Jim Corr is a legend for having the courage to present a completely alternative view

curiousn

Matt Cooper was reading out more comments from listeners today.

Matt said that a structural engineer from Cork wrote in to say that there's no way a skyscraper like that could be expected to withstand the impact of a large jet plan. From his engineering experience he dismissed the whole theory.

On this matter, a more important expert opinion is that of Frank A. DeMartini, Manager of WTC Construction, who built the towers. Here he is on camera (in January 2001) explaining that the towers were designed to take the impact of multiple aircraft strikes (jets larger than the one which actually hit them)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDGInaB0eQM

However, I've no doubt many listeners were swayed by the opinion of the structural engineer from Cork.

Ciaran500

curiousn wrote: »

On this matter, a more important expert opinion is that of Frank A. DeMartini, Manager of WTC Construction, who built the towers. Here he is on camera (in January 2001) explaining that the towers were designed to take the impact of multiple aircraft strikes (jets larger than the one which actually hit them)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDGInaB0eQM

http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2004/march/wtc.htm
Leslie Robinson designed his towers to withstand being hit by a 707. But the scenario of his design was very different from what happened on September 11th : He envisaged a 707 lost in fog looking for the airport, low on fuel at the end of its flight, with a pilot not daring to go faster than the stalling speed of 280 km per hour under such dangerous conditions.

Very different scenario to 911.

curiousn

Ciaran500, I take your point about speed and fuel on a single plane.

However each tower was designed to survive "multiple impacts"

Ciaran500

curiousn wrote: »

However each tower was designed to survive "multiple impacts"

Designed for one 707, in the video he said it "probably" could sustain multiple hits.

curiousn

Ciaran500,

yes or no, have you watched the full video 911 Mysteries?

Saint Ruth

curiousn wrote: »

Matt Cooper was reading out more comments from listeners today.

Matt said that a structural engineer from Cork wrote in to say that there's no way a skyscraper like that could be expected to withstand the impact of a large jet plan. From his engineering experience he dismissed the whole theory.
...
However, I've no doubt many listeners were swayed by the opinion of the structural engineer from Cork.

No. Someone who claimed to be a "structural engineer from Cork" (yeah, that city of skyscrapers) said that.

And yeah, I've no doubt that many stupid people were swayed by the opinion of someone they never met and whose credentials and experience they didn't validate...

Why? Because they WANT to believe...it's easy to persude someone who WANTS to believe what your saynig...as Lenin said, "Useful Idiots"...

Saint Ruth

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Dude. Pretext for the Invasion of two countries/unending war on terrorjism/ suspension of prisoners rights/torture(waterboarding, others?)/scaremongering/ extraordinary renditions/Guantanamo/Unknown Civilian casualties in both Iraq and Afghan (when did we stop caring about that now..) /wiretaps....surely more.

Yeah, so they do this and blame a country (Afganistan) with as a pretext to invade a country with nothing but sand and mountains??
Considering they were so expert in arranging this conspiracy, isn't it strange they didn't have Saddam as the bad guy instead of Binners?

I can see it now. Bush is there "You know what I'd like! Civilian casualties in Afghanistan! That'd be great!"

KERPAL

Saint Ruth wrote: »

Yeah, so they do this and blame a country (Afganistan) with as a pretext to invade a country with nothing but sand and mountains??
Considering they were so expert in arranging this conspiracy, isn't it strange they didn't have Saddam as the bad guy instead of Binners?

I can see it now. Bush is there "You know what I'd like! Civilian casualties in Afghanistan! That'd be great!"

Excellent point.

Ciaran500

curiousn wrote: »

Ciaran500,

yes or no, have you watched the full video 911 Mysteries?

Nope I've seen enough CT videos over the years to be sick of them, they never stand up to property scrutiny. They're very selective with the information they give you and make extraordinary claims with minimal evidence.

bonkey

curiousn wrote: »

However each tower was designed to survive "multiple impacts"

Both towers did withstand the impacts, which were at levels far greater than the buildings were (possibly) designed to handle.

