.wtc7...jing_torch.jpg
Source please?Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
Silverstein said, 'Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull IT' How does that refer to pulling firefighters out of a building?
The full length documentary by the scientists in the OP video are saying that W.T.C. 7 could not have collapsed the way it did as concluded by the official investigating body, N.I.S.T. Instead they collectively say that the most likely explanation, without access to all of the necessary physical evidence, is that it was controlled demolition. The theme of the documentary film, and a lot of people are missing this point, is that if W.T.C building no. 7 was brought down by explosive or incendary devices, they are not pointing the finger at WHO carried out this controlled demolition but why it wasn't investigated as a possible cause of the collapse. They are disturbed that this hypothesis hasn't been examined. However, some of them do say privately outside of this documentary film that they think it was a 'False Flag' attack rather than Al Qaeda members planting the demolition devices.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
For anyone who wants to take the time to read the following scientific paper that appeared in 'The Open Chemical Physics Journal' entitled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe' you can read it at the following link:
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Below is the Abstract from the paper that these scientists wrote. And just as a point of interest lets take a quick look at the life work of Professor Emeritus Steven E. Jones to have an idea of the calibre of these scientists.
Jones conducted research at the Idaho National Laboratory, in Arco, Idaho where, from 1979 to 1985, he was a senior engineering specialist. He was principal investigator for experimental muon-catalyzed fusion from 1982 to 1991 for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects. From 1990 to 1993, Jones studied fusion in condensed matter physics and deuterium under U.S. Department of Energy and Electric Power Research Institute sponsorship. Jones also collaborated in experiments at other physics labs, including TRIUMF (Vancouver, British Columbia), KEK (Tsukuba, Japan), and the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory at Oxford University. And finally, a lecturer of physics at Brigham Young university until 2006.
Quote:
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, and Bradley R. Larsen
Abstract:
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.
Its a poingant topic to people from other nationalities too due to the fact that the events of that day have led to two horrendously destructive wars and the loss of civil liberties both in the US and the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I can tell you're going to be a lot of fun. :chuckle:
2 Things wrong with this. I've already addressed #1:Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
After which, you (commiting the exact same folly that I've actually highlighted) came in first saying:Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero
Which you then followed up with:Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
*emphasis mineQuote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
So, before we get too far into this, why don't we wait until you actually know what it is you are asking for. Evidence or Proof. I'm sure you are aware that there is a difference between the two, one of which I have already stated would be pretty much impossible to provide. If you are simply looking for the other, I (and others) have already posted plenty of it in this thread, which I'm sure you'd be more than willing to dispel. That I would have to repost any of it so soon, in a thread this short, would be a bit much, don't you think?
#2 - You have made a claim. You have claimed (albeit indirectly) that the official story is 100% accurate. The government and their '9/11 Commission' have made the claim, and they have not proven it to be true; in that their claim is riddled with holes, inaccuracies and - in many cases - outright lies. So no, the burden of proof (if we're being technical here), would be for the PowersThatBe to accurately prove their claims of how WTC7 (let alone the other towers) collapsed. This has not been done. What they have done is simply stated the conclusion that WTC collapsed soley from fire and airplane collision, which really offers no feasible explanation (backed by any sort of achitectural precedent that I'm aware of), as to how WTC7 collapsed soley as a result of fire and asymmetrical building damage from falling debris.
So I'm sure you're going to hold them up to the same standard as you're holding little old me. Right?
I wasn't going to entertain this illogical - and flat out unrealistic - assertion, but I felt highlighting how asinine it really is would do better than just ignoring it completely. So, let's go point for counterpoint on this one:Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
Pro-explosives point: Buildings are destroyed by demolition often, so as a matter of physics, it is possible.
Pro-explosives point: Explosives actually exist in the real world, to the best of our knowledge, which I don't think you can quite say for Cthulhu.
Your turn. :thumbup:
So, the takeaway from that statement is that we should believe everything we hear in the Associated Press. Yeah?Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
Speaking of making claims, here's one for you: I'm going to make the claim that a large percentage of your debate rhetoric is going to consist of personal attacks and cutesy little pet names for people who you dismiss as wrong, before you even hear what it is they have to say. How about you prove me wrong, and we discuss the issues like big boys, with no pointed name calling or appeals to ridicule, yeah? Nothing but civil conversation, putting point against point. Not too much to ask, is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
Or is it? :-?
Nope. People in the UK do not care about 9/11 conspiracies. People were moved by the destruction of the Twin Towers and loss of life, but I don't know anybody with real doubts that it was done by radical Muslims. Most are are deeply suspicious of Blair's wars and the lies surrounding them, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcwillis
Well David Shayler, a former MI5 employee, who was sent to prison for blowing the whistle on MI6's botched assasination attempt of Colonel Gadaffi in the 90's is very outspoken here in the UK on 'False Flag' terror events. He has given a number of lectures around the country with his former MI5 partner Annie Machon on the iconsistensies of the official narrative of 9/11. And, they always draw a good crowd when the speak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Indeed, Tony Blair has to make any public engagements with secrecy now as there is a hardcore group of brits that are determined to harass him and attempt citizen arrest attempts.
It is exciting that Judge Ferdinando Imposimato, the honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy, has recently announced that he is going to recommend that the International Criminal Court hold a criminal trial into 9/11.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
What's funny is these people supported 9/11 conspiracy theories before any "tests" were conducted.. and none from officially certified debris.. You want to believe what anyone on the internet tells you is true; be my guest.. but no reputable scientist/group supports 9/11 conspiracy bullshit.
Internet experts on fires and buildings. It's amazing. If this building had a fire and it didn't go down; that isn't evidence that the WTC didn't go down because of fire.. I don't think you understand how evidence works.Quote:
We are talking about skyscrapers here and not small paper factories. Look at the image of the inferno below at the Beijing Mandarin Oriental hotel. About 100 feet shorter than WTC 7 and it is still standing perfectly the next day. Skyscrapers are designed far differently to low level buildings such as the paper factory in the UK.
I don't know maybe try watching the video/documentary in it's entirety instead of just little clips off the internet telling you what they mean.Quote:
Source please?
Silverstein said, 'Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull IT' How does that refer to pulling firefighters out of a building?
http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-228805.html
Silverstein 2005 "the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building"
http://www.firstpost.com/topic/perso...M-34060-1.html
Where does pull it mean anything to do with explosives? It doesn't in any demolition company in existence.
Anyone on the internet can convince you that it's science; doesn't mean it is.Quote:
For anyone who wants to take the time to read the following unscientific paper that appeared in 'The Open Chemical Physics Journal'(Now dropped by their publisher) entitled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe' you can read it at the following link:
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Below is the Abstract from the paper that these scientists wrote. And just as a point of interest lets take a quick look at the life work of Professor Emeritus Steven E. Jones to have an idea of the calibre of these scientists.
Jones conducted research at the Idaho National Laboratory, in Arco, Idaho where, from 1979 to 1985, he was a senior engineering specialist. He was principal investigator for experimental muon-catalyzed fusion from 1982 to 1991 for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects. From 1990 to 1993, Jones studied fusion in condensed matter physics and deuterium under U.S. Department of Energy and Electric Power Research Institute sponsorship. Jones also collaborated in experiments at other physics labs, including TRIUMF (Vancouver, British Columbia), KEK (Tsukuba, Japan), and the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory at Oxford University. And finally, a lecturer of physics at Brigham Young university until 2006.
"Collected by a Manhattan resident"? That is not following scientific procedure.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com...l-physics.html
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
Look... their publisher dropped them.. I wonder why... LOL
I made no such claim. I don't need to make claims. You believe everything you read on the internet. You lack evidence or proof. You are repeating the same tired talking points that every conspiracy nut on the internet has uttered a thousand times before. Their has been large buildings that have collapsed from fire alone. Planes flew into WTC.. . It's not impossible, crazy or nuts.. What is crazy; is thermite and our country destroying a center of commerce when we could enter war with far less.Quote:
You have made a claim. You have claimed (albeit indirectly) that the official story is 100% accurate.
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi.../faqs_wtc7.cfm <--- Read this link. And be debunked
Anti-explosives point: Controlled demolitions take hours to set up; and no one noticed that this was done before planes were flown into the twin towers. There was no evidence from any reputable sources for explosives on the scene or in the rubble of WTC7. A well reasoned explanation based on science is available that requires zero explosives. Possible and plausible are two very different things.. anything is "possible" many things aren't plausible.Quote:
I wasn't going to entertain this illogical - and flat out unrealistic - assertion, but I felt highlighting how asinine it really is would do better than just ignoring it completely. So, let's go point for counterpoint on this one:
Pro-explosives point: Buildings are destroyed by demolition often, so as a matter of physics, it is possible.
Pro-explosives point: Explosives actually exist in the real world, to the best of our knowledge, which I don't think you can quite say for Cthulhu.
Your turn.
Pro-Cthulhu point: He must exist. For he has always existed and will always exist.
Nope but believing everything you hear isn't being open minded but just being gullible.Quote:
So, the takeaway from that statement is that we should believe everything we hear in the Associated Press. Yeah?
Their is no coherent rhyme or reason to the 9/11 conspiracy theories; thus it wouldn't stand up in any court room.. and that's good enough for me.
Plenty of real conspiracies occurring between our political system and moneyed interest; but go ahead and focus on complete bullshit.
This isn't a big boy discussion. You offer no evidence, no claims, this isn't a spiritual/occult discussion so the unproven has no place.. you are making direct claims about real tangible things and people.. but without evidence.
Internet detectives is the term I give to those who get all their information on conspiracies from the wide internet space and generally all have the same beliefs. I've heard your exact same speech from countless people on forums all over the internet..
The internet is a great tool for self-deception or a great tool for self-growth.. It takes a discerning mind to make progress.
Your logical fallacy is ad hominemQuote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
Just saying.
These scientists and engineers have published scientific papers in printed scientific journals and not on websites.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
They are reputable scientists and I have cited professor emeritus Steven E. Jones as an example.
It is not officially certified debris because that physical evidence was removed illegally from the crime scene. All of the physical evidence should have been colected, catalogued and kept on U.S. soil as a requirement of U.S. law. These scientists would have thoroughly checked, as best that they could from a scientific standpoint, that the physical evidence that they had in their posession was related in whole to the experiments that they carried out in the scientific paper that I mentioned. These people are not amateurs.
Once again these are not armchair, internet experts; they are real-world experts and long standing members of academia. You're missing the point; they collectively agree that fire was extremely unlikely to have been the real cause of the collapse of the building. Some say that it was impossible that fire alone brought down that building. They want a real investigation to find out if it was fire or another reason. If it was fire, they want to be able to study the collapsed steel structure of WTC 7 to understand why their modern engineering techniques have failed and why that building collapsed from a physical & mathematical viewpoint. I have a bachelors degree in engineering so I do undertsand how evidence works.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
I have checked a lot of resources for that and a found a demolition old-timer that says 'pull' did used to be used half a century ago to describe pulling a building over when doing a demolition. He also stated that it is rarely used these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
Well I wonder who the contributors and editor of that website are? You are citing nameless experts and as such we don't have any idea of their understanding of the scientific method.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
Well I for one am not going to shut up, which is rather rude of you by the way. Your arguments are not baseless, just from a different viewpoint but your arguments in this thread are rather incoherent to say the least.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
Pro-Explosives Point: George Bush's brother was on the board of directors of the company in charge of security for the WTC, up until 2001. IF there were explosives planted in the buildings, security would conceivably have all access to the building, without sending up any red flags.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
Your second 'point' (while cute) is obviously worthless to your argument, and would probably have done your credibility a better service by being completely left out.
