The Great Big 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Thread [Megamerge]

Gordon · 10-07-2007 11:31am

bonkey wrote:

I'm not entirely sure that the use of large airliners would be considered cost-effective

Tax deductable?

I would like to know what tunaman would do if someone here (or in the government) came out and said: yes - it was a lie and a conspiracy and the government planned and executed this attack [thusly..]. If this happened - what would you do tunaman? Would you be happy or would you then fight for the government to be overthrown.. or.. well, what would you do then - if the conspiracy was proven?

Nick_oliveri · 10-07-2007 11:39am

Diogenes wrote:

Could you prove your first sentence? I mean anything I've seen means the collapse is hidden by the dust cloud so it's impossible to gauge a collapse time.

NIST wrote:

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

oscarBravo · 10-07-2007 11:43am

Nick, there's a significant difference between the first of the debris hitting the ground within 9-11 seconds, and the assertion that the buildings completely collapsed in under ten seconds.

If we're talking about complete collapse, the relevant question would be: how long after collapse initiation did the last exterior panels strike the ground?

Nick_oliveri · 10-07-2007 11:49am

oscarBravo wrote:

Nick, there's a significant difference between the first of the debris hitting the ground within 9-11 seconds, and the assertion that the buildings completely collapsed in under ten seconds.

If we're talking about complete collapse, the relevant question would be: how long after collapse initiation did the last exterior panels strike the ground?

Yes i know but it seems to be the best answer they have. So we add several more seconds to that and we have an answer. You could probably jack up the sensitivity on the seismic meters around the area to collaborate this better.

oscarBravo · 10-07-2007 11:57am

Captain Chaos wrote:

Fact: Each tower fell in less than 10 seconds.

This is the assertion I'm challenging. The NIST data pretty much explicitly counters this.

Captain Chaos wrote:

Both towers fell in exactly the same by and large uniform way.

The towers were constructed identically. Why would they collapse differently?

Captain Chaos wrote:

If it were left to gravity and pure natural physics, the bulidings would not have come down so fast or as neatly.

There was nothing neat about how they collapsed. Anyway, what's your basis for this assertion? What law of physics was clearly and demonstrably violated by the collapses?

Captain Chaos wrote:

And the foundations happened to melt all by themselves.:rolleyes:

The foundations didn't melt at all.

Captain Chaos wrote:

You would need uniform detruction of key strong points within the buliding to make them fall in the way they did.

Are you a demolition expert? What's your basis for this assertion?

This is the type of "fact" that tunaman insists the research-based expert explanation of the events of the day leaves unexplained. Look at it more closely and the "fact" turns out to be a gut feeling wrapped up in a lot of hand-waving.

bonkey · 10-07-2007 1:32pm

oscarBravo wrote:

Are you a demolition expert?

It should be pointed out that while a demolition expert could potentially tell you if explosives could make the building fall they way it did, they amy not necessarily be qualified to say that only explosives / planned demolition could make it fall that way.

When one is talking about what was predominantly a top-down collapse (as was the case with WTC 1 and 2) then the usefulness of being a demolition expert would be further reduced, given that they don't demolish highrise buildings top-down in the first place.

What's your basis for this assertion?

A much more pertinent question.

oscarBravo · 10-07-2007 1:48pm

bonkey wrote:

It should be pointed out that while a demolition expert could potentially tell you if explosives could make the building fall they way it did, they amy not necessarily be qualified to say that only explosives / planned demolition could make it fall that way.

When one is talking about what was predominantly a top-down collapse (as was the case with WTC 1 and 2) then the usefulness of being a demolition expert would be further reduced, given that they don't demolish highrise buildings top-down in the first place.

Fair point.

civdef · 11-07-2007 7:05pm

If it were that easy to drop a buliding so nealty they would have just burned the Ballymun towers to the ground, it would have been quicker too.

Using fires to remove key structural supports is the way things were done for centuries - works just fine, except explosives are more predictable.

Now, I see lots of talk about WTC7 lately, but not about WTC1 or 2, so do the conspiracists now accept the other towers got hit by big planes, went on fire and fell down, and just WTC7 got a controlled demolition?

.

Nick_oliveri · 11-07-2007 7:38pm

civdef wrote:

Now, I see lots of talk about WTC7 lately, but not about WTC1 or 2, so do the conspiracists now accept the other towers got hit by big planes, went on fire and fell down, and just WTC7 got a controlled demolition?

.

This is the very reason that theres still so much buzz on this theory. WTC7, if it was what it looked like, makes you wonder about the other two towers.

6 Years and no one can explain it. The 9/11 commission barely mentioned it and FEMA said fire.....

bonkey · 11-07-2007 10:50pm

Nick_oliveri wrote:

WTC7, if it was what it looked like, makes you wonder about the other two towers.

It looked like a building collapsing to me.

