| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ally
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 10:25 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| TimmyG wrote: |
despute the evidence and theories, thats fair enough.
but how anyone can say that wtc7 looks nothing like controlled demolition is beyond me. you can see the kink and squibs flying up the side. i don't see how the buildings 'unusual' design can account for that. no, i'm not a structural engineer. but i do have eyes |
It does make you wonder what people's motives are for flat out lying, wasting people's time and trying to destroy a thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kbo234 wrote: | | Ally wrote: | | Gravy wrote: |
Please be specific in your criticisms. |
I'm not wasting anymore time on shills, just gets me in trouble. |
Ally,
Your time is never wasted. It just saves the rest of us the bother. I agree with you that with most of these people it is not a matter of honest disagreement. They are rotten people peddling false and deliberately misleading information.
People should ask themselves this. Why would anyone who believes the official line bother to make themselves experts in obscure, highly technical (yet false) justifications of that official line. The official story is all the public get to hear and see......so what's your problem, if you believe it?
Only a mighty skepticism of the official line could serve as motivation for doing all that research......or, alternatively, some of the billions the PTB spend on propaganda is used in the continuing (but losing) battle to cover up their crimes.
It is impossible to perceive these individuals as anything other than paid shills. If they were merely sceptical of our arguments and genuinely inquisitive, they would not arrive here as fully-fledged 'experts' on every aspect of the evidence.
No doubt these people will attack these comments and present a different motivation for themselves (they are quite creative) to the readers of this forum.
However, let common sense (as usual) prevail.
Just think of the collapses of the World Trade Centres. There is a simple obvious explanation for what happened (controlled demolition by insiders) that contains no anomolous contradictions regarding the actual evidence. There is also a wriggling, fantastical conspiracy theory that 19 arabs with box-cutters hijacked airplanes......that US air-defence witlessly stood down at exactly the wrong moment, that aluminium panels self-powdered to create a natural 'thermite-type' collapse that...etc., etc.
Give me common sense every time. These people are shills almost to a man/woman. The site is currently under attack from quite a few of them.
This is an encouraging sign.
Answer their questions (it is good for one's own education) until it becomes obvious that there is no real exchange of views taking place and the obvious dawns and you start to feel the anger and nausea. |
Hi KBO
I can find little fault with your comments. I share your belief that Gravy and other critics are unlikely to offer fundamentally new insights or fundamentally undermine the case against the Kean Commission and NIST. That is more a gut feeling that an informed position, in that I have yet to find the time to look specifically at what Gravy and others have written on 911myths.com. I will try and get round to it.
I also share your opinion that some of these critics may well not be what they say they are: i.e truly independent. To me it stands to reason that the PTB (powerful people with a vested interest in maintaining that the official account is true) may choose to employ people to study and then defend their account on public discussion boards like this. However, we must take great care in not automatically assuming that this is the case when we have no way of knowing this.
Therefore whilst some of our critics may well be 'shills' it does not serve us to accuse them as such because they will rightly respond: where is your evidence and of course, we have none.
We must also be conscious of how we are perceived by a wider public. If everytime we encounter a critic we shout shill or similar names, the public perception will be that we don't want to engage in genuine evidence based research and that we are 'fundamentalist fanatics'. This is certainly how our critics will try to portray us.
So let's welcome the interest and as and when informed people here have the time we should respond carefully and in a measured way to the points that Gravy and others make and at alll times maintain almost exaggerated politeness and respect. This I believe is how we will be most effective.
After all if we don't engage our critics here in a polite and repectful way, how can we ask to be treated with respect on hostile or potentially hostile boards. Plus we should attract the debate to 'our' small bit of cyberspace, where 'we' control the moderation rather than be at the whim of unknown and possibly hostile moderation.
Ally, you are not 'in trouble' with me. My advice is just about how to be effective and promote a good debate. I expect if we shared our views 'off record' we would find a lot of common ground.
Easy now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fair enough Ian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Again, welcome words, and thanks.
As to this:
| ian neal wrote: | I also share your opinion that some of these critics may well not be what they say they are: i.e truly independent. To me it stands to reason that the PTB (powerful people with a vested interest in maintaining that the official account is true) may choose to employ people to study and then defend their account on public discussion boards like this. However, we must take great care in not automatically assuming that this is the case when we have no way of knowing this.