Pro-Explosives Point: You talk about how it takes weeks to set up a demolition project. You are talking about the use of industrial-grade explosives, I assume. IF these buildings were to have been taken down as a part of a military false flag operation, there are many other types of explosives that could have been used, most probably of military-grade; some of which can be sprayed on as a foam and set off by radio, eliminating the need for all of the conspicuous wiring used in traditional, industrial demolitions. I am not saying that this is what happened, but that it is plausible
If I believed everything I heard, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now, now would we? (As the official story has been proposed for years, now. Use your head, boy.) The more you keep harping that same sentence (which I'm sure you've parrotted to countless people, so I don't blame you for forming the habit), the more I realize your arguments aren't based on any sort of logic, but on an automatic, Pavlovian reaction that your mind instinctually slips into, whenever you talk to anyone who even questions the official 9/11 story. I have a feeling that, the more we carry on this discussion, the more obvious that is going to become to everyone but yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
But the official story would stand up in court, right? Oh wait, I forgot, there was never any investigation actually done, because the evidence was destroyed (which is a federal offense, in any other case but this one). How about those that are 'on trial' right now? Oh wait, those proceedings could take Years before they can even begin to make any headway. The only 'conviction' made in the 11 years since the incident was by one, single man who pleaded guilty while wearing a shock belt. We have no evidence that even the Official Story would hold up in court, so as it stands, your 'good enough' feelies on that point are actually pretty worthless.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
Did you stick your fingers in your ears and go 'la la la la la la' to the rest of them as well? Oh, who am I kidding? Of course you did.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
That you believe the only place where information on the alleged conspiracy can be found is on the internet really goes a long way toward telling people just how ill-informed you really are. How about PBS (or are you going to sit us down and explain to us about how PBS is a bastion for public deceit and misinformation? Quite a bold claim.)Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
The only thing you've been able to prove that you can 'discern' is what mainstream media source(s) you decide to put all your faith in, and how to charge through an argument by relying on insults, shallow rhetoric and avoidance of as many actual points as possible. You're not even aware enough of yourself to know when you're making a 'claim' or not. I'll bet the claim you've made numerous times in this thread - that the scientists who do have doubts on the official story are (by your expert opinion) 'not-credible' - has completely slipped your mind, too, therefore leaving you no responsibility to substantiate that phantom claim. Right? :-?Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
[Edit: By the way, it's apparent that you're not exactly 'new' here, but I'll give the courtesy of formally 'requesting' that you moderate your own tone, while discussing things here at DV. From what I can see of your activity in this thread (and others), you have a hard time competently making an argument with resorting to calling people 'idiots' or telling them to 'shut up' or calling everything you disagree with 'bullshit'. Please get a handle on that, quickly. If you are intelligently capable of explaining your position, the childish insults are absolutely unnecessary, and will not be allowed to continue for too long.]
Deathcell, I'm still waiting to see you refute the evidence. Like O said, you're using an ad hominem. Refute the evidence.
But for your information I did not believe 9/11 was an inside job until I saw the evidence, so your fallacy is wrong anyways.
This is an interesting development:Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Ferdinando Imposimato is the honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy, and former Senior Investigative Judge, Italy.
Last week, Judge Imposimato stated publicly in writing that 9/11 was just like the 'strategy of tension' carried out in Italy.
Specifically, the former Italian Prime Minister, Italian judges, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism.
Judge Imposimato writes that 9/11 was the exact same type of attack: an act of false flag terror.
Judge Imposimato announced that he is going to recommend that the International Criminal Court hold a criminal trial into 9/11.
Imposimato noted that the International Criminal Court was set up to protect the world from criminal acts of war, and that it is the perfect judicial body to hear such a case.
Numerous High-Level Legal Scholars Agree That Additional Action Is Necessary
Imposimato is not the only legal scholar to call for prosecutions and/or further investigations into 9/11. Many other high-level legal jurists, professors and trial lawyers have said the same thing.
Judge Imposimato is a member of Lawyers for 9/11 Truth
Out of interest... why were explosives supposedly placed in the towers anyway? Controlled demolitions are generally rather obvious and noisy things which would obviously jeopardise the entire operation. You may have missed it but a couple of Boeings smashed into the skyscrapers and this is generally enough to cause mass loss of life and huge structural damage.
Simplest answer:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Because the Project for the New American Century didn't call for the deaths of a couple-hundred people. What it called for was:
*emphasis mine*Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Unfortunately, downing a couple of passenger planes wouldn't have quite filled that requirement, would it?
Does it not give you just the slightest bit of pause that the type of event that was already pegged as a necessity for the sort of transformation that we are seeing in the middle east was the exact level of event that came to pass (both with a death toll settled at around 3,000)? I mean, just a little pause?
In a court of law, this would be called 'motive.'
And so what, if people heard some banging and clunking going around in the service hallways of the building? Who in their right mind would come to the conclusion that someone was planting bombs in the building...even if they did happen to stumble upon a bunch of workers doing 'something or other'?
It's conceivable, but I'm not sure how he could do it. Claim they were doing restoration outside office hours?Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero
It's not just the placement that takes time. It also takes time to research and calculate where to place the explosives to make the building collapse rather than fall over. Since the hypothesis is that this was a terrorist attack, I suppose it's possible they were placed ad hoc and they got lucky, but I'd say your explanation is possible rather than plausible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero
From what I can gather (from a quick google search) The Open Chemical Physics Journal isn't very well respected. This makes me wonder why the article was published there, rather than in a more reputable journal. Surely scientific journals wouldn't shy away from controversial subjects if the science presented in an article is sound.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcwillis
Also this blogpost claims to cite a debunk of the article. While the source isn't very good, it does state that one authors of the article admitted that the flakes weren't enough by themselves to cause the collapse, and were probably used as fuses for other bombs. While I haven't checked the validity of that, it's worth a read.
Screw Loose Change: A Response to Harrit, Jones, et.al. From Dr Greening
Edit:
I think you missed Xei's point. He seems to be saying something like this "There wouldn't have to be explosives to bring down the twin towers, the planes themselves were sufficient for that purpose. As this would have killed the required number of people, why would they need to place explosives in the WTC 7 building, or at all?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero
Do you think 3 years would be long enough? According to the PNAC (referenced above), that's how long the 'think tank' discussion on how to advance change in the Middle East went on before the attacks. It would definitely be a lot more plausible within that amount of time, than if it was just some hackneyed scheme that came up at the last minute.Quote:
Originally Posted by khh
Not exactly sure. I know that the part of the Pentagon that was hit (after the plane did an acrobatic loop around, flying out of its way to seemingly intentionally hit that side) was being 'renovated' at the time, and had been cleared of a significant portion of the government employees that would have normally been on that side. I don't think I've heard any word on renovations to the twin towers around that time, though, but it might be worth looking into.Quote:
Originally Posted by khh
-_-Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero
No O, that's your interpretation given that you already believe in a conspiracy. It isn't evidence. The document doesn't "call for it", it's widely available for goodness sakes; it's just an observation. A correct observation; the US government obviously did capitalise on the attacks in the way it suggests. And no it doesn't give me "cause to pause", that would be to suggest that A being a motive for B is evidence that A was the motive for B, which is a logical fallacy.
-_-Quote:
Unfortunately, downing a couple of passenger planes wouldn't have quite filled that requirement, would it?
Why do you keep spinning stuff like this? They weren't going to 'down them', they were going to fly them into the Twin Towers, something that would almost certainly destroy them, and in any case give rise to massive anger. Why are you acting like flying two huge passenger planes into one of America's most famous landmarks and killing thousands of people is a long way from 'filling the requirement' of gaining public support for a war??
-_-Quote:
And so what, if people heard some banging and clunking going around in the service hallways of the building? Who in their right mind would come to the conclusion that someone was planting bombs in the building...even if they did happen to stumble upon a bunch of workers doing 'something or other'?
I don't know why you think I was referring to rigging the building with explosives. That doesn't tend to be the most ostensible part of a controlled demolition. The bit where you explode several floor's worth of dynamite is. Can you provide a single example of a controlled demolition which wasn't blatantly obvious?
Completely my fault. I admittedly worded that badly. I'm pretty sure you could understand that in place of 'called for', I meant that they expressed that it would be a likely prerequisite for that sort of transformation to occur. I didn't quite mean the expression in the way that you apparently think I did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
With that being the case, though, what do you think of the coincidence of what was stated, and what happened?
Oy. Ok (you seem to find the most trivial things to latch onto sometimes), I will try to be more careful with my words. The point stands, though: there was no precedent for them to believe that flying the planes into the towers would have completely collapsed the towers. So, no. They had no reason to believe that 'thousands' of people would die, even if they did smash the planes directly into the towers. There was absolutely no precedent for that sort of thing, and the point I was making still stands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
So will you please address the coincidence that I was trying to highlight (albeit without perfect wordage, I admit), and not cherry-pick which points to reply to?
You mean you weren't? I honestly couldn't tell. What were you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
[Edit: Oh, wait...I get it. You're talking about the actual bombs going of? THAT being the loud thing you meant? Well, there are countless eyewitnesses who have testified about multiple 'bombs' / explosions going off before the towers went down. I mean, those are all over. I will find some, if you like, but I'd be really surprised if you haven't heard those testimonies yet. :shock: ]
I can only try. In the meantime, could you provide a single example of an uncontrolled collapse, where a single column failing caused a complete and symmetrical collapse of an entire, multi-level building (which is what is alleged to have happened to WTC7), outside of the WTC attack?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Here you go, Xei. This is a compilation, and I haven't watched the whole thing yet, but I've seen many of these vids before, so I think it will suffice.
Watching it now, too. I just wanted to go ahead and post it.
He probably can't, but only because there's no real precedent for that sort of thing. I mean, WTC7 burned uncontrollably for 7 hours and subsequently collapsed. When has that ever happened? The roof structures collapsed first, along the interior supports. Only when the interior was gone did the outside finally collapse. It certainly wasn't symmetrical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero
It's not at all a coincidence. These are apparently people who write analyses related to the military. A comment along the lines of "we're not going to go to war with them - unless they attack us, of course" is a totally, totally obvious and unsurprising thing to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero
It's pretty obvious that there is going to be mass death and at the very least a huge amount of structural damage. If instead of falling the towers just stood and burned, do you really think America would have ignored such a huge, foreign (apparently) attack? Let the Afgahns go about their business? Come on, it makes no difference.Quote:
The point stands, though: there was no precedent for them to believe that flying the planes into the towers would have completely collapsed the towers. So, no. They had no reason to believe that 'thousands' of people would die, even if they did smash the planes directly into the towers. There was absolutely no precedent for that sort of things.
Addressing every point isn't cherry picking.Quote:
So will you please address the coincidence that I was trying to highlight (albeit without perfect wordage, I admit), and not cherry-pick which points to reply to?
It's right there in my post...Quote:
You mean you weren't? I honestly couldn't tell. What were you talking about?
Er... are you serious? How many Boeings had been flown into skyscrapers before? This is not remotely logical thinking, O.Quote:
In the meantime, could you provide a single example of an uncontrolled collapse, where a single column failing caused a complete and symmetrical collapse of an entire, multi-level building (which is what is alleged to have happened to WTC7), outside of the WTC attack?
Edit: oh wait, I think you're talking about the other building. That doesn't seem to have any relevance to the question I was asking, so I'll leave it. I don't know anything about the history of bombings anyway, although it seems highly unlikely that such a situation has occurred twice anyway, so I don't see any logic to this argument. Sometimes stuff happens for the first time, otherwise stuff wouldn't happen. :/
It's no great leap of faith that crashing planes into a skyscraper will kill a lot of people. Firstly it will certainly cause massive fires, which means that people on floors above the impact will have a very difficult time getting out. Jet fuel burns very hot and isn't easily quenched by water. A Boeing 767 is a massive plane, and it's pretty self evident that it will cause structural damage. This, together with the fires, makes it plausible that it could bring down a skyscraper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero
edit: Also, keep in mind the plane that crashed into the pentagon, and the plane that the passengers brought down. These four high-jackings and subsequent use as weapons would constitute a large scale attack on the USA without the twin towers collapsing.
When has what ever happened? A steel structure burning for multiple hours? A few.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE
Other Fires in Steel-Structure Buildings
Wow. That was soooooo not the extent of the context in which that comment was made. :?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I honestly don’t know what would have happened, just like I don’t know what would have happened if the attack on Pearl Harbor would have led to the war it did, if not for the mind-numbing death toll that it had. It’s possible that we would have still gone to war in either case, but I’m not going to assume so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Cherry picking isn’t addressing every point. You did the same thing in our first (was it our first?) exchange in this thread, before you said that you didn’t care enough to get involved. I just didn’t mention it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I got it and responded. Please watch and comment on the video.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
You mean like the one that flew into WTC7?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
…Oh wait. :hrm:
The designers of the WTC buildings might disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by khh
Quote:
Originally Posted by article
I agree. It would be a 'large scale attack', but whether or not you or I think it would be 'large scale enough' is kinda inconsequential, I think. Not that you don't have a point, but how significant is the point. Ya know?Quote:
Originally Posted by khh
Dude, you didn't provide any context. I can only respond to the evidence you actually give.Quote:
Wow. That was soooooo not the extent of the context in which that comment was made. :?
