911 Truth Movement

[Azza]

Fair enough but no one here is a scientist (I'm guessing!) and it's fairly obvious one side can't "prove" anything to the other. So I was simply trying to ascertain the "other" sides beliefs on what occurred.

If we're talking 'beliefs', mine are that hijacked airplanes took down the wtc towers and hit the pentagon. The Bush government was extremely embarassed by this and reacted schizophrenically, trying to minimise the discourse on the actual attacks, at the same time ramping up the anti-al Qaeda sentiment for it's own purposes.

Having said that, there are some odd things that don't seem to have been adequately addressed by inquests. A proper look at those things may change my beliefs (although I think it unlikely).

I can't speak for Disco, Bullus, or Harry, but I think their beliefs will be different to each others.

 

[Rosy]

Ok, I just perused all of the photos and video footage and concede the evidence is compelling that a plane hit the Pentagon, not emphatic proof but certainly enough circumstantial evidence.

Now here's a question for those towing the official line, was Osama the real culprit or a scapegoat?

That's what I find so intriguing about this thread. The plane, or lack thereof, has been used to support conspiracy, same with upside down books, grey windows etc etc then suddenly they're off the table. Sure there are a lot of questions but it seems to me people go out of their way to look for them.

Having been part of this thread from the start I'm still not sure who, if anyone, is toeing the official line.

 

[tigertim]

Ok, I just perused all of the photos and video footage and concede the evidence is compelling that a plane hit the Pentagon, not emphatic proof but certainly enough circumstantial evidence.

Now here's a question for those towing the official line, was Osama the real culprit or a scapegoat?

So 11 and a half years after the event you've just decided to research it and low and behold you "concede the evidence is compelling". Makes me wonder why you hadn't checked before.

 

[Disco08]

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.

The problem is the entire sum of effort put into discovering what happened by the commission was to quote the coroner's report. When you have multiple apparent contradictory eyewitness statements surely the thing to do is investigate them. Which one carries more weight isn't the point.

Now that is a statement I can get behind. :clap

Yet you don't support a proper investigation despite the fact the OR is considered vastly inadequate by experts in many fields and even by the people in charge of running it.

Fair enough but no one here is a scientist (I'm guessing!) and it's fairly obvious one side can't "prove" anything to the other. So I was simply trying to ascertain the "other" sides beliefs on what occurred.

I've said a few times my main belief is that the 9/11 commission was utterly inadequte and therefore support the call for a proper investigation. There are many things that need explaining, not least the removal and destruction of evidence and Bush and Cheney's refusal to cooperate with the commission. Both of these facts imply the use of classic cover up tactics. Until they're fully explained there'll always be conjecture and that's completely unfair on the victim's families.

That's what I find so intriguing about this thread. The plane, or lack thereof, has been used to support conspiracy, same with upside down books

Really?

 

[Pickers35]

Lots and lots of reading and different views.What i do know is that the following weekend The Tigers had their last finals win.

 

[tigertim]

The problem is the entire sum of effort put into discovering what happened by the commission was to quote the coroner's report. When you have multiple apparent contradictory eyewitness statements surely the thing to do is investigate them. Which one carries more weight isn't the point.

Yet you don't support a proper investigation despite the fact the OR is considered vastly inadequate by experts in many fields and even by the people in charge of running it.

I've said a few times my main belief is that the 9/11 commission was utterly inadequte and therefore support the call for a proper investigation. There are many things that need explaining, not least the removal and destruction of evidence and Bush and Cheney's refusal to cooperate with the commission. Both of these facts imply the use of classic cover up tactics. Until they're fully explained there'll always be conjecture and that's completely unfair on the victim's families.

Really?

I understand you want a thorough investigation and I have no qualms with that. But what are your beliefs on what happened on the day?

 

[Rosy]

Really?

Ok why were they raised then?

 

[Disco08]

As I said numerous times to Baloo the upside down book remark was a throw away line. It was by far the least meaningful thing I said in that particular post yet he harped on about it (as predicted) and here you are still going on about it.

I understand you want a thorough investigation and I have no qualms with that. But what are your beliefs on what happened on the day?

Going by their actions and reactions I think it's more likely than not that Bush and Cheney played a part in the events. Beyond that how can someone like me form any firm opinions when so much evidence has been destroyed or suppressed and when so much of the OR is disputed by people with far more expertise than me?

yeah, explain to us how office furniture fuelled fire can disintegrate steel.

while your'e at it explain why this building didn't collapse at free fall

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Inferno-destroys-Madrid-skyscraper/2005/02/13/1108229860915.html

Just to clarify for those that won't read it the Windsor building is a 32 story building full of offices which burned furiously for 23 hours and ended up thus:

 

[Rosy]

As I said numerous times to Baloo the upside down book remark was a throw away line. It was by far the least meaningful thing I said in that particular post yet he harped on about it (as predicted) and here you are still going on about it.

What was the context of the throwaway line though? There have been a few things. That's just one that came to mind. You also included my reference to the plane, being used in support of conspiracies. If that wasn't the case what was the point in questioning it, denying evidence and suggesting it was a missile?