Therefore whilst some of our critics may well be 'shills' it does not serve us to accuse them as such because they will rightly respond: where is your evidence and of course, we have none. |
Ally, or anyone else who is interested: I go by the same alias, "chipmunk stew", several places online. Two of the places I have frequented most often are the JREF forums and the Loose Change forums (where I used the alias "stipmunk chew" in addition to "chipmunk stew"). By searching my posting history, you can probably find out a great deal about me. You'll notice that prior to March of this year, I didn't have much to say about 9/11 conspiracies. If you follow my posts from about March on, you'll discover my motivation for becoming personally involved.
For instance, this post on the Loose Change board:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=439 0
While it addresses specifically my motivation for posting on that board in relation to Loose Change, it applies broadly to my motivation for engaging the Truth Movement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arkan_Wolfshade
Minor Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kbo234 wrote: |
Ally,
Your time is never wasted. It just saves the rest of us the bother.
|
| Quote: |
I agree with you that with most of these people it is not a matter of honest disagreement. They are rotten people peddling false and deliberately misleading information.
|
You should attack the argument, not the person. If the information being provided is false and deliberately misleading, you should be able to demonstrate it as such without resorting to personal attacks.
| Quote: |
People should ask themselves this. Why would anyone who believes the official line bother to make themselves experts in obscure, highly technical
|
I can not speak for everyone, but as for myself; I find the errors in logic, and failure to utilize the scientific method correctly to be something worthy of my time to try to correct. Addtionally, with regards to Loose Change and their forums, I find some of the 9/11 movement to be personaly offensive due to how they disrespect those that died that day (not making any claims that this forum is like that).
| Quote: |
(yet false) justifications of that official line. The official story is all the public get to hear and see......so what's your problem, if you believe it?
|
Again, if false, this should be demonstratable.
| Quote: |
Only a mighty skepticism of the official line could serve as motivation for doing all that research......or, alternatively, some of the billions the PTB spend on propaganda is used in the continuing (but losing) battle to cover up their crimes.
|
False dichotomy. Just because you try to make the situation either/or does not mean it is so.
| Quote: |
It is impossible to perceive these individuals as anything other than paid shills. If they were merely sceptical of our arguments and genuinely inquisitive, they would not arrive here as fully-fledged 'experts' on every aspect of the evidence.
No doubt these people will attack these comments and present a different motivation for themselves (they are quite creative) to the readers of this forum.
|
Again, you should attack the argument, not the person.
| Quote: |
However, let common sense (as usual) prevail.
|
I would counter this with, "Let the scientific method prevail."
| Quote: |
Just think of the collapses of the World Trade Centres. There is a simple obvious explanation for what happened (controlled demolition by insiders) that contains no anomolous contradictions regarding the actual evidence. There is also a wriggling, fantastical conspiracy theory that 19 arabs with box-cutters hijacked airplanes......that US air-defence witlessly stood down at exactly the wrong moment, that aluminium panels self-powdered to create a natural 'thermite-type' collapse that...etc., etc.
|
For brevity: argumentum ad ignorantiam, and straw man
| Quote: |
Give me common sense every time. These people are shills almost to a man/woman. The site is currently under attack from quite a few of them.
|
Please attack the arguments, not the people.
| Quote: |
This is an encouraging sign.
Answer their questions (it is good for one's own education) until it becomes obvious that there is no real exchange of views taking place and the obvious dawns and you start to feel the anger and nausea. |
I agree with all but the last bit. If both sides are truly interested in dicussion and letting the evidence lead to the conclusion then there is no reason why a real exchange of views should not take place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi and welcome
Chipmunk. Thanks for the info on the background to your interest in 9/11. It is always helpful know a bit about who you are discussing these things with.
