911 Truth Movement

[bullus_hit]

So hang on, you can present absolutely nothing, zip, zero, zilch, nada and then question something I post? Glad those are the rules here. That was a very simple and indisputable piece of evidence that the WTC 7 fire was much more intense than many of the nay-sayers assert,

I don't present anything? Did I not just provide two examples of peer review study which you requested? Have you even bothered to read them or am i just wasting my time?

As for my question, can you categorically state that the smoke in the picture is entirely from building? I don't think that's unreasonable considering you're using that as evidence to back up your fire intensity claims.

But if you want to revert to the fire theory, what were the peak temperatures and where did they eminate from? That might be more helpful than a few eyewitness accounts and some inconclusive pictures.

On the subject of the NIST report, is there anything that remotely concerns you? Did you not think it strange that there was no mention of bulding 7 in the official 9/11 report and did it not concern you that even the authors stated that it was set up to fail?

 

[Leysy Days]

Yes it is.

Leysy's just happy that after many years on here we've finally found a thread jb has some knowledge on. ;D

 

[jb03]

Leysy's just happy that after many years on here we've finally found a thread jb has some knowledge on. ;D

I was always going to struggle on football forum.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I don't present anything? Did I not just provide two examples of peer review study which you requested? Have you even bothered to read them or am i just wasting my time?

You got me there I didn't say "reputable" did I? "The Journal of 911 Studies" you say...hmmm so not "Science" then...is that anywhere near "The Ponds Institute"?

As for my question, can you categorically state that the smoke in the picture is entirely from building? I don't think that's unreasonable considering you're using that as evidence to back up your fire intensity claims.

But if you want to revert to the fire theory, what were the peak temperatures and where did they eminate from? That might be more helpful than a few eyewitness accounts and some inconclusive pictures.

On the subject of the NIST report, is there anything that remotely concerns you? Did you not think it strange that there was no mention of bulding 7 in the official 9/11 report and did it not concern you that even the authors stated that it was set up to fail?

The picture is from a video, look it up, of WTC 7 on fire and it certainly looks to be emanating from the building rather than from anywhere else. I'm not the one making categorical statements, I'm only asking that those who claim that there is "evidence" of the contrary produce it. Using reputable sources. So far still not much outside of the 911 conspiracy web, and that includes your sources.

That you can find what you think are short-comings in the report doesn't surprise me, I have made my position on that pretty clear but you can't be bothered reading the whole thing and I can't be bothered repeating myself. Asking heavily scientific questions about building collapses and peak temperatures pre-supposes some expertise, do you have the expertise to analyse these things?

 

[evo]

Possbily but only one opinion. I consulted a super-mega-expert so I think he is more expert than a lowly mega-expert.

Your sage appraisal was good enough for me.

 

[evo]

Leysy's just happy that after many years on here we've finally found a thread jb has some knowledge on. ;D

good post. well said. agree

 

[Willo]

Leysy's just happy that after many years on here we've finally found a thread jb has some knowledge on. ;D

I was always going to struggle on football forum.

Has it been noticed? ;D

 

[Rosy]

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.

I wasn't specifically referring to you. Feel free to clarify what the following Bush references were for if they weren't to support conspiracy questioning. I obviously missed your explanation to Baloo. When you're so much against accepting the official word on this thread surely you can see how it doesn't, on face value, appear as a throwaway line?

From my personal point of view, the most suspicious uncontested facts/actions are:

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.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

BECAUSE IT REALLY GOT GOING THAT
BUILDING SEVEN SAW IT LATE IN THE DAY AND
LIKE THE FIRST SEVEN FLOORS WERE ON FIRE IT
LOOKED LIKE HEAVY FIRE ON SEVEN FLOORS

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110413.PDF

[youtube=560,315]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th2bnG_7UyY[/youtube]

Been said before, apples and oranges. Same architecture? Same materials constructed to the same specifications? No fire-retardent systems due to lost mains water? Ditto fire-fighters? Damaged due to impact from falling tower?

 

[tigersnake]

I don't present anything? Did I not just provide two examples of peer review study which you requested? Have you even bothered to read them or am i just wasting my time?

As for my question, can you categorically state that the smoke in the picture is entirely from building? I don't think that's unreasonable considering you're using that as evidence to back up your fire intensity claims.

But if you want to revert to the fire theory, what were the peak temperatures and where did they eminate from? That might be more helpful than a few eyewitness accounts and some inconclusive pictures.

