Home | Community | Message Board

Cannabis Seeds - Original Sensible Seeds
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: OlympusMyco.com Olympus Myco Sterilized Grain Bag for Spawn   North Spore Injection Grain Bag   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]
InvisibleLuddite
I watch Fox News
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
9/11 doubters discard the truth
    #6067072 - 09/16/06 08:12 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

A Conspiracy Against Us All
9/11 doubters discard the truth.

By Andrew Cline


Five years after 9/11, the truth about what happened that day is more thoroughly documented and widely available than ever. And yet the crackpot conspiracy theories alleging that the Bush administration orchestrated the attacks or allowed them to happen have become more deeply entrenched and broadly accepted than at any time since that terrible day.

More than a third (36 percent) of the American public believes it is likely that the Bush administration either perpetrated the 9/11 attacks or deliberately failed to stop them “because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East,” according to a Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll released last month. A Zogby poll in August 2004 found that half of New York City residents believed the Bush administration knew the attacks were coming and “consciously failed to act.” The true believers might be a tiny fringe element, but thanks to the Internet, hack academics, and a passive media, they have succeeded in planting a grain of doubt in the minds of a substantial number of Americans.

The Internet is a brilliant vehicle for the dissemination of half-truths — or what only have the appearance of half-truths. Presenting one-sided versions of the story, which usually leave out mountains of available data, and armed with a few snapshots or video clips, conspiracy theorists have crafted page after page of “proof” of their theories.

For example, photographs showing dust and smoke shooting out of the towers as they collapse are cited on website after website as proof that the towers were brought down by explosions. The theory is reasonable enough, so long as you ignore all the available evidence — which is exactly what the theorists do. Numerous engineers who’ve studied the towers, and even ones who haven’t, have concluded that the puffs of smoke and debris are the result of air being pressed outward by the force of the top floors falling. It is really rather elementary: The physical space occupied by any office building consists mostly of air; if the top floors fall, where does the air in the floors below go? Out. There is no other option. Yet the theorists claim that this perfectly expected expulsion of air is proof that bombs were used.

The most prevalent theory is that the government brought the towers down by controlled demolition. This is what Brigham Young University physics professor Steven Jones, put on leave by BYU last week, believes — once again, despite the preponderance of facts showing otherwise.

Jones and his followers believe that the government placed thermite explosives in the buildings and brought them down by detonation. Never mind that thousands of pounds of explosives would somehow have to have been planted throughout the towers — in office space, behind walls, etc. — without anyone noticing. The “proof” of this theory is that the towers came down so quickly: The resistance of the lower floors would have slowed the collapse — unless, that is, the lower floors were exploded.

The video evidence clearly refutes this claim. The towers unquestionably collapsed from the top down, not bottom up. The force of the collapsing top floors, combined with the weakened steel below, were enough to bring the towers down remarkably quickly — almost in free fall, in fact.

A good example of the flimsiness of the conspiracy theories is the claim that a video shows “molten steel” falling from one of the towers. A jet-fuel fire is not strong enough to melt steel, so the picture “proves” that thermite explosives were used. The National Institutes for Standards and Training found was that the photo really shows melted aluminum from one of the aircraft. The theorists scream that melted aluminum is white, and the metal in question is clearly yellow, case closed. In its pure state, melted aluminum is white, but of course, it wasn’t pure when coming out of the towers. It was mixed with all the other burned debris, which changed its color.

The conspiracy theories rely on just that sort of thinking. They approach 9/11 as if it were a controlled scientific experiment: In theory, things are supposed to work in a certain way; because they did not, the official story cannot be true. Conspiracy theorists have little patience for facts of life, such as bureaucratic incompetence, human error, and extreme conditions. They tend to believe that the government functions at peak, even superhuman, levels. Their regard for the government — or at least, for the competence of the government — is particularly strange. The top conspiracy theorist, David Ray Griffin, claims the official story cannot possibly be true is because “such incompetence by FAA officials is not believable.”

The support of “academics” such as Griffin has lent much credence to the conspiracy mongers, but how credible are these academics? Last Wednesday Britain’s Daily Mail published a story claiming: “The 9/11 terrorist attack on America which left almost 3,000 people dead was an ‘inside job,’ according to a group of leading academics.” But the group in question, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, of which Griffin is the most prominent member, is in no sense a “group of leading academics.” It is a collection of like-minded crackpot theorists who happen to have some connection to academia.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth claims about 300 total members, 76 of whom have “academic affiliations,” according to its founder, retired University of Minnesota-Duluth philosophy professor James H. Fetzer. He told this to my newspaper, the New Hampshire Union Leader, last month when one of our reporters discovered that a University of New Hampshire professor was a member and wanted to teach a class on 9/11. The UNH professor, William Woodward, teaches psychology — not engineering or physics — is a Quaker pacifist previously arrested for demonstrating at the office of U.S. Senator Judd Gregg, and has a long history of left-wing activism. When asked by a reporter to explain his theory that the planes were not hijacked airliners, Woodward admitted that he could not account for the missing passengers who boarded their flights and never returned. Nonetheless, he was convinced that he was right — because the official 9/11 report left too much unexplained, he said.

That is how it usually is in the world of conspiracy theorists. It seems that they all claim the official story cannot be true because it has too many holes, yet goes on to posit a theory with holes large enough to, well, fly a jumbo jet through.

Some members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth are or were legitimate academics of good standing at reputable institutions. Yet, of the 76 Fetzer identifies as having “academic affiliations,” there are many with questionable credentials. A partial list includes a “visiting professor of English” at Kyungpook National University in Daegu, South Korea; an assistant professor of English literature at Dogus University in Istanbul; someone whose qualifications are listed only as “Radiology, Medical hypnosis”; another whose qualifications are “French language and culture”; someone who teaches at Tunxis Community College in Farmington, Conn.; another listed as “architect, communicator”; one professor of “English and theater” at the University of Guelph (that’s in Ontario); and one listed as “author, researcher 9/11, JFK, more.” These are some of the “leading academics” promoting the view that the government did 9/11. One author with an article posted on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website goes by the name “Scooby Doo.”

Of the 76 full members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, only four are listed as having backgrounds in physics, three in engineering; the other 69 “scholars” are mostly in the humanities and social sciences. Not quite what you’d expect when you hear that a group of “leading academics” supports the theory that the government was behind the attack.

What do the vast majority of actual engineers and investigators who’ve studied the attacks conclude? Not unexpectedly, that the towers and the Pentagon were attacked by airliners hijacked by radical Islamic extremists, and the towers collapsed as a result of the aircraft collisions and fires. Every major investigation, from the 9/11 Commission to a panel of experts assembled by Popular Mechanics magazine to the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), has come to the same conclusion. And yet more and more people continue to believe the handful of conspiracy nuts. Why?

The Internet bears some responsibility, of course. But the amateur speculation so prevalent there can be cancelled out to a large degree by top-notch investigative reporting, which is what the big media are supposed to do. In this, however, the media have been less than thorough, and, to a large extent, the 9/11 conspiracy theories have spread because the mainstream media have failed in their duty to get to the truth of the matter.

Popular Mechanics did an excellent job refuting the conspiracy theorists, as has the NIST. But their work has been little explored by the mainstream press. On top of that, media outlets have tended to do puff pieces on the conspiracy theorists rather than expose their shoddy research. Too many reports on the conspiracy nuts treat them as if their ideas are to be given the same consideration as the facts. The conspiracy theorists are given the standard J-school “fairness treatment.” Get a quote from Person A and another from Person B, present both sides evenly, and leave it at that. The Washington Post did exactly that in its piece on the conspiracy theorists last Friday. What ever the merits of that approach, it doesn’t work in this case.

None of the conspiracy theories can stand up to scrutiny; that they have stood up at all is mostly because the mainstream press has not given them any real scrutiny. The academics tend to be treated with the respect any other academic would get, and because they are professors the stories are made to read just like any other dispute between professors. But in reality, the scholars peddling the 9/11 theories are practicing almost entirely outside of their realm of expertise (e.g., Griffin, the theologian) and are an ultra-tiny minority dismissed as crackpots by the vast majority of the academic world, not to mention the world of engineering.

As a result, five years after nearly 3,000 innocent people were slaughtered by radical Islamic terrorists, and just as the War on Terror enters an important new phase in which President Bush has vowed to take on both al Qaeda and its allies, and Iran and its puppets, a third of the American people reportedly think the enemy is not the jihadists, who are trying to destroy us, but our own government, which is trying to defend us against the real threat.

This is a serious development. If people don’t understand who the real enemy is, if they doubt the very basis upon which our response to 9/11 was initiated, they are not going to support our necessary war against those who are trying to destroy us. One may have his doubts about the Iraq war; and the Bush administration, in its justification and execution, has earned a great deal of the skepticism about that conflict. But the War on Terror is another matter entirely. The skepticism about that has not been earned; it has been manufactured.

We cannot allow the truth of what happened on 9/11 to be clouded by the conspiracy nuts. America cannot afford to lose the will to fight this war.

— Andrew Cline is editorial page editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjc2MjZmOTI2YzM0M2ZjOTUwZWU4YWRiMjRlOTVjZGM=

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinebeatnicknick
The Innovator
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/25/05
Posts: 1,074
Last seen: 13 years, 5 days
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Luddite]
    #6067506 - 09/16/06 11:39 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Most of that article was based on assumptions. It's pure bullshit. It plays the card that all in the 9/11 truth movement believe the towers were brought down by a government demolition, when if fact the very oppisite is true. It also talks about all the people scholars, professors, and generally very intelligent people as being a minority of the academic community, which is suggesting that ~35% of college professors are whackjob crackpots that just make shit up and just go along with anything, and will stuggle hard to get the word out there because, you know, the have nothing better to do, being college professors and all.

I trust the way of the detective, by following motive back to the criminal. That's only half of it of course, motive, there are many different events on 9/11 and the days after that point towards government involvment.

The silly theories of the 9/11 truth movement, such as the bomb in the pentagon, were created by either extremists desperatley trying to wake up the other half of America, not realising they're damaging there cause, or by the other side, trying to throw in some nonsense here and there to make a generalisation about everyone in the 9/11 truth movement. Truth is, most of us don't go beyond the government's allowance of the attacks theory, which can be backed up with the report on Bush's desk about terrorists planning to hijack planes and fly them into buildings in New York, days before the attack. He did not bring any attention to it within the government or notify the public.

Then another part of that 50% of NY citizens, 35% of all Americans, believe the government had paid Osama to execute the attack, and this claim is backed by the simple fact of Osama's connections to the US government and the fact that the pentagon was hit in such a way that no serious damage was actually done to our government (those who don't know, the sector hit was being renovated for the past two years) even though supposably they supposably were attacking us because of our government, yet they really helped the government a shitload and the man behind it is now free, and when he is caught, something tells me he'll be chilling out in a mansion somewhere with American guards at the gates as CNN reports the death of Osama Bin Laden.


