911 - Points to discuss

jackiebrown · 07-04-2009 9:43am #1

meglome wrote: »

It think it would be a very interesting exercise to try this. We'll need the Mods help here as we're all likely to get out of hand eventually otherwise, and I include myself in that.

So if we discuss one topic at a time and look in depth at it before moving to another. I think it will be a useful task and I'd hope it would show there is less evidence for a CT here than some people think. This is only my 'sceptics' opinion and I'm really interested for any of the CT's out there to show me the opposite.

I'd like to start this with the text from 911myths.com site as I think it covers my views closely enough.

What suggestions do you have for a topic you'd like to start on? What other ground rules should we have?

[Mods feel free to edit]

9/11 was an inside job. I don't feel the need to convince you of this. It would be a complete waste of time.

Any ground rule I would have would be not to let sceptics post till after 5 pages and let a discussion get legs. Too many topics are stymied in the second post.

This forum seems like some bizaro-christianity forum overrun by atheists.

6th · 07-04-2009 10:31am

jackiebrown wrote: »

9/11 was an inside job.

In your opinion.

jackiebrown wrote: »

I don't feel the need to convince you of this. It would be a complete waste of time.

Ok but do you feel like discussing it? I mean this is a discussion forum. If you just want to post your thoughts then I suggest you get a blog.

jackiebrown wrote: »

Any ground rule I would have would be not to let sceptics post till after 5 pages and let a discussion get legs. Too many topics are stymied in the second post.

If someone is starting a thread they should make their view clear in the first post. There are so many threads in here where someone posts a link to a video and says "what do you think?". Get your thoughts together before you post and there shouldnt be a problem.

jackiebrown wrote: »

This forum seems like some bizaro-christianity forum overrun by atheists.

If you dont like it you dont have to post in it. A forum is only as good as the people who post in it so if you up your game it may have a knock on effect.

_________________________

Anyway as I said to Helen above the opening post is very important when it comes to setting the tone for a thread. Lazy OPs are the downfall of many good topics.

jackiebrown · 07-04-2009 12:00pm

6th wrote: »

In your opinion.

More belief than opinion. I wasn't here during the 9/11 furore so I don't know what went on in the forum but I hear mega thread being mentioned. Did this thread change peoples opinion or polarise? We're insults traded and the term "Foil hat brigade" bandied about?

Ok but do you feel like discussing it? I mean this is a discussion forum. If you just want to post your thoughts then I suggest you get a blog.

Fair enough. If I want to thats what I'll do.

If someone is starting a thread they should make their view clear in the first post. There are so many threads in here where someone posts a link to a video and says "what do you think?". Get your thoughts together before you post and there shouldnt be a problem.

Ok. How about defining conspiracy theory in the context of what constitutes one on this forum? Could you define proof in the context of this forum?

If you dont like it you dont have to post in it. A forum is only as good as the people who post in it so if you up your game it may have a knock on effect.

As the "I smell a conspiracy" thread shows, even when you claim to have no proof and want an open discussion you still get badgered for it. It also begs the question that if people believe 9/11 is not a conspiracy then why discuss it in CT.

meglome · 07-04-2009 2:36pm

jackiebrown wrote: »

More belief than opinion. I wasn't here during the 9/11 furore so I don't know what went on in the forum but I hear mega thread being mentioned. Did this thread change peoples opinion or polarise? We're insults traded and the term "Foil hat brigade" bandied about?

What I saw clearly from the previous 911 threads was that either there was insufficient evidence to make a conclusion or the facts backed the US government findings. But honestly I'd be happy for you so show me otherwise in a new discussion about it. But US government=bad won't cut it here, there is a lot of bull**** associated with 911 and checking many 'truth' sites properly you can see that within five minutes. This doesn't mean the US government didn't have any involvement in 911 but it should mean we check what everyone says equally.

jackiebrown wrote: »

Fair enough. If I want to thats what I'll do.

911myths.com wrote:

Pah! Plainly you're just a shill/ Government stooge/ neo-con/ psyops site.