On the subject of the NIST report, is there anything that remotely concerns you? Did you not think it strange that there was no mention of bulding 7 in the official 9/11 report and did it not concern you that even the authors stated that it was set up to fail?

Did you see the photo of bldg 7 someone posted with the huge damage to the side of it? multiple floors, the building looked buggered basically. A spotfire on a mid floor it was not.

a) the building sustained a lot of damage, a bloody lot. Shitloads, forget 'spotfires'.
b) re. the pancaking, I'm not an engineer, but it seems to fit with my intuitive knowledge, and knowledge and experience of building, that it would be perfectly reasonable for a building to pancake when some of its multiple load points are weakened, given that the load would have previously been distributed evenly. and some points would now have more than their designed load, and given that a massive load would be exerted from directly above. I and quite a few others have mentioned this previously, but I didn't see it addressed adequately. People keep implying that pancaking is a strange occurrence, a weird fluke, and that seems to form the basis of the whole 'it must have been a controlled emolition' argument. it isn't strange or odd to me at all, not in the least. I must be a real sucker.

Also, I was assuming that everyone interested in Sept 11 would have seen '9/11' made by the French brothers. When you watch that, its pretty convincing that hijacked planes flew into the WTC and destroyed it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_(film)

 

[Disco08]

Been said before, apples and oranges. Same architecture? Same materials constructed to the same specifications? No fire-retardent systems due to lost mains water? Ditto fire-fighters? Damaged due to impact from falling tower?

According to many experts this fire was worse and the buildings had many of the same features. No molten steel was found at the Windsor buiding though.

The other point of that post was to show how much leaving out a prior paragraph can change the impact of the following paragraphs. From what you posted it seemed as though the entire building was engulfed. This would obviously support the image you posted and be far more significant that just 7 floors.

I wasn't specifically referring to you. Feel free to clarify what the following Bush references were for if they weren't to support conspiracy questioning. I obviously missed your explanation to Baloo. When you're so much against accepting the official word on this thread surely you can see how it doesn't, on face value, appear as a throwaway line?

The posts to Baloo are all immediately after the one you quoted earlier today. The upside down book reference was meant as a joke at Bush's expense.

 

[Rosy]

The posts to Baloo are all immediately after the one you quoted earlier today. The upside down book reference was meant as a joke at Bush's expense.

Thanks. It seems you using that info to make your point was more in error, ie not checked for factual accuracy, rather than a throwaway line.

Yeah, the fact his book was the right way up changes everything. FWIW, I'm trying to make my point without googlng every detail. I'm happy to be corrected too.

 

[Azza]

Yes it is.

Well ok then.

 

[Disco08]

Thanks. It seems you using that info to make your point was more in error, ie not checked for factual accuracy, rather than a throwaway line.

If I'm trying to actually make a point I'll always check it. You read the entire post and tell what point you think that remark was making other than Bush is an idiot.

Unbelievable that you can't accept my word for it too. How long have you known me? Have ever tried to deceive you before?

 

[bullus_hit]

People keep implying that pancaking is a strange occurrence, a weird fluke, and that seems to form the basis of the whole 'it must have been a controlled emolition' argument. it isn't strange or odd to me at all, not in the least. I must be a real sucker.

To be fair Snake, I haven't seen one study that has cited the events at WTC7 as normal. Even NIST acknowledge the collapse as unprecedented, and pancaking or not, no 40 storey building has ever collapsed in symmetrical fashion without the aid of explosives. If we ackowledge the 9/11 report as being a complete whitewash, then it's not unreasonable to question the NIST report, particularly in light of the many flaws and inconsistencies which have been highlighted in subsequent studies.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

According to many experts this fire was worse and the buildings had many of the same features. No molten steel was found at the Windsor buiding though.

The other point of that post was to show how much leaving out a prior paragraph can change the impact of the following paragraphs. From what you posted it seemed as though the entire building was engulfed. This would obviously support the image you posted and be far more significant that just 7 floors.

No doubt like all the "editing" done on Jennings and Hess's remarks when they appear on the 911 conspiracy web no? I don't doubt the Windsor was bad or even worse I'm just not convinced it can tell us much about WTC 7. Too many unknowns.

