911 Truth Movement

[Harry]

;D No fence for me this time H.

About time you 'fessed up too - you started this thread because you were bored didn't you.

yeah pretty much. it's a long off season.

 

[Disco08]

My selection of that as an example is not a fallacy - it was chosen very deliberately. It's one conspiracy theory that is out there and gained a lot of traction. It's been debunked - but many will still look at the photos and say "I believe that the plane was a modified USAF plane". Even eye witnesses who saw the plane at a distance may believe that,because (a) they were too far away, and (b) other evidence seems to support the theory, (unless we look at the counter-evidence).

There is no meaningful evidence that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. It all comes down to two things - the "pull it" comment and the BBC wrongful report that it had already collapsed. From such tiny anomalies huge conspiracies grow. And the reason we have no evidence, according to the conspiracy theorists, is that evidence was stolen and hidden, and false evidence planted. All evidence of further conspiracy. And the circularity of argument continues.

The planes I agree with. The evidence is there although not that easy to find. Not sure the theory has gained a lot of traction though.

WTC7 completely disagree. The two things you mentioned are some of the least compelling. They're never mentioned at all by any of the experts who object to the OR or any of the productions produced by those people. The fact you assert that surprises me.

I don't really know what you are trying to say here but what you are saying has nothing to do with "the scientific method" or its application. It's interesting though that you believe the burden of proof is on those who don't agree with the incredibly convoluted conspiracy theories.

I thin what I'm saying is quite obvious. You are the one asserting the existence of a massive conspiracy so the burden to prove it is yours. You alse seem to be using the necessary complexity (again your assertion) of such a conspiracy as a reason not to investigate any evidence that seems to contradict the official narrative. At least that's how this comes accross to me:

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.

Just because I don't accept the OR and want to see a proper investigation doesn't mean I assert conspiracy. Perhaps a proper investigation will reveal that these events were purely the result of US incompetence. I'd accept that no problem. Until then though I want to see experts' analysis of the evidence lead to conclusions which is my understanding of how the scientific method works. I don't want to give up because what the alternative to the official narrative may or may not be seems to complex to be plausible. To me that has nothing to do with the scientific method.

Sorry if its been addressed. Who do you think flew the plane? Whoever it was was is surely dead. Are you suggesting a a US pilot?

No idea. Someone with the requisite ability seems logical though.

 

[jb03]

So you agree that the explosives were planted in advance and set off when Larry gave the ok ?

;D Yep, damn that evil genius. Hope he got his cat out.

 

[bullus_hit]

Your attitude over this just reinforces my opinion that conspiracy theorists cherry pick bits and pieces to suit their agenda. You say the "pull it" comment is clear cut based on a 20 second out of context clip. Now you support that by quoting a journo's report. I wonder how you can be so confident the journo's recollection would be more accurate than the emergency services commander on the spot at the time?

Now let's get this straight, I construe 'pull it' to mean 'pull it down', a phrase so common when referring to demolition that everyone on this site has either used or heard at sometime. Yet despite this, I'm the tinman whose point of view isn't worthy of this thread? (see comments made by Timothy Tam, Snake & Junior Burger) Not to mention the fact that I have also provided a video detailing the demolition of WTC6 and the words 'pull it' being used in a similar context.

On the other hand, those howling me down with indignation can comfortably come up with the assumption that 'pull it' actually meant 'pull out' despite the fact there were no firefighters to pull out of the dangerzone, something which Silverstein would have been aware of if he did in fact speak to an emergency commander. Now either Silverstein's telling a monumental porky, the emergency commander is being loose with the truth or there was another person parading around as an emergency commander. Take your pick, which one was it?

And I take objection to your assertion that I and others simply cherry pick information to suit our agenda. There's a stack of unusual occurances which unfolded that day and at the risk of being pilloried for rehashing 'old stuff', I'll outline just how I came to the conclusion that 'pull it' actually referred to 'pull it down'.

1. The building collapse of WTC7 resembled a controlled demolition, that isn't proof in itself but the probability of a natural collapse producing a similar result is highly unlikely, some may argue unprecedented in the history of steel framed buildings.

2. There are instances of 3 media outlets broadcasting information about a controlled demolition being performed, one of which reported the news prior to the event unfolding.

3. A Fox News reporter has sworn black and blue that Silverstein was on the phone to his insurance agency to establish whether he stood to gain $500 million if a controlled demolition was performed at building 7.