Arkan, I completely agree we should all attack the argument and not the person and let the scientifc method pervail
One thing that strikes me is that with all the many many angles to explore, there is a danger that trying to host this discussion on one thread will be very difficult and the discussion will become disjointed. So I invite people from either 'side' to start individual threads on specific subjects. I suggest the general section and possibly entitle them critics corner. I intend to start a thread (when I get a moment) dealing with the explanations (or lack of them) of the molten metals found in the debris of triple towers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Quote: | Quote:
what i've read from popular mechanics 'debunking' some of the theories comes across as highly patriotic and slightly racist. not very unbiased. which makes me think atleast someone within their ranks is pulling strings for the government. |
Examples?
|
from popular mechanics:
| Quote: |
The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. |
i find this to be quite racist. not the kind of thing i'd expect to read in an unbiased scientific study
another interesting quote from that pm 'debunking' article:
| Quote: | | Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. |
so what was larry silverstein talking about then?
_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
Last edited by TimmyG on Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ally
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ian, you will never change the minds of the bunch of trolls who've turned up from the JREF forum, google their names, all professional liars when it comes to 911. Their only purpose is to ruin decent threads by making sure they post long winded bile last in every thred until others get sick and let them get away with it.
Sod knows why u want to offer open arms hospitality to these creeps. They deserve nothing except abuse IMO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ally i understand your anger but try and chill. Don't give them any reason to label the movement as a bunch of nutters!
it just won't get us anywhere to bark at them.
_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TimmyG wrote: | from popular mechanics:
| Quote: |
The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. |
i find this to be quite racist. not the kind of thing i'd expect to read in an unbiased scientific study
another interesting quote from that pm 'debunking' article:
| Quote: | | Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. |
so what was larry silverstein talking about then? |
The quote says "no firefighting", not "no firefighters". They didn't have water to fight it with. The firefighters who were at 7 were there to assess the situation and keep the area clear. They observed massive damage on the South side, leaning and buckling, and huge multi-story fires. Their assessment was that the building was not recoverable and was in danger of collapse, so they set up a collapse zone and pulled everyone out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ally wrote: | | Their only purpose is to ruin decent threads by making sure they post long winded bile last in every thred until others get sick and let them get away with it. |
You may be right and a problem I had anticipated. Which was why a long time ago at the start of the 'Rachel thread' I suggested a separate area of the forum be created where we can (if we wish to do so) engage with our critics meanwhile keeping the remainder of the forum for discussion between people who support the campaign. At the time this wasn't supported but we will need to revisit this if this is seen to be the way to go.
| Ally wrote: | | Sod knows why u want to offer open arms hospitality to these creeps. They deserve nothing except abuse IMO. |
I offer a welcome because I would far rather 'we' engage our critics in our small bit of cyber space where 'we' control the moderation than elsewhere.
Certain people may 'deserve some abuse' especially if they apologists for warcriminals like Bush and Blair, but personally I hope we can avoid this |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fair dos. thing is. it would be fairly easy for someone on the inside to get a couple of firemen to provide statements like this after the event.
so whilst i'm not saying this definately is the case. I am saying it could be, and the unusual collapse (especially the sudden initiation and speed of the collapse ) in the official sense, is a greater pnenomenom than getting a couple of fire fighters to lie (or just spin their words slightly).
Also the refusal for fema, nist and people pushing the official report to recognise that the collapse of WTC7 looks very similar to that of a controlled demolition, raises my suspicions further. Larry Silverstein refering to a group of firefighters as 'it' is also unusual.
Our own foreign minister Ian Pearson here in the UK replied to a letter of mine, telling me that wtc7 was 'pulled down' in the same manner as the other wtc buildings which were officially demolished. Further questions from me brought him to realise that he was contridicting the official line and he corrected his 'mistake'. The point is something he had seen or read had lead him to believe that WTC7 was 'pulled down'. I find it strange that people opposing the demolition theory won't even acknowledge the visual similarities between wtc7 and a building which is being demolished with explosives.
_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ally
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Have you noticed defenders of the Official conspiracy theory never ever refer Siegel's 911Eyewitness film and concentrate on the flimsy mistakes in LooseChange, you can hear WTC7 being detonated in Rick's flick never mind the rest of what that film contains. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | They observed massive damage on the South side, leaning and buckling, and huge multi-story fires. Their assessment was that the building was not recoverable and was in danger of collapse, so they set up a collapse zone and pulled everyone out. |
Gravity denier alert!
Buckling does not lead to pulverisation and symmettric freefall collapse - I don't care whether Larry Silverstein said "pull it" "pull them" or "pull my pud"
Building 7 NIST report still not issued after 5 years! What?
