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

bonkey

Nick_oliveri wrote:

And yes, i think someone could have done better with a description, but i believe they want you to buy the fecking thing before you can know whats its about, which is wrong.

Which? Improbable Collapse?

Nah. Its on google video. Linked to from their own page an all.

Its the standard model...poor down-sampled quality available online, with the proper quality on the DVD, or something.

I dont know, and i dont really care, im posting a link, just like you post some random lyrics and some rolling stone parodies. People dont have to read what i posted, just scroll past it.

Again, coming to your defence, this is exactly what you did. YOu said it was something that hadn't been linked before.

You refrained from encouraging us to watch it, nor from passing any one-or-two-word synopsis like "this excellent movie" or whatever....which are the things that normally bug me.

Nick_oliveri

bonkey wrote:

Which? Improbable Collapse?

Nah. Its on google video. Linked to from their own page an all.

Its the standard model...poor down-sampled quality available online, with the proper quality on the DVD, or something.

Yep, "Improbable Collapse"!
My first impression was that the google video rip wasn't authorised, lol i was worried about getting banned for posting a link to it!!

bonkey wrote:

Again, coming to your defence, this is exactly what you did. YOu said it was something that hadn't been linked before.

You refrained from encouraging us to watch it, nor from passing any one-or-two-word synopsis like "this excellent movie" or whatever....which are the things that normally bug me.

I've learned a lot about posting links and posting in general on this forum and others lately. I did my best to give a good description, suppose i could have done better.

And i was disappointed to find no adequate description of the video online.

Diogenes

Nick_oliveri wrote:

And i was disappointed to find no adequate description of the video online.

Might I suggest you pen a few lines to describe it? What you have described means I need to wade through alot of tedious self congratulatory nonsense about the rise of the "911 truth" movement.

What exactly in this documentary is so "new" and "important"

tunaman

Diogenes wrote:

What evidence does it bring to this thread that has not already been presented and rejected?

In case you missed the poll in this thread, the majority disagree with your claims...

Another new poll out also reveals that roughly just 16% of Americans believe the truth has been told about prior knowledge...

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469

Many adults in the United States believe the current federal government has not been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News. 53 per cent of respondents think the Bush administration is hiding something, and 28 per cent believe it is lying.

Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks, down five points since May 2002.

Al-Qaeda operatives hijacked and crashed four airplanes in the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people. In October, after Afghanistan’s Taliban regime refused to hand over al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the U.S. launched the war on terrorism.

On Aug. 6, 2001, a Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." mentioned "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

On May 17, 2002, Bush discussed the situation, saying, "The American people know this about me, and my national security team, and my administration: Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people."

On Sept. 11, Bush referred to the attacks, saying, "Five years after 9/11, our enemies have not succeeded in launching another attack on our soil, but they’ve not been idle. Al-Qaeda and those inspired by its hateful ideology have carried out terrorist attacks in more than two dozen nations. And just last month, they were foiled in a plot to blow up passenger planes headed for the United States. They remain determined to attack America and kill our citizens—and we are determined to stop them."

Polling Data

When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

Oct. 2006

May 2002

Telling the truth

16%

21%

Hiding something

53%

65%

Mostly lying

28%

8%

Not sure

3%

6%

Source: The New York Times / CBS News
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 983 American adults, conducted from Oct. 5 to Oct. 8, 2006. Margin of error is 4 per cent.

Former intelligence officer makes very interesting comments on 9/11...

“After spending the better part of the last five years treating these theories with utmost skepticism, I have devoted serious time to actually studying them in recent months, and have also carefully watched several videos that are available on the subject. I have come to believe that significant parts of the 9/11 theories are true, and that therefore significant parts of the ‘official story’ put out by the U.S. government and the 9/11 Commission are false.”
Bill Christison, former National Intelligence Officer and the Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis

Aerial view of the aftermath seen at the WTC...

http://www.flyboyed.com/groundzero.jpg

Do you really believe that two airliners managed to completely destroy those three huge steel-framed buildings, with each collapse taking a matter of seconds?

Diogenes

tunaman wrote:

In case you missed the poll in this thread, the majority disagree with your claims...

In case you havent notice the poll in this thread is whether a plane hit the pentagon or something else.

Seeing as you've now admitted that you think a plane hit it, and (only after having this fact dragged out of you) pointing to the results of a poll you now disagree with, as proof people believe your point of view, is a tad hyprocritical.

Furthermore when any real rigour was brought to the anti side, the conspiracy theorists ran away, Kernel Squaddie et all have all faded away when their back slapping platitudes were met with rigourous scientific and logically debates.