Yawn. Yes, I've heard that before, usually because it's much easier to smear people than dealing with the points they're making. But hey, if you believe that, then run along now, it's fine with me. There are plenty of other 9/11 sites that will tell you what you want to hear, and never even think of challenging any of your views.

I'm willing to listen if you want to explain it to me.

jackiebrown wrote: »

Ok. How about defining conspiracy theory in the context of what constitutes one on this forum? Could you define proof in the context of this forum?

wikipedia wrote:

A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. A theory does two things:
it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and

makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

Just explain why it's a CT and I'll be happy.

jackiebrown wrote: »

As the "I smell a conspiracy" thread shows, even when you claim to have no proof and want an open discussion you still get badgered for it. It also begs the question that if people believe 9/11 is not a conspiracy then why discuss it in CT.

And a lot of it was me it has to be said. But this is a Conspiracy Theory forum, so I'd expect there to be some actual theory involved.

jackiebrown · 07-04-2009 3:18pm

meglome wrote: »

What I saw clearly from the previous 911 threads was that either there was insufficient evidence to make a conclusion or the facts backed the US government findings. But honestly I'd be happy for you so show me otherwise in a new discussion about it. But US government=bad won't cut it here, there is a lot of bull**** associated with 911 and checking many 'truth' sites properly you can see that within five minutes. This doesn't mean the US government didn't have any involvement in 911 but it should mean we check what everyone says equally.

Insufficient evidence for you maybe. Overwhelming evidence in my eyes. See how this works. You feel your right, I accept that. Can you accept that I feel I am right?. What is your intention in bringing this up again.? Did people not listen the first time or is your ego demanding more people should accept your version of events?.

I'm willing to listen if you want to explain it to me.

This is a reponse to a response I gave to 6th in that if I wanted to write a blog I would. If I ever want to I'll let you know. Your 2nd quote is putting words in my mouth. I don't think like the poster and please dont assciate me with those comments.

Just explain why it's a CT and I'll be happy.

From Wiki:A conspiracy theory is a theory that explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by a usually powerful cabal. Conspiracy theories are often viewed with skepticism because they contrast with mainstream explanations for historical or current events and lack conclusive evidence to support themselves.

A conspiracy theory, if wiki is how you define things, lacks conclusive evidence to support themselves. Proof makes a THEORY, the defination you gave.

But this is a Conspiracy Theory forum, so I'd expect there to be some actual theory involved.

Its not the theory forum as your suggesting by your defination of theory. It's a conpiracy theory forum.

Undergod · 07-04-2009 4:22pm

jackiebrown wrote: »

From Wiki:A conspiracy theory is a theory that explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by a usually powerful cabal. Conspiracy theories are often viewed with skepticism because they contrast with mainstream explanations for historical or current events and lack conclusive evidence to support themselves.

A conspiracy theory, if wiki is how you define things, lacks conclusive evidence to support themselves. Proof makes a THEORY, the defination you gave.

Its not the theory forum as your suggesting by your defination of theory. It's a conpiracy theory forum.

But the definition of theory you provide is based on, and in fact links to, the definition meglome provides.
So if we're going by your definition of theory, we're still using meglome's definition.

Proof does not make a theory, proof makes fact.

jackiebrown · 07-04-2009 4:56pm

Undergod wrote: »

But the definition of theory you provide is based on, and in fact links to, the definition meglome provides.
So if we're going by your definition of theory, we're still using meglome's definition.

Proof does not make a theory, proof makes fact.

Grand so. Here's the full defination of a theory given in wiki. I'll highlight the important bits from my pov.

