Just In Case You Wondered What Would Happen...
If you called up the FBI and tried to report that it was an inside job and you had irrefutable proof that you'd seen in a movie called Loose Change and gotten from JohnDoeX at the Pilots for Denial forum ... well, here's a guy who tried it. Warning, do not listen to this with food or liquid in your mouth, as it will be on your keyboard and monitor.
Been awhile for our Nutbar-O-Meter, but this occasion deserves it:
posted by Pat @ 9:51 PM
185 comments
Comment |
185 Comments:
http://www.911bloglines.com
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/911truthling_watch002.html
9/11 Truthling Infiltration Watch Pt.2:
How Bodyguards Fetzer/Wood/Mattingly/Reynolds sold out for DoubleSpeak and Orwellian STARWARS Axis of Evil (Draft v.2)
By ewing2001
December 6, 2006
Time is valuable these days and by putting too many thoughts on hold, it produces the risk of "racing" too much and i don't wanna do this.
Pt.2 of "9/11 Truthling Infiltration Watch" will continue to put the facts as boldly on the table as they *are*. (Pt.1 is here)
First of all, let me continue by describing my own strategy of "re-infiltration"
and destabilization concept at 911blogger.com.
Pt.1 was furthermore an analyis of competing coup d'etat concepts which try to take over at ny911"URANTIA"truth.org.
NOTE:
In case you are a 9/11 Truthling, no matter if you believe me or not, but i *personally* don't want to become a leader at ny911.
I also don't wanna waste time with distraction concepts like fruitloopers, gatekeepers, trolls, hangouters, mid center shills or dupes at the bottom.
The 9/11 perps and 9/11 MIT perps tried to keep us busy with these kind of 9/11 truthlings during the first years after 9/11, to not destabilize the TOP too quickly.
The current, meanwhile clearly Orwellianized TOP is Griffin, followed by ProfJones, Bowman and Hoffman, followed by Attorney Floum (st.911, 911blogger.com) and ProfJones' supporters and truthlings at the most dynamic news portal of the 9/11 "truth" movement, at 911blogger.com
911blogger meanwhile basically behaves like another CULT, by building so called "truthers",
though it's still a helpful news platform to analyse hangout crap from Jonathan Gold or John Albanese.
(Photo: Gatekeeper and Pakistan Hangouter Paul Thompson, dupe Peter Dale Scott,
"god" Cultist Dr. David Ray Griffin, and Dupe Jonathan "Mega Hangout" Gold)
THE 9/11 TRUTHLING BORDER
The 9/11 Truthling Border is very important for the 9/11 MIT Perps, functionalizing as a protection 'buffer zone' to the Orwellian Elite.
Floum aka GeorgeWashington helped building this border anonymously at 911blogger.com, before we outed him some weeks ago.
Concept: The more brainwashed truthlings, the stronger the Truthling Border.
Or speaking with a LouDobbs analogy: Make sure to call everyone of the immigrants "terrorists" or "disinfo". ...
more at
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/911truthling_watch002.html
And what does all that have to do anything?
Oh that's glorious.
I haven't felt so sympathetic towards the FBI since The X Files. :>
That dudes sounds like someone doing a parody of a nutjob toother.
Is that for real?
That dude is on some serious drugs!
WAIT A SECOND!!
COULD THAT BE!!!
BG, PD, SD?
DYLAN?
LYTE?
WAAAAAAKE UP AMERICA 9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!!!!
This seems like a good time to post this:
Remember when you ran away
And I got on my knees
And begged you not to leave
Because I'd go berserk?
Well. . .
You left me anyhow
And then the days got worse and worse
And now you see I've gone
Completely out of my mind
And. . .
They're coming to take me away, HA HA
They're coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those nice, young men
In their clean, white coats
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!
You thought it was a joke
And so you laughed
You laughed when I had said
That losing you would make me flip my lid
Right. . .
You know you laughed, I heard you laugh
You laughed, you laughed and laughed
And then you left
But now you know I'm utterly mad!
And. . .
They're coming to take me away, HA HA
They're coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
To the happy home
With trees and flowers and chirping birds
And basket weavers who sit and smile
And twiddle their thumbs and toes
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!
I cooked your food
I cleaned your house
And this is how you pay me back
For all my kind, unselfish loving deeds?!!
Hah. . .
Well you just wait
They'll find you yet
And when they do they'll
Put you in the ASPCA, you mangy mutt!
And. . .
They're coming to take me away, HA HA
They're coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those nice, young men
In their clean, white coats
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!
To the happy home
With trees and flowers and chirping birds
And basket weavers who sit and smile
And twiddle their thumbs and toes
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those nice, young men
In their clean, white coats
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!
Yes that guy is real, he's a no planer named Nico Haupt.
He sets the ultimate bar for crazy.
A concerned and active citizen, you must be proud.
You guys are awesome. Where do you find this stuff?
What a fooking idiot :D
How is this imbecile's cell phone bill proof of anything?
It is good to know Iraq is an "illusion", perhaps this clown can reproduce everyone who was killed there.
He is right he is a nobody.
"Democrat", if someone called you claiming to have evidence that the Earth was flat, would you feel obligated to listen to them ramble for a half hour?
The strange thing is that these are probably among the saner calls that come into the published lines for the Air Force/FBI.
"Democrat", if someone called you claiming to have evidence that the Earth was flat, would you feel obligated to listen to them ramble for a half hour?
I would think it woudl be kind of sweet...., before I would knock him of his feet with smoking arguments to the contrary.
For the record.
ewing2001 is not me.
Nico references one of his websites right in the first link he provides.
Nico agrees with this blog in the contention that many of the 911 movement spokesmen, leaders, etc. are full of it. This is the reason he uses the word "truthlings".
Ewing2001 I appreciate your work, but where are you going with this?
O Canada!
I came across the bit of info yesterday evening and was wondering if anyone has debunked it.
According to later reports, the alarm system in WTC 7 is placed on “TEST” status for a period due to last eight hours. This ordinarily happens during maintenance or other testing, and any alarms received from the building are generally ignored. [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 6/2004, pp. 28 pdf file]
One of those random acts I suppose or was it to correspond to the Tripod drills that day?
Entity Tags: World Trade Center
ewing2001 said...
"The 9/11 Truthling Border is very important for the 9/11 MIT Perps, functionalizing as a protection 'buffer zone' to the Orwellian Elite."
That's what I've been saying for years!
Where do you live, ewing? Me and you have got to go out for drinks. Anyone who can fit "functionalizing" into an English sentence must be the life of the party!
Swing, that was for part of the alarm system. The fire alarm still went off and sent a signal to the FDNY. Read the NIST report.
Rather than always demanding "debunkings," why not do the slightest bit of research first?
Also, swing, the Tripod II drill was not scheduled for that day.
Do you ever get anything right? This is not ricket science. All you have to do is use reliable sources. You won't find them at CT sites.
Or rocket science!
Pat and James, when are you guys going to get hard hitting guests to appear on this blog??
Alex welcomes Thomas K Kimmel, the
grandson of Admiral H.E. Kimmel, the commander of the Pacific Fleet at the time of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to discuss the the real story within the story of Pearl Harbor
Perhaps they can invite Mike Newman to ask him the following questions:
*who pays the NIST and does it interfere with the quality of work?
*what do you think about the OKC bombing: one truck bomb?
*are you aware that several authors of the NIST report were involved with reports on the OKC bombing reporting that it had been one single truck bomb (which, of course, is an expert failure beyond recognition)
*are you aware that several other reports re WTC came to different conclusions?
*are you aware authors of the WTC NIST report also worked on those other WTC reports (rendering different conclusions)
*what is better: real world investigations or models to tweak
*what is better: tweak your models to fit the hypotheses or tweak the hypotheses to fit the model?
*why haven't eye witness reports stating circumstances indicating explosives present been included in the report?
*what do you think of the critisism of Bill Manning?
*why hasn't the collapse itself been investigated (was it never NIST job to find out what happened after the collapse started in each tower(?
*how can you offer up recommendations to prevent tall buildings ever collapsing again if you don't know the collapse mechanism because not investigated?
*did you know as well already a few days after 911 what was the cause of the collapse, working the arguments to fit this conclusion instead of the other way around?
*would a proper investigation not consider an explosives hypotheses given the numerous witness reports indicating explosives
*who's right, ASCE, FEMA, NIST (i) or NIST (ii)?
*what DID you actually investigate: your computer models and theories or the actual remains of the buildings?
*what political consequences would a NIST report stating high probability of explosives used have for the NIST?
I'm sure it would be a breeze for this guy if the OS is so damn true.
These people aren't nuts.
Nope - they're just "active citizens."
Sure dude.
OK Dem, you think the NIST report was a sham.
Care to present a more reliable report written by engineers and experts?
CHF Is that it? Respond with "well you produce something different to 'prove your point'?
The problem is those are very serious questions that Democrat brings up. I didn't realize some of the guys working on the WTC report worked on the OKC report. That brings up a whole new issue about the integrity of the NIST investigation as a whole. Demo, can you link me to that information. I'm very intrigued now.
Care to present a more reliable report written by engineers and experts?
Common sense and an empty checkbook?
Practically, an team of experts would face great political problems if they ever were to investigate an explosives thesis on the buildings' collapses. The consequences of a report stating that explosives would be the most probable cause would lead to trouble for certain high placed people.
Can't have that in our fairy tale land.
Therefore, it would be quite a challenge to form a team of experts that truly would be free to give it their thoughts, free from political pressures, purely focussed on the matter at hand.
SD, it's basicly derived from Kevin Ryan's take on the NIST report.
I have to be honest that, although the quotes are for real, I'm not sure whether they really see to the NIST itself or just the Bush administration referring to NIST reports in their advantage. However, please note the gagging part of the comments.
chf, certainly I would not want to have an expert claiming the one-bomb OKC theory in the expert team (too controversial) or experts under gag orders. Getting paid on a continuous budget from government also sets the stage for a conflict of interest. That should be avoided as well (independent experts not dependent on government assignments for a living).
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
NIST report-Debunked. Hell everyone saw planes crash and fire. America doesn't need an investigation into that. But if you don't examine the collapse mechanism, then that is a complete failure of the NIST . How important is it that future buildings not fall in such a manner? Just how important is it to protect human life? Well apparently not that important to the NIST. And the OS community supports this? If so, don't ever bring up the 'victims' and such in your arguements cause I will refer you right back to the statement Democrat posted.
democrat, you just demonstrated that you know nothing about how the NIST WTC investigation, or proper investigations in general, are conducted.
Arguing from ignorance and personal incredulity is always a bad idea.
Read the NIST reports, then make your specific objections in writing for the public to read and comment on.
Sound reasonable?