In case you've not notice tunaman its pretty lonely for you on this thread right now, so claiming the thread as proof that you're winning is bullcrap when

A) You now disagree with the poll you voted for

The people who said yes, have run away when they are asked to defend it.

Another new poll out also reveals that roughly just 16% of Americans believe the truth has been told about prior knowledge...

Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks, down five points since May 2002.

Thats an interesting figure I mean it doesn't identify what exactly they distrust about the offical story if they think Bush was behind it, or if they believe they are covering for government incompedence.

Incidently 43% of americans believe that that Saddam had a direct involvement with 911.

So bringing opinion poles as proof of something is beyond weak.

DS

Wow tunaman, I've been following this thread recently and that is the most ridiculous argument I've seen. You've devoted a page long post to basically construct an argument that amounts to "most of those guys think it's true, so it's obviously true". That is truly pathetic.

Diogenes

Tunaman has, as usual, cherry picked the data. If you add the 16% who believe the goverment is telling the truth, to the 53% who think they are "hiding something" You get 69%. I'd suggest that people who believe that government is "hiding something" don't buy into the "controlled explosion" theory.

I'd consider myself in the "hiding something" category. I think Bush Cheney and Rice have shown themselves to be duplicious about the way they treated, threat assesments and warning about potential attacks in the run up to 9/11.

However I think people who consider the government to have carried out
9/11 in a series of controlled explosions would go further then claim the government is hiding something, they'd said that the government was lying about everything. So that figure is closer to 28% at the end if your poll.

A significantly different results that your 16% believe the government.

Nick_oliveri

Diogenes wrote:

What you have described means I need to wade through alot of tedious self congratulatory nonsense about the rise of the "911 truth" movement.

Im going to quote my text again, and underline it this time so you might understand better.

my quoted description wrote:

the film's stunning first scenes depict the rise of a movement to demand the full truth about 9/11

First scenes.... :rolleyes:

And it just happens that the first scenes do nothing of the sort! In my search for an adequate description i have come up with a meaningless and unresearched one! I didn't know this at the time and had finished watching the film hours before so i posted up what i thought was adequate from the sites i searched.

So no, sorry! No self congragulatary bullshít there. Ahh well. It was misquoted anyways, but i'll let it slide.

Diogenes wrote:

What exactly in this documentary is so "new" and "important"

"Important" hmm, where did i say that? Let me get my glasses, no i dont remember saying that. Ctrl+f!...... The only "important" i can find is the one in your post.

Diogenes wrote:

Might I suggest you pen a few lines to describe it?

From my earlier post:

Nick_oliveri wrote:

This video discusses the NIST report (probable collapse initiation, and testing carried out by NIST), FEMA findings, the afformentioned "NYC Testimonies", fireproofing, the "Pancake Theory", molten metal, and Building 7 East Penthouse early collapse (amongst other 7 related things!).

You have dragged the fact that i posted a video you didn't agree with through the mud, over the hill, into the post office and any other place it could possibly go!

No-one questioned your Rolling Stone parodies or your Lyics. So wtf? Have i done something to annoy you by posting relevant links in this thread?

If you have an issue about my posting's take it up with a Moderator. Or create your own posting guidelines in this Forum and hope someone will sticky it.

These guidelines may read as follows.

#Thou shalt not post relevant links (be they video or of the written kind) to a Thread with or without descriptions.

#Thou shalt post irrelevant Lyrics and Parodies for us all to enjoy instead with one, possibly two cups of tea and a cheese toasty.
__________
Heres another relevant link: NIST WTC7 Approach Summary 12th Oct 2006.

Page 5:

• Identify initiating event scenarios –location and type of local failures that could have led to collapse as observed

Page 7:

• Investigation of hypothetical blast scenarios
• Evaluation of thermite as a possible blast substance
• Awarded contract for evaluation of hypothetical blast scenarios

Page 11:

Hypothetical Blast Analysis:
NIST is analyzing scenarios for the event that initiated the collapse of WTC 7. As a part of this work, NIST 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 will estimate the magnitudeof hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure ofone or more critical elements as a result of blast.

• Phase I Identify hypothetical blast scenarios and materials, based on analysis and/or experience, for failing specified columns by direct attachment methods. Preliminary section cutting shall be considered. Compare estimated overpressures for each scenario against windowstrength.
• Phase II For blast scenarios with overpressures that clearly would not have broken windows, the worst case scenario(s) will be analyzed using SHAMRC software to determine overpressures at windows.
• Phase III If Phase II overpressures did not clearly fail windows, 3 blast scenarios will be selected to determine the sound levels that would be transmitted outside the building through intact windows.