It didn't look like a building collapsing from a controlled demolition, more than superficially.

And to be honest, I don't agree that it should make one wonder about the other two towers. Even if NIST or anyone else came out and demonstrated unequivocally that WTC7 could not have collapsed from the damage and resultant fires caused by the collapses of WTC1, this has no bearing on the work they did on WTC 1 and 2. Either that work can be shown to be faulty, or it should be accepted. "But look at WTC7" is not a meaningful challenge to the studies regarding WTC 1 and 2.

6 Years and no one can explain it.

6 years and no-one has fully explained it in absolute detail. NIST have provided an interim report and are still working on a final report.

The 9/11 commission barely mentioned it and FEMA said fire.....

The 911 comission weren't tasked to look at it, so its hardly surprising that they barely mentioned it.

FEMA didn't exactly say fire. They said that they could not adequately explain it and recommended that a more detailed investigation be carried out by experts (hence the NIST work) because they did not accept the likelihood of their own conclusions which they only gave because they were required to.

As it is, NIST has already established beyond doubt (if there ever was doubt) that the FEMA "best guess" was - as FEMA surmised - incorrect and inaccurate.

Nick_oliveri · 12-07-2007 7:21pm

Wiki_NIST wrote:

In a New York magazine interview in March 2006, Dr S. Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead WTC disaster investigator, said, of 7 World Trade Center, "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors”; he added "But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7".

That specific quote makes me wonder if they are just going to go with their working hypothesis of 2004 and leave it at that. Of course you have trouble getting a handle on 7, explaining how "each outer structural column, that was responsible for supporting 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of floor space", stood for hours after the impact of the towers and managed to all give way in or around the same time in a matter of seconds.

Its like the building only copped on to the damage it had suffered hours later and its "legs" went from underneath it.

There should have been a massive investigation into 7 alone months after the event, "if" the evidence was there, collapse or not. Im not very optimistic about leaving it six years after and leaving most things to speculation based on south/north/whatever facade pictures.

wtc.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html wrote:

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may (:rolleyes: ) be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

Now in all honesty, why would they even consider this? Pressure from the CT'ers?? Hardly. They dont have a clue how it happened. I know im playing the six years card too much, but for gods sake, it was the defining event of the 21st century that led us on a neverending war with invisible terrorists and a newer age of buzz word fearmongering.

And how are they going to model blast scenarios when they couldn't even model 1 and 2's collapse initiation without tweaking?

Everyone here wants to know what happened in this event. And since day one they (government) have covered up their own failures. And they have failed to explain 7.God knows it took them long enough to "explain" (pancake) 1 and 2.

Now pick this apart all you want, i know you want to, but im not trying to suggest any other event that played a role in 1,2 or 7. Im just trying to get you realise how incapable they are of explaining how this event happened.

You either accept their theories and explanations or you dont. I dont know what i believe.And whats even funnier is that if you dont accept it, or have your own doubts, you are automatically lumped into a particular category. I know i have been gullible in my earlier days but i know somewhat better now.

bonkey · 12-07-2007 8:59pm

Nick_oliveri wrote:

Of course you have trouble getting a handle on 7, explaining how "each outer structural column, that was responsible for supporting 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of floor space", stood for hours after the impact of the towers and managed to all give way in or around the same time in a matter of seconds.

I could easily be mistaken, but I don't think that's where the problem lies.

WTC7 was primarily damaged on the side facing WTC 1 and 2. This is the side smoke was pouring out of, obscuring visibility. Furthermore, its the side (obviously) facing the collapsed towers. Consequently, there is a scarcity of clear information about just how damaged it was and specifically where that damage occurred - unlike the towers, where there was much clearer information.

Its like the building only copped on to the damage it had suffered hours later and its "legs" went from underneath it.

Also, if I'm remembering things correctly, there is an identified weak-spot in the construction of WTC7 - one support which, if it failed, would lead to a progressive outwards collapse of the building.

This would potentially allow for a collapse where the internal structure failed (which would explain the first pentouse collapsing whilst the outer walls on the non-damaged facade remained standing). Once the internal collapse was sufficiently far advance, collapse of the outer walls would be inevitable. One indication of a collapse of this nature would be that he walls facing the cameras would predominantly end up on top of the rubble. They did.

The problem is that for any of this to be more than just a hypothetical, one needs to be able to show that the key support did fail and explain why. This requires information on the damage to the structure and the nature of the fires in the building - the very information thats been hard to obtain.

Now in all honesty, why would they even consider this?

Possibly to ascertain if something other than fire-weakening or damage could have caused the critical damage to this key load-bearing column.

Also, remember that while "blast" may suggest "explosion", "explosion" does not necessarily constitute "explosives" (as in commercial explosives)

but for gods sake, it was the defining event of the 21st century that led us on a neverending war with invisible terrorists and a newer age of buzz word fearmongering.