When something like 9/11 happens during such a dirty criminal's presidency, and then that already known dirty criminal gets what he wants and what he's been talking about, as a result, and then continues his unamerican acts with spying, signing statements, and corruptness on every level to as a result from having the attack, they continually show us reasons why they and how they (morally) could have caused it.

They screw up sometimes and really show it. For example, the famous "America is under attack" whispering in the ear of Bush, and almost as if he knew he wasn't in harms way, as if he knew no chemical, nuclear, or any sort of WMD was on its way, almost as if he knew what just happened, he sat there, for 5 minutes, reading my pet goat. A chemical weapon could have just swept through the nation and could be in his area, but for whatever reason, he didn't decide to find out.

Their mistrust within the people they rule continually deepens, last week spending $20 million dollars of tax payer money on following media reports about Iraq. Tax payer money well spent? Yes, it's not as deep of a crime, and cannot really (technically) be called a crime, especially compared to what they've done on 9/11 and in Iraq, but it just goes to show the tyranny will not end until we have justice and make an example out of this group.


--------------------
I don't think for myself. I think as though I'm explaining my thoughts to someone else. I'm concerned only for those listening.

Edited by beatnicknick (09/16/06 12:13 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: beatnicknick]
    #6067706 - 09/16/06 01:08 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

beatnicknick writes:

Quote:

Truth is, most of us don't go beyond the government's allowance of the attacks theory, which can be backed up with the report on Bush's desk about terrorists planning to hijack planes and fly them into buildings in New York, days before the attack.




Odd how you would start such an outrageous lie with the phrase, "Truth is..."

I have followed the whole 9/11 story as closely as anyone, and this is the first I've heard of any report available to Bush days before the attack stating terrorists were planning to hijack planes and fly them into buildings in New York. I am sure you will have no difficulty providing a link to a reliable source confirming said report.

Quote:

Then another part of that 50% of NY citizens, 35% of all Americans, believe the government had paid Osama to execute the attack, and this claim is backed by the simple fact of Osama's connections to the US government....




There you go again. You can stuff THAT "fact" back into the bodily orifice from which you pulled it, too. The only "connections" ObL had with the American government were his multiple attacks on American assets -- the WTC bombing in 1993, the African Embassy bombings in 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, for example.

Quote:

When something like 9/11 happens during such a dirty criminal's presidency and then that already known dirty criminal...




Please list for us Bush's criminal convictions. Thank you.

Here we see once again the unifying characteristic of the Truthers: it's not that they don't know anything, it's that they know so many things that aren't so.




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLuddite
I watch Fox News
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Phred]
    #6070254 - 09/17/06 10:10 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:


Here we see once again the unifying characteristic of the Truthers: it's not that they don't know anything, it's that they know so many things that aren't so.





aka paranoia (the psychopathological kind)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGabbaDjS
BTH
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/01
Posts: 19,682
Loc: By The Lake
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Luddite]
    #6070347 - 09/17/06 10:41 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Explain this then..

On that day several buildings fell to the ground. All of them were WTC buildings and ALL of them fell in a manner consistent with that of a controlled demolition..

Is that just coincidence?

Did anyone see building 7 go down? That was an OBVIOUS controlled demolition. No way could fires on just a few floors have brought down that building, that way. Its just not possible.


--------------------
GabbaDj

FAMM.ORG             

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Phred]
    #6070500 - 09/17/06 11:47 AM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
The only "connections" ObL had with the American government were his multiple attacks on American assets -- the WTC bombing in 1993, the African Embassy bombings in 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, for example.





what about the fact that both the carter and regan administration were funding
and training 'terrorist' cells in the middle east during the afgan/russian wars


did OBL have anything to do with 9.11?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGabbaDjS
BTH
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/01
Posts: 19,682
Loc: By The Lake
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #6070547 - 09/17/06 12:03 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

did OBL have anything to do with 9.11?




I doubt it. If he did and we were after him then I doubt that he would still be around..

We offer lots of money and a better way of life to capture guys like him and no way could he hide for this long, even within that faithfull group of his. Someone would have sold him out by now... Osama is just a puppet, like Hitler.


--------------------
GabbaDj

FAMM.ORG             

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: GabbaDj]
    #6070563 - 09/17/06 12:08 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

GabbaDj said:
Quote:

did OBL have anything to do with 9.11?



I doubt it. If he did and we were after him then I doubt that he would still be around..





the FBI seems to think he didnt, anyway we've had several chances to aprehend/kill
osama but havent taken any of them, he was in meetings with dignitaries and heads
of state from the mid east and europe, aparently it would look bad on those people
to be busted with osama

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledownforpot
Stranger
Male
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: GabbaDj]
    #6070914 - 09/17/06 02:37 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

GabbaDj said:
Explain this then..

On that day several buildings fell to the ground. All of them were WTC buildings and ALL of them fell in a manner consistent with that of a controlled demolition..

Is that just coincidence?

Did anyone see building 7 go down? That was an OBVIOUS controlled demolition. No way could fires on just a few floors have brought down that building, that way. Its just not possible.




How do you know what a controlled demolition looks like
?


--------------------



http://www.myspace.com/4th25


"And I don't care if he was handcuffed
Then shot in his head
All I know is dead bodies
Can't fuck with me again"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblezorbman
blarrr
Male

Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: GabbaDj]
    #6071093 - 09/17/06 03:42 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

No way could fires on just a few floors have brought down that building, that way. Its just not possible.

And your expertise in this field would be..?


--------------------
“The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.”  -- Rudiger Dornbusch

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: zorbman]
    #6071115 - 09/17/06 03:53 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

ever seen a building of concrete and steel burn?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblezorbman
blarrr
Male

Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #6071786 - 09/17/06 07:12 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

You may not have noticed, but there tend to be fires when tens of thousands of gallons of fuel are present near a plane crash.

Ok, I've wasted enough time on this thread.
Someone else can field these softballs.  :grin:


--------------------
“The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.”  -- Rudiger Dornbusch

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: zorbman]
    #6071807 - 09/17/06 07:15 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

yes, that is a given but have you seen concrete and steel collapse due to a fire?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #6071818 - 09/17/06 07:18 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
ever seen a building of concrete and steel burn?




Yeah, more than two. Although this may come as a surprise to you but they burn all the time here in NY. Amazingly enough, there are other elements of construction in those buildings. Like wiring. And heating. Shouldn't you be spending your time tilling fields and not concerning yourself with urban life?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: zappaisgod]
    #6071835 - 09/17/06 07:22 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

Prisoner#1 said:
ever seen a building of concrete and steel burn?




Yeah, more than two. Although this may come as a surprise to you but they burn all the time here in NY. Amazingly enough, there are other elements of construction in those buildings. Like wiring. And heating. Shouldn't you be spending your time tilling fields and not concerning yourself with urban life?




what happend when those buildings burned?

and dont try baiting me, I'm not a fool junior

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #6071933 - 09/17/06 07:50 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

I don't recall. None of them had jet planes full of fuel sticking out of them but they sure did burn.

And if you think that these buildings were brought down by controlled demolition you are exactly what you profess not to be. IT'S FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: zappaisgod]
    #6071951 - 09/17/06 07:55 PM (17 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I don't recall. None of them had jet planes full of fuel sticking out of them but they sure did burn.





at what temperature does concrete or steel ignight? are you sure it wasnt the
furnishings and finishings of the building that actualy burned?

Quote:

And if you think that these buildings were brought down by controlled demolition you are exactly what you profess not to be. IT'S FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE.





could you clarify this, it makes no sense to people that think rationaly

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #6072133 - 09/17/06 08:43 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

This is so sad, we have the WTC 7 debate every 3 days in this forum. But, I really love this community, so for its sake I'll go over again why WTC 7 was not a controlled demolition once more:

To begin with, the building did not collapse as a controlled demolition does. Infact, it listed to the South-East on its way down, and fell onto the building located behind it, to the South-East. This can be clearly seen by looking at the 2nd through 5th from-last photos on this page: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Furthermore, there is a history of buildings of similar construction collapsing under fire, the notable examples being the McCormick Place fire in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theatre in Pennsylvania.

It is also well documented that WTC 7 housed a power-generation substation for New York City, and as a result, had a massive diesel reserve for power generation purposes. It is this diesel that most likely caught fire and continued to burn for the 6-7 hours before the building came down.

Now, many conspiracy theorists point out to other buildings that have had similar construction and have burned for similar amounts of time and have not collapsed. However, none of these had anything close to the amount of damage that WTC 7 had.

Looking at the eyewitness account from Fire Captain Boyle, available here: http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

He describes a hole punched in the base of WTC 7 on the South side that is "about 20 stories high". This hole is also apparent in any photos taken of the South Side of the building. This level of damage is also consistant with other buildings within a similar radius of the Twin Towers, the Bankers Trust Building, for example, also had a hole roughly 20 stories high torn into its base. However, the other buildings did not house known diesel reserves, and at any rate did not catch fire.

When asked how widespread the fire was, Boyle states that at least a 3rd of the exposed floors were on fire, clustered around the middle of the hole, and we know that these fires burned for at least 6 hours.

Simply put: there are no other buildings in existence of similar construction to WTC 7 that have not collapsed after having 20-story tall holes punched in their base, then having caught fire on at least 6 floors, having subsequently burned for more than 6 hours, while debris was falling on top of them the entire time (this is also a concern listed by Captain Boyle, but one the conspiracy theorists usually don't mention).

You might find buildings that had 20-story holes punched in them (Banker's Trust), or buildings that caught fire and burned for more than 6 hours (La Plaza is usually mentioned), or even that caught fire across 6 or more floors that burned for more than 6 hours, but there are NO other buildings in existance that underwent the combined stress of 20-story-hole, 6-floors-on-fire, 6-hours-of-burning, and debris-constantly-hitting-building-top.

Edited by Economist (09/19/06 01:15 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: GabbaDj]
    #6073059 - 09/18/06 05:08 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Did anyone see building 7 go down? That was an OBVIOUS controlled demolition. No way could fires on just a few floors have brought down that building, that way. Its just not possible.




This is a perfect example of why I make fun of the Alex Jones conspiracy crowd.

> Did anyone see building 7 go down?

Nope. Everybody turned off their cameras and closed their eyes!

> That was an OBVIOUS controlled demolition.

Gee... I thought it was an OBVIOUS sneeze from the giant meatball in the sky. How many demolitions have you OBVIOUSLY witnessed first hand. My guess, ZERO.

It is a good thing science demands more than the OBVIOUS for proof since the OBVIOUS is usually misleading.

> No way could fires on just a few floors have brought down that building, that way.

Ah, now you are both a civil engineer and a fire arson investigator on top of being a building demolition expert and an explosives expert. You are GOOD... (more :rolleyes)

> Its just not possible.