A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. A theory does two things:

it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

The term is often used colloquially to refer to any explanatory thought, even fanciful or speculative ones, but in scholarly use it is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of that class. These requirements vary across different fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.
Theories are distinct from theorems: theorems are derived deductively from theories according to a formal system of rules, generally as a first step in testing or applying the theory in a concrete situation. Theories are abstract and conceptual, and to this end they are never considered right or wrong. Instead, they are supported or challenged by observations in the world. They are 'rigorously tentative', meaning that they are proposed as true but expected to satisfy careful examination to account for the possibility of faulty inference or incorrect observation. Sometimes theories are falsified, meaning that an explicit set of observations contradicts some fundamental assumption of the theory, but more often theories are revised to conform to new observations, by restricting the class of phenomena the theory applies to or changing the assertions made. Sometimes a theory is set aside by scholars because there is no way to examine its assertions analytically; these may continue on in the popular imagination until some means of of examination is found which either refutes or lends credence to the theory.
The word 'theory' is generally considered to derive from Greek θεωρία theoria (Jerome), Greek "contemplation, speculation", from θεωρός "spectator", θέα thea "a view" + ὁρᾶν horan "to see", literally "looking at a show".[1] A second possible etymology traces the word back to το θείον to theion "divine things" instead of thea, reflecting the concept of contemplating the divine organisation (Cosmos) of the nature. The word has been in use in English since at least the late 16th century.

Maybe the mods could decide if its the colloquial definition or the scholarly one we should be using.

Both sides in this discussion have facts, which I'm sure was regurgitated ad infinitum in the past years. Both sides have facts so both sides must be right eh? Or maybe some are more right than others. Or maybe its a distraction.

What it finally boils down to is what you believe to be true.

humanji · 07-04-2009 5:11pm

Wow. We can't even get the definition of "theory". God help us when we try to define "conspiracy".

Anyway, with regards the "facts" statment, the facts of events like 9/11 are there for everyone to see. It's the interpretation of the facts that's the problem. If somethign like this was to be done, the basic facts have to be put down, that everyone agrees on, ie a guy (can't remember his name) said "pull it". That's a fact. What he meant by it is speculation. So the fact that he said it would go down on a timeline. The speculation to it's meaning would go afterwards.

We could start at the start of the timeline and head down it discussing each part. That's my 2 cents, anyway.

meglome · 07-04-2009 5:37pm

jackiebrown wrote: »

Insufficient evidence for you maybe. Overwhelming evidence in my eyes. See how this works. You feel your right, I accept that. Can you accept that I feel I am right?. What is your intention in bringing this up again.? Did people not listen the first time or is your ego demanding more people should accept your version of events?.

I've already told you I'm willing to listen carefully to any point that is made.

If you go to any CT site now and read through the information it does indeed look like there's overwhelming evidence that 911 was a major CT. And there are many many sites like this. So I can see why a lot of people would take these claims at face value. The problem arises when you look at all these claims in detail, and I mean in the finer detail. And what you find on most CT sites is misrepresentation, misquoting, selective use of facts, little balance, lots of assumptions and many downright fabrications. I read up on all of this stuff before I decided what I believed about 911. I was a bit dismayed actually by the shenanigans on many of the ST sites, if they are so sure they are correct well it shouldn't be an issue to give a more balanced view, right?

The reason I like 911myhts.com so much is he looks carefully at the fine details and presents a balanced view of what he believes. I fear too many people started out believing 911 was a big CT and are not interested in anything that shows that not to be the case.

meglome · 07-04-2009 5:47pm

humanji wrote: »

Wow. We can't even get the definition of "theory". God help us when we try to define "conspiracy".

Anyway, with regards the "facts" statment, the facts of events like 9/11 are there for everyone to see. It's the interpretation of the facts that's the problem. If somethign like this was to be done, the basic facts have to be put down, that everyone agrees on, ie a guy (can't remember his name) said "pull it". That's a fact. What he meant by it is speculation. So the fact that he said it would go down on a timeline. The speculation to it's meaning would go afterwards.

True.

Silverstein [The evil Zionist Jew] who owns the lease to the buildings said pull it in an interview.

So the questions that arise about that are as follows:

Was he in charge of the fire-fighters to be able to tell them anything?
Is 'pull it' a term used in (controlled) demolition?
Is 'pull it' a term used by fire-fighters or in fire-fighting?
When he said this to the fire chief did they then just pull out of the building and stop attempting to fight the fire?
Would this supposedly super clever Zionist [Jew] admit openly to the press he was involved in the biggest CT in history?

