HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Offbeat » Creative Speculation (Group) » What is the thing about 9...

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:30 AM

 

What is the thing about 911 being a inside job that is the hardest to explain away?

I admit I am not a believer in any 911 theory's. I think it was 100% a foreign terrorist attack. But I am willing to read something that maybe would change my mind. Does anyone have a link to a story that raises a question that no one as explained away?
I have read about about building 7 so ignore that one.

160 replies, 26617 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 160 replies Author Time Post
Reply What is the thing about 911 being a inside job that is the hardest to explain away? (Original post)
Logical Dec 2011 OP
zeemike Dec 2011 #1
pinqy Dec 2011 #3
zeemike Dec 2011 #10
pinqy Dec 2011 #15
zeemike Dec 2011 #39
wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #142
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #148
wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #149
cpwm17 Dec 2011 #5
zeemike Dec 2011 #11
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #16
zeemike Dec 2011 #17
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #20
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #22
zeemike Dec 2011 #27
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #28
zeemike Dec 2011 #31
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #33
zeemike Dec 2011 #44
zappaman Dec 2011 #45
zeemike Dec 2011 #51
wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #143
William Seger Dec 2011 #147
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #152
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #151
cpwm17 Dec 2011 #46
zeemike Dec 2011 #50
cpwm17 Dec 2011 #58
zeemike Dec 2011 #61
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #48
zeemike Dec 2011 #49
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #52
zeemike Dec 2011 #55
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #154
cpwm17 Dec 2011 #54
zeemike Dec 2011 #99
wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #144
cpwm17 Dec 2011 #146
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #155
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #153
cpwm17 Dec 2011 #26
zeemike Dec 2011 #29
cpwm17 Dec 2011 #32
zeemike Dec 2011 #37
Make7 Dec 2011 #64
cpwm17 Dec 2011 #87
Make7 Dec 2011 #117
Post removed Dec 2011 #2
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #6
zeemike Dec 2011 #12
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #13
zeemike Dec 2011 #18
liberal N proud Dec 2011 #4
cpwm17 Dec 2011 #9
hack89 Dec 2011 #21
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #7
zeemike Dec 2011 #14
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #19
zeemike Dec 2011 #30
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #34
zappaman Dec 2011 #35
zeemike Dec 2011 #36
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #38
zeemike Dec 2011 #40
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #41
zeemike Dec 2011 #43
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #47
zeemike Dec 2011 #53
cpwm17 Dec 2011 #56
zeemike Dec 2011 #57
cpwm17 Dec 2011 #59
zeemike Dec 2011 #60
cpwm17 Dec 2011 #62
zeemike Dec 2011 #65
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #66
zeemike Dec 2011 #68
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #70
zeemike Dec 2011 #72
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #73
zeemike Dec 2011 #75
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #77
zeemike Dec 2011 #80
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #81
zeemike Dec 2011 #84
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #86
zeemike Dec 2011 #88
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #94
zeemike Dec 2011 #96
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #97
zeemike Dec 2011 #101
cpwm17 Dec 2011 #102
zeemike Dec 2011 #106
cpwm17 Dec 2011 #107
zeemike Dec 2011 #108
zeemike Dec 2011 #110
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #158
cpwm17 Dec 2011 #82
zeemike Dec 2011 #85
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #91
zeemike Dec 2011 #92
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #157
cpwm17 Dec 2011 #63
zeemike Dec 2011 #67
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #69
zeemike Dec 2011 #71
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #74
zeemike Dec 2011 #76
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #78
zeemike Dec 2011 #79
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #83
zeemike Dec 2011 #89
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #90
zeemike Dec 2011 #93
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #95
zeemike Dec 2011 #98
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #100
zeemike Dec 2011 #103
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #104
cpwm17 Dec 2011 #105
zeemike Dec 2011 #109
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #159
wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #145
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #156
ensho Dec 2011 #8
coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #23
kickysnana Dec 2011 #24
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #25
T S Justly Dec 2011 #42
Cherchez la Femme Dec 2011 #111
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #112
Cherchez la Femme Dec 2011 #113
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #114
Logical Dec 2011 #120
Logical Dec 2011 #119
FourScore Dec 2011 #115
zappaman Dec 2011 #116
melonkali Dec 2011 #118
tiny elvis Dec 2011 #121
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #122
cpwm17 Dec 2011 #123
tiny elvis Dec 2011 #124
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #125
cpwm17 Dec 2011 #126
tiny elvis Dec 2011 #127
cpwm17 Dec 2011 #128
tiny elvis Dec 2011 #129
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #130
cpwm17 Dec 2011 #132
tiny elvis Dec 2011 #133
cpwm17 Dec 2011 #139
William Seger Dec 2011 #131
Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #141
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #160
Nathan_Hale Dec 2011 #134
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #135
Nathan_Hale Dec 2011 #136
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #137
Nathan_Hale Dec 2011 #138
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #140
Whisp Dec 2011 #150

Response to Logical (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:51 AM

1. No links for you but a documentry

Called "In plane sight" that opened my mind to it.
Before I watched it I just assumed it was planes flown into buldings by Islamic terrorist...they convinced me that it was not the case.
But the strongest evedence is the Pentagon...it is clear to me that it was not a plane that hit it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 09:05 AM

3. Clear?

First, I know a few eyewitnesses who saw a plane.

But besides that, the "not a plane theory" makes no sense. Why would anyone use a missle and claim it was a plane? Why not just use a missle and call it a missle. Or why not just use a plane instead of faking a plane? And what happened to Flight 77 and its passnegers? Using a missle and pretending it's a plane makes no sense, serrves no purpose, and is overly complicated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinqy (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:12 AM

10. My answers and some questions to you.

Why would anyone use a missle and claim it was a plane?
Becaise they can and no one will question it....and they did not want to do that much damage.
Can you imagin a big plane like that with full fule tanks what a firball that would have been if the pilot was just a little off and hit the top of the bulding instead of the bottom?...and Al Queda does not have missle...
And there is nothing more simple than sending in a cruz missle...just program it and it does all the rest....no piolet struggling to manuver a hugh plane to hit a very small spot....and that is not an easy thing even for an experenced pilot...
Now my question...
Why is there no viedo of the plane...the Pentagon is the most secure bulding in the nation with cameras everywhere on that bulding and survalance all around...yet no videos of it except the one they that has no frame with the plane in it...that is unbelievable to me.
And why did a CNN reporter who was first one there say he saw no plane parts at the site? and the hole that was created was too small for such a big plane?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:31 AM

15. Not really an answer

"Because they can and no one will question it?" Really? And how does that explain why they wouldn't just say it was a missle?
"They didn't want to do that much damage." Why not? Where are you getting that idea from? And the families of the victims will disagree with you that there wasn't that much damage.
Al Queda certainly does have missles or could get them.

But it's still too convoluted to use a missle and say it's a plane. It would make zero sense to do so. Use a missle and claim it's a missle. Use a plane and call it a plane. "less damage" doesn't make any sense considering the amount of damage done that day.


"Why is there no video of the plane?" There are at least 2 that I've seen. Of course, since the amount of time the plane is on camera is very short and it's a side angle, truthers deny that it's a plane because you can't see wings very well from a side angle.

The CNN reporter (and I just watched the video) said that there was no sign of the plane except the hole and that all the pieces left were small. That's not the same thing as saying there was no plane. The Pentagon is a pretty solid building, and planes are not particularly tough.

And tell me again what actually happned to Flight 77 and why that doesn't make the plan even more convoluted and less feasible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinqy (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:55 PM

39. It would be even harder to convince that Osama hijacked a cruz missil don't you think?

Osama does not have anything more powerfull than a stinger missil....and that is tiny and would have just left a black mark on the wall...but lets say that they did get their hands on one...where did they launch if from?..
The pentagon has cameras all around that building...and there were other ones at various places...and they are not in the dark ages of hi teck...there should have been plenty of fotage that they could show it was flight 77
But you are quite wrong about plains not bieng tough...they are very tough especialy sense they are light weight...and lighter weight means less force on impact....the wing peices should have been all over the place and not in tiny peices.
But I don't have an answer to where is filght 77.
It maybe never existed or it might be deep in the sea for all I know...that does not negate the above evedence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinqy (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 12:02 PM

142. jesus!

 

do you believe that Al-Qaeda has missiles?
how could they blame the Taliban and AQ and UBL if it was known that a missile hit the pentagon?
They couldn't! That's why there are no available pics of anything hitting the Pentagon IMHOOC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildbilln864 (Reply #142)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 05:59 PM

148. Flight 77 was itself the missile.

Plenty of people saw the American Airline jet that hit the Pentagon. All of the pieces of the device that hit the Pentagon that could be identified came from Flight 77.