This the 9/11 Truth Board, not "9/11 Gravity and Physics Deniers" board.
So, you're suggesting WTC was rigged for demolition in 9 hours, with fires burning? OK, live in that fantasy world if you wish. Most of us here look at consistent laws of physics being the basis of our physical reality.
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TimmyG wrote: | fair dos. thing is. it would be fairly easy for someone on the inside to get a couple of firemen to provide statements like this after the event.
so whilst i'm not saying this definately is the case. I am saying it could be, and the unusual collapse (especially the sudden initiation and speed of the collapse ) in the official sense, is a greater pnenomenom than getting a couple of fire fighters to lie (or just spin their words slightly).
Also the refusal for fema, nist and people pushing the official report to recognise that the collapse of WTC7 looks very similar to that of a controlled demolition, raises my suspicions further. Larry Silverstein refering to a group of firefighters as 'it' is also unusual.
Our own foreign minister Ian Pearson here in the UK replied to a letter of mine, telling me that wtc7 was 'pulled down' in the same manner as the other wtc buildings which were officially demolished. Further questions from me brought him to realise that he was contridicting the official line and he corrected his 'mistake'. The point is something he had seen or read had lead him to believe that WTC7 was 'pulled down'. I find it strange that people opposing the demolition theory won't even acknowledge the visual similarities between wtc7 and a building which is being demolished with explosives. |
I acknowledge the visual similarities.
Silverstein's "pull it" comment: Isn't it more plausible that "pull it" meant "terminate the operation" than "destroy the building through controlled demolition (this is my nationally publicized confession)"?
I completely disagree that some shadowing figure getting firefighters to lie is easier to believe than the tower collapsing in a manner visually similar to a controlled demo. Especially since, implicit in the "lie" is the assumption that explosives were rigged ahead of time and deliberately detonated, adding an unnecessary layer of complexity and risk to an already complex scheme for unknown reasons. That's what stretches my credibility. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | Quote: | | They observed massive damage on the South side, leaning and buckling, and huge multi-story fires. Their assessment was that the building was not recoverable and was in danger of collapse, so they set up a collapse zone and pulled everyone out. |
Gravity denier alert!
Buckling does not lead to pulverisation and symmettric freefall collapse - I don't care whether Larry Silverstein said "pull it" "pull them" or "pull my pud"
Building 7 NIST report still not issued after 5 years! What?
This the 9/11 Truth Board, not "9/11 Gravity and Physics Deniers" board.
So, you're suggesting WTC was rigged for demolition in 9 hours, with fires burning? OK, live in that fantasy world if you wish. Most of us here look at consistent laws of physics being the basis of our physical reality. |
I'm suggesting it wasn't rigged for demolition at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Silverstein's "pull it" comment: Isn't it more plausible that "pull it" meant "terminate the operation" than "destroy the building through controlled demolition (this is my nationally publicized confession)"? |
hmmm. that doesn't sit in my mind. If the fire fighters were only looking at the building what sort of operation was being terminated? it would make more sense for him to say 'we decided to give up on building 7'. in the context of the documentary. that statement is pretty strange
the fire fighters wouldn't neccessarily have to be told to lie in order to cover up a controlled demolition. they may well have observed buckling and sagging. But for them to predict a 1 second slower than freefall speed collapse into it's own footprint....? Many other wtc buildings caught fire and were damaged. but they didn't entirely collapse with one sudden movement.
anyway. larry silverstein had now said that he meant 'pull the firefighters' so he is refering to firefighters as 'it'
_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brian
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 611
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Should we worry about being called anything when it is apparent these shills, there is absolutely no doubt about it, are quite literally here to take the piss and we are accomodating them.
This is a demonstrable tactic of theirs, tying up boards going round and round with sometimes subtle but most times blatant obfuscation.
There is no doubt we should be careful to not label anyone not familiar with the evidence and be willing to answer the most basic of questions but it is obvious that these latest naysayers are anything but that.
As with the old saying - dont open your mind so far that your brains fall out - lets treat these apologists for this most grotesque crime in the manner they deserve. If it is not thought wise to ban such creeps then to my mind they should be ridiculed or shunned.