4. There are many eyewitness accounts of people hearing explosions, countdowns, evacuation orders and comments to the effect that the authorities are planning to 'bring the buliding down', some of these include members of the airforce, emergency workers and reporters on the ground.

5. There's footage of emergency workers telling civillians to evacuate because WTC7 is about to blow.

6. There was no forensic investigation conducted after the event and samples were hastily removed and shipped off to China.

Now all things aside, these claims need to be thoroughly tested and investigated. Refusing to do so indicates that some in the echelons of power have something to hide, whatever that may be. It could be a wide ranging conspiracy, it could be a case of commercial fraud or it could be a storm in a teacup. The point being made by many of the doubters is the info currently on the table is incomplete and grossly inadequate. And I'm guessing that the longer officialdom keep dragging their heals about another enquiry, the more people will question with a suspicious eye.

 

[tigertim]

Now let's get this straight, I construe 'pull it' to mean 'pull it down', a phrase so common when referring to demolition that everyone on this site has either used or heard at sometime. Yet despite this, I'm the tinman whose point of view isn't worthy of this thread? (see comments made by Timothy Tam, Snake & Junior Burger) Not to mention the fact that I have also provided a video detailing the demolition of WTC6 and the words 'pull it' being used in a similar context.

On the other hand, those howling me down with indignation can comfortably come up with the assumption that 'pull it' actually meant 'pull out' despite the fact there were no firefighters to pull out of the dangerzone, something which Silverstein would have been aware of if he did in fact speak to an emergency commander. Now either Silverstein's telling a monumental porky, the emergency commander is being loose with the truth or there was another person parading around as an emergency commander. Take your pick, which one was it?

And I take objection to your assertion that I and others simply cherry pick information to suit our agenda. There's a stack of unusual occurances which unfolded that day and at the risk of being pilloried for rehashing 'old stuff', I'll outline just how I came to the conclusion that 'pull it' actually referred to 'pull it down'.

1. The building collapse of WTC7 resembled a controlled demolition, that isn't proof in itself but the probability of a natural collapse producing a similar result is highly unlikely, some may argue unprecedented in the history of steel framed buildings.

2. There are instances of 3 media outlets broadcasting information about a controlled demolition being performed, one of which reported the news prior to the event unfolding.

3. A Fox News reporter has sworn black and blue that Silverstein was on the phone to his insurance agency to establish whether he stood to gain $500 million if a controlled demolition was performed at building 7.

4. There are many eyewitness accounts of people hearing explosions, countdowns, evacuation orders and comments to the effect that the authorities are planning to 'bring the buliding down', some of these include members of the airforce, emergency workers and reporters on the ground.

5. There's footage of emergency workers telling civillians to evacuate because WTC7 is about to blow.

6. There was no forensic investigation conducted after the event and samples were hastily removed and shipped off to China.

Now all things aside, these claims need to be thoroughly tested and investigated. Refusing to do so indicates that some in the echelons of power have something to hide, whatever that may be. It could be a wide ranging conspiracy, it could be a case of commercial fraud or it could be a storm in a teacup. The point being made by many of the doubters is the info currently on the table is incomplete and grossly inadequate. And I'm guessing that the longer officialdom keep dragging their heals about another enquiry, the more people will question with a suspicious eye.

I've seen a list of demolition companies state that they've never heard or used the term "pull it" to describe demolition. "blow it" makes more sense. And Silverstein is so familiar with this little gem of a terminology that is used in the industry? I wonder how?

2; BBC called the destruction of wtc early. Theyve admitted they got it wrong. Thery were reading off an incorrect Reuters report. How dumb are they that even though they are "in on" this conspiracy that they report the demolition of the tower BEFORE its happened with the tower IN VIEW in the background? They are bit like old Larry with their clumsiness.

3: A Fox news reporter apparently swore black and blue HE HEARD SOMEONE ELSE say that THEY heard Silverstein on the phone. Big difference.

4: we've done this before (sorry, not trying to be difficult). Of course there are explosions when 3 buildings are tumbling after 2 planes with 1000s of litres of avgas has crashed into them. Theorists keep harping on the term "explosion" as evidence. My egg exploded in the microwave this morning. No demolition companies were involved.

5: I havent seen this but I assume its true. Emergency workers evacuating civilians out of a building thats been damaged is pretty common sense to me.

And I'll say it again, if there's another inquiry then great but as someone else said what happens if that inquiry doesnt satisfy everyone ( which it wouldn't). Do we petition for a 3rd? then a 4th?

