911 Truth Movement

[KnightersRevenge]

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.

Seriously Bullus this stuff has been covered, where do you get the idea that there was minimal debris? WTC 2 fell on it. The side facing WTC 2 was gouged out, that is what you can't see on most videos but if you go back through this thread you will see video of the other side of the building. Go back an really look.

 

[Disco08]

It's stated clearly by NIST that the only cause of the collapse is office fires.

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)

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."

So neither of you can take me at my word and instead have to harp on and on about it?

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 ?

I posted the image that convinced me about UAL175. That was a while after you posted the image of the fuselage on top of WTC5. As I said that could seem as convenient as finding a hijacker's passport so I continued to look for an image that was clear enough to put it beyond doubt. Again you can't accept my word on it though.

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?

No. I think that's the best explanation of their actions and reactions but don't believe it beyond doubt.

Right.

I don't know.

 

[Rosy]

So neither of you can take me at my word and instead have to harp on and on about it?

Harp on and on? That's pretty ordinary Disco. You actually questioned me on that very matter, not the other way around. You had a crack at Baloo about it. You didn't accept my opinion yet you expect us to take you at your word despite what I consider evidence to the contrary? If your comment in that link is a "throwaway line" then it's reasonable to assume your other points are too. There's no indication in any way that it's to be excluded from the points you think demand further and proper investigation.

 

[Disco08]

So in short you can't take me at my word. How disappointing.

I questioned you on the matter because you raised it. You clearly stated the upside down book was used to support conspiracy theory. Not only was that not my intention I'd also already explained that repeatedly to Baloo at the time.

And yes. Harp on and on. Ths meaningless exchange has dragged on because you can't accept that I'm being genuine. It was obvious when I first questioned you that I felt I hadn't presented this fact as proof of any conspiracy. Had you accepted that we could have all been saved the time and effort of this pointlessness.

 

[jb03]

It just occurred to me you may be the closest thing we have to an 'expert' in this thread. Pull your protractor out and show these neophytes where they are mistaken my good man.

No one listens to me anyway Evo!

I can tell you that as far as I know there hasn't been a controlled (explosive) demolition in Australia since the Canberra fiasco some 5 years ago where from memory there was a death with the debris blasting 400 odd metres from the demo site. In Melbourne the last one was 15 years ago of the old St Henry's (i think it was a redundant hospital). I think the Unions may have banned them out right in Victoria after Canberra.

The point being that to undertake a controlled demolition there is much red tape to go through, many approvals from a multitude of bodies required and it is a specialist field with the chances of it being done covertly basically zero.

Also, even with a controlled demolition, the building must be completely stripped internally, even before the planting of the explosive devices which must be placed strategically with the authority of structural engineers. As Canberra showed, it is inherently risky work with outcomes beyond expectation and explanation of the experts, pre and post explosion. I have have had debris fall on my car when I was advised that I was safe distance from non explosive demolition works which were supposedly bread and butter work for the contractors.

So in summary, demolition works, and by extension explosive demolition works would be one of the last methods of trying to inflict damage on a group of people as the outcomes have too many variables and are unknown; the works are simply too risky in trying to achieve an end result.

I think some believe it is like the movies where they whack a stick of red dymanite somewhere on a wall and someone unrolls a spool of demolition wire and pushes down on a handle like the Coyote; or think perhaps it is as easy as the Joker makes it look in the Dark Knight.

 

[Azza]

I can tell you that as far as I know there hasn't been a controlled (explosive) demolition in Australia since the Canberra fiasco some 5 years ago where from memory there was a death with the debris blasting 400 odd metres from the demo site. In Melbourne the last one was 15 years ago of the old St Henry's (i think it was a redundant hospital). I think the Unions may have banned them out right in Victoria after Canberra.

How are skyscrapers demolished jb?

 

[bullus_hit]

Seriously Bullus this stuff has been covered, where do you get the idea that there was minimal debris? WTC 2 fell on it. The side facing WTC 2 was gouged out, that is what you can't see on most videos but if you go back through this thread you will see video of the other side of the building. Go back an really look.

Are you continually going to use the 'it's been covered before so the debate is closed' line every time I raise a point? Check the NIST report, check the footage, check various accounts from witnesses, check some opposing viewpoints from professional architects and engineers, do a routine summary of other office fires and do some comparisons, check some peer review studies which have been floating on the net for some time. Dig out some archival footage of John Kerry actually citing controlled demolition as the primary cause, check some media reports which allude to the same causes.