 

[Tigers of Old]

Just to clarify for those that won't read it the Windsor building is a 32 story building full of offices which burned furiously for 23 hours and ended up thus:

Is the Windsor building the same structural design as Building 7?

 

[Disco08]

What was the context of the throwaway line though?

You're the one saying it was used to support a conspiracy theory. Surely you must know what context it was used in to make such a statement.

I only trmmed your post to end at the book remark. I don't have a problem wth your reference to the plane theories. Harry obviously used them as evidence of something being fishy but later retracted.

 

[Disco08]

Is the Windsor building the same structural design as Building 7?

In what way? They were both steel and concrete high rise structures but it obviously wasn't exactly the same as WTC7.

 

[Rosy]

You're the one saying it was used to support a conspiracy theory. Surely you must know what context it was used in to make such a statement.

I know what I think. That's only my perception so, considering you questioned me, I wondered how you really did mean it.

 

[Tigers of Old]

They were both steel and concrete high rise structures but it obviously wasn't exactly the same as WTC7.

What relevance does it really have then? We're not comparing apples with apples.

Besides by the sound of it, it's very surprising that it didn't fall. Perhaps it's the exception.

 

[bullus_hit]

So 11 and a half years after the event you've just decided to research it and low and behold you "concede the evidence is compelling". Makes me wonder why you hadn't checked before.

Didn't land the best material to make an informed decision, pretty simple really. The photos I had previously seen were ones with plane wreckage and very little else to go by. The video footage is inconclusive, the hole in the wall is almost freakish considering the size of the plane and there's also no markings on the nature strip - all this is pretty powerful in countering the official line. But ultimately I'm going to trust a handful of FBI pictures which up till now, I hadn't seen. No shame in conceding ground on certain matters.

But that doesn't necessarily mean I buy the entire Washington line either, calls for another NIST style enquiry are definitely in order as are investigations into Bush's links to the Saudis and the Bin Laden family.

By the sounds of it you seem very firm in your beliefs, do you see any need for further investigations?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Yet you don't support a proper investigation despite the fact the OR is considered vastly inadequate by experts in many fields and even by the people in charge of running it.

I have questioned how you can decide what constitutes an adequate investigation and whether it is either likely or possible. I can't imagine it happening. Americans accept Nixon was a crook, they prevaricate on Kissinger, they aren't ready to condemn Bush and Cheney regardless of the truth, IMO.

As I have said all along, while there may be questions to answer, conspiracy talk around WTC 7 and local paper news stories with no supported evidence do not lend an air of credibility to any of your otherwise reasonable calls for further information.

 

[bullus_hit]

What relevance does it really have then? We're not comparing apples with apples.

Besides by the sound of it, it's very surprising that it didn't fall. Perhaps it's the exception.

Has there ever been a freefall collapse of a building due to a spot fire? NIST even report that no steel high rise has ever completely collapsed due primarily to fire, until building 7 on 9-11, they also discount falling debris as a catalyst. So are we just to assume this was just a one off freak occurance which may never be repeated or are we willing to investigate alternative theories?

 

[Disco08]

I have questioned how you can decide what constitutes an adequate investigation and whether it is either likely or possible. I can't imagine it happening. Americans accept Nixon was a crook, they prevaricate on Kissinger, they aren't ready to condemn Bush and Cheney regardless of the truth, IMO.

As I have said all along, while there may be questions to answer, conspiracy talk around WTC 7 and local paper news stories with no supported evidence do not lend an air of credibility to any of your otherwise reasonable calls for further information.

The reaction of many leading experts to the NIST report on WTC7 is nothng to do with conspiracy. It's a call for the scientific method to be followed to arrive at the truth.

Similarly I don't make any claim of proof with reference to the eyewitnesses to the debris of UAL93. All I'm saying is that eyewitness evidence exists that contradicts the OR and should therefore be investigated. I use it as proof of inadequate inquiry. Nothing more.

What relevance does it really have then? We're not comparing apples with apples.

Besides by the sound of it, it's very surprising that it didn't fall. Perhaps it's the exception.

WTC7 Is the only steel framed high rise building to ever collapse due to fire. That's the exception.

I know what I think. That's only my perception so, considering you questioned me, I wondered how you really did mean it.

You asked for the context, not the meaning. I've told you multiple times now that I meant it as a throw away line with no point behind it. Considering you stated that I used it to support a conspiracy theory are you surprised I questioned you on it?

 

[Tigers of Old]

Has there ever been a freefall collapse of a building due to a spot fire? NIST even report that no steel high rise has ever completely collapsed due primarily to fire, until building 7 on 9-11, they also discount falling debris as a catalyst. So are we just to assume this was just a one off freak occurance which may never be repeated or are we willing to investigate alternative theories?

I have an open mind to alternative theories. The fall did look very odd.
However the building burned for 6 or so hours and several firefighters thought the building unstable, a 'spot fire' it wasn't.

 

[tigertim]

Going by their actions and reactions I think it's more likely than not that Bush and Cheney played a part in the events. Beyond that how can someone like me form any firm opinions when so much evidence has been destroyed or suppressed and when so much of the OR is disputed by people with far more expertise than me?

So you believe based on their reactions Bush and Cheney played a part?

And beyond that you can't "form any firm opinions" ?

And terrorists did crash 4 planes?