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

toiletduck · 18-02-2007 9:08pm

Flyingfish wrote:

The CD hypothesis has very firm foundations... you know... the laws of physics?

Which laws in particular?

Flyingfish · 18-02-2007 9:23pm

toiletduck wrote:

Which laws in particular?

Hmm... Seems like a lot of "experts" and not a lot of answers... let me see why don't you try one of the foundational Laws on for size, say conservation of momentum. Thanks for that insightful contribution though!

mr_disc · 18-02-2007 10:07pm

Good show on BBC2 now about all this...........

Ciaran500 · 18-02-2007 10:10pm

Programme about this on BBC2 for anyone interested.

radiospan · 18-02-2007 11:11pm

Good show just over on BBC2 called: "9/11: The Conspiracy Files". Had plenty of clips from "Loose Change" included in it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6160775.stm

Had interviews with the maker of "Loose Change", a guy from "Popular Mechanics", Alex Jones and others.
Debunked a lot of the theories (including many theories central to "Loose Change"), and ended suggesting that the only government conspiracy was after 9/11 and not before. (in not being open about warnings, and breakdown of communication between FBI and CIA about leads, etc...)

Hopefully should be online somewhere soon.

Flyingfish · 18-02-2007 11:21pm

me wrote:

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!

Unfortunately even worse than expected - no real detail - poor presentation - focused on an odd mix of issues - pointless exercise really -very poor indeed! Glossed over well pretty much everything! My advice... do your OWN research!

is_that_so · 18-02-2007 11:30pm

Flyingfish wrote:

Unfortunately even worse than expected - no real detail - poor presentation - focused on an odd mix of issues - very poor indeed! Glossed over well pretty much everything! My advice... do your OWN research!

Hmm maybe you missed the X Files writer at the end.
Personally found enough compelling evidence in the "real science" to suggest as the programme did that the real cover up was in the ineptitude of the authorities especially the so-called intelligence agencies. I will say what it reminded me of is the danger the web can be to genuine clear thinking and proper research. Sometimes you do have to look at the messenger.

Flyingfish · 18-02-2007 11:34pm

is_that_so wrote:

Hmm maybe you missed the X Files writer at the end.
Personally found enough compelling evidence in the "real science" to suggest as the programme that the real cover up was in the ineptitude of the authorities especially the so-called intelligence agencies. I will say what it reminded me of is the danger the web can be to genuine clear thinking and proper research. Sometimes you do have to look at the messenger.

In this case you could not be more correct when you say "Sometimes you do have to look at the messenger" ... hey and who said TV doesn't form peoples opinions for them!

is_that_so · 18-02-2007 11:35pm

Flyingfish wrote:

In this case you could not be more correct when you say "Sometimes you do have to look at the messenger" ... hey and who said TV doesn't form peoples opinions for them!

As you say make your own mind up.

oscarBravo · 19-02-2007 12:13am

Let's look at the messengers, shall we? We have Dylan Avery, who says of Popular Mechanics that they should "stick to tractors", and that they're unqualified to discuss 9/11. Um, and his qualification is what, precisely? Then you have Fetzer who comes across as a complete nut from beginning to end.

Flyingfish wrote:

...now you're a military expert or what?

I haven't claimed to be an expert. The sum total of the evidence you've presented thus far is your belief that the defences must have existed. What qualifies you to hold that belief?

Flyingfish wrote:

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

I don't know because you haven't said. So far you have consistently failed to present anything that remotely suggests you have the first idea what you're talking about. Case in point:

Flyingfish wrote:

Why don't you [civdef] enlighten us with your expertise?

Honestly, I've seen nothing to date to indicate that you have sufficient knowledge to even begin to understand anything a qualified engineer could explain to you.

Flyingfish wrote:

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??

Building receives massive structural damage when neighbouring 110-storey building collapses beside it. Building then suffers extensive fire damage from thousands of gallons of burning diesel fuel. Building's structural steel is weakened by a combination of these factors, and eventually collapses.