Oh looksies, Nicks sellin teh Conspiricy again. Omgzorz!!!11eleventy

Diogenes

Nick_oliveri wrote:

Im going to quote my text again, and underline it this time so you might understand better.



First scenes.... :rolleyes:

And it just happens that the first scenes do nothing of the sort! In my search for an adequate description i have come up with a meaningless and unresearched one! I didn't know this at the time and had finished watching the film hours before so i posted up what i thought was adequate from the sites i searched.

So no, sorry! No self congragulatary bullshít there. Ahh well. It was misquoted anyways, but i'll let it slide.

No lets not. Let it slide.

I asked you to summerise the points raised in the film that have not been discussed on this thread before. Apparently even thats beyond you.

You went and searched for a description of the film.

How will a description of the film you've cut and pasted, tell us what points in this film have or have not been raised and disregarded in this specific discussion?

You're not even bothering to do the above so why should we bother watching it.

"Important" hmm, where did i say that? Let me get my glasses, no i dont remember saying that. Ctrl+f!...... The only "important" i can find is the one in your post.

So you're claiming new evidence that may help prove what would be the most incredible criminal conspiracy in the history of humanity isn't important? I would have thought you writing "important" would have been a tad redundant.

So basically this is an unimportant film that discussing this grand conspiracy. Great you've just admited I don't have to bother my arse watching it.

You have dragged the fact that i posted a video you didn't agree with through the mud, over the hill, into the post office and any other place it could possibly go!

No I'm annoyed by someone posting yet another bloody hour long video and not bothering their arse to summerise why its relevant or what new information it brings to the debate.

No-one questioned your Rolling Stone parodies or your Lyics. So wtf? Have i done something to annoy you by posting relevant links in this thread?

The rolling stones article isn't a parody. It would be a parody if it was a humourous or satirical send up of actual events. It's not, the conversation it presents never happened. You cannot parody what did not occur. It is dyed in the wool satire.

How long did it take you to read the rolling stone article? Five? Ten minutes? How long is the video you've linked to? An hour? 90 minutes?

Theres a world of difference between asking someone to endure yet another tedious conspiracy video, and linking to a short article.

Asking a theorist to summerise what new information is contained in the film, and what relevant and new information it brings to the thread isn't unreasonable. But it seems to be beyond you.

Heres another relevant link: NIST WTC7 Approach Summary 12th Oct 2006.


Oh looksies, Nicks sellin teh Conspiricy again. Omgzorz!!!11eleventy

Um how exactly does that "sellin teh conspiricy"? (sic) All it is the fact that the NIST looked at, examined and disregarded the demolition scenario.

Wow. Real smoking gun there Nick.

Nick_oliveri

Again i'll quote MY DESCRIPTION
You might want to read the original post, maybe on its own again.

Nick_oliveri wrote:

This video discusses the NIST report (probable collapse initiation, and testing carried out by NIST), FEMA findings, the afformentioned "NYC Testimonies", fireproofing, the "Pancake Theory", molten metal, and Building 7 East Penthouse early collapse (amongst other 7 related things!).

You dont seem to understand that i

1. Was posting a link relevant to the thread

2. Dont care if you watch it

3. Gave my own description And no it wasn't cut and pasted.

4. Quoted under my description what i thought was the best discription at the time from teh intarweb. And it turned out not to be. (i apologise for this.)

5. Never claimed new evidence that may help prove what would be the most incredible criminal conspiracy in the history of humanity.

6. Said there was new footage (that i have not seen before, dont know about you, oh yeah this footage i speak of has no smoking gun)



This all started because you took up on this new footage thing i was supposedly "selling".


_________________________


Your claims about me to date.

1. Nick_oliveri did not give his own description in this original "Selling teh video post"

2. Nick_oliveri cares if anyone watches the video

3. Nick_oliveri is "selling" the video

4. (NEW) Nick_oliveri is a "theorist" (for posting a link to a theorist video, relevant to the thread).

5. (NEW) Nick_oliveri parades a "smoking gun" by posting the fact that NIST considered "Hypothetical Blast Analysis". Would they even consider this of they were "in on teh conspiricy"? No they wouldnt.

6.(NEW) Nick_oliveri claimed that there is new evidence (in the video) that may help prove what would be the most incredible criminal conspiracy in the history of humanity.
______
See with number 5 there i was posting another link relevant to the thread and could forsee your "Omg Nick is a theorist he sells conspiricy theories" claims, so i posted a bit of sarcasm underneath number 5 just so you would know where i was coming from with my relevancy posts.