It seems to me you think you have all the answers and nobody else is entitled to a point of view.

 

[Disco08]

No one listens to me anyway Evo!

I can tell you that as far as I know there hasn't been a controlled (explosive) demolition in Australia since the Canberra fiasco some 5 years ago where from memory there was a death with the debris blasting 400 odd metres from the demo site. In Melbourne the last one was 15 years ago of the old St Henry's (i think it was a redundant hospital). I think the Unions may have banned them out right in Victoria after Canberra.

The point being that to undertake a controlled demolition there is much red tape to go through, many approvals from a multitude of bodies required and it is a specialist field with the chances of it being done covertly basically zero.

Also, even with a controlled demolition, the building must be completely stripped internally, even before the planting of the explosive devices which must be placed strategically with the authority of structural engineers. As Canberra showed, it is inherently risky work with outcomes beyond expectation and explanation of the experts, pre and post explosion. I have have had debris fall on my car when I was advised that I was safe distance from non explosive demolition works which were supposedly bread and butter work for the contractors.

So in summary, demolition works, and by extension explosive demolition works would be one of the last methods of trying to inflict damage on a group of people as the outcomes have too many variables and are unknown; the works are simply too risky in trying to achieve an end result.

I think some believe it is like the movies where they whack a stick of red dymanite somewhere on a wall and someone unrolls a spool of demolition wire and pushes down on a handle like the Coyote; or think perhaps it is as easy as the Joker makes it look in the Dark Knight.

I always listen to you jimbob! A few points though with respect to your expertise:

Should the plan have been to demolish these buildings covertly I doubt those in charge would have worried too much about red tape or council approvals.

There have been hundreds, maybe thousands, of well executed controlled demolitions. Seems to me a highly talented team of demolition experts would be quite confident of getting the result they wanted.

Stray bits of building wouldn't be a concern to people already plotting to murder thousands.

I don't think the Dutch controlled demolition mega expert they quote in the AE doco reckons the Joker did it when he says WTC7's collpase is definitely a controlled demolition. Reckon he has a fair idea of what's required.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Are you continually going to use the 'it's been covered before so the debate is closed' line every time I raise a point? Check the NIST report, check the footage, check various accounts from witnesses, check some opposing viewpoints from professional architects and engineers, do a routine summary of other office fires and do some comparisons, check some peer review studies which have been floating on the net for some time. Dig out some archival footage of John Kerry actually citing controlled demolition as the primary cause, check some media reports which allude to the same causes.

It seems to me you think you have all the answers and nobody else is entitled to a point of view.

Sorry if you take it that way Bullus. None of your questions are new to this thread and so far you haven't presented any evidence at all let alone new evidence. You have questions you think are interesting or require answers, fair enough but there is more than enough discussion of the points you raise already over the previous 80+ pages. I have seen all the information you point to as a part of this thread from the start. To date I don't find any of it compelling. There is no reason to assume that a once-in-history event shouldn't produce once-in-history results IMO. Talk of other office fires is moot. No other event mimics the actual event of that day so I don't find them interesting or specifically informative in relation to 911. As I have said before, the fact that controlled demolition of WTC 7 could explain the way the building fell doesn't make a good and especially the most likely explanation.

An alternative could also be a team of 7000 beavers followed an underground aquifer into the foundations and had been working for 7 years to build the largest lodge ever constructed directly under WTC 7. Coincidentally their work undermined the substructure and had the effect of dropping the building into its foundations as a resulot of the other demolitions that day. Maybe Greenpeace has conspired to hamstring investigations and destroy evidence to protect the furry engineers?

 

[Disco08]

The fact that this was a once-in-history event is all the more reason to investigate it more thoroughly then any other event. The fact that the exact opposite is what actually happened should raise a very big red flag but you, and many others, seem willing to completely overlook it. Why?

Also, many experts who possess a lifetime of experience in areas directly relating to WTC7's collapse all support the theory that controlled demolition best fits the available evidence. That's worth keeping in mind when contructing condescending paragraphs such as your last one.

