911 Truth Movement

[tigertim]

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?

no, no shame in conceding ground at all.
I have no issue with a further investigation, I've said that a few times now. And look if a further investigation proved there was a massive cover up, we'll...it's my shout!

 

[KnightersRevenge]

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

You forgot the bit where a 110 storey building partially fell on it. Isn't it the only one for that too?

 

[Rosy]

You asked for the context, not the meaning.

Nothing like throwing a bit of pedanticity into a conspiracy theory thread. Not a lot of difference to me whether I'm asked the context of what I said or asked how I meant it but ok, there's a difference if you want there to be. Anyway... as you were. :hihi

 

[Disco08]

The difference between context and meaning is far from semantics. You could have just admitted being wrong and saved us the bother.

You forgot the bit where a 110 storey building partially fell on it. Isn't it the only one for that too?

NIST claims fires were the only cause of WTC7's collapse. Structural damage from WTC1's collapse was ruled out.

 

[Disco08]

"Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event," said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. "Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down."

"Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7," Sunder said. The NIST investigation team also determined that other elements of the building's construction—namely trusses, girders and cantilever overhangs that were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below—did not play a significant role in the collapse.

According to the report, a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion of long-span floor systems at temperatures "hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings." WTC 7 used a structural system design in widespread use.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc-082108.cfm

Note the final point Tooheys.

 

[Rosy]

The difference between context and meaning is far from semantics. You could have just admitted being wrong and saved us the bother.

You crack me up on this thread Disco. Funny. :rofl

 

[TigerForce]

 

[Disco08]

You crack me up on this thread Disco. Funny. :rofl

The fact that you only find my posting amusing on this particular thread says far more about your bias than it does about my posting rosy.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

80 pages?!! I won't say anything in case I say something, or whatever Jack said.

 

[TigerForce]

80 pages?!! I won't say anything in case I say something, or whatever Jack said.

Stick it in your stats L2R2R. This must be the quickest thread ever. 80 pages in 27 days. ;D

 

[Rosy]

The fact that you only find my posting amusing on this particular thread says far more about your bias than it does about my posting rosy.

"Fact"?

What bias is that exactly and what does that say about it?

I didn't say I "only" find your posting on "this particular thread amusing".

If you're going to pull me up about the difference in context and how you meant something you could at least be a bit more careful with your own claims.

 

[Rosy]

Stick it in your stats L2R2R. This must be the quickest thread ever. 80 pages in 27 days. ;D

One of the most bizarre threads we've ever had...and that's no mean feat.

 

[bullus_hit]

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.

Six hours is a relatively short time in the scheme of high-rise fires, some have lasted 18 hours yet haven't completely collapsed. The other point to be made is if the firefighters knew of the imminent risk, wouldn't a controlled demolition come into calculations? This might account for the news broadcasts getting wind of the event before it took place. I also believe John Kerry made some comments to that effect in 2004 when quizzed on the very topic. It would also account for exceedingly high temperatures of the molten steel detected weeks after 9/11. Whatever happened, I think the NIST report isn't and shouldn't be the last word on what transpired.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Six hours is a relatively short time in the scheme of high-rise fires, some have lasted 18 hours yet haven't completely collapsed. The other point to be made is if the firefighters knew of the imminent risk, wouldn't a controlled demolition come into calculations? This might account for the news broadcasts getting wind of the event before it took place. I also believe John Kerry made some comments to that effect in 2004 when quizzed on the very topic. It would also account for exceedingly high temperatures of the molten steel detected weeks after 9/11. Whatever happened, I think the NIST report isn't and shouldn't be the last word on what transpired.

Have any of those other buildings had a burning 110 storey steel and concrete tower fall on them?

 

[bullus_hit]

Have any of those other buildings had a burning 110 storey steel and concrete tower fall on them?

There was minimal debris damage, that has even been cited in the NIST report and has subsequently been dismissed as a reason for the collapse.

 

[Azza]

One of the most bizarre threads we've ever had...and that's no mean feat.

Bizarre is good (or at least interesting)!

 

[Tigers of Old]

Whatever happened, I think the NIST report isn't and shouldn't be the last word on what transpired.

Perhaps though I'm not at all convinced any report done all these years later still wouldn't leave many unanswered questions for those who go looking for them.
I will say though of all the events of that day, B7 was the most dodgy looking on the face of it.

 

[Baloo]

Bush was in Florida on 9/11. Four days previous, Jeb his brother and governor of the state enacted executive order 01-261 placing Florida in a state of martial law. I've read debunking efforts of this fact but they don't change the fact that had Bush been caught out (assuming he was comlicit) he would have faced trial by the Florida National Guard and not the usual process.

At the time Bush is told of the attacks he sits in a classroom with 16 children listening to a story, holding his book upside down. He stayed there for over 20 minutes when his constitutional duty was to command the defense of his country. As one of only two people able to authorise the shooting down of a hijacked plane (a law introduced only a month earlier) it was crucial he assume his post immediately.

At the time the attacks Cheney was in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center and was made aware of the plane being flown towards Washington when it was still at least 50 miles away. Eyewitness testimony from the Minister for Transport Norman Minetta states that during updates Cheney was asked "do the orders still stand?".

Bush took 441 days to authorise an investigation into the events of 9/11. He also enacted severe restrictions of the power given to investigators including allocating only $600k to the effort.

Bush refused to authorise an independent investigation.

Bush authorised the removal and destruction of all physical evidence from the twin towers before it could be forensically examined.

Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath before the commission. They also insisted that they be questioned together when they were specifically asked to interview alone, as is standard procedure. They also refused to allow recording or transcripts of their interviews.

Bush strongly opposed an investigation into the government's reaction to the attacks again in 2009.

Now, I'm not saying by any means that these facts prove anything. I do however think they demand further and proper investigation.

Why? Operation Northwoods was a proposed US government operation to fake terror attacks (using drone aircraft) against its own citizens to justify initiating a war against Cuba. That's fact. If that's a fact why is it such insanityto believe it might enact such a plan in 2001 when many of the facts surrounding the events suggest government complicity?

Are you a psychologist? Psychiatrist? Do you even know what classic psychologically imbalanced behaviour is?

Call it a throw away line all you want, but you were using it to build the case that Bush was in on the whole 911 thing. What other throw away lines should we ignore from your posts ? It's difficult to know what you know, what you know you don't know, and what you don't know you know (cue evo & Rumsfeld)

The windowless plane you were all over, posting photos of military planes as possible alternatives. Only when I posted a photo of the wreckage, with windows, did you, and this is a laugh, "resolve it yourself".

You believe the US Government, Larry, and powerful faceless families knew the details of 911, sat back, let it happen and made the most out of it. Is that still your stance ? Or was that a throw away stance that shouldn't be latched onto ?

 

[Rosy]

Bizarre is good (or at least interesting)!

Indeed.

 

[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.

.....

In light of the quoted reference Baloo posted above I don't consider it a throwaway line at all and am not sure why you pulled me up on that comment. You clearly included it along with the other claims about Bush, which you loosely described as "facts" in saying "Now, I'm not saying by any means that these facts prove anything. I do however think they demand further and proper investigation."