Take the piss out of them or ignore them, do not give them credence or we are in effect complicit in promoting their lies and obfuscation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Copied from dean_saor's contribution on another thread. Pretty appropriate for this one.
Interesting article at Vive le Canada:
In defense of the conspiratorial world view
by Jay Esbe
"...Current polls now show that a majority of Americans believe the government is not telling them the truth about 9-11. That fact now makes the majority of Americans "conspiracy theorists" regarding the issue. It is now a minority of the public who believes they were told the truth by the Bush appointed 9-11 Commission, but such is not the case among the so-called "mainstream media". It is nearly universally hostile to any question of a cover-up by the government. Those who need the world to make sense do not find the disparity between public opinion and the media elite's contempt for suspicion to be meaningless. They reasonably look for a vested conflict of interest on the part of the corporate media to explain why presumably intelligent professionals go soft in the head, and they do not have to look far to find one; a media which sits in an unelected advisory capacity to the President of the United States through the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), innumerable "think tanks" funded by corporate interests all assuming a global model is "inevitable", and directly attached special interests which include the world's biggest defense contractors raking billions of dollars in for share holders as they pursue the war profits of 9-11. People who point out the obvious are not wearing tin foil hats, they're simply...pointing out the obvious.
Self-proclaimed debunkers pull out every trick in the book to discredit the now flourishing "9-11 Truth movement"; pointing out the most improbable theories as though they were representative (straw men), pointing out the unrelated UFO believers who may also believe them, all in an attempt to portray "idiocy by association" and to make a soup so thick with the stench of lunacy, that anyone who dares tread in it is sullied by association...."_________________
dèan saor – make free
cho fad’s a mhaireas ceud a-mhàin glèidhidh sinn gu treun ar saors’ gu bràth ("as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we give up our freedom") Obar Bhrothaig 1320
http://www.nolajbs.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dodgy
Minor Poster
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 78
Location: Newcastle
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gravy wrote: | No "Lols" needed. All the information you ask for is easily available. You only have to have the desire to find it. Of course, the NIST report on WTC 7 isn't out, but the interim report has been available for a long time and is full of the information you're looking for. Have you read it?
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
You'll find lots of photos, links to videos, and most importantly descriptions of the damage and fires in the WTC 7 sections of these two documents of mine (there's a lot of overlap between them):
"911truth.org" critique http://tinyurl.com/hevbg
"Loose Change" guide (.doc file) http://tinyurl.com/epp82 or view as HTML http://tinyurl.com/jnfp8
Here's a photo you may not have seen. I'm trying to track down the video.
 |
I asked you for any public photographic or video evidence of the damage to WTC7's south side - it's strange how NIST suddenly found some photo's to use in their illustrations which were never available before, one of which (fig L-22a) looks altered (darkness and blue light).
Also, forgetting that gravity went kinda sideways that day and pulled all that steel a few hundred feet sideways to cause all that damage - if there was significant damage to the south-west corner of WTC7, wouldn't it also be assumed that there would be significant (or at least some) damage to the south-east corner of the verizon building caused by the demolition of WTC1?
This is the east side of the Verizon building, showing damage caused by WTC7, do you see any damage to the south-east corner (on the left)?
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-7-8.jpg
Here it is again, east side, any damage to the corner?
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-7-6.jpg
And this is taken from the south-east, any signs of damage or restoration work on the south-east corner, or anywhere on the east side of the south facing?
http://www.michaelp.org/photos/gz2002/verizon_building.jpg
Ditto here
http://www.michaelp.org/photos/gz2002/bottom_of_verizon_building.jpg
The only damage visible anywhere on the south facing of the Verizon building is in the centre. All of the damage to the east facing appears to have been caused by WTC7.
Even if there were damage to the south-west side, it doesn't explain anything about how WTC7 'fell down'
And back to the NIST study - it has even altered the CBS stills of the collapse, and made the west side of WTC7 barely visible, omitting to note the squibs that are clearly visible near the south-west corner travelling upwards on the original footage (but can hardly be seen in the altered stills).
As to the raging inferno - I still haven't seen any photo's showing huge fires, even NIST's report says "No fire was observed or reported in
the afternoon on Floors 1–5, 10, or above Floor 13.", doesn't sound huge to me, especially going by all photo's showing the fires themselves. Btw, there was huge amounts of smoke coming from all over the WTC Plaza on that day, so smoke doesn't clearly show where it was coming from.