NicksSarcasmpost wrote:

Oh looksies, Nicks sellin teh Conspiricy again. Omgzorz!!!11eleventy

Didn't work though.

Back to the NIST link again, dated 12th October. I thought this was the most up to date .pdf at the time. Maybe you could show me where they disregarded the "Hypothetical Blast Analysis".

In page 2 of said report (dated 12th October)

No findings or conclusions will be presented as the analysis is ongoing

Again i must stress that i am not trying to "sell" anything. I just would like to be pointed in the right direction.

civdef

A deputy director of the Building Fire Research Laboratory at NIST who was a lead investigator on the WTC report is in Ireland at a seminar next week. Some of the posters here might like to put some of their theories to him directly?

AbusesToilets

I am amazed this post is still going.I mean how times and in how many ways can it be shown how full of **** these theories are?I don't want to be insulting to people but in the words of the great Gob Bluth - "Come ON!"
I can't remember which page of this thread had it but there was a link to a transcript of an interview with Dylan Avery.He talks about how he made all of this crap up to promote a movie script he had written.

arbeitsscheuer

AbusesToilets wrote:

I can't remember which page of this thread had it but there was a link to a transcript of an interview with Dylan Avery.He talks about how he made all of this crap up to promote a movie script he had written.

Er.... No, that's not true. And it's also libellous.

Dylan Avery and his friend, Korey Rowe, came up with an idea to make a fictional movie script about 9/11 in which the whole event is a Government conspiracy. In order to make it believable, they undertook considerable research and, the more informed and knowledgeable about the subject matter they became, were soon convinced that the "fictional" movie script they had created was much closer to the truth than the Official story of 9/11.

Diogenes

arbeitsscheuer wrote:

Er.... No, that's not true. And it's also libellous.

Dylan Avery and his friend, Korey Rowe, came up with an idea to make a fictional movie script about 9/11 in which the whole event is a Government conspiracy. In order to make it believable, they undertook considerable research and, the more informed and knowledgeable about the subject matter they became, were soon convinced that the "fictional" movie script they had created was much closer to the truth than the Official story of 9/11.

Not strictly true Avery recieved funding from a noted conspiracy theorist to make the documentary, in fact the noted revisions have often been padded the first edition (I think) included the missile pod under the wing, to beef up running time to over 90 minutes, so the piece was available for competition in festivals. It's also includes information that has been retracted or throughly debunked, which have been revised or removed, or even left in, despite being (as aformentioned debunked). So it would be hard for Avery to claim that he was being libelled by such a comment.

Actually the website fictionalised a (alledged) true conversation between Avery and James Galdofini (sic) where Tony Soprano told Avery that to be a direct he needed a story to tell. It could be argued that Avery found a easier and more profitable market, marketing fiction to conspiracy theorists, than fiction to the realists.

Oh and the Finally the threat of Libel? I think there are any number of people libelled by loose change who'd sue them, if they knew or cared about them. Never mind the copyright abuses.

AbusesToilets

by arbeitsscheuer
Er.... No, that's not true. And it's also libellous.

What i was referring to was a transcript of an interview Avery did in which he admits to having come up with the whole premise as a way to gain publicity.

bonkey

AbusesToilets wrote:

What i was referring to was a transcript of an interview Avery did in which he admits to having come up with the whole premise as a way to gain publicity.

What you claimed in your previous post is wrong.

Your current description of the underlying truth, while different to your original description, is still wrong.

And if you believe otherwise, then provide the link and show how the transcript of the interview matches your description of it.

Avery's work is bad enough that you don't need to resort to mischaracterising it to show it for what it is.

AbusesToilets

My apologies,in my zest i confused and combined two separate things in my mind. This is the site which i initially saw http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html (still trawling through the pages of this thread trying to find).On there is a fictionalised transcript of a conversation between Avery and Gandolfini,which is there to illustrate the authors view that Avery is using his documentary for personal gain.I got that confused with the interview on the same page,the transcript of which has Avery laughing at the prospect of the pilots being attacked by the terrorists.This site also carries the same transcript: http://www.911myths.com/LooseChangeCreatorsSpeak.pdf

Mea Culpa

bonkey

I see Prof Alex Jones has retired from BYU.

I wonder how that will be construed.....

civdef

They got to him at last!

I was at that seminar today where Dr. Shyam Sunder from NIST delivered a keynote address on the WTC investigation. For the record, he didn't reckon it was a demolition job, but he did a very good of summarising his findings.