Based upon your years of engineering school, your years of on the job engineering training, your years of high rise construction experience, your years of demolition experience, and your years of experience working as an arson investigator? Sorry, but I will wait for somebody with real credentials, rather than somebody that knows how to repeat what they saw on TV or heard on the radio, before trusting their opinion on what is or is not possible.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBlueCoyote
Beyond
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Seuss]
    #6082364 - 09/20/06 01:11 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

- irony on -
So controlled demolition is an easy job, because all buildings will naturally collapse in a controlled way ?
I didn't know that statics works this way.
I will have to close my windows and doors a bit more carefully :smile:
:eek:
- irony off -


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'

Edited by BlueCoyote (09/20/06 01:19 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleStroFun
Repeater

Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 977
Loc: Mycotopia.net
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #6082422 - 09/20/06 01:31 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

With Bush's track record i think i would believe Alex Jones before Bush

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesparks8
general freak
 User Gallery
Registered: 10/22/05
Posts: 443
Loc: Teegeeack
Last seen: 12 years, 4 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: StroFun]
    #6084772 - 09/20/06 10:54 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

in my opinion the pentagon attack offers the most questionable event of that day.
why such a small hole?
wheres all the debris?
why no solid video evidence? the 5 frames released are supposed to be irrefutable?
such a perfect hit, only inches from the ground. these guys were supposed to be novice pilots at best so i guess they were just really lucky?

I'm sure Ive missed all the obvious answers for these too. zappaisgod, phred care to enlighten us some more?


--------------------
buy the ticket, take the ride

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: StroFun]
    #6085546 - 09/21/06 04:56 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

> With Bush's track record i think i would believe Alex Jones before Bush

... and that is why "they" will win. In reality, there is no difference between Alex Jones and Bush... they are simply opposite sides of the same coin.

> in my opinion the pentagon attack offers the most questionable event of that day.

Funny, of all the events that day, the pentagon is the only one I am certain of. A friend of the family was in one of the offices that was half destroyed when the plane hit the building.

A quick search will bring up thread after thread that discusses all of your questions related to the pentagon attack in detail.

> why such a small hole?

Planes are built to be light and fly, not to hold together and punch through buildings. The wings are very thing aluminum, stretched over rib structures. Like an aluminum can, there just isn't much there.

> wheres all the debris?

Momentum carried most of it into the building, but if you look at the pictures, you will see bits and parts laying about. A better question, why should there be debris? Do planes normally rain down debrit before they land or crash into something?

> why no solid video evidence?

There is video evidence, though of poor quality. Remember, at 500MPH, the plane was moving over 700 feet per second... almost 2 and a half football fields per second... pretty damn hard to film something moving that fast on time lapse security cameras.

> such a perfect hit, only inches from the ground.

Video shows that the plane hit the ground and slid into the building. Not at all a perfect hit...


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: sparks8]
    #6085629 - 09/21/06 08:59 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Dude, you’re way behind. Even the wackiest conspiracy theorists don’t believe that one any more. Some of them are even calling the pentagon theories a “booby trap” for the “9/11 truth movement”. At least, they were a few months ago. I’m sure the movement has progressed further along down the bowels by now…

Edited by Viveka (09/21/06 11:41 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesparks8
general freak
 User Gallery
Registered: 10/22/05
Posts: 443
Loc: Teegeeack
Last seen: 12 years, 4 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Viveka]
    #6085919 - 09/21/06 10:13 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

so your friend was in the building, did he see the plane crash into it?
if the plane hit the ground at 500mph perfect enough to slide without breaking up thats pretty impresive flying i would say.

does the video show it sliding? i cant see a damn thing in those videos.

official pentagon video release

what about other cameras from nearby buisnesses.


--------------------
buy the ticket, take the ride

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: sparks8]
    #6086190 - 09/21/06 11:46 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

> so your friend was in the building, did he see the plane crash into it?

Friend of the family. I haven't spoken with him personally, so anything I state would be hear say from my parents... from what I have been told, he was literally in one of the offices that was half destroyed when the plane hit and there was no doubt in his mind that it was a plane. I do not know what exactly he saw to form that opinion. Again, this is what was repeated to me by people that spoke with him.

> what about other cameras from nearby buisnesses.

Reread my original post:

Quote:

Remember, at 500MPH, the plane was moving over 700 feet per second... almost 2 and a half football fields per second... pretty damn hard to film something moving that fast on time lapse security cameras.




--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: sparks8]
    #6086253 - 09/21/06 12:03 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

sparks8 said:
what about other cameras from nearby buisnesses.



They are the properties of those businesses, owned by their copyrights, and the government has no capacity to release them to the public.

If the businesses wanted to release them, they could, but the businesses have made no decision to release them.

Furthermore, it's been shown that the private business camera's most likely didn't have enough line-of-site to capture more than a few frames worth of the flight anyway. As seen in this photo: http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=Image:Citgo.jpg there's at least one very large building standing between the Sheraton and the Pentagon. While the view from the Citgo is unobstructed, by the Citgo management's own claims, their cameras all point slightly to the west of the Pentagon, so they wouldn't have captured more than a few frames, and the actual impact would be missing anyway.

The problem of the "small hole" was answered by the ASCE, who pointed out two key things missed by most conspiracy theories:
First the plane was impacting the ground as it was hitting the building, much of it ended up underground.

Second, the plane crashed into reinforced concrete support columns, and large chunks of it sheered off. This is both obvious from photos of wreckage all over the lawn, and from what was found inside the Pentagon.

Finally, claims about there being no wreckage in the Pentagon are just outright false. You can find photos of wreckage in the Pentagon everywhere, I recommend http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm as a place to get started.

This is basically why most conspiracy theorists have stopped harping on the whole Pentagon angle, the conspiracy theories about the Pentagon are based on outright bullshit.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesparks8
general freak
 User Gallery
Registered: 10/22/05
Posts: 443
Loc: Teegeeack
Last seen: 12 years, 4 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Economist]
    #6086310 - 09/21/06 12:21 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

large chunks of it sheered off. This is both obvious from photos of wreckage all over the lawn, and from what was found inside the Pentagon.
now thats some bullshit


--------------------
buy the ticket, take the ride

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: sparks8]
    #6086315 - 09/21/06 12:23 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

sparks8 said:
large chunks of it sheered off. This is both obvious from photos of wreckage all over the lawn, and from what was found inside the Pentagon.
now thats some bullshit



Do you have evidence that it's bullshit?

I have the American Society of Civil Engineers, photos of wreckage on the Pentagon lawn, and photos of wreckage inside the Pentagon all backing me up.

May I ask what evidence you have that this is all wrong?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesparks8
general freak
 User Gallery
Registered: 10/22/05
Posts: 443
Loc: Teegeeack
Last seen: 12 years, 4 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Economist]
    #6086406 - 09/21/06 12:43 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

show me one pick of large chunks on the lawn...or inside


--------------------
buy the ticket, take the ride

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: sparks8]
    #6086452 - 09/21/06 12:53 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Okay, you could have followed the links I put in my post, but since you seem to have trouble doing that...

Outside:


Inside:

(That's part of the landing gear, incase you can't tell)

It's also important to remember that large chunks which sheered off probably didn't stay intact after breaking off, aside from the larger pieces (which do exist) you also have to keep in mind that the plethora of smaller pieces are also relevant in the smaller size of the hole.

Finally, the ASCE findings also include reports that a lot of debris was found underground.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesparks8
general freak
 User Gallery
Registered: 10/22/05
Posts: 443
Loc: Teegeeack
Last seen: 12 years, 4 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Economist]
    #6086474 - 09/21/06 12:57 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)


Edited by sparks8 (09/21/06 01:00 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrAiN
Art Fag
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 8 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: sparks8]
    #6088252 - 09/21/06 08:42 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

The Pentagon is in the middle of a pretty urban area.. lots of people... But I suppose all the people who saw the Pentagon getting hit by a plane were just having some sort of mass hallucination.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Economist]
    #6089479 - 09/22/06 07:07 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Economist... you can argue common sense all you like, but the people that are convinced it was a conspiracy don't care... they will ignore the pictures, they will ignore the eye witnesses, they will ignore the journalists that were on site after the accident, they will ignore science, they will ignore the engineers, they will ignore the reports by the construction workers, and they will ignore common sense... because all of those things interfere with their warped reality. These people are not living in the real world, but rather they are living in a fantasy world that they created in their head.

To support the fantasy the conspiracy nuts have created, they will fixate on the tiniest details that seem out of place, while remaining oblivious to the mountains of evidence that would refute their claims. Even worse, the details that seem out of place, more often than not, only seem out of place due to ignorance on the part of the observer.

To top it off, there are many people that know the conspiracy theories are bullshit, and yet the publish books and give talks supporting the conspiracy all in the name of greed. Truely sickening.

Quote:






... and when they run out of fantasy facts and can no longer support their side of the debate, they resort to retorts as illustrated above.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesparks8
general freak
 User Gallery
Registered: 10/22/05
Posts: 443
Loc: Teegeeack
Last seen: 12 years, 4 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Seuss]
    #6091949 - 09/22/06 10:45 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

seuss if your not following the discusion at hand don't jump in with
your half assed, instantly rightous opinion.
sense you seem half interested but obviously need shit spelled out
for you; i asked him to show me a picture of the so called large
peices of debris. if you scroll up you can see what he could come up with,
which he himself seemed to admit werent large.

>>It's also important to remember that large chunks which sheered off
>>probably didn't stay intact after breaking off, aside from the
>>larger pieces (which do exist) you also have to keep in mind that
>>the plethora of smaller pieces are also relevant in the smaller
>>size of the hole.


--------------------
buy the ticket, take the ride

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 6 months, 28 days
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: sparks8]
    #6092073 - 09/22/06 11:15 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

If you aren't going to add anything to the debates in this forum but flames and ad hominems, you won't be welcome here for long.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesparks8
general freak
 User Gallery
Registered: 10/22/05
Posts: 443
Loc: Teegeeack
Last seen: 12 years, 4 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Redstorm]
    #6092093 - 09/22/06 11:24 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

redstorm my advise to you is the same as seuss.
if your not following the discusion at hand don't jump in with
your half assed, instantly rightous opinion.


--------------------
buy the ticket, take the ride

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: sparks8]
    #6092113 - 09/22/06 11:29 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Sparks8,

I said that large sections of the plane sheared off, I never said that they stayed intact after breaking off. I provided photo-evidence that large amounts of debris did infact break off.

You are trying to assert that an airplane (made mostly out of aluminum, mide you) will magically stay intact during an impact with a reinforced concrete building. The American Society of Civil Engineers, along with Popular Mechanics, disagrees with you. You have not provided any evidence that the plane would not sheer apart on impact, and you are choosing to ignore expert testimony and photos to the contrary.