I don't know if that's the full story, but I look forward to seeing the NIST report. In the meantime, we have a theory that explains the collapse without the introduction of any factors that have not been observed.

Incidentally, how do you reconcile sardonic statements like "in NIST we trust" with your unwavering faith in FEMA's statement that the collapse hypothesis as outlined has only a low probability of occurrence?

Flyingfish · 19-02-2007 12:41am

oscarBravo wrote:

I haven't claimed to be an expert. The sum total of the evidence you've presented thus far is your belief that the defences must have existed. What qualifies you to hold that belief?

I need qualifications simply to have beliefs now?? OK.... you brought your guided tour up as if it were some kind of trump card! Also the relationship between the media and the military is very well documented.

oscarBravo wrote:

Case in point: Honestly, I've seen nothing to date to indicate that you have sufficient knowledge to even begin to understand anything a qualified engineer could explain to you.

TRY ME!

oscarBravo wrote:

Building receives massive structural damage when neighbouring 110-storey building collapses beside it.

Beside it - exactly! As to your claims of MASSIVE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE - well that's totally unproven as the extent of any possible damage is utterly unknown!

oscarBravo wrote:

Building then suffers extensive fire damage from thousands of gallons of burning diesel fuel. Building's structural steel is weakened by a combination of these factors, and eventually collapses.

drivel - pure unproven, unprecedented drivel! Please provide any proof whatsoever to back up any of that?

oscarBravo wrote:

I don't know if that's the full story, but I look forward to seeing the NIST report. In the meantime, we have a theory that explains the collapse without the introduction of any factors that have not been observed.

See above you have a highly improbable series of assumptions – WTC7 CD as a theory is based on observable / recorded phenomenon on the day and CD precedent.

oscarBravo wrote:

Incidentally, how do you reconcile sardonic statements like "in NIST we trust" with your unwavering faith in FEMA's statement that the collapse hypothesis as outlined has only a low probability of occurrence?

Because despite their lies and in the absence of any explanation they had no choice but to state the OBVIOUS!!! Also if they've got to admit that through gritted teeth that it demonstrates how weak it is!

You're reaching!

oscarBravo · 19-02-2007 12:55am

Flyingfish wrote:

I need qualifications simply to have beliefs now??

Nope, just so we're clear that it's an unsubstantiated belief we're talking about.

Flyingfish wrote:

OK.... you brought your guided tour up as if it were some kind of trump card!

I never mentioned a guided tour.

Flyingfish wrote:

Also the relationship between the media and the military is very well documented.

Is it documented by anybody credible? Not that it has anything to do with the existence or otherwise of defence systems for which you've effectively admitted you haven't the first hint of a shred of evidence.

Flyingfish wrote:

TRY ME!

You miss my point. Let me ask the question directly: what qualifies you to understand anything an engineer could explain to you?

Flyingfish wrote:

Beside it - exactly!

Heh. If you were standing beside WTC 1 or 2 when they collapsed, do you reckon you would have escaped structural damage?

Oh that's right, I'm sorry, they were demolised - they collapsed neatly into their basements. Not.

Flyingfish wrote:

As to your claims of MASSIVE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE - well that's totally unproven as the extent of any possible damage is utterly unknown!

And yet, you're confident - in the absence of anything that remotely resembles a hint of a shred of evidence - that it was demolished.

Allow me to anticipate your response by saying that "it looked like it" doesn't count as evidence, even if you had any qualification to judge by appearances, which you've yet to demonstrate that you have.

Flyingfish wrote:

drivel - pure unproven, unprecedented drivel! Please provide any proof whatsoever to back up any of that?

It's a working hypothesis. It's known that the building was damaged by falling debris. It's known that the building was on fire. It's known that it contained huge quantities of diesel fuel. If you have information contrary to any of the above, please produce it.