And then there are the remains of Flight 77's passengers that were recovered as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #148)

Sun Dec 25, 2011, 11:06 PM

149. I think you missed my point! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 09:34 AM

5. I took a glance at the video "In Plane Sight"

 

Near the beginning the commentator said that there is no picture evidence that a plane hit the pentagon. Well that should show you all you need to know about the quality of that stupid video:

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=322292&mesg_id=322362

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=322292&mesg_id=322379

I guess the maker of that video sucks at the Google. Of course he couldn't be lying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:21 AM

11. Explain why there are no viedo of the plain hitting the Pentagon

When there were and are camera's everywhere? but not one that shows a plane.
Photos can be photoshoped easly but it is much harder to do with viedo...
But to me it seems you were looking for a reason not to look at the evedence they presented....but if you did your questions would be answered and then you would have to question...which for some is hard to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:33 AM

16. Explain what happened to the passengers of Flight 77.

And don't start by telling me what an evil person Barbara Olsen was. I know that already. Start by telling about what happened to the National Geographic field trip aboard that plane. Because a lot of families got back human remains.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:39 AM

17. I asked you first.

But if they have the power to pull this off don't you think they would have the power to make this up?
Think about it...if it was an inside job and they used demolition to bring down the buldings that means they planed for this way ahead of time...and it would be easy for them to creat this too....
By the way do you know anyone on those planes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:54 AM

20. Did I know anyone personally on those planes? No, I didn't.

But these people did.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0912_disasterngs.html

Two staff members of the National Geographic Society, along with three Washington, D.C., teachers and three students they were traveling with, were among the victims of the terrorist attacks in the United States on Tuesday, officials of the Society announced on Wednesday.

Ann Judge, director of the Society's travel office, and Joe Ferguson, director of the Geography Education Outreach Program, were accompanying the three teacher-student pairs on an educational trip to California. They were all killed along with the other passengers of American Airlines Flight 77 after it was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon at about 9:45 Tuesday morning.

Teacher James Debeuneure and student Rodney Dickens were representing Ketcham Elementary School; teacher Sarah Clark and student Asia Cottom were from Backus Middle School; and teacher Hilda Taylor and student Bernard Brown were from Leckie Elementary School. All the students were 11-year-old sixth graders.

They had been selected to participate in a program at the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary near Santa Barbara, California, as part of a Society-funded marine research project known as Sustainable Seas Expeditions.

"Through our educational outreach program, Ann and Joe were going to make geography and the environment come alive for these committed, talented teachers and their star students by putting them into the field with scientists and researchers," said John Fahey Jr., the Society's president and CEO. "The D.C. School District has lost six extraordinary people, and we at the Society have lost two treasured colleagues," he added.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:57 AM

22. The only power "they" have is the power you have fictiously ascribed to "them"

If you ascribe omnipotence then omnipotence is what they will have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:16 AM

27. You don't have to be omnipotante to manipulate people and things.

You just need to understand human nature and use the fear of bieng tagged as a nut or a CTer.
And it will work for you every time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #27)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:23 AM

28. You're arguing in circles; question-begging

You claim the PTB have done X and as proof of that you hold up as evidence that they have the power to do X.

There is also a perfectly reasonable explanation why CTers are dismissed as nonsensical: they're nonsensical. Dismissing something absurd and unproven does not serve as logic and proof of its veracity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:44 AM

31. Well you understand the power of a straw man don't you?

someone has a CT and then someone points out that someone else has one that is like saying it was the aleins that did it and so all CTs must be nuts.
And so with that inviroment how long would you last as a journalist if you questioned the official story?
And some things defy physical explaination....like the building 7 collaps....which must be ignored if you want to believe the official story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #31)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:11 PM

33. A straw man is when you assign a fallacious argument to someone that they did not make

Your example would be more along the lines of "guilt by association."

The problem with 9/11 CTs isn't that they're CTs in and of themselves, its that there is ZERO evidence that any 1 of the CTs prevails over the others. You can't just say, "The official story is false." You have to say, "we have proof that X happened."

Yet, nobody can define X. There are so many competing theories that negate each other and each proponent of a CT says his CT prevails over its competitors. We don't need a CT to explain what happened to Hiroshima in 1945, the evidence is overwhelming. Likewise, if a suitcase nuke or sci-fi weapon or whatever were the cause the CTers would be converging on a common theory.

But they aren't. Heck, CTers can't even decide between whether Bush did it himself or ignored warnings of a foreign threat. If so fundamental an issue as that cannot be decided how do you hope to provide a body of argument that says, "This, not that."? People can feel free to stop lobbing "evidence" at me at any time. They should now tell me why their theory takes primacy over the others.

A good theory must also be falsifiable. If every counter point is met by, "That's just the Shadowy Cabal of Amalgamated Tyranny hiding/disinforming/muddying the evidence" then there is no discussion of fact, just rationalization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #33)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 04:41 PM

44. You ,keep saying there is ZERRO evedence.

But we have footage of WTC7 in freefall....what then is that?
What you are saying is "Who do you believe the official story or your lieing eyes"
And I define X as the building in free fall...And there is no compeating evedence to sugest it is otherwise.
You are confusing evedence with theroy of what caused the evedence.
And the Pentagon is the same....the evedence there ....hole not big enough for a 757....lack of footage in a place that dozens of cameras...lack of large peices of evedence of a plane in the initial photos....and other things.
And your saying that some CTs says it was a nuke proves that this is wrong?
It is my Therory that it was a false flag operation....and that therory is based on the above evedence...the theroy could be wrong but the evedence is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #44)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 06:05 PM

45. it's ZERO evidence...and yes, you have none.

"WTC7 in freefall"-no it wasn't.
"hole not big enough for a 757"-yes the damage is consistent to what would happen if a 757 hit a building.
"lack of footage in a place that dozens of cameras"-there is footage. Why do you ignore it?
"lack of large peices of evedence of a plane in the initial photos"-not true. There are plenty of photos showing large pieces of the plane. Why do you ignore it?
"and other things"-LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #45)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:23 PM

51. So there we have it...we are at an impass

No matter what i say or what I present as evedence it will not be enough or it will not be right. And you will always use the hyperbole that it is Zero.
You can see the same viedo of the building collaps that I see freefall and you just denie it....though it took only 6.5 seconds and a little math would show you that it was indeed in freefall.
So you then resort to redicule which allways works....at least for some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #45)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 12:09 PM

143. Even the NIST had to finally admit freefall occured!

 

But you keep on pushing that BS that it didn't if you want to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildbilln864 (Reply #143)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 02:46 PM

147. And even Gage and Chandler had to admit ...

... that in view of that additional information, they cannot find a single example of a controlled demolition that really resembled WTC7's collapse, with 8 stories of freefall starting 1.75 seconds after the building was already falling, nor can they produce any rational explanation for why such a thing would be done.

No, wait -- they haven't admitted that, have they. Not that it matters, of course. Instead, they persist in claiming that something that doesn't really look like a controlled demolition is irrefutable evidence of a controlled demolition, while blithely hand-waving away the total absence of other effects of real controlled demolitions such as high-explosive sounds and seismic spikes. In Trutherland, this is known as a "smoking gun."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #147)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 05:18 PM

152. The evidence presented that the fall started 1.75 seconds before the freefall component is poor.

 

Basically it's "trust us, we know".

Also, it seems you do not consider the NIST-hypothesized collapse of the interior of the building (which took considerably longer than 1.75 seconds) part of the building falling. Strange.

It looks exactly like a controlled demolition, as Danny Jowenko pointed out.

How do you know there were no sounds? Have you ever heard the sounds of the hypothesized interior collapse? Would you be open to the claim that there was no such collapse, because it would have made noise, and we don't have any audio of that noise?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #45)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 05:11 PM

151. WTC7 was in freefall for the first 100 feet

 

David Chandler measured it from the videos, and NIST confirmed it in their report.

The ASCE report said the Pentagon hole was 90 feet wide, and noted that the facade damage was too narrow to reflect the projected wingspan of a 757. They thus had to suppose that both wingtips were somehow sheared off before impact. It would be kind of nice to see the videos that might show that happening, eh wot?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #44)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 06:05 PM

46. You present assertions that have already been thoroughly debunked

 

And completely ignore the overwhelming evidence we have presented supporting a plane hitting the Pentagon.

