911 Truth Movement

[Disco08]

No doubt like all the "editing" done on Jennings and Hess's remarks when they appear on the 911 conspiracy web no?

Not sure. From what 've seen the worst thing done to Jennings was a misinterpretation of his "stepping over people quote". Hess made an initial interview on UPN9. You can watch it here. Not sure his words have been twisted at all though. Also worth noting right at the start is the quote that there was "a huge explosion" at the base of the south tower before it collapsed.

 

[tigersnake]

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.

What is this based on? Would it mean that? Is it not evident? My memory of the footage is that the collapse accelerated as you'd expect, (or I'd expect it to), based on the laws of physics. "falling at free fall speed with constant acceleration' is exactly how this naive amatuer building enthusiast would expect. Again, where you see weirdness I see unremarkableness.

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.

Again with the extreme language. 'Blatant lie' We have just spent 90-odd pages producing proof and debating, its obviously had zero effect, which to be honest I find surprising. I see no evidence to prove its a 'blatant lie', yet you keep tossing it around as if its an accepted truth.

 

[Rosy]

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?

I have read it and I'm not sure to be honest.

You started with "From my personal point of view, the most suspicious uncontested facts/actions are:" then posted the Bush references, including the upside down book one, and ended with "Now, I'm not saying by any means that these facts prove anything. I do however think they demand further and proper investigation." I took that to mean exactly what you said. If you were just trying to show Bush should be investigated further in regard to being an idiot then fair enough but I don't get why you'd want to show he was an idiot, based on your comments, if it wasn't in reference to the Govt involvement/suspicions in regard to 9/11.

Not sure why you're playing the deceit card. I haven't suggested that. I've just posted things as I see them. You've had a few personal cracks at me when I've posted my opinions on the topic. I think you're taking it far too personally. :hearton

 

[tigersnake]

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.

I sure can understand it. I can also understand why people in PNG thought a helicopter was a giant bird, why Scientologists believe that supreme beings from outer space walk amongst us, why people believe in ghosts, why people believe that some people are better than others depending on skin colour family history. I don't see any evidence for any of it and don't believe in any of those things, but I understand why people do.

 

[Azza]

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.

:hihi

 

[bullus_hit]

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.

If the authors of the 9/11 commision report have stated that they were set up to fail, how can you conclude that the process was satisfactory?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzrv-e37Es8

Not to mention that there was no mention of WTC7 in the report whatsoever, absolutely staggering considering that there were so many unanswered questions.

And they didn't explore the explosives theory, that's the point, and that is a whitewash in my opinion. If you believe otherwise, where's the forensic evidence?

If so many experts in the field find the findings contentious then why not address the anomalies. Requesting such a follow-up is hardly the work of conspiracy theorists, simply an exercise in uncovering the truth.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

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.

There is lots of evidence that none of the buildings fell at "freefall". From the video it can be hard to tell but the calculations have been done. A thought experiment for you. When the buildings were severed by the planes you can virtually consider the levels above to be suspended by a crane and then dropped in their entirety onto those below. Their collapse under that doesn't seem hard to explain to me. Here is someone else:

The pancake theory is not necessarily incorrect, but how it is presented is. The NIST said that heat from the fires sagged the trusses, which bowed the columns inward, causing the building to collapse. After it began to collapse the inevitable pancaking ensued due to the tremendous force from above. The force from above and the pancaking itself took the rest of the building down with it[51]. Regardless, pancake style collapses are not as rare as the conspiracy theorists would have you believe, a prime example is the L'Ambiance Plaza, which collapsed in 1987, before it was even completed[52]. Two other incidents happened, also during construction, in 1985 and 1973, where pancaking floors collapsed both buildings[53]. There is also the Lian Yak building in March 1986[54]. Civic Center of Pavia in 1989, Cathedral in Goch, Germany; Campanile in Venice, Italy in 1902[55]. Ronan Point flats, where a gas explosion on the 18th floor blew out the perimeter structural panels, resulting in the floors collapsing on top of one another[56].As you can see, pancaking is hardly a rare occurrence only happening in terrorist attacks.