One thing he pointed out that was interesting was the broadcasting masts on top of the two towers - if anyone is bothered, might be worth having a look at some videos of the collapses to see how they behaved.

http://www.iei.ie/PressArchive/pressdetails.pasp?INT_NEWS_ITEM_ID=388&recordsperpage=20&PageNumber=1&ShowTab=1&MenuID=20

Nick_oliveri

bonkey wrote:

I see Prof Alex Jones has retired from BYU.

I wonder how that will be construed.....

Steven?

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650200587,00.html

Professor Steven Jones and Brigham Young University finalized a retirement package Friday, six weeks after the school placed the physicist on paid leave to review his statements and research about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center.

"I am electing to retire so that I can spend more time speaking and conducting research of my own choosing," Jones said in a statement released by the university. "I appreciate the wonderful opportunity I have had to teach and serve and do research at BYU for more than 21 years."

I lol'd at the below quote.

"I stand firmly against the war in Iraq and any war of aggression," Jones wrote. "I support scientific scrutiny of the events of 9/11/2001, a day which will live in infamy."

Roosevelt?

aidan24326

IMO, anyone who cannot see that there are serious problems with the official version of events is even stupider than the very worst of the conspiracy theorists i.e the 'no plane at pentagon' and 'planes armed with missiles' goons. Problem is, some posters here are arrogantly dismissing all 'conspiracy' theories under the one umbrella, and those of you who are have for the most part offered no credible explanation for the glaring problems that exist in the official 9/11 report. If the whole thing had been conducted in a more transparent manner the 'conspiracy theorists' wouldn't have so much ammunition to work with in the first place. The onus of proof is on the US authorities, the government, FBI, 9/11 commission etc., and thus far they've proved nothing as far as I can see.

Diogenes

aidan24326 wrote:

IMO, anyone who cannot see that there are serious problems with the official version of events is even stupider than the very worst of the conspiracy theorists i.e the 'no plane at pentagon' and 'planes armed with missiles' goons. Problem is, some posters here are arrogantly dismissing all 'conspiracy' theories under the one umbrella,

I think you've got it completely wrong. I would consider myself, definetly bonkey as well as people who have issues with the offical story. I would suspect oscarbravo and civdef would also be in the same boat as well. My concerns are about intelligence failures in the years and months leading up to 9/11, and the behaviour of the US government in the direct aftermath. I feel that delusional conspiracy theorists, make it difficult for people in search of the truth, by mudding the waters with this nonsense about no planes and holographic missiles.

and those of you who are have for the most part offered no credible explanation for the glaring problems that exist in the official 9/11 report.

And what are these glaring problems?

If the whole thing had been conducted in a more transparent manner the 'conspiracy theorists' wouldn't have so much ammunition to work with in the first place.

Agreed.

The onus of proof is on the US authorities, the government, FBI, 9/11 commission etc., and thus far they've proved nothing as far as I can see.

Not proved what exactly? They've presented the NIST findings, (which is what I assume you mean by the 9/11 report), if you disagree with it please explain what they have failed to prove.

bonkey

aidan24326 wrote:

IMO, anyone who cannot see that there are serious problems with the official version of events is even stupider than the very worst of the conspiracy theorists i.e the 'no plane at pentagon' and 'planes armed with missiles' goons.

Its your opinion and you're entitled to it.

Until you can clarify what the problems actually are that you believe people are stupid not to see, however, I wouldn't like to comment further.

Problem is, some posters here are arrogantly dismissing all 'conspiracy' theories under the one umbrella,

Who? Where?

The problem you describe is one of the known weaknesses of generalisations. Ironically, the comment itself is just such a generalisation.

you who are have for the most part offered no credible explanation for the glaring problems that exist in the official 9/11 report.

You point them out, and what your thoughts on them are, and I'll be happy to discuss them. I'm not going to second-guess what you see as the problems. The official documentation regarding 911 runs into the tens of thousands of pages. To write a meaningful critique of such a body of work would take at least a comparable amount of space. So until you narrow the field down and tell me what you have an issue with that hasn't already been discussed to death here, as well as why you have an issue with it, then I'm not biting.

Again - I speak for myself only. Maybe someone else will rise to the challenge of second-guessing whatever it is that you're referring to. I, however, take the position that if you're not willing to put the time and effort in to staking out your position, I'm not willing to put the time and effort in to responding to it in any greater detail.

If the whole thing had been conducted in a more transparent manner the 'conspiracy theorists' wouldn't have so much ammunition to work with in the first place.

I would argue you are giving the "conspiracy theorists" too much credibility. In fact, I can't think of a single conspiracy theory regarding 911 that would have been avoided through transparency. I'd be grateful if you could educate me in this regard.