Sound reasonable?
Without reading it fully (10.000's pages!) I already have a small list of questions.
By the way, one bomb exploded at the Murrah building, leading to a progressive collapse that killed most of the people.
If you think differently, you need to actually read the reports, not the conspiracy websites that get everything wrong. It literally only takes a few minutes to get accurate information about these things.
Please stop, think, and do a little homework before posting this nonsense.
democrat said...
Without reading it fully (10.000's pages!) I already have a small list of questions.
You just proved my point. Most of your questions are based on faulty assumptions because you haven't read the report. The answers are there. Address the specifics, not your imagined generalities.
Read the report and comment on that. Sound reasonable?
By the way, one bomb exploded at the Murrah building, leading to a progressive collapse that killed most of the people.
Well one that is at least one in the history books. The local reports of other bombs by local authorities magically disappeared.
2 X 2 foot box marked "High Explosives" WHICH HAD A TIMER ON IT
One such bomb was a 2 X 2 foot box marked "High Explosives" WHICH HAD A TIMER ON IT.
This was confirmed by Oklahoma City Fire Marshal Dick Miller. The timing mechanism
apparently had been set to detonate at ten minutes after nine. Apparently it had
malfunctioned due to the initial blast.
According to Toni Garrett, a nurse who was on the scene tagging dead bodies.
"Four people--rescue workers--told us there was a bomb in the building with a timing
mechanism set to go off ten minutes after nine." According to Garrett, witnesses told
her it was an active bomb. "We saw the bomb squad take it away."
This fact was confirmed by an Oklahoma City Police officer who inadvertently began
to walk into the building when a fireman yelled, "Hey idiot, that's a bomb!" The
stunned officer looked over and saw the 2 X 2 box surrounded by police crime tape.
He then heard the fireman yell, "There's one over there and another over there!
We're waiting for the bomb squads to come back from hauling off the others."
Investigator Phil O'Halloran has Bill Martin of the Oklahoma City Police Department
on tape stating that one of the bombs found in the building was two to three
five-gallon containers of Mercury Fulminate--a powerful explosive--one not easily
obtainable except to military sources.
All of this was also reported by the local news at the time. Now remember this in a Federal Building with offices of the ATF. Can you say inside job? I thought so.
Murdervillage-debunked.
SD, maybe they found more bombs, but only one went off.
Dr. W. Gene Corley, who investigated for the government the cause of the fire at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco and the Oklahoma City bombing, headed the FEMA-sponsored engineering assessment of the WTC collapse.
How awesome would it be to be Gene Corley?
The best NIST critique and its problems can be found here.
Read away Murdervillage and get back to us.
http://911research.wtc7.net
/essays/nist/index.html
Is there a site that debunks this debunking site?
Is there a problem with the questions asked?
NIST Q&A state themselves: "In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001"
Just leave out the numerous witness' reports they mean? Quite convenient for a government sponsored expert team rendering different conclusions all the time based on who is paying.
The cream on the cake:
"performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse'"
So what about the collapse: the foot of god?
Let's start a panic here by asking questions, sjeez.
Lol, u call that debunking SD..
So they let a software engineer debunk a civil engineering paper.....
Just leave out the numerous witness' reports they mean? Quite convenient for a government sponsored expert team rendering different conclusions all the time based on who is paying.
What witness reports are u talking about Democrat?
You mean the people that were actually in the building when it collapsed?
The witnesses democrat refers to are the people who despise the conspiracy liars for twisting their words to make it appear as though they they share the insane fantasy about explosives in the WTC.
Ya know,
If you listen to the recording all the way through, you get Jeff's full name, address, and phone number.
Just saying...
Ah, the ones that heard explosions prior to the collapse. Strange that the people that survided in the stairwells and heard the tower fall to pieces around them never mention hearing any explosions. They just hear a loud rumble(roar) when the tower collapsed.
And they were on the 3rd through 5th floor, so they should have heard explosions going on only a few floors below them, if the CT's keep insisting there were explosions in the basement just prior to the collapse.
Jay I'm just repeating what a national hero has said. Perhaps you should discuss that with him directly. Or maybe you can talk to the people he saved that were injured in the basement blasts. Or we can continue a fruitless debate on wether or not they occured. The fact is they occured. And jet fuel wasn't responsible. Now if you want to blame that on cave dwellers or an 'insider' that is your choice. But you can't deny the fact at all.
Yes Jay I call that debunking. And what your are trying to accomplish is an arguement fallacy by appealing to authority.
The point is you guys have no credible response to the questions posed by Democrat regarding the NIST. Now until you do so, feel free to cry expert all you want or point out why the question is invalid. I await your response.
Also, swing, the Tripod II drill was not scheduled for that day.
Yes very true. It was scheduled on the 12th. However, preparations were taking place for the drill.
Or tell me, does FEMA just show up for the drill and go to work?
Or the black dude shown on tv numerous times describing a blast on the 8th floor. "big explosion".
Never mind leaving reports as such out of the equation. If your mind as an expert is already set three days after the event, there is no need for such witness' reports.
Hey pat,
Where did you find this call and audio? Just curious as to where it came from.
thanks.
There are no benchmarks for these crashes to use as a baseline so every conspirisy expert can come out of the woodwork with silly theories and completly avoid the true facts. Nothing like this has ever happened before. Anyone could take any disaster and ask a myriad of questions that have no relivence. The fact that Kevin Ryan did one of the reports makes everything else dubious at best.
These conspiracy theorists have taken fact out of context and turned it to fiction, they have carefully selected random clippings which were the extreme end of the spectrum not the mean average of the time, meaning it is a very skewed view of what we saw and heard during our present period. There questions have multiple meanings so they choose one that fits their agenda.
SD how can someone that has no knowladge about civil engineering debunk a civil engineering paper?
That would be the same as asking a lawyer to debunk the theory of relativety from Albert Einstein.
SD how can someone that has no knowladge about civil engineering debunk a civil engineering paper?
That would be the same as asking a lawyer to debunk the theory of relativety from Albert Einstein.
On the Discovery channel show "Mythbusters" they dropped an elevator car 8 stories.
When it hit bottom, it sounded like an explosion, and there was a HUGE air blast on the ground floor, like a bomb had gone off.
Gee, I wonder what it would have sounded like if it fell from 50 or 60 stories up. And what if it was just a beam or some concrete falling 60 or so stories to the basement through the elevator shaft.
Wouldn't that sound like an explosion? And wouldn't that be a few seconds after the plane hit?
So if someone were in the basement, and heard an explosion 60-80 stories above them, it would be a little muffled, wouldn't it? and then a few seconde later, there was a HUGE boom when the elevator car or whatever fell to the basement through the elevator shaft, wouldn't you forgive someone for not really knowing what each blast was caused by?
Democrat, i have 1 few 100 transcripts from firefighters and NONE of them see an explosion on the 8th floor prior to the collapse.
If your mind as an expert is already set three days after the event, there is no need for such witness' reports.
Great Point. I have a copy of the newspaper the very NEXT day. Headline: Fire Causes Collapse of Towers. Guess what! Some expert is interviewed and without any examination: it looks like fire caused the collapse. I mean the official cover story was put into place the VERY NEXT DAY! It reminded me so much of the Christ-Church Star Newspaper and JFK.
Now you clowns are going to say, "See and expert said so! Blah Blah." But when it comes to the expert opinion of WTC 7 and CD, ahh he is crackpot, he was tricked, blah blah. " You OS'ers are soo predictable!
That is acceptable JuJi. Wouldn't that sound like an explosion? And wouldn't that be a few seconds after the plane hit? Sure sounds like it.
Would it cause white smoke to flow out of the basement several stories high into the surrounding streets? I don't know. Did it on mythbusters?
BTW, I love that show.
But we or at least I was referring to the explosion before the blast that burnt the skin off of the victim that Rodriguez saved.
Lol so now you are denying that there were fires SD? Since the top part of the building was involved in fire, wasn't that the obvious reason for the collapse?
Or did u miss the part that the buildings were on fire?
Jay, it wasn't a firefighter but an office clerk.
I was just about to ask how elevators burn people's headskin off, but SD was already in front of me.
How much gallon of jet fuel could fit in an elevator shaft, assuming that it would run from the impact floor to the bottom (if that comments pops up again)?
Democrat, a huge fireball traveled down the elevator shafts and burnt people. Bomb explosions usually cause limbs being torn of, and not burn of.
Good piece mentioning Screw Loose Change:
Your Friday Dose of Woo: And now for something completely different...
"Well, this week marked the 65th anniversary of the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor; so I had contemplated Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories, but in reality very few people believe in those any more, other than a certain commenter yesterday. However, there is an event as traumatic that occurred a mere five years ago that is sometimes conflated with Pearl Harbor and that has already spawned a cottage industry of woo greatly beloved by the tinfoil hat brigade. So I decided to pull a particularly bizarre bit of 9/11 woo out of the woo folder on my computer in which I store potential targets for YFDoW. It's woo so strange that, until a few weeks ago, even I, connoisseur of all that is woo, hadn't even heard of it."
Lol so now you are denying that there were fires SD?
Now Jay you are twisting the meaning of what I said. You know very well I wouldn't mean something like that.
In the new climate of Screwloosechange: I forgive you.
What I was referring to was the immediate assumption that fire caused the collapse. Why is that a problem? You now why. But I digress..
never before has fire done such a thing. And in fact, fire didn't cause the collapse, but yet we see the 'cause' splattered across the headlines across the globe prior to any studies. It reminds me of the JFK photo that was faked that conviced people LHO was the culprit.
Would it cause white smoke to flow out of the basement several stories high into the surrounding streets? I don't know. Did it on mythbusters?
BTW, I love that show.
Actually, it did, kind of.
It blew a very thick grey dust cloud throughout the entire floor. They didn't have cameras outside so I don't know what happened there.
But that was only 8 stories, and only one small elevator.
Watch the "Elevator of death" episode and you'll see what damage a falling elevator car can do. There are clips on the net, but you need to see the full episode to se the explosion and dust cloud.
Democrat, if a few 100 firefighters that lost around 350 of their comrades don't mention any explosion prior to the collapse on the 8th floor, who am i to say they are freeking liars.
I think this forum has covered this before that a blast will go through the elevator shaft when a plane hits a tall building, and that even happend back in the 40s or whenever when the plane hit the ESB, or so I have read.
Here's what is so humorous: this Canadian retard says at the beginning that he had proof through his "cell phone records." Then he drops that and just relies on "Google videos."
Here is what we should all do: spread the name, address, and phone number of this psychotic imbecile:
Jeffrey Victor Hill
37 Princeton Drive
Sioux Saint Marie, Ontario, Canada
705-945-0011
Jay-a huge fireball traveled down the elevator shafts and burnt people.