 

[jb03]

I always listen to you jimbob! Not true! A few points though with respect to your expertise:

Should the plan have been to demolish these buildings covertly I doubt those in charge would have worried too much about red tape or council approvals. True but there would be still too many people that would need to know - it would need only one to spill the beans or alternatively they have all been bumped off as part of the conspiracy

There have been hundreds, maybe thousands, of well executed controlled demolitions. Seems to me a highly talented team of demolition experts would be quite confident of getting the result they wanted. True but for the desired outcome the planning is immense - nearly impossibly (IMO) to do covertly

Stray bits of building wouldn't be a concern to people already plotting to murder thousands. True

I don't think the Dutch controlled demolition mega expert they quote in the AE doco reckons the Joker did it when he says WTC7's collpase is definitely a controlled demolition. Reckon he has a fair idea of what's required. Possbily but only one opinion. I consulted a super-mega-expert so I think he is more expert than a lowly mega-expert. I see also that you didn't rule out Coyote.

 

[jb03]

How are skyscrapers demolished jb?

With a controlled explosive demolition. ;D

Or alternatively crash a plane into them.

Or the boring way is to dismantle from the top working downwards bringing material down internally in the lift shafts and the like

 

[KnightersRevenge]

The fact that this was a once-in-history event is all the more reason to investigate it more thoroughly then any other event. The fact that the exact opposite is what actually happened should raise a very big red flag but you, and many others, seem willing to completely overlook it. Why?

Also, many experts who possess a lifetime of experience in areas directly relating to WTC7's collapse all support the theory that controlled demolition best fits the available evidence. That's worth keeping in mind when contructing condescending paragraphs such as your last one.

I have expressed pretty clearly what I think of new investigations. The problem remains the same. The internal stresses, the events occurring inside those buildings is gone forever, no new investigation is going to get at them. All the experts in the world weren't inside those buildings so at best they can guess at the conditions. Yes I can see why they would support a controlled demolition scenario, I just don't find it likely for all the reasons you don't discuss. The elaborate operation required to do it in the first place. Who did it? When was it done? Was it part of the construction? Were the floors evacuated under some pretence for days over years to install and conceal the explosives?

My beaver scenario was joke, lighten up Disco. Or don't. I really don't care any more. But my point is you can try to reconstruct the physics in reverse and you will come up with millions of scenarios that will explain the events. That doesn't make them correct.

Who blew it up in your opinion? How did they do it?

 

[Azza]

Were the floors evacuated under some pretence for days over years to install and conceal the explosives?

The chief designer though it could have been done by laying explosives in the core elevator shafts.

 

[Disco08]

I have expressed pretty clearly what I think of new investigations. The problem remains the same. The internal stresses, the events occurring inside those buildings is gone forever, no new investigation is going to get at them. All the experts in the world weren't inside those buildings so at best they can guess at the conditions. Yes I can see why they would support a controlled demolition scenario, I just don't find it likely for all the reasons you don't discuss. The elaborate operation required to do it in the first place. Who did it? When was it done? Was it part of the construction? Were the floors evacuated under some pretence for days over years to install and conceal the explosives?

My beaver scenario was joke, lighten up Disco. Or don't. I really don't care any more. But my point is you can try to reconstruct the physics in reverse and you will come up with millions of scenarios that will explain the events. That doesn't make them correct.

That's not true at all. How many feasible ways to destroy a steel framed high rise are there? You espouse the scientific method. Well this is it:

What part of that do you think a new investigation contradicts?

Also note that nowhere in the scientific method does it say you should ignore evidence because the implications of it seem implausible. This is why I'm not interested in speculating on the logistics of a controlled demolition. I'd much rather wait until we now for sure why these buildings collapsed.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I'd much rather wait until we now for sure why these buildings collapsed.

Because planes flew into them....haven't you been listening?

 

[Disco08]

Excuse me if I *smile* myself laughing next time you pretend to embrace any type of objective or scientific method of analysis.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Forgive me if I am not chagrined.

 

[TigerForce]

The fact that this was a once-in-history event is all the more reason to investigate it more thoroughly then any other event.

Hey Patsy, does this simple question ever stick in your mind: 'If a majority of terrorist attacks were done with bombs, why use planes on this occassion?'

Why not bomb the WTC in a more detailed way than what 1993 showed, otherwise, why not just bomb Central Station.

I must admit that these 9/11 events come across as a typical Hollywood action film at times.

 

[tigertim]

That's not true at all. How many feasible ways to destroy a steel framed high rise are there? You espouse the scientific method. Well this is it:

What part of that do you think a new investigation contradicts?

Also note that nowhere in the scientific method does it say you should ignore evidence because the implications of it seem implausible. This is why I'm not interested in speculating on the logistics of a controlled demolition. I'd much rather wait until we now for sure why these buildings collapsed.

Fair enough. Then wait we shall.......