Regardless, I wasn't aware that the standard for criminal investigations was transparency. I was rather under the opposite impression - that standard practice is one of refusing to disclose details about ongoing cases. Perhaps you could clarify what transparency was missing that you would have liked to see?

The onus of proof is on the US authorities, the government, FBI, 9/11 commission etc.,

The onus of proof is on anyone making claims. The US government have provided, via the NIST report, their proof for why the towers collapsed. They will provide in the near future a similar report on why WTC7 collapsed.

They have met their onus until such times as someone can mount an effective challenge to their proof. Despite much handwaving, noise, insistence that certain events not covered in teh report are significant, etc. not one of the counter-claims has come close to meeting its own burden of proof.

Thus, while one can argue that the government has not proven its case, it has made a far better case than anyone else has either in terms of criticising the offered research or in terms of offering alternate scenarios.

and thus far they've proved nothing as far as I can see.

Would you care to comment on why NISTs studies count as nothing from what you can see in this regard?

tunaman

civdef wrote:

They got to him at last!

I was at that seminar today where Dr. Shyam Sunder from NIST delivered a keynote address on the WTC investigation. For the record, he didn't reckon it was a demolition job, but he did a very good of summarising his findings.

Somebody from NIST told you it wasn't a demolition job?

I hope you kept it quiet.

Did you ask him about building 7?

NIST are still trying to play dumb on that building disaster...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v491/reprehensor/wtc7-demolitionlg.gif

One thing he pointed out that was interesting was the broadcasting masts on top of the two towers - if anyone is bothered, might be worth having a look at some videos of the collapses to see how they behaved.

He wants people to ignore how the massive steel-framed buildings were completely destroyed in seconds, but instead watch how the masts behaved...

Here is a slow motion animation, where the behaviour of the mast can be observed...

http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/1199/ntower8gc.gif

There was me thinking the buildings were demolished, when all along it was the weight of the masts, that must have caused them to collapse.

A small newspaper in the US recently had the balls to call for the truth to be told about 9/11...

http://www.dailytidings.com/2006/1111/stories/1111_editorial.php

It will no doubt fall on deaf ears, as people either think they already know what happened, or just don't really want to know...

Nick_oliveri

tunaman wrote:

Somebody from NIST told you it wasn't a demolition job?

I hope you kept it quiet.

Did you ask him about building 7?

NIST are still trying to play dumb on that building disaster...

Well not really. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Oct06.pdf

"Hypothetical Blast Analysis"

I'd really like to know how that investigation is going.

As for the masts, weren't they discussed a long few posts beforehand?

Edit: Spotted this:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Judge_orders_FBI_to_correct_disclosures_1120.html

A U.S. district court judge has ordered the FBI to correct disclosures regarding the US government's evacuation of Saudi royals and bin Laden family members after the September 11 attacks in 2001, a conservative watchdog organization announced today.

According to Judicial Watch, US government documents reveal that 160 Saudis flew from the US between September 11 and September 15, 2001.

civdef

Did you ask him about building 7?

NIST are still trying to play dumb on that building disaster...

Didn't have to, he explicily stated it in his lecture. All of NIST's resources and manpower were focused on the WTC 1 & 2 collapse report first, so the WTC 7investigation had to wait till the others were finished, they're running at full tilt on it now, and expect to have a report out early next year.

bonkey

In other news, Fetzer and Jones appear to be having a bit of a falling out.

It seems to be over Jones' "adoption" of an energy-beam-weapons-did-it theory, and Fetzer pointing out the holes in such a notion.

I'll see if I can dig up links, but I think they posted some open letters at each other over on Scholars.

oscarBravo

I had a quick gander over there. One thing caught my eye:

Lets say you drop a billiard ball in a vacuum, no air resistance, so that it can rush up to speed as fast as possible. Then, when it reaches the speed of terminal velocity, it remains that speed from thereafter.

Ok - I'm not a physicist, but if you drop something in a vacuum, why would it have a terminal velocity? Isn't TV - by definition - the velocity at which the air drag matches the acceleration due to gravity?

bonkey

Terminal Velocity, to my understanding, is defined as a drag-related effect. No drag, no TV.

In a vacuum, one could maybe argue that c is TV, or that somewhere before c, relativistic effects would cause a TV to exist, but thats really stretching things.

I just think the whole thing is funny. After Scholars being held up as the finest of the fine (by its supporters) they descend into a spat because they disagree over what constitutes good science, good theories, good practice, etc. Way to inspire confidence.

Diogenes

Nearly a month and no sign of tunaman posting new "evidence"

I'm about ready to call this thread done and in favour of the forces of rationality and common sense.

