911 Truth Movement

[KnightersRevenge]

Buildings don't pancake at freefall speed though.

Says who? Been over it, it isn't an established fact that the buildings fell at freefall. While demolition is a possible explanation it isn't the only one nor even the most likely. The most likely cause was the planes planes that flew into them. And the subsequent damage and fires induced in WTC 1, 2 & then 7 by the other two towers coming down around it and causing massive fires without the ability to fight them. There is very little information about what was happening inside the buildings (Hess and Jennings were out hours before WTC 7 fell so they can't tell us anything about what was happen in the hours before it fell). The façade could have been masking the floors inside already crumbling giving the appearance outwardly that the building was intact when it fell. No new investigation can reconstruct those facts or shed any light on the actual physics of what was happening so I can't see how it could clear anything up on that score. It would lead only to more speculation. IMO.

You could try to get inside Bush's head but I reckon you'd be more likely to hear elevator music than the careful planning of the timing of his response. You could try to get at Cheney he'd be slipperier than Milosevic on the stand I'd wager.

 

[Disco08]

Says who? Been over it, it isn't an established fact that the buildings fell at freefall. While demolition is a possible explanation it isn't the only one nor even the most likely. The most likely cause was the planes planes that flew into them. And the subsequent damage and fires induced in WTC 1, 2 & then 7 by the other two towers coming down around it and causing massive fires without the ability to fight them. There is very little information about what was happening inside the buildings (Hess and Jennings were out hours before WTC 7 fell so they can't tell us anything about what was happen in the hours before it fell). The façade could have been masking the floors inside already crumbling giving the appearance outwardly that the building was intact when it fell. No new investigation can reconstruct those facts or shed any light on the actual physics of what was happening so I can't see how it could clear anything up on that score. It would lead only to more speculation. IMO.

So just forget about the murder of 3000 people because it's all too hard?

You have the scientific knowledge of how hot fires need to be before they can distort or weaken steel, how buildings react after being damaged, etc, etc. There are video and audio recordings. There are eyewitnesses. Besides they didn't have any evidence the 1st time either. That report was carried out in 2007/8. The physical evidence was destroyed long before that.

Did you watch the video I linked to where NIST's data is used to prove freefall speeds for WTC7? Have you seen videos comparing its collapse to other controlled demolitions that fell at freefall speed?

Have you watched the AE doco yet?

 

[bullus_hit]

I watched the LS vid. It is as obvious as the nose on my face that he meant pull out. Let it burn, too dangerous. Thats what he said and thats whet he meant. The video is pretty funny.

For your benefit Rosy because obviously I'm just making stuff up, and this after being labelled a tin foil hat wearer.

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.

I've just detailed how I came to the conclusion I did, I've provided some archival footage to back that up and I've highlighted various inconsistencies in the official story. What more would you like me to do to satisfy your notion of 'fair play'?

As for what constitutes a 'controlled demolition' versus an unaided collapse, I would be absolutely stoked if someone provided something which even remotely resembles WTC7. Anything really, then I might be more open minded to some of these physics defying pancake theories which are being floated around.

 

[Rosy]

You're welcome to post what you want to bullus. We all get a variety of reactions to our posts.

You didn't answer the question that intrigued me most. On what ground could this be considered a case of commercial fraud?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

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.

Seems to me you are more interested in process than substance. Surely the method is pointless if you are not rigorous with your sources. Isn't that what the creationists try to do?

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

At no point was Florida under martial law. Simple really. Martial law implies that the all civilian authority in the state was under the control of the military, there is no ambiguity. It wasn't. Those orders are used repeatedly in Florida in times of crisis by governors before and since usually around cyclones and bushfires. They are used to declare a state of emergency not martial law.

The executive orders

On Sept. 7, Bush signed EO 01-261, delegating to the adjutant general “all necessary authority … to order members of the Florida National Guard into active service … for the purpose of training to support law-enforcement personnel and emergency-management personnel in the event of civil disturbances or natural disasters and to provide training support to law-enforcement personnel and community-based organizations relating to counter drug operations.”

The order is set to expire June 30, 2003, unless revoked earlier. In his letter, Woodring described it as a “routine” training order that “allowed the activation of select members of the National Guard to assist the Florida Department of Law Enforcement in training for port security and protection.” It was issued to place “select members on active duty, so that if they were injured during the training they would be eligible for health and medical benefits only available to members on active duty.”

Guard has no arrest powers

Jon Myatt, public affairs officer with the Florida Department of Military Affairs, the National Guard’s home agency, discussed with WorldNetDaily the role of the Guard and its relationship with other agencies during these recurrent states of emergency and whether the recent call-up constituted martial law.

