Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Jim Corr is a legend for having the courage to present a completely alternative view
Options
Comments
-
True - I phrased my reply badly. It should have been framed in the context of accepting a challenge, whereupon he is required to offer any evidence he has for you to refute.You'd be wasting your time. I won't take him up on this because he's offered nothing to refute.
I have no more inclination to prove that there isn't a teacup orbiting Pluto than I have to try and disprove that I'm some sort of shill.
For those who don't get the reference...one should only ever try and disprove the existence or truth of something where an argument has been offered to establish said existence or truth.
JIMSTARK has offered no proof, no argument, no reasoning. He's offered an empty claim, and until he's willing to put his reasoning up for scrutiny, it deserves no more than simple dismissal.
Trying to refute claims is a fools game. Refuting arguments is worthwhile, but JIMSTARK has offered none.
To be honest, OB, I'm surprised you fell for that one.
That said, I'm a little slow on the uptake this week, and hadn't decked at that stage that we were dealing with yet another tedious reincarnation of casey212, and as such the whole idea of rational discussion was utterly moot.0 -
Having just posted a chunk of replies both here and on AH today, I find myself in a position where I have to bow out for a few days for personal reasons.
If anyone wants, I'll pick up where I left off when I can come back.0 -
Yeah fair play to him, would of been better if he had left the 911 stuff out of it though, leave that one to the yankies
0 -
Whether you read what I posted about Chomsky's low opinion of 911 conspiracy theories is up to you, as well.
Thanks?????
Chomsky's stance on 9/11 is irrelevant to what I was trying to show you. Can you really not see that??
I suggested Chomsky's book because it gives a really good analysis of America's War-mongering Foreign policy.0 -
Thanks?????
Chomsky's stance on 9/11 is irrelevant to what I was trying to show you. Can you really not see that??
No it's completely and utterly relevant. You're saying that Chomsky's opinion and insight into American politics and power until he strays on the subject of 911, and denounces conspiracy theories about the attack.
Essentially you're saying I should listen to Chomsky until he contradicts you.I suggested Chomsky's book because it gives a really good analysis of America's War-mongering Foreign policy.
Does it mention any new "false flags" aside from the ones already listed?0 -
Advertisement
-
Essentially you're saying I should listen to Chomsky until he contradicts you.
Where do I say that exactly??? I never said you shouldn't listen to his points on 9/11. I obviously disagree with him about 9/11, that doesn't invalidate his work on American foreign policy.
Diogenes, if you only acknowledge the work of people with whom you agree with everything on, then how do you ever expect to get the full story on anything? You'll only ever be getting one side. Thats a form of groupthink.
Yes. Hence me recommending you read it.Does it mention any new "false flags" aside from the ones already listed?0 -
so when it suits you, noam chomsky is a fine scholar who's work should be heeded.. but when he disagrees with you, he's just another part of the machine that's keeping the truth hidden?0
-
Mordances with the proletariat wrote: »so when it suits you, noam chomsky is a fine scholar who's work should be heeded.. but when he disagrees with you, he's just another part of the machine that's keeping the truth hidden?
Mordances with the proletariat, read my last post.
Does the fact I disagree with Chomsky on 9/11 negate the facts on American Foreign policy in his book?? No. It doesn't.
Do you only learn from people with whom you agree with completely on every topic??0 -
Bonkey/diogeness
explain this away
(posted in BOTH Threads just in case ya mised one)0 -
Explain what? What does that photo purport to represent?0
-
Advertisement
-
Mordances with the proletariat, read my last post.
Does the fact I disagree with Chomsky on 9/11 negate the facts on American Foreign policy in his book?? No. It doesn't.
Er yes it does. See if Chomsky was discussing the merits of the Red Sox V the White Sox, or the best receipe for blueberry pancakes, you'd have a point.
But you're essentially saying Chomsky is an authority on "false flag" terrorists attacks and US foreign policy, except in the case of 9/11 where he explicitly says he doesn't believe it was a false flag attack. At which point you announce his opinion as "irrelevant".
This is your cake R0C0. Would you like to eat your cake or have your cake?Do you only learn from people with whom you agree with completely on every topic??
Its not every topic, its this specific topic. You seem happy to cite Chomsky until he disagrees with you this specific matter.Mahatma Coat wrote:Bonkey/diogeness
explain this away
Oh dear fecking God.
Hey Mahatma do you know at what point was this photo taken? Can you verify that fact.
We know that the steel was cut during the rescue/clean up, how do you know this was not cut then?
Also you do release thermite/thermate whatever doesn't cut diagonally it burns vertically down, so aside from the logical assumption that the steel was cut using mechanical cutters during the clean up what alternative explanation do you offer for this picture?0 -
Hey Mahatma do you know at what point was this photo taken? Can you verify that fact.
We know that the steel was cut during the rescue/clean up, how do you know this was not cut then?
Also you do release thermite/thermate whatever doesn't cut diagonally it burns vertically down, so aside from the logical assumption that the steel was cut using mechanical cutters during the clean up what alternative explanation do you offer for this picture?
For once I happen to agree with you on the analysis of the photo, unless evidence suggested that it was taken before clean-up operations commenced, then it's more likely to be the result of torches. Near freefall speed of the building, visible squib explosions on floors below the collapse and possible thermite flowing from the building are still not adequately explained however.0 -
Er yes it does. See if Chomsky was discussing the merits of the Red Sox V the White Sox, or the best receipe for blueberry pancakes, you'd have a point.
But you're essentially saying Chomsky is an authority on "false flag" terrorists attacks and US foreign policy, except in the case of 9/11 where he explicitly says he doesn't believe it was a false flag attack. At which point you announce his opinion as "irrelevant".
His opinion on 9/11 IS irrelevant to what I was trying to show you.
I never said ignore his opinion did I? Just I believe he's wrong when it comes to 9/11!
I don't know how clearer to make this.. I was talking about America's history of war mongering and False Flags. I never said to ignore Chomsky's opinion on 9/11, just I disagree with him on 9/11, that does not mean the man is wrong about everything.