There is no evidence of that occuring. That sir is either an error in your thinking or a bold face lie. If you believe that, can you give me the link so I can change my belief system?
If that were the case, don't you think firefighters would have put that fireball out so as not to get trapped traveling up the towers to put out the small pockets of fires?
Simon, why would you do something like that? Or are you into that sort of thing?
SD in the headlines from all the papers after april 14th 1912, it said the Titanic was on its way home, while infact it was already at the bottom of the ocean. But i degress. Fires did cause structures to collapse SD, partially or completely.
Here's a question: does anyone know if this Grade-A loony was arrested for harassing the FBI? How about for just being an imbecile (although in Canada that could be a plus, not a criminal offense).
Juji Did the Busters put that famous dummy they have on the inside of the elevator and measure the impact force like they did with the dummy falling from a tower into water?
We were actually one of the first companies on the scene. We pulled up right in front of One World Trade Center, right into the cul-de-sac right in front of the canopy. So we got off the rig. I noticed there were several people sitting in the grass in front of the building burned head to toe, gray, just staring at us. The captain ordered us to grab four rollups. We went into the building. We went into the lobby. The lobby actually looked like the plane hit the lobby. From what I understand, I was told afterwards, that a fireball shot down the elevator shaft and blew out all the windows in the lobby and blew out the elevator doors. We searched for an elevator to see if there was one operating. There was none.
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/sept11_fdny_transcripts/9110430.PDF
Simon, why would you do something like that?
Because a nut like this who makes shit up and tries to turn what happened on 9/11 into some psychotic conspiracy fantasy deserve to have their names and reputations (if they have any) ruined.
Sorry if that crimps your panties.
SD in the headlines from all the papers after april 14th 1912, it said the Titanic was on its way home, while infact it was already at the bottom of the ocean. But i degress. Fires did cause structures to collapse SD, partially or completely.
Yes true but can you remind me if they have the newswire infastructure in place that we have today?
Second, according to the official theory, fire and damage caused the collapse, not fire alone. Even the NIST has admited to such.
"Sioux"
Actually, it is written Sault.
That said, much as it could be entertaining to spam that guys phone number to a few 1000 Nigerian scammers telling them to call for the Western Union transfer details, we really shouldn't lower ourselves to the level of Killtown and their ilk.
Because a nut like this who makes shit up and tries to turn what happened on 9/11 into some psychotic conspiracy fantasy deserve to have their names and reputations (if they have any) ruined. Sorry if that crimps your panties.
Actually,I'm commando today! ;)
Seriously though, doesn't that place you on the same level as the terrorists? Shouldn't you as a supporter of the OS maintain the highest standards of moral behavior?
Perhaps you should fire off some snail mail to him to let him know how you feel?
Ok, I'm done. You are getting personal on this individual and Pat has asked us not to do so.
Nobody in the world knows what happened at the moment of the crash, there is no evidence that fire did not flow down and in every knook and cranny. Things like this always seek the path of least resistance. Thats why I said that there are no benchmarks for these crashes to use as a baseline.
Too late the pilot of the U.S. Army B-25 bomber with three men aboard, saw the Empire State Building loom up before his eyes. At 300 miles per hour, he plunged through the 34th Street side of the building wreaking havoc. The major portion of the wreckage penetrated the 78th floor. An engine hurtled down an elevator shaft igniting a furious fire in the basement. Parts of the motor and landing gear tore through the entire building landing on top of a 13-story ediface across the street and igniting a second conflagration.
http://www.evesmag.com/empirestatecrash.htm
Who wants to bet that similiar things happend to the WTC towers, who were hit by much bigger planes, going at a much faster speed.
Jay Can you break the link so I can get there.
Two, your example thus far is based upon herasay.
Three, what is the timing of said report?
Democrat,
will you stop with the "witnesses heard explosions" crap already?
It's been pointed out to you a thousand times that their reports DO NOT jive with a demolition.
You, Swing and the rest of the kook fringe are basically pontificating on things you don't understand.
You're not egineers and you're not demolition experts.
Yet you still have a gall to tell experts that they don't know what they're talking about.
ON BASIS DO YOU DO THIS?
Please tell me which elevator goes for the top to the bottom.
Was it that single elevator (and how much fuel does that take to get that explosion in such an elevator shaft.
Moreover, according to Rodriquez, the plane struck after the explosion.
Small detail, big difference (but it is just another witness).
Thx for that link Siggah :)
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/
_national/sept11_fdny_transcripts/9110430.PDF
If this doesn't work let me know SD
Democrat, here is an article about the elevators.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/
2002-09-04-elevator-usat_x.htm
http://www.explosive911analysis.com/
Great pics of the white smoke from the basement/ground floor area. Warning the site does use possiblity of thermite in several places and I know many of you totally reject that idea, however the white smoke at the base is what you should check out. Down further on the page you can see the damage to the lobby area as well. Please disregard on the conspiracy talk on the website and examine the pics.
Some selected quotes that FEMA and the NIST as well as the 9/11 Com. ignored.
"I spoke with some police officials moments ago ... and they told me they have reason to believe that one of the explosions at the World Trade Center may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some type of explosive device in it."
- Rick Sanchez, MSNBC - 9/11/2001
"Apparently what appears to happen, that at the same time two planes hit the buildings, that the FBI most likely thinks that there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings which also exploded at the same time and brought both of them down."
- Jack Kelley, USA Today Foreign Correspondent - 9/11/2001
Makes sense if your a terrorist and want a total collapse.
"Just moments ago I spoke to the chief of safety for the New York City fire department, he received word of the possibility of a secondary device - that is another bomb going off ... according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building."
- Pat Dawson, MSNBC - 9/11/2001
“There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons . . . There was another explosion. And another. I didn't know where to run."
- Teresa Veliz, WTC 1 Employee, 47th Floor
there is no evidence that fire did not flow down and in every knook and cranny.
Wouldn't we see evidence of such say other floors burning, firefighters responding to the fires that would break out all over the building, smoke from the various floors?
Again why would the firefighters ignore the fire in the sublevels and lobbies knowing full well they could be trapped going to fight the small pockets of fire in the upper stories?
CHF Have those experts you keep referring to fallaciously provided an explanation?
I read the NIST and there is no mention of those explosions.
I read the FEMA report and there is not explanation of explosions or mention. So really you have no leg to stand on. Does that mean if the Fed. Agencies don't mention, examine, or explain the events, then they don't exist? Only is our fantasy land, eh?
Jay
That PDF transcript file was not found and 404ered. Sorry.
Speculation from you, it is impossible to know if this or if that. When the unthinkable happens no one can predict you you or anyone else will do, even trained people may not act they way they are trained. You nor I have no way of knowing anything for sure at that moment.
Here is what we should all do: spread the name, address, and phone number of this psychotic imbecile:
On what basis do you assume that this psycho is telling the truth about his name or address? I think this is a poor idea.
Stevew Come on bro these are trained professionals. Just accept as fact there wasn't a raging fire ball traveling down the elevator shafts. If there were, the evidence would be posted all over the place. The only evidence I have seen for a broken web page is heresay. Until there is more, you will have to accept as fact that no raging fireball traveled to the lower levels, blew huge metal doors in the basement off their hinges, led to all of the statements to explosions, and dangerous inaction on the part of the FDNY.
Just as I have accepted that our good budy Larry didn't admit on tv he demoed WTC 7.
There can be a meeting of the minds on this issue.
I hate to rain on my own parade, but that link about the Empire State Building is the only one I could find about the engine in the elevator catching a fire in the basement. The elevator did however go plummenting to the basement, because an engine landed on it, but the woman inside the elevator car lived to tell about it, they even have pictures of her being rescued.
Also I have read that eye witnesses from that crash also thought they were being bombed.
Ok, i just figured out how to link on here, yeh yeh i know, i'm a n00b.
Transcript
Swing,
I read the FEMA report and there is not explanation of explosions or mention. So really you have no leg to stand on.
Explosions and falling debris occur in all fires. I myself heard explosions during a housing complex fire once.
So why would FEMA and NIST think such things are odd.
There's a reason why you can't find any demolition experts to back up the "demolition" of the towers: explosions don't go off randomly for over an hour before a CD knocks down a building.
Bombs in the basement don't result in a top-down collapse at the point of jet impact.
It's moronic for you to suggest otherwise.
Did the Busters put that famous dummy they have on the inside of the elevator and measure the impact force like they did with the dummy falling from a tower into water?
The actual myth was whether you could jump up at the last second if you're in a falling elevator, and survive, you can't. Buster, the dummy tried this (with help from a spring) and was pretty much destroyed. and thats only from 8 stories. It was a great episode.
But what was really amazing was the force of the blast when the elevator car hit bottom. It looked and sounded like a bomb went off.
On what basis do you assume that this psycho is telling the truth about his name or address? I think this is a poor idea.
Manny,
I called the number. Its real.
Siggah,
There are pictures somewhere (maybe even on this blog) showing the burned out lobby of the Empire State building.
There's a reason why you can't find any demolition experts to back up the "demolition" of the towers: explosions don't go off randomly for over an hour before a CD knocks down a building.Explosions and falling debris occur in all fires
Well of course I agree with you again.
The explosion prior to impact-basement sublevel and the multiple explosions seconds before collapse are what we/I was referring to. IMHO the basement destruction was to weaken the central support structure to ensure as much of a footprint global collapse as possible; to weaken that part of the tower that would most likely keep a total collapse from happening, the central core-and yes I'm aware it wasn't a pefect print. What type of device would be used? I have no idea. I won't claim to be an expert.
Too much debris was thrown 100's of feet away due to gravity. ;)
Two, secondary explosions IMHO would be used to remove the resistance in particular areas to ensure a global collapse.
I will leave "who did it" to the other realms of possiblity.
Do those statements I posted mean anything or are they just crackpots?
Doesn't the two spikes in seismic data support something other than fuel and damage?
http://911research.wtc7.net/
mirrors/guardian/WTC/
Seismic/WTC_LDEO_KIM.htm
Disclaimer-no I'm not an expert. No one is on here so try not to hit me too hard in the face!
alright, I am going to do some searching. So far all the links I have been finding on google, say nothing of a fire in the lobby. Not saying I don't believe you, I just want to find the pictures myself. Also I have found yet another site saying that she was actually on a car the story just above the crash and the cables just got weak and thats how it fell.
SD if they blew up the core at the bottom, how come the survivors in the stairwells never heard this? And if they blew up the core, how could they have survived?
And its ludricous to think a building will topple to the side when it collapses. U would have to blow out one side at the bottom to accomplish that, else it will just fall into its own footprint.