I will leave it to someone more versed to pick it apart, but for now shall link to a (quite old) critique of FEMA's WTC Building Performance Survey regarding WTC7:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch5.htm
And also a critique of NIST's Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html
For now, a "classic progressive collapse" doesn't convince me in the slightest.
Oh, and regarding the FDNY EXPERT, something from here: http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/vallebunoa.html
Before FDNY Battalion Chief Vallebunoa says
| Quote: | | Then you start saying, oh, things are going right. I took a little R-and-R then for an hour or so and I went down and relaxed. A lot of guys were down on the corner, where there was a little restaurant-type place. We thought 7 World Trade Center was going to fall and push the side of the World Trade Center that was still standing, and then it was going to go into 90 and I thought the scaffold was going to fall and cover the block and kill another 30 people. As silly as it sounds now, if you were there at that moment, I wasn�t the only person thinking that way. |
he also has this to remark:
| Quote: | | And they must have found the engineer in the building to get the pumps going too. We got some pretty good streams going out of there. We had 15 Truck, I think. It was a tower ladder. I didn�t want him to go up the street. I was the biggest coward in the world that day. I was waiting. I thought every other building was going to collapse in Manhattan, I really did. I couldn�t get rid of that feeling like everything is going to collapse. 7 World Trade Center � I couldn�t even watch that. I said that�s enough. I refused to watch that. I took R-and-R. I said you guys can watch that one. But they got streams and they contained the fire. I mean, the objective was nobody else got killed, the fire did not jump the street. |
Hmm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dodgy wrote: | I asked you for any public photographic or video evidence of the damage to WTC7's south side - it's strange how NIST suddenly found some photo's to use in their illustrations which were never available before, one of which (fig L-22a) looks altered (darkness and blue light).
As to the raging inferno - I still haven't seen any photo's showing huge fires, even NIST's report says "No fire was observed or reported in
the afternoon on Floors 1–5, 10, or above Floor 13.", doesn't sound huge to me, especially going by all photo's showing the fires themselves. Btw, there was huge amounts of smoke coming from all over the WTC Plaza on that day, so smoke doesn't clearly show where it was coming from. |
These videos leave little doubt as to the source of the smoke:
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
http://www.911myths.com/wtc7moresmoke.avi
What does the NIST report have to say about floors 6-9, 11 & 12? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dodgy
Minor Poster
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 78
Location: Newcastle
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I see smoke but I see no huge fires (or any fire at all in those videos).
Floors 6-9, 11-12:
| Quote: | Interviews place a fire on Floor 7 at the west wall, toward the south side, at approximately 12:15 p.m.
Fire was seen in the southwest corner near Floor 10 or 11
Fire was seen on Floors 6, 7, 8, 21, and 30
2:00 to 2:30 p.m. Figure L–24a shows fires on east face Floors 11 and 12 at the southeast corner. Several photos during this time show fires progressing north.
Around 3 p.m., fires were observed on Floors 7 and 12 along the north face. The fire on Floor 12 appeared to bypass the northeast corner and was first observed at a point approximately one third of the width from the northeast corner, and then spread both east and west across the north face.
Some time later, fires were observed on Floors 8 and 13, with the fire on Floor 8 moving from west to east and the fire on Floor 13 moving from east to west. Figure L–24b shows fires on Floors 7 and 12.
At this time, the fire on Floor 7 appeared to have stopped progressing near the middle of the north face.
The fire on Floor 8 continued to move east on the north face, eventually reaching the northeast corner and moving to the east face. Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time. |
Again, going by this (and believing that the NIST report is accurate as always....) and the photographic evidence (even that contained within the NIST report), the fires were relatively small. Ho hum.
