911 Truth Movement

[Disco08]

In case you're still here;

Which tower's collpase supposedly did the damage to WTC7?

To clear up the point of the video - you can hear the firefighter say clearly "seven's exploding!". They were 2 blocks away.

Logic has now well and truly left the building. I think Knighter should follow.

This seems a good example too evo. What do you reckon?

 

[tigersnake]

Some want it, some don't. You can make the same argument either way.

If I was speaking on their behalf I'd be saying they want a proper inquiry.

Here disco you'd been pinned down by Baloo on speaking for the families of those killed, and the questionable legitimacy of that, 'they deserve an inquiry...etc', this was your response. Its very strange, that's why I said it was a dead scratcher. The first sentence is a direct contradiction of the position you had been taking, 'the families deserve...' Suddenly, when you are pinned down on a point, you pretend you have'nt had a position.

As for the second sentence, as far as I was aware, you had been saying 'they' want a proper inquiry. Maybe you didn't say those exact words, I really don't care so don't bother trying to dig up endless cherry=picked quotes or what have you, but the implication was clear, even if the exact words weren't there.

I'm just trying to point out what you do and that it is very disconcerting for me at least.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

In case you're still here;

Which tower's collpase supposedly did the damage to WTC7?

To clear up the point of the video - you can hear the firefighter say clearly "seven's exploding!". They were 2 blocks away.

This seems a good example to evo. What do you reckon?

So what now? WTC 7 wasn't damaged by the towers? Sometimes my wife explodes what is your point? I sometimes work with exploded diagrams, Jackson Pollock liked explosions of colour.

 

[tigersnake]

So you disagree that I've answered every question put to me? I'll bet you whatever you lie that you can't find any example of me changing the subject when challenged.

What's wrong with the point made about pancae collapses, freefall and TSLoTD?

I'm not taing the high moral ground. Victims deserve a proper investigation. If that's wrong tell me why they don't.

You guys have asserted many times that complicity requires a massive and complex conspiracy.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles.html

I admit I was wrong about there not being enough access to evidence to create articles for peer review.

I had a look at that journal, very strange. No mention of an editorial board or referees, just 2 blokes. Also, I have never seen, in my life, a submission policy like that in a peer reviewed journal. They are basically saying that they only want submissions that support a conspiracy. That would be like an anthropology journal saying they will only publish papers that support the theory of environmental determinism, Ecology saying any papers that support nurture over nature won't get a run etc. Its just not on.

 

[Disco08]

So what now? WTC 7 wasn't damaged by the towers? Sometimes my wife explodes what is your point? I sometimes work with exploded diagrams, Jackson Pollock liked explosions of colour.

Well logic would seem to say explosions inside WTC7 could have done a fair bit of damage too.

Tower 1 supposedly did the damage to WTC7 right?

 

[Disco08]

Here disco you'd been pinned down by Baloo on speaking for the families of those killed, and the questionable legitimacy of that, 'they deserve an inquiry...etc', this was your response. Its very strange, that's why I said it was a dead scratcher. The first sentence is a direct contradiction of the position you had been taking, 'the families deserve...' Suddenly, when you are pinned down on a point, you pretend you have'nt had a position.

As for the second sentence, as far as I was aware, you had been saying 'they' want a proper inquiry. Maybe you didn't say those exact words, I really don't care so don't bother trying to dig up endless cherry=picked quotes or what have you, but the implication was clear, even if the exact words weren't there.

I'm just trying to point out what you do and that it is very disconcerting for me at least.

Absolute *smile* yet again. Not once have I said or implied that all 9/11 victims want a proper inquiry. Want and deserve are two completely different things.

Baloo didn't pin me down at all. My position is that all victims of tragic crimes (see how tragic is used to define a group of crimes in this context evo?) deserve a proper investigation and the 9/11 commission wasn't even close to being one. You guys are insisting that this is dishonest, immoral or an appeal to emotion but you're wrong.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Well logic would seem to say explosions inside WTC7 could have don'e a fair bit of damage too.

Tower 1 supposedly did the damage to WTC7 right?

No that is not a natural assumption. There is no evidence that these explosions are not simply the noises one might expect given the circumstances. Logic dictates that the most apparent cause of the damage, the fires and the noises was the terrorist attack and the damage it did to the towers and the damage the towers did as they fell. Sections of the towers were falling well before the towers fell. How much noise do you think the massive steel sections made as they impacted the ground after falling 80 storeys? Why do sirens sound louder in the city?

 

[Leysy Days]

Here's a question for you: does it not seem a little odd to you that probably the only other large debate PRE has seen over the years that required a fair amount of clear thinking and emperical research, the creationist v' evolutionist debate, in one you were on the same side as normally reasonable posters such as Pantera, antman, tigersnake, me etc but in this one you in direct opposition?

Does this not ring any alarms bells?

Ah ehm, Tambling thread, Cough Cough. >

 

[jb03]

Ah ehm, Tambling thread, Cough Cough. >

Ah ehm, Hislop thread, Cough Cough. >

 

[Disco08]

No that is not a natural assumption. There is no evidence that these explosions are not simply the noises one might expect given the circumstances. Logic dictates that the most apparent cause of the damage, the fires and the noises was the terrorist attack and the damage it did to the towers and the damage the towers did as they fell. Sections of the towers were falling well before the towers fell. How much noise do you think the massive steel sections made as they impacted the ground after falling 80 storeys? Why do sirens sound louder in the city?