Well, I am, because it's painfully obvious.Quote:
I honestly don’t know what would have happened, just like I don’t know what would have happened if the attack on Pearl Harbor would have led to the war it did, if not for the mind-numbing death toll that it had. It’s possible that we would have still gone to war in either case, but I’m not going to assume so.
Except the single point you repeatedly said I ignored I didn't. It's what the 'A is a motive for B' thing was about. When you didn't understand that, I elaborated further in my next post. Please stop this meta rubbish.Quote:
Cherry picking isn’t addressing every point. You did the same thing in our first (was it our first?) exchange in this thread, before you said that you didn’t care enough to get involved. I just didn’t mention it.
Okay.Quote:
I got it and responded. Please watch and comment on the video.
Yeah, I'm still a bit puzzled why you started talking about something with no apparent relevance to my question, too.Quote:
You mean like the one that flew into WTC7?
…Oh wait. :hrm:
Note that I said "uncontrollably." I haven't checked the links in that article, but did any of those fires go uncontrolled?Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero
Plus, did those buildings have pieces of a large building collapsing in close proximity crash into them?
Haven't watched all of it, I just got to the point where there were multiple people relaying how they heard explosions going 'boom boom boom boom boom boom' as it fell... isn't this exactly in accordance with what engineers say, which is that there was a cascade of floors? It only seems suspicious because some of them use the word 'explosion' to describe the sound, which is of course what it sounds like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero
In the same way it's not clear what the firemen are talking about. Has anybody actually interviewed them and asked what they saw, and how it was distinguished from the collapse of the floor above them?
In any case, there should be plenty of actual footage. A controlled demolition is very obvious from the outside, there is a very large explosion noise and material is expelled from the floors in question. If I see some physical evidence I'll be perfectly happy.
I only checked the first two, but those were both in buildings without working sprinklers.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
WTC7 didn't have working sprinklers either, iirc. But it didn't have firefighters trying to put out the fire either, iirc.Quote:
Originally Posted by khh
Then I completely apologize for giving you too much credit. I thought that posting a link to the full article, as well as singling out the small portion that was immediately relevant to what I was saying, might (just might) prompt you to maybe read more of the article to get a greater understanding of how the quote was being used. Sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Ok. *shrug*Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Um. I was talking about this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
In which you hurdled over most of the point of my post, and focused on one thing that you tried to paint as irrelevant, which I subsequently explained as being relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
And this:
Which you completely ignored, before saying that you didn’t care about the topic and that you would leave the discussion (before, then, coming back later).Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Oh, and this was my favorite:
Completely dancing around the illogical post that you made beforehand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
And to respond to your front (I mean your 'confusion'), the relevance was that the likelihood of my not being able to find a situation where controlled demolition wasn’t completely obvious was no more significant than the likelihood of your not being able to find a situation where another building had collapsed due to the type of damage that WTC7 had sustained. Even when it came to light that I had misunderstood what you originally said, I did go back and post a video responding to your point (by saying that it WAS obvious, and many people DID notice the explosions). You, on the other hand, completely skated passed the lack of logic of your last post (a Boeing never crashed into WTC7, so why were you even asking about that), and have yet to comment on the video, which was a direct answer to your earlier question.
> Arguing about arguing
Clearly you didn't want to drop the meta rubbish. But I've been on ED long enough to know that it's a black hole from which nobody ever emerges. I'll just stick to the actual arguments themselves.
Please watch the whole thing. People talk about secondary explosions far-removed from both the planes hitting and the buildings collapsing. Even the reporters are talking about the explosions, and the thoughts of the first responders that there are probably 'secondary devices.' It's really not as vague as your portraying it. I'm not saying they are right in that there were actual bombs, but their thoughts on the matter really can't be misinterpreted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Yeah, I'm not too sure about how effective any firefighters (if any) might have been on those infernos. It really doesn't go into much detail on which (if any) were just allowed to burn themselves out. But I will go ahead and assume that there were firefighters present in a majority of those blazes. But even that, considering the blazes shown in those pictures, I can't say would prove to be a catalyst that would cause those buildings to burn for so long and not fall, when WTC burned for such a shorter time. I also find it hard to believe that - with controlled demo taking as much planning as it usually does - a single faulty column (outer damage be damned, this is what the report says happened) caused such a uniformed, near-free-fall collapse of WTC7. Not saying it didn't happen. Not saying it couldn't happen. I'm simply skeptical.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Lol. Wow. Ok, man. :thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Well, I'll take all of that as it is, but the collapse was, again, not uniform, nor was it a free-fall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero
I was careful enough (this time) to say 'near free-fall'.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
I'm going to tread lightly, here, because you've made some really educated posts here on DV (especially when it comes to physical sciences, I believe(?) - and it's definitely not my field of expertise). I'm a 'call it as I see it' kind of guy, for the most part, but I do my best to understand certain scientific principles, when I can. So, I would like you opinion on this video:
(And though it may not be actually, technically, physically 'uniform, but damnit, it's close, isn't it?? Lol.)
But really, what would your rebuttal to this video be? Do you feel the narrator is incorrect about something? Or Steven Jones, who is asking the questions on the panel? If they are correct, is the rate of collapse here not close enough to actual free-fall (so close, in fact, that even NIST seems to have retracted their initial statement and included a significant (IMO) period of free-fall), to say that it fell 'near free-fall'?
If it is near free-fall (or, even more, if it was free-fall), would you be at all intrigued, or would it become so insignificant that you would be surprised you even doubted it to begin with?
:-?
To be honest, I like where we are in the discussion. Some might disagree, but I think I've (well, 'we've', counting OP and mcwillis. Hehe) done pretty well in offering a least a shred of gray to some of the 'official' points. There has been plenty in this thread that has come down to simply "which one of our assumptions sounds the 'best'". There is very little actual proof to many of the official claims. A lot of simply falls on 'well, that's what most likely happened.' Remember, this is all about those people who simply think an investigation should be done - not people who are just looking to shout "HEY, CONSPIRACY!" In my opinion, there are really a lot of unanswered questions, and things that someone has to really put forth faith in 'what they think would happen', in the situation.
There is plenty of video of it, and yes, it looks exactly like what you see in all controlled demolitions (the large puffs of smoke jetting out of the windows, in sequence, just before the structures come down). The thing is (again, this isn't my first rodeo): that when people see them, they immediately 'know' that they are the unseen, pancaking floors falling down upon each other, within the buildings, expelling puffs of debris out of the windows as each floor caves in (which is now the explanation that is stuck in your head, even before having seen the video). There's really no need in showing it. I know where it leads. Lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
The narrator could've left out his dinky remarks, for one. Merely laying out his interpretation and leaving it at that would've sufficed. As for the rest of the video, I don't know nearly enough about that section of the report or the narrator's own calculations to comment in detail. If NIST thinks it was near free-fall after their revision (a necessary revision if they miscalculated something. That's how research works), then sure, it's near free-fall.Quote:
But really, what would your rebuttal to this video be? Do you feel the narrator is incorrect about something? Or Steven Jones, who is asking the questions on the panel? If they are correct, is the rate of collapse here not close enough to actual free-fall (so close, in fact, that even NIST seems to have retracted their initial statement and included a significant (IMO) period of free-fall), to say that it fell 'near free-fall'?
BUT, I can still say the collapse was not uniform given HOW it collapsed. From the (basic) knowledge I have of how demolitions go, they usually gut the building, blow all the main supports, and watch it fall. That's not how WTC7 went down (meaning, the main supports weren't all destroyed at once). This also leads me to shy away from thinking it was demolished. We can play around a bit with Occam's Razor to reach that conclusion as well.
I'll cut out the free-fall part. Evidently my interpretation of what free-fall should be is different from NIST's. No sense in mixing apple and oranges. I wouldn't necessarily be intrigued. If it fell at free-fall, then it fell at free-fall. That wouldn't necessarily lead me to think "OMG, DEMOLITION." Nor should it for anybody.Quote:
If it is near free-fall (or, even more, if it was free-fall), would you be at all intrigued, or would it become so insignificant that you would be surprised you even doubted it to begin with?
Also, you said: "(And though it may not be actually, technically, physically 'uniform, but damnit, it's close, isn't it?? Lol.)"
If it isn't physically uniform, then it isn't uniform at all, is it? When I think of a uniform collapse, I imagine a building falling all at once, each part together, inside and out. Building 7 was mostly hollow when it collapsed, so I don't really classify that as uniform.
Fair enough (and I agree about the narrator's dinky remarks). And I guess I should clear up what I mean by 'uniform' ('physically' was redundant. Sorry.). I really am just talking about the flat, straight-across manor in which the building fell, even though it was really only damaged on one side. I mean, I understand that a column gave, but for the entire building to come straight down, with no visible resistance from any side? It makes me wonder why we even have demolition crews at all, if buildings are that easy to take down? Shit; plant a grenade next one critical column, and watch the whole building slip down like a silk dress! (I kid.) It's just amazing. I mean, even if that's what actually happened (the one column taking the whole building down like that), it's just fucking beyond my comprehension.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
That video reminds me of what oral exams taught me: It's all right to take a moment to think about the answer if you're unsure; blundering right into leaves you looking like a fool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero
But I think we can all agree that one part of the building fell at near free-fall for a time.
I would have liked it if he'd super-imposed the overlay of the expected progression for free fall on other parts of the building as well, though, so we could more easily see how the different parts of the building were moving in relation to one-another.
I would also have liked to see him keep a reference line in the video when he made the measurements, to rule out the possibility of camera movement.
I'm curious, how do you know that all the main supports weren't destroyed at once? Do you know what findings that lead NIST to conclude that? (those are not rhetorical questions, I'm actually wondering)Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
This is why there is a large amount of discussion on thermite as it is an incendary device that can be used to cut stell very quickly without any noise. As others pointed have pointed out that the towers were designed to survive an impact from an aeroplane, as big as a Boeing 737 I heard on one documentary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Since no 737 had ever crashed into a building before 9/11, there's no way they could have truly predicted the full extent of the damage. Specifically, they didn't predict that gobs of burning jet fuel would soften the steel enough to collapse the building. Also, the WTC was built in the 1970s, so there was probably a LOT of cost cutting in the safety department, including adequate fireproofing.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcwillis
So...if you're going to try to make your case on convincing people that a 737 full of jet fuel flying at 500 mph couldn't possibly take down a building, then you've got an uphill battle my friend.
Nano-thermite can be painted onto walls and doesn't become volatile until dries. It's as easy to rig a building to blow as hiring a paint crew.
You should read what article O posted as a response to me a while pack.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
9-11 Research: Towers' Design Parameters
According to this, that is exactly what they planned for.
Also, anyone got a comment on this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by khh
I do understand where you are coming from but if you were the editor of a highly respected journal would you be reluctant to publish such an article? Afterall, it could bring great ridicule to the publication could it not? Considering the background and expertise of the authors of the paper is it worthy of being in a more reputable journal? I wholehearedly say that it should be, as the authors are saying in their paper that they have evidence that demloition devices were used to bring down or help to bring down at least one of the three skyscrapers at the world trade centre. This obviously raises some very serious and difficult questions. Professor Jones has been very outspoken about this subject for many years. He gave a lecture at the university he works at regarding the inconsistencies of the official explanation given by the US administration and its investigative bodies and was suspended from all teaching duties until the day of his retirement as a physicist. His superiors didn't like what he had to say because this issue raises a lot of uncomfortable, difficult questions that many people are not willing to entertain even if the science shows that there is justification for a new independant, international criminal investigation of what really happened on that frightful day. If demolition devices were planted in those buildings who put them there? Naturally Al Qaeda would have to be the prime suspect, but, how did a small group of well-funded religious extremists manage to orchestrate and logistically carry out such an enormously difficult task of placing and activating those demolition devices? That last question raises even more difficult questions; questions that weren't raised by NIST or the 9/11 commission. I am now reminded of the words by Lieutenat Colonel Robert Bowman when he said in a TV interview, 'Jesus came to comfort the afflicted. Well I'm here to afflict the comfortable.'Quote:
Originally Posted by khh
I'm sure they did "plan" for many things, but hopefully you will agree that there's a big difference between "planning" for an event and actually experiencing an event. Especially when the event is unprecedented.Quote:
Originally Posted by khh
There's first order analysis and second order analysis. First order is easy, obvious things like "will a plane with X mass topple the building with the force of impact"? Second order is tougher to imagine, like "will burning jet fuel alter the strength of the steel after burning for 2 hours straight"? There's exponentially more not-so-obvious things than obvious things. So saying that you've planned for everything is frankly a joke when something new happens.