Flyingfish wrote:

See above you have a highly improbable series of assumptions – WTC7 CD as a theory is based on observable / recorded phenomenon on the day and CD precedent.

CD precedent like evacuating and stripping buildings of all furnishings, pre-cutting support beams and wiring literally miles of detonator cord? Or CD precedent like "it looks like it"?

Flyingfish wrote:

Because despite their lies and in the absence of any explanation they had no choice but to state the OBVIOUS!!!

I can't speak to FEMA's motives, but as someone who works with electronics for a living I have frequently had to come up with hypotheses for why things weren't working that I considered unlikely at the time but couldn't come up with any other that fit the facts as observed. In all cases either the hypothesis turns out to be true or it emerges that I missed something on initial evaluation. You'd be surprised how often an unlikely explanation turns out to be the correct one.

Flyingfish wrote:

You're reaching!

Whatever. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling at this stage.

civdef · 19-02-2007 1:40am

TRY ME!

Happy to, just as soon as you have the common manners to back up claims you made first.

Remember, this one:

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

Hint: I'm not letting you off the hook on this one.

civdef · 19-02-2007 1:48am

Oh yeah, for anyone who hasn't been keeping up, NIST issued a project uodate in December:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf

For the record NIST are looking at the controlled demolition theory, even though there is no evidence of such. They are examining what would be involved to do it and if it is at all plausible.

Good scientific rigour etc.

It's a pity they're wasting so much money on an investigation though, when Flyingfish claims to have the incontrovertible proof to hand.

Flyingfish, maybe you'd ring them up and give them a dig out?

00 1 301 9756051

toiletduck · 19-02-2007 2:00am

Flyingfish wrote:

Hmm... Seems like a lot of "experts" and not a lot of answers... let me see why don't you try one of the foundational Laws on for size, say conservation of momentum. Thanks for that insightful contribution though!

I'm a long term reader of this thread but it seems a bit "closed" however I find it interesting that you still haven't produced any calculations to back up what you're saying.

Oh and I find it interesting that you assumed I claimed to be an "expert", let me tell you a little secret; it doesn't take experts to ask questions. it's the foundation of science.

Flyingfish · 19-02-2007 2:06am

Well here's one tip for NIST - conduct your analysis BEFORE you've scrubbed the scene and disposed of your samples!

Flyingfish · 19-02-2007 2:08am

toiletduck wrote:

I'm a long term reader of this thread but it seems a bit "closed" however I find it interesting that you still haven't produced any calculations to back up what you're saying.

Oh and I find it interesting that you assumed I claimed to be an "expert", let me tell you a little secret; it doesn't take experts to ask questions. it's the foundation of science.

Fair enough but you do realise that both of those comments are self-contradictory right?

Diogenes · 19-02-2007 2:19am

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 -

Um what?

Flying Fish wrote:

Don’t get me started on things like commercial airliners bypassing the Pentagon ground-to-air defences either.

So what's more laughable?

A) You claiming that the pentagon had ground to air defences?

Me pointing out the flaws in that claim?

C) Do you deny you made the original claim?

[*]A link to a CNN "news story" was produced as proof -

Again I linked to a CNN story. A statement by Richard Clarke a very senior member of the Bush administration who pointed out the failures of the Bush administration in the run up to 911 and using common sense the flight paths that intersect the pentagon.

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.

Actually you rejected anything the CNN say without offering any proof of what they say is false.

[*]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.

Okay fair enough. I accept your assumption. You assumed without any evidence that the penatgon always had missile defences. Its a reasonable assertion. Where you fall down however is when you point blank refute any evidence that rejects your assertion. You deny CNN's report because of an idealogical perpective not a rational one, you've no reason to dispute it, and had offered no reason just idealogly. You've ignored the statement of Richard Clarke and the logical argument of the proximity of the flight path. FF you're descended to dogma.