Because it would need alot more force to topple a buildng over to the side then it would to just collapse into itself, if even a plane going 400 MPH can't knock it over, not much else will.
I called the number. Its real.
Fair enough -- that certainly overcomes my concerns. What a nutter. I was lovin' the guy from the National Terrorism Task Force.
Jujigatami
haha, what did you say to him when you called him?
SD if they blew up the core at the bottom, how come the survivors in the stairwells never heard this? And if they blew up the core, how could they have survived?
Careful, Jay, I said weaken, I didn't say blow up. Would hermeticaly sealed elevators allow sound waves into them? I don't know.
I don't know guys, but the more I read, the more likely there were CD involved.
More witnesses:
When Elliott had reached the 67
th
floor, United 175 struck the South Tower, above where he was. Elliott later told a
reporter what he was able to observe after that: “Although its spectacularly televised
impact was above Elliott, at first he and those around him thought an explosion had come
from below. An incredible sound – he calls it an ‘exploding sound’ – shook the building
and a tornado of hot air and smoke and ceiling tiles and bits of drywall came flying up the
stairwell. “In front of me, the wall split from the bottom up,” Elliott recounted. Elliott
Page 3
was able to get out of the South Tower by 9:40. (Christian Science Monitor, September
17, 2001)
Ann Thompson of NBC reported at 12:42 PM that she had reached the corner of
Broadway and Fulton on her way to the World Trade center that morning when she heard
an explosion and a wall of debris came toward her. She took refuge in a building. When
she came out again about 10:30, she heard a second explosion. Firemen warned her about
another explosion. (Wisnewski 136; Trinkhaus, 4 ff.)
Fox 5 News, a New York television channel, was able to catch on videotape a large white
cloud billowing out near the base of the South Tower. The newsman commented: “There
is an explosion at the base of the building….white smoke from the bottom …something
has happened at the base of the building… then, another explosion. Another building in
the World Trade Center complex….” (Marrs 35)
Steve Evans, a reporter for the BBC, happened to be in the South Tower that morning. “I
was at the base of the second tower, the second tower that was hit,” he reported. “There
was an explosion – I didn’t think it was an explosion – but the base of the building shook.
I felt it shake … then we were outside, the second explosion happened and then there was
a series of explosions….We can only wonder at the kind of damage – the kind of human
damage – which was caused by those explosions, those series of explosions.”
oss Milanytch viewed the scene from the 22
nd
floor of a nearby building. He reported
seeing “small explosions on each floor. And after it all cleared, all that was left of the
buildings, you could just see the steel girders in like a triangular sail shape. The structure
was just completely gone.” (America at War; Marrs 34)
Auxiliary Fireman Lt. Paul Isaac Jr. also spoke of bombs in an interview with internet
reporter Randy Lavello. Isaac had served with Engine Company 10 in lower Manhattan
during the late 1990s, so he knew the area around the WTC. Isaac said that many New
York firemen were very concerned about the ongoing cover-up of why the World Trade
Center collapsed. “Many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings,” he
revealed, “but they are afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid
discussion of this fact. There were definitely bombs in those buildings.” Among those
suppressing real discussion about what had happened, Isaac cited the neocon heavy
Page 2
James Woolsey, who had been CIA Director under Clinton, who had become the New
York Fire Department’s antiterrorism consultant. (Marrs 34)
Louie Cacchioli, aged 51, was a firefighter attached to Engine Company 47, based
uptown in Harlem. “We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck,”
Cacchioli recounted later. “I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the twenty-
fourth floor to get in a position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off.
We think there were bombs set in the building.” Cacchioli was trapped in an elevator but
was able to escape with the help of some fireman’s tools. (People Weekly, September 24,
2001)
Yet another eyewitness reported: “We heard a huge explosion, and everything got black.
Glass was falling down, people were getting hurt when the glass hit them. It was a big
explosion, everything got dark, this here is not snow, it’s all from the building, a horrible
nightmare.” “I was on Sixth Avenue and I had just tried to call somebody when I heard
an explosion and saw how the people were throwing themselves on the ground,
screaming and crying, I looked up and saw all that smoke, as the tower came down, and
all that smoke in one tower.” (Segment by Oliver Voegtlin and Matthias Fernandes,
NTV, September 11, 2001)
Another European documentary showed a man with glasses recovering in a hospital bed
who recalled: “All of a sudden it went bang, bang, bang, like shots, and then three
unbelievable explosions.” (“Terror gegen Amerika,” RTL, September 13, 2001)
An eyewitness who worked in an office near the WTC described his experiences to a
reporter for the American Free Press. He was standing in a crowd on Church Street,
about two and a half blocks from the South Tower. Just before the South Tower
collapsed, he saw “a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building
between floors 10 and 15.” He saw about six of these flashes and at the same time heard a
“a crackling sound” just before the tower collapsed.” (Christopher Bollyn, American Free
Press, December 2, 2001; Wisnewksi 137)
Kim White, 32, who worked on the 80th floor of the South Tower, was another
eyewitness who reported hearing an explosion. “All of a sudden the building shook, then
it started to sway. We didn't know what was going on,” she told People magazine. “We
got all our people on the floor into the stairwell . . . at that time we all thought it was a
fire . . .We got down as far as the 74th floor . . . then there was another explosion.”
(Christopher Bollyn, American Free Press, December 2, 2001)
A black office worker wearing a business suit that was covered with dust and ashes told
the Danish television network DR-TV1: “On the eighth floor we were thrown back by a
huge explosion.” (Wisnewski 138)
The German network SAT 1 broadcast a report featuring survivors who also were talking
about explosions. One of these eyewitnesses, by the name of Tom Canavan, was cut off
in mid-sentence by two FBI agents who barged in, grabbed him as he was speaking, and
hustled him away; this scene was captured on tape. (Wisnewski 138)
NBC TAPES SHOW CONTROLLED DEMOLITION EXPLOSIONS
In his best-selling study and also in his prime-time special broadcast on German
television in August 2003, Gerhard Wisnewski employed out-takes from NBC News
cameras near the World Trade Center to provide actual examples of what are almost
certainly controlled demolition charges being detonated. On the NBC tape, we see the
two towers burning and emitting clouds of black smoke. Then, at about frame 131 of the
tape, there emerges a cloud of white-grey smoke along about two thirds of the 79
th
floor
of the South Tower. Two thirds of the southeast façade correspond to the dimensions of
the central core column complex, which would be where controlled demolition charges
would have to be placed. This line of white-grey smoke billows up, contrasting sharply
with the black smoke from the fire. At about frame 203, another line of white-grey smoke
emerges several floors below the first, and billows up in its turn. This represents decisive
photographic evidence of controlled demolition charges being triggered in the World
Trade Center. (Wisnewski 216)
Too much debris was thrown 100's of feet away due to gravity. ;)
Can u show me that debris SD.
U would have to blow out one side at the bottom to accomplish that, else it will just fall into its own footprint.
Geez, you sound like you just described WTC 7! Thanks Jay.
SD how many times to people have to explain to you that explosions, don't mean bombs going off.
Fire fighters saw cars exploding, windows exploding, car tires exploding...
Heck, they even saw bodies exploding as they landed on the street after falling from the towers.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:
F5t4Wl5SrkkJ:www.house.
gov/science/hot/wtc/
wtc-report/
WTC_ch2.pdf+WTC+1+2+debris+field&hl=en&gl
=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
The link should clear up any confusion regarding the fire in the elevator shaft discussion. Some relevant comments:
The first arriving firefighters observed that the windows of WTC 1 were broken out at the Concourse
level. This breakage was most likely caused by overpressure in the elevator shafts. Damage to the walls of the elevator shafts was also observed as low as the 23rd floor, presumably as a result of the overpressures developed
by the burning of the vapor cloud on the impact floors.
Although not stated as fact but presumptions and most likely, we don't see a report of fireballs down the shaft.
I'm sorry Jay, but I can't accept what your saying to refute all of the witnessess who have stated hearing explosions taking place prior to impact and seconds before collapse.
When the NIST and FEMA ignore these facts, it really brings into question the sincereity of their reports.
Again more fireball/shaft debunking from the FEMA report: Shortly before the times of collapse, the stairways were reported as being relatively clear, indicating
that occupants who were physically capable and had access to egress routes were able to evacuate from the
buildings (Mayblum 2001). People within and above the impact area could not evacuate, simply because the
stairways in the impact area had been destroyed.
If the firefighters are not telling the truth because they fear they will lose their jobs, then that is just crap. What about their colleuges who lost their lives? Don't you think they would all go on strike even the hire ups, I mean how could they live with themselves? Are their jobs more important to them than human life? Did the Government also brainwash all the firemen by telling them that the towers were going to be attacked, and some of you may lose your life over this? Who in their Right mind would sign on to that?
SD, The Stairwells are separate from the elevators. And for someone not trusting the FEMA or NIST report, its kinda strange that you come with that link btw.
Swing,
No demolition experts agree with your bizarre take on how the towers were brought down. NONE.
Take a hint, dude.
Blowing the base supports would bring the tower down from the bottom.
The collapse began at the EXACT point of jet impact. It's not that hard to understand.
You don't believe this demolition crap because there's proof. You believe it cuz you want to.
And when did the government announce to the firemen that they had to keep this under wraps? Were there secret black-ops people on the grounds of ground zero spreading the word to these rescue workers to shut up about what they saw? Were their secret memos being sent around the firedepartments telling them to shut up or else?
Jay back to your feet question
From wikipedia:
the standard block in Manhattan is about 264 feet by 900 feet (about 80 meters by 270 meters), or slightly over five acres (two hectares); and in some U.S. cities standard blocks are as wide as 1/8 mile (660 feet or approximately 200 meters), or 10 acres (about 4 hectares) if square.
Debris rained down for blocks which we can all agree.
Horse hokey swing you can't say that, even pro's can be stunned, I have seen too many interviews, all you are doing is speculating. You don't know, I don't know nobody knows for sure. There were no secondary demo explosions, that is a fact. All you do is offer your own spec and conjecture peoriod
Jay why don't you post some of the transcripts?
Ok SD, but what kind of debris rained down for blocks?
Where was this guy who heard a blast on the 8th storey? Is it possible this guy was standing hear a window or wall and a peice of debris fell and happend to blow into one of the windows or walls at full force, making it feel like a blast?
We entered the building on the west side doorway. We got into the lobby –
Q. That’s the north tower?
A. North tower. When we got into the lobby, the first thing we saw or what I saw was there was a body covered up in the lobby, a dead body.