I beg to differ. THe airplane attacks on WTC 1 and 2, and on the Pentagon were the defining events of the 21st century to that point (a whole 27 months in). The subsequent collapse of WTC 1 and 2 would give them a close run for their money. The collapse of WTC 7 most certainly was not.

And how are they going to model blast scenarios when they couldn't even model 1 and 2's collapse initiation without tweaking?

I suspect NIST are in a lose-lose situation here.

If they said "our model fit things perfectly and required no adjustment whatsoever", I believe it would have been jumped on by those seeking to find something sinister as being too perfect. No-one can model something so complex with such accuracy as to be able to do it perfectly. They'd have to have insider information.

As it is, complex non-exact models typically do require tweaking. You set up a general framework and then see whether or not it can fit the observation without excessive change. Whether or not there was too much tweaking is definitely a fair question, but to suggest that sinistry in the existence of tweaking of the most complex simulation of its type ever before attempted is taking that a step too far.

And they have failed to explain 7.

Surely you mean they have not yet explained 7, although they are still working on it.

God knows it took them long enough to "explain" (pancake) 1 and 2.

It was complex. They had limited manpower. If they produced it in weeks, you'd have seen the cries of "too fast - they must have had foreknowledge".

Im just trying to get you realise how incapable they are of explaining how this event happened.

Should it be possible to explain, in the detail that would satisfy you and others? If so, how long should such an explanation take, and on what benchmarks are you basing those answers?

You either accept their theories and explanations or you dont.

Agreed. However, for rejection of the theories and explanations to be meaningful or taken seriously, it should have weight. Anyone can say "I don't believe X". Anyone can have an opinion. That doesn't make it informed, meaningful, or equally likely to be correct.

whats even funnier is that if you dont accept it, or have your own doubts, you are automatically lumped into a particular category.

Anyone who expresses doubts should always be asked to explain those doubts and why they hold them. Then you decide what category to lump them into. I don't automatically lump anyone anywhere. I let them make it clear where they stand, either through their responses, or their unwillingness to do so.

Nick_oliveri · 12-07-2007 9:46pm

bonkey wrote:

I beg to differ. THe airplane attacks on WTC 1 and 2, and on the Pentagon were the defining events of the 21st century to that point (a whole 27 months in). The subsequent collapse of WTC 1 and 2 would give them a close run for their money. The collapse of WTC 7 most certainly was not.

I meant the event in general. I should have been more specific. :P

bonkey wrote:

It was complex. They had limited manpower. If they produced it in weeks, you'd have seen the cries of "too fast - they must have had foreknowledge".

Of course i wouldnt want that, a speeded report wouldnt work. But i think it was a disgraceful amount of time to wait for an investigation.

Flyingfish · 13-07-2007 12:12am

Slightly off-topic if that's possible here

The following video by the IAFF presents some interesting information (especially in the context of the 9/11 debate) re what Giuliani did and did not do on 9/11 and in the weeks after.

Giuliani's 9/11 Failures of Leadership Exposed by Fire Fighters (Added 12th July 2007)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6738692477585096197

I'll add this to the resources thread also.

Cheers,
Flyingfish

bonkey · 13-07-2007 8:42am

Nick_oliveri wrote:

I meant the event in general. I should have been more specific. :P

But then I'd only have pointed out that the event in general has had no shortage of work done on it. The various airplane crashes and the studies of buildings they hit (in the 3 of 4 cases where buildings were hit) have been carried out.

You made the point with reference to the "6-years card", but in fairness, the amount of paperwork which has been produced over those 6 years has been literally staggering...and its still ongoing.

Sure, there are areas which haven't had adequate investigation, but as I've often said, these are typically not the areas that so-called truth-seekers are focussing on. The politicians at the top didn't want an investigation at all, because all the evidence suggests that they took their eye off the ball. I don't believe its reasonable to believe that the so-called forewarnings they had were sufficiently detailed to know what was coming, but everything I've seen suggests that they were generally lax about dealing with any threat of terrorism.

The failings regarding 911 have been successfully covered over by two things.
One was the "with us or against us" wave of rhetoric which swept far too many Americans (and others) along on a ride of euphoric paranoia, where questioning anything became one step short of an act of treason (if you're American) or merely dismissed as rabid anti-Americanism (if you're not American).

The second was the entire "Truth Movement", which came into full blossom just as the "Ra Ra America...do whatever you like to keep us safe from those weevil tourists" was beginning to show its first signs of fading. With lies, contortions and dishonesty of Loose Change, it exploded beyond the normal niche market that it normally occupies, riding on a wave of zealous advocates who were literally indistinguishable from paid shills for a viral marketing campaign.

End result? As the blind support for the US governments actions has faded, the willingness to look in detail at their failings on teh event which started it all has remained firmly a taboo subject. You can decry Guantanamo, you can critique the effects of the Patriot Act, whatever...almost no action or inaction of the US government is beyond examination....