Now, I can buy WTC 7 being demolished in a hurry without telling anyone for insurance money. That's halfway plausible to me. It also happens to look like it was demolished and no planes actually hit it, so...yeah. BUT, WTC 1 and 2 were brought down by muslim extremists in hijacked planes. Sorry.
It doesn't have to just altar the integrity of the steel, it has to melt it. Eye witnesses saw molten steel streaming through the place like they were in a foundry.
Besides, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how explosive residue was found in the rubble besides because it was a controlled a demolition.
When you eliminate the impossible...
Incorrect. If you had done any objective research into the subject of metallurgy, you would know that steel softens at a temperature far below melting. And a supertall tower like WTC 1 or 2 wouldn't have a very wide margin of error for steel strength.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Eye witness testimony -- especially in a panicked state, doubly especially when there were other things that, to a layman, might look similar to molten metal (like burning jet fuel) -- doesn't count for shit. If that's the "evidence" you're limping to the barn with, then go hang out with some UFOlogists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Be more specific. Where exactly was it found (more specifically than "somewhere in the WTC"), precisely what chemical compounds are we talking about, and what evidence can you present that it was where YOU say it was?Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
You haven't eliminated any theory, on either side of the debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
So you don't get all your 9/11 conspiracy theories from the internet? You do realize anyone can claim to be scientific or have followed scientific processes? How is it ad hominem when it's accurate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero
Your logical fallacy is anecdotal
Your logical fallacy is black-or-white
Your logical fallacy is personal incredulity
Just saying.
These "scientists" published their papers to a dubious source and have since been dropped by the publisher.Quote:
These scientists and engineers have published scientific papers in printed scientific journals and not on websites.
Submitting is the easy party; standing up to peer review is the hard part.. Guess who failed peer review?
Not reputable enough to convince other scientists.Quote:
They are reputable scientists and I have cited professor emeritus Steven E. Jones as an example.
Link me to the law you reference; that's how you back up an argument by the way. And than link me to evidence(verifiable source) that all the physical evidence was destroyed before being properly investigated.. (as if our country was going to keep all the leftovers...)Quote:
It is not officially certified debris because that physical evidence was removed illegally from the crime scene. All of the physical evidence should have been colected, catalogued and kept on U.S. soil as a requirement of U.S. law. These scientists would have thoroughly checked, as best that they could from a scientific standpoint, that the physical evidence that they had in their posession was related in whole to the experiments that they carried out in the scientific paper that I mentioned.
They clearly are if they think dust from a random person in Manhattan stands up under scientific scrutiny.Quote:
These people are not amateurs.
Self-appointed experts that rely on dubious sources of evidence?Quote:
Once again these are not armchair, internet experts; they are real-world experts and long standing members of academia.
And the majority of engineers and architects collectively agree that fire was the cause of the building collapse. Majority rules than?Quote:
You're missing the point; they collectively agree that fire was extremely unlikely to have been the real cause of the collapse of the building.
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi.../faqs_wtc7.cfm
Can you debunk this link and it's assertions? Until you can; your argument is very, very weak. And seems based on ignoring all known science.
Modern usage of "pull it" for demolition companies is for pulling down buildings through the use of cables.Quote:
I have checked a lot of resources for that and a found a demolition old-timer that says 'pull' did used to be used half a century ago to describe pulling a building over when doing a demolition. He also stated that it is rarely used these days.
Everything is backed up by news articles and other educated sources. The writers of a website don't matter if they can aggregate accurate information.Quote:
Well I wonder who the contributors and editor of that website are? You are citing nameless experts and as such we don't have any idea of their understanding of the scientific method.
Nothing incoherent at all; you and I both know it. It's hard to abandon something you've been believing for years; but trust me it's worth abandoning clearly false beliefs.Quote:
Well I for one am not going to shut up, which is rather rude of you by the way. Your arguments are not baseless, just from a different viewpoint but your arguments in this thread are rather incoherent to say the least.
That link; basically destroys every single conspiracy surrounding WTC7 through the use of engineering concepts. You can call it rude; I call it educating yourself before speaking.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________________________
So Bush' family has been planning 9/11 since the early 90's? Bush knew he would be elected President and be able to take advantage of the situation before the American people were elected.. Is this what you are implying?Quote:
Pro-Explosives Point: George Bush's brother was on the board of directors of the company in charge of security for the WTC, up until 2001. IF there were explosives planted in the buildings, security would conceivably have all access to the building, without sending up any red flags.
If there were explosives planted in WTC7 why did they bother sending Airplanes into the twin towers?
What possible reason for destroying a building next to the Twin Towers is there? What does anyone gain other than insurance money for one guy? Why would the secret controlling government that you obviously believe in run an insurance scam when they can just print their own money whenever they want?
What reason for the act of making a building next to the towers go down.. is there? What does this gain the secret control force that the twin towers didn't already accomplish?
So you have a family member of Bush working in big business for a security company; not quite the smoking gun you're looking for eh?
You believe military-grade explosives allow for buildings to fall straight down? Could you please show me a study on the use of military-grade explosives for neat and orderly demolitions; as is so argued by the 9/11 conspiracy crowd. You can't have your cake and eat it to after all.. Industrial demolition projects take a lot of time because they aren't as simple as spraying foam and hoping the building falls down orderly.Quote:
Your second 'point' (while cute) is obviously worthless to your argument, and would probably have done your credibility a better service by being completely left out.
Pro-Explosives Point: You talk about how it takes weeks to set up a demolition project. You are talking about the use of industrial-grade explosives, I assume. IF these buildings were to have been taken down as a part of a military false flag operation, there are many other types of explosives that could have been used, most probably of military-grade; some of which can be sprayed on as a foam and set off by radio, eliminating the need for all of the conspicuous wiring used in traditional, industrial demolitions. I am not saying that this is what happened, but that it is plausible
I'm saying it's not plausible.
Yes we would; because you're having it right now.. You believe everything you hear; as long as it's not from the evil government that's trying to turn your mind into a soulless slave of the Illuminati... The reason people can believe the 9/11 evidence from the side that supports fire taking down WTC7 is because it's backed up by evidence, science and facts.. while the false-flag, blah blah crowd relies on youtube videos and personal accounts.Quote:
If I believed everything I heard, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now, now would we?
Evidence for your claim? How is questioning the 9/11 story not an automatic, Pavlovian reaction that your mind instinctually slips into because it's lack of trust for government?Quote:
(As the official story has been proposed for years, now. Use your head, boy.) The more you keep harping that same sentence (which I'm sure you've parrotted to countless people, so I don't blame you for forming the habit), the more I realize your arguments aren't based on any sort of logic, but on an automatic, Pavlovian reaction that your mind instinctually slips into, whenever you talk to anyone who even questions the official 9/11 story.
I have a feeling that, the more we carry on this discussion, the more evidence I'll provide and the less you'll actually pay attention to the argument and instead will continue to parrot your belief as the more likely story regardless of any factual evidence and mostly will provide just a bunch of assumptions and conjecture.Quote:
I have a feeling that, the more we carry on this discussion, the more obvious that is going to become to everyone but yourself.
Since you know so much about federal laws; could you link me to some case law on the subject? Or at least where this law can be found in a law book of some sort?Quote:
But the official story would stand up in court, right? Oh wait, I forgot, there was never any investigation actually done, because the evidence was destroyed (which is a federal offense, in any other case but this one).
So there was no investigation done.. hmm I remember the 9/11 Commission.. that would actually count as an investigation.. and I'm betting the FBI/CIA and other agencies also investigated as well...
My thoughts are that you probably don't know how law works but are instead parroting some idea you've heard on the web before....
A trial is based on the concepts of Motive, Opportunity, Evidence. The official story does a lot better of a job providing motive, opportunity and evidence.. than your side does.. Trust me. Your "movement" hasn't actually ever provided a serious motive that is logical or coherent.Quote:
How about those that are 'on trial' right now? Oh wait, those proceedings could take Years before they can even begin to make any headway. The only 'conviction' made in the 11 years since the incident was by one, single man who pleaded guilty while wearing a shock belt. We have no evidence that even the Official Story would hold up in court, so as it stands, your 'good enough' feelies on that point are actually pretty worthless.
There is proof that the extremists hijacked the planes on 9/11 and crashed it into the towers. You don't think theirs airport footage of these people boarding planes?? LOL? The FBI and Law Enforcement never submits all details to the public.
Nope I debunked them and provided them links that they likely never read and continued to believe whatever the popular conspiracy of the day was. Kind off like what you'll be doing after reading my post.Quote:
Did you stick your fingers in your ears and go 'la la la la la la' to the rest of them as well? Oh, who am I kidding? Of course you did.
Ahh.. The television, another great source of information......... Let me guess; everything on the History channel is historic!? Ancient aliens here we come.Quote:
That you believe the only place where information on the alleged conspiracy can be found is on the internet really goes a long way toward telling people just how ill-informed you really are. How about PBS (or are you going to sit us down and explain to us about how PBS is a bastion for public deceit and misinformation? Quite a bold claim.)
And I see conspiracy theories for JFK on TV too.. must make them true as well...
The things you say I allege; I never alleged. I alleged that's where you get your information from; is it not?
There is little doubt that conspiracy theories generate controversy and thus ratings.
9/11 Conspiracy theories started on the internet; I've been hearing this same shit for years.
I've proven that you believe things that have no reputable source nor scientific evidence to substantiate said claims.Quote:
The only thing you've been able to prove that you can 'discern' is what mainstream media source(s) you decide to put all your faith in, and how to charge through an argument by relying on insults, shallow rhetoric and avoidance of as many actual points as possible. You're not even aware enough of yourself to know when you're making a 'claim' or not. I'll bet the claim you've made numerous times in this thread - that the scientists who do have doubts on the official story are (by your expert opinion) 'not-credible' - has completely slipped your mind, too, therefore leaving you no responsibility to substantiate that phantom claim. Right?
If you feel insulted than perhaps you shouldn't form your opinions based on dubious sources; than you wouldn't feel insulted. The "scientists" matter little compared to the science that has been rejected by peer review. You can call it gold; but it's still a pile of shit.
Yeah; no.Quote:
[Edit: By the way, it's apparent that you're not exactly 'new' here, but I'll give the courtesy of formally 'requesting' that you moderate your own tone, while discussing things here at DV. From what I can see of your activity in this thread (and others), you have a hard time competently making an argument with resorting to calling people 'idiots' or telling them to 'shut up' or calling everything you disagree with 'bullshit'. Please get a handle on that, quickly. If you are intelligently capable of explaining your position, the childish insults are absolutely unnecessary, and will not be allowed to continue for too long.]
I'll continue to tell people who don't bother to read evidence; to shut up. What's the point of discussing a topic with those who don't bother to educate them on the reality of a situation and instead prefer to live in a fantasy world? I don't call everything I disagree with bullshit; I call 9/11 conspiracy theories that point to our government doing it bullshit. And without evidence; that's what it is.. a steaming pile of bullshit.
Please get a handle on yourself, quickly. If you are intelligent and capable of explaining your position, the childish whining over e-feelings is absolutely unnecessary. Neither you or I will be stopped because no one was actually insulted in this thread.
I'm not a care-bear and I never will be; if you don't like my tone.. Don't reply. I'm not gonna sit here and cry about your attitude; but I certainly will continue to cut down your inability to defend your positions.
I'm gonna give you the formal courtesy of letting you know you should mind your own business and tone while discussing things here at DV. As such I'll do the same.
I'll be waiting for a quote of when I called someone an "idiot".. As for the rest... Calling theories bullshit; when they are.. Isn't against any forum rules. Nor is sarcasm as far as I'm aware? I can't say shut up? Is that like a fuck you now? I'll say it again.. Put up, or Shut up.
Quote:
This is why there is a large amount of discussion on thermite as it is an incendary device that can be used to cut stell very quickly without any noise. As others pointed have pointed out that the towers were designed to survive an impact from an aeroplane, as big as a Boeing 737 I heard on one documentary.
Quote:
14. Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that it was highly unlikely that it could have been used to sever columns in WTC 7 on Sept. 11, 2001.
Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails. Thermate also contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase the compound’s thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature.
To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb. of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column; presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.
It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11, 2001, or during that day.
Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite or thermate was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.
Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.
Peer-reviewed Science article showing the ability for "nano-thermite" being able to take down large structures? No really; can I see some science?Quote:
Nano-thermite can be painted onto walls and doesn't become volatile until dries. It's as easy to rig a building to blow as hiring a paint crew.