They are the questions that spring to mind.

Bubba HoTep · 07-04-2009 5:49pm

the entire issue of 9/11 being an inside job is something i feel very strong about, i have talked at lenght with friends and online for years about this but rather than writing a huge post, i would like to say one thing that is often overlooked by those that think it was as the american government and media say

World Trade Centre 7

that alone (and there is loads) should be enough to have you rethink the entire situation

meglome · 07-04-2009 6:07pm

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

the entire issue of 9/11 being an inside job is something i feel very strong about, i have talked at lenght with friends and online for years about this but rather than writing a huge post, i would like to say one thing that is often overlooked by those that think it was as the american government and media say

World Trade Centre 7

that alone (and there is loads) should be enough to have you rethink the entire situation

Well okay let's see what the questions about WTC7 might be?

Has fire alone collapsed or partially collapsed other steel framed building?
Can we compare the unique design (cone in a cone design, floor brackets etc) of the WTC to other buildings that caught fire?
Was the building extensively on fire in the first place?
Is the collapse as uniform and as straight down as it's claimed?
Does it collapse at free fall speeds?
If controlled demolition was involved, why can't we hear the distinct sound of the explosives going off?
Thermite. Could it in practise work at all as claimed?
Was it the only building destroyed or badly damaged around the twin towers?

Just off the top of my head.

Bubba HoTep · 07-04-2009 6:18pm

meglome wrote: »

Well okay let's see what the questions about WTC7 might be?
Has fire alone collapsed or partially collapsed other steel framed building?

Can we compare the unique design (cone in a cone design, floor brackets etc) of the WTC to other buildings that caught fire?

Was the building extensively on fire in the first place?

Is the collapse as uniform and as straight down as it's claimed?

Does it collapse at free fall speeds?

If controlled demolition was involved, why can't we hear the distinct sound of the explosives going off?

Thermite. Could it in practise work at all as claimed?

Was it the only building destroyed or badly damaged around the twin towers?

Just off the top of my head.

i want to apologise in advance if this sounds silly, but, in your post are you asking me for answers to the 8 Qs above or are you asking these questions for people that doubt the inside job theory to look into for themselves?

meglome · 07-04-2009 6:24pm

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

i want to apologise in advance if this sounds silly, but, in your post are you asking me for answers to the 8 Qs above or are you asking these questions for people that doubt the inside job theory to look into for themselves?

Not at all. The idea of the thread is to go though, 911 in this case, one small topic at a time and look carefully at each one. The idea being that everyone can show why they believe it was an inside job or not. So all of us should be able to back up what we believe. I'm hoping we've all come to whatever conclusion it is based on some kind of logic and evidence and not just because one of our mates Johnny told us so or just cause.

So I'm just suggesting stuff right now.

Bubba HoTep · 07-04-2009 6:30pm

meglome wrote: »

Not at all. The idea of the thread is to go though, 911 in this case, one small topic at a time and look carefully at each one. The idea being that everyone can show why they believe it was an inside job or not. So all of us should be able to back up what we believe. I'm hoping we've all come to whatever conclusion it is based on some kind of logic and evidence and not just because one of our mates Johnny told us so or just cause.

So I'm just suggesting stuff right now.

thats actually brilliant, fair play

going through the 8 now...

espinolman · 07-04-2009 7:28pm

jackiebrown wrote: »

9/11 was an inside job. I don't feel the need to convince you of this. It would be a complete waste of time.

Well how about defining 'an inside' job .
I personnaly think that 9/11 was an outside/inside job , i don't fully subscribe to the main conspiracy theory that it was an inside job , i think there is a lot about 9/11 that is unknown , in particular who was behind it , although i have my suspicions , what i suspect i have not heard from any conspiracy theororists , i think CTers in general have been led down the garden path with regard to 9/11 .

Bubba HoTep · 07-04-2009 7:33pm

meglome wrote: »

Well okay let's see what the questions about WTC7 might be?
Has fire alone collapsed or partially collapsed other steel framed building?