You've made too many claims here to respond properly. Please first address the evidence we already presented supporting a plane hitting the Pentagon. So far you have refused to do so. Perhaps we could address more claims after that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #46)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:16 PM

50. Well that would be hard to do.

Sense you have presented evence with no suporting evedence that they are real or even taken on the same day or in the same place....How can I answer that?
And that evedence is far form overwhelming, though you present it as such and perhaps believe that it is.
So why don't we stick to one thing...the smoking gun of WTC7....because if that building was taken down by demoliton then all the other evedence you present is in question.
To me it is a great mystry why people are so willing to believe the official report when the evedence is right before your eyes...but it is this human tendincy to believe the athorities that is used to cover up even the most obvious things...well I gues it is only obvious to me and others willing to see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #50)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 08:22 PM

58. Then there is no amount of evidence that can change your mind.

 

Last edited Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:35 PM - Edit history (2)

Your beliefs are faith based.

So you think the TV stations are in on the conspiracy:



The aircraft hit the Pentagon in a crowded area with many witnesses. Many witnesses also saw the plane parts and I posted some of the pictures, some obviously from the Pentagon crash site. Many plane parts were recovered, plus DNA from all but one of the victims was recovered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #58)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:36 PM

61. And no amount will change yours

Yours is based on faith too...your faith is in the official storym, and I have no faith in the official story because I have seen too many times in my life where that story is wrong...and not just things like JFK RFK and MLK being killed by a lone assasin but other things which I will not confuse this topic with....perhaps some day I will tell you of other things that I know are factual and witnessed myself...
The PTB ARE capable of this kind of shit....I know it and you don't....or don't want to believe it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #44)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 06:49 PM

48. So what if it fell in "free fall"? I wouldn't expect otherwise.

An absolute structural failure would do just that. After the debris and fire raining down from hundreds of feet in the air to expect the surrounding buildings to NOT catch fire and be severely damaged would seem even more counter-intuitive.

"OMG! A completely natural and wholly expected phenomenon occurred!" doesn't really say much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #48)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:06 PM

49. The only way it could have fallen like that strait down is if ALL the suprot structures failed

At the same time....now explain to me how that is possable with a fire no matter how big.
In demolitions that don't go as pland the building does not collaps like that....it has to be precise.
There was noting natural about that...Can you show me an example of any building in the world at any time collapsing like that without demoliton charges?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #49)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:26 PM

52. You really pin this entire idea on the notion that structural failures dont spontaneously occur?

Your telling us there has never been a non-demolition structural failure?

And it's not just a matter of a simple fire. There is debris from the towers raining down from hundreds of feet for 2 hours. That's a sustained pummeling. Structural failures have happened under less dramatic circumstances. Why wouldn't the building collapse?

Of course, what I would like to know is --

-- if Shadowy Cabal for Amalgamated Tyranny went through the time, manpower, money, expense and secretiveness to demolish WTC in the wake of their nefarious scheme why not use the time and resources to just box-up their evil plan documents and cart them off to a new, more secure location? Or just shred/delete them? This just compounds the entire sordid mess.

-- if hiding nefarious schemes were the objective wouldn't incendiaries make more sense than mere explosives?

-- if your plan includes other structures raining flaming debris upon your target from hundreds of feet high for hours at a time leaving the target building a raging inferno how do you know your explosive charges will still be functional?

-- why didn't they just keep their nefarious plans at a location that would not have to be destroyed, like CIA headquarters in DC, so they could spare themselves the hassle and risk?

The theory doesn't even make sense in its own terms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #52)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:45 PM

55. Well the building could have collapsed from damage

But you are saying that all the suporting structur which comprised of many collums all failed at the exact same time....because had they not the building would not have all came down at the same time or some parts not at all...that is so unlikely as to be not even reasonable.
The objectiv of this in my opnion was just what we got...a state of permanent war and a state of permant fear...and they were very sucessfull at it...we were willing to give up our constitutional rights as well as trillions of dollars to protect us from this threat that was manufactured.
And they are allso sucessfull in covering it up because they knew that institution can be controled by the CT tool....no reporter, scientist, or most avrage citizen would survive the ridicule that comes with being labled a CTer...If you were in the media you would never work again if you even sugested that something was not right with the story...and they know that people especialy now are job scared.
Just look here at this topic...by now you are convinced that I am nuts because I don't believe the story...why is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #52)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 05:43 PM

154. Your belief in a "sustained pummeling" of WTC7 is a fantasy.

 

Debris was ejected far from the towers only during the actual collapse.

There were some rather fanciful claims made of damage, including one that the south side of WTC7 was "scooped out" to a depth of 1/4 of the width of the building. NIST determined that structural damage from flying debris played no part in the initiation of collapse.

There was no raging inferno. Fires persisted on only 6 floors. They were quite wimpy as highrise fires go. Nothing like what we've seen in subsequent highrise fires in Dubai, Grozny, Moscow, Shanghai, and Beijing.

You couldn't just shred documents. The office workers would notice that their files were gone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #49)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:42 PM

54. I regard your refusal to counter our evidence for a plane hitting the Pentagon as a concesion.

 

Last edited Wed Dec 21, 2011, 09:15 AM - Edit history (1)

Large buildings don't tip over (I should have written that it is much more difficult for large buildings to tip over, since the definition of "large buildings" is vague). They fall more or less in the direction of gravity. But WTC7 didn't fall straight down like a controlled demolition. It collapsed across the street causing severe damage to the neighboring buildings. The precision in controlled demolitions is to prevent this from happening.

It requires huge forces to push large buildings horizontally. Those forces don't exist once a large building starts to collapse. There is already a large force pulling large buildings vertically in the direction of gravity: gravity.

Unlike the Twin Towers, WTC7 collapsed starting from its lower floors. So the collapse was much less messy. Plus the collapse started with its internal structure failing first, which was mostly out of view. Then after the internal structure collapsed, the outer shell fell quickly. It was a rather unusual sight. Buildings like this don't normally collapse. But large buildings don't normally have very large structures strike them, and large fires that can't be fought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #54)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 02:39 PM

99. No you are wrong there

And in fact sometimes the demoliton experts want them fo fallover one way the other....sometimes they want them to fall twords the center....and the can do that simply by timeing the charges ...you want it to fall to the south you set off the shape charges on the south suporting structurs before the ones on the north...want it to fall twords the middle you blow the center suports first
And on steel building it takes very little explosives to do the job because the shape charge is basicly a gun that shoots a bullet of molten metal that will cut right through a steel beam....and that is why a small amount of explosives in a shape chargel can penatrait the armor of a tank

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #54)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 12:17 PM

144. you make me laugh when you say "our evidence"!

 

where did you get said evidence?
You have nothing but what was given to you by others! You weren't there and you haven't personally checked the evidence! You accept the word of others!
You accept authority as truth over truth as the authority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildbilln864 (Reply #144)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 12:54 PM

146. I regard your refusal to counter our evidence for a plane hitting the Pentagon as a concesion.

 

Your hand waving doesn't count.

You're just another truther that refuses to address the evidence we've presented for a plane hitting the Pentagon.

What kind of evidence do you want? What evidence would convince you that you are wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #54)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 05:53 PM

155. Large buildings do tip over.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196064/Tumbling-tower-China-Amazing-pictures-13-storey-block-flats-toppled-over.html



The damage to neighboring buildings was hardly "severe" when you consider their proximity and the fact that WTC7 was almost 600 feet tall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #48)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 05:24 PM

153. Freefall is not a natural occurrance for buildings. The law of conservation of energy

 

... demands that the energy necessary to do the work of tearing apart the structural connections and bending and crushing the steel must come out of the kinetic energy available. This will slow the collapse down.

Imagine falling off a cliff, straight down through the air. That's freefall.

Imagine falling off a tall pine tree, bouncing off tree branches, bending some, breaking some. All of the energy you give to the tree slows you down.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:14 AM

26. There is one poor frame from one of their low speed cameras.

 

Last edited Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:37 PM - Edit history (2)

It's difficult for a low speed camera to pick up an aircraft flying at 500mph. From the direction that the cameras were facing they cannot do any more than pick up one frame - if they get lucky. It's as simple as that.

You're anomaly hunting, while you seem to ignore the massive evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon.

Here's are a few of the hundreds of eyewitness written and video accounts of the plane that hit the Pentagon. Many off the witnesses worked at the Pentagon, the very same people that were the target for the plane! No way they would ALL lie.:

William Lagasse:

Sgt. William Lagasse, a Pentagon police dog handler, the son of an aviation instructor, was filling up his patrol car at a gas station near the Pentagon when he noticed a jet fly in low. He watched as the plane plowed into the Pentagon. Initially, he thought the plane was about to drop on top of him -- it was that close. Lagasse knew something was wrong. The 757's flaps were not deployed and the landing gear was retracted.