“The governors have the authority to use the Florida National Guard to augment their law enforcement, but that’s not martial law,” said Myatt emphatically.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2001/10/11403/#UwajoLiX3HAuWLdj.99

 

[KnightersRevenge]

So just forget about the murder of 3000 people because it's all too hard?

You have the scientific knowledge of how hot fires need to be before they can distort or weaken steel, how buildings react after being damaged, etc, etc. There are video and audio recordings. There are eyewitnesses. Besides they didn't have any evidence the 1st time either. That report was carried out in 2007/8. The physical evidence was destroyed long before that.

Did you watch the video I linked to where NIST's data is used to prove freefall speeds for WTC7? Have you seen videos comparing its collapse to other controlled demolitions that fell at freefall speed?

Have you watched the AE doco yet?

Who said anything about forgetting about those who died? I am and have only ever been questioning your reasoning for why the real and actual events that most of us saw are not sufficient to explain those events. I think they are and I don't think conspiracy mongers talking about what "pull it" meant or "what the state of the national guard in Florida was" have anything to add to the debate. And most importantly don't add credibility to the argument for a conspiracy. And if it isn't a conspiracy to have all levels of government and the secret service and contractors involved in a hoax terror attack in order to demolish landmarks and kill thousands in order to start a war in the middle east then what is it?

 

[bullus_hit]

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

Pull it = Pull it down or
Pull it = Pull out

Maybe we should have an official 'Pull It' contest (Baloo cue the Salt 'N Pepa versus Osama mixtape)

You're welcome to post what you want to bullus. We all get a variety of reactions to our posts.

You didn't answer the question that intrigued me most. On what ground could this be considered a case of commercial fraud?

Commercial fraud would entail Silvermann having prior knowledge of an imminent attack, and rigging his buildings with explosives to ensure he received maximum financial compensation as a result of terrorist damage. It descends into very murky territory and obviously implicates many others, but it's something that I believe cannot be discounted entirely.

Now I've heard others hose down this theory because fireman simply couldn't be involved but to be honest, I don't think they necessarily have to be (that being in an official sense). Silvermann could have had his own demolition team at the ready, uniformed and in the public eye. The average Joe wouldn't know any better and this may account for all the talk of controlled demolition at the site.

And before people begin to dismiss me as a crazed conspiracy theorist, this is just one possibility, however unlikley. It's an event which in my opinion, is just as unlikely as a building collapsing in near freefall motion without the aid of explosives.

 

[Disco08]

And what cause did Jeb have to insert the "terrorism clause" 1 business day before 9/11? You don't think it's quite obvious that having the activated NG at their disposal was an extra layer of protection for Jeb and George? The preceeding order had been enacted the day before George's inauguration amid unrest surrounding the Florida ballot debacle. All coincidence?

http://www.infowars.com/print/ps/martial_law_fl.htm

Also interesting that Jeb commandeered Mohommed Atta's flight training records early on September 12. Not really something you'd expect him to do if these attacks came as a complete surprise.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0212/S00058.htm

Seems to me you are more interested in process than substance. Surely the method is pointless if you are not rigorous with your sources. Isn't that what the creationists try to do?

Creationists tend to hone in on any minor point they can get a hold of while ignoring anything that challenges their beliefs. Much as you've done for most of this thread.

 

[Disco08]

Who said anything about forgetting about those who died? I am and have only ever been questioning your reasoning for why the real and actual events that most of us saw are not sufficient to explain those events. I think they are and I don't think conspiracy mongers talking about what "pull it" meant or "what the state of the national guard in Florida was" have anything to add to the debate. And most importantly don't add credibility to the argument for a conspiracy. And if it isn't a conspiracy to have all levels of government and the secret service and contractors involved in a hoax terror attack in order to demolish landmarks and kill thousands in order to start a war in the middle east then what is it?

No one knows for sure. That's why there's a call for proper investigation. By saying you don't see how it can help you're effectively giving up on getting the victims the answers they say they never got from the 9/11 commission.

You assert you know what real and actual events took place. Many people far more involved don't share your certainty.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

And what cause did Jeb have to insert the "terrorism clause" 1 business day before 9/11? You don't think it's quite obvious that having the activated NG at their disposal was an extra layer of protection for Jeb and George? The preceeding order had been enacted the day before George's inauguration amid unrest surrounding the Florida ballot debacle. All coincidence?

http://www.infowars.com/print/ps/martial_law_fl.htm

Also interesting that Jeb commandeered Mohommed Atta's flight training records early on September 12. Not really something you'd expect him to do if these attacks came as a complete surprise.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0212/S00058.htm

So not martial law then.....

Creationists tend to hone in on any minor point they can get a hold of while ignoring anything that challenges their beliefs. Much as you've done for most of this thread.