When we got to 22, we heard there was a Port Authority command post on 22. So we were stopped there. My officer wanted to find out some information, my officer Lieutenant Andy Desperito. He went over to the command post. We noticed in the hallway that the elevator shaft had been blown out. There was nothing there, no doors, no framing, nothing. When you looked down, all you saw was the cables for the elevator and the brick work that was surrounding.
Q. Was it burning?
A. No burning, no smoke coming out of it. When he came back, on his way back when he was walking towards us, the entire building started to shake. This is when we were on the 22nd floor, in the hallway. Initially we thought that our building was coming down, or some part of it was collapsing. What we found out right after that was that the south tower had just come down.
FIREFIGHTER MICHAEL YAREMBINSKY
The next one is from someone that survived the crashing down of the building.
We made it up to approximately the 31st floor. On the 31st floor we felt the building begin to shake. It appeared that that building was starting to come down.
Q. Your building?
A. The north tower.
It's obvious now, what happened was that vibration that we felt was the south tower collapsing. It wasn’t this building. It was the south tower that had come down.
I believe I was between the second and third floor on the half landing, and it started to shake and vibrate. Then I heard the sound of the floors imploding one on top of the other. You heard it coming, and you heard it getting louder and louder and louder and louder and things are coming down on top of you. I hit the floor, and I rolled to the wall and just kind of covered up into a fetal position and started saying my prayers. Finally that stopped, and the debris started coming. When the loud banging stopped, I said, okay, at least I'm not going to get crushed or I'm not going to get crushed on impact. Then the debris kept coming, and it started covering me up and I thought, oh, God I'm going to die and just get buried alive. I said I would just rather die quickly than get buried alive, then that stopped. Then I felt this strange thing like air rushing up. The only thing I thought, “Am I falling? Am I going to heaven?” I didn’t know what was going on. I think my explanation is that that was the outside of the building tumbling on the street and then forcing air in and then it having nowhere to go but it came up. That’s my only explanation of what happened there. Then that stopped, and I just waited around and kind of nothing else happened. I stood up, kind of brushed myself off and kind of felt all my body parts.
LIEUTENANT JAMES MCGLYNN
Okay... enough is enough...
"*who pays the NIST and does it interfere with the quality of work?"
Empty charge. Simply raising this question does not prove anything. Professional standards, plus review by experts in the field also has an impact on the work provided. You must establish interference for this argument to work, not merely imply it.
"are you aware that several authors of the NIST report were involved with reports on the OKC bombing reporting that it had been one single truck bomb (which, of course, is an expert failure beyond recognition)"
Multiple ridiculous myths in one posting. First of all, to attack investigators and report authors' competence by linking them with a previous report, you must prove that there are systemic errors in the previous report that are the result of inexperience or incompetence. Merely linking them is insufficient.
Also, reports of second and third bombs have been discounted as mistakes. Why isn't that mentioned? The only resources I see claiming there was a third bomb keep citing initial reports, not corrections after the fact.
On top of that, why would evidence of a second and third bomb be covered up? Wouldn't that be even more evidence used to convict the perpetrators?
Look, you need to explain how exactly this is an "expert failure beyond recognition". Rhetoric is not enough. Detail the "failure", or if that isn't possible, at least summarize it. Provide proof, not assertions.
"what is better: real world investigations or models to tweak
*what is better: tweak your models to fit the hypotheses or tweak the hypotheses to fit the model?"
Your question demonstrates a lack of understanding on how research is done. Models isolate specific, individual issues of a real world subject and are merely used as part of a study to gain overall knowledge. The models themselves only provide points of data. Attacking "real world" vs. "models" is creating a false dichotomy. They both contribute to knowledge, and neither is used exclusively or definitively. Knowledge is built from the study of disparate data, including that gathered from models as well as that gathered from real world observations. Rhetorically forcing an either/or question is to show you do not understand the nature of research.
On top of that, you're trying to demonstrate either that the NIST models are faulty, and/or that researchers have manipulated the data to fit their conclusions. That demonstrates you're merely trusting what you read on the net from Steven Jones, among others, and not applying critical thinking or attempting to study what's actually happening. The "tweaks" the NIST researchers applied were *not* done with the intent you imply i.e. to fudge the experimental parameters until they got the result they desired. Rather, they were testing ranges of possibilities within the parameters of what was observed and possible. The models were not "fudged" only in one direction towards a desired end, but were manipulated within a very tight set of constraints. On top of all that, you ignore the fact that all the parameters of the model reflected the actual state of the buildings at the time. In casting the modeling over a range of data in a bad light, you build a false argument.
"why haven't eye witness reports stating circumstances indicating explosives present been included in the report?"
Substantiate those reports. The most I've ever seen have been folks who saw the fireball from the fuel, or who've misinterpreted windows blowing out during the collapse. Or in some cases, I've read misrepresentations of what these witnesses actually reported. For example, the famous "heard bombs exploding" myth: Many of what those people heard were actually events such as elevators falling and hitting the ground. As another example: Steven Jones' conclusion about explosive "squibs" blowing out windows, which has been answered time and time again and shown to not be "demolitions".
I've yet to see any eyewitness reports of actual explosives in the buildings. All I've heard or read are reports of phenomena which have a range of explanations, and of which "bombs" being the least probable.
"what do you think of the criticism of Bill Manning?"
I've only read his "Selling Out" article, and I was disappointed. As editor-in-chief of Fire Engineering, you'd assume he'd be able to substantiate his argument with particulars. That single article was little more than a polemic.
I will state, however, that much of what the Fire Engineering publication is complaining about are details specific to that particular trade, and from their vantage point of expertise, justified. For example, they rightly criticize the poor radio communications at the time. They also criticize the spray on fireproofing that many conspiracy fantasists insist should've protected the steel columns. They have many criticisms of both the management of the WTC response and the methods used to fight high-rise fires in general, but none of their criticisms even open the door to controlled demolition fantasies. Some - such as the critique of the fireproofing - actually works in the opposite direction.
I must defer judgment of any other works Bill Manning has put out; I have not read them yet.
"why hasn't the collapse itself been investigated (was it never NIST job to find out what happened after the collapse started in each tower(?"
"how can you offer up recommendations to prevent tall buildings ever collapsing again if you don't know the collapse mechanism because not investigated?"
Could you explain those further? This seems to be the most studied building collapse ever. What aspect hasn't been investigated? What happened "after" the collapse started? Which aspect of the NIST reports, or the follow-ups from various demolition firms are insufficient? I don't understand how you can charge that the collapse mechanism isn't investigated.
The second point is merely a rhetorical ploy. They're supposed to provide recommendations. It's the NIST's job to set and upgrade standards, including building codes. You must first prove that the understanding of the collapse is faulty before you can criticize the fact they're providing recommendations.
"*did you know as well already a few days after 911 what was the cause of the collapse, working the arguments to fit this conclusion instead of the other way around?"
That's incoherent. What are you asking here? That folks were already trying to fudge evidence in favor of a specific point of view? Provide proof. That's merely an assertion.
"*would a proper investigation not consider an explosives hypotheses given the numerous witness reports indicating explosives"
You're proceeding under the assumption that the witnesses truly witnessed explosives either being planted or used, and that this evidence is credible. That's not been established, and again, some has been debunked. As an example: Steven Jones conclusion of windows blowing out being due to explosive squibs.
"who's right, ASCE, FEMA, NIST (i) or NIST (ii)?"
You're attempting to build an argument that there are serious contradictions between the groups regarding the narrative of the WTC collapse. All right: What are the "contradictions"? And, are they truly mutually exclusive? Or are they artifacts of studying different aspects with different intents in mind? And even if there are profound contradictions, do they truly point in the direction of controlled demolition, or some sort of conspiracy? Or are they just proof that large organizations with many individuals don't march in lockstep?
"*what DID you actually investigate: your computer models and theories or the actual remains of the buildings?"
Will defer... you're aiming that at a specific individual, not me.
"*what political consequences would a NIST report stating high probability of explosives used have for the NIST?"
Rhetorical question, again based on the assumption of explosive use being possible. Many sites, a few book authors, and a couple of demolitions firms have provided analysis of this possibility, and have discarded it.
In that whole post, you are merely asserting, not proving. All you have been doing is asserting mistakes, putting forth misinterpretations, juxtaposing irrelevant details, highlighting data in ways favorable to your argument of cover-up while ignoring evidence to the contrary. This is not questioning that's designed to truly elicit information. You are not attempting to educate yourself. You are merely making an argument for cover-up in the guise of "asking questions". That's passive-aggressive rhetoric, and not very well constructed to boot. Democrat, that guise of merely asking questions is wearing thin. You are ignoring much evidence about the truth of the collapse and only paying attention to those sites addicted to the conspiracy fantasy. You also keep on making assertions that others here and at JREF, Phys.org, and BadAstronomy have answered time and time again. You are not making any original arguments here, nor are you asking questions that haven't already been answered. There is no credible proof of a conspiracy, or of controlled demolition, or of anything other than what has been reported. If you would take the time to truly study the event - and by study, I don't mean merely go to 911Blogger and all the other fantasy sites out there and parrot their attempts at arguments, but truly study the event - you'd see that many of the questions you ask have already been answered.
Study the event. Truly study it. Look for the answers, don't just parrot the questions. You'll be surprised at how much conspiracy fantasy is inaccurate, merely rhetorical ploys, or outright wrong.
Jay, the Feds are the only evidence you (and the OS for that matter)will accept, unless I'm wrong.
CHF, they all agree on one THEORY. Ok. Another appeal to authority to support your position. I will overlook that fallacy for the time being.
What do they based their agreement on? Government reports? Video? Prior Knowledge?
Have they seen all of the information to lead a person to suspect a CD of 1 and 2?
Here is when I would buy the OS.
If there were not numerous reports and suspicions of bombs and/or explosions going off from firefighters, police officers, radio stations, news outlets, and the FBI.
If it didn't look like a demolition to me, news broadcasters, numerous others.
(Just because it didn't collapse in a traditional CD, doesn't mean it isn't it.)
If there wasn't a prior attempt by terrorists (and an FBI informant)to blow the building up from the basement with a truck bomb which I suspect is the reason for the FBI I to suspect it would happen again.
If the seismic data didn't point to such explosions
If the Rick Siegel video didn't exist, if the white smoke from the basement didn't exist.
If Willy Rod. didn't have his encounter.
If the molten steel/metal reports didn't exist.
If the hot spots from satellite imagery didn't exist.
As an educated person with a bachelor and master's degree, I can't just ignore all of the other evidence that points to something other than fire and damage causing the collapses.
I'm sorry, CHF, but we can't argue the point any longer. It would be a waste of time. Your going to accept the government's theory and I'm not. It is really that simple.
Enjoy your weekend, folks. If I don't respond it isn't due to acceptance by silence or ignoring you, it is life calling me for more important items.