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

Oh look another video. Flying Fish I don't want to sound patronising. But I work for the BBC and Reteurs and CNN, and Al Jazeera and APTN I know how context can be changed and you patronising telling me how the "world really is" is running

I hate to be rude but you've yet to provide any evidence of missile batteries...

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.

Yet you're disinterested in the opinion of someone trained in fire engineering, CivDef.

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???

So if I have this clear WTC7 is totally proven by the laws of physics you don't need to bother prove it? Flying Fish you really better pray that people with your sense of logic aren't on a jury for anything you could be tried with

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?

Do you dispute the diesel fuel? The power substation the unsual building structure?

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...

I look forward to your reply...

How does one spin on a razor? painfully I imagine....

Nick. You're right about missile defences for presidents. In fact every g8 summit since 2000 has had SAM defence in case of a potential Al Qaeida attack. Because Bush's visits are temporary and various locations no fly zones can be put in place and surface to air defences arranged, to secure the president the pentagon's flaw, which FF choises to ignore is that dozens of planes flew just past the pentagon every day

Flyingfish · 19-02-2007 8:57pm

civdef wrote:

Oh yeah, for anyone who hasn't been keeping up, NIST issued a project uodate in December:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf

For the record NIST are looking at the controlled demolition theory, even though there is no evidence of such. They are examining what would be involved to do it and if it is at all plausible.

Good scientific rigour etc.

An alternative take on that last part - worth a read regardless of ones chosen standpoint in the debate:

NIST WTC-7 Technical Approach and Status Summary
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id357.html#_ftnref5

Flyingfish · 19-02-2007 9:40pm

Diogenes wrote:

Um what?

But did I say I had evidence? No - as you correctly noted it was a reasonable assertion.

Diogenes wrote:

Again I linked to a CNN story. A statement by Richard Clarke a very senior member of the Bush administration who pointed out the failures of the Bush administration in the run up to 911 and using common sense the flight paths that intersect the pentagon.

CNN – Already rejected the source for reasons beaten to death by now
Richarcd Clarke - LOL - MR "we all failed you" CIA Clarke you mean!
Flight Paths – not disputed – hence no discussion – however isn't that where transponders come in?

This is what I said:

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! Consistent! "Some doing" means just that!

Diogenes wrote:

Actually you rejected anything the CNN say without offering any proof of what they say is false.

Now let's not drift back into that misquoting business again! Anything Military-related is what I clearly called out! But yes only what I know from my own research into the media is correct.

Diogenes wrote:

Okay fair enough. I accept your assumption. You assumed without any evidence that the penatgon always had missile defences. Its a reasonable assertion.

Agreed – I thought so – oh I still do as I don’t feel it’s been proven otherwise! Wow a momentous occasion - we actually agree on something!

Diogenes wrote:

Where you fall down however is when you point blank refute any evidence that rejects your assertion. You deny CNN's report because of an idealogical perpective not a rational one, you've no reason to dispute it, and had offered no reason just idealogly. You've ignored the statement of Richard Clarke and the logical argument of the proximity of the flight path. FF you're descended to dogma.

See above for first points. So you’re calling my characterisation of how the US Media-Military relationship works ideological dogma??? It’s very rational – nothing ideological about it – AND please stop repeating that BBC ****e. All I can say is do your own research on this and make up your own mind - seriously you work in the media - surely you know better? Are you sure you're not the one being ideological now???

Diogenes wrote:

Oh look another video. Flying Fish I don't want to sound patronising. But I work for the BBC and Reteurs and CNN, and Al Jazeera and APTN I know how context can be changed and you patronising telling me how the "world really is" is running

Did I miss something? What’s the problem with video? & If that’s the case with your employment… seriously you should know this yourself - I’m not trying to patronise anyone.

Diogenes wrote:

I hate to be rude but you've yet to provide any evidence of missile batteries...

Have you provided any “evidence” to the contrary? Think about the meaning of that word before you answer.