Please provide some sort of evidence to back your assertion that aluminum-based plane would not have sheered apart when crashing into a reinforced concrete structure.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 6 months, 28 days
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: sparks8]
    #6092125 - 09/22/06 11:35 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Watch you mouth and use your brain, or like I said, you won't be in this forum for long.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesparks8
general freak
 User Gallery
Registered: 10/22/05
Posts: 443
Loc: Teegeeack
Last seen: 12 years, 4 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Redstorm]
    #6092168 - 09/22/06 11:45 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

>>I said that large sections of the plane sheared off, I never said
>> that they stayed intact after breaking off.

thats convenient.

and you showed 2 pics of single peices of debris. all told there are maybe 10 pics out there of possible debris, hardly what i would call "large amounts"

redstorm, if this forum is moderated by an ignorant bully like you then i couldn't give two shits about being here. fascist copper.


--------------------
buy the ticket, take the ride

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 6 months, 28 days
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: sparks8]
    #6092193 - 09/22/06 11:55 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

:lol:

I can't help it that I try to keep debate civilized around here. You are supposed to be 18 and up to register at this site, and if you can't act your age, that's not my problem.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: sparks8]
    #6092213 - 09/23/06 12:04 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

sparks8 said:
thats convenient.

and you showed 2 pics of single peices of debris. all told there are maybe 10 pics out there of possible debris, hardly what i would call "large amounts"



So, you don't have any evidence that the plane wouldn't break apart huh?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLuddite
I watch Fox News
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Economist]
    #6092711 - 09/23/06 09:08 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

The part of the Pentagon that was hit by the plane collapsed. You can't see the original hole that the plane flew through (at least on the outside wall). The hole conspiracy theory is bogus and just picking at straws by those who can't survive in a normal capitalist society. The people who believe in the conspiracy theories are parasites on society and try to attack the government hoping bits of food and money will fall out so they can suck it up with their parasitic proboscus.



Edited by Luddite (09/23/06 09:13 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLuddite
I watch Fox News
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Luddite]
    #6092721 - 09/23/06 09:17 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)


Edited by Luddite (09/23/06 09:18 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Luddite]
    #6093545 - 09/23/06 03:46 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

That link is really solid as well. And it comes from a conspiracy theory website.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Luddite]
    #6094662 - 09/23/06 11:07 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Luddite said:
Absolute indisputable proof that a plane hit the Pentagon on 911.





everything is disputable, thats why theres a thousand sites that claim it was a missle

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRogerRabbitV
Bans for Pleasure
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/26/03
Posts: 42,214
Loc: Seattle
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #6096514 - 09/24/06 06:54 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Perhaps you conspiracy theorists can do a few internet searches and watch the video of controlled demolitions. There's hundreds of old buildings being blown up and brought down on video.

Now, find one of them that the demolition started at the top, and then collapsed one floor at a time to the ground. They do the opposite, with the first floor being brought down first, then the rest of the building.

Another point: They don't just plant bombs in buildings to bring them down in a controlled demolition. They remove EVERYTHING from the building, then cut nearly all the way through the steel beams before planting the explosives. The explosives only cut the last 10% or so of each support. It would be impossible to do this in a 24/7 occupied building without notice.

As much as I hate dubya/cheney and would like to see them gone, I can't believe they were behind something like 911.
RR


--------------------
Download Let's Grow Mushrooms



semper in excretia sumus solim profundum variat

"I've never had a failed experiment.  I've only discovered 10,000 methods which do not work."
Thomas Edison

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 3 hours
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: RogerRabbit]
    #6097707 - 09/25/06 05:26 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Just think a little further next time. It's OK to challenge conspiracy theories, they should be tested and questioned. But some thinking should be done before firing off objections.
Quote:

RogerRabbit said: Now, find one of them that the demolition started at the top, and then collapsed one floor at a time to the ground. They do the opposite, with the first floor being brought down first, then the rest of the building.


Of course, in uncontroversial, admitted controlled demolitions, they do it that way. But what conspiracy theorists imply, is that things were made to look like the towers fell from the plane impacts. There were several possible ways to achieve that. Either start detonations at the impact level, where the difficulty is of course to be sure of the exact impact level beforehand. Another would be to detonate the central support column at the lowest level, so that the towers would rest only on their outer steel frames, which would most probably snap at their weakest point, i.e. the impact level.
It's not because the collapse of the twin towers didn't look exactly like a classical, commercial controlled demolition, that controlled demolition by explosives can be ruled out. The argument doesn't stand. If you use your argument, you have to admit WTC7 was controlled demolition, because it started collapsing from the bottom.

Quote:

Another point: They don't just plant bombs in buildings to bring them down in a controlled demolition. They remove EVERYTHING from the building, then cut nearly all the way through the steel beams before planting the explosives. The explosives only cut the last 10% or so of each support. It would be impossible to do this in a 24/7 occupied building without notice.


Same flaw here. They do this for economical reasons in commercial demolitions, to do it in a clean way and with a minimum of explosives. Does that mean it can't be done differently, without cutting the beams before and with heavier charges to do all the cutting? I doubt it.

Do try again, by all means, but refine your thinking.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Aldous]
    #6099111 - 09/25/06 04:09 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

That was quite the non sequitur rebuttal, despite your repeated afirmations of the importance of thinking things through.

Quote:

The argument doesn't stand. If you use your argument, you have to admit WTC7 was controlled demolition, because it started collapsing from the bottom.




No, you would not have to admit that.  That's a glaring error of logic.  RR stated controlled demolitions are initiated from the bottom.  That does not mean that every building that collapses from the bottom was brought down by controlled demo.

Quote:

Does that mean it can't be done differently, without cutting the beams before and with heavier charges to do all the cutting? I doubt it.




As it is, any one arguing that a huge series of controlled demolition detonations were set off without being detected by a large number of eyewitnesses and video evidence is going out on a very long, very thin limb.  But to argue that some sort of unprecedented demolition was executed in which none of the usual preparation was done, yet it still achieved the desired effect AND did not alert a large contingent of people as the hundreds of much larger than normal cutter charges detonated all around the building, that's just plain rediculous. 

Furthermore, if "A New Pearl Harbor" was the desired effect of perpetrating such a heinous crime, wouldn't the planes flying into the towers have been enough?  Or do you think all the sentiment that sent us to war would have been quelled by the thought that "Well, it's really not that big of a deal, it's not like the buildings collapsed.  Only a few hundred people died.  We'll let this one slide."

Or let me guess, they had to destroy all the computer evidence contained in the towers right?.  Because none of the transactions at the WTC occur on a network.  Or better yet, they had to create a big enough distraction to make a clean getaway with all the  GOLD they stole from beneath the towers.
:rofl:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 3 hours
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Viveka]
    #6101562 - 09/26/06 02:51 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Viveka said:
As it is, any one arguing that a huge series of controlled demolition detonations were set off without being detected by a large number of eyewitnesses and video evidence is going out on a very long, very thin limb.


Both the large number of eyewitnesses and the video evidence do exist. If you want to look away, that's your problem.
Quote:

But to argue that some sort of unprecedented demolition was executed in which none of the usual preparation was done, yet it still achieved the desired effect AND did not alert a large contingent of people as the hundreds of much larger than normal cutter charges detonated all around the building, that's just plain rediculous.


I didn't address this above, but the alleged preparation (cutting through 90% of support beams) seems largely overestimated. I'd like some sources on that (I know, you're not the one who asserted that, you're not the one I'm asking either). Much of the preparation goes into simply emptying the buildings and stripping them from easy to remove stuff that would make unneeded rubble. Moreover, don't forget about the use of thermite or thermate, of which there are strong indications. Thermite and its variants don't detonate.

Quote:

Furthermore, if "A New Pearl Harbor" was the desired effect of perpetrating such a heinous crime, wouldn't the planes flying into the towers have been enough? Or do you think all the sentiment that sent us to war would have been quelled by the thought that "Well, it's really not that big of a deal, it's not like the buildings collapsed. Only a few hundred people died. We'll let this one slide."


Probably the planes would have been enough, that's right. There must be other reasons apart from the psychological impact of the collapses (which is real, though), and different as well from those you ironically offer. Only, I'm not going to speculate here. In my view, many aspects of the attacks are impossible to reconstruct because reality is certainly much more complex than what the official story offers, and probably more complex as well than most alternative theories imagine.
I don't claim to know why controlled demo would have been preferred over just plane impacts. There is some interesting speculation going around about that, but it's still speculation. All I can see is that according to all the elements we've got (witness reports, videos, motives, opportunity, etc.), the core of the alternative scenarios (government involvement, controlled demolitions) is more likely than the official story. It's not because there are gaps in the alternative theories that the official story suddenly becomes the only possible truth. The official story is one large gap in itself.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Aldous]
    #6101746 - 09/26/06 05:11 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

> but the alleged preparation (cutting through 90% of support beams) seems largely overestimated.

Actually, it is underestimated (misunderestimated for the Bush crowd). In an controlled explosives demolition, 100% of the I-beams must first be cut... twice, per beam. Also, every beam that is to be cut by explosives must have two explosive charges placed on the beam and the two charges must detonate at exactly the same time!

Before somebody decides that I am an idiot based upon the above (duh, if you cut all the beams, what keeps the building from falling), please be aware that an I-beam can be cut twice and still remain intact. The two cuts are done along the top and the bottom for the "I" leaving only the center section in tact. The explosives are used to cut the center section.

> Much of the preparation goes into simply emptying the buildings and stripping them from easy to remove stuff that would make unneeded rubble

This is true of any demolition, not just one that uses explosives. There is much more done to weaken a building for an explosives demolition than simply emptying out the easy to remove stuff.

> Only, I'm not going to speculate here.

Ok, then don't.

> but the alleged preparation seems largely overestimated. (speculation)
> Much of the preparation goes into simply emptying the buildings and stripping them from easy to remove stuff that would make unneeded rubble. (speculation)
> Thermite and its variants don't detonate. (speculation and incorrect)
> Probably the planes would have been enough, that's right. (speculation)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrAiN
Art Fag
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 8 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: sparks8]
    #6101769 - 09/26/06 05:40 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

sparks8 said:
redstorm my advise to you is the same as seuss.
if your not following the discusion at hand don't jump in with
your half assed, instantly rightous opinion.




You mean like how you did here after an already long string of posts:

Quote:

sparks8 said:
in my opinion the pentagon attack offers the most questionable event of that day.
why such a small hole?
wheres all the debris?
why no solid video evidence? the 5 frames released are supposed to be irrefutable?
such a perfect hit, only inches from the ground. these guys were supposed to be novice pilots at best so i guess they were just really lucky?

I'm sure Ive missed all the obvious answers for these too. zappaisgod, phred care to enlighten us some more?




Or are you just being pissy because you were given blatant evidence which proved you wrong?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHank, FTW
Looking for the Answer

Registered: 05/04/06
Posts: 3,912
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Luddite]
    #6102483 - 09/26/06 09:52 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Anytime a crime is committed, the most logical question to ask when looking for the perpetrators is; Who stands to gain?

Now you tell me who stands to gain....|

19 hi-jackers, that will lose their lives, and create massive havoc for the Islamic world, by way of retaliation.

OR

Bush and company, who will have a pretext to invade oil rich countries, and get the ball rolling on things like the patriot act. Also, the man who owned the WTC made a considerable profit from that morning.