...but ask if they really did drop the ball in regard to their policy regarding terrorism prior to September 2001 and there will be no shortage of people who will associate you with tinfoil headgear. You can say that you have no issue with the events of the day, nor the findings who carried it out, and someone will say "woo".

This is the true legacy of the truth movement.

In reading I've been doing recently, however, found something interesting....

Almost every single one of the "alternate explanations" put forward by the Conspiracy Community was mooted in the first 6 months after 2001. Everything from no-planes, to a Global Hawk drone at the Pentagon, to WTC7 demolition and free-fall speeds. Even stuff which is harder to pin down (eg. mini-nukes and thermite) was theorised within 12 months.

Now...seriously...you've agreed that you wouldn't want something rushed, but you should have a look at just how fast these theories came out from the Conspiracy Crew and how they've become memes that just won't die. Every one of them was out long before any study could have reasonably concluded anything and yet they persist today, insisting blindly that evidence which supports them is good evidence, and evidence which contradicts them is fabricated or somehow wrong.

If you want to talk about a 6-year-card, then lets put that on it. Lets ask outselves how reasonable it is that these theories should have arisen so quickly and that 6 years later almost each and every one of them is still kicking around, with each having its advocates who insist that it has compelling evidence to suggest it must be true.

If we want to talk about a 6-year card, lets ask ourselves how the fringe community who proclaim themselves to be seeking truth cannot get their own house in order and figure out that even one of their theories is clearly wrong.....after 6 years.

But i think it was a disgraceful amount of time to wait for an investigation.

How long do you think it should have taken, and why?

Nick_oliveri · 13-07-2007 12:27pm

bonkey wrote:

How long do you think it should have taken, and why?

FEMA - 2002 Best hyphothesis low probablility.

FEMA published its report in May of 2002. While NIST had already announced its intention to investigate the collapses in August of the same year, by September 11, 2002, a year after the disaster, there was growing public pressure for a more thorough investigation. and Congress passed the National Construction Safety Team bill in October 2002. This provided the authority for the NIST investigation, which published its results in September of 2005.

NIST - 2005, after "public pressure". It probably wouldnt have happened at all if some people had their way.

So how long do i think it should have taken? Hmm lets see, as long as it should have, with all the crime scene evidence still available. All of it. And a new commission with EVERYONE testifying (that needs testifying) under oath without their cronies beside them (while) being questioned in private.

Like seriously when bush did that in the 9/11 commission, any knob could see that something was being covered up. Conspiricy or not. no wonder this CT has spurned a large following for so long.

bonkey wrote:

This is the true legacy of the truth movement.

Indeed. Na'rr a truer word ever said!!

Its sad though.
Something always happens though to refill the 9/11 CT tank, first we had the BBC 9/11 CT "documentary" then days later someone released that "foreknowledge" tape. Those comments are still being posted on the BBCs blog. And they admitted losing all the BBC world tapes of the day in question. Theres always fuel for the fire.

bonkey · 13-07-2007 12:59pm

Nick_oliveri wrote:

FEMA - 2002 Best hyphothesis low probablility.

So there was a report out fairly shortly afterwards....but you complain that it took too long to get a report out.

The report concluded "we're not happy, so we recommend looking at this in more detail". That recommendation was followed up when the resources were available. The people looking at it in detail are saying "this is hard to explain in sufficient detail", bit you're not happy that they're taking the time to try.

So how long do i think it should have taken? Hmm lets see, as long as it should have,

Thats how long it is taking, but you're complaining that its too slow!!!!

with all the crime scene evidence still available. All of it.

Thats an impossibility. Given that what's being investigated is what caused the collapse, much of the evidence was - by definition - destroyed when the collapse occurred. If you mean the remaining evidence, NIST has not once complained that the material they collected from the scene was insufficient.

And a new commission with EVERYONE testifying (that needs testifying) under oath without their cronies beside them (while) being questioned in private.

This has nothing to do with teh NIST reports. This blurring between the political side of things and the investigation as to what happened to teh buildings is a common one, but its inaccurate. They're completely seperate things.

I'm no more happy with the restrictions that were put on the Comission's scope than you are, nor how Bush et al did their typical "we're above being questioned formally", but that has nothing to do with the investigations carried out by FEMA, nor those subsequently carried out by NIST. Nothing.

Like seriously when bush did that in the 9/11 commission, any knob could see that something was being covered up. Conspiricy or not. no wonder this CT has spurned a large following for so long.

The following have diverted attention from exactly that. People should have complained about the way Bush & Co handled the political side of things. Unfortunately, those who do get lumped in with those who spend their days talking about mini-nukes, space-based beam-weapons, super-micro-thermate, and other lunacy.