I was thinking more they use factually incorrect material while attempting to argue a scientific process much as you have done.

 

[Disco08]

Did you watch the video I linked to where NIST's data is used to prove freefall speeds for WTC7? Have you seen videos comparing its collapse to other controlled demolitions that fell at freefall speed?

Have you watched the AE doco yet?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

No one knows for sure. That's why there's a call for proper investigation. By saying you don't see how it can help you're effectively giving up on getting the victims the answers they say they never got from the 9/11 commission.

My point is no one will ever know for sure. There is no "closure" imminent. "Giving up on the victims" is your assertion but it is doesn't really mean anything as I don't accept the logic of the conspiracy theorists so their deaths have been explained. There is no moral conflict here that I can see.

You assert you know what real and actual events took place. Many people far more involved don't share your certainty.

I assert only that what I saw on the day is explained without any need for clandestine demolition. Many people don't share my certainty, this is not a stretch. Many people don't share my certainty about evolution, but they are wrong. Does their number make their reticence more reasonable?

 

[Disco08]

So not martial law then.....

I was thinking more they use factually incorrect material while attempting to argue a scientific process much as you have done.

That why you ignore 4 out of every 5 questions I ask you? 9/11's a scientific process? Creationists also get very narky when they're struggling to answer questions that are too much for them.........

It may not have been the dictionary definition of martial law but I think most people realise that. Must have been quite obvious in Florida that the government hadn't been overthrown.

 

[Disco08]

My point is no one will ever know for sure. There is no "closure" imminent. "Giving up on the victims" is your assertion but it is doesn't really mean anything as I don't accept the logic of the conspiracy theorists so their deaths have been explained. There is no moral conflict here that I can see.

How do you know that?

So you think all the victims who feel the 9/11 commission didn't answer any of their questions should just shut up about it because your version of reality is the right one and the deaths of their loved ones has actually been adequately explained despite their concerns?

I assert only that what I saw on the day is explained without any need for clandestine demolition. Many people don't share my certainty, this is not a stretch. Many people don't share my certainty about evolution, but they are wrong. Does their number make their reticence more reasonable?

Evolution is proven over and over both in theory and in reality. The 9/11 official narrative has gaping holes all through it.

You're asserting that your version of events is correct to the point that no more investigation is necessary. How good would you say your knowledge of the events is?

 

[Rosy]

So let's do a stock take who'd need to be in on the conspiracy.

Thousands of eye witnesses
The Government
The NYPD
Ambulance service
Fire brigades
Insurance companies
Staff and Employees
Emergency services
Journos
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Commission members
NYC Office of Emergency management
Others?
Plus..
Explosion experts
Larry and Barry

Not having one leak amongst all of those people, many highly qualified and in responsible positions, makes the logistics of a terrorist attack seem like child's play.

 

[tigersnake]

This thread is now much stranger than the Post thread. I thought about Having another crack, then I thought, 'where do you start?' 'Its all been gone over'. "What is the point?'

I'm pulling it.

 

[tigersnake]

Yep. 2nd law of thermodynamics be damned.

goldpost

 

[tigersnake]

So let's do a stock take who'd need to be in on the conspiracy.

Thousands of eye witnesses
The Government
The NYPD
Ambulance service
Fire brigades
Insurance companies
Staff and Employees
Emergency services
Journos
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Commission members
NYC Office of Emergency management
Others?

Not having one leak amongst all of those people, many highly qualified and in responsible positions, makes the logistics of a terrorist attack seem like child's play.

You forgot Larry 'pullit' Silverman, and his family, and his manicurist

 

[Rosy]

This thread is now much stranger than the Post thread. I thought about Having another crack, then I thought, 'where do you start?' 'Its all been gone over'. "What is the point?'

I'm pulling it.

It's good for a chuckle. Far more entertaining to be a fly on the wall than to participate in.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

How do you know that?

So you think all the victims who feel the 9/11 commission didn't answer any of their questions should just shut up about it because your version of reality is the right one and the deaths of their loved ones has actually been adequately explained despite their concerns?

Did I say that? I don't think I did. I said I don't have concerns and as such I don't accept that I have "given up on the victims" I think it is an emotive call but I don't think it has any substance.

Evolution is proven over and over both in theory and in reality. The 9/11 official narrative has gaping holes all through it.

You're asserting that your version of events is correct to the point that no more investigation is necessary. How good would you say your knowledge of the events is?

I have asserted no such thing. I have simply said that I don't accept that much of the "evidence" presented constitutes anything close to "evidence" it is conjecture and speculation and has on numerous occasions on this thread been shown to be based on erroneous information. I don't find that the case for an alternative explanation that involves clandestine demolition and the necessary conspiracy I believe this implies has been made.