No-one credible has ever claimed that impact alone caused the buildings to fail....and anyone involved in the design has only ever said that it was impact that the buildings were designed to withstand. In case you think they may have meant impact and resultant fires, I would point out that back then they didn't have the computer-power or the mathematical models to model the resultant fires, so its an absolute impossibility that they could have been designed to withstand them.

Hell, modelling the fires that did ensue took the most complex model of its type ever built, using more computer power than anyone had ever used in such modelling before.....so the suggestion that this level of analysis was done in the design over 40 years ago would be nothing short of lunatic.

Nick_oliveri

Saint Ruth wrote: »

Yeah, so they do this and blame a country (Afganistan) with as a pretext to invade a country with nothing but sand and mountains??
Considering they were so expert in arranging this conspiracy, isn't it strange they didn't have Saddam as the bad guy instead of Binners?

I can see it now. Bush is there "You know what I'd like! Civilian casualties in Afghanistan! That'd be great!"

Well, i may be taking your post wrong (ive only just got up!) but i never said anyone was expert in creating the conspiracy. Im just naming the benefits the administration has reaped "post 9/11" in response to KERPAL's post claiming the opposite.

Even the words "post 9/11" matter here. "Post 9/11" there was a large campaign of scaremongering in the media. Sky News joined in too.After repeating the videos of the day for two weeks straight, when it was deemed innapropriate that the media should continue showing these videos, it became a large terror scaremongering campaign.

They lapped it up claiming that there was more to come. A strike at any time any place. Terror alert orange. So much so that the word "terrorist" lost most of its meaning.

You dont have to be complicit in "teh conspiracy" to reap the benefits. Either way, complicit or not, its still disgraceful to reap the benefits. Like everyone owed them something. Remember when French Fries became Freedom Fries? A good example of the "With us or against us" Statement.

Iraq lacks steadfast motive, i myself cannot believe the Oil motive anymore. It doesnt make sense that they would dress up a dossier claiming there were mobile chemical weapons labs or even the British with thier 45 minute attack thing.

That was an International conspiracy against Iraq. Be Saddam a wanker (understatement? yes!) or not, he wasnt worth the death and carnage that ensued. Its amazing in this day and age that intellegence services can completly and utterly feck up everything, dress it up and get away with it. Meanwhile theres innocent people dying for this.

Excuse my spelling.

Kernel

Saint Ruth wrote: »

Yeah, so they do this and blame a country (Afganistan) with as a pretext to invade a country with nothing but sand and mountains??
Considering they were so expert in arranging this conspiracy, isn't it strange they didn't have Saddam as the bad guy instead of Binners?

I can see it now. Bush is there "You know what I'd like! Civilian casualties in Afghanistan! That'd be great!"

Well, apart from mountains and sand, they also have oil and huge gas reserves. not to mention an area of strategic importance.

http://english.people.com.cn/200610/12/eng20061012_311246.html

Why have Saddam as the bad guy, when you can have some shadowy lad who can't be located and whose 'organisation' cannot be defeated and thus provide a nice patsy for a long term agenda.

JJ6000

R0C0 wrote: »

Where did Al Qaeda come from? Who armed and funded them?

Are you asking me because you dont know?

Anyways, they were formed around 1989 as the soviets withdrew from afghanistan.
Who funded them?? I dont know.....
It was not the US however. THey may have funded the Mujahideen when Afgh was occupied by the soviets, but AQ never received a single cent from the US govt.
THey also did not arm AQ.....they armed the Mujahideen during the soviet occupation.

The Mujahideen are/were absolutley not the same thing as AQ so any argument that the US armed/funded AQ is totally redundant.

po0k

Sherifu wrote: »

Jim'll Fix It.

Post of the Month

BigglesMcGee

JJ6000 wrote: »

Why dont you refer to my response to this ridiculous post in the after hourse forum.

Your theory is ludicrous and has been proven to be absolutley false.

Conspiracy theorists rarely look into anything other than what will fit their theory. They see what they wnt to see.

Well said and completly true. Whats the link? id like to read it.

