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

UnHolyMoe

Dingdong wrote:

Actually I'm raising it to coberate the OP statement. Salomon Smith Barney did have offices over said number of floors. Being a brokerage firm, they need to work extended opening hours dealing with markets in western asian, and London, meaning that the office clearly had extended opening hours, thereby helping to support the OP.

The Asian markets would of worked on a skeleton staff as they do in London which I know about. Major maintenance work would happen at night time so as not to disturb the busy periods during the day. It would be easy to set up devices many months before hand if they are disgused especially in an extensive air conditioning system.

As for Strawman, what has shouting "Murderer" at Silvertein got do with what I said?

Dingdong wrote:

[Offtopic]
You mean like researching how the British Monarchy Line of Sucession actually works?
[/offtopic]

I will deal with that in due time when the information I have asked for comes back to me.

Dingdong wrote:

Bless, Unholymoly you do realise I agree with you? That the unsubstantiated report isn't good enough? That I took it from this document
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc
Page 56.

Well, bless your little cotton socks, what has this statement pointing to biased info got do with anything?

Also, here's something for you to ponder.
Nero burt Rome to blame the Christians, Hitler burnt the Reichstag to blame the Communists. So what did Bush do to blame the Iraqis?..........

Nick_oliveri

UnHolyMoe wrote:

So what did Bush do to blame the Iraqis?..........

You are forgetting the Afghani's! They were blamed first. Even though the magority of hiijackers were Saudi. But thats been said before.

You know dio's not going to respond well to that last paragraph/sentance. We could say that about the spanish train bombing, without (hard) evidence it doesnt mean shít. Such comparisons are moot at this stage and will be met with less favorable replies! Plus its been said before. (and not very well recieved might i add)

Diogenes

Flyingfish wrote:

I presume FF means me? As the mighty FEMA said "has only a low probability of occurrence."

What has a "low probability of occurance"? Thats not even a sentence it's a fragment. But I'll humour you, a couple of posts ago you were claiming we couldn't trust CNN because as a media organisation it was just a government mouth piece. Now you're quoting FEMA the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as proof the building couldn't collapse through fire.

I mean do you get how absurdly hyprocritical your position is. You cannot trust the media/government/etc because they're in on the lie until you cherry pick a quote from one proves the conspiracy. FF if the federal govt made the WTC 7 collaspe don't you think they'd have had the FEMA confirm the "lie" outright, instead of ordering a second detailed investigation due out later this year?

Christ I knew I was going to catch you on you CNN logic at some point I just didn't think it'd happen so soon.

This is how those photo's are relevant - you claimed the following about WTC 7:

You havent proven that the building collasped symetrically. Secondly you don't explain the circumstances of those buildings collapse. Were the results of earthquakes? Were they steel framed? Did any of them endure the circumstances the WTC 7 underwent.

Flicking to a bunch of photos without explaining how those building collasped and how they are related to WTC 7 is just weak soup.

This is disinformation! Simple. I urge everyone here to research this themselves - make up you own mind about WTC7.

Good work Nick I don't need to debunk this spurious nonsense.

Unholymoe wrote:

The Asian markets would of worked on a skeleton staff as they do in London which I know about.

You work for a London Brokerage firm?

Are you trying to tell me that a major brokerage firm will work with a skelton staff managing the dealings with the world's 2nd (Japan) and 7th (Chinese) economies?

Major maintenance work would happen at night time so as not to disturb the busy periods during the day.

This isn't maintenance work this is destablising the structural supports of a skyscraper. Downplaying serious structural engineering work as "maintenance" is disengenious.

It would be easy to set up devices many months before hand if they are disgused especially in an extensive air conditioning system.

Can you offer any evidence that the air conditioning system had connections linked to the structural supports. Or that any member of staff from the WTC7 makes any mention of said work in the months before Sept 11th?

I will deal with that in due time when the information I have asked for comes back to me.

Which "info" would that be?

Also, here's something for you to ponder.
Nero burt Rome to blame the Christians, Hitler burnt the Reichstag to blame the Communists. So what did Bush do to blame the Iraqis?..........

Actually The Nazi's burned the Reichstag to blame the jews, and as I pointed out previously on this thread many neo nazis have tried to pin 911 on "teh jews". This is yet another example of neo nazis trying to blame the jewish for something.

Flyingfish

Diogenes - none of what you wrote is worthy of direct reply - I flatout refuse to argue with someone who does not even read my post. Re-read or be quiet. Hmmm... CNN you say... you "freelance" for them right?

Why Were Government Propaganda Experts Working On News At CNN?
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1748

As for WTC7....

The characteristics of Controlled Demolition exhibited perfectly by WTC7

• Fell suddenly (spontaneously)

• Fell straight into it’s own footprint (See photo of WTC7 below again)

For the 4th time… WTC7 sitting in it's own footprint:

• Fell at free-fall speed

• Met virtually no resistance as it fell (as indicated by free-fall speed)

• Followed by volcanic-like dust cloud

WTC7’s “collapse” is a physical impossibility unless explosives severing the core columns were progressively removing all vertical support. End of story.

civdef

WTC7’s “collapse” is a physical impossibility unless explosives severing the core columns were progressively removing all vertical support. End of story.

I await your production of calculations to back this up with some eagerness.

Diogenes

Flyingfish wrote:

Diogenes - none of what you wrote is worthy of direct reply - I flatout refuse to argue with someone who does not even read my post. Re-read or be quiet. Hmmm... CNN you say... you "freelance" for them right?

Firstly that first line is a ad homien, you talked about respecting other users points of view, and then dismiss everything I write as "not worthy of reply" Whats not worthy?

I also work for APTN, Reuters, ITN, BBC World, and Al Jazeera. Your point being?