I have always maintained that there was too much political unaccountability and ass-covering in the aftermath. But the reality is that this is "business as normal" in politics, not something exceptional regarding September 11th, 2001. The real problem is that its effectively impossible to have a discussion on just that area, without someone wanting to bring a conspiracy that they've no real evidence to support into play.

Politicians always behave the way they did post-911. Always. There is nothing unusual about it. That doesn't make it acceptable, but until and unless we can seperate that behaviour from anything we cannot prove, then we can never get anything done about it.

Theres always fuel for the fire.

Of course there is. As I said about NIST, its a lose-lose game.

Remember the gas-station video footage? First there was a conspiracy because they didn't release it. Then there was a conspiracy because they released it and it didn't show what people wanted it to. Lack of evidence becomes evidence. Evidence to the contrary becomes supporting evidence once we claim its faked. Lose-lose.

When NIST release the WTC-7 findings, it doesn't matter what those findings are as they will be considered futher proof. IF they say "we can't explain it in full detail", it'll be taken as proof of demolition. If they say "we can explain it, and here's the explanation", it'll be taken as proof of a cover-up and thus proof of demolition.

We saw this with the various videos that were released. That they were taken as evidence was a sign of a coverup. That they were laimed to show nothing was sign of a coverup. That they weren't released when people wanted was sign of a coverup. When they were released and shown to contain exactly what was claimed (i.e. nothing useful)....yup...you've guessed it...sign of a coverup.

Its always the same. Everythign is a sign. Demands are amde for some mythical independant investigation, but who;s gonna pay for it? Once the government sheckels are involved, its not independant. Who's gonna select the investigators? Who's gonna select the selectors? NISTs work is decried as coming "from the man", despite the fact that a huge amount of independant companies and experts have had the work farmed out to them, have reviewed other work and so on. The findings are good enough to be used by the construction industry to refine their existing safety codes, but apparently is still a work of fiction!

Like you say...there's always fuel. Evidence is fuel, regardless of what it says. No evidence is fuel.

While its died down now, the cry of the so-called truth-seeker for a time was "we're just asking questions". That much was true. They just asked questions. Listening to answers was not part of their modus operandi.

Nick_oliveri · 13-07-2007 2:32pm

bonkey wrote:

So there was a report out fairly shortly afterwards....but you complain that it took too long to get a report out.

Nope, im complaining about it being insufficient and.... well.. pancake theory..

bonkey wrote:

The report concluded "we're not happy, so we recommend looking at this in more detail". That recommendation was followed up when the resources were available. The people looking at it in detail are saying "this is hard to explain in sufficient detail", bit you're not happy that they're taking the time to try.

Fair balls to anyone who tries. But investigating something, all that resources and work and money, and ending up having feck all to show for it.

Thats how long it is taking, but you're complaining that its too slow!!!!

i meant with the remaining evidence. Thats when i'd be happy.

This has nothing to do with teh NIST reports. This blurring between the political side of things and the investigation as to what happened to teh buildings is a common one, but its inaccurate. They're completely seperate things.

Sorry i got carried away with Bush-slander.

I'm no more happy with the restrictions that were put on the Comission's scope than you are, nor how Bush et al did their typical "we're above being questioned formally", but that has nothing to do with the investigations carried out by FEMA, nor those subsequently carried out by NIST. Nothing.

Again im sorry for the rant, but i was showing a small reason why we are still having this discussion.

I have always maintained that there was too much political unaccountability and ass-covering in the aftermath. But the reality is that this is "business as normal" in politics, not something exceptional regarding September 11th, 2001. The real problem is that its effectively impossible to have a discussion on just that area, without someone wanting to bring a conspiracy that they've no real evidence to support into play.

Exactly. And while we are on that, im bringing this off topic, because im talking about politics and political cover ups and failings, not conspiricy theories.

Remember the gas-station video footage? First there was a conspiracy because they didn't release it. Then there was a conspiracy because they released it and it didn't show what people wanted it to. Lack of evidence becomes evidence. Evidence to the contrary becomes supporting evidence once we claim its faked. Lose-lose.

Indeed. Then we have that lapse camera at teh pentagon showing something blurry for one frame. Its almost like they enjoy a conspircist fringe.

When NIST release the WTC-7 findings, it doesn't matter what those findings are as they will be considered futher proof. IF they say "we can't explain it in full detail", it'll be taken as proof of demolition. If they say "we can explain it, and here's the explanation", it'll be taken as proof of a cover-up and thus proof of demolition.

I actually hope they can pretty much prove what you said earlier about a main support column being taken out. But by jesus, they are going to have to perform a miracle to explain this one, thats my view.

Who's gonna select the investigators? Who's gonna select the selectors?

Never thought about that one. Good point.

