911 Truth Movement

[Disco08]

Unfortunately a few locals in a field "quoted" in a local paper isn't very robust and is not proof of anything.

That's not all we're talking about though. That's just how you try and present it.

The main thing I've got out of this thread is people believe what suits their purpose when it comes to conspiracy theories. Quite fascinating to sit back and observe.

The same exact thing is equally evident of people denying anything that even suggests a conspiracy.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I'm not sure of which "unreliable" WTC witnesses you are referring to. If you're talking about those who heard "explosions" I dont think anyone hear has dismissed them as "unreliable". I have no doubt many people heard explosions that day. The thing I do dispute is the connotation that hearing an "explosion" automatically means "bomb" or "explosives" etc. I would assume it means fuel and fire and 1000s of tonnes of building falling.

I don't think I have been as succinct as this but it is a good description of my thoughts on this.

 

[Disco08]

No.

Seriously mate, just watch the video. A lot of the stuff from the conspiracy theorists comes from it, and has been somewhat garbled in the process. There's nothing about holographs, missiles, or any of the other extreme material in there. It's just a critical examination of elements of the report findings, which seem to have been determined without a proper examination of the evidence.

Yep. Seems to me the apologists use the more extreme theories to try and divert from the main points.

This thread began with reference to AE's video. Not only that but it's a major focus of the truth movement. There's not many reasonable excuses for any apologist not to watch it.

 

[Disco08]

I'm not sure of which "unreliable" WTC witnesses you are referring to. If you're talking about those who heard "explosions" I dont think anyone hear has dismissed them as "unreliable". I have no doubt many people heard explosions that day. The thing I do dispute is the connotation that hearing an "explosion" automatically means "bomb" or "explosives" etc. I would assume it means fuel and fire and 1000s of tonnes of building falling.

None of the reports come from the moments the towers collapse. They come from times when explosions were unexpected.

http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=11

 

[TigerForce]

The main thing I've got out of this thread is people believe what suits their purpose when it comes to conspiracy theories. Quite fascinating to sit back and observe.

Just like Parliament. Mud-slinging overtakes the actual debate at times. ;D

 

[KnightersRevenge]

That's not all we're talking about though. That's just how you try and present it.

The same exact thing is equally evident of people denying anything that even suggests a conspiracy.

There isn't any "evidence" of what you are describing as "proof". You may take the word of the untrained, on-the-spot locals as re-told by a journo at a local paper as carrying more weight than the official investigators reports. That is your right, but it isn't proof of anything.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

None of the reports come from the moments the towers collapse. They come from times when explosions were unexpected.

http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=11

Unexpected how? I fail to understand how anything can be "expected" in a once in lifetime event.

 

[bullus_hit]

How did you decide that the info in the doco's was "real" and the info in the photos and witness accounts around Pentagon was "fake"? I am just interested in your process, I am not trying to being a smart arse.

The pictures in the link I just provided are clearly of the Pentagon less than an hour after the impact, that seems indisputable, the building hasn't collapsed yet, there's smoke bellowing from the rubble and there's nothing to suggest that it was shot at a prior date. Note that there's no sign of a 747 and no scorching on the nature strip to suggest a low entry point. How is it that a plane can suddenly disappear without a trace? It certainly didn't blow up within the confines of the Pentagon because the alleged entry point is too small. There's also photographic evidence of furnishings and even a laptop completely intact within the impact zone yet we're expected to believe that a 747 completely disintergrated.

As for the personal accounts, none are particulalrly consistent apart from the fact that an explosion occured. Subsequent pictures of plane parts which have since emerged cannot be connected to the Pentagon either, they could easily have been taken from previous air disasters and used to prop up the story.

 

[bullus_hit]

I'm not sure of which "unreliable" WTC witnesses you are referring to. If you're talking about those who heard "explosions" I dont think anyone hear has dismissed them as "unreliable". I have no doubt many people heard explosions that day. The thing I do dispute is the connotation that hearing an "explosion" automatically means "bomb" or "explosives" etc. I would assume it means fuel and fire and 1000s of tonnes of building falling.

Yet the explosives theory has been dismissed out of hand, why? Three buildings go down in the space of an hour and every one of them resembles a controlled demolition. Pure co-incidence or perhaps something more sinister? I think it deserves some investigation and 1500 architects and engineers around the world happen to agree with me.

 

[tigertim]

So we,re back on the "the buildings were detonated to blow up" theory? Inside job theory?

 

[tigersnake]

Which ones? I've seen the footage of the collapse and it's uncannily uniform, much like a controlled demolition. At the time of collapse, there appears to be flames jutting out of several mid-level floors but no visible damage from the base of the building. The building then collapses in a freefall motion in a matter of seconds. How so? These buildings are designed to withstand fires, that's why the structures are made from steel, the only feasible way the buliding could have fallen in the way it did was for the steel supports at the base of the building to melt at temperatures approaching 2750 degrees F. Furthermore, there's been no documented case of a building just collapsing due to a spot fire on a mid tier floor. None whatsoever, this is why 1500 architects and engineers have signed a petition demanding an investigation, it just doesn't add up yet NIST continues to bury it's head in the sand.