Why Were Government Propaganda Experts Working On News At CNN?
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1748

Hmmm and from the same site

On March 27, FAIR released an action alert ("Why Were Government Propaganda Experts Working on News at CNN?") urging readers to contact CNN and ask why the network allowed military propaganda specialists from an Army Psychological Operations (PSYOPS) unit to work in the news division of its Atlanta headquarters.

Since then, FAIR has been contacted by Eason Jordan, CNN's president for international networks and newsgathering, as well as executive vice president for public relations Sue Binford.

On March 29, FAIR received CNN's official response, written by Binford:

As executive vice president of CNN Public Relations, I am responding officially on behalf of CNN to FAIR's action alert headlined "Why were Government Propaganda Experts Working on News at CNN?":

1. No government or military propaganda expert has ever worked on news at CNN.

2. Amongst the hundreds of interns from around the world who spent a few weeks at a time at CNN in the past year, were five personnel from a U.S. Army PSYOPS group.

3. Interns at CNN observe under the supervision of CNN staff and have no influence over what CNN reports or how CNN reports it.

4. CNN's intern program is administered by the Company's Human Resources Department, which is made up of hard-working, well-intentioned people who are not journalists and who thought they were doing the right thing when they agreed to a U.S. Army request to allow the military personnel to intern at CNN.

5. The intern program was terminated as soon as the leadership of CNN learned of it. CNN's position: it was inappropriate for PSYOPS personnel to be at CNN, they are not here now, and they never again will be at CNN.

6. CNN prides itself on its journalistic independence and impartiality and is committed to accurate, fair, responsible reporting.

So again there's no evidence of psyops personal in CNN during 911.

This is a nice little distraction away from the fact that you have not provided a single piece of anything approaching concrete evidence that pentagon had missile defences.

As for WTC7....

The characteristics of Controlled Demolition exhibited perfectly by WTC7

• Fell suddenly (spontaneously)

• Fell straight into it’s own footprint (See photo of WTC7 below again)

For the 4th time… WTC7 sitting in it's own footprint:

Please provide evidence, of how a building with a steel framed structure, which was struck by tonnes of skyscraper, had uncontrolled fires across most floors, and had a power substation and diesel generators and fuel inside it should collaspe.

[*]Fell at free-fall speed

• Met virtually no resistance as it fell (as indicated by free-fall speed)

Please provide evidence that it collasped at "free fall speed"

[*]Followed by volcanic-like dust cloud

Please explain what you mean by volcanic like dust clouds and what said clouds mean. Pyroclastic flow is about to erupt from your lips, and this is about to get immensely silly very fast.

WTC7’s “collapse” is a physical impossibility unless explosives severing the core columns were progressively removing all vertical support. End of story.

Please provide evidence to support the above assertion.

Diogenes

civdef wrote:

I await your production of calculations to back this up with some eagerness.

Unless you're practicing for the world deep sea free diving record, I really won't recommend holding your breath on this one.

Nick_oliveri

Diogenes wrote:

What has a "low probability of occurance"? Thats not even a sentence it's a fragment. But I'll humour you, a couple of posts ago you were claiming we couldn't trust CNN because as a media organisation it was just a government mouth piece. Now you're quoting FEMA the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as proof the building couldn't collapse through fire.

I doubt he's quoting it as proof. He feels very overly emotive on the subject. All of us here-long-timers have seen this before on the thread.

Seen a funny quote today on a similar 9/11 thread.

In the context of the Patriot Act and the premise of the Iraq War, who needs truth, facts, and evidence?

FlyingFish wrote:

Diogenes - none of what you wrote is worthy of direct reply - I flatout refuse to argue with someone who does not even read my post. Re-read or be quiet. Hmmm... CNN you say... you "freelance" for them right?

I would advise that you do reply to his post, raising which points you think are unsuitable/misinterpreted.

Otherwise, you are posting shít, he is posting shít, im posting shít (this in no way implies that you guys or anyones posts are shít) and some eejit has to act as the middleman!

FlyingFish wrote:

Why Were Government Propaganda Experts Working On News At CNN?
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1748

Why for CNN? This is just a general question in no way to misinterpreted as a denial of your link! Why not for fox or some other ghey biased news channel?

Flyingfish wrote:

The characteristics of Controlled Demolition exhibited perfectly by WTC7

• Fell suddenly (spontaneously)
• Fell straight into it’s own footprint (See photo of WTC7 below again)
• Fell at free-fall speed
• Met virtually no resistance as it fell (as indicated by free-fall speed)
• Followed by volcanic-like dust cloud

• Wont argue the first point.
• Most would say it fell "more or less" into its own footprint.
• More or less free fall speed
• Resistance was minimal
• Pyroclastic

UnHolyMoe

Diogenes wrote:

You work for a London Brokerage firm?

Are you trying to tell me that a major brokerage firm will work with a skelton staff managing the dealings with the world's 2nd (Japan) and 7th (Chinese) economies?

This isn't maintenance work this is destablising the structural supports of a skyscraper. Downplaying serious structural engineering work as "maintenance" is disengenious.

Can you offer any evidence that the air conditioning system had connections linked to the structural supports. Or that any member of staff from the WTC7 makes any mention of said work in the months before Sept 11th?

I did'nt work for London Brokerage firm but I did work as night security officer in the City of London. Therefore, I know for a fact that amount of poeple working on the Asian markets is miniscule considered that they have staff working in Asia itself dealing in these markets, also the amount of maintenance work done at night time is quite extensive.

Which "info" would that be?

Info for another thread, when it's ready. Why don't you bumb the thread if it's really important. hehehe.