BigglesMcGee

Kernel wrote: »

The cheek to question?!? It's of utmost importance that people question. Or are we to blindly swallow the words of our leaders? :rolleyes: As for the benefits, it's already been answered by Nick.

And, +1, Jim is a legend. Might wake up a few more people.

No, we are to blindly follow the words on youtube

Kernel

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

No, we are to blindly follow the words on youtube

Blindly follow anything at your own peril.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.

wise words, relevant too.

grenache

Jim Corr was only saying what a lot of people already believe to be true - that 9/11 was the biggest cover-up in history. Very little of the US governments ''official findings'' makes sense. How on earth could anyone ever believe a word that is spouted by the Bush administration and previous American admins....the very people who claim to defend democracy and freedom and yet fully backed muderous tyrants such as Pinochet and Batista.

The only conspiracy theory is the US Governments pathetic explanation of the events on 9/11!

bonkey

grenache wrote: »

Very little of the US governments ''official findings'' makes sense.

Tell you what...lets put this to the test.

Pick one thing in the official findings that doesn't make sense. Don't post a list of your top 10. Don't post a link to some video.

Pick one thing that you are absolutely, positively certain does not make sense.

If you want to, explain why it makes no sense. If you don't want to go to that effort...that's fine, too. The important thing is that you post something that you are 100% certain cannot be sensibly explained and that you limit yourself to one thing.

I'm willing to bet here and now that no matter what you post, it will either turn out to be an inaccurate statement, or there will be a sensible explanation for it (although I accept that you mightn't accept that explanation). That, or that you will be unable to pick one thing, or you won't take up the challenge at all.

The only conspiracy theory is the US Governments pathetic explanation of the events on 9/11!

Yes, yes. People have been saying that since before there was an explanation.

Seriously...just one thing. It can't be that hard.

MCMLXXXIII

OoooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhMyGosh this is ridiculous. What's done is done, and there's nothing we can do even if it is proven that the US government "did it." No, it's not cool, it wasn't smart for whoever did it, and it has taken up way too much time, energy, and money which no one can afford.

Funding a war does no stimulate the economy like it used to...
If the US wanted partiotism, the war certainly wasn't the way to get it...
If AQ really wants what the media is saying he wants, he got it...

Supposedly, AQ and his people just wanted to destroy the way of life for all westernised countries.
Done.
It's much harder for anyone to fly anywhere. It is more expensive to do anything - oil prices control everything else. If it costs more to transport, it becomes more expensive. Mid-East-based religions are becoming recognised as a "real" organization. People are afraid of AQ and his gang. Not many people trust the US government anymore.
My arguement in 2001 was that if the "Terrorists" really wanted to kill a lot of people, they would have hit the buildings after everyone was at work, or they would have hit a football stadium and killed 80,000+ at once, etc. Now I see, that instead of one quick kill, they are getting a prolonged war, that they are winning, that kills off soldiers one at a time, making other nations send their 20-somethings to war, some dying, and mourning over them for 7 years (so far).
AQ is getting everything he wants. Everyone else is suffering. People don't even realize what is going to happen in the long run. The war has been funded by the US on credit. No one has been paid. What is going to happen when Lockhead, Boeing, BAE, EADS, etc. need the money? As of year end 2007, each US family would need to pay almost $17,000 - and that number is still going up. And let's face it, if the US market goes down, it will take a lot of other markets with it.


On a separate note:
Weapons of mass destruction? Of course they have them. Why wouldn't they? Why would you NOT want a nuke? You need to protect yourself.
As far as what we know they have - who cares? In the 9/11 case, a jetliner was used as a weapon of mass destruction. Sure, atom bombs are much more destructive, but the airplane worked as far as they are concerned.
Now what do we do?

R0C0

bonkey wrote: »

Pick one thing that you are absolutely, positively certain does not make sense.

WTC7. Only steel structured building in history to fall due to fire. It insults the intelligence of a child to suggest a couple of burning desks would sink a 47 storey building to the ground. It sustained considerably less damage than all other WTC buildings. Also, of great concern, is how the collapse of a 47 storey sky scraper can be completely ommited from the largest crime investigation in history? Either these were the worst investigators of all time, or WTC7 was purposely ommitted to keep it quiet.