"In more than 100 steel-framed, high-rise fires (most of them very hot, very large and very long-lasting), not one has collapsed, ever."
Richard Gage, AIA, a licensed architect of 20 years.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8472

"Giant flames engulf every floor of 44-story building and it remains standing, yet limited fires across just 8 floors of WTC 7 brought down building within 7 seconds on 9/11. How can NIST’s “new phenomenon” explain this one?
A fierce fire consumed all 44 floors of a skyscraper in Beijing today, shooting 30 foot flames into the air, but unlike the similarly-sized 47-story WTC 7, which suffered limited fires across just eight floors, the building in China did not collapse."
Paul Joseph Watson
http://www.infowars.com/fire-consumes-wtc-7-size-skyscraper-building-does-not-collapse/

Can we compare the unique design (cone in a cone design, floor brackets etc) of the WTC to other buildings that caught fire?

i must admit i dont know anything in this area

Was the building extensively on fire in the first place?

7/8 floors burned for 7 hours roughly
Is the collapse as uniform and as straight down as it's claimed?

"WTC 7 fell into a pile of debris in approximately 6.5 seconds. The corresponding free fall time is 5.95 seconds, while an apple dropped from the roof would have taken 7 seconds to fall to the ground (Kurttila 2005; the exact time varies with the air resistance of the object). The 80 steel support pillars of the building, therefore, did not in practice resist the destruction. However, destroying the support structures throughout the floors of the 174-meter building demanded energy that would have been away from pure kinetic energy; in other words, gravitational destruction of those structures would necessarily have slowed down the collapse. No slowing down required by destruction work can have taken place within the short time it took WTC 7 to collapse. To simplify: the roof came down as if mere air (and not 47 stories) had separated it from the ground. This can only be explained by the removal of structural resistance in a controlled demolition. In controlled demolitions, the roofs of highrises typically reach the ground in a time that is slightly longer than free fall."

"The Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko, who owns a demolition firm and has been in the business for 30 years, regards it as certain that WTC 7 was demolished. His view is shared by numerous architects, engineers and other demolition professionals"
http://wtc7proof.blogspot.com/
Does it collapse at free fall speeds?

see above
If controlled demolition was involved, why can't we hear the distinct sound of the explosives going off?

http://www.youtube.com/v/t7LBq6jr1Yk
Thermite. Could it in practise work at all as claimed?

http://www.youtube.com/v/_wVLeKwSkXA
Was it the only building destroyed or badly damaged around the twin towers?

several others had to be demolished as a result of the damage caused by wtc 1,2 and 7

http://www.youtube.com/v/et2wI1mmDcM

....and this only covers WTC7, and not very well on my part, its just a scratch on the surface

Bubba HoTep · 07-04-2009 7:44pm

espinolman wrote: »

Well how about defining 'an inside' job .
I personnaly think that 9/11 was an outside/inside job , i don't fully subscribe to the main conspiracy theory that it was an inside job , i think there is a lot about 9/11 that is unknown , in particular who was behind it , although i have my suspicions , what i suspect i have not heard from any conspiracy theororists , i think CTers in general have been led down the garden path with regard to 9/11 .

i must agree with you here

i dont think it was literally a case of bush and his administration sitting down and planning the whole thing, he may honestly have not known anything about the hows, whens and whys, although he certainly got all he could from the situation

i feel that this was several criminal elements of government(s), military, military industry, corporations and others

Ticktactoe · 07-04-2009 7:49pm

This is interesting.... I notice first of all that the main area under discussion at the moment is the 'falling' of the towers and the theory around it. What im curious to find out is what theory people have in relation to the planes hitting them? Was it as potrayed or was it an inside job? Did a plane actually hit the pentagon?

In relation to the collasping of the the towers, was it not a case of bad engineering? When the planes hit the tower did it not internally crack the poles (main structure) of the buildings and due to this they weakened causing them to collaspse nearly half hour after impact? If you think about it... if the pillars cracked and gave way would't this explain why the towers fell top to bottom rather than bottom giving in first...