Actually The Nazi's burned the Reichstag to blame the jews, and as I pointed out previously on this thread many neo nazis have tried to pin 911 on "teh jews". This is yet another example of neo nazis trying to blame the jewish for something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

Actually, the theory was to blame [URL=
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comintern"] Comintern [/URL] which are Communists.

On a personal level I don't believe that the Jews were involved. In fact I have nothing but respect for the Jews as they share a lot with the Irish people because of their oppression. This oppression has evolved that in that Jewish people became in involved in finance because they could'nt own property in most European countries but could own money and utilised this to capitalise on the inheritent properties of money. They also became prolific in the media industry by capitalising on their entertainment heritage from the streets of European cities, which later came beneficial to them in the emerging Hollywood.

So trying to taint 911 truthers as neo nazis is a red herring espically in my case and I suspect in the case of most others.

Diogenes

UnHolyMoe wrote:

I did'nt work for London Brokerage firm but I did work as night security officer in the City of London. Therefore, I know for a fact that amount of poeple working on the Asian markets is miniscule considered that they have staff working in Asia itself dealing in these markets,

The time overlap between london and tokyo is radically different than the time overlap between tokyo and new york, so the comparision is very different. Tokyo's difference to London is 9 hours NY's is 15. Big difference.

also the amount of maintenance work done at night time is quite extensive.

Ah the semantic quibbling you're calling massive structural engineering "maintence" work. Have you ever been in a structure which was being rigged for CD, by having the steel beings cut? I haven't but I imagine it sounds significantly louder than "maintence work"

Also a fairly simple question for you, if demolition teams could rig a building that it full to capacity like WTC7 why don't they just do this as standard operatoring procedure. No really think about it. You're about to demolish your skyscraper you want to squeeze every penny of rent out of your tennants, why not wire the building to blow while your tennants are in there if theres a safe and pratical way of doing so.

So unholymoe, I'm asking if it so easy to wire a building unobtusly, without disturbing the occupants for CD, why the history of CD is there not one single building that was occupied while it was being wired to collapse?

Info for another thread, when it's ready. Why don't you bumb the thread if it's really important. hehehe.

School girl giggling asaid I wait with baited breath.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

Actually, the theory was to blame [URL=
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comintern"] Comintern [/URL] which are Communists.

On a personal level I don't believe that the Jews were involved. In fact I have nothing but respect for the Jews as they share a lot with the Irish people because of their oppression. This oppression has evolved that in that Jewish people became in involved in finance because they could'nt own property in most European countries but could own money and utilised this to capitalise on the inheritent properties of money. They also became prolific in the media industry by capitalising on their entertainment heritage from the streets of European cities, which later came beneficial to them in the emerging Hollywood.

So trying to taint 911 truthers as neo nazis is a red herring espically in my case and I suspect in the case of most others.

Um and the evidence I presented in this thread? Steven and Alex Jones repeated links to the AFP, a news site that supports David Duke, holocaust denier, Neo Nazi and former Grand Wizard of the KKK? How about Webster Tarpley and his links to Neo Nazi anti Semite Lyndon La Rouche? Or the host of leading "troofer" lights heading to a 911 conference in Denver hosted by a holocaust denier. I never claimed you were a neo nazi or holocaust denier. Merely that many of the people you support or claim to tell the "troof" are or happy to work with people who do.

Flyingfish

Diogenes wrote:

The time overlap between london and tokyo is radically different than the time overlap between tokyo and new york, so the comparision is very different. Tokyo's difference to London is 9 hours NY's is 15. Big difference.

Ah the semantic quibbling you're calling massive structural engineering "maintence" work. Have you ever been in a structure which was being rigged for CD, by having the steel beings cut? I haven't but I imagine it sounds significantly louder than "maintence work"

Also a fairly simple question for you, if demolition teams could rig a building that it full to capacity like WTC7 why don't they just do this as standard operatoring procedure. No really think about it. You're about to demolish your skyscraper you want to squeeze every penny of rent out of your tennants, why not wire the building to blow while your tennants are in there if theres a safe and pratical way of doing so.

So unholymoe, I'm asking if it so easy to wire a building unobtusly, without disturbing the occupants for CD, why the history of CD is there not one single building that was occupied while it was being wired to collapse?

School girl giggling asaid I wait with baited breath.

Um and the evidence I presented in this thread? Steven and Alex Jones repeated links to the AFP, a news site that supports David Duke, holocaust denier, Neo Nazi and former Grand Wizard of the KKK? How about Webster Tarpley and his links to Neo Nazi anti Semite Lyndon La Rouche? Or the host of leading "troofer" lights heading to a 911 conference in Denver hosted by a holocaust denier. I never claimed you were a neo nazi or holocaust denier. Merely that many of the people you support or claim to tell the "troof" are or happy to work with people who do.

*yawn*

Diogenes

Flyingfish wrote:

*yawn*

Wow an erudite and profound response. Filled with thoughful links, insightful and accurate supporting material. Ideas that are thought provoking, rich in weighing up both sides of the arguments, and debating the merits of your own position. Funny, witty, yet not patronisingly dumb, not trying to down play the arguments of your own stance, while not being too meritous for the position you disagree with. An intellectualy honest postion.