Jocksereire · 13-07-2007 7:54pm

bonkey wrote:

Explain to me why you believe Rodriguez. What makes his testimony credible and if true how does it contribute to explaining anything about the collapse of the towers.
`

He along with the others witnesses say they were explosions and how walls came caving in on the sub levels. Sounds very strange to me how all this could happen due to planes crashing 90 floors above.

bonkey · 14-07-2007 4:15pm

Jocksereire wrote:

He along with the others witnesses say they were explosions

There were explosions in the WTC towers in '93. The entire building knew about them.

The notion that explosions powerful enough to destroy walls etc. occurred but the effects were localised enough to be only detected by those in the basement levels is stretching things. The notion that they also weren't seismically detected is stretching things even further.

Put differently, if you put faith in Rodriguez' comments, you need to ask yourself why at least the people on the ground-level and lower floors don't "en masse" agree with his version of events. They too should have felt the same thing. As I pointed out earlier, many will agree that there were two closely-seperated events, but will maintain the plane hit first and the lift-shaft incident occurred shorly afterwards. Unlike Rodriguez, at least some of these people will have the benefit of actually been capable of seeing the order of events.

and how walls came caving in on the sub levels. Sounds very strange to me how all this could happen due to planes crashing 90 floors above.

At the risk of sounding patronising...I assume you know why taller buildings need deeper foundations, right? Its because all the lateral stress experienced by the building from wind and so forth will ultimately be "grounded" in the base levels.

An airplane smashes into the building. I think we'll both agree that this is goind to result in some significant amount of lateral force, right? The building "flexes" or "sways" in counter to this. Where does that lateral stress end up dissipating if not through the basement levels?

If you've ever strung a longbow*, its a similar concept. you prop one end of the bow against your foot, and then you apply a lateral pressure to the other end of the bow. Most of the pressure you apply (some amount is dissipated through the bending itself) gets transferred to the part of the bow against your foot.

That teh building remained standing immediatey after impact shows that it dissipated the force successfully. That force had to dissipate into the surrounding ground, the internal basement walls and so forth. I find it not in the least surprising that some of those walls would have failed....that was a lot of force.

jc

Diogenes · 14-07-2007 6:21pm

Jocksereire wrote:

He along with the others witnesses say they were explosions and how walls came caving in on the sub levels. Sounds very strange to me how all this could happen due to planes crashing 90 floors above.

He has often claimed that 19 other people coberate his version (latest) version of events, but has never provided the names of these alledged witnesses.

Jocksereire · 14-07-2007 8:41pm

bonkey wrote:

The notion that explosions powerful enough to destroy walls etc. occurred but the effects were localised enough to be only detected by those in the basement levels is stretching things. The notion that they also weren't seismically detected is stretching things even further.

you can "strech" all you want the witnesses say they were and know others who were "blown" and killed in the basement and they also state walls were blown in. So go stretch your notions with them

Put differently, if you put faith in Rodriguez' comments,

I said THEY as in plural NOT just Rodriquez. watch the bloody documenteries as you will see plenty more than one testement.

you need to ask yourself why at least the people on the ground-level and lower floors don't "en masse" agree with his version of events.

as i said the other people reported contradict your statemenet here.

They too should have felt the same thing.

they did

At the risk of sounding patronising...I assume you know why taller buildings need deeper foundations, right? Its because all the lateral stress experienced by the building from wind and so forth will ultimately be "grounded" in the base levels.

yes quite patronising

An airplane smashes into the building. I think we'll both agree that this is goind to result in some significant amount of lateral force, right? The building "flexes" or "sways" in counter to this. Where does that lateral stress end up dissipating if not through the basement levels?

Quantify significat in comparison to very strong winds that also made the towers sway.

That teh building remained standing immediatey after impact shows that it dissipated the force successfully. That force had to dissipate into the surrounding ground, the internal basement walls and so forth. I find it not in the least surprising that some of those walls would have failed....that was a lot of force.

Probably THE most rediculous thing i have read today. But thats your opinion. These people were killed long after the planes went in. also what sources have to to back this up? if its your opinion thats fine.

Can you answer my next question please?

bonkey · 15-07-2007 1:56pm

Jocksereire wrote:

Quantify significat in comparison to very strong winds that also made the towers sway.

Yes...it was significant as you say (though I'm guessing thats a typo on your part). That's why there was a large, easily-detectable seismic spike from the impact. That was the force of impact, transferring through the basement levels into the ground.

It was also within the tolerance of what teh building could withstand. Thats why the towers - though badly damaged - initially remained standing after impact.

Probably THE most rediculous thing i have read today. But thats your opinion.

Calling it ridiculous without explaining why is not what I would consider a compelling argument.

Nonetheless, I have no problem with you finding my opinions ridiculous. Given that findings such as the NIST report are frequently referred to as "ridiculous" by those who insist there must be something sinister, I'm in good company.

These people were killed long after the planes went in.