We all seen how (horrifically) the towers collapsed, the top part caved and the weight crumbled what was under it until it hit bottom. If it was demolished would it not go bottom first?

They say that it shouldn't have collasped at all and this was due to an engineering fault - pillars in incorrect positions, concret was not pure etc and the strain on other structoral devices caused it to give way....

I love other peoples opinions on this....

Bubba HoTep · 07-04-2009 8:12pm

Ticktactoe wrote: »

This is interesting.... I notice first of all that the main area under discussion at the moment is the 'falling' of the towers and the theory around it. What im curious to find out is what theory people have in relation to the planes hitting them? Was it as potrayed or was it an inside job? Did a plane actually hit the pentagon?

In relation to the collasping of the the towers, was it not a case of bad engineering? When the planes hit the tower did it not internally crack the poles (main structure) of the buildings and due to this they weakened causing them to collaspse nearly half hour after impact? If you think about it... if the pillars cracked and gave way would't this explain why the towers fell top to bottom rather than bottom giving in first...

We all seen how (horrifically) the towers collapsed, the top part caved and the weight crumbled what was under it until it hit bottom. If it was demolished would it not go bottom first?

They say that it shouldn't have collasped at all and this was due to an engineering fault - pillars in incorrect positions, concret was not pure etc and the strain on other structoral devices caused it to give way....

I love other peoples opinions on this....

regarding the pentagon, there is literally nothing, other than the gov/military saying a plane hit it as proof, this is usually seen as the easiest proof of "inside job"

for example there is no real plane wreckage, and the little bits of "wreckage" shown on the news would instantly (for me anyway) have my common sense telling me BS

plus they took every video of cctv from all the buildings around and would not release them, why?

they only released a video of only a few frames, which doesnt even show a plane, but rather what many people see to be a missile
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcWT2lQszEE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmP2Vy8K0i0

they go into all this very well in the documentary loose change

as for the towers falling, i though its pretty clear from all the videos that they do fall bottom first? i actually saw the second plane hit on the news as it was happening and instantly thought that they way the buildings fell looked not quite right to me, and this is when it literally fell, on tv,

Ticktactoe · 07-04-2009 8:21pm

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

regarding the pentagon, there is literally nothing, other than the gov/military saying a plane hit it as proof, this is usually seen as the easiest proof of "inside job"

for example there is no real plane wreckage, and the little bits of "wreckage" shown on the news would instantly (for me anyway) have my common sense telling me BS

plus they took every video of cctv from all the buildings around and would not release them, why?

they only released a video of only a few frames, which doesnt even show a plane, but rather what many people see to be a missile
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmP2Vy8K0i0

they go into all this very well in the documentary loose change

as for the towers falling, i though its pretty clear from all the videos that they do fall bottom first? i actually saw the second plane hit on the news as it was happening and instantly thought that they way the buildings fell looked not quite right to me, and this is when it literally fell, on tv,

Ya the pentagon one is strange and thats why i mentioned it above. Ive seen footage of it and you dont actually see any plane until the 'plane' is in the building however it has been said that the engine that is portrayed in pictures etc.. is not the same model as the engine of the plane that was said to have gone down....

Bottome first, really? I thought from looking at multiple angles and different footage that it appears that the structure of the building only collapses as the top crumbles down, maybe not - i must do some further looking!

espinolman · 07-04-2009 8:23pm

Ticktactoe wrote: »

What im curious to find out is what theory people have in relation to the planes hitting them? Was it as potrayed or was it an inside job? Did a plane actually hit the pentagon?

I think the planes' were flown into the twin towers by remote control , i also think the towers collapsing was caused either by explosives or a clean nuclear type weapon . I think it was probably a missile that hit the pentagon . Now that is not to say it was an inside job , just because it might have been done differently than portrayed does not mean it was an inside job !