Ok, I'll put it like this, you clearly disagree with me on 9/11, I say the sky is blue. Does the fact you disagree with me on 9/11 make the sky any less blue??
I disagree with Chomsky on 9/11. In his book he presents facts about American foreign policy. Does the fact I disagree with him on 9/11 make the facts in his book any less fact??0 -
so aside from the logical assumption that the steel was cut using mechanical cutters during the clean up what alternative explanation do you offer for this picture?
Actually, given the slag running down from the cut and the relative "cleanness" of the cut, I would argue that the logical assumption would be that it was cut with a torch, not a mechanical cutters.
You are fully correct, though, in pointing out that without provenance, the picture is worthless even if it had the signature of a therm*te cut.0 -
The point I think you're referring to is the fact that the United States does not have full-coverage primary radar.
Right off the bat you resort to a logical fallacy, yet again, by begging the question. Just because you claim something to be a fact doesn't make it so...There are areas of the US where ATC monitor airtraffic only via responder-coverage. This is, I believe, as true today as it was in 2001.
Well just because you believe something doesn't make it true.When flight 77 was initially hijacked (it was not the first plane to be hijacked), its transponder was turned off. From the perspective of the local ATC, the plane disappeared. There was no primary radar to find it, and its transponder (i.e. secondary radar coverage) was not giving a signal.
Well apparently that was simply not true...
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a856flight77lost#a856flight77lostApparently, a radar tower in West Virginia doesn’t have primary radar. [Washington Post, 11/3/2001] But the 9/11 Commission notes that other centers had primary radars that covered the missing areas, yet they weren’t asked to do a primary radar search.
As for flight 77, if you read that link you will find that radar contact was lost at 8:56am. According to this official NORAD timeline they claim that they weren't even notified until 9:24am.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030806181427/www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20020603/images/aw49a.jpg
According to NORAD's timeline the FAA reported errant airliners after inexplicable delays.* The FAA took 23 minutes to report Flight 11's loss of communication and deviation from its flight plan.
* The FAA took 28 minutes to report Flight 77's deviation from its flight plan.
* Despite the fact that Flights 11 and 175 were headed for New York City, no interceptors were scrambled from nearby La Guardia, or from Langley, Virginia.
* Despite NORAD's having received formal notification of the first hijacking at 8:38, no interceptors were scrambled from Andrews to protect the nearby
Pentagon until after it was hit at 9:37.It is also worth noting that - at least up until September 2001, the US military did not routinely watch the skies inside the borders of the continental United States.
Yet again you resort to a logical fallacy, as these claims that you are making have no evidence to back them up.This is to be expected. Over any large American city, there will always be a number of news helicopters in the air.
The baseless claims continue, but are getting even more ridiculous now.
I forgot that you don't have to back up any of these claims, as your are arguing from a position of incredulity.Firstly, this is inaccurate. The first tower was struck at approximately 08:46. The second, at 09:02. NORAD's official statement had them 8 minutes away when the second tower was struck. That would put it 22 minutes away from when the first tower was struck.
If you actually examined their official timeline in detail, then perhaps you would realise that their claims are based on the scrambled fighter jets being flown at a ridiculously low speed.
The F-15 is capable of speeds of over 1600mph, yet when airborne at 8:52am they apparently were unable to make the 153 miles to NY in 11 minutes, before the south tower was hit.
If they were close to top speed, which was only to be expected in the situation, then they would have made it in 6 minutes.Which story? The lack of primary radar coverage? The response times? The sequence of events, in general? I've found as many seperate sources as I can to corroborate the various claims, yes.
The problem is that many of the various claims contradict each other. I have already highlighted a few, but here is another incredibly strange claim.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a1007clevelandupdate#a1007clevelandupdateBy the Commission’s account, this is NORAD’s first notification about the Flight 93 hijacking, even though Cleveland realized Flight 93 was hijacked at 9:32 a.m., 35 minutes earlier, and notified FAA headquarters at 9:34 a.m., 33 minutes earlier. A former senior FAA executive, speaking on condition of anonymity, will later try to explain this failure, saying, “Our whole procedures prior to 9/11 were that you turned everything [regarding a hijacking] over to the FBI.” [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004; Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006] However, military instructions contradict this, saying, “In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA.” (The NMCC is the National Military Command Center, located within the Pentagon.)
While according to the official timeline notification of flight 93 being hijacked is not available.“Forty-five minutes. That’s how long American Airlines Flight 77 meandered through the air headed for the White House, its flight plan abandoned, its radar beacon silent… Who was watching in those 45 minutes? ‘That’s a question that more and more people are going to ask,’ said one controller in Miami. ‘What the hell went on here? Was anyone doing anything about it? Just as a national defense thing, how are they able to fly around and no one go after them?’” [Miami Herald, 9/14/2001] In the year after this article and a similar one in the Village Voice [Village Voice, 9/13/2001] , there will be only one other US article questioning slow fighter response times, and that article notes the strange lack of articles on the topic.
There is incredibly no debate anywhere, despite all the problems with the official story.It has not been proven that they lied. I think you may be mistaking "being incorrect" with "lying".
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=radar&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go#a0900airsurveillanceIt is reported that the US Secret Service is using an “air surveillance system” called Tigerwall. This serves to “ensure enhanced physical security at a high-value asset location by providing early warning of airborne threats.” Tigerwall “provides the Secret Service with a geographic display of aircraft activity and provides security personnel long-range camera systems to classify and identify aircraft. Sensor data from several sources are fused to provide a unified sensor display.” [US Department of Defense, 2000; US Department of the Navy, 9/2000, pp. 28 pdf file] Among its responsibilities, the Secret Service protects America’s highest elected officials, including the president and vice president, and also provides security for the White House complex. [US Congress, 5/1/2003] Its largest field office with over 200 employees is in New York, in Building 7 of the World Trade Center.As well as Tigerwall, the Secret Service appears to have other air surveillance capabilities. Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke will describe that on 9/11, the Secret Service had “a system that allowed them to see what FAA’s radar was seeing.” [Clarke, 2004, pp. 7] Barbara Riggs, a future deputy director of the Secret Service who is in its Washington, DC headquarters on 9/11, will describe the Secret Service “monitoring radar” during the attacks.