The problem with your argument is that you want people to defend something that no ones ever shown to be true. Explosive residue was not found in the rubble.Quote:
Besides, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how explosive residue was found in the rubble besides because it was a controlled a demolition.
You never even bothered looking at the evidence. I have sourced scholarly articles examining the evidence, You have not. The burden of proof is in your court now, you have to refute the sources I provided. For Christ's Sake, at least read them.
If you're so keen on proving that the US government is bad, why not talk about the atrocities they actually admit to doing, like Hiroshima, or the Iraq war?Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
It's a given they're "bad," that's not the point. The point of this thread is that 9/11 was an inside job, and I didn't believe it until I read the evidence, but now that I have I'm a little flabbergasted people won't even look at the evidence.
Are we talking about the article that was dropped by it's publisher? How is something that didn't stand up to peer-review scrutiny and has been generally tossed aside by the scientific community as large.. a smoking gun? The burden of proof is still in your court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Dressing something up as evidence; doesn't make it true. I'm sorry; the evidence is out of your favor.Quote:
It's a given they're "bad," that's not the point. The point of this thread is that 9/11 was an inside job, and I didn't believe it until I read the evidence, but now that I have I'm a little flabbergasted people won't even look at the evidence.
I have no idea what you're referring to. Dr. Steven Jones' examination has not yet been refuted as far as I know. Red/Gray chips and dust particles were found in the residue in and around ground zero in WTC. All in all there were four examinations by four different groups, including the RJ Lee Company, U.S. Gological Survey and McGee, et al. One of the samples was collected ten minutes after the second building fell so there's no possibility of contamination. In fact every single sample collected of the debris turned out these same peculiar red/gray chips. This includes random residents of New York who collected dust samples of their own and then sent them in to be examined. Not one single one was absent of these chips.
I'm not a chemist or an explosive expert, but you can read about the examination of these chips yourself. It was concluded that they were the left-overs from a chemical reaction caused by thermite.
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/t...002/7TOCPJ.pdf
But what's the point of trying to prove something that will never, ever be truly proven one way or another? You seem to think that if you just managed to pin this one crime (9/11) on the US government, THEN people will understand it's an evil empire. Dude, anyone who doesn't realize it already, never will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
You haven't looked very hard than.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
(In the study it says the "sample" was obtained from a residents of Manhattan. ; This should raise little red flags in your mind very quickly. )
A sample given to them and not collected by a verifiable source.Quote:
Red/Gray chips and dust particles were found in the residue in and around ground zero in WTC.
It's amazing what liars can convince people of.Quote:
All in all there were four examinations by four different groups, including the RJ Lee Company, U.S. Gological Survey and McGee, et al. One of the samples was collected ten minutes after the second building fell so there's no possibility of contamination. In fact every single sample collected of the debris turned out these same peculiar red/gray chips. This includes random residents of New York who collected dust samples of their own and then sent them in to be examined. Not one single one was absent of these chips.
Of course that's what they concluded; they wanted peoples attention. Even if it's based on fake science and a load of crap.Quote:
I'm not a chemist or an explosive expert, but you can read about the examination of these chips yourself. It was concluded that they were the left-overs from a chemical reaction caused by thermite.
Can you smell a rat yet?Quote:
Steven E. Jones is a professor at Brigham Young University. He has created the paper which has created the ground swell around the 911 conspiracy theories. His paper was peer reviewed but not by a civil engineering journal. One would think a serious professor would get his paper peer reviewed by a scientific journal which specializes in the field they are writing the paper on.
But is Professor Jones qualified to create a paper which says the towers must have fallen due to explosives? He is a physics professor but what experience does Jones have in building collapse forensics? He has none. His other peer reviewed papers consist of cold fusion technology. He conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy. Nothing in his background would suggest he is qualified to write a civil engineering paper on the infinitely complex building collapse of the towers.
Maybe now?Quote:
The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Myths - Steven E. Jones - Scholars for 9/11 truth
I see a lot of ad hominem in that debunking but not much attacking the actual findings. Perhaps you can find me an examination done of the debris that did not find explosive residue. If you can find one, I'll withdraw the claim.
FAQs - NIST WTC 7 InvestigationQuote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
P.S. It's almost impossible to attack findings that are fake. I'm sorry. (I'm sure you can understand that it's a lot easier to debate findings based on actual scientific analysis)Quote:
15. What about claims that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found metallic residues that are evidence of thermite in dust and air samples, respectively, taken from the WTC area after Sept. 11, 2001?
There has not been any conclusive evidence presented to indicate that highly reactive pyrotechnic material was present in the debris of WTC 7. The studies that have been conducted to document trace metals, organic compounds, and other materials in the dust and air from the vicinity of the WTC disaster have all suggested common sources for these items. For example, in a published report from the USGS on an analysis of WTC dust, the authors state that "... the trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment.” 2
In a second example, researchers at the EPA measured the concentrations of 60 organic compounds in air samples from Ground Zero using an organic gas and particle sampler. The presence of one of these compounds, 1,3-diphenylpropane, has been suggested as evidence of thermite. However, the authors of the EPA paper state in the opening paragraph that although “… this species has not previously been reported from ambient sampling … it has been associated with polystyrene and other plastics, which are in abundance at the WTC site.” 3
The misinformation gang for 9/11 is making a lot of money keeping this story circulating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
I'm pretty much on your side here, I think it seems ridiculous to think that 9/11 was an inside job, but then again I haven't done much research. Anyways, sorry to say but those arguments are really bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
It sounds like you're just trying to shift the attention to something else "Oh, why talk about this really significant historical event when we can just talk about Hiroshima??". The other one basically says that if something it is hard to get to the bottom of something then we should just stop trying all together.
Imagine if 9/11 really was an inside job. It's already gone into the history books as something that was done by religious extremists. That has some very significant implications, it basically means we can't at all trust history neither the one in the past nor the one that is continuously created. If there's any real doubt whether or not a government committed such a horrible crime on their own people and subsequently succeeded in completely hiding the fact that they did it; then that's a gigantic problem and asking "what's the point?" seems just batshit crazy.
Then you haven't understood my point. As you've actually demonstrated yourself in your post, most people don't seem to care about the horrible atrocities that their government ADMITS to doing. 9/11 Truth stuff is nothing more than a distraction to get people to drain their energies on something that will never be proved conclusively. Part of me actually thinks that 9/11 Truthers are actually trying to discredit the real liberty movement by saddling it with conspiracy theories that both reduce its credibility and waste the time and energy of some of its members.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
I think humanity can handle investigating several issues at once. I agree that perhaps people unjustly turn a blind eye to the horrible things their own country does, and that is an issue, but that issue doesn't overrule every other problem we have. We've got lots of 'em, we just wouldn't get anywhere if we used this queue-of-problems mentality... *shrug*Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
I've decided after more research to temporarily withdraw my argument. I'm going to look at this more in depth because I don't know enough about chemistry.
It's a rare thing to see someone say something humble on the internet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Both sides of this argument are pointless. No matter how much "evidence" or "debunking" which occurs, even both sides make legitimate points, please understand that you will never agree. It is the nature of this sort of argument. The majority in this argument are too ego-charged to admit when they are wrong or don't know something. So to fulfill that desire, they will actually convince themselves that they are right. I've read through literally this entire thread, including the links. Both sides have made valid points. I'm more inclined to agree that further investigation should/should have happened in light of the questions that were raised. In any other crime, more examination and investigation would have been done. Instead, large quantities of evidence were removed, and/or destroyed, which is a violation of federal criminal law. No one has bothered to address that portion of what happened, for example. To me, an average person who doesn't know much about engineering, physics or chemistry, even that is cause enough to say, "Hey... why did they do that? Shouldn't we look into this a bit more?"
I don't think there is anything wrong with inquiry. I there is reasonable cause there to demand further explanation or investigation. To DeathCell, I don't believe that Oneironaut Zero is saying "THIS ALL HAPPENED, IT'S A CONSPIRACY WE'RE ALL SCREWED, THE GOVERNMENT DID IT, IT'S CERTAIN!" I think he is saying something which is completely reasonable and agreeable- "There are enough unknown factors in this incident to merit further official investigation." I don't know why you have such a problem with that. You have a lot of valid points that you're trying to make, but they are stained with personal attack and repetitive talking points which don't really address the majority of the argument which has been presented. For someone who I believe is likely pretty intelligent, it's a disappointing thing to witness such childlike name-calling and internet bashing. It accomplishes only two things- tarnishing what credibility you had in the first place, and simultaneously, it demonstrates an egoic response, triggered by the fear of being wrong. Insulting your opposition only validates the likely mindset that you're uncertain of your argument, and cannot refute the points made objectively without adding your personal flare and attacks, because you don't want to admit to ANY possibility that just PERHAPS, this time, you could be wrong.
I cannot agree nor disagree with the information that has been exchanged here, because I'm not qualified. I have my opinions, which are backed largely by assertion, but also by the knowledge of the fact that the government throughout history HAS committed atrocities on large scales many many times. Nothing of this magnitude has ever been verified, to my knowledge, but the CIA alone has conducted horrible things to achieve generally meaningless goals, or to maintain or create coverups for something usually minor, which result in wars being started- several of them. I don't personally believe that the government at the time, as terrible as they are, would actually willfully MURDER thousands of it's own people. I believe that there is much more at play than will ever be known, and I think the government knew what was going to happen, and made no attempt to stop it, because of how convenient it would be. How much easier it would be to start wars, destroy civil liberties, suspend the constitution at will, enact and establish intelligence gathering programs and practices which have always previously been illegal. The amount of power they have received after 9/11 is immense, and they benefited from it. That doesn't mean that they themselves did it. Again, I think there's much more than meets the eye (or the corporate-owned scewed, misleading media) about this.
I think that's just it. There is no point in arguing about this. First of all because the two sides will never agree. It's simply not going to happen. Second of all, you could use this focused energy which you waste on one another to go after the real enemy. This country is going down a dark road. It is in desperate need of change, and I'm not referring to some wack-job candidate from our twisted, corrupt, corporate-funded two-party political system of treachery and deceit. As long as we continue squabbling about (anymore) irrelevant topics such as this one, we will continue to miss the point- we can prevent further atrocities from happening which are caused directly by our government. NDAA? That actually DID happen. NSA illegal spying? That actually happened too. Unmanned missile-carrying drones regularly attacking small villages in "terrorist-occupied" countries, which goes unreported by the precious all-knowing media? That is happening. As Cmind said, there are terrible things that are happened which the government OPENLY discloses to you! And we allow it to happen. If that isn't a slap in the face and a big "fuck you," then I don't know what is.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
So can we move on from 9/11 please? It sucked, it was sketchy, no one outside of Washington knows what happened, and you never will. And even if you did find out the truth- what then? Are we all suddenly going to have a revelation, and change the world, and find world peace? Are the people responsible going to be "brought to justice?" No. and even if they are, guess what? You'll forget about it. Everyone will. Just like the NDAA. Just like illegal wars/battles like the non-congress approved fighting in Libya which we started participating in. Just like fractional reserve banking. You all forgot before, and you will forget again. You'll never agree, and even if you do, what will you accomplish by unveiling the truth? Nothing.
Adolf Hitler was quoted as once saying, 'What good fortune for governments that the people do not think.'Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeni
Rt. Hon. Michael Meacher was a minister & member of the war cabinet in the British government. He and the other members of the war cabinet had very little time to mull over the evidence that Tony Blair cited to invade Iraq. Mr Meacher resigned as the minister for the environment over the prime ministers decisions (probably because he thought Tony was full of shit). I emailed to ask him about what took place at the war cabinet meetings and understandably he was extremely coy when he replied to my email. Below is a very good interview with him on his views of 9/11 and as he has done this interview off the cuff it clearly shows he has done an enormous amount of personal reseach into the matter.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3827383890990988216
You've conflated 9/11 with the invasion of Iraq. This is pretty ironic considering this is exactly what the US and British governments did and what they tried to convince the "unthinking people" of.
The Minister to whom you refer resigned because of the hysteria and lies which led to that invasion. This is totally separate from the idea that 9/11 was an act of the US government, which is something he will almost certainly find implausible. 9/11 makes no sense as a false flag campaign for an Iraq invasion because the supposed scapegoats, Al Qaeda, were never shown to have any connection to the Iraqi government.
No it's not completely separate. Watch the video.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
No, it's an hour long. Nobody is going to watch that video.