Diogenes wrote:

Yet you're disinterested in the opinion of someone trained in fire engineering, CivDef.

The opposite is true! Seriously!!!

Diogenes wrote:

So if I have this clear WTC7 is totally proven by the laws of physics you don't need to bother prove it? Flying Fish you really better pray that people with your sense of logic aren't on a jury for anything you could be tried with

And with your logic - I mean who would investigate the alternative hypothesis if I were being charged with a crime I didn't commit say? I'd be screwed!!!!

Diogenes wrote:

Do you dispute the diesel fuel? The power substation the unsual building structure?

Not at all - if fact I'm sure they were there - it's the “alleged” role these things played that I very much dispute!

Diogenes wrote:

How does one spin on a razor? painfully I imagine...

It's gotta hurt! BUT it might depend on which edge said spinning was done on - you know - the narrow one or the wide one!!! See alternative explanations ARE good!

Flyingfish · 19-02-2007 9:56pm

civdef wrote:

Remember, this one:

Hint: I'm not letting you off the hook on this one.

Was I ever ON a hook? I’m beholden to no one but myself

In relation to Oscar's previous post before that - couple of points...

Is it documented by anybody credible? Not that it has anything to do with the existence or otherwise of defence systems for which you've effectively admitted you haven't the first hint of a shred of evidence.

One word - google. In relation to the "evidence" issue please read the thread.

You miss my point. Let me ask the question directly: what qualifies you to understand anything an engineer could explain to you?

I'm a patent clerk

And yet, you're confident - in the absence of anything that remotely resembles a hint of a shred of evidence - that it was demolished. Allow me to anticipate your response by saying that "it looked like it" doesn't count as evidence, even if you had any qualification to judge by appearances, which you've yet to demonstrate that you have.

And your proof that they had MASSIVE DAMAGE or MASSIVE FIRES? Same thing - just ask NIST! The CD theory has signature characteristics and established precedent for said characteristics.

Whatever. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling at this stage

Unfounded! Can you justify that?

civdef · 19-02-2007 10:38pm

So are you still standing behind this statement or can we take it you admit it is unsupportable and are stepping away from it?

For a reminder:

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

Enquiring minds want to know.

Flyingfish · 19-02-2007 11:02pm

civdef wrote:

So are you still standing behind this statement or can we take it you admit it is unsupportable and are stepping away from it?

Enquiring minds want to know.

LOL really! Hey I've got to hand it you - that is funny - If “unsupportable” were a condition for stepping away from a statement around here- this thread would contain one post – and that includes yours.

Do I stand by my statement? Absolutely!
Will I produce calculations simply because you stamped your feet and demanded calculations? Of course not! You’re the “expert” around here…remember?

So you're free to distort the meaning of that, as you will - I've nothing to prove - especially not to you!

So now, the real question... using your much talked of "expertise" .(which I've NEVER claimed BTW)..are you going to prove the contrary theory with some calculations? You know... the theory with only A LOW PROBABILITY OF OCCURANCE according to your FEMA bible code!

Thought so!

bonkey · 19-02-2007 11:09pm

Which is it....a physical impossibiity, or a possible-but-low-probability-of-occurrence?

Also, you'll generally find that no-one puts FEMA as a "bible code". NISTs work is what is generally held as the standard, and NISTs work on WTC7 is still ongoing.

Finally, even if someone cannot prove an alternate theory does not make your assertion correct. You maintain its an impossibility - thus the onus is on you to back up that claim.

Flyingfish · 19-02-2007 11:13pm

bonkey wrote:

Which is it....a physical impossibiity, or a possible-but-low-probability-of-occurrence?

Also, you'll generally find that no-one puts FEMA as a "bible code". NISTs work is what is generally held as the standard, and NISTs work on WTC7 is still ongoing.

Finally, even if someone cannot prove an alternate theory does not make your assertion correct. You maintain its an impossibility - thus the onus is on you to back up that claim.