Kernel

bonkey wrote: »

I'm willing to bet here and now that no matter what you post, it will either turn out to be an inaccurate statement, or there will be a sensible explanation for it (although I accept that you mightn't accept that explanation). That, or that you will be unable to pick one thing, or you won't take up the challenge at all.

.. The caveat is that your sensible explanation will be the official explanation, regardless of how much less probable it is than the posters belief. Anyway, why post anything, since it is impossible to prove anything by your rules. If I apply the same rules as you, and say moonpigs came down and blew the towers down, then if you disagree with me I've proved my point? huh?

We've countless times posted our beliefs, and our evidence, you'll never accept them, we don't find the 'official' explanation to be a compelling or believable argument - therefore it is pointless to try anymore - hence I spend more time on the philosophy of the debate than the semantics.

Kernel

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

Weapons of mass destruction? Of course they have them. Why wouldn't they? Why would you NOT want a nuke? You need to protect yourself.
As far as what we know they have - who cares? In the 9/11 case, a jetliner was used as a weapon of mass destruction. Sure, atom bombs are much more destructive, but the airplane worked as far as they are concerned.
Now what do we do?

Jaysus, Ireland must be next to be invaded and liberated so, since we have stockpiled weapons of mass destruction through Aer Lingus and Ryanair...... Ah well, I guess that Corrib gas pipeline won't be a problem any longer.

Kernel

Mordances with the proletariat wrote: »

keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.

wise words, relevant too.

Yes - illegal drugs are bad. Hence I don't do them.

bonkey

R0C0 wrote: »

WTC7. Only steel structured building in history to fall due to fire.

False.

Firstly, WTC 1 and 2 fell before it, and they were steel structured buildings....but that would be nit-picking.

Secondly, many steel-structured buildings have collapsed. Off the top of my head, the Kader Toy Factory is one. It may be true to say that no high-rise steel structure has ever suffered complete failure due to fire prior to September 11, 2001. Of course, that would remain true as of September 12, 2001. Neither WTC 1, 2 nor 7 collapsed purely due to fire. Indeed, I believe it may still hold true as of today ... that no high-rise steel-framed building has suffered complete collapse purely due to fire.

Thirdly, in many composite-structure buildings, the steel-structure part has collapsed, where the more conventional reinforced concrete has remained standing. The Windsor Tower in Madrid is the most oft-quoted example.

Fourthly, if you still think its unreasonable that steel-structures could fail from fire, why do you think its mandated that the steel be fire-proofed in pretty-much every building code in the developed world?

Fifthly, we can just as easily say that no steel-framed building has withstood the structural damage and resultant fires from being hit at high speed from an almost-fully-laden passenger jet, nor has any building with a construction comparable to that of WTC 7 withstood the structural damage from nearby-collapsing 110-storey buildings and the resultant fires.

It insults the intelligence of a child to suggest a couple of burning desks would sink a 47 storey building to the ground.

Just as well that no-one is suggesting that, then. I certainly amn't. NIST certainly aren't.

As I predicted, your claim is inaccurate.

For those who are not familiar with it, I should point out that FEMA make a similar inaccurate claim in their official findings. In their defence would point out that this claim was part of the reason that they commissioned NIST to do a detailed investigation to determine the causes. Thus, it would seem unreasonable to say that the official findings make no sense in this regard, when they firstly acknowledged the point (even, as I said, if it is faulty) and secondly took appropriate measures to investigate further as a result.

Also, of great concern, is how the collapse of a 47 storey sky scraper can be completely ommited from the largest crime investigation in history?

If we ignore, for a moment, the still-ongoing investigation into said collapse....why, exactly is it of great concern?

If we don't ignore said ongoing investigation, then I'd have to ask why you think an ongoing investigation constitutes not investigating.

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

.. The caveat is that your sensible explanation will be the official explanation, regardless of how much less probable it is than the posters belief.