Not proof of anything, just another point.


--------------------
Capliberty:

"I'll blow the hinges off your freakin doors with my trips, level 5 been there, I personally like x, bud, acid and shroom oj, altogether, do that combination, and you'll meet some morbid figures, lol
Hell yeah I push the limits and hell yeah thats fucking cool, dope, bad ass and all that, I'm not changing shit, I'm cutting to to the chase and giving u shroom experience report. Real trippers aren't afraid to go beyond there comfort zone "

:rofl:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 6 months, 28 days
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Hank, FTW]
    #6102491 - 09/26/06 09:56 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

I would certainly say eternal salvation and making a mockery of Great Satan while killing several thousand infidels would be considered priceless.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHank, FTW
Looking for the Answer

Registered: 05/04/06
Posts: 3,912
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Redstorm]
    #6102944 - 09/26/06 12:08 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

True, and while suicide bombings are a way of life for these people, I also question how they could pull something like this off. There is a very high level of sophistication needed, that I think such people could pull this off so successfully.

Also, why did NORAD stand down that morning?

Why were there drills going on for the exact same event that was taking place IRL.

Too many questions that I have not had answered to my satisfaction.


--------------------
Capliberty:

"I'll blow the hinges off your freakin doors with my trips, level 5 been there, I personally like x, bud, acid and shroom oj, altogether, do that combination, and you'll meet some morbid figures, lol
Hell yeah I push the limits and hell yeah thats fucking cool, dope, bad ass and all that, I'm not changing shit, I'm cutting to to the chase and giving u shroom experience report. Real trippers aren't afraid to go beyond there comfort zone "

:rofl:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 3 hours
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Seuss]
    #6103264 - 09/26/06 01:35 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Gee, I wonder why, but I'm kinda reluctant, when it comes to demolitions, to take the word of someone who once speculated, completely out of his ass, that WTC7 could have been brought down by remote controlled bulldozers.  :crazy2: Talk about common sense...

And can you show me a link to a detonating thermite reaction please?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Aldous]
    #6103340 - 09/26/06 01:45 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Both the large number of eyewitnesses and the video evidence do exist. If you want to look away, that's your problem.



Bullshit and bullshit. How many of those quotes are taken out of context or are something like "It sounded like a bomb" "It went boom boom boom, like explosions" etc, etc. Those aren't evidence of controlled demolition. I've read through the testimony of over 80 firefighters and guess how many said that they thought they might have seen flashes like explosives? One. He saw flashes toward the bottom of the building before it came down. Proof of controlled demolition? Honestly? 1 out of 80? And let's keep well in mind that eyewitness accounts are by far the weakest form of evidence available.

What video evidence? There is none! You mean the puffs released from a few windows? What a joke if you think that's proof of controlled demolition.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Viveka]
    #6103573 - 09/26/06 02:27 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

> Why were there drills going on for the exact same event that was taking place IRL.

Unfortunately, you are being mislead a bit. There were multiple drills going on that day, but they were being held by two different areas of the government.

An intelligence branch of the government, the NRO (think spy satellites) was running a drill to "explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building." The drill was scenario was a small corporate jet accidentally crashing into the one of the NRO's headquarter buildings after experiencing a mechanical failure. Immediately upon learning of the events that were taking place, the NRO canceled the drill.

Another drill, known as Global Guardian was taking place in the military (SAC, AF, and NORAD). The drill is done every year, in September or October. The drills main purpose is to test the military's command and control procedures in the event of a nuclear war. At the same time, a second drill is done by the NORAD, known as Vigilant Guardian, in which a threat to North American airspace is simulated. This years scenario was an attack by a Russian bomber.

I don't know where you are getting the bit about NORAD standing down... what exactly did they supposedly "stand down" from? What does it mean for NORAD to stand down? This sounds to me like it comes from a conspiracy nut that saw the movie War Games one too many times.

NORAD immediately canceled all of the drills and switched to the "real world" when they learned what was going on. It took approximately 30 seconds for them to realize that the calls they were getting were not part of the drill. The response by NORAD was actually faster because they were running a drill. Everybody was already "in mode" when the 9/11 attack occurred and simply switched from drill to reality. Nobody had to be called in, etc, as they were already at their stations as if an attack were taking place.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Aldous]
    #6103596 - 09/26/06 02:31 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Gee, I wonder why, but I'm kinda reluctant, when it comes to demolitions, to take the word of someone who once speculated, completely out of his ass, that WTC7 could have been brought down by remote controlled bulldozers.




When you can no longer support your position in the debate, you resort to ad hominem. Typical.

> And can you show me a link to a detonating thermite reaction please?

No, but feel free to google it yourself. The key is particle size and overall shape. Also, detonate is not the same as explode. Any comments I made towards thermite would have indicated explode, not detonate.

Edit: For those that are confused, I made a statement in a previous post in this thread about thermite exploding. However, as the section was not really related to the topic at hand, and because my claim about thermite exploding is difficult to reference, I immediately deleted the section from my post. Obviously, it was read within the minute or two that it took me to edit.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Edited by Seuss (09/26/06 02:38 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Hank, FTW]
    #6103847 - 09/26/06 03:21 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

alpharedecho said:
Bush and company, who will have a pretext to invade oil rich countries, and get the ball rolling on things like the patriot act. Also, the man who owned the WTC made a considerable profit from that morning.




I just wanted to comment on this because it's been brought up time and again, despite being false.

Silverstein was able to lease the WTC site from the Port Authority for 99-years at a cost of $3.22 Billion. (You can read about this here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3601/is_39_47/ai_74942372 )

This was despite the fact that the Towers had a "depreciated value" of $3.5 Billion, because there was supposed to be some profit in the deal (not counting rents and such) this amount was calculated by the NYC Comptroller's office, and you can read about it here: http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov/bureaus/bud/reports/impact-9-11-year-later.pdf

However, the comptroller also points out that the cost of replacing the buildings would be $6.7 Billion.

Now, if Silverstein collected the maximum standard insurance amount, based on the policies he had, he would be entitled to $3.5 billion. This, as pointed out by the NYC Comptroller, wouldn't even be enough to rebuild the towers, and if he just collected the money and left, he would be taking a loss, because he can't collect rents from buildings that no longer exist.

So, Silverstein took the insurance companies to court in an attempt to collect $7 Billion. This amount would have been roughly consistant with his initial investment (he would come out ahead about $ 0.3 Billion, only it would be 7 - 6.7, instead of 3.5 - 3.2), but he would still be able to collect some amount of rent once the buildings were rebuilt.

However, a jury decided that he could not collect the $7 billion he was asking for (you can read that here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/29/attacks.insurance/index.html ) and while he won an additional decision, it was only for an extra $1.1 Billion (you can read that here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/06/wtc.trial/index.html ), which is a far cry from the extra $3.5 Billion he was asking for, or even the extra $3.2 Billion he would need to reconstruct the site ( 6.7 - 3.5 = 3.2 )

As a result, Silverstein has been forced to sell bonds (i.e. take out loans) in order to finance reconstruction.

Finally, when you look at Silverstein's other holdings (he owns 4 other high-profile buildings) and you consider how much rents have decreased in NYC as a result of companies and individuals fleeing post-9/11, it's clear that Silverstein LOST quite a bit of money over the entire fiasco.

So, no, Silverstein did not gain anything from 9/11

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Economist]
    #6104010 - 09/26/06 04:00 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

> So, no, Silverstein did not gain anything from 9/11

But what about WTC7? Didn't he make money from destroying that building?

(I don't mean to sound crass. This is something I have heard in rebuttal to your points above. I'm curious to the answer and I my ignorance in economics would shine if I tried to argue the point.)


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Seuss]
    #6104040 - 09/26/06 04:07 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

The lease and valuation numbers produced by the NYC Comptroller's office are for the entire complex (WTC 7 included), so the aforementioned numbers don't change, and he still came off losing money.

I know the conspiracy theorists say that Silverstein said "Pull it" when asked what to do about WTC 7, and interpret this to mean "destroy the building" instead of "pull the fire-fighting effort out".

I don't really understand how that could lead to a profit, because he would still be losing money on the entire site.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHank, FTW
Looking for the Answer

Registered: 05/04/06
Posts: 3,912
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Economist]
    #6104125 - 09/26/06 04:41 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

He spent 3.5 billion on the buildings. Received 7 billion in insurance. What am I missing here?

Is he forced to pay for the reconstruction, of the buildings that won't be the same?

You don't take out record setting insurance policies and lose money, imo. I am certain many details have been left out of the public eye.

Silverstein sure made a good gamble there, only 2 months on the policy, wow.


--------------------
Capliberty:

"I'll blow the hinges off your freakin doors with my trips, level 5 been there, I personally like x, bud, acid and shroom oj, altogether, do that combination, and you'll meet some morbid figures, lol
Hell yeah I push the limits and hell yeah thats fucking cool, dope, bad ass and all that, I'm not changing shit, I'm cutting to to the chase and giving u shroom experience report. Real trippers aren't afraid to go beyond there comfort zone "

:rofl:

Edited by alpharedecho (09/26/06 04:43 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Hank, FTW]
    #6104362 - 09/26/06 05:50 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

alpharedecho said:
He spent 3.5 billion on the buildings. Received 7 billion in insurance. What am I missing here?



Clearly you didn't read the links I posted. The maximum amount he was ruled eligible to recieve was $5 Billion, and that is still in litigation, so he might recieve even less, meanwhile the reconstruction cost estimates top $6 Billion.

Furthermore, he was expected to recieve rents from all the tenants in the buildings for the duration of the 99-year lease, i.e. the investment was going to MAKE him money. However, we know from as early as 2002 ( http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/07/20/palmer.otsc/index.html ) that the lease itself became worthless (i.e. lost money for Silverstein) if the site did not generate income via rents. Even at the maximum payout, the insurance money would run out before the lease would.

Like it or not, Silverstein has, at this point, lost quite a bit of money compared with where he would be had 9/11 never happened.

Quote:

alpharedecho said:
Is he forced to pay for the reconstruction, of the buildings that won't be the same?



He's had to take out bonds to finance reconstruction, this is in the public record, and again, you could have read it in the links I posted. Furthermore, the $6.7 Billion reconstruction estimate is based on cost to construct square footage, NOT to build replicas of the towers.

Indeed, the actual construction costs will probably be higher once the additional aspects (the park, the memorial, etc.) are taken into account.

This was all in the NYC Comptroller's report which I already posted the link to.

Quote:

alpharedecho said:
You don't take out record setting insurance policies and lose money, imo. I am certain many details have been left out of the public eye.




So, despite evidence and math to the contrary, in your opinion he has not lost money. I just don't even know where to begin.

Do you have anything to back this opinion up with, do you have numbers or facts to prove he has not lost money? I would really love to see them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHank, FTW
Looking for the Answer

Registered: 05/04/06
Posts: 3,912
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Economist]
    #6104510 - 09/26/06 06:32 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

As reported in The Washington Post, the insurance company, Swiss Re, has gone to court to argue that the 9/11 disaster was only one attack, not two and that therefore the insurance payout should be limited to $3.55 billion, still enough to rebuild the complex.