After??? If they were killed long after the planes went in, then you're agreeing they weren't killed by explosions occurring before the impact.

also what sources have to to back this up?

I'll try and dig them up for you. I'm not entirely sure where I came across it.

Can you answer my next question please?

So you can dismiss my answers with another convincing combination of calling them ridiculous and telling me to watch a video?

Sure. I'll answer your next question. What is it?

bonkey · 15-07-2007 2:58pm

I've had a quick look and can't seem to find anything on the transmission of the shock-wave through the basement causing having the potential to cause structural damage...so I'm gonna suggest that we do as you suggest and just say its my opinion for now.

I did come across an interesting link that I should have posted earlier concerning Rodriguez' claims, though.

While I'm not a fan of the tone that Mark Roberts often takes, I find that he's pretty good at supplying the links to back up pretty-much everything that he says. There's a lot of reading in it, but if you don't follow all his external links it shouldn't take much more time than watching a youtube video typically does.

http://911stories.googlepages.com/home

Jocksereire · 15-07-2007 6:20pm

bonkey wrote:

Yes...it was significant as you say (though I'm guessing thats a typo on your part).

patronising again ....if youre gonna start commenting on typos etc like a 12 year old instead of staying on topic there is no point continuing this discussion. You still didnt quantify what you mean by significant.

It was also within the tolerance of what teh building could withstand. Thats why the towers - though badly damaged - initially remained standing after impact.

yes we know it was built to take the impact of a 707 plane or even multpile hits

Calling it ridiculous without explaining why is not what I would consider a compelling argument.

fair enough. Lets just clarify something. Are you standing by this statement that walls collapsed and people were blown because of the shock wavefrom impact or are you just throwing that theory out there? we await your content on supporting this too.

After??? If they were killed long after the planes went in, then you're agreeing they weren't killed by explosions occurring before the impact.

there are reported explosions by people before and after the planes went in. i do not agree with this statement. how did you come to that conclusion ? we discuss WHEN people were KILLED in basment levels and not HOW. we discuss explosions in the basement. how were there explosions and how were people killed there? how did walls collapse?how did NIST explain this?

So you can dismiss my answers with another convincing combination of calling them ridiculous and telling me to watch a video?

You do make a rediculous statement then dont back it up. you cant even find the article where you read it. i told you to watch the documenteries because there is where you see the people claiming explosions before and after plane impact. im just point you to my source. you obviuosly havent seen any of the documenteries with these with people claiming explosions or you wouldnt have brought up the discussion.

Sure. I'll answer your next question. What is it?

do you think the attacks or terrorists were done by Al queda and planned by bin laden?

Jocksereire · 15-07-2007 6:42pm

bonkey wrote:

I've had a quick look and can't seem to find anything on the transmission of the shock-wave through the basement causing having the potential to cause structural damage

now theres a shock!

...so I'm gonna suggest that we do as you suggest and just say its my opinion for now.

so youre actually going to stand by this? this is your idea of how explosions (note that that is plural more that just one explosion at the time of impact)are reported before and after plane impact, people got killed (long after the plane impact) and walls got blown in. thats truely amazing.

While I'm not a fan of the tone that Mark Roberts often takes, I find that he's pretty good at supplying the links to back up pretty-much everything that he says. There's a lot of reading in it, but if you don't follow all his external links it shouldn't take much more time than watching a youtube video typically does.

http://911stories.googlepages.com/home

can you give a quick summary of what he says? ill take your word on it

Nick_oliveri · 15-07-2007 6:45pm

I like where this discussion is going, lets not start bickering with each other about spelling or whatever. Bonkey: i looked for your impact theory too, i couldnt find anything either. I am suspicious however as to whether it would cause that much damage @ ground floors, but i aint no expert. And nonetheless its a good theory.

Jocks, lets not ask other questions yet/changing the subject.

jocksereire wrote:

can you give a quick summary of what he says? ill take your word on it

It basically shows how many times rodriguez has massively changed his account of what happened and it compares his story to the people who were with him and suffered injuries related to elevators on the day. All in all it doesnt work out well for rodriguez.

bonkey · 15-07-2007 7:11pm

Jocksereire wrote:

this is your idea of how explosions (note that that is plural more that just one explosion at the time of impact)are reported before and after plane impact, people got killed (long after the plane impact) and walls got blown in. thats truely amazing.

No.

Its a possible explanation as to how walls could have collapsed, which is what I was responding to.