I would have done that, had he managed to pick a point which was part of the official investigations findings. Instead, I was presented with an inaccurate, false claim that wasn't part of the official findings....so it would difficult to limit myself to explaining how the official findings answered it.

I would additionally point out that despite stressing that the poster choose one thing, they seemed to have difficulty understanding that this didn't mean posting more than one issue. This is why I gave the second of the just-one-item that I asked for such a short answer.

Anyway, why post anything, since it is impossible to prove anything by your rules.

"My rules", as you call them, are based on the scientific method.

If you understand how that works, then you know how to play by - and win with - my rules. If you don't how that works, then this has significant implications on any assessment of scientific work that you engage in....which would be the bulk of the "official findings" that I have defended on this forum over the duration that we've been discussing the topic.

If I apply the same rules as you, and say moonpigs came down and blew the towers down, then if you disagree with me I've proved my point? huh?

I'd ask for your evidence. I'd ask for what falsifiable testing you've performed to validate your model. I'd ask that you detail your theory, and then check for consistency with observed fact, as well as with established scientific theory.

Either which way, you wouldn't have proved anything. You've neither proven that you understand "my" rules, nor that you do not. You have, however, suggested that its more likely to be the latter.

We've countless times posted our beliefs, and our evidence, you'll never accept them,

I don't accept some of your evidence because its flawed, speculative, or both.
I don't accept the relevance of some of your evidence because there is no demonstration that its significant.

But you know what...for me, its not about whether or not I accept it. Its about whether or not I can get you to refine your argument to give me something new to think about, and its about making sure the interested third party - the "lurker" reading our to and fro - gets to hear the best case that both sides can make.

we don't find the 'official' explanation to be a compelling or believable argument

You're perfectly entitled to. When you try to argue that this belief is logical and therefore sustainable in the fact of scrutiny, however, then you cannot complain when someone holds it up to scrutiny.

Time and time and time again, you and others make your claims anew somewhere else...but then seem to act aggrieved or set upon when I use the exact same entitlement and voice my opinion in the same place.

If its useless discussing it, then why do you and others keep re-engaging in new discussions? Why do you keep trying to offer your perspective in new places?

Its as if there's an implicit suggestion that its ok for you to tell people what rubbish it all is, but its unreasonable for me to offer my perspective to the same people. Sure...you know you disagree with me, and I know I disagree with you...but that doesn't mean either of us should give the other free reign in voicing their opinion to interested third parties.

You'll notice, though, that I don't go around starting threads trying to convince people that the Conspiracy Theories are all hooey. All I do is take the stance that if someone wants to start making similar claims about the official accounting of events, that a differing opinion is offered in the name of balance. And then...all of a sudden...there's no point discussing any more.

Can you explain that? Can you explain why its interesting to offer a one-sided perspective to someone else, but not worthwhile helping that person see both sides of the argument? I certainly can't, which is why I encourage discussion, rather than people simply posting links to videos with proclamations that one should watch it to learn the truth.

Do you even see the irony in that? You, and others like you, complain about people being fed what to believe...and yet despite being willing to offer your collective opinions when the opportunity arises, you collectively appear all too willing to shy away from the situation where both sides get to present their argument! If I were more cynical, I could probably convince myself that you believe that feeding people one perspective is perfectly fine...as long as its yours.

curiousn

bonkey wrote: »

Tell you what...lets put this to the test.

Pick one thing in the official findings that doesn't make sense.

Seriously...just one thing. It can't be that hard.

You've asked for findings that don't "make sense" but I think you mean findings which aren't easily refuted by official NIST data.

This "just one thing" of irrefutable evidence you're looking for may not exist in the offical NIST data which seems to be acting as the benchmark against which all evidence has to be compared (according to defenders of the offical view).

bonkey wrote: »

"My rules", as you call them, are based on the scientific method.

If you understand how that works, then you know how to play by - and win with - my rules. If you don't how that works, then this has significant implications on any assessment of scientific work that you engage in....which would be the bulk of the "official findings" that I have defended on this forum over the duration that we've been discussing the topic.