Please give me a quote from it where he implies that 9/11 wasn't committed by Al Qaeda.
I have an agenda to write at the moment for a committee meeting I am the secretary of at the weekend. I am busy. I'm not going to watch it again just to pick out a juicy quote for you when you can't be bothered to watch it yourself. Please watch it, it is very interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Okay. Do you recall him saying that at some point, though?
Your ‘accurate’ statement was nothing but your baseless accusation that ‘any scientist that supports any 9/11 conspiracy theory is disreputable’. You’ve gone out of your way to dance around their actual science, and dismissed everything they have said out of pure bias. You haven’t really done anything to prove the scientists who are skeptical of the official report are anything but credible, by any other method but simply stating that the are skeptical of the official report.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
Peer review? Oh, you mean like the impartial and unbiased peer review that the NIST report had to vigorously withstand, in order for its contents to be published? Just what was that standard of review, anyway? Let’s see:Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
You mean the internal peer review, that NIST charges itself with?Quote:
I. Foundation of Scientific Integrity in Government
NIST has in place a number of policies and procedures to ensure the integrity of the scientific and technological information it develops and disseminates to the public. Those policies and procedures include rigorous internal peer review of any published scientific and technological information.
NIST Scientific Integrity Summary
I don't think I've seen any evidence that the paper in question was dropped because of faulty science, and not simply because it would have been an indictment on the status quo – a potentially career-ending risk – which, we know, happens quite often in the scientific community. If you’re going to dispute that known phenomena, I seriously doubt I’m going to be able to take you seriously enough to even bother rebutting.
As the video I previously posted showed, he was reputable enough to get even NIST to revamp their report.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
IF 9/11 was an inside job, and any number of the related theories are true, then yes, I am saying that that would be a strict possibility. We have more evidence that our government is now actually an oligarchy, instead of a traditional democracy (oligarchies, themselves, often perpetuated by an illusion of democracy), and if that is the case, and 9/11 was a direct consequence of that, then yes – again – that is what I would be implying (although it would probably be a little more far-reaching than just ‘the Bush Family’).Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
I hate to say it, but: SpectacleQuote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
Remember that, if this conspiracy exists on the level that some allege, it would be arguably the biggest psy-op ever. Distraction and misdirection and spectacle would be the driving forces of the deception. People had to have the experiences burned into their heads. It would have to be televised. It would have to be looked back upon and relived and stand as an absolute justification, whenever we so offered up our emotional vulnerability by watching the attack play out over and over. It had to create Shock and Awe on a level that doesn’t happen when you just hear about some attack that’s happened. How many more viewers of the tragedy do you think the alleged conspirators gained by having practically every news channel in America already trained on the scene, when the second plane hit?
The purging of a ‘little known’ CIA site right there at ground zero – which could have conceivably oversaw the operation – would have been ideal in such an alleged conspiracy. Wouldn’t it?Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
Report: CIA Lost Office In WTC - CBS News
I don’t have an answer for that, but I will say that having a suspicion of something is not the same as ‘believing’ in it. Keep slicing away at those strawmen. And you had the nerve to try to call someone else out for making black and white arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
You are really bad at this. Since you need to be reminded (again), I’m not offering any ‘smoking guns’, here, just the little traces of evidence that people like you say ‘don’t exist.’ Before you came into this thread, I said that people who say ‘there is no evidence’, are usually doing so while ignoring all the evidence and actually looking/waiting for proof. Once you came here – doing exactly that – I then told you that you were doing exactly what I’d been previously talking about. And now, here we are again, witnessing the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
I’m not offering proof of any conspiracy theory. I don’t have any, and I probably won’t have any. I’m just attempting to show that the ‘there is no evidence’ argument that people (like yourself) make is – as you would say – ‘a steaming pile of bullshit’.
It’s just speculation on my part, at the moment. If I can find any proof of that, I will let you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
Lol. Keep hacking away at those strawmen. hack/slash/stabQuote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
It’s backed up by an internal investigation – which has been disputed, rewritten, and criticized by other scientists. Period. If that is the standard at which you sear something into your brain as ‘absolute truth’, then I actually pity you.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
Because I tailor every answer to you, specifically, based on what you’ve said. You, instead, for the most part, have been attacking the ghosts of your past ‘truther battles’; accusing me of things I have never said, and making assumptions about what I might believe, with no other reason to do so than that you feel I’m a ‘truther’. It’s sad, and it’s obvious, and you should really stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
More evidence? The only thing I have seen you provided is the NIST report and an affinity for dismissing every argument that disagrees with the NIST report. Did I miss something?Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
Trying to set up another strawman already. You work fast, don’t you? I don’t know jack about law (well, very little), but that my mentioning one of the most obvious laws in the country has you coming at me like I’m trying to show off some vast, legal knowledge is hilarious. I’ll play, though…Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
I’m sure there’s probably a ‘law book’ on that, somewhere. You know how we can’t trust anything we find on the internet…unless it’s on the NIST website…Quote:
Obstruction by Destruction of Evidence (18 U.S.C. 1512(c))
The obstruction by destruction of evidence offense found in subsection 1512(c) is the creation of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,71 and proscribes obstruction of federal administrative, judicial, or
congressional proceedings by destruction of evidence.72
More specifically, subsection 1512(c) provides that
I. Whoever
II. corruptly
III. A.1.alters,
2. destroys,
3. mutilates, or
4. conceals
B. 1. a record,
2. document, or
3. other object, or
C. attempts to do so,
D. with the intent to impair the object’s
1. integrity, or
2. availability for use
E. in an official proceeding, or
IV. otherwise
A. 1. obstructs,
2. influences, or
3. impedes
B. an official proceeding, or
C. attempts to do so
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.73
As is generally true of attempts to commit a federal offense, attempt to violate subsection 1512(c)
requires an intent to violate the subsection and a substantial step toward the accomplishment of
that goal.74
As for the necessary nexus between the defendant’s destructive conduct and the obstructed
proceedings: “the defendant’s conduct must ‘have a relationship in time, causation, or logic with
the [official] ... proceedings’; in other words, ‘the endeavor must have the natural and probable
effect of interfering with the due administration of justice.’”75
Like subsection 1512(a) and 1512(b) offenses, subsection 1512(c) offenses are RICO and money
laundering predicate offenses,76 and may provide the foundation for criminal liability as a
principal, accessory after the fact, conspirator, or one guilty of misprision.77 If the federal judicial,
administrative or congressional proceedings are obstructed, prosecution may be had in the United
States even if the destruction occurs overseas,78 the proceedings are yet pending,79 or the offender
is unaware of their federal character.80
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34303.pdf
Ah, yes, because letting all suspects investigate their own crimes is how justice should always be carried out.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
The FBI and CIA? You mean those organizations that the 9/11 commission was blaming for being too incompetent to stop the attacks?Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
Do you have any proof for your claim?
Ah, and there it is; that strawman you were setting up to fall, moments ago. Right on cue. I never said I knew much about law. I simply referenced one that should be common sense to pretty much anyone, and it was valid. Nice try, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
Lol @ ‘my “movement”’. Love that shadowboxing. You are like the Strawman Cinderella Man. Lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
Actually, the skeptical side has provided pretty strong motive. False flags about as old as conventional war, itself, I believe, and for you to say that there was no motive for the U.S. to get into the strategic position we are moving toward now, in the Middle East, through way of deceiving and sacrificing thousands of people (isn’t that what war does, by definition???), then you are completely, and utterly, asleep.
Hijackers Were Not Identified Before 9/11, Investigation SaysQuote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
Your ball.
Still working on that part, I take it?Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
And another strawman bites the dust! hack/slash/stab!Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
The thing I alleged, you implied in the first sentence of the previous quote! LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
No argument, there.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
I don’t even know what this means….?Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
Of course you did.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
All you’ve helped to do is prove that I’m willing to entertain an uncertain idea, enough to think critically about it and remain skeptical about a popular, opposing argument that is riddled with inaccuracies and loose ends. I thank you for that. The difference between us, in this, is that you just went one step further and placed all of your faith in the official report and its proponents. So much so, that you ignore any evidence to the contrary, and use your faith as an ego boost, whenever you get the chance to talk down to those crazy conspiracy theorists.
You are really out of touch. This is the reality of scientific publication. It is subject to (and often saturated with) corruption and manipulation, just like anything else. You have placed faith in a governmental review board to investigate itself and call that ‘peer review’, while completely ignoring just how hard it is for many other legitimate works to get published, due to unpopular ideas. Like you said, ‘you can’t have your cake and eat it to.’ You only claim sources as ‘dubious’, because they aren’t the ones you have already placed your (mainstream) faith in, not because you’ve actually specified something being wrong with their science.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
I’m not saying that peer review isn’t a helpful tool, but you are making the implication that ‘if it isn’t in a peer reviewed journal, it isn’t true’, and that is just plain false. In other words:
Quote:
Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association is an organizer of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, which has been held every four years since 1986. He remarks,
There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.[29]
Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that
The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.[30]
Allegations of bias and suppression
The interposition of editors and reviewers between authors and readers always raises the possibility that the intermediators may serve as gatekeepers.[31] Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy.[32][33] The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theories.[34][35][36] Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views,[37] and lenient towards those that accord with them. At the same time, established scientists are more likely than less established ones to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals or publishers. As a result, ideas that harmonize with the established experts' are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones, which accords with Thomas Kuhn's well-known observations regarding scientific revolutions.[38] Experts have also argued that invited papers are more valuable to scientific research because papers that undergo the conventional system of peer review may not necessarily feature findings that are actually important.[39]
Peer review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And I’ll continue to point out hypocrisy, when I see it. ^There it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
I might expect this from someone who is completely ignorant of U.S. false flag operations of the past. There may be no proof, which I have never suggested that there was, but to say that there is no evidence (since you have such a hard time differentiating between the two) is bullshit, just as you said.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
Ironic that you would use the world childish, when it is exactly about maturely presenting your position. Anyone will tell you, that if you can’t make a valid point, you just make an invalid one as loudly and as aggressively as you can.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
What it’s also about is that, we do try to hold our members to a certain standard around here, and if it’s shown that you can’t hold your debates without relying on personal insults, then you won’t be welcome to debate here. Has nothing to do with the views you have, but how you present them. If that’s not something you can handle, then you can kick rocks. Otherwise, we can debate like gentlemen – not toddlers.
When that happens, I’m sure someone will let me know. Forgive me if I don’t rely on your own personal assessment of your performance to dictate whether or not I’ve accurately defended my position.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
You know…peer review and all…
Your tone is my business.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
I apologize. I thought I’d seen you call someone’s views “idiotic” in this thread, but I believe I got you confused with Jookia. (In looking at your post history, though, you have thrown a few ‘morons’ around, in your time, though.)Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell[/quote
As for the rest, the forum rules state:
And I’ll say it again: Plenty of evidence has been ‘put up’, much of which you have completely ignored. So, basically, all you’re doing is tell everyone who doesn’t agree with you to ‘shut up’, because you’re certainly not considering their points. Bill O'Reilly? Is that you?? :chuckle:Quote:
Originally Posted by Forum Rules
Quoted for (obvious) Truth. :thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainman
Haha. I know it. Well played, Xei. :cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Old habits die hard. Lol.
Their is no actual science. They use samples that given to them by random people on the street. They failed at the most basic parts of gathering data. I proved that the study you provided is bunk and that the publishersQuote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero
No scientist is going to waste his time debunking, junk science. Because it's fake science.Quote:
Bentham Publishers has dropped the journal which published the Active Thermitic Materials paper by Harrit and Jones:
They were officially charged with studying it. And they actually know what they are talking about, unlike your paper that was dropped by the publisher..Quote:
Peer review? Oh, you mean like the impartial and unbiased peer review that the NIST report had to vigorously withstand, in order for its contents to be published? Just what was that standard of review, anyway? Let’s see:
You mean the internal peer review, that NIST charges itself with?
Of course it was dropped because it was faulty. It was, you can't defend the science because you don't understand it. It's all based on making shit up and having people like yourself believe it, because government bad.Quote:
I don't think I've seen any evidence that the paper in question was dropped because of faulty science, and not simply because it would have been an indictment on the status quo – a potentially career-ending risk – which, we know, happens quite often in the scientific community.
A private company didn't need to respond to the status quo, but it does need to respond to fake science if it wants to attempt to appear legit.
Internal peer review between scientists is far better than no peer review and no one actually taking it serious in the respective scientific communities.