Do you still claim that there is no evidence?You, for example, have changed you mind on which parts of the various conspiracy theories you believe to be true over the time we've discussed the topic. Does this mean that previously, you were lying? Or does it mean that you may have believed something to be correct, only to find further evidence which made you question it, and ultimately change you belief on what is true?
I always question what I believe and am open minded, which is in direct contrast to many people on here (from both sides) who are firmly entrenched in their views/beliefs.
Very few people really seek knowledge in this world, few really ask. Instead they try to wring from the unknown the answers they have already shaped in their own minds - justifications, confirmations, forms of consolation without which they can't go on. To really ask is to open the door to a whirlwind. The answer may annihilate the question and the questioner.0 -
I'm pretty certain that someone is going to accuse me of being condescending here, but...
There is no logical fallacy in me asserting that something is a fact. It is an assertion, not a logical construct. It cannot be a logical fallacy. It can be correct (i.e. true), or incorrect (i.e. false), but it is not logically flawed either which way.Right off the bat you resort to a logical fallacy, yet again, by begging the question.Just because you claim something to be a fact doesn't make it so...
Correct. Just because I claim something to be a fact certainly does not make it so. Just because you claim something doesn't make it so either...as we've just seen with your misuse of the term "logical fallacy".
However, I would point out that what I have asserted is a negative - I have said that something does not exist. I can't prove this...it is logically impossible to prove the non-existence of something. The notion that I could prove it would be a logical fallacy, as logic cannot prove non-existence.
I could show you a map of Primary coverage, and you can just say "but where's the proof that its missing where this map says it is". If you and I flew every square inch of US airspace together, and could detect where we were and were not being "hit" with rader, you could ask "but how can you prove they didn't just turn it off" or state "but you can't prove that your detection method is perfect".
To suggest that my claim is somehow suspect because I have not proven it...that is an example of a logical fallacy.
The content in that link clarifies that there was no primary coverage from the preferred radar source, poor coverage from the backup, and that additional radar coverage covering the area wasn't available in realtime to the relevant people.Well apparently that was simply not true...
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a856flight77lost#a856flight77lost
So, basically, it agrees that there were holes in the primary coverage.
Why are those delays inexplicable, tunaman? Do you believe they are atypically long, compared to the usual timeframes with which NORAD are contacted? Can you give an example of a single case where there was a shorter timeframe?As for flight 77, if you read that link you will find that radar contact was lost at 8:56am.
According to this official NORAD timeline they claim that they weren't even notified until 9:24am.
...
According to NORAD's timeline the FAA reported errant airliners after inexplicable delays.
They are inexplicable if the normal contact times are much shorter. Can you show that they are? I'm not asking for you to remind us that you've linked to an interview from someone claiming that they are....I'm asking you to cite a single, on-the-record, comparable case where the response times are demonstrably faster.
Alternately, a detailed analysis of those 28 minutes, looking at who was contacted when, and showing where an inexcusable delay occurred would be good. Are you aware, for example, that after 6 minutes the first calls were made regarding flight 77? Can you show that 6 minutes is an inexcusably long time for an air-traffic-control station to note that a plane disappeared, attempt to contact it, attempt to find it on primary radar, and conclude that its not there? Do you know who those first calls were to? Can you explain why they were not the right calls to make without applying the benefit of hindsight?
You offer these criticisms of me "just making claims", but I'm not just making claims...I'm giving a summation of one of the most detailed, publicised accounts of any disaster there has ever been. You, on the other hand, are making claims about things being "inexplicable", but aren't offering any details. You compress the entire set of events from when the transponder went off to when NORAD was contacted into a single "unit" and argue that its inexplicable, but don't address the detail of those 28 minutes at all. Why is that? Why do you argue that my arguments are fatally flawed because I don't supply detail, but you get to leave it out at will?
No, tunaman. Again, you are demonstrating that you don't understand what a logical fallacy is. The only logical fallacy here is the suggestion that I can supply evidence to show the absence of something.Yet again you resort to a logical fallacy, as these claims that you are making have no evidence to back them up.
The military is on record saying that their systems are outward looking, that they do not closely monitor the skies over continental United States. You are questioning that claim, and my acceptance of it. The onus on you is to show that they are lying, and that my acceptance of their statement is misplaced.
Why do you assume my claims are baseless? Why don't you ask me for the evidence on which I base them instead?The baseless claims continue, but are getting even more ridiculous now.
I forgot that you don't have to back up any of these claims, as your are arguing from a position of incredulity.
I mean...seriously...you criticise me that my posts are too long, then you criticise me for not offering every scrap of detail behind every claim that I make whilst claiming that I don't have detail to offer. Thats hardly an honest argument, now is it? Wouldn't it be more honest to ask me what basis I have to make my claim before arguing that I'm just making it up?
As it happens, the basis on which I made my claim is simple...over a large city like New York, there will be news helicopters in the air performing functions like "eye in the sky" traffic reports. If you've ever watched American news coverage, you'd also know that they typically equip those helicopters with cameras, so that if something newsworthy occurs, they have the ability to get the footage fast and first. If a major news event occurs, like a major explosion at the twin towers...what would you do as a news director? Would you tell your choppers to stay watching traffic, or would you tell them to get their @ss to downtown Manhattan as fast as they possibly can? If you didn't have a chopper in the air...how long would you consider it reasonable to take to get one there? Remember...its a ratings game...once some other station has coverage before you, its costing you viewer numbers and therefore money.
There's nothing ridiculously low-speed about it. Yes, the fighters in question are capable of those speeds. Now...would you care to tell us how long they can sustain it for? Can you show that they knew (or should have known) they only had 11 minutes? Can you even show that the people who scrambled those planes were aware of the first plane impacting the towers 6 minutes previously? Were they the same people? If not, were they in contact? If you've looked at the details, you should know the answers to these questions.If you actually examined their official timeline in detail, then perhaps you would realise that their claims are based on the scrambled fighter jets being flown at a ridiculously low speed.