 

[tigersnake]

To be fair Snake, I haven't seen one study that has cited the events at WTC7 as normal. Even NIST acknowledge the collapse as unprecedented, and pancaking or not, no 40 storey building has ever collapsed in symmetrical fashion without the aid of explosives. If we ackowledge the 9/11 report as being a complete whitewash, then it's not unreasonable to question the NIST report, particularly in light of the many flaws and inconsistencies which have been highlighted in subsequent studies.

I still see no reason to acknowledge the report as a whitewash. I can understand and accept there were problems with it, but I would put that down to wanting to cloud an inadequate (read surprised and scared) initial response by the Bush administration. And in turn, given the gravity of the the event, especially back then, and the real and percieved sensitivities around the 'War on Terror', within that context, I can understand why the lilly may have been gilded a bit. Pretty standard politics at any time, let alone the paranoid times then. That is not a whitewash, its an understandable, and many would say necessary, bias. A big difference.

If the report was a true whitewash, they wouldn't have investigated the controlled demolition theory. In hidsight the investigators probably wouldn't have, because they were on a hiding to nothing and it was essentially a pointless exercise. Conspiracy theorists aren't convinced by evidence.

 

[tigertim]

I was always going to struggle on football forum.

Sledged by Leysy. Times are tough jb!

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

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

The AFL should've got you lot to write up the tanking evidence against Melbourne. They'd plead guilty rather than attempt to read it all.

 

[Disco08]

Did you see the photo of bldg 7 someone posted with the huge damage to the side of it? multiple floors, the building looked buggered basically. A spotfire on a mid floor it was not.

a) the building sustained a lot of damage, a bloody lot. sh!tloads, forget 'spotfires'.
b) re. the pancaking, I'm not an engineer, but it seems to fit with my intuitive knowledge, and knowledge and experience of building, that it would be perfectly reasonable for a building to pancake when some of its multiple load points are weakened, given that the load would have previously been distributed evenly. and some points would now have more than their designed load, and given that a massive load would be exerted from directly above. I and quite a few others have mentioned this previously, but I didn't see it addressed adequately. People keep implying that pancaking is a strange occurrence, a weird fluke, and that seems to form the basis of the whole 'it must have been a controlled emolition' argument. it isn't strange or odd to me at all, not in the least. I must be a real sucker.

Also, I was assuming that everyone interested in Sept 11 would have seen '9/11' made by the French brothers. When you watch that, its pretty convincing that hijacked planes flew into the WTC and destroyed it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_(film)

Pancaking involves each floor smashing into the next thought right? As each floor hits the one below it gives way. That would mean each floor would offer resistance especially at the outset of collapse when the undamaged structure resisted the falling floor(s). This is not evident though. Each building collapsed at free fall speed with constant acceleration. Apparently that simply can't happen unless there is zero resistance.

I still see no reason to acknowledge the report as a whitewash. I can understand and accept there were problems with it, but I would put that down to wanting to cloud an inadequate (read surprised and scared) initial response by the Bush administration. And in turn, given the gravity of the the event, especially back then, and the real and percieved sensitivities around the 'War on Terror', within that context, I can understand why the lilly may have been gilded a bit. Pretty standard politics at any time, let alone the paranoid times then. That is not a whitewash, its an understandable, and many would say necessary, bias. A big difference.

If the report was a true whitewash, they wouldn't have investigated the controlled demolition theory. In hidsight the investigators probably wouldn't have, because they were on a hiding to nothing and it was essentially a pointless exercise. Conspiracy theorists aren't convinced by evidence.

They didn't investigate the controlled demolition theory, at least not for WTC7. They stated (7 years later) that there was no evidence to support it (which is a blatant lie) and then dismissed it.

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm see point 13.

"Just before the fall of the North Tower, we saw a large explosion coming from the street-level area around World Trade Center 7. I remember thinking that it looked distinctly like a bomb had been detonated underneath the city, and, of course, that's exactly what I thought had occurred."

http://web.archive.org/web/20040412230000/http:/www.trismccall.net/jersey_city_journal.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/cutter.html

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

The OR also didn't properly test the CD theory on the twin towers. They stated that their explanation was sufficient and no other hypotheses need be considered. That's why people object to its integrity so strenuously.

What happened post 9/11 is unprecedented. Never before has evidence been suppressed and destroyed en masse from such sensitive crime scenes. Protocol was abandoned completely. You may be able to reconcile that with Bush and Cheney trying to simply cover up an inadequate initial response but surely you can understand how many people can't.