 

[bullus_hit]

I've seen a list of demolition companies state that they've never heard or used the term "pull it" to describe demolition. "blow it" makes more sense. And Silverstein is so familiar with this little gem of a terminology that is used in the industry? I wonder how?

So you've never heard the terminology 'we're going to pull it down' in reference to dismantling a building or structure? Sure, not the exact words used by Silverstein but no more farfetched than replacing the word 'it' with the word 'out'. And like I mentioned earlier, 'pull it' was also used in the demolition of building 6.

2; BBC called the destruction of wtc early. Theyve admitted they got it wrong. Thery were reading off an incorrect Reuters report. How dumb are they that even though they are "in on" this conspiracy that they report the demolition of the tower BEFORE its happened with the tower IN VIEW in the background?

The BBC, CNN, the Fox reporter, Dan Rather and loads of people on the ground all reported the same thing. Where was this info coming from?

3: A Fox news reporter apparently swore black and blue HE HEARD SOMEONE ELSE say that THEY heard Silverstein on the phone. Big difference.

Again, where is this info coming from, how's it all filtered through the editorial process. Why the half truths? The Fox reporter was pretty adament that many emergency workers were talking demolition, why just simply dismiss this as an unreliable witness.

4: we've done this before (sorry, not trying to be difficult). Of course there are explosions when 3 buildings are tumbling after 2 planes with 1000s of litres of avgas has crashed into them. Theorists keep harping on the term "explosion" as evidence. My egg exploded in the microwave this morning. No demolition companies were involved.

Explosions at the precise moment building 7 was coming down, not to mention plumes of dust which resembled building materials being pulverised into dust. Do you even agree it looked like a controlled demolition or is that just millions of eyes being deceived?

5: I havent seen this but I assume its true. Emergency workers evacuating civilians out of a building thats been damaged is pretty common sense to me.

“It’s blowin’ boy.” … “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.” … “The building is about to blow up, move it back.” … “Here we are walking back. There’s a building, about to blow up…”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ&feature=player_embedded#!

And I'll say it again, if there's another inquiry then great but as someone else said what happens if that inquiry doesnt satisfy everyone ( which it wouldn't). Do we petition for a 3rd? then a 4th?

An independant enquiry would go a long way to calming down the masses, the first was a joke and a waste of time and money. Whatever people's views are, the truth movement isn't going away until something of this nature does take place.

 

[tigertim]

Again, you guys talk like there were sooo many people in the know of this "planned controlled demolition" ie BBC, Silverstein, reporters, police, fire staff......

I have no doubt that the collpase of the building was imminent and emergency staff would have been steering the public away. Again, people get hung up on off the cuff terminology:
"its blowin boy" ( so he knew and was in on it?)
" keep your eye on it, it's coming down soon". Seriously, that's "evidence" of a "planned controlled demolition"? Anyway it turns out he was right! ( and he was in on it too?)
"the buildings a bout to blow up". yep, that does sound like a buidlings going to be blown up, true. (but again, he's in the "know" too?)

How many people do you think were "in the know" on the day?

 

[Rosy]

Now let's get this straight, I construe 'pull it' to mean 'pull it down', a phrase so common when referring to demolition that everyone on this site has either used or heard at sometime. Yet despite this, I'm the tinman whose point of view isn't worthy of this thread? (see comments made by Timothy Tam, Snake & Junior Burger) Not to mention the fact that I have also provided a video detailing the demolition of WTC6 and the words 'pull it' being used in a similar context.

On the other hand, those howling me down with indignation can comfortably come up with the assumption that 'pull it' actually meant 'pull out' despite the fact there were no firefighters to pull out of the dangerzone, something which Silverstein would have been aware of if he did in fact speak to an emergency commander. Now either Silverstein's telling a monumental porky, the emergency commander is being loose with the truth or there was another person parading around as an emergency commander. Take your pick, which one was it?

Nobody else here has claimed "pull it" meant anything. You're the one who claimed the meaning was "clear cut" and showed the 20 second clip as evidence. The clip I posted showed there could be various explanations. I made it clear I didn't subscribe to any of them.

Not being worthy of this thread is your claim. Nobody has suggested that. Why post if you aren't agreeable to having people disagree or question you?

You telling me to take my pick is ridiculous. I see no point is speculating. I've admitted I wouldn't have a clue. Fact is I doubt you would either so thus my questioning of your clear cut judgement. I haven't noticed anyone support your theory.