The F-15 is capable of speeds of over 1600mph, yet when airborne at 8:52am they apparently were unable to make the 153 miles to NY in 11 minutes, before the south tower was hit
Why was it "only to be expected"? Using only the information available at 8:52am, September 21, 2001, to the military authority directing those jets...explain to me how it was "only to be expected".If they were close to top speed, which was only to be expected in the situation, then they would have made it in 6 minutes.
This type of behaviour is one of the reasons I set a challenge for people to give one and only one thing they found inexplicable. It was to force any response to stay on topic and discuss the detail.f the various claims contradict each other. I have already highlighted a few, but here is another incredibly strange claim.
I get criticised for not offering enough detail on some of what I respond to, I get criticised for offering too much detail on what I respond to, and I get criticised for not responding to stuff.
Meanwhile, you steadfastly refuse to engage on limited areas of discussion, preferring to just add more and more and more topics to the pile, and then complain that I'm either not answering everything, or saying too much.
Seriously...if you're that sure of your details...pick one inexplicable event, and limit yourself to showing that it truly is inexplicable. Why is it that we're both complaining about the other's lack of detail on specific areas, but you are the one constantly adding in more and more and more areas and complaining that I'm not addressing them all. I'm asking you to stop, so that we can both do exactly what you complain is not being done...we look at a narrow area, in detail, and show whether or not the claims of either side really hold up to scrutiny. Will you do that, tunaman?
Tell me the last piece of evidence that made you seriously consider that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were not an inside job.I always question what I believe and am open minded, which is in direct contrast to many people on here (from both sides) who are firmly entrenched in their views/beliefs.
Asking questions is not seeking knowledge. Listening to answers is.Very few people really seek knowledge in this world, few really ask.0 -
Correct. Just because I claim something to be a fact certainly does not make it so. Just because you claim something doesn't make it so either...as we've just seen with your misuse of the term "logical fallacy".
So you have proved that you know more about logical fallacies and their use then me. However, based on what I have read then your claim could be an example of an argument from ignorance, which basically states that a specific belief is true because you claim that we don't know that it isn't true?The content in that link clarifies that there was no primary coverage from the preferred radar source, poor coverage from the backup, and that additional radar coverage covering the area wasn't available in realtime to the relevant people.
So, basically, it agrees that there were holes in the primary coverage.
You claimed there was no primary radar coverage, which has been proved wrong, due to the evidence I have presented. Now you are pretending that this evidence means you were basically right?
You claim to be a man of science, who relies on evidence to come to your conclusions, yet when this evidence conflicts with your existing beliefs, then you basically deny it exists. :rolleyes:Why are those delays inexplicable, tunaman?
Alternately, a detailed analysis of those 28 minutes, looking at who was contacted when, and showing where an inexcusable delay occurred would be good. Are you aware, for example, that after 6 minutes the first calls were made regarding flight 77? Can you show that 6 minutes is an inexcusably long time for an air-traffic-control station to note that a plane disappeared, attempt to contact it, attempt to find it on primary radar, and conclude that its not there? Do you know who those first calls were to?
Why is that? Why do you argue that my arguments are fatally flawed because I don't supply detail, but you get to leave it out at will?
Again I will present some evidence now, which may conflict with your existing beliefs, so instead of making up excuses, how about you try to refute it?
In an interview 5 days after 9/11 Cheney make the following statement, but cut himself short.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/timeline/2001/meetthepress091601.html
MR. RUSSERT: The plane actually circled the White House?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Didn't circle it, but was headed on a track into it. The Secret Service has an arrangement with the F.A.A. They had open lines after the World Trade Center was...
Open line with the FAA, who would have thought it?
No need for them to even make a phone call...The military is on record saying that their systems are outward looking, that they do not closely monitor the skies over continental United States. You are questioning that claim, and my acceptance of it. The onus on you is to show that they are lying, and that my acceptance of their statement is misplaced.
Which is exactly what I have already done, but as per usual, you have no answer to the evidence I have presented, so instead you ignore it and pretend it never happened. Here it is again, so unless you can refute it, then you must accept that you have been proved wrong?
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=radar&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go#a0900airsurveillanceIt is reported that the US Secret Service is using an “air surveillance system” called Tigerwall. This serves to “ensure enhanced physical security at a high-value asset location by providing early warning of airborne threats.” Tigerwall “provides the Secret Service with a geographic display of aircraft activity and provides security personnel long-range camera systems to classify and identify aircraft. Sensor data from several sources are fused to provide a unified sensor display.” [US Department of Defense, 2000; US Department of the Navy, 9/2000, pp. 28 pdf file]As well as Tigerwall, the Secret Service appears to have other air surveillance capabilities. Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke will describe that on 9/11, the Secret Service had “a system that allowed them to see what FAA’s radar was seeing.” [Clarke, 2004, pp. 7] Barbara Riggs, a future deputy director of the Secret Service who is in its Washington, DC headquarters on 9/11, will describe the Secret Service “monitoring radar” during the attacks.Why do you assume my claims are baseless? Why don't you ask me for the evidence on which I base them instead?
You claimed.Over any large American city, there will always be a number of news helicopters in the air.
Note your emphasis on the word always, which can only be described as baseless and ridiculous.There's nothing ridiculously low-speed about it. Yes, the fighters in question are capable of those speeds. Now...would you care to tell us how long they can sustain it for?
Apparently longer than it took for them to reach NY. The following statements are from one of the pilots himself.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=full+blower&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go
Note he apparently made the following statement, which contradicts all the others.“It’s just peacetime. We’re not thinking anything real bad is going to happen out there.”“we’ve been over the flight a thousand times in our minds and I don’t know what we could have done to get there any quicker.”
“This looks like the real thing.” “It just seemed wrong. I just wanted to get there. I was in full-blower all the way.”
“As we’re climbing out, we go supersonic on the way, which is kind of nonstandard for us.”
“When we [take] off we [start] climbing a 280-heading, basically towards New York City. I [am] supersonic.… We [are] to proceed to Manhattan directly and set up a combat air patrol.”