Now while I have tried to stay away from the 911fortruth and debunking websites this is one but the citations are well referenced and seem to check out.

 

[tigersnake]

If the authors of the 9/11 commision report have stated that they were set up to fail, how can you conclude that the process was satisfactory?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzrv-e37Es8

Not to mention that there was no mention of WTC7 in the report whatsoever, absolutely staggering considering that there were so many unanswered questions.

And they didn't explore the explosives theory, that's the point, and that is a whitewash in my opinion. If you believe otherwise, where's the forensic evidence?

If so many experts in the field find the findings contentious then why not address the anomalies. Requesting such a follow-up is hardly the work of conspiracy theorists, simply an exercise in uncovering the truth.

I didn't say the process was satisfactory. I actually said the opposite. But there is no evidence of a conspiracy, and the prospect of one just doesn't wash.

Here's the thing, The USA is the most powerful regime in the world ever. Power in large part relies on perception. The planes hit, the head honchos crapped themselves (which I can understand), and also the fact that the event occurred punctured the veneer of US invincibility. To me, it is perfectly rational and understandable that the Inquiry would have been leant on, and would have attempted to anyway, to minimise any appearance of weakness. Any regime anywhere in the world and through history would have done the same.

Spin and war footing, not conspiracy.

 

[Rosy]

If the authors of the 9/11 commision report have stated that they were set up to fail, how can you conclude that the process was satisfactory?

Not to mention that there was no mention of WTC7 in the report whatsoever, absolutely staggering considering that there were so many unanswered questions.

Which report are you referring to that had no mention whatsoever of WTC7?

 

[Tigersub]

Great debate going on here but if you think the entire truth would ever be given up on every factor of 9/11 by such a government as the good old US of A then you ar sadly mistaken.

 

[tigersnake]

Great debate going on here but if you think the entire truth would ever be given up on every factor of 9/11 by such a government as the good old US of A then you ar sadly mistaken.

Very good point, and very simply put. But to then make the jump to a conspiracy is, IMO, ludicrous.

 

[Rosy]

Great debate going on here but if you think the entire truth would ever be given up on every factor of 9/11 by such a government as the good old US of A then you ar sadly mistaken.

Yeah that's been acknowledged by others. Couldn't in my wildest dreams imagine the Govt would release such sensitive info, especially if it showed them in a bad light, but no way I believe they orchestrated the attacks and killed their own citizens.

 

[Disco08]

I have read it and I'm not sure to be honest.

You started with "From my personal point of view, the most suspicious uncontested facts/actions are:" then posted the Bush references, including the upside down book one, and ended with "Now, I'm not saying by any means that these facts prove anything. I do however think they demand further and proper investigation." I took that to mean exactly what you said. If you were just trying to show Bush should be investigated further in regard to being an idiot then fair enough but I don't get why you'd want to show he was an idiot, based on your comments, if it wasn't in reference to the Govt involvement/suspicions in regard to 9/11.

Not sure why you're playing the deceit card. I haven't suggested that. I've just posted things as I see them. You've had a few personal cracks at me when I've posted my opinions on the topic. I think you're taking it far too personally. :hearton

Sorry I'm just going to let this go here. If you can't see how not accepting my word on what meaning my upside down book joke carried despite me telling you over and over (2 wees ago is when I first explained to Baloo that it was a throw away line) is suggesting that I'm being dishonest then there's no chance we'll ever resolve this. It's not worth any angst though so lets just call it a misunderstanding and move on.

 

[Tigersub]

Very good point, and very simply put. But to then make the jump to a conspiracy is, IMO, ludicrous.

I'm a person who will put statements in simple terms whether i talk to Directors of corporations or any other employee of that entity. Not jumping to anything on this thread my friend. Just stating very straight forward facts in terms of governments worldwide and their attitudes of being forthcoming with facts in such situations.

 

[AngryAnt]

Most of the office space was outside the central support structure.

Wrong - it had a central core and then a distributed tubular column structure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center#Structural_design

Of course this messes with the theory that somehow a team could prewire these two huge structures for demolition without any of the thousands of workers and visitors there noticing (and I include maintenance workers and others who had access to elevators, crawl spaces and other "off-limits" areas).