Oh aye, forgot this from the Report:
| Quote: | After WTC 1 collapsed, the south face of WTC 7 was obscured by smoke, making direct observation of damage from photographs or videos difficult or impossible. The source of the smoke is uncertain, as
large fires were burning in WTC 5 and WTC 6, as well as those noted below in WTC 7. The light but prevalent winds from the northwest caused the smoke to rise on the leeward, or south, side of the building. The following information about damage seen in WTC 7 was obtained from interviews of people in or near the building: |
Seems that you also cherry-pick whatever you want to promote your loony theories... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I'm suggesting it wasn't rigged for demolition at all. |
Oh sorry - well then, can you show me the "Phantasy Physics" text book (deliberate gimmicky spelling as used sometimes for kids books) you got this wild idea from (i.e that fire can cause free-fall collapse), or have you already sold the patent for the technique for a few fires burning through the building (which the sprinkler system should've dealt with) and bashing out a 20-stories section of masonry on 1 side of the buiding to cause a near-perfect symmetric freefall collapse?
Please let me know when your new demolition/desctruction (as you seem to want to call it something else) technique is used - we can then compare notes to the old way it was done and work out how much money was saved over a traditional demolition etc.
Remember, you're gonna need to make the 20 story gash - so you'll need to crash an aircraft into a nearby building a few hours previous to your planned collapse time.... or do it with a wrecking ball or something....
Good luck!
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | Quote: |
I'm suggesting it wasn't rigged for demolition at all. |
Oh sorry - well then, can you show me the "Phantasy Physics" text book (deliberate gimmicky spelling as used sometimes for kids books) you got this wild idea from (i.e that fire can cause free-fall collapse), or have you already sold the patent for the technique for a few fires burning through the building (which the sprinkler system should've dealt with) and bashing out a 20-stories section of masonry on 1 side of the buiding to cause a near-perfect symmetric freefall collapse?
Please let me know when your new demolition/desctruction (as you seem to want to call it something else) technique is used - we can then compare notes to the old way it was done and work out how much money was saved over a traditional demolition etc.
Remember, you're gonna need to make the 20 story gash - so you'll need to crash an aircraft into a nearby building a few hours previous to your planned collapse time.... or do it with a wrecking ball or something....
Good luck! |
It wasn't freefall. And there was nothing about the collapse that defied physics. Defied common sense expectations, perhaps, but not physics.
Before speculating too far on the most likely chain of events, I'd like to see the final NIST report for WTC7, due out this winter I believe.
But given the firefighters' observations above, and the fact that the collapse was not unexpected by the people on the ground, I have a high degree of confidence that the truth will be explained by structural damage and further weakening due to fire.
Let me play along a moment, though, with the idea that fire and structural damage as a cause are near-impossible and must be ruled out. To conclude that therefore it must have been a controlled demolition falls into the either-or fallacy. You must evaluate a CD theory on its own merits and flaws. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wokeman
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 881
Location: Woking, Surrey, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't believe this. We are being joined by people who have a specific kind of handicap, not as far as I know, previously diagnosed. They are unable to see a hole in a ladder! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | Andrew Johnson wrote: | | Quote: |
I'm suggesting it wasn't rigged for demolition at all. |
Oh sorry - well then, can you show me the "Phantasy Physics" text book (deliberate gimmicky spelling as used sometimes for kids books) you got this wild idea from (i.e that fire can cause free-fall collapse), or have you already sold the patent for the technique for a few fires burning through the building (which the sprinkler system should've dealt with) and bashing out a 20-stories section of masonry on 1 side of the buiding to cause a near-perfect symmetric freefall collapse?
Please let me know when your new demolition/desctruction (as you seem to want to call it something else) technique is used - we can then compare notes to the old way it was done and work out how much money was saved over a traditional demolition etc.
Remember, you're gonna need to make the 20 story gash - so you'll need to crash an aircraft into a nearby building a few hours previous to your planned collapse time.... or do it with a wrecking ball or something....
Good luck! |
It wasn't freefall. And there was nothing about the collapse that defied physics. Defied common sense expectations, perhaps, but not physics.
Before speculating too far on the most likely chain of events, I'd like to see the final NIST report for WTC7, due out this winter I believe.
But given the firefighters' observations above, and the fact that the collapse was not unexpected by the people on the ground, I have a high degree of confidence that the truth will be explained by structural damage and further weakening due to fire.