Lincoln Liebner:

As he ran to an entrance, he heard jet engines and turned in time to see the American Airlines plane diving toward the building. "I was close enough that I could see through the windows of the airplane, and watch as it as it hit," he said. "There was no doubt in my mind what I was watching. Not for a second. It was accelerating," he said. "It was wheels up, flaps up, engines full throttle."

Mary Lyman:

"'I saw a plane coming what I thought was toward National Airport, which is very close. You see that all the time. But this one looked different. It was at a very steep angle, and going very fast. I had been hearing about the World Trade Center before I left, and wondered, is this part of that? Then the plane disappeared, smoke started coming up, and traffic came to a complete stop," Lyman said. "We all got out of our cars. We heard another couple of explosions, and I ran and got back in my car."





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #26)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:27 AM

29. So they only have low speed cameras and only released 5 frames?

And by the way I have seen most of what is in your debunking ....I have looked at bouth sides of this issue...and at first I was of the opnion that it was done by terrorist but that Bush new aobut and let it happen...but after looking at bouth sides I am convinced that the whole thing was manufactured....You can take just one visual thing that cannot be explained like the building 7 collaps and know dam well it was planed in advanc and could not have phyisicaly collapsed like it did with out a controled demoliton....if you can see that one thing it blows to hell the whole dam story....and so it must ALL be questioned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #29)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:48 AM

32. You didn't address the evidence presented

 

So I can't respond properly.

Now you are changing the subject and making assertions without evidence about WTC7.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #32)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:39 PM

37. Well I used WTC7 as my smoking gun

It was what caused me to look further into it...then I watched the documentry about the rest...
And evedence can and often is manipulated...but when you see something that you know full well is not right then all the evedence must be questioned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #26)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 02:52 AM

64. Could I request that you please remove that link from your post(s)?

I'm not quite sure how we want to handle this before we have Hosts for this group, so I thought I'd just ask politely.

Posts containing links to WRH were deleted on DU2. Here is an example that has a follow up post by a moderator with an explanation:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=176459#176463

Based on the following excerpt from the Terms of Service of DU3...

... please be aware that many conspiracy theories have roots in racism and anti-semitism, and Democratic Underground has zero tolerance for bigoted hate speech. In short, you take your chances.

... I am going to conclude that links to WRH are just as unwanted here as they were on DU2. Since you have unlimited editing time for your post, I would appreciate it if you would edit that link out. And also remove it from post #58.

Perhaps you could source the same information from a site that won't be as problematic to use here.

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Make7 (Reply #64)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 11:53 AM

87. I didn't look at the site closely

 

But I did note that it was a truther site. Strangely, it seems to be the best site with evidence for a plane striking the Pentagon!

I'm working to find different links the best I can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #87)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 01:54 AM

117. Thank you. I did pretty much the same thing the last DU3 test period.

I started a thread with an excerpt from a website I wasn't familiar with and didn't scroll down all the way to notice there was a link to WRH on it. Greyl pointed it out but I thought all the posts during the testing period were going to be erased so I never bothered editing my post. So I guess your reply was beneficial in that it reminded me to go back and edit my own thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Original post)


Response to Post removed (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 09:35 AM

6. Oh, my God.

Dave Van Kleist, Killtown, and WebFairy.

It's like 2002-2005 all over again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:23 AM

12. Sory but I don't know what any of that means...

Guess I am out of touch with pop culture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:26 AM

13. It may be a reason to believe in God.

Unfortunately I said the names and we may soon be visited in this brave new DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:41 AM

18. Don't know what that means eather

But it's OK...no need to explain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 09:27 AM

4. Where did the plane parts go that hit the pentagon?

There was nothing left of an airplane that contained titanium parts? So the fuselage went throgh the hole in the building but the wings just disintegrated?

Not saying I see any conspiracy as an inside job, but the pentagon hit just looked strange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 09:42 AM

9. Here's more evidence for the plane that hit the Pentagon:

 

Last edited Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:39 PM - Edit history (1)





The evidence for the plane is overwhelming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:54 AM

21. There are plenty of pictures of airplane parts in the Pentagon

the key is to look further than 911 CT sites.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 09:36 AM

7. All the competing theories

Some say it was Israeli agents. Other say it was Bush/Cheney on a nationalist bent. Others say it was a shadowy cabal seeking global domination.

Some say it was a missile. Others say it was a suitcase nuke. Still others claim demolitions from inside the building. Others claim it was some sort of sci-fi weapon. Others say it was terrorists but Bush allowed the attack to happen.

Meanwhile, Obama has become president and is in charge of the very people who would have had to carry out the orders. That makes Obama either a total buffoom who doesn't kow what goes on in his own government or he's a willing accomplice and we're total buffoons for voting him in. Although 4 years ago the CTers would have sworn up and down that Bush/Cheney were going to declare martial law before they ever allowed an outsider to ruin their scheme.

All this swirls around and around. For a thing to be so "scientifically" provable that people should throw-away what was plainly seen by millions the CTers seem to have a hard time settling on any one "scientifically" provable explanation. The only thing they can agree on is they're angry at the US -- but then again, so was Tim McVeigh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:30 AM

14. The truth is out there

But like always it is covered up by a tone of disinformation and as many wild CTs as they can manufacture...
The reason for that should be obvious...most people will not dig through the big pile to find the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:50 AM

19. So the Truthers are part of the lies

Got it.

I would love to see every CTer denounce every other competing CTer as an agent of disinformation for the Shadowy Cabal for Amalgamated Tyranny, LLC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:32 AM

30. no they are bieng manipulated.

And the tactic of divide and conquere applies here as well...and yes those that did this would like to see us all fighitng one another and they fuel it all the time.
All disinformation serves to cover the truth no matter how rediculious it may be...in fact the more ridicule you can cause the better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #30)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:13 PM

34. So which ones are bing manipulated?

If the evidence poits convincingly in one direction it should be easy enough to debunk the false CTs.

Which CTs are false?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #34)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:30 PM

35. oh my

This should be good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #34)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:34 PM

36. Well that is what Journalist used to do

And I don't have the time or resources to do that...and you probably don't eather...and that is why it works...
And if one peice of evedence is convincing then the whole of it must be questioned...and the WTC#7 is that...I know enough about physics to know that building was a controled demoliton...And that is a big smoking gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #36)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:48 PM

38. So what you're saying is

You don't know which CT is correct but all the others are false but you believe what you believe despite the utter absence of genuine evidence and are impervious to all counter arguments because they're obviously part of the cover-up -- though we're just not sure which cover-up or what exactly they are covering-up.

How could I NOT sign-on to such a statement?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #38)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 01:04 PM

40. utter absence of genuine evidence?

Is that what you are saying after I show you that there is plenty of it?
And you then tell me that because all the CTs don't agree that it proves something?...to witt
that they All are wrong?
Just where is the logic in that?
What that is is a catch 22...no matter how convincing the evedence is if you can fine one that is not convinceing then they are all wrong...hence the reason for creating the crazyest CT you can think of....the straw man or false flag.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #40)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 01:22 PM

41. "I show you that there is plenty of it?"

How can there be plenty of compelling evidence when there are so many competing theories all claiming they are the real truth?

You might be one of the false CTs trying to obfuscate the real truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #41)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 04:19 PM

43. So basicly you just want to run me round and round

Evedence are not theroys...the WTC7 collaps is not a theroy....you can see it for yourself....the fotage is the evedence not a theroy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #43)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 06:42 PM

47. The only evidence in the videos is of a burning, wrecked building that collapses.

Beyond that is merely wild, baseless speculation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #47)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:28 PM

53. I guess that is true

If you totaly ignore the laws of phisics...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #53)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:47 PM

56. What laws are you referring to?

 

And explain how those laws apply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #56)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:58 PM

57. The law of gravity for one.

Gravity acts on all mater equaly...and so for everythign to come down at the same time then the suport for that object must fail at the same time....if the suport stucture was damaged by fire then in order for that to cause the collaps to bring the building down at the same time then the fire would have to had been the exact same tempature for the same amout of time to fail the colloms at the same time....tell me how that is possable?
If there is random damage and random fire then there would have been random collaps...which is how all buildings collaps except those done with carfuly placed explosive charges that are carefuly timed to fail the suporting colloms...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #57)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 08:35 PM

59. Here's a brief video that shows WTC7 didn't all collapse at the same time

 



Only the outer shell collapsed at the same time. That was only after the internal structure collapsed east to west.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #59)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:28 PM

60. I have seen it and it is consistant whith what I said

The outer shell has suports too and gravity pulls on them evenly allso...so what force made the suports all fail at the same time?
I know that someone can allways invent a reason and invent a theroy but they don't make any sense to me when there is no explanation that is consistant with common sense....and what I heard was that the team that investagated it did not get to see the site before May of 2002...that alown should make you think. and the believe that the center flors had collapsed first from a fire caused by office material just is unbelievable to me....how could office material get hot enough to make steel fail?...and remember that is just a theroy to explain why the building collapest in the first place....because such a thing has never happened before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #60)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 12:24 AM

62. Thermal expansion and weakening of steel can explain the structural failure

 

The buillding certainly got much hotter than this railroad track which was warped by thermal expansion:

That certainly explains the collapse far better than silent explosions and an invisible demolition team.