If you have any evidence of crews (video footage, eye witness accounts, anything Bueller) performing the installation of this demolition system, please share it. If you don't, I must dismiss your theory of controlled demolition as not supported.

You're a generally objective type antman. Don't you think the scientific method should override arguments of incredulity?

Yes I do. And scepticism is fine.

I look at it this way. None of us were there (as far as I know). All the information we received is second hand - tv reports, video footage, eye witness accounts. You say how can we disregard the number <x> of witness who saw a plane with no windows or whatever - and yet there are <x> times 1000 who were there and do not dispute the generally accepted version of events. Terrorists hijacked planes, flew them into buildings, they were damaged and caught fire, and eventually collapsed.

So it's incredibly easy for us to ignore the <x> times one thousand witnesses and find one witness (or some video footage or something) that supports a theory like the ones you support. And of course, I haven't been there, I wasn't there, so I'm getting all my info secondhand just like you ... but just like I've never actually seen Barack Obama in the flesh, there is enough circumstantial evidence there for me to believe that he really does exist. Of course, it could be a massive conspiracy, he could be a computer generated hologram, and I'm the victim of a reverse Truman Show scenario, but meh, good enough, I'm convinced.

In the 9/11 case what is being suggested is a conspiracy so massive in scale, so audacious in conception, so complete in its secrecy, that it is many orders of magnitude less likely to be able to pull off than the actual terrorist attack that I believe occurred... And all this without one - even one - person who was in on the conspiracy coming forward and saying "we did it, I feel a bit bad about it, so I'm coming clean and Bush and Cheney are going down with me".

I mean, sorry Disco, get real man.

 

[tigersnake]

I'm a person who will put statements in simple terms whether i talk to Directors of corporations or any other employee of that entity. Not jumping to anything on this thread my friend. Just stating very straight forward facts in terms of governments worldwide and their attitudes of being forthcoming with facts in such situations.

I didn't think you were jumping to anything, just making the point that a lot of people do make that jump, for no good reason. Like you, To me its obvious and rational why the US would be less than candid with a lot of facts surrounding 9/11.

 

[bullus_hit]

Spin and war footing, not conspiracy.

Just like the 'spin' that used WMD as a means to launch a war? However you want to dress it up it doesn't amount to the truth, and that is precisely what many are asking for.

The owner of WTC7 Larry Siverstein admitted in an interview that he wanted firefighters to 'pull it', a phrase which refers to a controlled demolition. This indicates that firstly, they had the capabilities, and secondly, they were considering explosives as an option. So if there was some commercial imperitive to take the building down, why is it so far fetched that a controlled demolition took place?

Which report are you referring to that had no mention whatsoever of WTC7?

9/11 Commission Report

 

[tigersnake]

Just like the 'spin' that used WMD as a means to launch a war? However you want to dress it up it doesn't amount to the truth, and that is precisely what many are asking for.

The owner of WTC7 Larry Siverstein admitted in an interview that he wanted firefighters to 'pull it', a phrase which refers to a controlled demolition. This indicates that firstly, they had the capabilities, and secondly, they were considering explosives as an option. So if there was some commercial imperitive to take the building down, why is it so far fetched that a controlled demolition took place?

The LS quote is new to me. Did he say that? Did he communicate with firefighters? Would they have taken any notice if he did?

Considering his insurance policy, its perfectly reasonable that he'd be keen for a write-off once the event happened.

 

[Rosy]

9/11 Commission Report

Thanks for that. I'll have a look. I've read a bit of the Govt NIST report and it has heaps of content about WTC7.

 

[TigerForce]

In the 9/11 case what is being suggested is a conspiracy so massive in scale, so audacious in conception, so complete in its secrecy, that it is many orders of magnitude less likely to be able to pull off than the actual terrorist attack that I believe occurred... And all this without one - even one - person who was in on the conspiracy coming forward and saying "we did it, I feel a bit bad about it, so I'm coming clean and Bush and Cheney are going down with me".

I mean, sorry Disco, get real man.

Why would a whistleblower have to come out......now?

Can we call the situation at Essendon a conspiracy that other people would've thought existed and has now been exposed?