Bubba HoTep · 07-04-2009 8:28pm

yeah, looks bottom first to me and most ive spoken to

have a look at these, see how the top is still intact (even with a huge hole in the side) yet is falling from the bottom

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCUbcmo9-kE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmBL2oYdXWQ

Woger · 07-04-2009 8:29pm

Ticktactoe wrote: »

Ya the pentagon one is strange and thats why i mentioned it above. Ive seen footage of it and you dont actually see any plane until the 'plane' is in the building however it has been said that the engine that is portrayed in pictures etc.. is not the same model as the engine of the plane that was said to have gone down....

Bottome first, really? I thought from looking at multiple angles and different footage that it appears that the structure of the building only collapses as the top crumbles down, maybe not - i must do some further looking!

No, facts can be misleading.

bonkey · 07-04-2009 8:32pm

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

Has fire alone collapsed or partially collapsed other steel framed building?"

In more than 100 steel-framed, high-rise fires (most of them very hot, very large and very long-lasting), not one has collapsed, ever."
Richard Gage, AIA, a licensed architect of 20 years.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8472

The response doesn't fully address the question, which was regarding a steel-framed building, not a steel-framed high-rise. Fire has collapsed steel-framed buildings. It has partially collapsed steel-framed buildings. It has collapsed the steel-frame part of steel-frame / concrete-core hybrid structures.

Fire can cause steel to fail.

"Giant flames engulf every floor of 44-story building and it remains standing, yet limited fires across just 8 floors of WTC 7 brought down building within 7 seconds on 9/11. How can NIST’s “new phenomenon” explain this one?
A fierce fire consumed all 44 floors of a skyscraper in Beijing today, shooting 30 foot flames into the air, but unlike the similarly-sized 47-story WTC 7, which suffered limited fires across just eight floors, the building in China did not collapse."
Paul Joseph Watson
http://www.infowars.com/fire-consumes-wtc-7-size-skyscraper-building-does-not-collapse/

The Beijing fire has been previously discussed here. There are two simple questions to ask in response to be answered. They are also relevant to the previous points I made. For brevity's sake, I'll supply the answers as well.

1) Does the Beijing building suffer the same design flaw which was attributed as the ultimate cause of WTC 7's collapse? No, it doesn't.
2) Does the NIST report, or any other official recounting of the events of 9/11 claim that all buildings of comparable size to WTC 7 must collapse under extreme fire? No, they don't.

Can we compare the unique design (cone in a cone design, floor brackets etc) of the WTC to other buildings that caught fire?

i must admit i dont know anything in this area

More importantly...the question leads to being combined with the first question to become more significant. Again, I'll supply the answer for brevity.

How many buildings with the design flaw which is attributed to the collapse of WTC 7 have withstood fires comparable to or greater than those of WTC7? None.

Is the collapse as uniform and as straight down as it's claimed?

"WTC 7 fell into a pile of debris in approximately 6.5 seconds.
...
To simplify: the roof came down as if mere air (and not 47 stories) had separated it from the ground. This can only be explained by the removal of structural resistance in a controlled demolition.

Although your answer doesn't address the question at all (which asks about uniformity and direction, not speed), I've highlighted the two most important parts of it.

The roof of WTC 7 contained two penthouses. These collapsed from view long before the outer facade collapsed. If we begin our collapse at that point, we have a much, much longer collapse time...somewhere around 18 seconds, if memory serves.

In a similar vein, the argument that the roof could collapse to ground in 6.5 seconds can only be explained by structural resistance is correct. That this can only occur through controlled demolition is incorrect - internal building collapse before the outer facade collapsed could also accounr for it. Such a scenario would also be consistent with teh penthouses disappearing from view long before we see the outer facade buckle and fall "backwards" (It doesn't, contrary to popular belief, collapse straight down).

Does it collapse at free fall speeds?

see above

We agree, then, that it doesn't collapse at free-fall speeds.

If controlled demolition was involved, why can't we hear the distinct sound of the explosives going off?

http://www.youtube.com/v/t7LBq6jr1Yk

Interesting. A video which has explosives not immediately followed by the distinctive sounds of building collapse.

So...not the distinct sound of explosives being used for controlled demolition.