So if we take the vast majority of his statements then the conclusion is that he had no problem going at top speed, all the way to NY.This type of behaviour is one of the reasons I set a challenge for people to give one and only one thing they found inexplicable. It was to force any response to stay on topic and discuss the detail.
I think you will find it was you who started discussing flight 77, instead of focusing on the blatantly false claim, that the US had no military radar inside the US. I just merely pointed out a few more holes in the official story and the many claims, which when examined under scrutiny, simply fail to hold up.Tell me the last piece of evidence that made you seriously consider that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were not an inside job.
Nothing since I closely examined the smoking gun of 9/11, which is footage of building 7 coming down, and found that there was, and still is, no other rational explanation for how that building came down, so therefore the only logical conclusion is that it was demolished.Asking questions is not seeking knowledge. Listening to answers is.
A few quotes for you, by Carl Sagan.You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.
It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. it is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.
I have presented plenty of evidence in this post alone, which directly contradicts much of the official story, so why do you persist with your beliefs, which are seriously lacking in evidence?0 -
Asked this in the other thread as well,
the Windsor tower in Madrid had a Steel frame and a Concrete Core, when it burned the steel Eventually Collapsed after a 20 Hour inferno, but the Concrete core remained standing and reasonably intact.
WTC7 was built in the 80's and it also had a concrete Core
how come the concrete core failed completely? did it MELT too??0 -
the windsor tower wasn't hit by a plane though.
or holographic missiles0 -
neither was WTC7 tho.0
-
Advertisement
-
Mahatma coat wrote: »neither was WTC7 tho.
Some simple questions Mahatma
1. What started the Windsor fire?
2. Was it the collapse of the nearby much larger structure.
3. Was the Windsor building hit by massive amounts of debris?
4. Did the Windsor building have a power substation and massive amounts of diesel stored in the building?
If you're trying to compare the two, don't cherry pick facts.0 -
Heres a link
1. What started the Windsor fire?
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm
It was believed to be caused by a short circuit. However it was a raging inferno ( as pictured in link) nearly on all floors and lasted for 18hours.
"It was reported that the fire started at 23:00 at the 21st Floor. Within one hour, all floors above the 21st Floor were on fire. In the following hours, the fire gradually spread downwards to the lower technical floor at the 3rd Floor. The total fire duration was estimated to be 18 ~ 20 hours."
How long was WTC7 on fire for?
Why did the BBC News announce it had collapsed before it had (you could still see it in the background while the reporter announced it)
Also WTC7 was not a raging inferno, only 3 - 4 floors were on fire. Also I'm Structural Engineer - eh we dont design buildings to collapse like a pancake just because its been hit by some debris and a a fire. Why has no other steel structure tall building in the WORLD collapsed because of fire up until 9/11 and AFTER. But on 9/11 three tall buildings collapse??2. Was it the collapse of the nearby much larger structure.
If this was so it wouldn't have taken nearly the entire day for WTC7 to collapse it would have collpsed within a relatively short time to the collapse of the twin towers.4. Did the Windsor building have a power substation and massive amounts of diesel stored in the building?
Perhaps but were they in the location of the fire - I'm sure most buildings would have similar amounts.
May the argument continue....0 -
AIR-AUSSIE wrote: »Heres a link
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm
It was believed to be caused by a short circuit. However it was a raging inferno ( as pictured in link) nearly on all floors and lasted for 18hours.
"It was reported that the fire started at 23:00 at the 21st Floor. Within one hour, all floors above the 21st Floor were on fire. In the following hours, the fire gradually spread downwards to the lower technical floor at the 3rd Floor. The total fire duration was estimated to be 18 ~ 20 hours."
I am perfectly aware of the facts, I was asking a rhetorical question.Why did the BBC News announce it had collapsed before it had (you could still see it in the background while the reporter announced it)
Perhaps because reports that it was in danger of collapse or about to collapse had been circling for hours?How long was WTC7 on fire for?
Over 7 hours.Also WTC7 was not a raging inferno, only 3 - 4 floors were on fire.
I don't know how many times I'm going to have to repost this.Unless otherwise noted, accounts are from the FDNY oral history transcripts.
1. We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca
2. ...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
3. I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run. –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html
4. All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes
5. When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)
6. The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110472.PDF
7. Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.
8. At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa
9. Chief Cruthers told me that they had formed another command post up on Chambers Street. At this point there were a couple of floors burning on Seven World Trade Center. Chief McNally wanted to try and put that fire out, and he was trying to coordinate with the command post up on Chambers Street. This is after searching for a while. He had me running back and forth trying to get companies to go into Seven World Trade Center. His radio didn't seem to be working right either because he had me relaying information back and forth and Chief Cruthers had me --
Q. So everything was face-to-face? Nothing was by radio?
A. Yeah, and it was really in disarray. It really was in complete disarray. We never really got an operation going at Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Captain Michael Donovan
10. Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports02.pdf page 48.
11. At Vesey St. and West St., I could see that 7 WTC was ablaze and damaged, along with other buildings. –M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports03.pdf page 49
[Note: the fires in 7 were probably not mainly due to damage from the south tower, but from the north.]
12. So yeah then we just stayed on Vesey until building Seven came down. There was nothing we could do. The flames were coming out of every window of that building from the explosion of the south tower. So then building Seven came down. When that started coming down you heard that pancaking sound again everyone jumped up and starts.
Q: Why was building Seven on fire? Was that flaming debris from tower two, from tower two that fell onto that building and lit it on fire?
A: Correct. Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and what-not. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block. –Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy
13. "We were down about a block from the base of the World Trade Center towers about an hour ago. And there was a great deal of concern at that time, the firemen said building number 7 was going to collapse, building number five was in danger of collapsing. And there's so little they can do to try to fight the fires in these buildings, because the fires are so massive. And so much of the buildings continues to fall into the street. When you're down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes, and so it's an extremely dangerous place to be."
–CBS-TV News Reporter Vince DeMentri http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.secondary.explosions.wmv
14. Well, they said that's (7) fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building. I said, all right, they're not coming for us for a while. Now you're trapped in this rubble, and you're trying to get a grasp of an idea of what's going on there. I heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved.