And I take objection to your assertion that I and others simply cherry pick information to suit our agenda.

Have you followed this thread closely from the start? One example is your claim that "pull it" was "clear cut" in regards to controlled demolition. You didn't include any information regarding those who'd expressed an opposing view. As with most claims there are varying claims and opinions.

1. The building collapse of WTC7 resembled a controlled demolition, that isn't proof in itself but the probability of a natural collapse producing a similar result is highly unlikely, some may argue unprecedented in the history of steel framed buildings.

I've never experienced a controlled demolition and would find it hard to judge from a short clip. Are you qualified to form such an opinion? There are very conflicting reports of the collapses. I notice you haven't included explanations from those supporting the official version. If you take objection to that that kind of a lack of balance I referred to, and is evidenced throughout this thread, then I think it's your problem really.

it could be a case of commercial fraud

How would it qualify as commercial fraud?

 

[jb03]

Funny, I work with demolishers a lot and i have never heard the term 'pull it'. Though i have heard variations when I calmly try and discuss that perhaps the demolishers are not going about things the right way.

I suppose it could be an American term.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

1. The building collapse of WTC7 resembled a controlled demolition, that isn't proof in itself but the probability of a natural collapse producing a similar result is highly unlikely, some may argue unprecedented in the history of steel framed buildings.

...

You don't even have to read the whole thread, just go back a couple of pages to where I posted this link which includes references to buildings collapsing down on top of themselves naturally:

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.

 

[Disco08]

You can see where I might get confused ???

No I can't. The word "scientific" should be enough to provide clarity for you. Researching an opinion only really requires reading. You don't need to form and test hypotheses etc.

Based on what exactly? Certainly not a scientifically rigorous test of the facts. Florida was not under martial law, plain and simple, the changes to the authority to call up and train the National Guard has no effect on jurisprudence by my reading of the Executive Order 01-261 and 01-262, if you have evidence otherwise to make your inference valid I'd be interested to see it. This is just more sensational and unsupported guff from the conspiracy web. And every time you use this type of confected story to support your claims you lose credibility IMO. Martial law implies that the State of Florida had relinquished complete civilian authority to the military. The Governor is no longer the highest authority. There is no grey area here, martial law has only one meaning.

The words "provide training support" wherever mentioned in those orders effectively mean "take control of". That's the role of the NG. Once activated they are superior to the personnel they are instructed to "provide support to".

You think it's 100%-not-worth-investigating-pure-coincidence that 4 days before 9/11 (1 business day) this order replaced the nearly identical Executive Order #01-17 which was enacted in January 2001 and valid until June 2003? The only difference between the two being this:

Based on the potential massive damage to life and property that may result from an act of terrorism at a Florida port, the necessity to protect life and property from such acts of terrorism, and inhibiting the smuggling of illegal drugs into the State of Florida, the use of the Florida National Guard to support FDLE in accomplishing port security training and inspections is "extraordinary support to law enforcement" as used in Section 250.06(4), Florida Statutes.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd227.htm

http://executiveorders.blogspot.com.au/2004/09/jeb-bush-executive-orders-pre-91101.html

 

[Disco08]

You don't even have to read the whole thread, just go back a couple of pages to where I posted this link which includes references to buildings collapsing down on top of themselves naturally:

Buildings don't pancake at freefall speed though.

 

[Disco08]

I've seen a list of demolition companies state that they've never heard or used the term "pull it" to describe demolition. "blow it" makes more sense. And Silverstein is so familiar with this little gem of a terminology that is used in the industry? I wonder how?

Perhaps because he's not a CD expert and was just using terminology that made sense to him? Just sayin'. ;D

 

[AngryAnt]

You are the one asserting the existence of a massive conspiracy so the burden to prove it is yours.

Did you really just type that?

 

[Disco08]

Yep. Sorry though. I should have had "implied" in there before "existence".

 

[Harry]

Buildings don't pancake at freefall speed though.

apparently they do. and all the support columns just snap like matchsticks.

 

[Disco08]

Yep. 2nd law of thermodynamics be damned.

 

[tigertim]

Perhaps because he's not a CD expert and was just using terminology that made sense to him? Just sayin'. ;D

But seriously, would the term 'pull it' be the best descriptor you would use to ask for a 'demolition'?

 

[Disco08]

Not sure it's a good term for anything obviously going on there at the time.

 

[Rosy]

More like pull the other one on this thread. :hihi