With respect Bullus, you've come in late, all this stuff, that is, each and every one of the points you make, has been discussed at length on the previous 60 or so pages. You can choose to ignore or reject all that, but going over the whole lot again is pointless and tedious.

 

[bullus_hit]

The base of the buliding appears to give way, that is the only means by which a perfectly symmetrical collapse can take place. False, symmetrical collapse CAN occur when failure occurs anywhere throughout a structure.

Even if there was damage to the south side, any collapse would have been lopsided as opposed to perfectly uniform. False. Symmetrical collapse CAN occur with failure of one side, element or part of a structure.

The other point is that the heat of burning furniture is insufficient to melt steel. False, offices fixtures and fittings can cause fires that can melt steel or cause steel to fail structurally. In Australia, steel needs to be coated or sealed off with fire resistant material (i don't know what American codes require). This does not prevent ultimate failure of the steel, but allows enough time for any building on fire to be evacuated. Ie, fire protection is there to protect people, not the structure or building itself. Offices are deemed to be high risk in relation to burning and fire damage due to the material of construction of the fixtures and fitting plus the high volme of paper that exist in offices. In Australia, office buildings are subject to greater fire control measurs than say an apartment building.

, not to mention that the fire occurred on the upper levels of the building. It just doesn't add up and NIST have provided a pretty lame excuse for what transpired. This is opinion so cannot respond categorically but one I obviously don’t agree with.

Have to disagree, the World Trade Centre was designed to withstand not only fires but ironically, a passenger jet colliding into it. To melt steel and cause a building to freefall like it did on 9/11, temperatures have to hit reach 2750 degrees F, this is a fact that has been backed up by thousands of architects and engineers. As for the fall of building 7, many have stated that the heat produced from the 2 levels which were on fire would have been grossly insufficient to cause the steel structure to give way and cause the bulding to collapse in 2.7 seconds. Such a collapse had the hallmarks of a thermite explosion which incidentally, was not even considered at the time.

I ask you this, why all the evasiveness over the topic? If a large percentage of professionals think it's even remotely possible why hasn't NIST followed up? What have they got to hide. Is it not possible that the terrorists could have planted explosives within the buildings?

With respect Bullus, you've come in late, all this stuff, that is, each and every one of the points you make, has been discussed at length on the previous 60 or so pages. You can choose to ignore or reject all that, but going over the whole lot again is pointless and tedious.

I'm just responding to others Snake, if people don't want to respond that's their perogative.

 

[tigersnake]

If you actually want the answers to all the points you make, go back and read the thread. Its all there.

 

[tigersnake]

So we,re back on the "the buildings were detonated to blow up" theory? Inside job theory?

deja vu all over again, again

 

[Azza]

So we,re back on the "the buildings were detonated to blow up" theory? Inside job theory?

Leaping to conclusions there. Some better (more scientific) questions are:

Is the evidence for molten steel as suggested in the dust particles, images, video, and fireman reports valid?
If not, fine, what are the explanations for those observations? If so, how were temperatures reached sufficient to produce molten steel?

Were the dust particles identified in the scientific literature as thermite really so?
If not, fine - what were they? Is so, how did they get to be there?

 

[bullus_hit]

So we,re back on the "the buildings were detonated to blow up" theory? Inside job theory?

Just trying to fill in the gaps, it certainly seems that some are completely satisfied with the 'official' version of events.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Leaping to conclusions there. Some better (more scientific) questions are:

Is the evidence for molten steel as suggested in the dust particles, images, video, and fireman reports valid?
If not, fine, what are the explanations for those observations? If so, how were temperatures reached sufficient to produce molten steel?

Were the dust particles identified in the scientific literature as thermite really so?
If not, fine - what were they? Is so, how did they get to be there?

Sorry but Thermite has been covered. Agree with others there is no new material here. Lets not go around again.

 

[tigertim]

Just trying to fill in the gaps, it certainly seems that some are completely satisfied with the 'official' version of events.

I pretty much am. What's your version of events?

 

[poppa x]

To melt steel and cause a building to freefall like it did on 9/11, temperatures have to hit reach 2750 degrees F, this is a fact that has been backed up by thousands of architects and engineers.

Assuming you are correct bullus, how do you know the temperature did NOT hit 2750 degrees F?

 

[Rosy]

That's not all we're talking about though. That's just how you try and present it.

The same exact thing is equally evident of people denying anything that even suggests a conspiracy.

I haven't followed that closely. Have many denied conspiracy info? It's certainly fair to question some of the examples put forward on here as though they're gospel evidence. When we have no way of knowing what's fact or not I'm surprised you get so het up about it.