No evidence other than Hess and Jenning's testimony. Also petrol tanks exploding are loud but you can hear that those explosions are far bigger. What exactly explains them? Something hitting the ground, even if massive, don't sound like that.

You assert that the most logical explanation of the events of 9/11 is that terrorists hijaced planes (and avoided the most advanced defense force's security measures in their most protected airspace amid constant warnings of possible hijacings with the goal of flying planes into the WTC and the Pentagon) and flew them into the twin towers and the Pentagon. Why? Because the obviously corrupt OR says so?

 

[Harry]

Here's a question for you: does it not seem a little odd to you that probably the only other large debate PRE has seen over the years that required a fair amount of clear thinking and emperical research, the creationist v' evolutionist debate, in one you were on the same side as normally reasonable posters such as Pantera, antman, tigersnake, me etc but in this one you in direct opposition?

Does this not ring any alarms bells?

lol. Disco, how can you go against the smart people?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I had a look at that journal, very strange. No mention of an editorial board or referees, just 2 blokes. Also, I have never seen, in my life, a submission policy like that in a peer reviewed journal. They are basically saying that they only want submissions that support a conspiracy. That would be like an anthropology journal saying they will only publish papers that support the theory of environmental determinism, Ecology saying any papers that support nurture over nature won't get a run etc. Its just not on.

Maybe you missed my reference to the Ponds Institute? I was pretty happy with it but I didn't get the laugh I was hoping for..

 

[KnightersRevenge]

No evidence other than Hess and Jenning's testimony. Also petrol tanks exploding are loud but you can hear that those explosions are far bigger. What exactly explains them? Something hitting the ground, even if massive, don't sound like that.

You assert that the most logical explanation of the events of 9/11 is that terrorists hijaced planes (and avoided the most advanced defense force's security measures in their most protected airspace amid constant warnings of possible hijacings with the goal of flying planes into the WTC and the Pentagon) and flew them into the twin towers and the Pentagon. Why? Because the obviously corrupt OR says so?

And the circle completes itself.

 

[Disco08]

Ah ehm, Tambling thread, Cough Cough. >

Ah ehm, Hislop thread, Cough Cough. >

Both excellent examples of the inability of some people to accept even the simplest of truths if it contradicts their opinion. ;D

lol. Disco, how can you go against the smart people?

:hihi

Appeal to the internet intelligentsia.

 

[Disco08]

And the circle completes itself.

If you say so.

Would love an answer to those questions still.

 

[Harry]

we know there was a fire and we know wtc7 collapsed. please don't provide circumstantial evidence as the basis of your argument. has the theory that fire brought down wtc7 been sufficiently reviewed in an appropriate forum such as peer review journals or similar? until then, it's all - theory / assumption that we are forced to believe.

 

[TigerForce]

Ah ehm, Hislop thread, Cough Cough. >

Never knew one existed. ;D

 

[KnightersRevenge]

If you say so.

Would love an answer to those questions still.

Sorry mate my life has taken a back seat to this discussion for long enough. :wave

 

[Disco08]

Seriously? More 911 URL s? Yet again nothing either one said supports the idea that there was damage before the towers came down. Where do you get that from?

The timeline clearly has the event they experience (explosions, tremors, soot, heat) before tower 1 collapses. That's the one that supposedly did all the damage and started the fires right? The stairwell was also in the middle of WTC7. How could tower 2's collapse (WTC 7 shielded by WTC2 and WTC6) cause those conditions?

You're wrong too about Jennings. Not only does he say very clearly ("I was trapped in there when both buildings came down" "definitely happened before either tower fell") he justifies it. Firstly he says firefighters trying to help them respond after each collapse. Secondly he says after the explosion he sees both towers standing. He also says he was on the 23rd floor when the second plane hit. This gives them more than enough time to reach the 6th floor before the first collapse and most certainly long before the second collapse which supposedly caused all the damage to WTC7.

Hess says he and Jennings are trapped for an hour and a half. They're then rescued and Hess has to walk a few blocks where he gives an interview before 12noon (possibly 11.34am). This fits with Jennings' version of events.

 

[Soda]

then you would have seen wtc7 fall like a deck of cards when smaller and closer buildings to the towers were torn apart and stood firm. you are satisfied that an office fire caused a symmetrical collapse at free fall. If you are then that's fine, but I can see why many others question it.

New to PRE so sorry to have joined this debate so late but I find this argument a little flimsy.

Granted, my building engineering knowledge is based solely on a dozen or so games of Janga but given WTC 5 & 6 were only 8 & 9 storey buildings with large footprints (larger in fact than the 47 storey WTC 7 according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan.svg) isn't it perfectly feasible they remained standing whilst the taller (and after the fires/damage from collapse of TT more unstable) building collapsed?

On another note, I hope the RFC does not rule out pursuing the guy behind 9/11 to replace CC