If there were not numerous reports and suspicions of bombs and/or explosions going off from firefighters, police officers, radio stations, news outlets, and the FBI.
They don't. Just to pick one example, Lou Cacchioli, whom you quoted, told Popular Mechanics that People misquoted him and that he merely said that explosions sounded like a bomb. He does not claim that there were bombs in the tower.
If it didn't look like a demolition to me, news broadcasters, numerous others.
(Just because it didn't collapse in a traditional CD, doesn't mean it isn't it.)
This is contradictory. On closer examination, it did not look like a "traditional" CD, as you acknowledge. So how can it "look like" a controlled demolition if it didn't look like any controlled demolition you've ever seen.
If there wasn't a prior attempt by terrorists (and an FBI informant)to blow the building up from the basement with a truck bomb which I suspect is the reason for the FBI I to suspect it would happen again.
The basement was closed following the first terrorist attack. Access to it was tightly controlled precisely to prevent a recurrence of the truck bombing.
If the seismic data didn't point to such explosions
It doesn't.
If the Rick Siegel video didn't exist, if the white smoke from the basement didn't exist.
Since all sides agree that there was damage to the lower floors (with the official story saying it originated with jet fuel from above) why would it be surprising to learn that fires occurred down there prior to the collapses?
If Willy Rod. didn't have his encounter.
Which encounter? The one he initially relayed or the one he tells now? And on what basis is his report more probative than the literally thousands and thousands of contradictory reports, backed by physical evidence, which contradict him?
If the molten steel/metal reports didn't exist.
Molten steel after the collapses is in no way helpful to understanding what caused them. This is an intentional canard.
If the hot spots from satellite imagery didn't exist
No one disputes that fires burned for weeks after the collapses, but again it is not probative.
You've got nothing, SD. No evidence, no questions which don't have answers, no nothing.
” NIST report-Debunked.”
Not true Swing. The sites attempting to debunk resort to logical fallacies, such as appeals to credulity, incorrect comparisons to other events, selective highlighting of data, etc. As one example, I keep hearing the “light damage to WTC 7” canard being put forth as a debunking. Ignoring the fact that this line is actually in the initial FEMA report, not the NIST one, conspiracy fantasists keep using it to push the assertion that WTC 7 was not damaged enough to collapse. That is not true, and the FEMA report was in error.
Many people who keep referring to the NIST report as “debunked” have trouble explaining which aspects are debunked. They merely parrot the empty claims many sites make. Please provide examples of individual aspects in which the NIST reports have been debunked (obviously, a comprehensive list would be way to long for a blog post, so we won’t go that far).
Swing,
Yes - I appeal to authority (ie. people who understand this stuff).
What are you appealing to exactly Your own ignorance?
Just because it didn't collapse in a traditional CD, doesn't mean it isn't it.
So...no demolition experts agree and it didn't even collapse like a CD. But that doesn't mean it wasn't one!
Ummm...actually yes it does, Swing.
If the seismic data didn't point to such explosions
Liar. The seismic data DOES NOT point to explosions.
Molten steel? Willy's basement bombs?
This stuff has been explained a thousand times. If you don't listen then that's your problem and in no way impacts the reality of what happened on 9/11.
haha, what did you say to him when you called him?
I told him I worked for the US Government, but that I wanted the truth to come out. I told him he was 100% correct, and that he needed to protect himself.
He didn't buy it, evidently, he's been getting a lot of prank calls lately.
I really can't believe you guys are spending this much time with this idiot. The guy quotes only witnesses who agree with him, draw ludicrous conclusions, and argues totally irrelevant details. He hasn't put forward a single point that's actually worth debating. So why bother?
Jay said Because it would need a lot more force to topple a building over to the side then it would to just collapse into itself, if even a plane going 400 MPH can't knock it over, not much else will.
I find this remark peculiar. We all have seen massive airplanes strike the towers. Frankly, it is my perception that these planes did nothing to the towers. They stood firm and strong. With ‘nothing’ I do not mean no damage and no fire, I mean structural damage endangering the structure’s main parts. Remember, it’s just perception here, so don’t hang me for it now.
I repeat: massive airplanes hitting the towers, not visible movement of the towers sideways. So the towers seemingly took an airplane from the side relatively easy as is the impact concerned.
Now, Jay, you are stating that it ‘would need a lot more force to topple a building over to the side then it would to just collapse into itself’. Do you mean that the towers were stronger with a force hitting it sideways than a force hitting it in the direction of its actual support structure. The tree, stronger against sideways forces than a force from the top to bottom?
That’s a concept that’s odd for me. The wooden stick bents more easily than it is compressed in the length. A strange concept you are proposing.
SD wrote” The first arriving firefighters observed that the windows of WTC 1 were broken out at the Concourse
level. ”
The Naudet video clearly shows damage to the lobby wall and the broken windows on the base floor. Does the elevator that goes all the way to the top have an entry in the lobby and, moreover, were the lift doors open at exactly the base floor when this supposed fireball kicked in? It reminds me of a movie about a girl that could spark fireballs when mad ;)
siggah wrote” If the firefighters are not telling the truth because they fear they will lose their jobs, then that is just crap. What about their colleuges who lost their lives? Don't you think they would all go on strike even the hire ups, I mean how could they live with themselves?”
You are sticking to the OS as well, despite evidence (mostly circumstantial and not verifiable anymore, I admit) to the contrary. A lot of trust in the government’s version, because you haven’t seen the actual evidence either. So what is a fire fighter to do when the papers are shouting that fire brought these towers down the day after 911, the whole world is in shock, and no one even bothers to think about some CT on the event? The investigation by the government covering up certain matters was not out yet. I would think fire fighters had problems of their own with the loss of friends and colleagues. It is a little bit more complicated than that. I didn’t turn sceptical overnight, let alone a true American hero with personal experiences from the event. How bad should he feel if doubt enters his mind on the OS, especially the towers’ collapses?
” Were there secret black-ops people on the grounds of ground zero spreading the word to these rescue workers to shut up about what they saw?”
Actually, I understand it was FEMA and FBI personnel issuing gag orders on the site. Let me see whether I can back that up with a link from a mass media source.
elmondohummus, thank you for your response, although not from the man himself ;) I will have to take some time to think it over.
Does the elevator that goes all the way to the top have an entry in the lobby
Yes.
Each building had at least one elevator that went from the lobby to the top. In building one it went from the lobby to Windows on the World, the restaurant on top of the WTC, in Building 2 it went from the lobby to the observation deck.
Also, from what I understand, the elevator shafts were not sealed from each other, but were more of one big shaft with multiple tracks. All of them connected at the various "Skylobbies" in the WTC (I think the lobbies were at the 44th and 77th floors, but I don't remember).
So if there were a massive fireball travelling down the shafts, it could quite easily travel from the upper shafts to the lobby.
Swing, I see Democrat addressed Elmondo's post, where's your response?
He(Elmondo) put a lot of time into it, and it was respectful. I would think after your criticism of other replies, you would have given this one attention.
The towers were designed to take a hit from a slow flying 707 lost in the fog. but were hit with many times the force they were designed to absorb
200mph=1x 330000# x 1 = 330,000# Towers designed for
490mph=5x 390000# x 5 =1,950,000# 1st crash
590mph=8+x 390000# x 8 =3,120,000# 2nd crash
The towers actually moved some 10' as I understand it.
When huge Forces strange things can happen that can't be predicted. have seen 2x4's go thru palm trees and sheet metal penitrate a foot into trees. Once the colapse started the building had too much inertia to fall only straight down.
First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and designed to withstand lateral loads, hence, can implode onto itself and the floor supports were on the perimeter attached to the load bearing outer girders.
The floors were not designed to be self standing. The force pushed down colapsing the truss supports which were the only support for the floors to the outer walls so the weight of the concrete floors fell in the hollow section of the building with little of no restance one of the reasons the building was so light for its size, the only other floor support was from the core girders.
Angular momentum is only preserved if the fulcrum provides sufficient resistance. The crushing and grinding action of the caps destroyed the integrity of the fulcrums below, negating that resistance and slowing the angular deflection velocity. The caps did continue to tilt, but much slower due to a progressively weakened fulcrum. The caps simultaneously lost their rigidity in equal amounts to the structure beneath as a natural part of the grinding process, further reducing the angular moment, until finally the caps were obscured by the dust clouds and unable to be observed before finally being completely disintegrated. There was simple too much inertia to fall any way but straight down
The towers were 1368ft and 1362ft tall for WTC1 and 2 respectively. Debris patterns and distribution were consistent with parabolic trajectory of debris falling from such an immense height and acted upon by the force of thousands of tons of building smashing into it and pushing it out. No need for explosives here.
If the towers were completely solid, single objects, they would be expected to fall over sideways like a tree. They were not solid objects. Structures are, obviously, comprised of millions of individual components connected together. As these connections were severed by the mechanical action of the collapse, the only way they could act was as individual objects, falling under gravity. The components could not retain enough rigidity and provide enough resistance to the falling structure for it to act like a tree, nor to fall in any other way than symmetrically.
The 24' sections were the outer girders that were bolted to gether in sections thus creating a weak point at the joint. Every one knows that joints are always weak points. I have seen piks of the rubble showing the 4 holes for the bolts and piks of the actual bolts that were bent
swing dangler said...
All of this was also reported by the local news at the time. Now remember this in a Federal Building with offices of the ATF. Can you say inside job? I thought so.
Murdervillage-debunked.
Wow. How many times do you have to be told to do your homework?
Okay, swing, this is the second time in three days that this has come up and you've been unable to provide an answer.
What were the devices in the Murrah building ACTUALLY?
This is about the fifth time I've asked. All you have to do is tell me what the official version is. You don't have to agree with it. You do know, don't you? (Hint: you won't find the answer at CT sites!)
Yeah so um Democrat are you a real Democrat because Pearl Harbor, OKC, the 93 WTC, the Kennedy thing, ect. and all those conspiracys were all done under DEMOCRAT administrations....
Not to mention the terrorism we saw right before our eyes done by Clinton and his bunch down at Waco Seeing a tank go through a building filled with men, women and children? The endless torture Clinton put on the Branch Davidians for them to surrender? Teargas, bullets being fired, and you guys wanna talk about the torture at Abu Graib, watch a video sometime about the tortures of our own fellow citizens from direct order of our Gov. in Waco. I think there is a dvd out there called, Waco: Rules of Engagement, you should watch it. Because we all know the government started that fire right?
I mean if our Government is soo bad, and every conpiracy theory is true shouldn't the Democrats and Clinton Administration be responsible for that?
About the elevators: the freight elevators also went from the lowest sub-basement to the roof. Felipe David, the badly-burned man who William Rodriguez helped, was burned by the fireball from the freight shaft, as were many other people.