Now you're trapped in the rubble and the guys who are there are fighting the worst high-rise fire in the history of New York or history of the world, probably, I don't know, 40, story building fully involved, I guess that was probably the worst.
I was, needless to say, scared to death that something else was going to fall on us, that this building was going to come down and we were all going to die, after surviving the worst of it. [Note: I deleted the link this account, and searching the net for the text doesn’t turn up anything. This sounds like an account from north tower stairwell B survivor. Anyone who knows for sure, let me know.]
15. And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. ... the fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because there was no water in the area. –Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.
16. The time was approximately 11a.m. Both of the WTC towers were collapsed and the streets were covered with debris. Building #7 was still standing but burning. ...We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside. –PAPD P.O. William Connors http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports04.pdf page 69
17. "There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker." We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse.
We're kind of caught in traffic and people and things, and everything's going on. We hear over the fire portable, "Everybody evacuate the site. It's going to collapse." Mark Steffens starts yelling, "Get out of here! Get out of here! Get out of here! We've got to go! We've got to go! It's going to collapse." I turned around, and I piped up real loud and said, "Stay in the frigging car. Roll the windows up. It's pancake collapsing. We'll be fine. The debris will quit and the cloud will come through. Just stay in the car." We pulled the car over, turned around and just watched it pancake. We had a dust cloud but nothing like it was before. –Paramedic Louis Cook
(Building 7 fire makes rescuer of NT stairwell victim’s route impassable, just before collapse):
I remember it was bad and I'm going to get to a point where we came back that way on the way up. We couldn't even go that way, that's how bad the fire was, but by the time I was coming back it was rolling, more than a couple of floors, just fully involved, rolling.
...So now it's us 4 and we are walking towards it and I remember it would have at one point been an easier path to go towards our right, but being building 7 -- that must have been building 7 I'm guessing with that fire, we decided to stay away from that because things were just crackling, falling and whatnot. So as I’m going back, that fire that was on my right is now on my left. I’m backtracking and that fire is really going and on the hike towards there, we put down our masks, which at this point started to realize maybe it would have been good thing if we had this mask on the way back, but then again between the fire and about halfway when I was on the way back, I got a radio call from the guys that we left and it was Johnny Colon the chauffeur of 43, who was effecting a different rescue. He was carrying somebody out.
He had called me and said “Hey Jerry don’t try and get back out the way you went in which was big heads up move because he said that building was rolling on top of the building that we were passing. That building was on fire and likely to collapse more too.
Between Picciotto asking me are you sure we can get out this way because it really didn’t look good with that fire and my guy telling me that you better not because of the area we crawled in was unattainable now too. ...we started going back the other way.
Q: Would that be towards West Street?
A: That would have been back towards what I know is the Winter Garden....[west]
–Firefighter Gerard Suden
18. I remember Chief Hayden saying to me, "We have a six-story building over there, a seven-story building, fully involved." At that time he said, "7 has got fire on several floors." He said, "We've got a ten-story over there, another ten-story over there, a six-story over there, a 13-story over there." He just looked at me and said, "**** 'em all. Let 'em burn." He said, "Just tell the guys to keep looking for guys. Just keep looking for the brothers. We've got people trapped. We've got to get them out." –Lieutenant William Ryan
19. I walked around the building to get back to the command post and that's when they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down. ...They had three floors of fire on three separate floors, probably 10, 11 and 15 it looked like, just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said 'we know.' –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy
20. We were champing at the bit," says WCBS-TV reporter Vince DeMentri of his decision to sneak behind police barricades and report from 7 World Trade Center a half-hour before it collapsed. "I knew the story was in there." But after he and his cameraman slipped past officers, they lost all sense of direction. "From outside this zone, you could figure out where everything was," he says. "But inside, it was all destruction and blown-out buildings, and we had no clue. I walked into one building, but I had no idea where I was. The windows were all blown out. Computers, desks, furniture, and people's possessions were strewn all over." He found a picture of a little girl lying in the rubble. Then he realized that No. 7, aflame, was about fifteen to twenty feet ahead of him. "I looked up Barclay Street," he says. "There was nobody out. No bodies, no injured. Nobody. There were mounds of burning debris. It was like opening a broiler." http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/features/5183/index.html
21. They are worried that number 7 is burning and they are talking about not ceasing operations.
–Deputy Commissioner Frank Gribbon
22. There were hundreds of firefighters waiting to -- they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down as it was on fire. It was too dangerous to go in and fight the fire. –Assistant Commissioner James Drury
23. We assisted some FDNY personnel who were beginning to attempt to fight the fire at 7 WTC. We assisted in dragging hose they needed to bring water into the building. –Kenneth Kohlmann PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports04.pdf page 26
24. My first thoughts when I came down a little further into the site, south of Chambers Street, was, "Where am I?" I didn't recognize it. Obviously, the towers were gone. The only thing that remained standing was a section of the Vista Hotel. Building 7 was on fire. That was ready to come down. –Charlie Vitchers, Ground Zero Superintendent http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/profiles/profiles_vitchers_t.html
25. The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower, and there was fire on every floor." – Fire Captain Brenda Berkman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 213)
26.At that point, Seven World Trade had 12 stories of fire in it. They were afraid it was going to collapse on us, so they pulled everybody out. We couldn't do anything. – Firefighter Maureen McArdle-Schulman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 17)
27. The 7 World Trade Center was roaring. All we could think is we were an Engine Company, we have got to get them some water. We need some water you know. With that, we positioned the rig, I don't know, 3 quarters of a block away maybe. A fire boat was going to relay water to us. I don't know if I have things in the right order, whatever, if we were getting water out of a hydrant first. Jesus Christ --
Q. Captain said you were getting water. You were draining a vacuum?
A. It was draining away from us. Right. We had to be augmented. I think that's when the fire boat came. I think the fire boats supplied us. Of course you don't see that. You just see the (inaudible) way and you know, we are hooking up and we wound up supplying the Tower Ladder there. I just remember feeling like helpless, like everybody there was doomed and there is -- I just felt like there was absolutely nothing we could do. I want to just go back a little bit.–Firefighter Kevin Howe
28. "When I got out and onto a clear pile, I see that 7 World Trade Center and the customs house have serious fire. Almost every window has fire. It is an amazing site. –Captain Jay Jonas, Ladder 6. (Dennis Smith. Report From Ground Zero. New York: Viking Penguin, 2002. P. 103)
29. Firefighter TJ Mundy: "The other building, #7, was fully involved, and he was worried about the next collapse." (Dennis Smith. Report From Ground Zero. New York: Viking Penguin, 2002.)
30. 7 World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved. It was unbelievable. –Firefighter Steve Modica http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/modica.html
31. So I attempted to get in through the Barkley Street ramp which is on Barkley (sic) and West Broadway, but I was being held back by the fire department, because 7 World Trade, which is above the ramp, was now fully engulfed.
–PAPD K-9 Sergeant David Lim http://www.911report.com/media/davidlim.pdf
32. We could hear fires crackling. We didn’t know it at the time, but No. 7 World Trade Center and No. 5 World Trade Center were immediately adjacent to us and they were roaring, they were on fire. Those were the sounds that we were hearing. ...At the same time, No. 5 World Trade Center, No. 6 World Trade Center and No. 7 World Trade Center were roaring. They were on fire. And they were right next to us. So we have all that smoke that we’re dealing with.
–FDNY Capt. Jay Jonas http://archive.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/jonas.htmAlso I'm Structural Engineer - eh we dont design buildings to collapse like a pancake just because its been hit by some debris and a a fire.
You're a structural engineer are you?
If you're going to appeal to authority please have the courtesy to list your education and experience.Why has no other steel structure tall building in the WORLD collapsed because of fire up until 9/11 and AFTER. But on 9/11 three tall buildings collapse??
As a structural engineer you should know that your first sentence isn't true. Care to retract it before I make you look very very silly?
Just, as an example, if steel structured buildings are immune to collapse from fire, why do you structural engineers go to the time, effort and expense of fireproofing steel?If this was so it wouldn't have taken nearly the entire day for WTC7 to collapse it would have collpsed within a relatively short time to the collapse of the twin towers.
Seeing as the debris from the WTC collapse is what caused the damage to the WTC7 I would say trying to suggest the two are exclusive is specious reasoning.Perhaps but were they in the location of the fire - I'm sure most buildings would have similar amounts.
Similar amounts of what....
And as I pointed out the entire of WTC7 was on fire, not just 3-4 floors.May the argument continue....
this ought to be good.0 -
Right perhaps I should have examined my post before i hastily posted it, seems I'm little inexperienced in the conspiracy side things. I do not side with either side of this argument but was only quoting things (frm the conspiracy side that have not been proved to be wrong by authority maybe I was wrong).
OK the steel structure can be WEAKENED and collapse due to fire perhaps but it can not melt due to a diesel fire / mechanical plant (as you said).
The WTC7 had a concrete core and concrete slabs - this would not be substantially weakened by fire - why were the slabs then not found on top of one another 'pancaked' similar to a building would collapse due to an earthquake? There was no clear evidence of concrete slabs or core, only pulverised concrete. This is usually the case when a tall building has been knocked by a controlled detonation, also the way in which it fell was reminiscent of a detonated collapse - collapsing almost perfectly into its envelope.
I'm not the only engineer / architect to believe there are questions still to be answered...
http://www.ae911truth.org/Mahatma coat wrote: »Asked this in the other thread as well,
the Windsor tower in Madrid had a Steel frame and a Concrete Core, when it burned the steel Eventually Collapsed after a 20 Hour inferno, but the Concrete core remained standing and reasonably intact.
WTC7 was built in the 80's and it also had a concrete Core
how come the concrete core failed completely? did it MELT too??0 -
AIR-AUSSIE wrote: »Right perhaps I should have examined my post before i hastily posted it, seems I'm little inexperienced in the conspiracy side things. I do not side with either side of this argument but was only quoting things (frm the conspiracy side that have not been proved to be wrong by authority maybe I was wrong).
OK the steel structure can be WEAKENED and collapse due to fire perhaps but it can not melt due to a diesel fire / mechanical plant (as you said).
I'm sorry I said what? I said nothing of the sort. Mahatma Coat is the only person to mention the word "melting" in this thread. I believe that the steel was weakened, there is no evidence that the steel melted before the collapse.
The WTC7 had a concrete core and concrete slabs - this would not be substantially weakened by fire - why were the slabs then not found on top of one another 'pancaked' similar to a building would collapse due to an earthquake? There was no clear evidence of concrete slabs or core, only pulverised concrete. This is usually the case when a tall building has been knocked by a controlled detonation, also the way in which it fell was reminiscent of a detonated collapse - collapsing almost perfectly into its envelope.
No it did not. WTC 7 ravaged 30 West Broadway to the north, which is being torn down in 2006 due to the damage. and did Damage to Verizon Building . Source: FEMAI'm not the only engineer / architect to believe there are questions still to be answered...
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Ah Richard Gage.
Do you know how many architects and engineers he has on his books? Around 4 hundred. Thats including all the electrical and software engineers that are eminently qualified to give their expert opinion on the matter.
There's also still few outstanding members like "Mike Rotch" (say it out loud) people who registered false names to demonstrate how non existent the vetting process is for architects and engineers, trying to join aetruth. I lasted several weeks as a member of good standing despite registering as "Professor Hubert J Farnsworth" a specialist in "doomsday devices".
A bit juvenile? Perhaps but a valid way to demonstrate the non existent vetting process this group has. Would any of the reputable Structural Engineering Associations you are undoubtedly belong to, have such a shoddy process?
Now if you want to argue their actual arguments and statements on WTC I'll happily engage you, but if you're trying to appeal to authority you'd have better luck impressing me by saying "Cub Scouts for 911 truth, want a new investigation".0 -
Now if you want to argue their actual arguments and statements on WTC I'll happily engage you, but if you're trying to appeal to authority you'd have better luck impressing me by saying "Cub Scouts for 911 truth, want a new investigation".
How am I appealing to authority? I said from my experience it does not make sense solely. So if you say that, what puts you in a position to have a better opinion??
I have laid various out theories, but does posting these mean I believe them? Fair enough you may thrown some them out but giving quotes to prove your point from various websites, fair enough but what stops me or anyone from doing the same to prove an opinion?
Why was there only pulverised concrete found and not large chunks of intact concrete and rebar? Or the main Concrete Core still remaining standing? Have you found a photo of WTC7 collapsed during your research? Or map even so I can see the location of this alleged damaged building? Saying it collapsed into another building on its way down still does not rule out an aided collapse. Is there a reason why there was such a delay ('til 2006) until this building was collapsed?
You seem to have researched more then I have, I have only drifted in and out, whether you're right is another thing. The problem I have is the investigations have avoided critical elements of that day. Although I havent really even read you quoted replies.. ( not enough time) You seem to know the 'official' side of the story in detail perhaps I have been biased by the 'conspiracy' side. But if you wish to persuade people that their opinion is wrong and yours is right you may need to stop being so aggressive. (There are still many who don't even know of the conspiracy).
So what is your experience or standing of on the strength of buildings during a fire?
So you this AEtruth.org is bogus? What stops the US Government from doing in the way the same? The Government pays the investigators - so can you not say the government can pay them to say what aids them to allow them to set off on various treasure hunts?
I'm a cynic not a conspirator.
So you believe the official story?0 -
Ah, Air Aussie, Diogeness is Right JUST BECAUSE, OK, when someone who disagrees rolls out quotes that contradict themelves or have no relevance to the debate they are deliberatley cherry picking or being Vauge, but if Diogeness does it it is with the supreme authority of FACT, how dare you question him, you're just some kind of crackpot, dosent matter if you are a structural engineer, Diogeness knows more about engineering than you as he was once an errandboy for The BBC.
our simple questions are no match for his incredulity.
he still hasnt answered my question tho just rehashed old posts that didnt answer it before0 -
0 -
AIR-AUSSIE wrote: »How am I appealing to authority? I said from my experience it does not make sense solely. So if you say that, what puts you in a position to have a better opinion??
Nothing. But I'm not saying I am a structural engineer am I? You're saying "I have experience in the design and construction of buildings and in my expert opinion the collapse of WTC 7 looks like a CD." Thats what is refered to as an appeal to authority. It's the "trust me I'm a Doctor" argument.I have laid various out theories, but does posting these mean I believe them? Fair enough you may thrown some them out but giving quotes to prove your point from various websites, fair enough but what stops me or anyone from doing the same to prove an opinion?
Because you've made several basic factual errors.
You said "no other steel structure tall building in the WORLD collapsed because of fire up until 9/11 and AFTER."
This isn't true, it also isn't a correct interpretation of what happened on 911.Why was there only pulverised concrete found and not large chunks of intact concrete and rebar? Or the main Concrete Core still remaining standing?Have you found a photo of WTC7 collapsed during your research? Or map even so I can see the location of this alleged damaged building?
Building seven is on the right. Barclay street is 6 or 8 lanes wide. Notice the large chunks of concrete, and rebar. Notice the lack of a core. Notice the damage and debris on the roof and side of the building on the other side of Barclays street.Saying it collapsed into another building on its way down still does not rule out an aided collapse.
Ah but you saidhis is usually the case when a tall building has been knocked by a controlled detonation, also the way in which it fell was reminiscent of a detonated collapse - collapsing almost perfectly into its envelope.
You said that it collapsed into it's own envelope like a controlled demolition. Are you now saying it didn't collapse into it's own envelope.Is there a reason why there was such a delay ('til 2006) until this building was collapsed?
As a structural engineer you tell me.You seem to have researched more then I have, I have only drifted in and out, whether you're right is another thing. The problem I have is the investigations have avoided critical elements of that day.
Critical elements like?Although I havent really even read you quoted replies.. ( not enough time) You seem to know the 'official' side of the story in detail perhaps I have been biased by the 'conspiracy' side. But if you wish to persuade people that their opinion is wrong and yours is right you may need to stop being so aggressive. (There are still many who don't even know of the conspiracy).
So what is your experience or standing of on the strength of buildings during a fire?
Nothing. Self educated.So you this AEtruth.org is bogus? What stops the US Government from doing in the way the same? The Government pays the investigators - so can you not say the government can pay them to say what aids them to allow them to set off on various treasure hunts?
So you don't believe the NIST report?
How about this article in structure magazine.
As I understand it the collapse of the WTC 1&2 is the most studied building failure in the World. The findings of the NIST have gone on to influence the design and building of other skyscrapers since then. Are you suggesting that every engineer, architect, and scientist who contributed to the NIST report was happy to have their findings manipulated to "fit" the government story? That every engineer and architect who acted on these findings agree with them?I'm a cynic not a conspirator.
So you believe the official story?
Let me put it this way. In the 7 years since 911 I've yet to hear a coherent rational and plausible alternative hypothesis from a conspiracy theorist.0 -
Advertisement
-
Mahatma coat wrote: »Ah, Air Aussie, Diogeness is Right JUST BECAUSE, OK, when someone who disagrees rolls out quotes that contradict themelves or have no relevance to the debate they are deliberatley cherry picking or being Vauge, but if Diogeness does it it is with the supreme authority of FACT, how dare you question him, you're just some kind of crackpot, dosent matter if you are a structural engineer, Diogeness knows more about engineering than you as he was once an errandboy for The BBC.
I'm sorry which one of links to articles, posts photos, and cites sources? And which one of us engages in ad-homiens, strawmen arguments, and personal attacks?our simple questions are no match for his incredulity.
he still hasnt answered my question tho just rehashed old posts that didnt answer it before
Because it's a strawman argument. I've never claimed anything melted. Furthermore the Windsor buildings concrete core remained standing yes, but the Windsor building was structure by massive debris from the collapse of the much larger building beside it. The damage from the debris is what weakened the structural integrity.
I know those pesky facts again. Dontcha just hate 'em0
Advertisement