Update: WTC Leaseholder May Collect Up To $4.6B

A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes. The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports. [Forbes.com 12/06/04]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein.html

So you are telling me, he is going to be made to pay more than the buildings were worth, because he was supposed to collect rent? I am not following. He would be made to rebuild something at the cost of 6 billion, when he paid 3.5 billion to LEASE it. I will believe that, when I see it.


--------------------
Capliberty:

"I'll blow the hinges off your freakin doors with my trips, level 5 been there, I personally like x, bud, acid and shroom oj, altogether, do that combination, and you'll meet some morbid figures, lol
Hell yeah I push the limits and hell yeah thats fucking cool, dope, bad ass and all that, I'm not changing shit, I'm cutting to to the chase and giving u shroom experience report. Real trippers aren't afraid to go beyond there comfort zone "

:rofl:

Edited by alpharedecho (09/26/06 06:33 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHank, FTW
Looking for the Answer

Registered: 05/04/06
Posts: 3,912
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Hank, FTW]
    #6104523 - 09/26/06 06:34 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Also, if he is forced to take out bonds, for the reconstruction, will he hold any ownership to these new structures?

I refuse to believe he is losing money in all this, call it a hunch.


--------------------
Capliberty:

"I'll blow the hinges off your freakin doors with my trips, level 5 been there, I personally like x, bud, acid and shroom oj, altogether, do that combination, and you'll meet some morbid figures, lol
Hell yeah I push the limits and hell yeah thats fucking cool, dope, bad ass and all that, I'm not changing shit, I'm cutting to to the chase and giving u shroom experience report. Real trippers aren't afraid to go beyond there comfort zone "

:rofl:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Hank, FTW]
    #6104639 - 09/26/06 06:58 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

alpharedecho said:
So you are telling me, he is going to be made to pay more than the buildings were worth, because he was supposed to collect rent? I am not following. He would be made to rebuild something at the cost of 6 billion, when he paid 3.5 billion to LEASE it. I will believe that, when I see it.



You're using bad math, and you clearly still haven't read the NYC Comptroller's report, which would have cleared all of this up.

Imagine that the buildings are a car, if that makes it easier for you. A car decreases in value over time, a car that you bought new for $10,000 5 years ago may only sell for $2000 today. However, if you lose your car and have to buy a new one (these are buildings, so buying it used is out of the question) you will have to pay more than the $2000 cost of your old car.

Quoting from the NYC Comptroller's report:
"The WTC Towers - $6.7 billion. The WTC Twin Towers (WTC Nos. 1 and 2) were built
for about $1 billion in the early 1970s. This is nearly $5 billion in 2001 dollars, so that the WTC
inflation-adjusted book value, using straight-line-depreciation with 30 percent of its life used up
(30 years of a 100-year useful life), would be $3.5 billion. But on a replacement-value basis, i.e., the cost in 2003 to rebuild the WTC complex of 13.4 million square feet (sf) at $500/sf would be
$6.7 billion."

So, he paid $3.5 Billion for buildings that were worth $3.5 Billion, BUT just like buying a new car if your old one stops working, the cost to replace is quite a bit higher than the "book value".

He also isn't *made* to pay anything. He could just sit back and let the site stay empty. However, that would result in him losing his initial investment, which he paid for by taking out loans. Silverstein didn't just have $3.5 Billion sitting around, he borrowed most of it, his biggest loan came from the GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corp. in the amount of $800 million. He borrowed from smaller amounts from several different sources to make up the rest, again this is all on the public record (and was available in the links I posted earlier).

When you take out a loan, you have to pay back *MORE* than the amount borrowed. Thus, even with the insurance payouts, Silverstein would end up in the hole *unless* he builds something on the site capable of generating revenue, i.e. collecting rent.

So...I'll ask again, do you have ANY evidence whatsoever that Silverstein made money, or are you refusing to believe the available evidence out of sheer faith?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Hank, FTW]
    #6104701 - 09/26/06 07:12 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Also, this link:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein.html

Is total bull. Nowhere there do they have any reports about the valuation of the towers, nor do they have estimates for rebuilding, they simply assert that $3.5 Billion would be "more than enough" without siting any evidence.

Furthermore, they issue contradictory quotes. On the one hand, they claim that a year's worth of revenue from the site would be $200 million, but we know that Silverstein's lease only required him to pay $100 million a year, and yet they also claim that the investment wasn't worthwhile. $200 million in revenues, with a leasing cost of only $100 million, sounds pretty worthwhile to me.

Also, the Business Week quote is taken from a book written in 1999! You can follow the link, if you don't believe me. Talk about out-of-context, especially since the Port Authority reworked the renting scheme to make the building profitable in 2000! (you can read about that here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3601/is_39_47/ai_74942372 )

So, what have we learned about the authors of whatreallyhappened.com?

1) That the authors are good at taking things out of context
2) That the authors are bad at math

Edited by Economist (09/26/06 07:18 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHank, FTW
Looking for the Answer

Registered: 05/04/06
Posts: 3,912
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Economist]
    #6104746 - 09/26/06 07:22 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

I understand now.

However, I will wait to see what is spent on the new WTC, out of Silverstein's pocket.

Don't you find it curious, the timing of the purchase and insurance policies. I guess that's what captivated me, there are no coincidences! lol


--------------------
Capliberty:

"I'll blow the hinges off your freakin doors with my trips, level 5 been there, I personally like x, bud, acid and shroom oj, altogether, do that combination, and you'll meet some morbid figures, lol
Hell yeah I push the limits and hell yeah thats fucking cool, dope, bad ass and all that, I'm not changing shit, I'm cutting to to the chase and giving u shroom experience report. Real trippers aren't afraid to go beyond there comfort zone "

:rofl:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 6 months, 28 days
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Hank, FTW]
    #6105289 - 09/26/06 09:38 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

There certainly are coincidences.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Redstorm]
    #6106016 - 09/27/06 04:55 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

> I understand now.

Woot! I think I understand as well... which is amazing considering how my brain turns off whenever money is mentioned. Thanks Economist!

> I guess that's what captivated me, there are no coincidences!

This is actually a good point. If one steps back and looks at the events of 9/11 as a whole, as portrayed by the conspiracy crowd, there are just too many coincidences for it all to have "just happened". However, when one starts to toss out the misleading statements and outright lies used by the conspiracy crowd, the coincidences, for the most part, start to go away.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 3 hours
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Seuss]
    #6107501 - 09/27/06 02:19 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
When  you can no longer support your position in the debate, you resort to ad hominem.  Typical.


Sure I did here, and legitimately so.

From Wikipedia:
Quote:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy. [...] In contrast, an argument that instead relies (fallaciously) on the positive aspects of the person arguing the case is known as appeal to authority.


You started it by using appeal to authority: you state things about controlled demolition without substantiating them at all, so I guess I'm supposed to believe you on your word, since you're such an expert. At this point, I remembered a thread where you talked out of your ass about precisely the same subject, controlled demolition. I just reminded you of that, and I maintain that I won't believe these claims, provided they remain unsubstantiated, especially knowing you made them. Ad hominem indeed, but justified in this case, I don't see a logical fallacy. Once bullshit always bullshit, unless you substantiate. Seems fair to me.

Talking about experts, this is what I wrote in a thread about a year ago:
Quote:

Show this footage [the collapse of WTC7] to any expert, and he will call it a brilliant job.


You may have missed this thread, in which it appeared I was exactly right. The footage was finally shown to a *genuine* expert, and much to his dismay, he had to admit the collapse of WTC7 could only be controlled demolition [i.e. he first didn't know about the whole story, the dismay only came when he learned of the implication of what he had said; but read through the thread]. Surprisingly, this particular thread didn't seem to attract that much attention. Go figure...  :confused:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Aldous]
    #6107713 - 09/27/06 03:07 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Aldous said:
You may have missed this thread, in which it appeared I was exactly right. The footage was finally shown to a *genuine* expert, and much to his dismay, he had to admit the collapse of WTC7 could only be controlled demolition [i.e. he first didn't know about the whole story, the dismay only came when he learned of the implication of what he had said; but read through the thread]. Surprisingly, this particular thread didn't seem to attract that much attention. Go figure...



I think you might be misinterpreting what he actually said.

The conclusion reached by the expert is "I can't explain it".

While he initially believed it could have been a controlled demolition, his evidence for this is that the building collapsed at its base, not higher up. However, when he was told that the building collapsed only 7 hours after the plane crashes, he said that it would take hard work and a large team to get that done. When he was further told that the building was on fire, he said he couldn't explain how a controlled demolition could have been pulled off under those circumstances.

Furthermore, the expert did not appear to be adequately informed by the news team.

He sites the collapse from the bottom as his reasoning for a controlled demolition, however the news team does not tell him about the 20-story impact hole in the base of the building (as stated, he had no information about the building beforehand, he had to be told later that it was on fire). A large hole, complete with fires, near the base of the building, could easily explain why the collapse appeared to originate at the bottom, which is the same conclusion that other experts, namely NIST, reached.

He is also shown video of the collapse from an angle that neither shows the fire nor the impact hole. The video is also taken from street-level looking upwards, so he misses another crucial piece of evidence that was hidden because of the angle of the film: the first part of the building to collapse was actually the penthouse. This is apparent when the building is viewed from another angle, as seen in the TNN news footage on this page: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

But, none of you have to take my word for it, you can watch the video yourself, and draw your own conclusions, it's available here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI

Edited by Economist (09/27/06 03:14 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Aldous]
    #6108480 - 09/27/06 06:31 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

> Sure I did here, and legitimately so.

Heh... I thought you were referring to me in the thread reference, but see from Economist's post that I misread. My apologies.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 3 hours
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Economist]
    #6110051 - 09/28/06 02:20 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Economist said:
I think you might be misinterpreting what he actually said.


No, I'm not. I actually have more info than the video presents. The makers of the program had a discussion on a Dutch forum and answered many questions. They gave a few off camera comments the expert made. Someone from the forum also called the expert afterward.

Quote:

The conclusion reached by the expert is "I can't explain it".


What he can't explain, is how the demolition could have been prepared. When he makes this comment, he isn't even aware yet that some people argue that it was prepared before 9/11.

Quote:

While he initially believed it could have been a controlled demolition, his evidence for this is that the building collapsed at its base, not higher up. However, when he was told that the building collapsed only 7 hours after the plane crashes, he said that it would take hard work and a large team to get that done. When he was further told that the building was on fire, he said he couldn't explain how a controlled demolition could have been pulled off under those circumstances.