The conspiracists simultaneously credit their targets--the Bush-Cheney "conspirators" -- with superhuman ingenuity and grotesque carelessness. In Webster Griffin Tarpley's book 9/11 Synthetic Terror Made in USA he writes that "in an interview with Parade magazine, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld also referred to the object which hit the Pentagon as a 'missile'. Was this a Freudian slip by the loquacious defense chief?"

The physicist and engineer Manuel Garcia Jr (whose explications furnish the bulk of our 9/11 file) reminds us that if the evidence allows for several explanations to a given problem then the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is most probably correct. This principle is called Occam's Razor, named after the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Occam.

There is not the slightest need to postulate pre-placed explosive charges to explain why the towers collapsed at near free fall speeds. Engineer Pierre Sprey--who designed the F-16 and A-10 -- points out a few practical aspects of explosive demolitions that make the explosive charge hypothesis improbable to the point of absurdity:

"1. Any demolitions expert concocting a plan to hit a tall building with an airplane and then use pre-placed explosives to UNDETECTABLY ensure the collapse of the building would never place the explosives 20, 30 and 60 floors below the impact point. Obviously, he would put the explosives on one or more floors as close as possible to the planned impact level.

"2. It is inconceivable that our demolitions expert would time his surreptitious explosions to occur HOURS after the aircraft impact. He couldn't possibly be absolutely certain that the impact fires would even last an hour. Quite the opposite: to mask the booster explosions, he'd time them to follow right on the heels of the impact.

"3. To ensure collapse of a major building requires very sizable demolition charges, charges that are large enough to do a lot more than emit the "puffs of smoke" cited as evidence for the explosives hypothesis. I've seen both live and filmed explosive building demolitions. Each explosion is accompanied by a very visible shower of heavy rubble and a dense cloud of smoke and dust. Just that fact alone makes the explosives hypothesis untenable; no demolitions expert in the world would be willing to promise his client that he could bring down a tall building with explosions guaranteed to be indistinguishable from the effects of an aircraft impact."

Herman Soifer, a retired structural engineer, summarize the collapse of Buildings 1 and 2 succinctly, in a letter to me, remarking that since he had followed the plans and engineering of the Towers during construction he was able to explain the collapses to his wife a few hours after the buildings went down.

"The towers were basically tubes, essentially hollow. Tubes can be very efficient structures, strong and economical. The Trade Center tubes effectively resisted vertical loads, wind loads and vibrations and could probably have done very well against earthquakes. However, the relatively thin skin of the hollow tube must be braced at intervals to prevent local buckling of the skin under various possible loads, otherwise the tube itself can go out of shape and lose its strength.

"For their interior bracing, the thin-walled tubes of the Trade Center towers depended primarily on the interior floors being tied to the outer wall shells. These floor beam structures were basically open web joists, adequate for the floor loads normally to be expected. These joist ends rested on steel angle clips attached to the outer walls.

"As the floors at the level of airplane impact caught fire, the open web joists, which could not be expected to resist such fires, softened under the heat, sagged and pulled away from their attachments to the walls. Their weight and the loads they were carrying, caused them to drop onto the next lower floor, which was then carrying double loads also becoming exposed to the heat. Then that floor collapsed, and so it went. But as the floors dropped, they no longer served as bracing for the thin-walled main tubes.

"This loss of bracing permitted the walls to buckle outward in successive sections and thus the house of cards effect.

"There was no other major bracing as would be encountered in a more conventional type of structure, or as might have been introduced in the design if one feared the potential loss of the floors. There were no stiff horizontal trusses in the perimeter to act as bracing ribs every few floors. There was no system of vertical trusses to provide any integrity, not was there anything that could be considered a frame or "skeleton" of columns and attached girders to keep the tube intact."

In our 9/11 file Manuel Garcia devastates with conspiracists' theories with patient explanations as to why their schemas flout scientific laws and the observed facts of the disasters of that day.

The conspiracists' last card is the collapse of WTC building number 7 some hours after the morning attacks. But here again, as with the other two buildings, the explanations offered by US government agencies (preeminently the National Institute of Standards and Technology and, for Building 7, FEMA) are more than adequate, as Manuel Garcia points out. The blast of hot debris from WTC 1 kindled fires in WTC 7 and caused an emergency power system to feed the burning to the point of building collapse.

One of the building's major bridging supports was heated to the point of exhaustion by the burning of an abundant store of hydrocarbon (diesel) fuel, pumped from the sub-basement by the back-up system and spraying through a torn pipe into the fire next to two of the building's three major structural truss. The types of steel used in the WTC Towers (plain carbon, and vanadium) lose steel lose half their strength when heated to about 570 C , and even more as temperatures rise, as they did in WTC 1 and 2, to 1100 C. In building 7, Garcia calculates that the diesel fuel spraying at a rate of 75 gallons a minute ultimately released energy equivalent to that of an explosion of 367 tons of TNT.