Your demolition team sure must have been besides themselves when they discovered that the collapsing North Tower hit WTC7 and started it on fire. They must have thought that their controlled demolition was ruined. But magically their silent explosives weren't ruined by the huge fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #62)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 09:14 AM

65. Well what I don't believe is that this thermal expansion was distributed evenly

I have a hard time with random fire distribution causing uniforme failure of the structure....that just not jive with reallity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #65)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 09:17 AM

66. It wasn't. No one claims that it was.

Really, it's time to actually find out what it is you're protesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #66)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 09:40 AM

68. i am not protesting anything...I am questioning the official story

And you think it is protesting to question them.
And if there is no uniform damage to the suport structure then there can be no uniform collaps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #68)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 09:51 AM

70. Protesting, questioning, whatever. You need to find out what the official story is.

But as long as you listen to grifters like AE911Truth, you never will find out what NIST actually says happened, because AE911Truth can't let you know the real story. As long as they can keep you focused on their straw men, you'll never find out how rational and scientific the actual story is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #70)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 10:09 AM

72. Well sory to disapoint you but I have seen the official story

And it does not jive with what my eyes see and what logic tells me.
It might suprise you but I allways look at both sides and question them both....and that is how you get to truth.
But I will not be bamboozeled by distortions and misinformation...nor will I be intimidated by sugestions that I am nuts if I question the official storys...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #72)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 10:12 AM

73. No, you haven't, not with that straw man claim you made about thermal expansion.

ETA: There's been no suggestion that you're nuts from me. Please stop saying that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #73)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 10:19 AM

75. What a statement...

If I would only accept as absolut truth of the official story then I would be converted to what ever delusion you have subscribed to....talk about blind faith...
But if you can explain how a randomly distributed fire could produce equaly distributed thermal expansion I am listening...but basic physics cannot tell me that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #75)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 10:35 AM

77. I agree. Your post 75 is some statement, indeed.

It misrepresents me and the NIST explanation. I don't know which one gets the shorter shrift.

"equally distributed thermal expansion" -- Let's start there.

Locate that phrase or that concept in the Final Report on Building 7 from NIST. If you can, I'll admit it's a part of the "official story." But that's something I'll never have to do, because it's not.

Did you hear that? It's not. You have no understanding of what the actual explanation for the collapse of Building 7 is. And until you do, you can't accept it OR reject it. Until then, you are the one operating on faith.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #77)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 10:59 AM

80. So I am hearing you say that because it is not part of the official story

Then it don't exist?
If there are 100 suport structurs in the outer structure made of steel in the building and they all
failed at the same time then the heat that caused it must have allso been uniform...does the official report explain that?
And if it was the weight of the iner structure that caused them to fail how could that be uniform unless the forces of the weight was uniform?
There has never been a collaps of a building where that has happened yet no explaination of the above problems with the story.

By the way look at some picures of building 6 that suffered more sever damage form fire and was closer to the towers and did not collaps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #80)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 11:06 AM

81. No, you are hearing me say, "Locate that phrase or that concept in the Final Report on Building 7."

"Equally distributed thermal expansion."

You just repeated the concept:

"If there are 100 suport structurs in the outer structure made of steel in the building and they all
failed at the same time then the heat that caused it must have allso been uniform.."

They did not fail all at the same time. The thermal expansion was not uniform. Uniform thermal expansion is not a part of the NIST explanation. As soon as you start dealing with the actual report, we can see about rejecting it or accepting it.

Stop changing the subject to building 6. Find that concept of uniform thermal expansion in the NIST report or find out what the NIST report actually says.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #81)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 11:34 AM

84. So if it is not in the offical report then it does not exist.

SUniforo we then have estalished that the collaps was not caused by thermal expansion ...then what was the cause?
uniform pressure caused by the weight of the inner floors?
That has the same problems as the thermal expansion therory...there has never been a case of random forces acting uniformly....and that is my point...and I expect you will ignore it for the principle that the official report ignores it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #84)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 11:43 AM

86. "we then have estalished that the collaps was not caused by thermal expansion" - No, we have not.

It really is time to go consult the actual report and find out what it actually says - past time, in fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #86)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 11:55 AM

88. Well then present it as evedence

And stop telling me to "read the constitution"
I will promis to listen and consider any evedence that you present....and hope you will give me the same considerations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #88)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 01:25 PM

94. Here's a short presentation of the NIST report



Thermal expansion was not uniform in the NIST report. It was only in the area where fires were burning, and the expansion of the long beams over the east of the building knocked a crucial support truss for column 79 loose, causing a local collapse around the column.

Nothing happened simultaneously in this collapse. First the expansion, then the truss, then the local collapse, then the buckling of 79, followed by 80 and 81, and then the rest of the core from east to west, and THEN the outside.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #94)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 01:52 PM

96. Yep seen it.

And noted that it admited it had never happened before and that this proves it can happen....which is kind of commical because it automaticly excludes a deliberate demolition as the cause...and asks you to accept that as fact.
Then it never explains just how the shell of the building collaps strait down....the shellis suported by steel beams too and in order for that to happen all of the suports must fail at the same time....the work of gravity is no mystery and you can prove it by balanceing a broomstick on your finger and then try to make it fall strait down...it ain't easy....you must remove your finger suddenly or it will tilt to one side and fall that way...same is true for the suports of a building.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #96)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 01:59 PM

97. Seen it? And still you were here saying that the report claimed uniform thermal expansion was

the cause of "all supports failing at once"?

How could you do that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #97)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 02:44 PM

101. Because it said that thermal expansion caused the iner part to fail

And ended it with "then the shell fell" which implys that the thermal expansion was the cause of the shell to fall....but never explained how that was possable

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #96)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 02:45 PM

102. Large massive objects don't behave like small light objects.

 

Try balancing a toothpick on your finger. I find it impossible. Its very low mass, and therefore its very low inertia, gives it a very low resistance to falling over. Plus the distance it has to move to fall over is very small.

Try doing the same with a broomstick. It is easy to balance, though it is also easy to tip over. Unlike a large building the broomstick is built solid, and is proportionally very strong. The broomstick also has much less mass and is far shorter than a large building. The larger the object the more the tendency for it to maintain its verticle orientation. Plus the less solid, and less proportionally strong (like a building), an object the less likely it is to maintain its structural integrity as it falls.

A tall object must accelerate much faster to tip over, which requires a greater force. A tall object must move farther horizontally to tip over, which requires a greater force. A heavy object has more mass which requires more force to tip over.

A less solid, and less proportionally strong (like a building), object has less ability to apply horizontal force on itself when falling. An object that is already breaking apart has less ability to apply a horizontal force on itself when falling. But gravity is always present, and gravity pulls straight down. Gravity wins.

WTC7 did fall across the street causing great damage to adjacent buildings. So it wasn't straight down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #102)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 03:16 PM

106. All good points....and demolition experts use these facts in their work.

But the suport colloms in a building are like the broomstick not the broomstick like the building....connect a bunch of broomsticks togather and you then must make them all fail at near the same time to get the structure to come strait down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #106)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 04:16 PM

107. WTC7 didn't fall straight down

 

From the video, the building started collapsing at least a half dozen seconds before the shell started collapsing. Those are the facts. From the design of the building, the shell contained the initial collapse on the inside of the building. The shell came down when it lost its support, a split second after the west penthouse start collapsing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #107)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 05:05 PM

108. Are you saying that the shell was suported by the inside of the building?

If not then what caused the suports for the shell to suddenly fail all at the same time?...that is the explaintion I am looking for and has not been addressed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #107)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 05:33 PM

110. By the way here is a photo of the framework of WTC7


Building 7 in advanced construction stage (April, 1986)

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/7646 ... ilwtc7.pngMrKoenig


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #94)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 06:24 PM

158. Something DID happen simultaneously

 

The entire visible part of the WTC7 building, with the exception of the penthouses, fell down symmetrically and simultaneously.