... but he still maintains it was controlled demolition. That's also why this was among the final conclusions of the program. If he had withdrawn his initial conclusion, they would have said so. Instead, they clearly stated that after close scrutiny, one can only conclude WTC7 was brought down by explosives and that further inquiry is urgently needed. And mind you, these people are unbiased journalists, not wacky conspiracy nuts. They came into this with an open mind. BTW, their conclusions on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon tend to go along with the official story, so obviously they weren't looking for a conspiracy here.
Also, if you read further in the same thread:
Quote:

On a more general note, someone spoke to the demolition expert after the TV broadcast, and it's remarkable to see the same thing happening as with Van Romero. He's a bit upset about all the fuss his comments have elicited, and says there's no reason at all to doubt the official story. He even says he remembers the media coverage at the time of the attacks clearly stated the building had been voluntarily brought down as a precaution, although he himself admitted this would be extremely difficult under normal conditions, and implied it was impossible with the base of the building on fire. Of course, he's not telling the truth, since - allegedly except for Silverstein - no-one ever officially stated that the building had been demolished on purpose to avoid worse damage or whatever.


... and he didn't remember WTC7 in the first place before he was asked his opinion about it.
That's the interesting thing about it: even after he had been fully briefed about the circumstances, he refused to alter his conclusion of controlled demolition. Instead, he preferred to make up a memory of a media version that never existed. As I said, nobody wants to be the expert challenger of the official story, and I can understand them. Therefore, I think the program makers used exactly the right strategy in initially withholding information. It allowed the expert to judge impartially, without knowing what he's supposed to see or conclude. When the bias of possible implications comes into the picture, they tend to step back from their initial, unbiased conclusions (see Van Romero).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Aldous]
    #6110678 - 09/28/06 09:50 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

I just don't understand your argument.

By your own admission, the expert stated explicitly that there was no reason to doubt the official story.

Furthermore, I still see no comment whatsoever from the expert after he was shown the 20-story hole in the base of the building. Simply saying "it was on fire" isn't enough. I want to see his reaction when he was shown images of a 20-story hole in the base of the building with fires on at least 6 floors.

You would rather believe that either "fear" or "conspiracy" got to the expert than take his final word which was, according to you, "There is no reason to doubt the official story".

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 3 hours
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Economist]
    #6111412 - 09/28/06 01:13 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Except that, according to him - and there he's either mistaken or deliberately distorting facts - the official story says it was controlled demolition planned on the spot for the sake of precaution. Please read everything I wrote.

Apparently (but I wasn't there, I only have what the program makers said on the Dutch forum), he was given all the available info after his initial conclusion of controlled demolition, and he never took it back. I don't know if they made him read the complete NIST preliminary report or not, but it seems they gave him enough to base a thorough conclusion on. Which he obviously had trouble with.

Whichever way you're trying to spin this, the expert's conclusion was: obvious controlled demolition. I'm sorry about that.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Aldous]
    #6112172 - 09/28/06 04:31 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

The spin is all yours. The "official story" never asserts controlled demolition of 7WTC. It's your interpretation of a Silverstein quote that asserts that.

There should be a :grasping at straws: emoticon.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Aldous]
    #6112186 - 09/28/06 04:36 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Aldous said:
Whichever way you're trying to spin this, the expert's conclusion was: obvious controlled demolition. I'm sorry about that.



Except that "obvious controlled demolition" is itself a spin.

The reality (from the news program) was that he couldn't explain how it could be done. You're claiming that the Dutch forum gave him all the facts, but in the clip from the show, they explicitly don't tell him about/show him the huge hole in the base of the building.

Finally, if he stated "there is no reason to doubt the official story" then I don't see where you're going from there. Are you saying they gave him a bad version of the official story? If they are, then they did not infact give him "all the facts". No matter how you look at it, something's wrong with taking his word that it was a controlled demolition.

Either they didn't give him all the facts, and as a result he assumed it was a controlled demolition which he believed, again without all the facts, to be what took place.

Or, they did give him all the facts, which would inherently include the NIST report, and he responded that there was no reason to doubt the official story, which was that it wasn't a controlled demolition.

I find it impossible to see how they could show him "all the facts" without showing him the official story.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 3 hours
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Viveka]
    #6114121 - 09/29/06 01:04 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Can't you read, or do you misread me on purpose?

I never stated the official story asserts controlled demolition of WTC7. That's what the expert said, and I said that was strange, since he also asserts that it was the version that was officially given immediately after the attacks. It is also strange because he was given all useful information, which did include that the official story was collapse from damage and fire.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 3 hours
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Economist]
    #6114180 - 09/29/06 02:43 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Economist said:
Except that "obvious controlled demolition" is itself a spin.
The reality (from the news program)


I told you there is more than just the program.

Quote:

You're claiming that the Dutch forum gave him all the facts,


The forum gave him nothing, he never was on it. The program makers were on the forum to answer questions from viewers, and someone from the forum called the expert on the phone to ask him questions directly. Gee, you guys really have a hard time getting things straight.

Quote:

Finally, if he stated "there is no reason to doubt the official story" then I don't see where you're going from there. Are you saying they gave him a bad version of the official story? If they are, then they did not infact give him "all the facts". No matter how you look at it, something's wrong with taking his word that it was a controlled demolition.

Either they didn't give him all the facts, and as a result he assumed it was a controlled demolition which he believed, again without all the facts, to be what took place.

Or, they did give him all the facts, which would inherently include the NIST report, and he responded that there was no reason to doubt the official story, which was that it wasn't a controlled demolition.


That's precisely why I said the guy's behavior is very strange. Let me recap.

He says he never heard about WTC7, and from his comments, obviously hasn't.
They show him the footage, and he says it's controlled demolition.
They say OK, but do you know it happened on the same day?
He says wow, that's quick.
They say yes, but not only that, the base had been on fire all day.
He says wow, then I can't explain that (meaning: how they could plant the explosives that day).
End of story... ON THE PROGRAM.
They then tell him the whole story, how some people think it was destroyed with explosives planted well before as part of an inside job, this being denied by the official story which says damage and fire.
He says he stands by his conclusion: controlled demolition.
That is why that same conclusion was listed as part of the general conclusions of the program.
Someone calls him for details, and he says he never wants to hear about it anymore, he's never going to comment on WTC7 anymore. He's puzzled by the fuss that's made around it, and says: there's no reason to doubt the official story; I now clearly remember the news reports at the time that said WTC7 had been demolished by explosives for the sake of precaution.
End of story.

Whatever he thinks the official story is, he knows that what he "now clearly remembers" as having allegedly been reported by the media at the time is impossible according to his own conclusion. And in the same sentence, he says that's what people should believe.
Also: he clearly makes those memories of media coverage up, since they never existed and he clearly had never heard of WTC7 at the beginning of the program.
The punchline is: "I never want to hear about this anymore, I never wanted to get trapped in this kind of controversy, and I explain it away with false pretenses before making it go away forever." Sounds like he ducks for cover, it's just a panic reaction.
But: he never changed his conclusion.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 3 hours
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Viveka]
    #6114188 - 09/29/06 02:56 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Viveka said:
I've read through the testimony of over 80 firefighters and guess how many said that they thought they might have seen flashes like explosives? One. He saw flashes toward the bottom of the building before it came down. Proof of controlled demolition? Honestly? 1 out of 80? And let's keep well in mind that eyewitness accounts are by far the weakest form of evidence available.


Seems like you read selectively. These accounts are from the Oral Histories published by the NYTimes: "A rich vein of city records from Sept. 11, including more than 12,000 pages of oral histories rendered in the voices of 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians".

Quote:

Rich Banaciski—Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
We were there I don’t know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.
Greg Brady—E.M.T. (E.M.S.) [Battalion 6]
We were standing underneath and Captain Stone was speaking again. We heard—I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center.
Ed Cachia—Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]
It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down. With that everybody was just stunned for a second or two, looking at the tower coming down.
Kevin Darnowski—Paramedic (E.M.S.)
I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.
Karin Deshore—Captain (E.M.S.)
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.


These are listed alphabetically, and we're only at D here. Feel free to search them all, with non selective eyes.
Some of those are pretty specific, aren't they? Just go and tell Captain Deshore her quotes are taken out of context or are something like "It sounded like a bomb".

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineheadieherbs
originalgangster (oflove)
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/27/06
Posts: 523
Loc: around the bend
Last seen: 16 years, 5 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Luddite]
    #6114198 - 09/29/06 03:10 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Luddite said:

More than a third (36 percent) of the American public believes it is likely that the Bush administration either perpetrated the 9/11 attacks or deliberately failed to stop them “because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East,”

MAN FUCK YOU.... we don't claim to know the truth like you, we're just trying to make people realize that there are some major discrepencies in what the government told us... and DUDE there are people higher up than Bush's retarded ass that would have been responsible for this if anything....

SOOOOOOOO ANYWAYS..... why did the US stop looking for Osama so suddenly and decide to go to war with Iraq (regardless of the WMD info which was obviously propaganda from the beginning?)

What are you going to say when we invade Iran? Will your quote still be relevant?

Face it..... War is a business and fear is a powerful control factor....

I'd also like to add that you yourself are more than likely a conspirer if you frequent this website... maybe you should stop watching fucking fox news while your tripping so your goddamn brain will stop getting washed and reprogrammed

PEACE! and im out :mushroom2:


--------------------
please don't take away my highway shoes..

Write In Your Vote.com - US Politics. For the People, by the People.


Everything posted by the user(s) Headieherbs is either an outright lie or a work of complete fiction

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 3 hours
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Economist]
    #6114245 - 09/29/06 03:53 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Look what I just found about Danny Jowenko, our demolitions expert. Apparently he changed his mind about not wanting to comment on it anymore. Some debunkers called him to provide him with the full info that would certainly turn him around. Alas, he stood by his conclusions:
Quote:

I then called Jowenko Inc posing as a reporter for the Washington Post (my bad, but hey I figured I might get an on-the-record comment) To my amazement I was put right thru to Mr. Jowenko. He's a very nice gentleman who speaks great english. I told him that WTC7 burned extensively and had a gaping 20 story hole in it...I told him just about all I knew of the building from my own research. The fires fed by fuel tanks...the arangement of the columns to accomidate the pre-existing Con-Ed substation....

The guy then went on the record saying that he thinks that "due to the intelligence operations housed in that building it was brought down by a controlled demolition"

That my friends is a direct quote from his mouth to my ear about 5 mins ago!

I'm rather stunned! They picked one off!



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Aldous]
    #6115489 - 09/29/06 01:05 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

I really respect that some people attempted to do independent research, but I'm just not impressed.

What we now have is a single expert, who to the best of anyone's knowledge still has not seen the NIST report (I very much doubt anyone communicated it in its entirety to him via the telephone, that would be more than an 8-hour conversation), has changed his story at least once, and whose statements (aside fromt he initial "I can't explain it") are only available second-hand.

Meanwhile, we have large groups of experts at NIST and the ASCE who have studied the evidence (not just a video, but the actual remains) and have reached the conclusion that it was not a controlled demolition. These are people who have gone on record as saying so first-hand, and whose story has not changed.