I salute you sir with your robust and solid claims, and well thought out arguments. Such as;

1. The absurd lack of evidence for your claim the Pentagon had any form of missile defence

2. The "absurd" nature of the NORAD stand down you've yet to explain.

3. The fact that you've not explained how fire effect's structural "steal" differently.

4. Your inability to understand that symmetrically doesn't mean straight down.

There's just a short list. Off the top of my head.

soretoe

The World Trade Centre 7 building over 550 feet tall, 47 story’s was not hit by any plane but fell down around 5pm after some fires in the building and after suffering some damage from falling debris from the towers.
This debris damage is agreed to have been on one particular side and affected a small number of support structures. The fires were in isolated pockets mainly on floors 5 and 7 and were not widespread or severe enough to have caused any kind of collapse.
But this steel structured sky scraper fell down at approximately what would equal freefall speed of an object falling from the same height. And it fell straight down into its own footprint - in other words symmetrically straight down.
Objects fall at the same speed and acceleration unless air resistance or wind affects them such as in the case of a feather versus a bowling ball. World Trade Centre 7 certainly wasn't affected by wind in its descent nor would a bowling ball be….and if you had dropped a bowling ball from the same height as WTC 7 - the ball would take approx the same time to get to the ground as WTC 7's roof did on 9/11.
There is a problem with this as I'm sure you can guess. There is nothing stopping our bowling balls descent through the air in its 550 foot fall and so it simply falls freely to the ground increasing in velocity at the universal rate of all falling bodies (which Galileo worked out..)which is approx 32 feet per second per second.
This means that after the first second the bowling ball falls 32 feet, but is speeding up now and covers twice that in the next second, and three times that in the next second, and so on, and when you add them up 32 + 64 + 96 + 128 + 160 + etc.. you will find that it takes the bowling ball around 5 to 6 seconds to hit the ground from 550 feet in an almighty thump traveling at least 175 feet per second!
Now there is ample video footage of the World Trade Centre building collapsing around 5 pm on 9/11 and the fall of the building has been measured and agreed at less than 7 seconds with the first 100 meters of the collapse having been accurately timed at 4.5 seconds by many people who have studied the footage. That means that a falling bowling ball would hit the ground from approx the height of WTC7 just a little quicker than did the actual building collapse on that day, and that is an amazing fact for many reasons and is what is known in the scientific community as ‘Counter Intuitive’ - or against reasoning and rational prediction.
Firstly WTC 7 was not a bowling ball and was in fact a very large concrete and steal structured building with nothing but very strong steel and concrete between its roof and the ground as opposed to our bowling ball which had just air between it and the ground. Secondly unless there was a mysterious pushing force being applied to the roof pushing WTC 7 down into the ground, OR, a mysterious pulling force yanking it downwards into the earth then the only source of energy being applied on WTC 7 during its collapse was gravity, and that acts in only a downward direction, and in the precise manner in which we have already explained using the bowling ball example (at approx 32 feet per second per second). Except that this acceleration toward the ground would have been hampered by all the steel and concrete between the roof and the ground which unless it all disappeared literally into thin air at the very start of the collapse then it would have slowed the falling roof as all the floors crashed down into the next floors all the way to the ground, breaking all the joints that hold the floors to the structural steel columns and smashing every bit of concrete and steel on its way down. But I said - the collapse time or 'Fall-time' of the building was just under 7 seconds which is just a little slower than free fall speed - in fact only a fraction of a second slower. So how can this have happened?
What allowed the roof to collapse symmetrically straight down at nearly free fall speed all the way to the ground leaving the whole building in a neat pile of rubble very mostly inside of its own site.
There's another law of physics called 'the law of conservation of momentum' and it is exactly what it says. If the bowling ball has nothing but air between it and ground then it will fall at free fall speed losing no momentum really except say taking some air resistance into account based on its shape which isn't as aerodynamically efficient as say a dart would be.
If the steel and concrete roof of WTC 7 had just air between it and ground then you'd factor in air resistance and just apply the law of falling bodies and you'd have an answer which would be in or around the same as the ball - especially over only 550 feet - we're not talking skydive height here so the air resistance difference especially with such heavy objects in question would be very minimal relative to the total time. Basically in plane English - because of simple proven and accepted laws of physics, World Trade Centre 7 should not have fallen down so fast because there was so much of itself in its way from the roof to the ground as it collapsed and this stuff should have really slowed if not stopped its collapse on the way down. It did not however and the fall time as I have repeated many times now was around FREE FALL SPEED - THE SAME AS OUR TRUSTY BOWLING BALL! ABOUT 7 SECONDS
AND THAT JUST AINT RIGHT!....which means that we are, all of us.....government, public, media and scientists, missing some crucial piece of the collapse puzzle when it comes to World Trade Centre 7, 47 story’s, over 550 feet tall which fell down at around 5pm on September 11th 2001 killing no one.
This building was not hit by a plane. It suffered fire mainly on the fifth and seventh floors and some damage from falling debris of the twin towers. FEMA said in its initial findings that structural weakening caused by fire was the main theory being put forward and NOT damage from the falling debris. It is important to note that WTC 7 was more than 300 feet away from the nearest twin tower and was not in the direct path of any serious debris falling from the towers. It is important to remember it was not hit by a plane. It is important to remember that the government experts initially blamed fire related structural weakness for its collapse. This potential cause has been studied extensively by both sides – government AND those who challenge the official story and it is looking very unlikely that it can be proven that these fires could have collapsed the entire building as symmetrically as it did, and in under 7 seconds.
BUT if we decide to simply accept this ‘Very criticized cause theory’ and try to imagine the collapse in our heads while rationally analyzing its manner and speed taking into account as we do, the law of falling bodies and the law of conservation of momentum as we now understand them, then we are back to the same problem…..even if fires…or anything for that matter is the reason WTC 7 did collapse on that day……it still collapsed….which means fell down….which means we time it….which we have….and it is too close to free fall speed to make any sense……the matter between the roof and the ground floor of this building acted very strangely….it moved out of the way too quickly to make any sense physically…………that is unless you stop in your tracks for a second and start to think in a different kind of way……the ‘What if ?’ kind of way….
And when you do this - you come up with different new causes and reasons from your imagination and you visualize and test them in your head taking into account their possibility, how ‘crazy’ they seem and would it have looked the same if ‘this’ were the reason or if ‘that’ were the reason….and eventually you are going to consider that the buildings were brought down using explosives - to move the matter out of the way of the falling building….. - to sever the supporting structures and allow the building to fall symmetrically at almost free fall speed as it did - into its own footprint, as it would - if it were demolished by controlled demolition …………AS……IT……PROBABLY……WAS!