Thermite. Could it in practise work at all as claimed?

http://www.youtube.com/v/_wVLeKwSkXA

I stopped a few seconds in when Jones was mentioned, to be honest. If you really want to discuss just how wrong Jones is, we can dance that dance.

Was it the only building destroyed or badly damaged around the twin towers?

several others had to be demolished as a result of the damage caused by wtc 1,2 and 7

So we all accept, then that WTC 7 isn't the only building to be irreperably damaged by the collapse of towers. Excellent.

Bubba HoTep · 07-04-2009 8:33pm

espinolman wrote: »

I think the planes' were flown into the twin towers by remote control , i also think the towers collapsing was caused either by explosives or a clean nuclear type weapon . I think it was probably a missile that hit the pentagon . Now that is not to say it was an inside job , just because it might have been done differently than portrayed does not mean it was an inside job !

but why portray it differently at all if there is nothing to hide?

as for who flew the planes, it was reported more than once that the "hijackers" that they named as the guys that did the job, 2 or 3 turned up alive and well in their home countries, so remote control planes isnt that far fetched i agree

Woger · 07-04-2009 8:38pm

espinolman wrote: »

I think the planes' were flown into the twin towers by remote control , i also think the towers collapsing was caused either by explosives or a clean nuclear type weapon . I think it was probably a missile that hit the pentagon . Now that is not to say it was an inside job , just because it might have been done differently than portrayed does not mean it was an inside job !

Teh stupid, it burns.

espinolman · 07-04-2009 8:46pm

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

but why portray it differently at all if there is nothing to hide?

Why , so that we would be fooled into thinking it was solely an inside job !

meglome · 07-04-2009 9:01pm

Bubba HoTep wrote: »

Can we compare the unique design (cone in a cone design, floor brackets etc) of the WTC to other buildings that caught fire?

i must admit i dont know anything in this area

This is one of the most important things and none of the CT sites seems to mention it's importance. The WTC7 building had a very specific design and as it turns out some design flaws. To directly compare another building collapse you'd have to find one with this specific design, which you won't. So we can compare apples and oranges and wonder why they are not the same. Or we can accept that apples and orange are just not the same to begin with.

It's true during the fire at the Windsor building in Madrid the building didn't collapse but the entire steel section of the building collapsed. The rest of the building was concrete which is not affected by fire the way steel is.

Bubba HoTep · 07-04-2009 9:09pm

@bonkey

"Although your answer doesn't address the question at all (which asks about uniformity and direction, not speed)"

uniformity and direction is evident in all the videos of wtc7 falling no?

"We agree, then, that it doesn't collapse at free-fall speeds"

not at exactly free fall, but as near to free fall as would be expected from controlled demolition, and not achievable from the damage the building had from fire, which the building should have been able to withstand

"I stopped a few seconds in when Jones was mentioned"
i agree that im not happy to use the jones clip myself, BUT the info in it is the same presented by others also, the jones clip was the 1st in a list so in the intrest of speed i used it, the info is still relevant

"So we all accept, then that WTC 7 isn't the only building to be irreperably damaged by the collapse of towers. Excellent."
of course, others had damage from the initial plane crashes debris, and had more serious damage after WTC1,2&7 collapsed, and so were demolished, how does this change anything?

and while i admit that the links and quotes etc are not the best i could have posted, i did consider speed in posting my reply, and wanted to see a good flow to this thread, the simple fact, and you must admit, that the huge amount done by others that is available regarding research and proof far far outweighs the so called proof offered by the gov/military

so may i ask you this (i know its a bit off topic) but why would soooooo many find issue with the "proof" offered? why are there so many questions unanswered by the US gov? why have they blocked and hindered investigations rather than help them? what would compel so many people all over the world, from regular citizens, to scientists, to engineers to join and start truth movements?

Bubba HoTep · 07-04-2009 9:12pm

espinolman wrote: »

Why , so that we would be fooled into thinking it was solely an inside job !

but why would the US gov/military want that?

911 - Points to discuss

Comments