Do you think that if NIST came across damning evidence during their research that the Bush administration would allow them to publish it? Please don't try and claim that nobody from the CIA would have been able to influence it in any way. It's not all that difficult to ignore something in a report or misrepresent something else to report the finding you want. How many times have pharmacteuticals been proven safe in "scientific double blind studies" only for them to be withdrawn from the market after a couple of years.
I'm not saying that the NIST investigation was influenced, but I've no doubt that they could have been. For this reason I don't necessarily trust their findings.

We may never have the irrefutable, scientific evidence you claim you need and for this reason I don't think you'll ever change your point of view. That's fine. I respect that you've taken the time to actually look into the matter instead of just dismissing the whole notion. (Although you share a different viewpoint, I'm not going to call you a looney or hurl insults)

However an agrument doesn't always need to have a supposed solid irrefutable scientific fact to back it up for it to be true. If a legal case doesn't have DNA evidence to prove someone was guilty it doesn't mean that they didn't do it, but if there's enough other evidence the court can find the guilty beyond reasonable doubt. With anything to do with NWO or 911 this is the territory we operate in. You're never going to find a signed document from Dick Cheney confessing to letting the attack happen. This evidence may never exist and we've got to rely on people without access to the best data (ground zero) trying to put pieces of the puzzle together (and invariably getting it wrong sometimes). This is why we have the top ten lists etc.. you dislike.

Personally I'm not convinced that the towers were destroyed with explosives and I don't want the bigger picture argument to be only focused on exactly how the towers fell (although I do think the attack was allowed to happen, whether they were destroyed by explosives or allowed to be destroyed by someone else achieves the same end)

I agree that some videos (which happen to be posted on youtube) can contain some misleading information with weak arguments.
There is a lot of misinformation out there (missile into Pentagon etc) which means that as soon as someone can show it's not true it means to them that there is no NWO and that the administration didn't let the attacks happen.

However, there is a lot of serious circumstantial evidence, when taken as a whole, and ignoring theories proven to be untrue, create what many people (although not you) consider to be a substantial argument worthy of further investigation:

=> The failure to follow standard operating procedures
=> Suppressed warnings,
=> Blocked investigations
=> Bush reading "the Pet Goat" instead of being Commander-in-Chief
the Air Force failure to intercept hijacked jets
=> Flight 77 (not a missile) hit - the nearly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector. (nice coincidence it hit the almost empty area)
=> Why the air defenses did not protect the Pentagon (which should be one of the most well defended buildings in the world), even after the towers had been hit
=> Efforts by FBI management to interfere with FBI investigations into the flight schools.
=> Put Options that bet on the stock values of American and United airlines in the days before the attacks (betting the prices would drop).

I don't expect to ever have the irrefutable scientific facts you demand, but this accumulation of circumstantial evidence shows that there needs to be investigation as to why this attack was allowed to happen.

superweld

bonkey wrote: »

False.

Firstly, WTC 1 and 2 fell before it, and they were steel structured buildings....but that would be nit-picking.

no you are wrong here. WTC 1 and 2 APPARENTLY fell from the combination of the impact of two planes followed by fire. NO PLANE hit WTC7 so it fell from fire alone which was his point. nice twist though

superweld

bonkey wrote: »

False.


Fourthly, if you still think its unreasonable that steel-structures could fail from fire, why do you think its mandated that the steel be fire-proofed in pretty-much every building code in the developed world?

Fifthly, we can just as easily say that no steel-framed building has withstood the structural damage and resultant fires from being hit at high speed from an almost-fully-laden passenger jet, nor has any building with a construction comparable to that of WTC 7 withstood the structural damage from nearby-collapsing 110-storey buildings and the resultant fires.

well it's obviously better to be safe then sorry, hence the fire proofing.

yes WTC7 had a nearby collapsing building but so did buildings immediately around the twin towers (3,4,5,6 not sure the no.'s) and there steel structures remained intact. WTC7 wasn't immediately around the towers and somehow managed to fall into it's basement like the towers. convenient eh.


i honestly don't know what happened but something is definitely not adding up so i'm not trying to nit pick you bonkey just keeping my curiousity alive