I hope that I’m missing something…and that the missing piece of this puzzle will slap me in the face soon but I have a bad feeling about this one.
• Too many gaps in the stories.
• Not enough rationality being employed.
• Not enough possibilities being considered.
• Not enough questions being raised
….or answered….

Intuition drives me….but doesn’t force me into tunnel vision which is dangerous, irrational and unproductive….I want to know for reasons of sanity why it fell down so fast and so straight…that is all…..everything else about that day seems a little too complicated for me……too cloudy…..too infinite.
I want the truth about WTC 7 and I want it in my life time. I feel if it isn’t understood within the next 3 years that it never will be and that would be very, very sad for us all.

Nick_oliveri

Lol. This is funny, (samples are taken from Eminem) And features Mos Def

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss3W5KLFUj0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortal_Technique

Edit: Preview of tomorrow nights programme on BB2 @9pm

Flyingfish

soretoe wrote:

The World Trade Centre 7 building over 550 feet tall, 47 story’s was not hit by any plane but fell down around 5pm after some fires in the building and after suffering some damage from falling debris from the towers....

.....I want the truth about WTC 7 and I want it in my life time. I feel if it isn’t understood within the next 3 years that it never will be and that would be very, very sad for us all.

• Too many gaps in the stories.
• Not enough rationality being employed.
• Not enough possibilities being considered.
• Not enough questions being raised….or answered

WOW! Dude LOTS of text & a little hard to read so closely bunched But great content nonetheless!

Very well put in your own words too - that pretty well sums up the main physical aspects of the collapse of WTC7 that clearly point to controlled demolition as the only logical & workable hypothesis based on the facts.

Flyingfish

Nick_oliveri wrote:

Why for CNN? This is just a general question in no way to misinterpreted as a denial of your link! Why not for fox or some other ghey biased news channel?

The CNN specifics gave me a chuckle TBH for obvious reasons if you follow earlier posts! CNN is not remarkable in it's co-dependency on the US military and susceptibility to being spoon-fed propaganda in ALL its forms.

Nick_oliveri wrote:

· Wont argue the first point.
· Most would say it fell "more or less" into its own footprint.
· More or less free fall speed
· Resistance was minimal
· Pyroclastic

Glad we can agree! Slice it and dice it as you please it doesn't change anything. WTC7 exhibited all the major characteristics of controlled demolition.

Flyingfish

civdef wrote:

I await your production of calculations to back this up with some eagerness.

As do I yours / NIST's attempts to explain away ALL of the major characteristics of controlled demolition as recorded / exhibited by the collapse of WTC7.

Flyingfish

Edit: Preview of tomorrow nights programme on BB2 @9pm

Looks interesting and definitely good to see some mainstream coverage of the subject.

However must admit I'm not holding out much hope for a balanced / detailed treatment. Having said that if the show means more people asking their own questions about what happened and doing their own research it can only be a good thing IMO!

LMAO - As usual the BeeB leaving RTE lightyears behind.

Thanks for the info Nick!!

Flyingfish

Diogenes wrote:

Wow an erudite and profound response. Filled with thoughful links, insightful and accurate supporting material. Ideas that are thought provoking, rich in weighing up both sides of the arguments, and debating the merits of your own position. Funny, witty, yet not patronisingly dumb, not trying to down play the arguments of your own stance, while not being too meritous for the position you disagree with. An intellectualy honest postion.

LOL! So tell me, do you think the above accurately describes your contribution to this thread to date?

Diogenes wrote:

I salute you sir with your robust and solid claims, and well thought out arguments. Such as;

Again… if only you could even come close to your own “standards”. Do you really believe you’ve done this?

Diogenes wrote:

1. The absurd lack of evidence for your claim the Pentagon had any form of missile defence

I’ve already made my position clear on this. In relation to stories with official sources cited as US military, DOD or of other military origin, I do not accept these such sources as valid or impartial and do not accept resulting “news” stories as “proof” of the “fact” that the pentagon did not have ground to air defence capability on 9/11. BTW CNN link now a "page not found" http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/1...1.air.defense/

Ever considered changing your username to something more appropriate like say I dunno… “Goldfish”? Seriously… about 5 seconds seems to be the extent of memory in regard to any posts that challenge your position.

That is by now an irrationally entrenched position of defending an indefensible official government conspiracy theory. Further compounded by repeated attempts to prevent meaningful discussion. Mainly by misreading or ignoring posts, frequently distorting points made by others here and information in general (Such as claiming to have proof of the damage to WTC7 for example), engaging in borderline flaming, ridiculing posters, general Ad Hominem attacks and / or attempts to “discredit” or confuse issues with such cheap tactics as Neo-Nazi, Holocaust deniers, reptilian overlords and what have you. That’s just off the top of my head J Please do go on…its not tedious AT ALL!

With that out of the way, here’s what I actually wrote AGAIN…. Maybe you should make a printout …just in case :]

Flyingfish wrote:

In answer to your "request” that I address the Pentagon Missile Batteries issue, this is simple…I thought I’d already made my views on this VERY clear and provided supporting material for that view. But hey … here goes…

In relation to the Pentagon CNN story about missile batteries that you linked to – firstly I've read it previously & I simply don’t trust the source and here’s why – if you understand how the media works CNN like most other US mainstream media channels get such information directly from the US Military and lets face it the US media’s track record on investigative journalism or fact-checking for that matter over the last 6 years is non-existent so I’ve no reason to assume that CNN have not simply acted as a conduit for ass-covering propaganda in this case.