People online believing whatever they read is not proof that your paper has any modicum of knowledge.
Don't than. Realize how must delusion you are causing yourself.Quote:
If you’re going to dispute that known phenomena, I seriously doubt I’m going to be able to take you seriously enough to even bother rebutting.
Not reputable at all actually. Report was changed because people like yourself online believe whatever they read.Quote:
As the video I previously posted showed, he was reputable enough to get even NIST to revamp their report.
So you are delusional? You're a believer in the Illuminati. That's what it sounds like to me. Why would anyone take you seriously?Quote:
IF 9/11 was an inside job, and any number of the related theories are true, then yes, I am saying that that would be a strict possibility. We have more evidence that our government is now actually an oligarchy, instead of a traditional democracy (oligarchies, themselves, often perpetuated by an illusion of democracy), and if that is the case, and 9/11 was a direct consequence of that, then yes – again – that is what I would be implying (although it would probably be a little more far-reaching than just ‘the Bush Family’).
Our government being broken does not lead to an oligarchy.
Still not making any sense.. If they were flying the planes into the towers, they didn't need explosives to piss Americans off. You just disproved your own point. If it was about it being a "spectacle" they accomplished that with airplanes.Quote:
I hate to say it, but: Spectacle
Awesome, and I can make up more conspiracies and call them even bigger psy-ops. So cool man. World War II never happened, Jews don't exist! I swear.Quote:
Remember that, if this conspiracy exists on the level that some allege, it would be arguably the biggest psy-op ever.
But their is no conspiracy and their is no deception expect the ones you believe that are pushed by people making money off people like yourself who are tricked into buying crap literature and products. Or going to sites and giving people link advertising revenue.Quote:
Distraction and misdirection and spectacle would be the driving forces of the deception.
You're a consumer being manipulated by the Alex Jones of the worlds, how does it feel?
And what did they accomplish? Nothing. Wars overseas that could be started without attacking our center of commerce.. As I said.. your theories wouldn't stand up in a court room.Quote:
People had to have the experiences burned into their heads. It would have to be televised. It would have to be looked back upon and relived and stand as an absolute justification, whenever we so offered up our emotional vulnerability by watching the attack play out over and over. It had to create Shock and Awe on a level that doesn’t happen when you just hear about some attack that’s happened. How many more viewers of the tragedy do you think the alleged conspirators gained by having practically every news channel in America already trained on the scene, when the second plane hit?
Let me guess, the Challenger explosion was an Illuminati plot to scare Americans away from space exploration!
Tragedy's happen, terrorism happens, people are nuts. You have no proof for your washed out words so they hold no water in any court of reason or logic.
Lol no.. Because the conspiracy you talk about would be so deep that no one would be investigating the conspiracy in the first place.Quote:
The purging of a ‘little known’ CIA site right there at ground zero – which could have conceivably oversaw the operation – would have been ideal in such an alleged conspiracy. Wouldn’t it?
You're logical misunderstanding of spy work is clear and obvious.
Also a conspiracy this deep and no ones ever come out as being involved or knowing anything? Impossible.
It's just bullshit sold by snake oil salesmen. And makes them a tiny sum of dough.
You just keep digging yourself deeper into an illogical hole. So a secret base they destroyed on purpose.. instead of keeping it a secret.. they reported it in newspapers. Seems sensible.. or they could have just kept it completely under wraps....
The problems is you don't have an answer for anything. You have "suspicions" based on what people on the internet have made you believe. They are not your own thoughts or your own conclusions, junk science and conspiracy sold to you by profiteers of misinformation.Quote:
I don’t have an answer for that, but I will say that having a suspicion of something is not the same as ‘believing’ in it. Keep slicing away at those strawmen. And you had the nerve to try to call someone else out for making black and white arguments.
Keep slicing away at that baseless conjecture of "suspicions" . I'll keep slicing away at facts, science and logic.
You actually haven't provided any traces of evidence. You might want to check your argument over again.. you have suspicions.Quote:
You are really bad at this. Since you need to be reminded (again), I’m not offering any ‘smoking guns’, here, just the little traces of evidence that people like you say ‘don’t exist.’
You have trouble understanding what evidence is. That's your problem not mine. Calling something evidence, does not make something evidence.Quote:
Before you came into this thread, I said that people who say ‘there is no evidence’, are usually doing so while ignoring all the evidence and actually looking/waiting for proof. Once you came here – doing exactly that – I then told you that you were doing exactly what I’d been previously talking about. And now, here we are again, witnessing the same thing.
I'm witnessing the same thing all over the web. People like yourself who are convinced that conjecture is evidence and that junk science is actual science.
Here we are again.
Clearly. You're not even providing evidence.Quote:
I’m not offering proof of any conspiracy theory.
There is no evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. And you have yet to provide any evidence of the contrary.Quote:
I don’t have any, and I probably won’t have any. I’m just attempting to show that the ‘there is no evidence’ argument that people (like yourself) make is – as you would say – ‘a steaming pile of bullshit’.
Indeed. Empty speculation.Quote:
It’s just speculation on my part, at the moment. If I can find any proof of that, I will let you know.
I speculate that the Twin Towers never came down and are actually still in New York City and that what you see is a hologram of it not existing. People from 9/11 are trapped their in a wormhole.
I just leveled up. I've pretty much knocked down all of your strawmen, are you psychic?Quote:
Lol. Keep hacking away at those strawmen. hack/slash/stab
I never said it was absolute truth or 100% accurate. It doesn't need to be to support my argument. See if it's inaccurate in parts that doesn't imply or prove a conspiracy.Quote:
It’s backed up by an internal investigation – which has been disputed, rewritten, and criticized by other scientists. Period. If that is the standard at which you sear something into your brain as ‘absolute truth’, then I actually pity you.
I certainly will trust something with internal peer review over something that doesn't follow any scientific protocol.
Are you not a truther.. You just like to entertain ideas of 20+ year plots to take down the towers just to enter into a war in a place we already went to war?Quote:
Because I tailor every answer to you, specifically, based on what you’ve said. You, instead, for the most part, have been attacking the ghosts of your past ‘truther battles’; accusing me of things I have never said, and making assumptions about what I might believe, with no other reason to do so than that you feel I’m a ‘truther’. It’s sad, and it’s obvious, and you should really stop.
What is your point other than misunderstanding what evidence is?
The arguments are fallacious. If the NIST report is flawed it doesn't imply that people pushing 9/11 as a government plot are in the least bit accurate.Quote:
More evidence? The only thing I have seen you provided is the NIST report and an affinity for dismissing every argument that disagrees with the NIST report. Did I miss something?
Where are the serious rebuttals to the NIST report? Not ones relying on dubious sampling procedures? Those I'd take seriously, those no one bothers with.. because you were right it's about sensationalism.. and they sold it to you.
It was thermite.. Is a laughable joke that no one in intellectual communities takes serious.
Sticks and stones will break my bonesQuote:
Trying to set up another strawman already. You work fast, don’t you? I don’t know jack about law (well, very little), but that my mentioning one of the most obvious laws in the country has you coming at me like I’m trying to show off some vast, legal knowledge is hilarious. I’ll play, though…
So other than quoting some legal, how exactly was the law broken?
If someone obstructed.. Why wouldn't someone take them to court? Or is it because you don't understand law and don't realize that no one broke any?
Well.. we can't trust any science that uses dubious sampling procedures. We can't trust articles that are dropped by their "science" publishers..Quote:
I’m sure there’s probably a ‘law book’ on that, somewhere. You know how we can’t trust anything we find on the internet…unless it’s on the NIST website…
Basic things you can use to narrow down junk science from real science...
Because NIST is a suspect in 9/11 in only your world. It's a big government conspiracy that every agency is in on, yet no one knows except people like Alex Jones. They so smart.Quote:
Ah, yes, because letting all suspects investigate their own crimes is how justice should always be carried out.
Indeed they were rightfully blamed for mismanagement of intelligence. I'm saying, I'm sure they investigated as well.Quote:
The FBI and CIA? You mean those organizations that the 9/11 commission was blaming for being too incompetent to stop the attacks?
Do you have any proof for your claim?
Proof for my claim; What doesn't the FBI and CIA try to get intelligence on? If they didn't.. well that would be another failure on their part.
And does the FBI or CIA often make currently relevant information available to the public?
Law is not common sense; that's why people spend years in school studying it.Quote:
Ah, and there it is; that strawman you were setting up to fall, moments ago. Right on cue. I never said I knew much about law. I simply referenced one that should be common sense to pretty much anyone, and it was valid. Nice try, though.
Throwing away a knife in a murder is clear obstruction. Having a government agency study parts of the rubble and disposing of the rest instead of.. storing billions of dollars worth of rubble in some location for what reason?
What I'm saying is you're all the same. You all think you have your own independent thoughts, but their all exactly the same.Quote:
Lol @ ‘my “movement”’. Love that shadowboxing. You are like the Strawman Cinderella Man. Lol.
On the further skeptical side I understand that a strong motive for war can easily be attained without possibly destroying our economy and attacking a smaller non-civilian target with planted causalities.Quote:
Actually, the skeptical side has provided pretty strong motive. False flags about as old as conventional war, itself, I believe, and for you to say that there was no motive for the U.S. to get into the strategic position we are moving toward now, in the Middle East, through way of deceiving and sacrificing thousands of people (isn’t that what war does, by definition???), then you are completely, and utterly, asleep.
My ball? I know they weren't identified before. What your doing is dodging the real thing I saidQuote:Their is footage of them at the airports.Quote:
You don't think theirs airport footage of these people boarding planes??
Evidence that these men hijacked the planes, phone calls.. etc..
I can't make you think, I can only give you information.Quote:
Still working on that part, I take it?
I don't think you actually know what a strawman is.Quote:
And another strawman bites the dust! hack/slash/stab!
I allege this is a waste of our time. You don't want to believe it's not a conspiracy so you won't.Quote:
The thing I alleged, you implied in the first sentence of the previous quote! LOL.
You obviously weren't online in 2001.Quote:
I don’t even know what this means….?
Uncertain ideas is a great way to sugar coat ideas that make no logical sense and have no evidence supporting them. I think Cthulhu destroyed the towers.Quote:
Of course you did.
All you’ve helped to do is prove that I’m willing to entertain an uncertain idea, enough to think critically about it and remain skeptical about a popular, opposing argument that is riddled with inaccuracies and loose ends. I thank you for that. The difference between us, in this, is that you just went one step further and placed all of your faith in the official report and its proponents. So much so, that you ignore any evidence to the contrary, and use your faith as an ego boost, whenever you get the chance to talk down to those crazy conspiracy theorists.
I didn't put all my faith in anything, I choose to ignore dubious evidence meant to craft a fake plot. When you provide science and evidence on what happened let me know. I'm not ignoring any evidence, because what you are calling evidence is in fact bunk. It's akin to creationism.
Well yes.. it's dubious because the study you push was taken from people in the city not collected on site. It's a failure in every scientific protocol.. Theirs no need to even read past that line in your study. There is no reason to believe that the source is accurate. Am I saying the official report is 100% accurate? No, never have. But I'm saying there is no reason to take the study you cite seriously.Quote:
You are really out of touch. This is the reality of scientific publication. It is subject to (and often saturated with) corruption and manipulation, just like anything else. You have placed faith in a governmental review board to investigate itself and call that ‘peer review’, while completely ignoring just how hard it is for many other legitimate works to get published, due to unpopular ideas. Like you said, ‘you can’t have your cake and eat it to.’ You only claim sources as ‘dubious’, because they aren’t the ones you have already placed your (mainstream) faith in, not because you’ve actually specified something being wrong with their science.
We could critique the peer review process for hours but it's not even necessary to support my argument.
No I agree it doesn't necessarily mean it's false.. but when no one will peer review something... it tends to lead towards false and junk science.Quote:
I’m not saying that peer review isn’t a helpful tool, but you are making the implication that ‘if it isn’t in a peer reviewed journal, it isn’t true’, and that is just plain false. In other words:
It's not though. Believing a study just because it was written when it doesn't follow scientific protocol is your fault, not mine.Quote:
And I’ll continue to point out hypocrisy, when I see it. ^There it is.
Blah blah.. It was false flag..Why? because of this dubious article.Quote:
I might expect this from someone who is completely ignorant of U.S. false flag operations of the past. There may be no proof, which I have never suggested that there was, but to say that there is no evidence (since you have such a hard time differentiating between the two) is bullshit, just as you said.