You seem to have missed that part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #68)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 11:09 AM

82. I just showed you with the video of the collapse on comment 59 that there wasn't a uniform collapse.

 

And therefore there wasn't uniform damage. You responded on comment 60, so you must know that your aren't telling the truth here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #82)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 11:43 AM

85. So expalin where I am not telling the truth

Because i don't want to be accused of bieng a lier...or are you saying that my talking aobut this makes me a lier?
Or questioning the official story makes me a lier?
And I would point out that even controled demolions do not come down perfictly uniformly...and in fact they use that to control damage by making the bulding lean sligtly one way or the other or makding the center colaps slightly before the rest....it is impossable to make such a large building react perfictly uniformely collaps....the odds of it are tremendous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #85)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 12:56 PM

91. I am not saying that you are a liar. Not at all.

All I am saying is that you have the wrong idea about what the NIST report says, something that's easily corrected by going to the NIST report and finding out what it does actually say. Your reluctance to do so doesn't say that you're a liar, either. Nobody likes to be had by grifters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #91)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 01:13 PM

92. Well I admit I have not read the report

And am not likely to do so because I have evedence that meats the test of reasonable doubt even in the leagal sense of bouth the conspericy AND the coverup...
But i have watched several viedos that debunked it and they did not convince me at all....in fact some of the explanaintions comical unless you were uneducated in science at all.
So there is reasonable doubt to me that this report is based on the truth and not just part of the coverup...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #62)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 06:07 PM

157. The beams in WTC7 didn't warp. If they had, then they couldn't have pushed the girder.

 

Last edited Fri Dec 6, 2013, 08:21 PM - Edit history (2)

They would have simply sagged. No, in WTC7 these beams had to remain absolutely unwarped in order to push with full virility against the yielding girder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #60)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 12:46 AM

63. That's an engineering question

 

It looks like a split second after the internal structure completely collapsed (when the west penthouse collapsed) the outer shell came down. I see nothing to build some conspiracy around here. Once the internal structure was gone, the whole shell had no ability to support itself. So it came down more or less as a unit.

Of course part of the shell could have failed first, taking the rest down with it. This made it look like it all came down precisly at once. That's just speculation on my part. Certainly the shell wasn't built to stand on its own, so once the internal structure was gone the shell inevitably followed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #63)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 09:31 AM

67. And Arcitects and Engineers have addtessed it

9/11: The Simple Facts
Why the Official Story Can't Possibly be True

by Arthur Naiman & Gregg Roberts with AE911Truth for WTC technical assistance

Books on 9/11 tend to get dismissed as “conspiracy theories” but that won’t work with this one, because it contains no theories at all about who did what. It simply focuses on flaws in the official version of what happened—flaws that have led more than 1500 architects and engin­eers, with 25,000 years of professional experience, to demand a new, indepen­dent investigation.

The book begins by listing fourteen clearly observable facts about the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings that the official story can’t explain, then gives a simple explan­ation that accounts for all fourteen of them.

It asks:
• Why has no other skyscraper ever collapsed from being hit by airplanes or from fires, even when engulfed by flames that raged for seventeen or eighteen hours?
• How could the Twin Towers fall so evenly and so fast, straight down through 160,000 tons of structural steel?
• How could the smaller, lighter floors above where the planes hit completely destroy the much heavier, stronger and completely undamaged floors below?
• For that matter, how could the top of the South Tower crush the floors below if it began its fall toppling off them at an angle of 22°? (See the front cover above.) If this was a gravitational collapse, they’re going to have to rewrite the laws of gravity.

Questions like these (and there are hundreds of them) have convinced not just building professionals but tens of thou­sands of others—senior government, intelligence, military and law enforcement officials, pilots, firefighters, 9/11 survivors and relatives, scholars and many more—that we need a new investigation.


But of course you must blow them of as CTers because not to could make you change your mind....which is deadly for your faith in the official story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #67)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 09:48 AM

69. In the latest holy book in their online store?

Nice cut and paste of the ad copy. $12 for a copy, plus shipping and handling? I guess I could work out a bulk discount rate, right?

Unfortunately, it's just a bright shiny new cover of all the old arguments they still use.

Oh, by the way:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #69)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 10:02 AM

71. You can dismiss anthing can't you?

Write a book on the subject....automatic dismissal...
Don't write a book on the subject?...means you have Zero evedence...dismiss it.
Ouestion the official story....you are nuts and are a CTer...dismissed..
Got it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #71)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 10:14 AM

74. I've dismissed the arguments of AE911Truth after nine years of examining 9/11 Truth arguments

and finding them all wanting.

It's the inclusion of all the bad arguments that make the book something to dismiss.

The rest is stuff you're putting in my mouth. It's a lot easier to do that that deal with the words I say, isn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #74)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 10:24 AM

76. Funy but after 9 years of doing the same thing I came to a diferent conclusion

But you are more qualified than me to make that determination I supose, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #76)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 10:36 AM

78. 9 years of avoiding the actual statements of NIST?

That's the only explanation I have for your not knowing the actual things they said and why you continue to repeat misrepresentations of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #78)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 10:39 AM

79. Questioning is not avoiding.

You expect me to accept as fact the very things I am questioning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #79)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 11:09 AM

83. The way you are questioning is avoiding.

I'm not expecting you to accept as fact the very things you are questioning.

I am expecting you to represent correctly the things you are questioning. If you claim to be looking for the truth, then tell me the truth about the NIST report, not these misrepresentations from AE911Truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #83)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 12:01 PM

89. That is just the same thing said in a deferent way

I am questioning the truth of the report...and you want me to tell the truth of the report?
Are you trying to say that if there is one truth in the report then the whole thing is the truth?
I myself have never seen a lie constructed of all lies...the best lies are constructed with as much truth as possable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #89)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 12:48 PM

90. But you are misrepresenting what the report says.

To me, that says you haven't taken the time to actually understand what the report says, and instead are repeating common misrepresentations of the NIST report that AE911Truth has taken a great deal of trouble to propagate.

You don't have to accept what the NIST report says as true to be able to represent it accurately. In fact, being able to represent the report accurately would help you in your desire to convince us that it is false.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #90)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 01:23 PM

93. If you then take the oposing view it is up to you

To present your side of the case not me.
I am not hear for that.
And you are right, I have allreay made my jusdgment that this is an inside job and a coverup of that job...And I made that judjment bassed on the evedence I heard from borth sides...the CTers and the Debunkers alike over YEARS of listening and seldom speaking out about it...There is an enormous amount of evedence for the inside job and little of it has been explianed with convinceing evedence to counter it.

And I would bet you that most people have never seen the eveence that it was na inside job because of the CT aversion tool...I will not post any of them here for fear of being acused of not staying on subject

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #93)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 01:49 PM

95. You might have that backwards

Boffin is saying the NIST report is the proper explanation. It is the first point of the argument. You are claiming "the official story" is not accurate and are supposedly showing reasons why this is the case. Ordinarily, impeaching a source as unreliable or the testimony as not in accord with facts is the proper recourse. But Boffin is saying that you have not properly cited the report you claim to dispute. The report still stands. It is what it is.

It would be akin to Boffin saying E=MC^2 then having a dissenter come along and claim E=MC^87 is incorrect. Boffin replies that he never claimed to assert anything about E=MC^87, only E=MC^2. To demand Boffin prove or disprove any assertion about E=MC^87 is pointless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #95)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 02:24 PM

98. And he is sayint that the "proper explanation" is the "official one"

And this forum is about what now?
Why is it not the case that the official one is trying to debunk the CT?
And in your clever example in math it starts out with something that is uneverserly held as true thus saying that his equasion is the true one and that all other ones are false because math is an exact science...
Well so is gravity an exact science....and a tall stading object can only fall strait down if all it's suports fail at almost the exact time...because if they don't then it will lean and when it reaches a critical point of just a few degeees it will fall to the side....that too is an exact science and easly demonstrated.
Here is an example when that happens....