Now, weigh the evidence, who would you believe?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 3 hours
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Economist]
    #6115736 - 09/29/06 02:11 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Economist said: I still see no comment whatsoever from the expert after he was shown the 20-story hole in the base of the building. Simply saying "it was on fire" isn't enough. I want to see his reaction when he was shown images of a 20-story hole in the base of the building with fires on at least 6 floors.


Wow, so when it turns out that everything you thought is wrong, suddenly the expert isn't interesting anymore.
Quote:

What we now have is a single expert, who to the best of anyone's knowledge still has not seen the NIST report (I very much doubt anyone communicated it in its entirety to him via the telephone, that would be more than an 8-hour conversation), has changed his story at least once, and whose statements (aside fromt he initial "I can't explain it") are only available second-hand.




Quote:

Meanwhile, we have large groups of experts at NIST and the ASCE who have studied the evidence (not just a video, but the actual remains) and have reached the conclusion that it was not a controlled demolition. These are people who have gone on record as saying so first-hand, and whose story has not changed.


Call me paranoid, but in a regular criminal case, it's common and pretty obvious to leave aside an expert's report if said expert is in any way related to the suspect. Mind you, no-one is accusing the expert of deliberately forging a bogus report, it's just that his natural interest could impair his scientific impartiality in a mostly unconscious way. And therefore it's generally accepted and standard practice to hire *independent* experts.

Similarly, I'm not accusing NIST researchers to be in on a plot of some kind, it's just that they know the right answers before they start looking for it. This reminds me of a cartoon I recently saw (maybe on this forum?), about the difference between the scientific method ("Here are the facts, what is the conclusion?") and the political method ("Here is the conclusion, what facts can we find to support it?") for writing reports.

Imagine you suspect the Iranian government of enriching uranium for military purposes. Are you going to be satisfied when the Iranian Atomic Agency releases a report stating that after thoroughly reviewing all the nuclear facilities in the country, one can conclude this suspicion is baseless? Of course not. You won't believe any Iranian agency, not even the Iranian Human Rights Bureau (if such exists) for that matter. You logically want an independent, international investigation by, say, the IAEA. Iran is not a credible source in this matter.

It's the same with the very grave accusations of 9/11 being an inside job. Imagine a world where such a suspicion *could* be true. If you suspect the US government of staging the attacks, how could you be satisfied with reports to the contrary written by any government-related agency? You couldn't.

How does this translate to the actual WTC7 NIST report which is in order here? Well, no-one really knows, since all we've got for the moment is a provisional report, the full version is expected only next year. But let me give you an example I found in the provisional report. You are, of course, familiar with the video excerpt showing alleged "squibs" on the south-west corner of the building. Well, reading the provisional WTC7 report by the NIST, I was impressed with the details they're going into. Clearly, they want to do away with the sketchy impression left by both the FEMA report and the 9/11 Commission report. So they go to great lenghts to describe every tiny event noticeable in the collapse of WTC7. A window popping out here, a crack appearing there, all with timings accurate up to hundredths of a second. And strangely, these controversial little puffs are missing in these descriptions.

This is just an example, of course, but it illustrates the difference between a political report and a scientific report. And clearly some political reports are very skillfully disguised as scientific ones. Again, I'm not saying the NIST scientists are in on any plot. They just knew the right answers before starting, and are almost automatically blocking out that which doesn't fit in. Hardly scientific. The true scientific method was the one used by the Dutch program makers: introducing someone who's fresh and unknowing of the details.
(And yes, I know NIST have a "conspiracy FAQ" in which they purport to debunk almost every conspiracy theory (except they don't even try to explain the molten metal), but that's part of the game, they still leave out inconvenient elements.)

So, is there any possibility of a truly independent investigation? I don't know who should be in charge of it, and honestly, I doubt there will ever be one.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Aldous]
    #6115824 - 09/29/06 02:38 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Aldous said:
Wow, so when it turns out that everything you thought is wrong, suddenly the expert isn't interesting anymore.



The only proof I have that "everything I thought is wrong" is from second hand sources, including yourself.

I don't have any proof that the expert actually saw the NIST report, I don't have any proof that he was ever told about the gaping hole in the building, I don't have any proof that he said anything beyond "I can't explain it".

You claim to have this proof based upon forum posts, and an unconfirmed phone call.

Clearly I can't argue with you on what you know, so there's no point in continuing that string of debate. That does not mean, however, that I accept everything you're saying.


Quote:

Aldous said:
And therefore it's generally accepted and standard practice to hire *independent* experts.



So, are you claiming that the American Society of Civil Engineers are not independent experts?

When the preliminary report of the NIST was made available in 2005, the members of the 2002 ASCE team were asked for comment, and they concured with the report. This is available on the ASCE's website.

The ASCE is not a branch of the government, and is frequently called upon to provide exactly the kind of independent testimony to which you are referring. In the case of WTC 7, they concur with the NIST findings.

Quote:

Aldous said:
Similarly, I'm not accusing NIST researchers to be in on a plot of some kind, it's just that they know the right answers before they start looking for it.



Can you back this up at all?

Do you have any proof that the NIST began with the conclusion that the tower fell on its own and then searched for evidence backing that up, instead of the other way around?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Aldous]
    #6116817 - 09/29/06 08:46 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Man oh man. I don't even know where to start at this point. Let's look at this first:

Quote:

Viveka said:
I've read through the testimony of over 80 firefighters and guess how many said that they thought they might have seen flashes like explosives? One. He saw flashes toward the bottom of the building before it came down. Proof of controlled demolition? Honestly? 1 out of 80? And let's keep well in mind that eyewitness accounts are by far the weakest form of evidence available.

Aldous said:
Seems like you read selectively.




Then you proceeded to list several instances that you claimed you searched out of the New York Times Firefighter oral history compliation, but in reality all you did was regurgitate some stuff from 911review.com, with a little selective editing, to make it appear as if you had really done the work. But I'll get to that later.

As for your suggestion that I read selectively, I'm inclined to say it was you who did that. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't catch my meaning. I said I only found one instance of a firefighter claiming what he saw was the flashes like explosives, as in explosives placed in the building. But all the instances you posted, were people who had seen explosions or flashes, but never explicitly claimed that they were from explosives. Explosions, sure. Flashes, of course. Shit was getting ripped up, no doubt about that.

Quote:

Some of those are pretty specific, aren't they?




Yes, none of them specifically indicate that the eyewitnesses believed it was explosives.

Quote:

Greg Brady—E.M.T. (E.M.S.) [Battalion 6]
We were standing underneath and Captain Stone was speaking again. We heard—I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center.




3 loud explosions. No surprise there. I'm sure there were lots and lots of sounds occuring that could be referred to as loud explosions when the WTC was in the process of coming down.

Quote:

Kevin Darnowski—Paramedic (E.M.S.)
I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.




More of the same. And only three? If this were a series of charges designed to rapidly bring down a 110 story builidng, wouldn't there be hundreds?

Quote:

Ed Cachia—Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]
It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down. With that everybody was just stunned for a second or two, looking at the tower coming down.




OK, now we've got more booms. But wait, did Ed say the building gave at a lower floor, meaning the tower collapsed not from the point of impact but lower down(?), because clearly the tower collapsed from the point of impact. And is he saying he thought that because of what he heard? I think it's safe to say the picture he's painting is not so clear.

Quote:

Karin Deshore—Captain (E.M.S.)
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.




Ok, Karin's description is a bit more graphic and I'll admit, intriguing. Her account was not in the link I used when I scoured the firefighters statements here http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_01.html . So she saw alot of initially orange then red flashes popping and exploding all around the building. So you think these were the controlled demo charges? Why does she describe explosions that keep getting bigger? I thought the way controlled demo works is that the support structures are cut so the building collapses under its own weight? Why then would she be describing explosions that keep getting bigger? I'm trying to visualize what she is describing but this is very speculative given the nature of eyewitness evidence. Lots of filters of perception involved here. When she says "with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see" I can't tell is she means an explosion is emitted from the building or if its a flash of light she's talking about. I don't know if she means an explosive blast "goes all around the building" or if she means a series of flashes travels all along the surface of the building. Can you tell me exactly what she means? This sort of speculation can be intriguing, but honestly, is it worth much in the way of evidence?

Quote:

Rich Banaciski—Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
We were there I don’t know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.




Don't really know what to tell you about the belt description, see my assertions above regarding Karin's statement. Frankly, I've been working on this post/research for a few hours now and I'm a bit tired of it, if you want, we can dig into these eyewitness accounts later, though I'm not sure how, regardless of how much we speculate, any of these third hand records of perception boil down to hard evidence.

But I'm so glad you qouted Rich Banaciski, because if you had actually read his account, rather than pasting that particular excerpt from 911review.com, you would have seen how much light he sheds on the whole farce about 7WTC later on:

"They told us to get out of there because they were
worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it,
coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon
building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom
corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over
to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up.
Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was
tremendous, tremendous fires going on.

Finally they pulled us out. They said all right,
get out of that building because that 7, they were really
worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they
regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and
West Street. They put everybody back in there.

Finally it did come down. From there - this is much
later on in the day, because every day we were
so worried about that building we didn't really want to
get people close. They were trying to limit the amount
of people that were in there. Finally it did come down.
That's when they let the guys go in."

Does that put "pull" in more of a context now? Also, notice his mention of "tremendous, tremendous fires".


But hey, none of these even matters right. You settled it yourself in another post:

Quote:

Here are the results:
The Twin towers: According to Danny Jowenko, the controlled demolition expert, those towers fell by themselves, because the collapse started at the impact points, and explosives placed there would have detonated at 300°C, i.e. on impact of the planes. Some scientists on the team argued that a spontaneous thermite reaction could have taken place with ingredients present in the building.





The expert said it, must be true. Case closed, right?

Edited by Viveka (09/30/06 02:36 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]

Shop: OlympusMyco.com Olympus Myco Sterilized Grain Bag for Spawn   North Spore Injection Grain Bag   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Prominent barking moonbats who don't buy official 9/11 story ekomstop 1,150 4 10/29/04 03:32 PM
by silversoul7
* Aversion to conspiracies somebodyelse 1,459 15 07/03/03 01:49 PM
by DoctorJ
* your local PD as 9/11 commission... Annapurna1 700 6 10/05/04 01:15 PM
by ekomstop
* Why the media's conspiracy theory is better than yours
( 1 2 all )
ekomstop 4,265 31 09/23/04 03:27 PM
by ekomstop
* The September 11 X-Files wingnutx 1,483 9 08/17/03 01:34 AM
by BleaK
* Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fact'
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
ekomstop 17,550 176 09/28/04 12:14 AM
by ekomstop
* Gore Vidal claims 'Bush junta' complicit in 9/11
( 1 2 all )
Eightball 2,324 24 10/29/02 09:54 AM
by Xlea321
* Fahrenheit 9-11 is textbook disinfo AhronZombi 565 6 07/14/04 09:07 AM
by whiterasta

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
7,149 topic views. 1 members, 8 guests and 14 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.063 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 14 queries.