Also as I’ve discussed previously the majority of mainstream US media outlets are responsible for the most shameful media whitewash in history, they have in my view undermined the US republic by failing to perform their democratic function. Such media outlets are part of the US military propaganda machine (unwittingly I assume as it’s systemic) and only serve to disseminate and support the official story on substantive issues. Plausible deniability of complicity with the US military due to merely "reporting" the "facts" - clever system isn’t it!

Some examples of Media/Military propoganda machine in action:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...%2F11+solution

You went on…

Diogenes wrote:

2. The "absurd" nature of the NORAD stand down you've yet to explain.

Well that’s simple …
Where were they on the day? Where were those fighter jets? We all know that 3 of the 4 hijacked airliners hit the intended targets and of course the passengers onboard downed the fourth plane, according to the official conspiracy theory, and not the US air force…I mean that’s what you believe right? So let’s take one thing at a time J I know you like to change topic but I’m not taking the bait. Do feel free to answer my question though!

Diogenes wrote:

3. The fact that you've not explained how fire effect's structural "steal" differently.

Ok first the typo emphasised above; characteristically cheap and TBH of all people - don’t go there… seriously.

So fire and steel - well that’s easy… I don’t have to explain anything the “affects” of fire on steel are already very well documented – Incidentally I’ve already posted info on the characteristics of controlled demolition and CivDef’s one-liner doesn’t justify my time.

Diogenes wrote:

4. Your inability to understand that symmetrically doesn't mean straight down.

In the context of a symmetrical collapse as applied to WTC7 / Controlled demolition “straight down” is EXACTLY what it means… even your sidekick should have been be able to tell you that… that link AGAIN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directional_symmetry

Diogenes wrote:

There's just a short list. Off the top of my head.

That seems to be where most things come from so please, don’t let us interrupt…

Now back to WTC 7

Nick_oliveri

Diogenes and flyingfish. Please dont start the spell Czech stuff in the thread! We all get words wrong. For example, i never know the order of the "ei or ie" in fr"ie"nds. Or other words with ie in it. Usually i have to type it out a few times. Doesnt make me any less capable or intellegent to make an argument though, does it?

Spiel Czech arguments are the lowest of the low. And just so y'all know. My e-penis is teh biggar! dont challenge me!

Edit: oh yeah Flyingfish, use the edit button, 5 posts in a row might be seen as spamming/whatever by the mods, i dont want to see you getting hit with the win-ged banhammer of doom!

Flyingfish

Diogenes wrote:

I've posted photos of the whole building [WTC7] engulfed by fire, and quotes from 30 odd firefighters, NYPD and Paramedics, talking about how the building was a lost cause, going to collapse, and totally fully engaged in fire. The best comeback is FF muttering about Foreshortening.

Engulfed by fire!!! Really?? where?? Can I see those please?

Nick_oliveri

Flyingfish wrote:

Engulfed by fire!!! Really?? where?? Can I see those please?

I pondered at this as well. Engulfed by smoke? Yes! Thats just where the thousands of gallons of deisel thing gets me! 6 hours with that much diesel should have shown more pyro promise!

oscarBravo

Flyingfish wrote:

With that out of the way, here’s what I actually wrote AGAIN…. Maybe you should make a printout …just in case :]

...and here's what I wrote in response:

oscarBravo wrote:

Let me get this clear: your evidence for the existence of ground-to-air batteries at the Pentagon is that the major news outlets like CNN say there are none?

Is that an accurate summing-up of your position? If not, please elaborate, because that's all I got from your post.

By the way, you obviously overlooked this post:

civdef wrote:

WTC7’s “collapse” is a physical impossibility unless explosives severing the core columns were progressively removing all vertical support. End of story.

I await your production of calculations to back this up with some eagerness.

I'm waiting for that too.

Flyingfish

oscarBravo wrote:

...and here's what I wrote in response:

oscarBravo wrote:

...Let me get this clear: your evidence for the existence of ground-to-air batteries at the Pentagon is that the major news outlets like CNN say there are none?

Is that an accurate summing-up of your position? If not, please elaborate, because that's all I got from your post.

No it's an inaccurate over-simplistic distortion of my position but hey!

So here's a SUMMARY of my position to make it as CLEAR as I possibly can:

• I have NEVER stated that I had specific evidence of ground-to-air batteries - TBH the idea is so laughable but I'll continue - BTW Diogenes added that part all by himself! What would that be anyway? a letter from Rumsfeld or Gates? As I said, the US military are the gatekeepers of the truth of this point - so what chance have we got of a truthful answer? Especially if said truth would damage their position further?
  
  
• A link to a CNN "news story" was produced as proof - which, for reasons already detailed twice I reject as "proof" or "evidence" of anything other than the medias inability to say anything other than what they are told by the military. Due mainly to HOW the media accesses such information and the medias lowly position in the knowledge food chain.
  
  
• So in short(er) my position is that there's no evidence one way or the other (that I'm currently aware of). Given that, I'm assuming that the Global HQ of the largest military machine ever imagined DID indeed HAVE some ground-to-air defence capabilities on 9/11 until proven wrong - and that will take some doing.

See the core problem with our differing viewpoints is that you and others appear to take what the US military-media "claims" at face value - I most certainly do not. If you want to know more - this is a MUST SEE: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6546453033984487696&q=media

oscarBravo wrote:

By the way, you obviously overlooked this post: I'm waiting for that too.

As for "producing calculations" to re-prove the known laws of physics
No I read it. I've also never claimed to be an engineer or fire safety expert of any sort. But what really has me stumped is why you would think I'm somehow required to "produce calculations" to re-prove the known laws of physics which would be violated by anything other than the use of a controlled demolition hypothesis to explain the fate of WTC7???