As for the explosions and injuries - I never once suggested that this is what caused them. I've already mentioned the fires in the lift-shafts - something Rodriguez himself often commented on as having happened, such as in the statement he made at a NIST public meeting in 2004:

The fire, the ball of fire, for example, I was in the basement when the first plane hit the building. And at that moment, I thought it was an electrical generator that blew up at that moment. A person comes running into the office saying explosion, explosion, explosion. When I look at this guy; has all his skin pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft on the 58th – freight elevator, the biggest freight elevator that we have in the North Tower, it went out with such a force that it broke the cables. It went down, I think seven flights. The person survived because he was pulled from the B3 level. But this person, being in front of the doors waiting for the elevator, practically got his skin vaporized.

can you give a quick summary of what he says? ill take your word on it

He examines how the story has changed over time, how it contradicts itself in places, how it is - in places - verifiably incorrect, how - in other places - there are verifiable and reasonable explanations for what Rodrigeuz claims to be somehow sinister.

In short, he gives quite a compelling and detailed account, complete with cross-references, explaining why Rodriguez' comments do not withstand scrutiny when it comes to them supporting anything sinister other than planes hitting the two towers and the resultant events as outlined in substantial detail by NIST.

bonkey · 15-07-2007 7:41pm

Jocksereire wrote:

patronising again ....if youre gonna start commenting on typos etc like a 12 year old instead of staying on topic there is no point continuing this discussion.

I misread your comment, and whatever way I read it I thought you were saying it was insignificant, rather than asking me to quantify significant.

You still didnt quantify what you mean by significant.

I'm not sure how there's any ambiguity. The building was significantly damaged by the impact.

yes we know it was built to take the impact of a 707 plane or even multpile hits

There seems to be some degree of uncertainty about quite what the design was designed to resist, but yes - it was designed to take the impact and it took the impact.

Are you standing by this statement that walls collapsed and people were blown because of the shock wavefrom impact or are you just throwing that theory out there? we await your content on supporting this too.

I'm saying that if walls collapsed, it could be because of the impact-shockwave travelling through the building.

As for teh people being injured, I refer you to my previous post and the quote from Rodriguez explaining that a fire - which is known to have occurred - came down the lift-shaft, and collapsed the lift. This is extensively verified by eyewitness accounts and serves as an excellent cause as to the root cause of the injuries. Whether additional events were triggered by this lift-shaft event, I cannot say.

As for people hearing explosions, I suggest anyone who believes this to be proof of explosives being used to do a google search on teh following three words: 'explosions Windsor building'.

A high-rise building, with an uncontrolled fire, where the steel-supported portion of the building collapsed from fire, with reports and eye-witness accounts agreeing that there were explosions. Explosions are, unsurprisingly, a fairly common event in modern fires, as electrical equipment, pressurised cannisters etc. all explode. Similarly, materials falling, cracking from stress, etc. all create explosive retorts. There is nothing sinister in hearing explosions.

there are reported explosions by people before and after the planes went in.

Can you provide a single witness who survived the attacks who saw the planes hit and who reported explosions before that event?

we discuss WHEN people were KILLED in basment levels and not HOW.

Well, both are relevant, sure. However, if people die after the planes hit, then its possible that they were killed as a result from the events initiated by the impact. If they die before the planes hit, thats obviously impossible. My primary argument is that all victims died after impact. My secondary argument is that their deaths can be reasonably explained by the events we know occurred as a result of impact. My third argument is that the collapsing walls need not be sinister and may have a cause also reasonably explained.

It is worthwhile, incidentally, examining the damage caused by the '93 bomb. It exploded in the basement. It did not bring down walls. It didn't even break the nearby pillars.

how did NIST explain this?

In order to be able to refute the NIST report, you must know the answer to this question.

i told you to watch the documenteries because there is where you see the people claiming explosions before and after plane impact. im just point you to my source.

And I've accepted that I don't have a source for my collapsing-wall theory, and am quite willing to accept that its just my opinion until I do. I have, however, no end of sources who will explain the explosion comments, the injuries sustained by people, and so forth. Mark Roberts article is an excellent reference in this regard, especially considering the additional linkage that he offers.

So you've offered your source, and I've counter-offered one which says that those claims do not reasonably lead to the conclusions that you say.

And yes...I know that Rodriguez isn't the only person who has made claims, but as the other claims are consistent with Rodriguez, they are subject to the same analysis that Roberts' undertakes and can be explained by the same explanations he offers.

do you think the attacks or terrorists were done by Al queda and planned by bin laden?

I believe they were carried out by the suspects identified.
I'm reasonably convinced that those suspects were members of Al Qaeda.
As to whether Bin Laden himself planned the events...I have serious doubts. I believe he knew about it to a lesser or greater degree, but not that he actually planned it.

In the same manner, if we took the "The US Administration are behind it" theory, we could say with reasonable certainty that GWB didn't actually mastermind or plan the operation. He would, however, have been aware of it to some lesser or greater degree.

ETA:

Who do you think was responsible for the planning and execution?

bonkey · 15-07-2007 9:07pm

For info...I'll be offline for the next 2 weeks, so won't be able to continue this discussion. Headed on holidays (to Ireland!)

The Great Big 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Thread [Megamerge]

Comments