Oh, swing, I forgot to mention: you said ATF + Murrah building = inside job.
Do you really think they bombed themselves?
haha, ok, so if the buildings were supposed to fall over sideways when the planes hit don't you think they would have? A tree would yeah.
Comparing a skyscrapper to a TREE? Come on use common sense.
So the people who were actually burned, say it was a fireball?
If so, that settles it.
Comparing a skyscrapper to a TREE? Come on use common sense.
Apparently you're not famaliar with the great Judy Wood.
She's a dental engineer who twoofers regularly turn to for information on skyscrapers.
Don't ask me why.
And as long as we're chatting about elevators, the ones in the World Trade Center were not "hermetically sealed" as SD claims and as a second's thought would make evident to anyone.
Democrat, you really are clueless about engineering, or for that matter any natural laws. The building swayed 10 feet orso, as witnesses say they did. And comparing a tubular construction to a tree, are you daft?
Yeh i always liked that part about hermatically sealed elevators. People had to go through airlocks just to get into the elevators, and they all got an air cylinder to travel up or down with the elevators.....
Apparently you're not famaliar with the great Judy Wood.
She's a dental engineer who twoofers regularly turn to for information on skyscrapers.
haha, July WOOD, well that makes sense why she is talking about trees, and well did you say she is a DENTAL engineer? So wouldn't that make her a Toother? haha
Siggah, Democrat is from Holland, just like me :)
Oh alright cool. I didn't know.
Jay, the Feds are the only evidence you (and the OS for that matter)will accept, unless I'm wrong.
Wtf are you talking about?
Did the feds write the NIST report? Were the feds in the building as it collapsed around them? Did the feds write down the transcripts from the firefighters, EMS personel or policemen?
Did u ever bother looking at the transcripts?
Do you know how many firefighters complained about stuff that were fucked up that day? About lousy comunnication equipment, lack of communication from chief firefighters down to the regaular firefighters? Lousy positioning of the rigs. And then u don't think they have the balls to talk about bombs that supposedly went of?
FIREFIGHTER TIMOTHY BROWN
We finally set up -- prior to this I
believe it was the west side of the core of the
building there were elevators. Someone had come
to me and said that there were people trapped in
one of those elevators.
So I ran around the corner, and the
hoist way doors were open, but the elevator car
was only showing about two feet at the top of the
door. You could see all the legs of the people
that were in the elevator. I would guess there
were about eight people in the elevator.
The elevator pit was on fire with the
jet fuel. People were screaming in the elevator.
They were getting smoked and cooked. There
weren't a lot of firemen there at the time. I
grabbed some of the Port Authority employees and
asked them where the fire extinguishers were and
told them to get as many fire extinguishers as
they could so we could try and fight this fire.
As they were doing that, firemen started showing
up, and I started asking them to get big cans,
let's try to put this fire out.
This post at the JREF takes you through many of the eyewitness reports of the north tower elevator shaft jet fuel explosion, from top to bottom.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1907291&postcount=40
Thx Murder :)
Maybe i will make a seperate part in my blog just about the elevators. Or create a new one just for that.
You guys gotta stop quoting those people. Everyone knows that if a witness disagrees with Swinger, that witness is a government shill. Or is being threatened by the FBI. Or is a hologram. Something like that.
"If it didn't look like a demolition to me, news broadcasters, numerous others.
(Just because it didn't collapse in a traditional CD, doesn't mean it isn't it.)"
WTF? Open up your mind just a smidge and just for a minute, pretend that you don't "know" (and I use that word lightly here) the towers were brought down by a controlled demolition, and explain to me, given the forces acting on them at the time of the collapse, where/how they should have collasped. Fallen over sideway? Not likely. How many freaking times do I have to repeat myself here? Do you know anything about physics? About moment arms? About strengths of materials? Moments of inertia? Momentum? Energy? Work? How about a center of gravity? For (probably not) the last time, in order for something to tip over, be it a tree, a light pole or a skyscraper, its center of gravity has to be moved far enough to the side of its base to make it unstable (think about why your mom always told you to only open one dresser drawer at a time). And, that Newton guy, who was pretty much a genius, discovered that an object at rest tends to stay at rest until acted upon by a force, so if you would, since you're an "educated person with a bachelor and master's degree" tell me what force would have caused the building to fall sideways, or any which way but straight down (like it did, because, you know, that crazy thing called "gravity", which coincidentally acts straight down, was acting on it)? And I know you're not going to say the plane, because being the educated person that you are, you would know that the plane couldn't apply a force large enough to overcome the building's moment of inertia (you know, its resistance to rotational motion). You would also know that once the plane came to rest in the building, after expending all of its (kinetic)energy causeing the damage it did to the relatively small section of the building, it only added more weight to the building, the force of which also (amazingly enough) acted straight down. And I'm not going to get into all the strengths of materials at high but not melting point temperatures, because this is getting long as it is, suffice it to as that metal doen't have to melt to weaken significantly. There is no reason those towers should have fallen in any direction but straight down.
"As an educated person with a bachelor and master's degree, I can't just ignore all of the other evidence that points to something other than fire and damage causing the collapses."
Yeah, something other than fire, like maybe, a freaking plane being flown into it and compromising its structure, and then starting a fire. And would you at least tell us what your degrees are in? A master's in English/Psychology/something like that doesn't exactly qualify you to lecture people on what caused a building to collapse. I happen to be an educated person as well (BS and everything), and all of the people here who can't get off the fact (yes, fact) that there was no controlled demolition, are most likely one of the following:
1. uneducated
2. ignorant of even basic physics, much less structural engineering
3. stupid
4. just being a pain in the rest of our asses because they can be
So if our government is so terrible and would kill its own citizens to go to war, why the hell don't you just move out...because, we have this cool thing called "freedom" here that is a foriegn concept in most other parts of the world, and it allows you to get the hell out if you think you'll have it better somewhere else. I hear they have $.12/gallon gas in Venezuela...why don't you try living there and see how you like it.
Yes that guy is real, he's a no planer named Nico Haupt.
WOW!!!
He sounds like someone doing an exaggerated parody of a troother.
That dude needs to have his meds checked.
I would think it woudl be kind of sweet...., before I would knock him of his feet with smoking arguments to the contrary.
Funny how most troothers think that they are THE ONLY ONES who are capable of producing "evidence" and that their "evidence" is better then that of 100's of qualified experts.
I didn't realize some of the guys working on the WTC report worked on the OKC report. That brings up a whole new issue about the integrity of the NIST investigation as a whole.
Jesus Christ where do these tards get this shit?
Yet another example of a troother who has a preconceived belief and then looks for straws to grasp to justify his position.,
I bet troothers on the average do 99.999% of the drugs in America.
Practically, an team of experts would face great political problems if they ever were to investigate an explosives thesis on the buildings' collapses. The consequences of a report stating that explosives would be the most probable cause would lead to trouble for certain high placed people.
Can't have that in our fairy tale land.
The Troothers love to assert this bullshite.
My sister-in-law won a Pulitzer for a book about US soldiers opening fire on civilians.
She is alive and well and continues to report on government abuse and corruption.
She thinks that the troothers are NUTS!!
She was talking to a doctoer one day about 9-11 denial and he was one of the nutjobs.
She told me that HE CAME TO HER HOIUSE UNINVITED
Just to clarify here, Nico is not the guy making the phone call, he's the guy who left the first comment on this post. I enjoy Nico because he drives the rest of the Deniers nuts (not a long drive of course). Look up his videos on YouTube and Google (under ewing2001); they're not to be missed. There's also an interview with him from a bar somewhere in New York that may provide some entertainment value.
Yes, the elevator shafts were reasonably airtight to prevent the chimney effect, but they were not hermetically sealed; that's a typical exaggeration (like faster than freefall) from the Deniers.
Yes, Nico is the first post sorry if I gave the impression that he was the guy on the phone.
Thx for that beautiful post, Just me :) Alot of CT-ers dont have a frecking clue about physics or engineering, so they can be fooled by the idiots that make those movies into believing that the buildings can't have come down the way they did. But anyone with knowladge about physics or engineering can see right through that shit. Like they love to talk about conservation of momentum and stuff like that, but that only goes when no outside force is acted upon it, and they always forget the gravity that acts on it, so hence no conservation of momentum. I think that idiot woman Judy Woods came with that brilliant idea when she talked about the billiard balls.
Judy Woods came with that brilliant idea when she talked about the billiard balls.
OOOOOH NOOOOO!!!
Please dont tell me that Judy Woods is now claiming that the US government has space weapons that shoot billard balls!!!
;)
Finaly got a chance to listen to the mp3 of this guy's call. He deserves a much higher rating on the meter. "Raving" at least. If you listen to his tone of voice, and the way he talks to himself, it's quite clear that he's in need of some fairly heavy medication.
Elmondo, reading your reply, I think it is beneficial to describe the general concept here.
In modern life one is bombarded with information, brougth to us by, inter alia, speaking with each other, mass media, government sources and nowadays the Internet. All this information serves a purpose and can be true or untrue. We live our (ordinary) lives under this relentless stream of advertisements, promisses. stories and explanations.
It is up to us, individuals, to decipher the information presented, channel it and assess whether it is true or untrue. I don't know how you approach advertisements, but I tend to think just the opposite of what advertisements are claiming. The information coming from Government shows certain tendencies as well. It never tells me it is going to make my life miserably, has done anything wrong or goes against its own stated goals or policies.
There I am. A lonely guy in this wilderness of information.
We've had an emergency with 911. Nothing compared to a white phosfor attack on civilians of Fallelujah, but what do we care about that. 911, a tragic event. The stream of information started quickly and remained enormous.
Present, I am confronted with a lot of information on 911. What of it is true, and what is false? A tremendously difficult task for an ordinary citizen. One thing I know for sure: Government won't tell me anything disturbing. Secondly, its stance on 911 won't interfere with its policies and (perhaps hidden) goals. It's a standard rule for government information, and 911 is no different.
That leads to a very important thesis: government cannot be involved in the event of 911. If it would be (perhaps only a rogue network within government), it would never tell me by making a president's announcement or something like that. Furthermore, any lead to an involvement of government will be surpressed, silenced and diverted. Its a simple mechanism, as I would not be inclined to say that I am a jerk if I would be. Therefore, if I am looking for leads in government involvement re 911, I must distrust information brought out by government, or, at least scrutinize it.
With respect to 911, we have a lot of leads that the OS story may not be right and that in reality, government played a role in the events. Consequently, government information is suspect (as it always is in my view, but that is just my personal opinion). It's not one aspect of 911 that is suspicious, but almost every aspect of it, including foreknowledge, blocked investigations and continuing cover up measures.