I mean if you've got a workable fire theory to explain the CD characteristics as observed in WTC7 (detailed earlier) please do let us in on it - I'm sure everyone here, doubters and defenders of the official theory the word over, the US gov and especially NIST would be ALL ears. It's not my intention to deliberately misunderstand you - can you explain what you mean?

In addition using your "expertise” please do feel free to produce whatever contrary calculations and enlighten us on your insights into changes to the laws of physics as you see fit. Occam would be spinning on his razor about now if he could hear you!!! BTW can you please get specific as to how I have misused that very principle while we're at it? But keep in mind the following...

"The mark of a good theory is that it can explain, in a coherent way, all or at least most of the relevant facts and is not contradicted by any of them. A bad theory is one that is contradicted by some of the relevant facts. An outrageous theory would be one that is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts"

I look forward to your reply...

Flyingfish

Nick_oliveri wrote:

I pondered at this as well. Engulfed by smoke? Yes! Thats just where the thousands of gallons of deisel thing gets me! 6 hours with that much diesel should have shown more pyro promise!

Absolutely! Even "Engulfed by smoke" is highly dubious and unproven given other photo and video evidence. That's not to mention the total irrelevance of that possibility in explaining the characteristics of CD as observed on that day.

Nick_oliveri

Flyingfish wrote:

• So in short(er) my position is that there's no evidence one way or the other. Given that, I assuming that the Global HQ of the largest military machine ever imagined DID indeed HAVE some ground-to-air defence capabilities on 9/11 until proven wrong - and that will take some doing.

Actually:
Links here and here

The President flew to Sarasota, Florida, on September 10th. He stayed at the Colony Beach Resort located on a coral island in the Gulf of Mexico off Sarasota. After a private dinner with his brother, Florida governor Jeb Bush, other Republican politicians and activists, the President went to bed around 10:00pm.

Surface-to-air missiles were placed on the roof of the resort (Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02), and an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) plane circled high overhead (Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism—From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, p. 25).

The Secret Service does not make public its detailed security practices, so the public record does not clarify if this type of protection was standard for presidents at the time, or whether security was increased because of possible threats on the life of President Bush in particular. However, an incident the following morning suggests it was due to threats.

Now this in no way implies that there were defences at the Pentagon, i dont believe that there was, but Bush had them on the 10th.

On the morning of September 11, President Bush awoke a little before 6:00am. About a half-hour later, he took a four-mile job around a nearby golf course accompanied by a reporter friend and his Secret Service detail.
At about the same time GWB was getting ready for his jog, a van carrying several Middle Eastern men pulled up to the Colony’s guard station. The men said they were a television news crew with a scheduled “poolside” interview with the President. They asked for a certain Secret Service agent by name. The message was relayed to a Secret Service agent inside the resort, who hadn’t heard of the agent mentioned or of plans for an interview. He told the men to contact the President’s public relations office in Washington, DC, and had the van turned away. (Longboat Observer, 9/26/01)
The Secret Service may have foiled an assassination attempt. Two days earlier, Ahmed Shah Massoud, leader of Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance, had been murdered by a similar ruse. Massoud's assassination is widely believed to have been timed to remove the Taliban’s most popular and respected opponent in anticipation of the backlash that would occur after the 9/11 attacks. (BBC, 9/10/01, BBC, 9/10/01 (B), Time, 8/4/02, St. Petersburg Times, 9/9/02)

oscarBravo

Flyingfish wrote:

No it's an inaccurate over-simplistic distortion of my position but hey what's new!

Well, I guess that's what happens when you don't make your position clear.

Flyingfish wrote:

So here's a SUMMARY of my position to make it as CLEAR as I possibly can:

• I have NEVER stated that I had specific evidence of ground-to-air batteries - TBH the idea is so laughable but I'll continue - BTW Diogenes added that part all by himself! What would that be anyway? a letter from Rumsfeld or Gates? As I said, the US military are the gatekeepers of the truth of this story - so what chance have we got of a truthful answer? Especially if said truth would damage their position further?
• A link to a CNN "news story" was produced as proof - which, for reasons already detailed twice I reject as "proof" or "evidence" of anything other than the medias inability to say anything other than what they are told by the military. Due mainly to HOW the media accesses such information and the medias lowly position in the knowledge food chain.
• So in short(er) my position is that there's no evidence one way or the other. Given that, I assuming that the Global HQ of the largest military machine ever imagined DID indeed HAVE some ground-to-air defence capabilities on 9/11 until proven wrong - and that will take some doing.

See the core problem with our differing viewpoints is that you and others appear to take what the US military-media "claims" at face value - I most certainly do not. If you want to know more - this is a MUST SEE: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6546453033984487696&q=media

Ye gods, another video. Save me a few minutes - does it say anything about Pentagon air defences?

Allow me to pick a statement out of your clearly stated position: "I assuming [sic] that the Global HQ of the largest military machine ever imagined DID indeed HAVE some ground-to-air defence capabilities on 9/11 until proven wrong..." Have you been to the Pentagon? I have, and I didn't see any anti-aircraft defences. I've also seen countless photographs from hundreds of different angles, including detailed satellite imagery. Where, precisely, do you imagine these defences to be? and why are they so carefully hidden?

Flyingfish wrote:

I've also never claimed to be an engineer or fire safety expert of any sort. But what really has me stumped is why you would think I'm somehow required to produce "calculations" to re-prove the known laws of physics which would be violated by anything other than the use of a controlled demolition hypothesis to explain the fate of WTC7???

You have to produce a detailed explanation of which laws of physics are violated, and how. I don't know how much you know about physics, but it's predicated entirely on mathematics, so if you claim that an explanation violates a law of physics, the onus is on you to produce the mathematics to explain why this is the case.