First point - physical impossibiity! What would you chose out of interest?

Second: Read!

NIST WTC-7 Technical Approach and Status Summary
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id357.html#_ftnref5

Third - No I think you'll find that disproving that very statement will be NIST's greatest trick and ultimately where they'll slip up beyond recovery!

Gordon · 19-02-2007 11:14pm

FlyingFish - your posts written in black are unreadable on the Cloud skin.

Flyingfish · 19-02-2007 11:17pm

Gordon wrote:

FlyingFish - your posts written in black are unreadable on the Cloud skin.

OK cheers - I'll switch to the simple editor!

bonkey · 19-02-2007 11:27pm

Flyingfish wrote:

Second: Read!

That has nothing to do with the point I made. People are supporting NISTs work. Referring to a "FEMA bible code" has nothing to do with what is being supported.

If you want to attack NISTs work, then refer to NISTs bible code, that's all.

Third - No I think you'll find that disproving that very statement will be NIST's greatest trick and ultimately where they'll slip up beyond recovery!

Wrong. In order to need to disprove that statement, there has to be a reason to believe it to be true in the first place. There is no such reason. What is true is that the building would not have fallen the way it did without the failure of key supports. Suggesting that there can be only one cause for said failure requires proof - proof you fail to offer.

NISTs job is to show why the supports failed. They should not start from a position which says "only controlled demolition could do this" no more than they should start from positions which say "only extreme temperatures could do this", "only extreme stress could cause this", or any other limiting factor without sufficient reason to show that this reason is a valid assertion.

Flyingfish · 20-02-2007 12:13am

bonkey wrote:

That has nothing to do with the point I made. People are supporting NISTs work. Referring to a "FEMA bible code" has nothing to do with what is being supported.

If you want to attack NISTs work, then refer to NISTs bible code, that's all.

Yeah… as you said “NISTs work is what is generally held as the standard, NIST's work is still ongoing”. And the article I linked to, relates to...?

bonkey wrote:

Wrong. In order to need to disprove that statement, there has to be a reason to believe it to be true in the first place. There is no such reason. [Emphasis mine] What is true is that the building would not have fallen the way it did without the failure of key supports. Suggesting that there can be only one cause for said failure requires proof - proof you fail to offer.

WTF?? Ok then... so what in your opinion would explain the FACT that NIST ARE currently investigating a Controlled Demolition of WTC7 if as you just "claimed" there is NO reason to believe it to be true in the first place? You do understand that that makes NO LOGICAL SENSE WHATSOEVER right??? Especially considering the high esteem in which you hold the work of NIST!

As Griffin logically noted:

The collapse of building 7 is even more difficult to explain than the collapse of the towers in part because it was not struck by an airliner, so none of the theories about how the impacts of the airliners contributed to the collapses of the towers can be employed in relation to it.

Also, all the photographic evidence suggests that the fires in this building were small, not very hot, and limited to a few floors. Photographs of the north side of the building show fires only on the 7th and 12th floors of this 47-floor building. So if the south side, which faced the towers, had fires on many other floors, as defenders of the official account claim, they were not big enough to be seen from the other side of the building.

It would not be surprising, of course, if the fires in this building were even smaller than those in the towers, because there was no jet fuel to get a big fire started. Some defenders of the official story have claimed, to be sure, that the diesel fuel stored in this building somehow caught fire and created a towering inferno. But if building 7 had become engulfed in flames, why did none of the many photographers and TV camera crews on the scene capture this sight?

The extreme difficulty of explaining the collapse of building 7—-assuming that it is not permissible to mention controlled demolition---has been recognized by the official bodies. The report prepared under FEMA’s supervision came up with a scenario employing the diesel fuel, then admitted that this scenario had “only a low probability of occurrence.” Even that statement is generous, because the probability that some version of the official story of building 7 is true is the same as it is for the towers, essentially zero, because it would violate several laws of physics. In any case, the 9/11 Commission, perhaps because of this admission by FEMA, avoided the problem by simply not even mentioning the fact that this building collapsed.