Let me play along a moment, though, with the idea that fire and structural damage as a cause are near-impossible and must be ruled out. To conclude that therefore it must have been a controlled demolition falls into the either-or fallacy. You must evaluate a CD theory on its own merits and flaws. |
CS,
It is more likely that angels will fly out of your bum before the CTers will ever "evaluate a CD theory on its own merits and flaws". When the NIST report on WTC 7 comes out and explains the perfectly reasonable, boring, and unremarkable cause of this collapse they will scream fraud. The goalposts will be moved yet again and the final NIST report will simply become further evidence of an "inside job".
The CT is unfalsifiable...and the intelligence level of the posters here will guarantee that they think that's a good thing!
To them there is a teapot in orbit around Pluto until you prove that it's not there...they have no burden of proof. They're "just asking questions"! Arrgh! Arguing here is like drowning in a lake full of stupid with no lifeguard on duty.
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jay Ref wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | Andrew Johnson wrote: | | Quote: |
I'm suggesting it wasn't rigged for demolition at all. |
Oh sorry - well then, can you show me the "Phantasy Physics" text book (deliberate gimmicky spelling as used sometimes for kids books) you got this wild idea from (i.e that fire can cause free-fall collapse), or have you already sold the patent for the technique for a few fires burning through the building (which the sprinkler system should've dealt with) and bashing out a 20-stories section of masonry on 1 side of the buiding to cause a near-perfect symmetric freefall collapse?
Please let me know when your new demolition/desctruction (as you seem to want to call it something else) technique is used - we can then compare notes to the old way it was done and work out how much money was saved over a traditional demolition etc.
Remember, you're gonna need to make the 20 story gash - so you'll need to crash an aircraft into a nearby building a few hours previous to your planned collapse time.... or do it with a wrecking ball or something....
Good luck! |
It wasn't freefall. And there was nothing about the collapse that defied physics. Defied common sense expectations, perhaps, but not physics.
Before speculating too far on the most likely chain of events, I'd like to see the final NIST report for WTC7, due out this winter I believe.
But given the firefighters' observations above, and the fact that the collapse was not unexpected by the people on the ground, I have a high degree of confidence that the truth will be explained by structural damage and further weakening due to fire.
Let me play along a moment, though, with the idea that fire and structural damage as a cause are near-impossible and must be ruled out. To conclude that therefore it must have been a controlled demolition falls into the either-or fallacy. You must evaluate a CD theory on its own merits and flaws. |
CS,
It is more likely that angels will fly out of your bum before the CTers will ever "evaluate a CD theory on its own merits and flaws". When the NIST report on WTC 7 comes out and explains the perfectly reasonable, boring, and unremarkable cause of this collapse they will scream fraud. The goalposts will be moved yet again and the final NIST report will simply become further evidence of an "inside job".
The CT is unfalsifiable...and the intelligence level of the posters here will guarantee that they think that's a good thing!
To them there is a teapot in orbit around Pluto until you prove that it's not there...they have no burden of proof. They're "just asking questions"! Arrgh! Arguing here is like drowning in a lake full of stupid with no lifeguard on duty.
-z |
I know, I just have this silly, girlish hope that some critical thinking habits will rub off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin
9/11 Truth Organiser
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 500
Location: Cumbria / Yorkshire Dales
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Chipmunk Stew (34 posts, joined 19 July) and Jay Ref (26 posts, joined 20 July), what busy little beavers you are. Just like Rachel North, you just can't stop posting - are you on a really good bonus system with your bosses? Ooops, sorry, that was cheap of me, you are both fine upstanding individuals I'm sure, and any suggestion you have another agenda and are working for the intelligence services is quite ridiculous. I apologise for such a ridiculous thought.
_________________
Connect to Infinite Consciousness - enjoy the ride! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brian
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 611
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No surprise these supporters of the official conspiracy theory are unwilling to point out the evidence which supports it eh? That would be the obvious approach to convince anyone of the error of their ways - show them the evidence.
But lets be fair - who could even attempt to dress up such a c*** and bull story?
Could have done with the laugh too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
THIS IS THE MOST INTELLECTUALLY LAZY GROUP OF PEOPLE I'VE EVER ENCOUNTERED IN MY LIFE. I NEVER THOUGHT I'D SAY THIS, BUT YOU LOT ARE WORSE THAN THE LOOSE CHANGE FORUMITES.
DISAGREEMENT != SHILL
BLOODY SIMPLETONS... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