Flyingfish wrote:

I mean if you've got a workable fire theory to explain the CD characteristics as observed in WTC7 (detailed earlier) please do let us in on it - I'm sure everyone here, doubters and defenders of the official theory the word over, the US gov and especially NIST would be ALL ears. It's not my intention to deliberately misunderstand you - can you explain what you mean?

I don't have any theories. I'm waiting for NIST to produce their final report. Obviously you have access to better information than either NIST or me, because you've already arrived at your conclusion. You don't seem willing to share the details, however.

Flyingfish wrote:

In addition using your "expertise” please do feel free to produce whatever contrary calculations and enlighten us on your insights into changes to the laws of physics as you see fit.

I'm not sure whether that's aimed at me or civdef. If it's at civdef, I'd suggest you have your credentials at the ready to justify your use of danger quotes around the word "expertise" when addressing a fire safety engineer. If it's me, I haven't claimed any expertise.

Flyingfish wrote:

Occam would be spinning on his razor about now if he could hear you!!! BTW can you please get specific as to how I have misused that very principle while we're at it?

I honestly don't think you understand the principal that Occam's Razor represents, but I'll try to put it simply: in order to even contemplate the CD hypothesis, you have to introduce a number of elements which have not been observed; most particularly the rigging of the building for demolition. There is no evidence - none whatsoever - that this took place. Therefore, it's an unlikely explanation for the observed facts.

civdef

Flyingfish, since you didn't bother to actually respond to my challenge to produce something concrete to backup your assertion that:

WTC7’s “collapse” is a physical impossibility unless explosives severing the core columns were progressively removing all vertical support. End of story.

I am going to conclude that you are unable to back them up, therefore you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Are you willing to admit your claim hasn't much foundation?

Remember, this is your (outlandish) claim we're talking about here, so the onus is on you to back it up, or is that too much to ask?

My own opinionn is you are talking about things you do not understand sufficiently. That is not a strong position to argue from. It is a position of ignorance. Maybe you're comfortable with that, I wouldn't be.

Flyingfish

civdef wrote:

Flyingfish, since you didn't bother to actually respond to my challenge to produce something concrete to backup your assertion that:

I am going to conclude that you are unable to back them up, therefore you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Are you willing to admit your claim hasn't much foundation?

Hmmm... So who's concluding things without knowing what they are talking about again? You can issue all the challenges you like! The CD hypothesis has very firm foundations... you know... the laws of physics?

civdef wrote:

Remember, this is your (outlandish) claim we're talking about here, so the onus is on you to back it up, or is that too much to ask?

Oh no no, explaining WTC7 without a CD hypothesis requires the outlandish claims. However you should be OK NIST are experts at those

civdef wrote:

My own opinionn is you are talking about things you do not understand sufficiently. That is not a strong position to argue from. It is a position of ignorance. Maybe you're comfortable with that, I wouldn't be.

& You're entitled to it!

"The mark of a good theory is that it can explain, in a coherent way, all or at least most of the relevant facts and is not contradicted by any of them. A bad theory is one that is contradicted by some of the relevant facts. An outrageous theory would be one that is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts"

Fire + alleged damage = the outrageous theory here - as far as I'm concerned putting the onus ball firmly back in your court along with other defenders of the official conspiracy theory.

Why don't you enlighten us with your expertise? I challenge you to explain how does (some) fire + alleged damage results in signature CD characteristics?

Flyingfish

oscarBravo wrote:

Well, I guess that's what happens when you don't make your position clear.

Typical warped argument - nothing new - I'll draw you a picture next time.

oscarBravo wrote:

Allow me to pick a statement out of your clearly stated position: "I assuming [sic] that the Global HQ of the largest military machine ever imagined DID indeed HAVE some ground-to-air defence capabilities on 9/11 until proven wrong..." Have you been to the Pentagon? I have, and I didn't see any anti-aircraft defences. I've also seen countless photographs from hundreds of different angles, including detailed satellite imagery. Where, precisely, do you imagine these defences to be? and why are they so carefully hidden?

So you've done the tour, got the t-shirt and looked at some photos - now you're a military expert or what? Sorry I'm all out of medals!

oscarBravo wrote:

You have to produce a detailed explanation of which laws of physics are violated, and how. I don't know how much you know about physics, but it's predicated entirely on mathematics, so if you claim that an explanation violates a law of physics, the onus is on you to produce the mathematics to explain why this is the case.

Operative phrase there being "I don't know"?

oscarBravo wrote:

I don't have any theories. I'm waiting for NIST to produce their final report. Obviously you have access to better information than either NIST or me, because you've already arrived at your conclusion. You don't seem willing to share the details, however.

& In NIST we trust!

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm not sure whether that's aimed at me or civdef. If it's at civdef, I'd suggest you have your credentials at the ready to justify your use of danger quotes around the word "expertise" when addressing a fire safety engineer. If it's me, I haven't claimed any expertise.

Yeah my bad wrong defender of the official theory - you gotta admit ye do sound alike and you did quote it without attributing it CivDef. Oh no not fire safety man :eek:

oscarBravo wrote:

I honestly don't think you understand the principal that Occam's Razor represents, but I'll try to put it simply: in order to even contemplate the CD hypothesis, you have to introduce a number of elements which have not been observed; most particularly the rigging of the building for demolition. There is no evidence - none whatsoever - that this took place. Therefore, it's an unlikely explanation for the observed facts.

Wow now that's warped logic! And you think that the fire theory meets those criteria? How many unproven elements need to be introduced to make that one fly?? Hmm? Even FEMA who you put so much faith in (I don't) say that such a theory has "only a low probability of occurrence" - talk bout outrageous conspiracy theories!