I'm not aggressive whatsoever. I've made all my points above in the last post and in this post.. You just don't read them.Quote:
Ironic that you would use the world childish, when it is exactly about maturely presenting your position. Anyone will tell you, that if you can’t make a valid point, you just make an invalid one as loudly and as aggressively as you can.
I'm not going to sit here and listen to someone with a worse attitude than my own on how to debate like gentlemen and not toddlers. If you can't look into the mirror and see your own childish behavior than perhaps you shouldn't be critiquing others behavior?Quote:
What it’s also about is that, we do try to hold our members to a certain standard around here, and if it’s shown that you can’t hold your debates without relying on personal insults, then you won’t be welcome to debate here. Has nothing to do with the views you have, but how you present them. If that’s not something you can handle, then you can kick rocks. Otherwise, we can debate like gentlemen – not toddlers.
I don't need a members standard speech when I've been here since 2008; please go back to your high horse shop and get a refund.
Consider yourself officially. Let known.Quote:
When that happens, I’m sure someone will let me know. Forgive me if I don’t rely on your own personal assessment of your performance to dictate whether or not I’ve accurately defended my position.
Consider yourself peer reviewed.Quote:
You know…peer review and all…
It is in not in fact your business. If you were a moderator doing there job you would be sending private messages to an uninvolved third party to moderate the issue for us. Otherwise I think what your doing is throwing a bunch of empty words onto the forum because you can't defend your positions on believing false studies.Quote:
Your tone is my business.
I'll be waiting for a quote of when I called someone an "idiot".. As for the rest... Calling theories bullshit; when they are.. Isn't against any forum rules. Nor is sarcasm as far as I'm aware? I can't say shut up? Is that like a fuck you now? I'll say it again.. Put up, or Shut up.[/quote]
Oh noes.. Call the moron police. When did Dreamviews turn into the Oh noes my internet feelings were hurt over nothing crowd? Oh they didn't?Quote:
I apologize. I thought I’d seen you call someone’s views “idiotic” in this thread, but I believe I got you confused with Jookia. (In looking at your post history, though, you have thrown a few ‘morons’ around, in your time, though.)
Yep didn't break any of them. So thanks for bringing up nothing for no reason. I call ideas moronic when I see them, and I'm sarcastic.. Don't like it don't talk to me.. I'm not going to sit here and "flame" you so move on or discuss. But don't sit here whining about forum rules that no one broke.Quote:
As for the rest, the forum rules state:
Zero evidence has been put up. None of what was provided qualifies as evidence.Quote:
And I’ll say it again: Plenty of evidence has been ‘put up’, much of which you have completely ignored.
Nope I'm saying those who believe Alex Jones and the Misinformation crew profiteers should just keep their clap traps closed. No one in the scientific community takes 9/11 truthers seriously. If you want to have discussions based around evidence, provide some real evidence.. Anyone can make up things and call them facts.. that doesn't mean educated folks are going to believe them and no one should be faked into taking this shit seriously.Quote:
So, basically, all you’re doing is tell everyone who doesn’t agree with you to ‘shut up’, because you’re certainly not considering their points. Bill O'Reilly? Is that you?? :chuckle:
And I loled at rainman because he nitpicks my words and doesn't seem to notice your impropriety. You know what they say about people in glass houses?
P.S. Learning the difference between yourself and what you believe. They are not one and the same.. A person can hold stupid views without being stupid. Just as someone can call your views stupid without personally insulting you. I don't identify my views as my being so I'm not easily offended; maybe this can be a lesson for you. Disconnect yourself from your beliefs because they can easily be false. No reason to feel insulted unless someone is going after your character.
A school physics teacher points out at a NIST technical briefing that NIST's analysis is just bullshit. Incidentally, NIST changed its analysis because of this physics teacher.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
The first video below has been removed from the NIST website!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k&feature=youtu.be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=youtu.be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg&feature=youtu.be
Actually I have found over 400 so far that have been publicly quoted as saying that they don't believe the official story given by the government, NIST and the 9/11 commission. Here are a just a tiny few from the ones I have found:Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
A. K. Dewdney, PhD - Professor Emeritus, Department of Computer Science, University of Western Ontario.
'The debris found outside the Pentagon is inconsistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 or any aircraft of comparable dimensions. In particular, in the absence of some agency that removed the wings, there is no way to avoid the conclusion that the wings, and therefore the aircraft, were never present in the first place. In this case, no Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon building on the morning of September 11, 2001.'
David L. Griscom, PhD - Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005).
'I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics.
The issue of knowing who was really behind the 9/11 attacks is of paramount importance to the future of our country, because the official assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs (1) does not match the available facts and (2) has led directly to the deplorable Patriot Act, the illegal Iraq war, NSA spying on ordinary Americans, repudiation of the Geneva Conventions, and the repeal of habeas corpus, a fundamental point of law that has been with us since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215.
Surely these Orwellian consequences of public ignorance constitute more than sufficient motivation for any patriotic American physicist or engineer to join the search for 9/11 Truth!
Joel S. Hirschhorn, BS Metallurgical Engineering, MS Metallurgical Engineering, PhD Materials Engineering - Professor of Metallurgical Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison 1965 - 1978. Senior Staff Member, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment 1978 - 1990.
'Many technical analyses cast doubt on the official explanation of the collapse of three World Trade Center buildings, including those presented by an impressive new group: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. More difficult than discovering the truth, however, is convincing most of the public to accept the bitter truth.
When it comes to 9/11, we face the strong belief that only al-Qaeda caused 9/11. But analyses by many experts reveal the collapse of the three WTC buildings was not caused by the two airplanes exploding into the twin towers. Without getting into details that one can spend many hours examining on a number of websites, the general view is that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.'
Hugo Bachmann, PhD - Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
'In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished.'
Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force - Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology.
'Scholars and professionals with various kinds of expertise - including architects, engineers, firefighters, intelligence officers, lawyers, medical professionals, military officers, philosophers, religious leaders, physical scientists, and pilots - have spoken out about radical discrepancies between the official account of the 9/11 attacks and what they, as independent researchers, have learned.
They have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the official account of 9/11 is false and that, therefore, the official investigations have really been cover-up operations.
Thus far, however, there has been no response from political leaders in Washington or, for that matter, in other capitals around the world. Our organization, Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, has been formed to help bring about such a response.
We believe that the truth about 9/11 needs to be exposed now - not in 50 years as a footnote in the history books---so the policies that have been based on the Bush-Cheney administration’s interpretation of the 9/11 attacks can be changed.'
Fred E. Gardiol, MS EE, ScD EE - Professor Emeritus of Electromagnetism and Microwaves, and Director of the Laboratory of Electromagnetism and Acoustics at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne, Switzerland 1970 - 1999. Honorary Professor, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne.
'Even though my personal domain of competence is not civil engineering nor materials, I feel that the official version of 9/11 does not make sense. There are very many specific questions that have not been answered satisfactorily or not answered at all. I feel that a serious inquiry should be carried out, but personally wonder whether we will ever know the truth and who are the real culprits.'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
You are asking a very good question and one that deserves a good answer. I am not just answering for your sake but because I want more public debate on this very question.
I used to believe the official 9/11 story and asked this same question to 9/11 skeptics.
However, I now think there is a plausible answer to this, and I fully admit I am just putting forward a hypothesis, but here goes.
First some background: There is plenty of evidence that whoever hijacked the planes and flew them into the buildings used a false identity to board the planes. The BBC and other mainstream sources have found a number of the 19 hijackers alive and well since 9/11:
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
So whoever hijacked those planes did not use their real identity, which should not seem unexpected to any intelligent person. Thus we have no certain way of knowing that the culprits were the 19 Saudi nationals the government accused. Our society is based on the idea of one being innocent until proven guilty. All rational people acknowledge this and simply put, our government never demonstrated the guilt of the accused. In fact, we know they did not investigate the identities of the hijackers fully. I'm happy to supply more evidence on this point, but for now I'll be brief.
Couple that with the fact that major put options were purchased before 9/11 and you have the following: Someone in the upper echelons of power knew this was coming, and the rest of us can see that the government did not properly investigate who actually hijacked the planes. That in itself makes a new investigation necessary in my mind.
So now to your question:
I will make a leap of inference and hypothesize. If this was an organized conspiracy with some level of government complicity, then whoever hijacked the planes must have had some connection with intelligence agencies of one or more governments. The hijackers may have been crazy fanatics, but if there was a conspiracy, they must have been goaded on by some kind of government operative (or they may have been a government operative), which is why they most likely would not use their real identity.
Again, if there was any level of government complicity in his operation, then we can safely say the government would do everything in its power to cover its tracks. That means the black boxes and the bodies on the airplane, which could still be identified, needed to be completely destroyed. I think therein lies a perfectly plausible explanation for why the buildings were wired with explosives. It is also possible the government hoped the buildings would collapse under their own weight but had explosives as a 'plan B'.
You may disagree with my train of thought, but the fact is we have no way of knowing what actually happened because we do know for a fact that the government lied about the identities of the attackers. If there was any level of government complicity it is not surprising that they would want to blow the whole scene up rather than have nosy investigators combing through the rubble and possibly identifying bodies.
And I hope you realize I am not trying to prove anything other than the idea that there is a plausible explanation for why the buildings could have been wired prior to 9/11. I do not claim to know what actually happened, simply that no rational person can know that the accused were in fact guilty of the crime committed.
Clearly the argument I have provided above is not evidence of wrongdoing by the government, I fully understand that. I am only attempting to show that there would be a plausible motive for blowing up the buildings if any government complicity had happened.
People believe anyone claiming to be an expert is an expert. Not a surprise to me.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...authority.html
No one in the respective scientific communities take 9/11 truther's seriously.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/f..._qa_082108.cfm
Quote:
Some people have said that a failure at one column should not have produced a symmetrical fall like this one. What's your answer to those assertions?
WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.
In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTA...ic_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCST...%20Vol%202.pdf).
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
Does this mean there are hundreds or thousands of unsafe tall buildings with long span supports that must be retrofitted in some way? How would you retrofit a building to prevent this problem?
While the partial or total collapse of a tall building due to fires is a rare event, NIST strongly urges building owners, operators, and designers to evaluate buildings to ensure the adequate fire performance of structural systems. Of particular concern are the effects of thermal expansion in buildings with one or more of the following characteristics: long-span floor systems, connections that cannot accommodate thermal effects, floor framing that induces asymmetric forces on girders, and composite floor systems, whose shear studs could fail due to differential thermal expansion (i.e., heat-induced expansion of material at different rates). Engineers should be able to design cost-effective fixes to address any areas of concern identified by such evaluations.
Several existing, emerging, or even anticipated capabilities could have helped prevent the collapse of WTC 7. The degree to which these capabilities improve performance remains to be evaluated. Possible options for developing cost-effective fixes include:
More robust connections and framing systems to better resist effects of thermal expansion on the structural system.
Structural systems expressly designed to prevent progressive collapse. Current model building codes do not require that buildings be designed to resist progressive collapse.
Better thermal insulation (i.e., reduced conductivity and/or increased thickness) to limit heating of structural steel and minimize both thermal expansion and weakening effects. Insulation has been used to protect steel strength, but it could be used to maintain a lower temperature in the steel framing to limit thermal expansion.
Improved compartmentation in tenant areas to limit the spread of fires.
Thermally resistant window assemblies to limit breakage, reduce air supply and retard fire growth.
OMG WATCH THIS YOUTUBE VIDEO IT HAZ ALL THE TRUTHS ROFL.
A new standard for deception.
Believing shit you hear on youtube videos.
I love how instead of repyling to the many instances proving that 9/11 truthers are full of shit.... you just post an hour long video..
Issue averted.
The film clip of Mr. Ryan adequately illustrates the many inconsistencies within NIST's whitewash of a report. Mr. Ryan has read and dissected the 10,000+ page report. Have you? Below is the letter that Mr. Ryan sent to NIST's Dr. Gayle that highlights the ridiculous shit you like to spout about asshole.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
Quote:
Dr. Gayle,
Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.
As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL (Underwriter Laboratories) was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.
There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory."
We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.
The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.
This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.
There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and “chatter”.
Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.
1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive...overstory.html 2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187 3. WTC Disaster Study 4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php 5. WTC Disaster Study (pg 11) 6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf
Kevin Ryan
Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories A Division of Underwriters Laboratories
http://911research.wtc7.net/debates/...mer/index.html
Water tester is expert in demolitions.
ROFL.
"Mr. Ryan" adequately fools people who want to latch onto a government conspiracy.