This was one of the Commission’s most amazing omissions. According to the official theory, building 7 demonstrated, contrary to the universal conviction prior to 9/11, that large steel-frame buildings could collapse from fire alone, even without having been hit by an airplane. This demonstration should have meant that building codes and insurance premiums for all steel-frame buildings in the world needed to be changed. And yet the 9/11 Commission, in preparing its 571-page report, did not devote a single sentence to this historic event.

Yet another reason why the collapse of building 7 is especially problematic is that it was even more like the best-known type of conventional demolition—-namely, an implosion, which begins at the bottom (whereas the collapse of each tower originated high up, near the region struck by the plane). As Eric Hufschmid has written:

Building 7 collapsed at its bottom. . . . [T]he interior fell first. . . . The result was a very tiny pile of rubble, with the outside of the building collapsing on top of the pile.

Implosion World.com, a website about the demolition industry, states that an implosion is “by far the trickiest type of explosive project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience . . . to perform these true building implosions." Can anyone really believe that fire would have just happened to produce the kind of collapse that can be reliably produced by only a few demolition companies in the world? The building had 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns. To hold that fire caused this building to collapse straight down would mean believing that the fire caused all 81 columns to fail at exactly the same time. To accept the official story is, in other words, to accept a miracle.

So we can take it that your running with "possible-but-low-probability-of-occurrence" hypothesis or "miracle" in other words? Is that fair to say or am I being disingenuous?

bonkey wrote:

NISTs job is to show why the supports failed. They should not start from a position which says "only controlled demolition could do this" no more than they should start from positions which say "only extreme temperatures could do this", "only extreme stress could cause this", or any other limiting factor without sufficient reason to show that this reason is a valid assertion.

Wrong. a controlled demolition hypothesis, while unthinkable and admittedly horrific, IS the most reasonable and logical hypothesis to begin with. This first however requires the authors of the NIST WTC7 report to adopt a truly scientific attitude and separate themselves from any notions or preconceptions of what they “believe” the US government "would or would not do" to it's own people.

As also noted:

Glanz (2001) wrote that “[e]xperts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.”

Therefore the order of the lead working "fire" hypothesis being adopted by NIST and the relegation of CD or “Blast Hypothesis” to the status of a secondary (or lower) hypothesis is biased and unscientific - unless of course you believe in miracles!

So...do you believe in miracles Bonkey?

Diogenes · 20-02-2007 1:48am

So if we have this clear you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support your claim the pentagon had missile defence.

[QUOTE=Flyingfish

WTF?? Ok then... so what in your opinion would explain the FACT that NIST ARE currently investigating a Controlled Demolition of WTC7 if as you just "claimed" there is NO reason to believe it to be true in the first place? You do understand that that makes NO LOGICAL SENSE WHATSOEVER right??? Especially considering the high esteem in which you hold the work of NIST!
[/quote]

Okay you understand that OscarBravo isn't the NIST, right? So there's nothing odd about him claiming there's no evidence of a CD while the NIST does investigate the claim.

As Griffin logically noted:

I have issue with the words Griffin and logically in the same sentence.

Also, all the photographic evidence suggests that the fires in this building were small, not very hot, and limited to a few floors. Photographs of the north side of the building show fires only on the 7th and 12th floors of this 47-floor building. So if the south side, which faced the towers, had fires on many other floors, as defenders of the official account claim, they were not big enough to be seen from the other side of the building.

As has been pointed out on this thread there are reports froms dozens of FDNY and NY emergency workers who report fires throughout the building. You've ignored photographic evidence of smoke billowing out the building and photos of the huge gash in the building.

So...do you believe in miracles Bonkey?

I think I'll let bonkey handle this.

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

Comments