What is the goal of the 9/11 conspiracists? They ask questions, yes, but they never answer them. They never put forward an overall scenario of the alleged conspiracy. They say that's not up to them. So who is it up to? Who do they expect to answer their questions? When answers are put forward, they are dismissed as fabrications or they simply rebound with another question.

Of course the buildings didn't suddenly fall at a speed inexplicable in terms of physics unless caused by carefully pre-placed explosives, detonated by the ruthless Bush-Cheney operatives. High grade steel can bend disastrously under extreme heat. As discussed in Wayne Barrett and Dan Collin's excellent book Grand Illusion, about Rudy Giuliani and 9/11, helicopter pilots radioed warnings nine minutes before the final collapse that the South Tower might well go down and, repeatedly, as much as 25 minutes before the North Tower's fall.

What Barrett and Collins brilliantly show are the actual corrupt conspiracies on Giuliani's watch: the favoritism to Motorola which saddled the firemen with radios that didn't work; the ability of the Port Authority to skimp on fire protection, the mayor's catastrophic failure in the years before 9/11/2001 to organize an effective unified emergency command that would have meant that cops and firemen could have communicated; that many firemen wouldn't have unnecessarily entered the Towers; that people in the Towers wouldn't have been told by 911 emergency operators to stay in place; and that firemen could have heard the helicopter warnings and the final Mayday messages that prompted most of the NYPD men to flee the Towers.
That's the real political world, in which Giuliani and others have never been held accountable. The conspiracists disdain the real world because they have promoted Bush, Cheney and the Neo-Cons to an elevated status as the Arch Demons of American history, instead of being just one more team running the American empire, a team of more than usual stupidity and incompetence (characteristics I personally favor in imperial leaders). The conspiracists have combined to produce a huge distraction, just as Danny Sheehan did with his Complaint, that mesmerized and distracted much of the Nicaraguan Solidarity Movement in the 1980s, and which finally collapsed in a Florida courtroom almost as quickly as the Towers.

Full article here.

also

It was like religion, and profoundly sad. At one point one of the black T-shirts confessed that there's nothing people can do in the face of such evil, because they killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11 and they'll have no compunction to kill their critics if they need to. What a starting point for politics, and the best argument for why people might as well go to their computer screens and just stay there. But the truth! We need to know the truth! It's a truth of fools, simple in the extreme, requiring no more than the memorization of the "unexplained" events of that day, the eye-witness anecdotes and quick-fire repetition of same to others. It's also the politics of the schoolroom, akin to the argument that if every American just sent in a dollar, we'd have $350 million to fight poverty. If every American just does the research, just demands the truth, the truth will come out, the columns will tremble, the temples fall.

How do you explain such perfect discipline and silence in the face of horror? "Look at the Manhattan Project; that was a really well kept secret that involved many, many people."

Apart from the fact that the Manhattan Project seems to have been kind of an open secret in international physics circles, and the secrets did get out, courtesy of spies who thought the US should not be the only nation on earth to have the Bomb, there is the matter of remorse. Most people don't like living with the memory that they have blood on their hands. Oppenheimer didn't. I'm sure scores of lower level scientists didn't once the Bomb wasn't a theoretical problem or a test in the desert but the consuming fire of Hiroshima and, especially, Nagasaki.

It's inconceivable that five years after September 11 no one involved in the incineration of thousands of people would have regrets, second thoughts -- or even towering self-interest. Imagine the book deal, the movie deal waiting for that whistle blower.

What happened to Flight 77, the one that, according to the conspiracy theory, didn't hit the Pentagon because a missile made that hole? Were all those people just taken somewhere and murdered? "Probably. Maybe, but that's not for us to answer, that's for them to answer."

Why use planes at all if you'd gone through all the trouble to place charges throughout the buildings? "They needed scapegoats. No one would have believed it was a terrorist attack."

But everyone believed the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was a terrorist attack. You think if the buildings had come down in a huge explosion people wouldn't think, 'terror'? "Not in the same way. They needed the spectacle."

Why is it so hard to believe that when you kick people around for so long, destroy their countries and kill their children, eventually someone will kick back? "Sure they'll want to, but they couldn't have done this. You've just got to do the research." There were lots of references to "people in caves" who couldn't possibly have pulled something like this off. Only America, only the most powerful nation on earth, could do something so big.

And here both articles taken from the profoundly leftwing counterpunch website.