And here is what happens when the demoliotin don't get it perfict...
&feature=related
Notice how most of the buildings fall...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #98)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 02:43 PM

100. But neither Boffin or the report he cites claims the building fell straight down

The building did not fall straight down. It did lean and fall sideways. This is what Boffin is trying to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #100)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 02:52 PM

103. Well nothing is perfict.

Even when they try their best to make it that way....but the fall was uniform and that means that all the suporting structures failed at almost the same time to within a fraction of a second apart.thus allowing gravity to pull it down largly strait into it's footpint... And that has never happened before by anything but controled demoliton....and that is what I am doubting the official story....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #103)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 02:55 PM

104. Sorry, but the evidence presented by Boffin convinces me it was NOT uniform

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #98)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 03:15 PM

105. Are you saying that all buildings should behave the same while collapsing?

 

No matter what the cause of the collapse and no matter how they are designed? Obviously that can't be the case.

Here's the damage caused by the collapsing WTC7 to the adjacent building at 30 West Broadway:

WTC7 didn't fall straight down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #105)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 05:23 PM

109. not too suprising sense they were very close togather to beguin with

But really we have eaten this apple to it's core and nothing new can be added...
And yet there is still dozens of other facts that show that it was an inside job and that there was a coverup that are far less tecknical to discuss...but perhaps later...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #105)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 06:38 PM

159. WTC7 fell straight down at first--as you can see by watching the videos.

 

At the end, it leaned a little bit to the south.

The damage to Fiterman was caused by some ejected debris. The aerial photos show quite a tidy pile.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #59)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 12:27 PM

145. "Only the outer shell collapsed at the same time. That was only after the internal structure collaps

 

"Only the outer shell collapsed at the same time. That was only after the internal structure collapsed east to west."
So what?
so the building was rigged with the explosives/incendiaries near center structure so the center core collapses and pulls the rest down around it. That still doesn't debunk the possibility that it was a CD!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #59)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 06:00 PM

156. That the penthouse collapsed does not prove that the interior of the building collapsed.

 

Last edited Fri Dec 6, 2013, 08:19 PM - Edit history (1)

If someone wanted to collapse the penthouse to give the impression of an interior collapsed, they need only cut the supporting beams with thermite at the 46th floor.

The fact that the video above bears no resemblance to what NIST says would happen if the interior collapsed first lends much doubt to NIST's thesis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 09:38 AM

8. bombs in the bldgs. going off plus

 


bldg. demolition experts say it was a controlled demolition

the pentagon event was a construct

the evidence that turned up in Fl.

actually the list is long on why 9/11 was an inside job

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:01 AM

23. For me, it was the spike in options trading in United and American airlines

 

in the days immediately preceding 9-11, almost as if there was an awareness out there that something horribly bad was going to cause the price of airline stocks to plummet.

DUer Bolo Boffin has pointed out in a different thread that the 9-11 Commission Report contains explanations for this spike in options trading and, I must confess, I have not read the official report.

I count myself agnostic on the question.

I would recommend you read David Ray Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor, if you have not yet done so, for a well-written and thoughtful exploration of the various gradations of conspiracy that could pertain, from full-scale MIHOP (made it happen on purpose) to light LIHOP (let it happen on purpose).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:03 AM

24. The willful destruction of the FAA recordings for that time.

Makes no sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kickysnana (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:07 AM

25. MercutioATC explained that.

They were not FAA recordings. They were tapes of individual interviews with air traffic controllers (ATCs) in violation of their union contract. As soon as each person was able to complete reports of their experience as per their contract, a manager destroyed the tapes. It was a stupid move following a stupid move, but that's not so hard to believe of management.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Original post)

Wed Dec 14, 2011, 04:15 PM

42. There isn't one corner of the Government and media ...

 

that doesn't arouse suspicion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Original post)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 09:19 PM

111. No Black Boxes ever recovered

from any of the planes.

The ONLY Black Boxes, from all the air crashes through time, which were never found

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cherchez la Femme (Reply #111)

Thu Dec 15, 2011, 09:24 PM

112. Not true.

Black boxes from the Pentagon and Shanksville were recovered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #112)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 12:14 AM

113. Good to know

got links?
What did they say?

And so... what about the other two?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cherchez la Femme (Reply #113)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 01:06 AM

114. In a movie theater, links will have to wait

Google still exists, though.

If you can't understand why the black boxes weren't recovered from the Twin Towers on your own, I doubt I'll be able to explain it to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cherchez la Femme (Reply #113)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 12:45 AM

120. Here, do some reading......

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cherchez la Femme (Reply #111)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 10:40 PM

119. More BS, The Flight 93 flight data recorders were recovered. Also....

 

The Flight 77 black boxes were also removed from the Pentagon, but one of them (the cockpit voice recorder) was too badly damaged to be used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 04:50 PM

115. The attacker's passport that survived the explosion,

flew out of the guy's pocket and landed on the sidewalk. Really???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Reply #115)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 05:28 PM

116. Show us how you know

it "was in his pocket" and then "flew out of it".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 02:51 PM

118. Government protection of fraudulent workers in basement levels.

 

While the following link, like many, offer too much information, fact remains that a suspect in a fraudulent drivers license case in Memphis, TN, had in his wallet, when arrested, a work pass for basement levels of the WTC, a couple of days before 9/11, which was fraudulent -- he told the police he was working on the sprinkler system, which the Port Authority of New York denied (they had a 24/7 large fire safety and sprinkler contractor, no one else was allowed to work on the sprinklers).

In court, his father presented a letter from Denko Mechanical claiming he'd been working for them in the WTC. Denko Mechanical existed only on paper in New York, had no record of any actual work projects in its year of existence before 9/11, and traced back to the Manhattan apartment of a Sergei Davidenko.

All defendants were released by the judge -- there was no further investigation -- there was no further investigation into the arson death of Katherine Smith the day before scheduled testimony, she was the Memphis clerk who gave out the phoney drivers licenses.

The two FBI agents involved both took early retirement. The Memphis reporter who broke the story is in the Washington Press Corps. The Memphis medical examiner went insane in a very public manner after declaring Katherine Smith's death a suicide -- an impossible verdict by any standards. One of the defense attorneys, a prominent Memphis attorney, Mr. Robert Friedman, was found shot through the head in a Memphis parking garage.

The hard questions: the judge who ignored all the patently disturbing and falsified evidence and released the defendants, without further investigation of the blaring discrepancies (like Denko Mechanical), is there any explanation other than orders from above? And the premature retirement of the two FBI agents involved, where might that have come from, except from above?

The Memphis reporter who transferred to the Washington Press Corps is interesting, but there could be other explanations. The failure to follow up on the "insane" (or frightened) medical examiner's conclusions about the death of Katherine Smith, which are ludicrous in light of the evidence -- suspicious, but there could be other explanations.

In the end, there is still no explanation, and no investigation, of Sakher Hammad's WTC work pass. How could that have happened, except from above?

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/SakherHammad_WTC_9-11.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:46 PM

121. firemen and policemen said wtc7 was going to come down

cnn said it would come down
cbs said it would come down and left a camera on it until it did
nist said it was a mystery why it came down
a mystery means that it could not be predicted
nist said that the collapse was unexpected
people like dan rather are recorded anticipating the collapse
nist declared that the cause of collapse was unknown in 2005
people like aaron brown are recorded anticipating the collapse in 2001
if a cause was yet unknown in 2005, it cannot have been predicted in 2001

there are two things that cannot both be true
an infrequent event was correctly predicted and the cause was unknown

if an infrequent event is correctly predicted then the cause is known
if the cause of an event is yet unknown, it cannot have been predicted
correct predictions of the collapse are recorded
it does not matter that every recorded prediction is second hand information, because they were correct
the cause could not be unknown
nist began an examination with a falsehood

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tiny elvis (Reply #121)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:53 PM

122. But the reasons for fearing a collapse are on record.

https://sites.google.com/site/911guide/danielnigro

Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tiny elvis (Reply #121)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 04:56 PM

123. That's apples and oranges

 

As Bolo Boffin said, the firemen could see that there was no way to save WTC7. They could hear it creaking. They could see it leaning. They saw the external damage caused by the North Tower. And they could not fight the fires with little water available.

NIST conducted a scientific study on exactly what brought WTC7 down: where did the collapse start, what was the collapse sequence, how much did the fires or damage from WTC1 play into the collapse, what fed the fires, etc.

NIST used eye witness reports, videos and pictures of WTC7 before and during the collapse, physical evidence from the rubble pile, etc, to determine the exact cause. It's a long scientific process. They needed to do the study to prevent a repeat collapse in the future.