Let's focus now on the information stream again. We have had first hand stories on 911 that, in my opinion, are very valuable. On the same day, the first hand stories already turned old and the mechanism of 'unification' of information started, not in the least by government information pointing firmly to Al Qaeda and OBL. Dissenting information was quickly forgotten, the event got a mainstream jacket thoroughly imprinted in the minds of citizens in a manner government found fit for them. The investigation of the event suffered this streamlining process as well with specifically picked people at the site and gag orders all over the place. Unification of the government's info stream towards its citizens.
Problem: how do you know information is true?
We live in interesting times with information running over the planet at the blink of an eye. Therefore, we get a lot of information about the world's affairs on a 24/7 basis. How do we know the information is correct? Well, basicly we mostly just assume the information from certain sources is correct. We trust that certain information is correct without the ability to verify this. I haven't shaken hands with the pope during my life or seen him at the Vatican, but I just assume that the guy exists and does what the telly is telling me he was doing at that time. A news program showing him on TV and newspapers writing about him give me the idea that such information about the pope presented is true, but I cannot check this myself. It always ends with assumptions and trust, very important.
In what kind of position am I now?
I and many others have doubts about government's role in the 911 events. There are a lot of holes in the OS, laws of physics seemed suspended on 911, and governments actions are, to put it mildly, suspicious. This renders government information suspect as far as I'm concerned, as set out above. I cannot merely assume or trust that government would admit complicity in the 911 events if that would the case.
I have the impression that you are not fully aware of my position here. It seems that your position is that government endorsed information is true unless proven otherwise with evidence so hard and convincing that it would hold in court. That's a position you may have, but it is not mandatory. My world is a bit more realistic.
I am not presenting a case for a court to get a claim rewarded or something comparable. I am just a lone gunman sorting out available information on the events on 911 to assess whether I find the OS convincing or not. I am not selling a story to the public, the government is. If I think
Now I am presented a report from experts from the NIST dealing with the collapse of the WTC towers. We all consider NIST experts here and, generally, have an open view on what experts have to say. After all, we are just ordinary citizens not fully able to investigate and know everything. However, given this string towards a possible government complicity (whatever the degree), I am certainly interested in the background of these experts. They must be able to render a high quality and independent advise here, free from a conflict of interest.
Invetigating the NIST some further it turns out to be a State sponsored entity which budget is set by government. Furthermore, complaints surrounding the output of NIST turn up. That worries me in viwe of the matter at hand. A report stating that explosives were used to bring down the buildings certainly would not fit the OS from the government. Instead of looking at 19 hijackers (or 25 considering Flight 23, also a strange story), we would have to look for terrorist having access to explosives and the buildings, tremendously complicating the OS. Basicly, we can say that an explosives thesis as the most probable cause for the buildings' collapses would be unwanted for by government.
Question: would NIST be free to draw up any result they would find?
Democrat's telepathic lines are open again.
The NIST is dependant for funding by government. Would that render some pressure on it to come up with a result that suits government's goals (and OS)?
I would certainly think so.
Things don't get better with the information that experts previously did OKC reports on one bomb. Hardly not controversial as a conclusion and exactly the same problem: go with the available evidence and it would be bad for government (FBI involvement?). Same experts, same tricks. I definitely don't buy the truck bomb theory on the OKC bombing and the same experts turning up on another save the government's ass project is a big negative for me. Don't understand me wrong here, I ain't taking it to court here. Its my own perception and you may have yours. I don't like guys covering up and that's something that, again, may be at play here just with the OKC bombing. Finding this out is just one too many for me, sue me for that.
That experts also worked on other WTC related reports rendering different conclusions would be only minor compared to this huge conflict of interest, dependence from government and bad track records of experts. It doesn't do good for my trust and confidence, and that is the only thing I have with respect to judging stories besides common sense.
If these guys would seriously help me out here by thoroughly dealing with witness' reports and full research of the collapse mechanism under an explosives mechanism, that would help. However, we know what has become of that, only decreasing the trust in this information.
You may want hard evidence before loosing the gullible stance on government sponsored reports, I am a little bit more cautious with this gullible thing. Stating that its taxpayers paying for it is a lousy argument since I cannot imagine a majority of tax payers being in favour of paying for chemical weapons being sprayed on civilians in Fallelujah either. It aint taxpayers deciding who gets the cake, its government which decides so.
You may wait for hard evidence on this, it won't come. I cannot provide you with it ever, since I am just an ordinary citizen. You can't provide hard evindence either. Since you have to rely on an 'expert' yourself. Its just confidence and trust in the information presented. Sorry, too many loose ends here to just go with the flow, confident and all. 911 is a total chain of coincedences and mysterious physics to let this just slip through the filter purely on trust. I want something better than government paid guys already related to other cover up jobs (that's my opinion, just live with it). Cleaning up this mess would be a job for Spitzer or something with special powers, subpoenas, second opinions from independent experts and so. What I can give you is the background not being too gullible here with respect to reports. It needs to fit my common sense ideas, otherwise I might pass. No sticking to automatic acceptance of anything an expert comes up with here.
Whether you find such an approach a good one or this approach a reason to be sceptical yourself is something entirely different. From my life experience, I am not on the side of government fairy tales too lften. This may be different for you, its no court decision here. However, I remain interested in hearing other people's opinions because it cannot hurt me to read and learn from those opinions in the future. I'm not god either.
I am just really careful with these expert opinions now, whether you understand that or not. Thank you for your time.
Democrat, can u tell us what laws of physics were suspended on 9/11?
Jay, Democrat can't tell you what laws of physics were suspended because it's just a silly canard that he mindlessly repeats over and over. Nobody in the fields of physics, structural engineering, avionics, or controlled demolition believe that any physical laws were "suspended." Serious researchers ridicule the fools who make this nonsensical claim.
Bg is a fraud.
I typed "bg" when I intended "democrat." On reflection, what difference does it make? Two frauds.
We keep on getting that NIST report in our face with respect to the 10-15 seconds collapse of the Twin Towers. The speed of the collapse is the most troubling part of it. Why wasn't there any resistance at all from the supporting structure beneath the impact zone?
Actually, what are we looking at with the NIST report?
Nothing, absolutely nothing from NIST here. No investigation, nothing. Just air.
Can you understand my doubt with these guys here? If not, I am seeing why you do not have doubt.
You have trust, I don't.
Too easy. Tell me, demmy, how long SHOULD the towers have taken to fall?
Failing that, how much should the acceleration due to gravity have been slowed? Should it have been 10% slower? 20%? Let's see some numbers!
Alex, I don't claim to have the answer, government or NIST does. You are sticking to the 100% proof approach again.
You don't have to convince me, the OS and its authors (ultimately, government) must.
Ah. So it's a case of "I don't know how fast it should fall, but it shouldn't fall THIS fast". Well, gee, that's a GREAT argument, democrat. You're a lawyer you say? Your clients must be real happy with you....
An investigation by a government related entity costing like 20 million or so.
No investigation on the actual collapse of two skyscrapers.
Question that on SLC, and this is what you get. The reader may decide.
Democrat,
So who should investigate the collapse of the towers?
You?
lol
what an idiot.
I can just see you using the same logic in court:
Well, you see your honour, even though the prosecution has extensive evidence documenting my client ramming his vehicle into his spouse, they have conducted ZERO investigations into what happened between the time he hit her and the time she hit the ground. I therefore submit that my client is innocent, and that his spouse must have been exposed to Star Wars lasers while in midair, thereby causing her death. I rest my case.
Like I said, buddy, if you're a lawyer, I'm a Japanese Jet Pilot.
Ohh, P.S. Your honour, we also have reason to believe that she fell faster than gravity. This clearly demonstrates my clients innocence.
Give me 20 million and I will put anything in my report.
Democrat, the collapse of the building was already explained by Zdenek P. Bazant in 2001. And that paper still stands after 5 years. NO ONE has refuted that paper in an official peer reviewed paper. So get of your high horse.
democrat...here's a thought, you think the NIST wrote its report to say whatever the government wanted it to say because they're funded by the government, correct? And since you're a democrat, I would assume you agree completely that global warming is going to kill us all very soon because, god forbid, we drive SUVs. So, by your logic, any and all sceintists who preach global warming that get government grants should be discounted because they're just saying whatever the government wants them to in order to keep their funding? Or is it different with the global warming scientists because they agree with you (or rather, you agree with them)?
Democrat, try and find someone that can debunk the next paper from Bazant and Verdure.
Mechanics of Progressive Collapse
Or better yet, try and debunk it yourself.
All you have to do is point at the fact that the ultimate WTC report in fact doesn't deal with the actual collapse, and fallacy argumentation is what you get.
I gave you a printscreen of the actual passage in the report.
What I think of the buildings' collapses is irrelevant.
Still slapping the NIST report in everyone's faces?
Bazant and Verdure have me confirmed.
The hand of God does exist. We can have progressive collapse and immense dustclouds at the sime time (and, of course, an indestructable part consisting of 30 floors, conveniently dissappearing when the bottom is reached.
Question: why were WTC 5 and 6 not subject to progressive collapse in spite of the enormous amounts of debris landing on it: Hand of God had a day off?
Democrat u moron, WTC 5 and 6 were not build like WTC 1,2 and 7. Really, u are totally clueless.
Lol and u replying only to a drawing in that report is even more sad.
Here is a report on WTC 4, 5 and 6.
WTC 4, 5, and 6
All you have to do is point at the fact that the ultimate WTC report in fact doesn't deal with the actual collapse
Why point out irrelevancies? Are you TRYING to look like an idiot?
I found that video btw from Mythbuster and the elevator :)
Mythbusters
And it really sounds like an explosion. The speed of the elevator falling from 8 floors was 51 Mph when it hit the bottom.
The speed of the elevator falling from 8 floors was 51 Mph when it hit the bottom.
For comparison, and object dropped from the top of WTC1 would be travelling at 203 mph by the time it his the ground. If we assume 20% resistance to acceleration during the collapse, the top floor would have hit the ground doing about 180mph.
Jay, are you telling me that you put forward reports with information that is not correct? What a shame.
alex...
Are you freaking kidding me? What physics class did you ever take? Did you pass? You don't just use an equation to figure out the velocity with which the top floor would hit the ground and pick a percent to subtract... Have you ever heard or terminal velocity? Try googling it, learn a little bit and then write something intelligent. When objects fall far enough, they stop accelerating (stop gaining speed that is)...and there are way to figure that out without saying "oh gee, I think I'll subtract 20%". Good lord, lucky for people like you the internet doesn't require people to be competent about anything they're discussing.
Wtf are you talking about Democrat?
Post a Comment
<< Home