9/11 (TV3 - September 2015)

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's comparing the way a demo'd building fell and the similarity with how WTC 7 came down. That's where the similarity ends. Unfortunately until a building of approximate size, construction, age, etc collapses due to similar debris damage and unchecked fires then the doubters will continue to doubt

Debris damage had nothing to due with the collapse (NIST)

Unchecked fires extinguished by themselves as is clearly visible in a clip I posted earlier

No doubt from my end your conclusion is not correct

Dohnjoe

DamagedTrax wrote: »

how do you know thats where the similarity ends? - the two fell at the same speed. the two fell in the same way. the aftermath was the same etc if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its probably a duck.

Because one building in the clip was demolished with explosives and the other fell due to unchecked fires

Unless you can explain otherwise?

DamagedTrax

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Because one building in the clip was demolished with explosives and the other fell due to unchecked fires

Unless you can explain otherwise?

you're in a forum dedicated to 911 theories (including more of my own than is reasonable), yet thats the best you can do?

sorry, i was under the impression you were interested in a discussion.

Overheal

DamagedTrax wrote: »

you're in a forum dedicated to 911 theories (including more of my own than is reasonable), yet thats the best you can do?

You asked for his viewpoint, and he cordially gave it to you; it happens to be the official version of events, which is the accepted baseline in discussion, just in my own humble opinion. I would think the onus would be on the theorist here to support their theory by being able to elaborate on it in this situation. If you want to invoke scientific method in your argument you have to practice it: when you introduce a Theory, you should be able to support that argument. Galileo didn't walk up to the Pope and tell the Pope it was his job to prove the earth was indeed not a sphere.

Rudiger Glique

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

Again, the situations between the two (which I think you allowed for, which is fair enough and obviously no two situations are completely the same) are very different, but the main differences are in the type of government (one despotic, autocratic and the other at least with notions of democracy and a free press) and the situation (press freedoms in wartime back in the 40s were extremely limited in comparison to nowadays) but at least up until 1941, there were routine announcements made about concentration camps and the killing of undesireables (they even announced auctions selling off their goods). With the escalation of the war, these were repressed, but I wouldn't say to hide a conspiracy, more to enable these actions to continue (it's not usually a good idea to announce your intentions when these intentions will then find their way to your enemies). Even when the intentions were not publicised (and so, arguably became a conspiracy) there was written documentation on a government and civil servant level which was absolutely necessary in making something on such a huge scale work. Obviously, we have not seen the collapse of the American government, so we can't see these documents. We have seen a massive leak of government intelligence and communication, and yet nothing is said of a conspiracy with regards to 9/11. Do you see my point regarding Wikileaks now? Does it mean that no Wikileaks re 9/11 means no conspiracy? Of course not. But it is very, very hard to argue why something, anything wasn't found.

Look at the polls, look at how many people believe that there was inside knowledge about 911 and then tell me if your 'free press' reflects those polls? For people outside the US, it is always amusing when they talk about their free press.

I wasn't aware either of routine announcements in Nazi Germany about the killing of undesirables. Can you show me your sources? We already pointed to examples of the Nazis going out of their way to hide the extermination of Polish Jews. And if your excuse was that they were at war, could you explain the war on terror? You think perhaps the truth might be repressed during a war on terror? Your free press didn't do a great job about claims of WMD. But I suppose with 911 it's different, right?

Again, your argument seems to be if wikileaks didn't reveal something, it hasn't happened. Why didn't Wikileaks reveal everything that Snowden revealed? By your logic, if Snowden had not come along, then any talk about mass surveillance by the NSA would be false because wikileaks didn't reveal it, right? Now remember, Snowden was no big fish, so who knows what is known in the inner circles of the intelligence community that the likes of Snowden would never be given access to.

I have also given examples of those who revealed information about 911 contrary to the official story (Barry Jennings to name but one) who have committed suicide. This is a serious business and I personally would think about my safety if I knew something about 911, considering what has occurred to other witnesses who have come forward.

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

Okay, you're confusing things here (and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're doing it in good faith). Comparing the Germans who lived near concentration camps and New Yorkers who were in New York around 9/11 is muddying the water. The Germans who lived around the camps knew there were concentration camps because, well, they were told that they were concentration camps and they knew who these camps held. As I said previously, it was common knowledge prior to 1941 what happened in these camps. The 'belief' of the Germans was based on explicit knowledge that was communicated by their government. The 'belief' of anybody in New York is just that: belief. I won't talk about the 'belief' of people outside of NYC, because you're just clutching at straws (and let's ignore the fact that the biggest percentage of people polled (around 2008) said that Al-Qaeda was responsible. That's a world average, by the way.

Those around the camps may have known they were camps all right. Did they know about the gassing of Jews? Are you now saying that that information was being explicitly shared among the population at large? because it is the first I have heard of it. Again, show me your sources.

When you talk about belief, I assume you mean that anyone who did not have first hand experience? Well then, we are all basing our opinions on our beliefs, right? But I don't base my beliefs on what the government says, I base my beliefs on the video evidence which I have seen with my own eyes e.g. the manner of the collapse and the many many witnesses who talked about explosions, molten steel, etc. And also on some of the ridiculous information I was fed by the establishment about a miracle passport, missing black boxes, confiscated CTV footage (which if shared would immediately put some of the claims to rest).

As for your world average poll, I go back to your free press. Is the American free press reporting what other countries believe? I doubt it. Obviously they don't like sharing some uncomfortable facts.

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

To be fair, there was an official investigation, she just didn't get the answers that she wanted. But I'm being facetious, so I'll go back to my original point. She wasn't involved in 9/11 so she isn't arguing from the point of view of somebody who was actually there. My point (which you didn't address, and simply pointed to her) was where were the people involved who are now saying 'actually, I was involved, it's a conspiracy, and this is how it went down'. There's nobody and I find that highly suspicious. This would require silencing all those people who had to be involved (yep, absolutely had to be involved) and would actually involve silencing a lot of people related to them (because, y'know, humans). And yes, I know, you and Weiss will just zero in on the numbers that I'm saying must have been involved, but a nice point (or two) to address would be this:
1) What groups of people do you think were involved in the 9/11 conspiracy
2) How did the government manage to silence every single last one of these people?

Remember, this isn't a coup in a Latin American country, or a government claiming spurious intelligence to orchestrate a war (more of which later!), all of which came out anyway because, again, humans, but a conspiracy that necessitated the involvement of significant layers of government and private realms.

Sorry, I meant a public investigation. As for the people you are talking about. Well, it is a good question. Where are those people? I suppose again, you can argue if you don't hear about them, they are not there. But you know, I was told I was a conspiracy theorist when I said that I thought that Lance Armstrong was cheating. He won how many tour de france? 7? Where was the free press then? Oh wait, there was some combination of his powerful will to hide the truth, his ability to manipulate and control those around him, and a general disbelief on the side of the media to belief those who said there was something not right. Now that was one man and some dedicated followers. Imagine he had the CIA behind him and the threat of death if you ever come out and say something? The question is, what are you waiting for? Barry Jennings said he heard explosion in building seven, he was walking over dead bodies. He committed suicide three days before the release of the official explanation of 911. Tell me, does that not even seem a little suspicious to you?

To answer you questions
1) I think a section of the political classes, the pentagon and the CIA reasoned that there was a very real threat to the US from global terrorism and rogue states as technological advances made access to WMD ever more likely. That disgruntlement abroad with US foreign policy (i.e. control of oil and other resources) would eventually and inevitably result in an attack. They also reasoned that the US population was not supportive of foreign wars. Therefore, it was wiser to have a controlled attack, with minimal casualties but with enough psychological impact to get the US population behind occupation of the oil rich countries which had grown antagonistic to US interests. These ideologues believe that US hegemony is essential for world peace, and the end justifies the means. Like a pearl harbour, 911 was the perfect opportunity to project US power and surround its major future competitors (namely Russia and China). And keep in mind, I do not necessarily disagree with this reasoning. Once the decision was made, the plebs were ordered to do what was necessary, without ever been given too much information.

Who was directly involved? To go through how exactly it was pulled off would take a long time and I am sure I will get something wrong. But here is a theory. Lets say you set up military simulation of attacks ('is this simulation or real'). You order all fighter jets to stand down (Cheney had just recently been given the power to do this). You get pilots who are CIA agents (yes they do exist) to fly the air liners. Most of the passengers are in fact CIA or military employees. As the planes are flying around you switch them with military craft which are drones (yes they had the technology) this is possible by aligning their flight paths and then switching off the transponder, so it is not longer possible to tell which is which on radar. Now you land the airliners. Every wonder how air liners could fly around undetected? They claim the transponders were switched off. Its just such a ridiculous story because you can still see the blip on the radar so it would be a very simple task to identify because it is the only plane on radar with no transponder. Just another one of the ludicrous stories people swallowed. And yes people have come out and stated publicly that they could have scrambled jets to shoot down the air liners, but were ordered by Cheney to stand down. It just seems nobody cares when they say this.

On the ground you do your best to prevent people getting to the twin towers that day, you want deaths but you don't want too many, hence reports of difficulty with traffic and the subway in central New York that day. For those in the buildings after the planes hit, you order them to stay, because some will no doubt witness explosions, and it would be better if they die. Oh, a team of demolition experts have been using power downs (look into stratesec the security company in charge of the twin towers and its ties to the bush family) in the previous weeks to rig the central columns with the latest state of the art explosives. They work to reduce sound, but ensure total collapse. Also, the offices where the planes hit are owned by people who are involved in the plan. In fact, many of those who have offices in the building have knowledge and even the owner who has just insured both for terror attacks knows what is going to be done.

Anyway, I could ramble on about it, but it would take pages and pages to explain in detail. What you should do is look and see if anything I say is outside the realm of possibility. Ask yourself why Cheney did order that no fighter jets intercept the air liners (youtube 'Cheney gave STAND DOWN ORDER')? Also look into the general David Wherley who ordered fighter jets to scramble on 9/11 and where he is now...maybe not everything went according to plan that day? Maybe some people were actually doing their job that day. Maybe a plane was shot down that wasn't supposed to be? We can only speculate. From my perspective, yes, things went wrong. Hence the glaring and obvious mistakes in the official narrative.

2) How many needed to be silenced? There is a long list of mysterious deaths of people who were close to the action that day. If you knew something and you got a call late at night which said 'take the money or you will end up like Barry Jennings and no one will ever care' What would you do? For those involved, well, how do people commit and get away with crimes? They happen you know and those involved often know they are committing a crime and don't want to be arrested, especially if they made a lot of money for their crime.

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

You understand the difference between a soldier obeying an order to fight in an invader (based on the WMD lie) and the people involved in planting explosives in buildings that they either knew at the time or when they saw the 'attacks' which resulted in the deaths of thousands of their own people, right? In one case (hint: the soldier) there is a situation they are reacting to, in the second instance (hint: conspiracy) they either realised at the time or came to realise later that they were involved in a case of mass genocide orchestrated by their government. And not one has come forward, nor has there been any hint of it at government level, nor has there been any leak to relatives or anything of the kind.

I'm not saying there's no such thing as a conspiracy. It's been happening for a long, long time, but there are a few common points to make a conspiracy work: 1) it should be on a relatively small scale, with as few people involved as possible 2) it should be with regards to something that the people you are supposed to be accountable to don't really care about (coup in Guatemala, for example) 3) know that the conspiracy will eventually be uncovered.

When you say 'not one has come forward' I think what you mean is 'I do not know of anyone who has come forward' Because plenty of people have come forward with stories that contradict the official version, some of whom are now dead. The other, those involved, why do you think they would come forward? To incriminate themselves?

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

Again, not what I was saying. I was saying that the existence of Wikileaks is an interesting development and makes the plausibility of 9/11 harder to defend. Not impossible.

I go back to my earlier point. Wikileaks is irrelevant, they didn't expose NSA snooping, why assume they would expose 911?

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

It's not like that at all! The villagers near the camps would have read in sanctioned state announcements about the existence of concentration camps and what happened in them.

If you are talking about gassing Jews, sources please.

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

I'm sure the irony of this is lost on you. Have you ever read the reactions and debunkers to the conspiracy theorists and thought to yourself 'actually, you know, I don't actually know a huge amount about molten steel and its properties and, y'know, I've never actually studied thermate and its ... actually, do I even know how to spell 'thermate'?' and then maybe decided to base your opinions on what the vast, vast level of actual experts are saying on the subject? Or at least allow for the fact that all these experts might have a point and read some of their works? Y'know, rather than a shoddily produced conspiracy theory video based exclusively on opinion with maybe two experts thrown in?

The conspiracy theory is the one theory that fits the facts. I could list credentials, but even if I had a position of academic authority it is meaningless, because anyone with a pair of eyes can look and see the buildings collapse and if they engage their brain with building seven for more than a few seconds (just slightly less than the time it took to completely collapse into its own footprint), they will see that fire does not do that. If they can find one other example of a steel building which has, show me. I am waiting.

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

I'd love to say that it's just a case of two unmoveable objects with regards to those who believe and those who don't, but that's not really the case. I've allowed for the fact that there are conspiracies, but any of my (fairly rational) objections to how 9/11 was pulled off are consistently ignored by focusing on random numbers I mentioned ('You said hundreds of thousands! Now I can ignore your point about the amount of different groups needed to make 9/11 work as an inside job!') or about why a massive intelligence leak made no mention of the intelligence which I think we can all safely assume was required in planning such a huge job.

I think the conspiracy theorists major mistake was over complicating things which just made the whole thing ridiculous ('There were no planes! They were military planes! The planes were added digitally! All those eyewitnesses didn't see what they actually saw!') rather than (for example) the government could see broadly what was coming down the line and thought 'okay, fellas, there's a fairly good chance that some of those guys over in Boston are planning something huge. Might be a good excuse for some kind of war or other in the Middle East'. Much more plausible, requires only the involvement of the upper echelons of the government, and, most importantly, no fictitious planes or planted explosives.

I have yet to hear any convincing arguments regarding the collapse of building seven (or the twin towers for that matter), the disappearance of the planes black boxes, how the passport survived...and I could go on. I wait with bated breath for those.

As for those who defend the official version, they constantly try and distract from the facts with strawmen arguments like invisible planes etc. As I mentioned previously, disinformation is a tried and tested method to 'muddy the waters'. Personally I think those who defend the official narrative have a very hard job, but I give them credit for such dogged trust in authority.

I know most of the people in the US are good people, and many people working for the US government are good people. We have to assume people do things for good reason (or at least they believe they are). Once we stop believing there can be good in anyone, we start down a dark road.

If I have any purpose on this site, it is the vain hope that if this was an inside job (and I believe it was), then it will make it more difficult to repeat a similar thing. That the rational voices inside the US government will win out next time. But I am probably fooling myself if I think that.

King Mob

DamagedTrax wrote: »

how do you know thats where the similarity ends? - the two fell at the same speed. the two fell in the same way. the aftermath was the same etc if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its probably a duck.

But they didn't fall at the same speed or in the same way. Your video leaves out the first portion of the collapse of building 7.



Why did they omit this?

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

You asked for his viewpoint, and he cordially gave it to you; it happens to be the official version of events, which is the accepted baseline in discussion, just in my own humble opinion. I would think the onus would be on the theorist here to support their theory by being able to elaborate on it in this situation. If you want to invoke scientific method in your argument you have to practice it: when you introduce a Theory, you should be able to support that argument. Galileo didn't walk up to the Pope and tell the Pope it was his job to prove the earth was indeed not a sphere.

Saying a building can collapse symmetrical in freefall acceleration due to some unchecked office fires is almost beyond ridiculous

Even NIST cannot explain it without the use of a suspicious computer model

If the popular one liner " unless you can explain otherwise" becomes the norm for qualityfor discussion here then that would be a sad state of affairs

Btw I countered both assumptions of said poster with facts .. I actually provided facts to counter the flaws in his post,

I respond on thread because I saw you did not posted in your capacity as a mod

Dohnjoe

DamagedTrax wrote: »

you're in a forum dedicated to 911 theories (including more of my own than is reasonable), yet thats the best you can do?

sorry, i was under the impression you were interested in a discussion.

I'm asking for the theories

fliball123

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i get that this is a strange thing to happen but, just to play devils avocado for a bit ...


Firstly the BBC uses news collection agencies such as reuters, al-j etc. so whatever we can surmise, the bbc probably were no wiser to what building 7 was than most americans are to this day.

We must then question why the collection agencies ran with the story? If the official narrative is to be believed, they were aware that wtc7 could come down eventually (silverstein confirms this).

If i believed the official narrative i would claim that the news spread of possible collapse, news agencies picked up the chatter and then ran the story in a rush to get a scoop while the entire world was watching.

i dont know if this is what happened but it is the most obvious explanation and we must always consider the most likely explanation before we look at others. As we have no access to the comms data between news agencies on the day, the obvious explanation has to be considered most likely... having said that, a 'most likely' scenario is not a definitive and there is wiggle room for other plausible theories.



that still doesnt explain the *freefall collapse of the building but sure office fires explain that one away

*NSIT now adhere to a 3 stage freefall collapse theory

So they reported that a building was coming down 20 mins before hand and had absolutely no way of knowing it would come down? Really..To further put pressure on this particular incident, why were none of the other buildings that were also on fire and also damaged reported that they might come down..The fact is someone knew that this specific building was coming down and the only way someone would know that would be if it was controlled. The hotel (sheraton) beside is ablaze as well and significantly damaged yet it did not come down and no one reported 20 mins in advance of it coming down because they knew it was not coming down.

This one incident proves that this was controlled and if it was controlled it means controlled demolition and this means the explosives had to be in place. Once people get their heads around this it points to explosives being used and it was not just the planes that did the damage.

also Silversteen the owner is on record after the building came down saying they pulled it which is terminology used for controlled demolition. Too many coincident here IMO

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

But they didn't fall at the same speed or in the same way. Your video leaves out the first portion of the collapse of building 7.



Why did they omit this?

What would have changed if this section of the video was shown beside the other one with a collapsing building ?

fliball123

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Misreporting. On the day itself I remember many news stations speculating that WTC 7 was about to collapse because it had been burning out of control for hours. Also live news on a fluid event isn't exactly the most accurate.

Why was there no reports on WTF 3, 4, 5, 6 or the sheraton hotel coming down then? some of these where significantly damaged and some the Sheraton in particular was ablaze aswell?

Ctrl Alt Delete

weisses wrote: »

What would have changed if this section of the video was shown beside the other one with a collapsing building ?

I would assume the other video wouldn't have the penthouse collapse visible and the building staying standing for another 3 seconds or so before it collapsed.

In other words not free fall

Rabo Karabekian

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

Look at the polls, look at how many people believe that there was inside knowledge about 911 and then tell me if your 'free press' reflects those polls? For people outside the US, it is always amusing when they talk about their free press.

So, the polls that suggest a majority believing in a conspiracy are examples of free press, but all of the others suggesting the opposite are questionable examples of supposedly free press. Right so.

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

I wasn't aware either of routine announcements in Nazi Germany about the killing of undesirables. Can you show me your sources? We already pointed to examples of the Nazis going out of their way to hide the extermination of Polish Jews. And if your excuse was that they were at war, could you explain the war on terror? You think perhaps the truth might be repressed during a war on terror? Your free press didn't do a great job about claims of WMD. But I suppose with 911 it's different, right?

One of my particular favourites with CTers is the cries of 'show me your sources'. When asked to prove a point that they are claiming, it's 'google such-and-such' or post a youtube video with sinister music and badly edited statements from officials. However, so as not to follow your lead regarding telling people to google something, check out Robert Gellately's book called Backing Hitler (it's from OUP, has an extensive bibliography, but seeing as I know you're not going to actually read it, here's an article that you can read about it http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/feb/17/johnezard ). If the article is too much or an example of biased press, I'll summarise: the Nazis made regular announcements in the press about concentration camps and how they were cleaning up the undesireable elements in Germany at the time (makes sense: they had been talking about how they would do this when they came to power). This policy changed in 1941 due to the logistics of a government at war (with full control of the press) announcing its strategic moves. Even this wasn't enough to stop strategic Allied bombing of train routes used for the transportation of civilians to concentration camps in eastern Germany and Poland (and elsewhere).

As for the claims about the free press not doing a good enough job reporting on the WMD debacle, I'm pretty sure there were reports at the time. Is the press a beacon of light and investigative journalism? No, of course not, but to suggest that the WMD conspiracy wasn't being discussed is ludicrous (but fits your story, so we'll leave it at that).

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

Again, your argument seems to be if wikileaks didn't reveal something, it hasn't happened. Why didn't Wikileaks reveal everything that Snowden revealed? By your logic, if Snowden had not come along, then any talk about mass surveillance by the NSA would be false because wikileaks didn't reveal it, right? Now remember, Snowden was no big fish, so who knows what is known in the inner circles of the intelligence community that the likes of Snowden would never be given access to.

And NSA surveillance required a huge government conspiracy which necessitated communication. Does the lack of anything in Wikileaks re 9/11 being an inside job mean it wasn't? For the 5th (or so) time, no, but it does make it highly implausible.

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

I have also given examples of those who revealed information about 911 contrary to the official story (Barry Jennings to name but one) who have committed suicide. This is a serious business and I personally would think about my safety if I knew something about 911, considering what has occurred to other witnesses who have come forward.

The Barry Jennings case is an interesting one, because he was actually present and argued against the official testimony. You see how he's different from the wife of somebody who died in the attacks, right? Something like that definitely looks suspicious and should be investigated further. I would need to read more about it before actually commenting about it, because all I can find on the internet are articles on websites that look like they were designed 15 years ago, so I think the coverage might be a little skewed. However, I would suggest that a guy in a collapsing building hearing explosions might not be the evidence for an inside job that you're looking for. If I was in a building that was collapsing and I heard some explosions, my first thought wouldn't be: conspiracy. It'd probably be, sh1t, explosions in a collapsing building. Makes sense.

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

Those around the camps may have known they were camps all right. Did they know about the gassing of Jews? Are you now saying that that information was being explicitly shared among the population at large? because it is the first I have heard of it. Again, show me your sources.

As above. The gassing was a step up which began (as far as I know) in 1942, so well into the murky depths of the war. Germans were aware previously of the systemic murder of Jews, Communists, Gypsies, etc, in concentration camps. I see you're focusing primarily on the gassing now. That's not the 'conspiracy' here, it's the systematic genocide of peoples based on their race, sexuality, or political ideology.

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

When you talk about belief, I assume you mean that anyone who did not have first hand experience? Well then, we are all basing our opinions on our beliefs, right? But I don't base my beliefs on what the government says, I base my beliefs on the video evidence which I have seen with my own eyes

No, you're basing your opinion on a video made by somebody whose purpose is to convince others of their opinion. The fact that you hold the previous YouTube video as essentially a QED is embarrassing. The beginning alone (with the edited statements from newsreporters) should set alarm bells ringing.

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

... Lance Armstrong was cheating ...

This is frankly ridiculous. I'm not sure you are even aware of what a conspiracy is (the irony!). But for argument's sake, again (like with the WMD 'point' you raised previously) Armstrong's doping was commented on for as long as I can remember.

Rudiger Glique wrote: »

To answer you questions

So, so many people involved in that example of what may have occurred, and yet the only people willing to come forward is Brian Jennings and a few others (not a long list, despite what you might say). That example also requires the collusion of private enterprises and ordinary workers on a scale that is highly implausible that all of them have kept their mouth shut.

weisses

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

In other words not free fall

Building 7 ?

Ctrl Alt Delete

weisses wrote: »

Building 7 ?

Do you see it collapse at free fall speed considering you can see it freely standing for a good 2-3 seconds after a major structural collapse has evidently occured

DamagedTrax

Overheal wrote: »

You asked for his viewpoint, and he cordially gave it to you; it happens to be the official version of events, which is the accepted baseline in discussion, just in my own humble opinion. I would think the onus would be on the theorist here to support their theory by being able to elaborate on it in this situation. If you want to invoke scientific method in your argument you have to practice it: when you introduce a Theory, you should be able to support that argument. Galileo didn't walk up to the Pope and tell the Pope it was his job to prove the earth was indeed not a sphere.

actually, thats wasnt the reason for my response at all.

in this very thread ive constantly said ive no interest in laying down an all encompassing theory (it would take an enternity). i offered researched points and spent my time answering his questions with linked evidence (it doesnt bother me who takes the evidence as truth or not, thats not the point at all). when i ask for his view, he doesnt give it. rattles out the 'official report' line and then asks for theories again.

thats they type of debate suited to afterhours, usually used by people who have no research to back up their dogmatic claims.

there are other posters in this thread, some a pain in the arse to debate with. at least when they disagree they add substance to the reason (such as the post above. it sticks to the official line but evidently contributes what the poster himself thinks is happening. and is researched because he knows the video itself).

but as usual in the CT forum, the poeple that are interested in debate get infractions for getting pissed off at not wanting to type the same things over and over and over.. and because someone decides that the shouting "official report" is enough of a reply.

what if i came on the thread and just stuck a youtube link up with no opinion. how long would that post last before something was said to me?

its exactly the same thing.

DamagedTrax

fliball123 wrote: »

Too many coincident here IMO

100% and thats what makes it so weird.

like i said i dont believe the early announcement of the fall was anything other than over excited reporting... BUT like everything else with the day, enough questions are raised to warrant at least a look into where the reports came from and why.

but on the grander scheme its a minute detail to me.

fliball123

DamagedTrax wrote: »

100% and thats what makes it so weird.

like i said i dont believe the early announcement of the fall was anything other than over excited reporting... BUT like everything else with the day, enough questions are raised to warrant at least a look into where the reports came from and why.

but on the grander scheme its a minute detail to me.

Minute detail one of the oldest and biggest news broadcasters outside of the U.S does a full report on a third building collapsing in the midst of what happend 20 mins before it went down and your calling this minute , throw in Larry Silverstein saying it was pulled and right there that is proof positive that this building was a controlled demolition. If they are prepared to lie about that what else are they not telling us?

DamagedTrax

fliball123 wrote: »

Minute detail one of the oldest and biggest news broadcasters outside of the U.S does a full report on a third building collapsing in the midst of what happend 20 mins before it went down and your calling this minute , throw in Larry Silverstein saying it was pulled and right there that is proof positive that this building was a controlled demolition. If they are prepared to lie about that what else are they not telling us?

you're preaching to the choir buddy. silverstein saying pull it is a smoking gun to me. some will try and claim he was talking about pulling the operation, i call BS on that. it takes more of a stretch to believe that, than to take the words at face value.

as for the bbc, well as i said earlier they take their news from agenies like reuters. other networks were talking about the collapse before it happened. so maybe you're right, maybe a news agency had prior knowledge but i'd be looking at the actual source rather than the end product.

i feel the only reason the bbc is remembered for reporting it early is that they were stupid enough to do it with th building still visible. i often wonder if she hadnt move that step to the left to reveal the building, would we be so bothered about it?

weisses

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Do you see it collapse at free fall speed considering you can see it freely standing for a good 2-3 seconds after a major structural collapse has evidently occured

You do agree building 7 reached free fall acceleration right ?

fliball123

DamagedTrax wrote: »

you're preaching to the choir buddy. silverstein saying pull it is a smoking gun to me. some will try and claim he was talking about pulling the operation, i call BS on that. it takes more of a stretch to believe that, than to take the words at face value.

as for the bbc, well as i said earlier they take their news from agenies like reuters. other networks were talking about the collapse before it happened. so maybe you're right, maybe a news agency had prior knowledge but i'd be looking at the actual source rather than the end product.

i feel the only reason the bbc is remembered for reporting it early is that they were stupid enough to do it with th building still visible. i often wonder if she hadnt move that step to the left to reveal the building, would we be so bothered about it?

Well not only was the building in the background the report stopped mid feed..ah I dont want to be saying BBC are complicit but they had information about a building coming down when it was still up and pretty much looked in tact, no plane had hit it and was only the third building of its type to collapse like that due to fire..the first 2 being the twin towers

Dohnjoe

fliball123 wrote: »

Why was there no reports on WTF 3, 4, 5, 6 or the sheraton hotel coming down then? some of these where significantly damaged and some the Sheraton in particular was ablaze aswell?

I believe the BBC reporter did mention a partial collapse of WTC 3, as well as saying that WTC 7 had just collapsed (which was incorrect) The NY fire department had been warning of collapse all afternoon, and mistakes are common on live breaking news

I remember hearing little about of the other buildings on the day, most news channels I tuned into were obviously very focused on the twin towers, the Pentagon and the 4th jet, and the dramatic footage

Overheal

I respond on thread because I saw you did not posted in your capacity as a mod

Yep, anything I don't want/need argued on-thread will always be kept in bold, anything else will be open for comment. If you think it might drag the thread off topic, please instead leave a post in the feedback thread and report your own post so I see it faster (stickies, y'know) Thank you!

Rudiger wrote:

Anyway, I could ramble on about it, but it would take pages and pages to explain in detail. What you should do is look and see if anything I say is outside the realm of possibility. Ask yourself why Cheney did order that no fighter jets intercept the air liners (youtube 'Cheney gave STAND DOWN ORDER')?

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Norman_Mineta this came up when I looked for a non-youtube source for the stand-down order. Good website if this page was any indication; there are a couple different accounts of what happened but most of it points at the orders and indeed "Of course the orders still stand, Have you heard anything to the contrary?" all referred to a standing order to shoot the planes down. When asked for authorization to strike, Scooter Libby reported that Cheney took about as much time to authorize lethal military force as a batter takes to decide to swing at a baseball.

Rudiger wrote:

Look at the polls, look at how many people believe that there was inside knowledge about 911 and then tell me if your 'free press' reflects those polls? For people outside the US, it is always amusing when they talk about their free press.

Well, fact is free press will always be hampered by "National Security." I recently saw somewhere, about some thing to do with the country's debts/financials during the cold war and I believe reporting of that was more or less asked to be hushed for reasons of national security - which for the time was not all that inaccurate to say.

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote:

Do you see it collapse at free fall speed considering you can see it freely standing for a good 2-3 seconds after a major structural collapse has evidently occured

In engineering anyway we talk about 2 kinds of material failure: soft failure and ultimate failure. All metals for have an engineering yield point (the point beyond which the metal can elastically revert back to its original unloaded shape (obviously for metals, the distances involved are *small*) - also beyond this point its maximum toughness/resilience etc. begins to drop off) and ultimate yield point at which the material has actually snapped. Even during a destructive material test, a metal will take a decent amount of time and additional force to reach ultimate failure - I've performed tensile testing as such; when discussing buckling/compressive forces, I can only imagine it could take more time.

DamagedTrax wrote:

there are other posters in this thread, some a pain in the arse to debate with. at least when they disagree they add substance to the reason (such as the post above. it sticks to the official line but evidently contributes what the poster himself thinks is happening. and is researched because he knows the video itself).

but as usual in the CT forum, the poeple that are interested in debate get infractions for getting pissed off at not wanting to type the same things over and over and over.. and because someone decides that the shouting "official report" is enough of a reply.

what if i came on the thread and just stuck a youtube link up with no opinion. how long would that post last before something was said to me?

its exactly the same thing.

I see your point, and I think it would at least be fair of someone introducing "The Report" as their defense for instance, they should at minimum be able to expand on specific points, and bring in their own understanding of the details in their conveyance, in my humble. I don't necessarily wanna start seeing "The official report" > theory > "wheres your proof?" > proof > "Well, the official report. /drop mic" - just report that (before the frustration bleeds into the thread), I or Anca (I can't ever spell that name ) will take a look at it with mod hats on. I'd personally rather see Theory+proof/argument > "counter-argument, debunk proof/argument" which seems to jive well around here.

On building 7, there is a suspicious lack of information, but at the same time that makes it one of the hardest aspects of 9/11 to discuss constructively because there are just a lot of unknowns given the circumstances; the official account of building 7 (which is slack) and its conspiracy theories (which are, mixed), are on fairly equal footing which can make for abrasive conversation sometimes!

DamagedTrax

Overheal wrote: »

just report that (before the frustration bleeds into the thread), I or Anca (I can't ever spell that name ) will take a look at it with mod hats on. I'd personally rather see Theory+proof/argument > "counter-argument, debunk proof/argument" which seems to jive well around here.

nobody has ever drove me to the point of reporting a post.. yet!

i think it breeds anger in an already heated forum. sometimes its easier to give someone a little poke (without resorting to insult... although we're all probably guilty of it the odd time).

but point taken. ill just tone it back my end in the given scenario, rather than report though.

DamagedTrax

Overheal wrote: »

. When asked for authorization to strike, Scooter Libby reported that Cheney took about as much time to authorize lethal military force as a batter takes to decide to swing at a baseball.

so that then leaves the question. why was there no take down? the pentagon and the white house both had rooftop defense systems. as well as various spots around the capital.

if the orders still stood to shoot the plane down, the plane would have been taken down as per the effectiveness of the system - as per the CBO report before their initial purchase.

now, there are debates as to whether the whitehouse system was up and running on time. but we know the pentagon's were.

you could conclude that either the order was a stall to let the plane hit or the order was given just as libby suggests, only the object was too low/fast/close to take down at that point (ie a missle).

releasing more than 3 frames would just clear this all up. if they could show the plane hitting that would be it! yet they never have and there has to be a reason for that. you dont intentionally screw yourself like that.

with all the camera's that they confiscated and with all the people who would have been around and knowing whats going on that day, would most likely be filming... even if it was outside rush hour. 1 single, independently verified photograph/frame of the plane hitting the pentagon and that would be the entire 911 conspiracy put to bed. case closed.

yet nothing.

Overheal

with all the camera's that they confiscated and with all the people who would have been around and knowing whats going on that day, would most likely be filming... even if it was outside rush hour. 1 single, independently verified photograph/frame of the plane hitting the pentagon and that would be the entire 911 conspiracy put to bed. case closed.

yet nothing.

Remember the 2001 era cell phone played Snake. There are reports that a hotel camera captured footage of course (that's been established officially too I believe) but yes that video never saw the public domain. I don't know if for reasons of a cover up or reasons of not wanting to give potential enemies a raw look at the nature of the structural impact ie. did not want to give any free insight into pentagon vulnerabilities.

At the very least, I feel that the conspiracy pervades the entire country's subconscious or it had; because of the Patriot Act, the report, and other things, we now support an open and free internet and damn near insist on cameras everywhere, including strapped on cops. It will baseline serve to diminish the ability of future conspiracies to be carried out, whether 9/11 was one or not.

DamagedTrax

Overheal wrote: »

Remember the 2001 era cell phone played Snake.

there are plenty of grainy quality shots of the 2nd hit from new york. people were aware of the pentagon plane. as per one (extremely suspicious witness due to his work position) who watched it fly all the way over just to the right off his head. the plane would have drawn attention, flying that low and especially on that day.

there are also at least (from various local business etc) 84 more tapes that the fbi refuse to release. what is it they dont want us to see? surely if they show what released videos show, we'll be none the wiser anyway?

There are reports that a hotel camera captured footage of course (that's been established officially too I believe) but yes that video never saw the public domain. I don't know if for reasons of a cover up or reasons of not wanting to give potential enemies a raw look at the nature of the structural impact ie. did not want to give any free insight into pentagon vulnerabilities.

if its the same vidoe i think you're referring to that footage came out in 2012 i believe. it shows the explosion but doesnt track the flight of the plane and the impact point is hidden from view. so while it does show the event, it doesnt show any plane, only a bright streak flying parallel to the horizon.

Yup, found it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PKS86KyYbo

it also glitches right after impact and time stamp is off but that could have been blast waves.

At the very least, I feel that the conspiracy pervades the entire country's subconscious or it had; because of the Patriot Act, the report, and other things, we now support an open and free internet and damn near insist on cameras everywhere, including strapped on cops. It will baseline serve to diminish the ability of future conspiracies to be carried out, whether 9/11 was one or not.

or it was proof positive that something on this scale can be achieved. the ones who believe the government will keep believing. the ones who dont believe, well despite all our shouting we still cant prove it was an inside job... not the kind of enemy i'd be too bothered about.. not yet anyway.

Rudiger Glique

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

So, the polls that suggest a majority believing in a conspiracy are examples of free press, but all of the others suggesting the opposite are questionable examples of supposedly free press. Right so.

No,of course not. But the main stream media does not represent the opinions of a large section of its population as anything other than the unpatriotic craziness of conspiracy theorists. Try watching how RT 'news' presents 911 'conspiracies'. Tell me then if that is propaganda or 'free press'.

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

One of my particular favourites with CTers is the cries of 'show me your sources'. When asked to prove a point that they are claiming, it's 'google such-and-such' or post a youtube video with sinister music and badly edited statements from officials. However, so as not to follow your lead regarding telling people to google something, check out Robert Gellately's book called Backing Hitler (it's from OUP, has an extensive bibliography, but seeing as I know you're not going to actually read it, here's an article that you can read about it http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/feb/17/johnezard ). If the article is too much or an example of biased press, I'll summarise: the Nazis made regular announcements in the press about concentration camps and how they were cleaning up the undesireable elements in Germany at the time (makes sense: they had been talking about how they would do this when they came to power). This policy changed in 1941 due to the logistics of a government at war (with full control of the press) announcing its strategic moves. Even this wasn't enough to stop strategic Allied bombing of train routes used for the transportation of civilians to concentration camps in eastern Germany and Poland (and elsewhere).

I asked for sources because I knew of none, and I have read a lot about world war two. I was asking specifically for sources that showed the Nazis were making routine announcements in Nazi Germany about the killing of undesirables, which is what you claimed. Now you have changed your language to 'cleaning up' which is very different and something I do not need to check your sources, because I know they were public about that. Remember, the Germans were people, and as much as they have been demonized by the victors of the war, they would probably have reacted strongly to public announcement of mass genocide. Hence, claims they were for me are extraordinary and hence I look for sources. If you want to point to a source that backs your original claim, I will read it (does the source you provided a link to do that?)

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

As for the claims about the free press not doing a good enough job reporting on the WMD debacle, I'm pretty sure there were reports at the time. Is the press a beacon of light and investigative journalism? No, of course not, but to suggest that the WMD conspiracy wasn't being discussed is ludicrous (but fits your story, so we'll leave it at that).

Are you saying that the free press was reporting that the WMD claim was a lie? If they were then you have a better memory than me. I seem to remember a lot about freedom fries and other nonsense, but reports on US mainstream media that Bush was a barefaced lying war monger are not something I recollect.

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

And NSA surveillance required a huge government conspiracy which necessitated communication. Does the lack of anything in Wikileaks re 9/11 being an inside job mean it wasn't? For the 5th (or so) time, no, but it does make it highly implausible.

I could have said pre snowden that the US was undertaking a massive illegal collection of all internet communications of every citizen (IMO), and you could have said where is the proof in wikileaks and claimed because there was none, it was highly implausible. That's my point. In other words it is a pointless argument and one that should be dropped. Wikileaks is not the arbiter of truth.

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

The Barry Jennings case is an interesting one, because he was actually present and argued against the official testimony. You see how he's different from the wife of somebody who died in the attacks, right? Something like that definitely looks suspicious and should be investigated further. I would need to read more about it before actually commenting about it, because all I can find on the internet are articles on websites that look like they were designed 15 years ago, so I think the coverage might be a little skewed. However, I would suggest that a guy in a collapsing building hearing explosions might not be the evidence for an inside job that you're looking for. If I was in a building that was collapsing and I heard some explosions, my first thought wouldn't be: conspiracy. It'd probably be, sh1t, explosions in a collapsing building. Makes sense.

It is interesting IMO too, because it suggests that he may have been silenced. Then you have to ask, why silence him if there is nothing to hide? I cannot post links, hence I say go to youtube (sorry about that by my account is new and they don't allow me too) but if you want to know about more suspicious deaths and have a genuine interest, google mysterious deaths surrounding 911. Some on their own suggest nothing, but together these things begin to paint a pretty grim picture.

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

As above. The gassing was a step up which began (as far as I know) in 1942, so well into the murky depths of the war. Germans were aware previously of the systemic murder of Jews, Communists, Gypsies, etc, in concentration camps. I see you're focusing primarily on the gassing now. That's not the 'conspiracy' here, it's the systematic genocide of peoples based on their race, sexuality, or political ideology.

I didn't mean to focus on the gassing. I also see you have switched to 'Germans were aware' again. I was talking about the main stream media and the German population at large. Was it being reported in the newspapers etc. that the Nazis were committing genocide? I seriously doubt it and would like to see sources for that claim. Otherwise we go back to the Germans knowing as those close to the camps and those carrying out the orders.

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

No, you're basing your opinion on a video made by somebody whose purpose is to convince others of their opinion. The fact that you hold the previous YouTube video as essentially a QED is embarrassing. The beginning alone (with the edited statements from newsreporters) should set alarm bells ringing.

I never referred to any specific video. I have given my own posts for google videos to explore. Those videos have countless eye witness testimonies of molten steel. I have also given examples of videos which show that thermate can be used to melt steel (by a guy in his garden), a claim that was discredited by the main stream media as impossible, even when members of NIST have been involved in the development of those very same technologies.

I have also watched the videos of the buildings collapse. I don't need any sound when I watch those, the collapse and the manner of the collapse simply speaks for itself. Like Danny Jowenko, a demolition expert who when first shown building seven collapsed claimed, with his expertise and knowledge of controlled demolitions, that it must have been a controlled demolition. Like him, I just use my eyes and my brain. I don't let it get clouded with theories of miraculous office fires. Danny immediately began asking how they could have rigged it in the short amount of time, which is a good question. Oh, by the way, Danny ended up dying in a car crash. Of course, it could have been a genuine accident. But either way, I reckon other demolition experts might be a little concerned now also of giving their expert opinion if it contradicts the official version.

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

This is frankly ridiculous. I'm not sure you are even aware of what a conspiracy is (the irony!). But for argument's sake, again (like with the WMD 'point' you raised previously) Armstrong's doping was commented on for as long as I can remember.

A conspiracy is a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful, so Lance and his team cheating 7 tour de frances through lies and deceit is a perfect example IMO. If you have another definition, I am all ears. And the claim was illustrative. Where was your free media, how did he get away with it for so long before without someone on the inside confessing? (someone did confess, but she was simply discredited, maybe if she had been killed, we would still believe he was not doping!).

Anyway, before it became fact, those who supported him used all the same arguments that I hear from supports on the official 911 story. What always surprises me is when people think that big conspiracies cannot happen simply because of the good nature of people that they find it hard to lie about things and some misplaced belief that there is a free and open press.

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

So, so many people involved in that example of what may have occurred, and yet the only people willing to come forward is Brian Jennings and a few others (not a long list, despite what you might say). That example also requires the collusion of private enterprises and ordinary workers on a scale that is highly implausible that all of them have kept their mouth shut.

That is your opinion. As I say, I could have shown many Germans in 1941 pictures of Jews on cattle cars and chimneys billowing smoke, but how could they ever believe their government would do something so vile, and how could they get away with it, too many people would have to be complicit? But then, a blind acceptance of authority, a lack of an informed public, and the combination of opportunists and those who genuinely believed that the extermination was an absolute necessity...well, for me it is easy to see how you could get away with it actually. And in the case of the Nazis, if they hadn't been defeated, maybe we would now live in greater Germania where talk about extermination camps was for crazy conspiracy theorists and only happened on 'where are the Jews now' web forums.

Rudiger Glique

Overheal wrote: »

911myths. Norman_Mineta[/url] this came up when I looked for a non-youtube source for the stand-down order. Good website if this page was any indication; there are a couple different accounts of what happened but most of it points at the orders and indeed "Of course the orders still stand, Have you heard anything to the contrary?" all referred to a standing order to shoot the planes down. When asked for authorization to strike, Scooter Libby reported that Cheney took about as much time to authorize lethal military force as a batter takes to decide to swing at a baseball.

Yeah, I have seen that site. The question remains though, if that was the order, is it not surprising that they didn't do a much better job at shooting the plane down? As for Scooter Libby...he was indicted by a federal grand jury on five felony counts of making false statements to federal investigators, perjury for lying to a federal grand jury, and obstruction of justice for impeding the course of a federal grand jury investigation concerned with the possibly illegal leaking by government officials of the classified identity of a covert agent of the CIA, Valerie Plame Wilson. I would not class him as a reliable source myself. He doesn't have many friends left. Sure Dick Cheney supports him. I am reminded of something about the company people keep. The sooner the power brokers in the US see through Dick and his ilks empty promises and see the damage he has done to the US, the better.

Overheal wrote: »

Well, fact is free press will always be hampered by "National Security." I recently saw somewhere, about some thing to do with the country's debts/financials during the cold war and I believe reporting of that was more or less asked to be hushed for reasons of national security - which for the time was not all that inaccurate to say.

That makes sense. The end goal was to defeat communism, so I can see why some would argue that the end justifies the means. For me though it is another case of 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'. Once you can corrupt yourself in the now in the hope of a better future, you have already lost the good fight IMO. But perhaps I am horribly naive.

Overheal

[i think the admins dialed down the link/url threshold to 25 posts you might be able to try it now]