Truthers seem to claim that the fire department conducted some kind of Jim Jones mass-murder suicide operation on 9-11, since over 300 firemen lost their lives - and all for what? Firemen are not chicken. They risk their lives saving the public from fires. So they cannot be coerced into taking part in any such mass-murder operation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #123)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 05:33 PM

124. someone with some authority said

that someone measured the failing
a demolition expert said that his man measured something and predicted collapse
nist said the collapse was unexpected and unexplained prior to nist's investigation
a photo showing failure at 5:00 would have been helpful and referential for nist
but not as helpful as explanations from authorities and experts who said they measured failure and predicted the outcome

if a plane flew into bad weather and our friends on the television told us it was going to crash
and it crashed within 100 miles (15 minutes) of tv predictions, where rescue and recovery had already been sent
and afterward the faa said the crash was mysterious and unexpected and could only be explained after investigation,
then only an authoritarian could believe the faa, because
if an unusual event is correctly predicted, then the cause of the event is known
a non recurring event cannot be predicted if the cause is unknown
and because an innocent party will credit another innocent party for making a right prediction
and ask the predictors how they knew

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tiny elvis (Reply #124)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 05:37 PM

125. I have posted why firefights though the building would fall

I have shown you why the predictors "knew." There's nothing mysterious about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tiny elvis (Reply #124)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 06:33 PM

126. Already asked and answered

 

The firefighters could see the structural damage to WTC7. They could hear it creaking, and they could see it leaning. Those are symptoms. The result of those symptoms was obviously going to be collapse, especially when they knew there was no way they could fight the fires.

Firefighters and NIST weren't exactly clueless of the weaknesses of WTC7, but they had no way of knowing the exact cause until a proper scientific study was completed.

NIST had to discover the exact weakness in WTC7's design to prevent a repeat collapse. Heavy debris from the collapsing WTC1 and subsequent fires exposed WTC7's design weaknesses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #126)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:28 PM

127. nist said the collapse was unexpected and unexplained prior to nist's investigation

the national institute makes no claim of what firefighters saw
the institute's report did not address predictions of collapse in any way

nist said the collapse was unexpected, but you disagree
because it is not true in any sense

nist said the collapse was unexplained prior to nist's investigation
and invisible even minutes before complete destruction
you disagree, because the nist report is only a bushist decree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tiny elvis (Reply #127)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:47 PM

128. Here's a real time video of a firefighter predicting WTC7's collapse

 

Last edited Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:41 PM - Edit history (1)



He is clear about why WTC7 will collapse. WTC7's collapse wasn't unexpected after it had sustained damage and caught fire. This is well documented.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #128)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:00 PM

129. the national institute of standards and technology disagrees with you

your unauthorized theories are as good as any amateur's
but i write here about provably false premises and conclusions from nist

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tiny elvis (Reply #129)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:05 PM

130. Clearly the collapse was "expected" the day of 9/11

There's video.

I've posted the letter from Daniel Nigro showing why they thought a collapse was possible.

Perhaps you better bring us a link and direct quote of NIST to figure out where you think the contradiction lies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tiny elvis (Reply #129)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 01:02 AM

132. Here's the link to the 2008 Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7

 

A link to the PDF report is on the lower right: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/

Tell us where in this report, or elsewhere, does NIST disagree with us. I could then know what you are talking about.

Initially NIST thought the damage caused by the debris might have played a part in WTC7's collapse. But through NIST's scientific process they determine it was only the fires started by the debris that caused the collapse. Any theories from NIST before the Final Report were only tentative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #132)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 02:15 AM

133. i thought maybe you read it

'NIST conducted a scientific study on exactly what brought WTC7 down: where did the collapse start, what was the collapse sequence, how much did the fires or damage from WTC1 play into the collapse, what fed the fires, etc.

'NIST used eye witness reports, videos and pictures of WTC7 before and during the collapse, physical evidence from the rubble pile, etc, to determine the exact cause. It's a long scientific process. They needed to do the study to prevent a repeat collapse in the future.'

you are as apt as i to review any part of it
your claims of what nist did are as well referenced as mine
regarding the op question, my claims are not explained away by my indolence

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tiny elvis (Reply #133)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 08:27 AM

139. Obviously you don't know what you're talking about

 

So how then can I know what you're talking about and do your research for you.

The burden of proof is on you since you're making a claim - whatever unknown claim that is.

I think you're being disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tiny elvis (Reply #124)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 12:33 AM

131. Hmmm, I seriously doubt that claim

> a demolition expert said that his man measured something and predicted collapse

LOL, no, not a "demolition expert"; the firemen:

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html


> nist said the collapse was unexpected and unexplained prior to nist's investigation

Unexplained, perhaps, but I seriously doubt that NIST claimed the collapse was "unexpected." Reference please. But anyway, I can't figure out what you're getting at: If NIST or anyone else had said anything like that, then they are simply wrong; mystery solved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #131)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:02 AM

141. Hmmmm...

The CTers constantly tell us that buildings don't just collapse because of fire. Yet, the firefighters are saying they could tell the building would fall because of telltale signs.

That alone says there is a body of knowledge and experience based on prior building collapses due to fire; fires far less violent and catastrophic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #123)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 08:31 PM

160. Who says WTC7 was leaning? FEMA doesn't say it was leaning. NIST doesn't say it was leaning.

 

There's no evidence that "Fireman Miller" (whoever that is) was ever even close to the building.

If it had been leaning it probably would have toppled instead of falling straight down.

What physical evidence from the rubble pile did NIST use?

Where do you get the idea that the firemen participated in a mass suicide? They went into the towers because they knew that modern high-rises do not collapse from fires. They refused to go into WTC7 because two witnesses had already reported explosions in there and a reconnaissance team found an elevator car blown out into the hall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Original post)


Response to Nathan_Hale (Reply #134)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 03:08 AM

135. I don't think you've got that quote right.

On the talk show, they said, denying they had been happy or celebrating, "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event."

Everybody with a camera pointed toward the Twin Towers that morning had the purpose to document the event. There's no reason to interpret this as saying they came from Israel TO document the event.

ETA: http://www.911myths.com/html/dancing_israelis.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #135)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 03:53 AM

136. Yes, my recollection was.....

 

slightly off...record the event, document the event. That's immaterial. The key word is purpose.

The translator seems very competent. You are implying that he made the mistake of saying 'purpose' when he meant to say 'intent' or 'reason.' Is there a reason to believe that the translator made a mistake such a mistake? I don't find it. I speak a foreign language fluently and I have asked others I know who speak other foreign languages and in every case, there are very different uses involving the word purpose as opposed to intent or reason. This is not a case of nuance.

Purpose (purpose: noun 1. the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc. 2. an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal. clearly implies) means intent & therefore foreknowledge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nathan_Hale (Reply #136)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 04:37 AM

137. No, not at all. There's enough intent AFTER seeing the towers attacked to document it.

And so "purpose" is still quite usuable. It's not nuance. Their purpose in filming was to document. No foreknowledge of the event is necessary.

Are you saying that having seen the towers attacked, setting up the cameras to film it would have been a purposeless act? Was everyone who began to film the towers so full of foreknowledge? No, that's silly.

ETA: I might note that your "key word" -- purpose -- wasn't present in your first post. Some key word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #137)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 06:20 AM

138. One can split hairs over....

 

purpose and without the context of a Hebrew transcript of the showor the resources of an expert in the Hebrew language, it's not really resolvable...after all, can anyone prove that the Israelis did not mean, "Our purpose (for being there) was to document the event?"

But, when you add the following facts (some from your reference):

1. The witness who reported their activities stated they were celebrating
2. They deny they were celebrating
3. Their van was registered to Urban Moving
4. FBI investigators later find the offices and owner of Urban Moving suddenly abandoned
5. Sources later impugn the witness' credibility, saying she was disgruntled with Urban Moving due to some past incident thereby implying she had a motivation to malign these individuals

and of course Nr. 6: The van was not marked. Police had to identify the van owner via the vehicle tags/registration. Therefore, the witness could not have known they were from Urban Moving so Nr. 5 bespeaks a smear campaign.

Now why would somebody go to all that trouble to discredit a witness?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nathan_Hale (Reply #138)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 08:33 AM

140. Actually, it is resolvable.

You honestly think that this person openly admited on national Israeli television that they had been sent there to record an event they had foreknowledge about. This is akin to people who think Larry Silverstein openly admitted to a PBS interviewer that he had had his building demolished.

It's quite absurd to think either thing, I hope you realize.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Original post)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 04:55 PM

150. just around 911 there was a story about stock trading for American Airlines

 

large short trades took place a few days before and someone made a mess o cash.

but for some reason that person/entity could not be identified

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread