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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Mainstream media now questioning the official 9/11 narrative

  • 18-09-2019 6:37pm
    #1
    Capt. Autumn
    Registered Users Posts: 323 ✭✭


    The leading program in Alaska for engineering at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and an organization called “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth,” have created a partnership in an investigative study of what brought down Building 7 of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

    The draft report released Sept 5th concluded that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of the several national private engineering firms and the government’s National Institute of Standards and Technology.

    The study concludes that the collapse of WTC 7 was instead a “global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

    Anyone closely following this story will not be surprised at the findings of the four year study. What is surprising though is that, for the first time, mainstream media is beginning to question the official narrative of that tragic day.

    The Daily Express online here: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1175375/9-11-world-trade-center-twin-towers-September-11-conspiracy-theories

    And the CBS affiliate in Alaska KTVA (The Voice of Alaska) here: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=496895787798241

    Can the center hold?


«13

Comments

  • #2
    TheValeyard
    Registered Users Posts: 12,716 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard


    Your first source is The Express. Straight away your evidence is dubious at best.

    All eyes on Kursk. Slava Ukraini.



  • #3
    Capt. Autumn
    Registered Users Posts: 323 ✭✭Capt. Autumn


    Your first source is The Express. Straight away your evidence is dubious at best.

    My evidence? What are you talking about?
    This is a peer reviewed four year study from a reputable university.
    The fact that The Express is the only newspaper to take up the story does not lessen the veracity of the findings, rather, begs the question why are the broadsheets ignoring the report.

    Most people believe two skyscrapers collapsed on 9/11. It's bizarre how under-reported the collapse of WTC Building 7 was.


  • #4
    donvito99
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    It's been 19 years, nobody believes the conspiracy


  • #5
    Woke Hogan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭Woke Hogan


    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    My evidence? What are you talking about?
    This is a peer reviewed four year study from a reputable university.
    The fact that The Express is the only newspaper to take up the story does not lessen the veracity of the findings, rather, begs the question why are the broadsheets ignoring the report.

    Most people believe two skyscrapers collapsed on 9/11. It's bizarre how under-reported the collapse of WTC Building 7 was.
    WTC Building 7 probably fell because two giant skyscrapers collapsed right next to it.


  • #6
    Capt. Autumn
    Registered Users Posts: 323 ✭✭Capt. Autumn


    It's been 19 years, nobody believes the conspiracy

    So you are disagreeing with the findings of a four year study before you even study it? Okaaayyyy.


    Just to bring you up to date, in the US an officail yougov survey revealed that one in two surveyed have doubts about government’s account of 9/11
    46% suspect controlled demolition of World Trade Center building 7 after viewing video footage of collapse.

    Read here:https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2013/09/12/new-poll-finds-most-americans-open-alternative-911


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Capt. Autumn
    Registered Users Posts: 323 ✭✭Capt. Autumn


    WTC Building 7 probably fell because two giant skyscrapers collapsed right next to it.

    You would think wouldn't you?

    That's not what the official NIST report from 2006 found though. They claimed the collapse was from office fires alone. The first steel framed building to collapse soley due to fire.

    The new report disputes that, mainly due to the manner of it's collapse, 47 stories collapsing in on itseldf in 11 seconds, 3 seconds of which even NIST admitted was at freefall speed.


  • #8
    kneemos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,450 ✭✭✭✭kneemos


    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    So you are disagreeing with the findings of a four year study before you even study it? Okaaayyyy.


    Just to bring you up to date, in the US an officail yougov survey revealed that one in two surveyed have doubts about government’s account of 9/11
    46% suspect controlled demolition of World Trade Center building 7 after viewing video footage of collapse.

    Read here:https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2013/09/12/new-poll-finds-most-americans-open-alternative-911


    The university study claimed fire didn't cause the collapse,other studies did.
    Nothing about controlled demolition.


  • #9
    JohnnyFlash
    Registered Users Posts: 7,055 ✭✭✭JohnnyFlash


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWIkqEnVG8I


  • #10
    Jonybgud
    Registered Users Posts: 463 ✭✭Jonybgud


    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    The leading program in Alaska for engineering at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and an organization called “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth,” have created a partnership in an investigative study of what brought down Building 7 of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

    The draft report released Sept 5th concluded that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of the several national private engineering firms and the government’s National Institute of Standards and Technology.

    The study concludes that the collapse of WTC 7 was instead a “global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

    Anyone closely following this story will not be surprised at the findings of the four year study. What is surprising though is that, for the first time, mainstream media is beginning to question the official narrative of that tragic day.

    The Daily Express online here: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1175375/9-11-world-trade-center-twin-towers-September-11-conspiracy-theories

    And the CBS affiliate in Alaska KTVA (The Voice of Alaska) here: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=496895787798241

    Can the center hold?
    Invest in a dictionary and look up Mainstream.


  • #11
    adox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭adox


    Shouldn’t this sort of stuff be kept to the conspiracy forum?


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Ipso
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso


    adox wrote: »
    Shouldn’t this sort of stuff be kept to the conspiracy forum?

    There's oodles of this shiite there.
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1489


  • #13
    Ipso
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso


    JohnnyFlash wrote: »
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWIkqEnVG8I

    Solidarity brother!


  • #14
    Homelander
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,434 ✭✭✭Homelander


    Mainstream media isn't questioning anything. It's just highlighting that a report has been launched that disputes the established narrative, that WTC7 fell due to fires and resulting structural failure.


  • #15
    Your Face
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,275 ✭✭✭Your Face


    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »


    Can the center hold?

    Mon Dieu! Dash off and warn General Murat posthaste.
    The centre must hold!


  • #16
    Ted_YNWA
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 71,799 ✭✭✭✭Ted_YNWA


    Thread moved from AH to dedicated 9/11 forum.

    Please adhere to local charter


  • #17
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    My evidence? What are you talking about?
    This is a peer reviewed four year study from a reputable university.
    Despite promises that it would be, this study is not and won't be peer reviewed.

    Secondly, it was not by the University of Fairbanks. It was by one professor from that university who was hired and funded by a conspiracy theorist group to specifically write a study that proved the real explanation was impossible. This should be very suspect.

    Lastly, the study is plagued with flaws, errors and questionable science.


  • #18
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Also it's a bit disingenuous to call it "a four year study".
    It's more like a two year study that's two years late.


  • #19
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,027 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    So you are disagreeing with the findings of a four year study before you even study it? Okaaayyyy.


    Just to bring you up to date, in the US an officail yougov survey revealed that one in two surveyed have doubts about government’s account of 9/11
    46% suspect controlled demolition of World Trade Center building 7 after viewing video footage of collapse.

    Read here:https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2013/09/12/new-poll-finds-most-americans-open-alternative-911

    Roughly the same percentage of Americans believe god intelligently designed goblin sharks and that dinosaurs and man made climate change are myths. Popular misconception doesn’t make something a conspiracy.


  • #20
    banie01
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,931 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    So you are disagreeing with the findings of a four year study before you even study it? Okaaayyyy.

    That's very disingenuous.
    Many of us who disagree with the claims of this study have spent quite a lot of time reading, reviewing researching and then refuting.

    The study is incredibly flawed.
    Even from the basic premise of setting out to "prove" a negative, is incredibly poor science.
    Further to this, the claimed finite element study that this was to be based on is not included in the study as released.
    The load analysis and collapse videos released, are animations and poor ones at that rather than simulations.

    There is no new evidence, there is no peer review other than debunking or an occasional point and laugh.

    This has also been discussed and debunked as infinitum not just on MetaBunk...
    But also on Boards.ie in the dedicated 9/11 sub forum.
    Feel free to join in, read the theories and rebuttals and ask a new question :)


  • #21
    Gadgetman496
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,408 ✭✭✭Gadgetman496


    donvito99 wrote: »
    It's been 19 years, nobody believes the conspiracy

    18 years

    "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."



  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Capt. Autumn
    Registered Users Posts: 323 ✭✭Capt. Autumn


    Feel free to join in, read the theories and rebuttals and ask a new question

    Thanks for making me feel welcome banie01.

    I'm interested to hear your take on the official NIST findings on the collapse of Building 7.


  • #23
    Brussels Sprout
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    So you are disagreeing with the findings of a four year study before you even study it? Okaaayyyy.


    Just to bring you up to date, in the US an officail yougov survey revealed that one in two surveyed have doubts about government’s account of 9/11
    46% suspect controlled demolition of World Trade Center building 7 after viewing video footage of collapse.

    Read here:https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2013/09/12/new-poll-finds-most-americans-open-alternative-911

    46% is also exactly the % of the US electorate who voted for Donald Trump at the last presidential election.


  • #24
    Capt. Autumn
    Registered Users Posts: 323 ✭✭Capt. Autumn


    Brussels Sprout wrote: »
    46% is also exactly the % of the US electorate who voted for Donald Trump at the last presidential election.

    So it was isolated office fires then......


  • #25
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    So you are disagreeing with the findings of a four year study before you even study it? Okaaayyyy.


    Just to bring you up to date, in the US an officail yougov survey revealed that one in two surveyed have doubts about government’s account of 9/11
    46% suspect controlled demolition of World Trade Center building 7 after viewing video footage of collapse.

    Read here:https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2013/09/12/new-poll-finds-most-americans-open-alternative-911

    Average people viewing footage and deciding what did or didnt happen is irrelevant. They dont have a clue about buildings and how the should or shouldnt collapse under different circumstances regardless of how well they think they do.

    Suggest to them, or them having it suggested to them at any stage over the last 18 years is enough to have plenty going along and seeing what they want to see.


  • #26
    Capt. Autumn
    Registered Users Posts: 323 ✭✭Capt. Autumn


    Cold tonight eh?
    I can feel the draughts coming across the window shills...shills....shills, sorry window sills.


  • #27
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,027 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    Cold tonight eh?
    I can feel the draughts coming across the window shills...shills....shills, sorry window sills.

    mod:

    Please elevate the manner of your diction and be civil.


  • #28
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    So it was isolated office fires then......

    Who says it was "isolated" office fires?
    The NIST certainly doesn't.


  • #29
    Capt. Autumn
    Registered Users Posts: 323 ✭✭Capt. Autumn


    King Mob wrote: »
    Who says it was "isolated" office fires?
    The NIST certainly doesn't.

    Remind us again what NIST said caused the collapse...


  • #30
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    Remind us again what NIST said caused the collapse...
    Extensive uncontrolled office fires that were left burning for many hours.

    Why did you say "isolated"?


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Capt. Autumn
    Registered Users Posts: 323 ✭✭Capt. Autumn


    King Mob wrote: »
    Who says it was "isolated" office fires?
    The NIST certainly doesn't.


    Explain again the 2.5 seconds freefall speed of WTC Building 7.


  • #32
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    Explain again the 2.5 seconds freefall speed of WTC Building 7.
    Part of the building's facade fell at free fall acceleration for a few seconds.
    This is because it was in the middle of the collapse.
    This short period of free fall is not indicative of a conspiracy, nor does it invalidate the real explanation from NIST.
    There's nothing that requires explaining.

    However, such a period of freefall is impossible in the models discussed in Husley's report.

    Why exactly do you think that this period of free fall is important?

    Also you have not addressed any points others have made at you. Could you please go back and address them now?
    Particularly, could you explain why you used the term "isolated" as if it was part of NISTs explanation?

    Can you also explain why you mischaracterised Hulseys study as "a four year peer reviewed scientific study from a respected university" when it was none of those things?


  • #33
    Capt. Autumn
    Registered Users Posts: 323 ✭✭Capt. Autumn




    King Mob, I'm so glad I've found you. I have an intellectual curiosity on some of the anomalies surrounding the events of that day, but you seem to be an expert on these things.

    There's so much about 9/11 that confuses the casual observer. Can we start with Jane Stanley reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7, 20 minutes before it fell.


  • #34
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    King Mob, I'm so glad I've found you. I have an intellectual curiosity on some of the anomalies surrounding the events of that day, but you seem to be an expert on these things.

    There's so much about 9/11 that confuses the casual observer. Can we start with Jane Stanley reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7, 20 minutes before it fell.
    Misreporting on a choatic news day. Pretty staight forward to be honest.

    What is the conspiracy explanation for it? I've never seen one thats made any sense.

    Again you have not responded to any points made to you. Could you please go back and address them?


  • #35
    Capt. Autumn
    Registered Users Posts: 323 ✭✭Capt. Autumn


    King Mob wrote: »
    Misreporting on a choatic news day. Pretty staight forward to be honest.

    Look, I'll presume that you are reasonably intelligent, so I know you don't really believe this. No steel framed building had collapsed from fire alone before that day and it is reported on before it happened.

    This is pre-knowledge. I know and you know it too.

    The firefighter at the start of this video knows that Building 7 is about to collapse also. Remember, we are talking about something that never happened before, a steel framed building collapsing due to office fires (NIST explanation)




    On your other points. 2 year or 4 year study. Semantics.

    Is the University of Alaska a respected university? Well you can make that a point of conjecture if you want but let's deal in facts.

    How did that first responder know Building 7 was about to to collapse?
    Was that another case of 'misreporting'?


  • #36
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    No steel framed building had collapsed from fire alone before that day
    Untrue. Steel framed buildings have collapsed before then and more have since then.
    Also irrelevant as WTC7 was a unique building in unique circumstances.
    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    and it is reported on before it happened.

    This is pre-knowledge. I know and you know it too.
    Ok, if it's pre-knowledge, please explain how this fits into the conspiracy theory.
    Why did they tell the BBC?
    Why did the BBC report it early?
    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    On your other points. 2 year or 4 year study. Semantics.
    Not really. It's pointing out that you are being less than honest with your description.
    A study that is planned to take 4 years is not the same as a study that is planned to take 2 but then is delayed (for reasons mysterious) for 2 years.

    What you said implies that it was always planned to take as long as it did, which isn't true.
    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    Is the University of Alaska a respected university? Well you can make that a point of conjecture if you want but let's deal in facts.
    I didn't say that it wasn't.
    I disagree with your assertion that it was the university that did the study. It was not. It was one professor who was hired and funded by a conspiracy theory organisation.

    I also made several other points on this and other points you brought up. It would be best if you address them all in full.
    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    How did that first responder know Building 7 was about to to collapse?
    Was that another case of 'misreporting'?
    Because of the extensive damage and the uncontrolled fires. I suspect he was making a precautious, educated guess.

    But again, what's the conspiracy theory here? Are you accusing this first responder of being involved?

    Again, it's a bit rude for you to demand I answer random new questions about tangents when you've been not responding to most points put to you.
    It would be best to deal with what has already been brought up first.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Capt. Autumn
    Registered Users Posts: 323 ✭✭Capt. Autumn


    King Mob wrote: »
    Untrue. Steel framed buildings have collapsed before then and more have since then.
    Also irrelevant as WTC7 was a unique building in unique circumstances.


    Ok, if it's pre-knowledge, please explain how this fits into the conspiracy theory.
    Why did they tell the BBC?
    Why did the BBC report it early?


    Not really. It's pointing out that you are being less than honest with your description.
    A study that is planned to take 4 years is not the same as a study that is planned to take 2 but then is delayed (for reasons mysterious) for 2 years.

    What you said implies that it was always planned to take as long as it did, which isn't true.


    I didn't say that it wasn't.
    I disagree with your assertion that it was the university that did the study. It was not. It was one professor who was hired and funded by a conspiracy theory organisation.

    I also made several other points on this and other points you brought up. It would be best if you address them all in full.


    Because of the extensive damage and the uncontrolled fires. I suspect he was making a precautious, educated guess.

    But again, what's the conspiracy theory here? Are you accusing this first responder of being involved?

    Again, it's a bit rude for you to demand I answer random new questions about tangents when you've been not responding to most points put to you.
    It would be best to deal with what has already been brought up first.

    Why do you keep taking about conspiracy theories?
    I'm only interested in facts.

    One fact is that the BBC reported on the Building's collapse before it did. This is very strange. How did they have prior knowledge? I have no idea but the fact is they knew the building was coming down.

    Another fact is that a number of the people on the video posted have some prior warning that the building was coming down before it did. Again, not normal, under any circumstances.

    Tell me about the other steel framed buildings that have collapsed at freefall speed due to fires. I'm only aware of the Plasco building that collapsed in Tehran two years ago.

    I'm honestly not trying to be rude and I don't agree that my points are tangential. They are all on the same subject - Building 7.


  • #38
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    Why do you keep taking about conspiracy theories?
    I'm only interested in facts.
    Because this is the conspiracy theory forum and you are proposing a conspiracy theory.
    You are suggesting that the BBC and others had prior knowledge of the collapse of WTC7. That is a conspiracy theory.
    Your initial post in the thread was refering to a study funded by a conspiracy theory group to support their conspiracy theory.
    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    One fact is that the BBC reported on the Building's collapse before it did. This is very strange. How did they have prior knowledge? I have no idea but the fact is they knew the building was coming down.

    Another fact is that a number of the people on the video posted have some prior warning that the building was coming down before it did. Again, not normal, under any circumstances.
    But you've already been shown why these things most likely happened.
    You haven't explained why these explanations are inadequate.
    On top of that, there is no viable alternative.
    It makes no sense why they would have prior knowledge.
    Who would give it to them? Why? Why would they then give the game away?

    If you can address these points, do so. If not, could you explain why that you think that the incidents indicate a conspiracy?
    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    Tell me about the other steel framed buildings that have collapsed at freefall speed due to fires. I'm only aware of the Plasco building that collapsed in Tehran two years ago.

    I'm honestly not trying to be rude and I don't agree that my points are tangential. They are all on the same subject - Building 7.
    Cool. I'll provide those then when you address the remaining points from the last few posts. Best to stick to one line of inquiry at a time.


  • #39
    Capt. Autumn
    Registered Users Posts: 323 ✭✭Capt. Autumn


    King Mob wrote: »
    You are suggesting that the BBC and others had prior knowledge of the collapse of WTC7. That is a conspiracy theory.

    No, this is a fact, acknowledged on the BBC's own website.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html?fbclid=IwAR0LuVPdRLh_6_4rqDDi72dDE65_ZHcMwnnFfBpkbm2tM8VqihMsb4tg1WE

    From that link, 'In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had.' So the BBC are admitting that they had received information the building was about to collapse.

    How does an acknowledged fact become a conspiracy theory?

    Oh and the BBC have lost the news tapes of the most important news reporting day of the last 50 years. Now, that is unfortunate, isn't it. Not a conspiracy mind, a fact.


  • #40
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    No, this is a fact, acknowledged on the BBC's own website.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html?fbclid=IwAR0LuVPdRLh_6_4rqDDi72dDE65_ZHcMwnnFfBpkbm2tM8VqihMsb4tg1WE

    From that link, 'In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had.' So the BBC are admitting that they had received information the building was about to collapse.

    How does an acknowledged fact become a conspiracy theory?
    Here, you are mischaracterising statements.
    The BBC did not say " they had received information the building was about to collapse."

    Here they are relaying the facts in very clear terms. And in fact they say:
    1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

    So why did you say they admitted the exact opposite?

    What actually happened is detailed in the part you only partially quoted:
    2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.

    Again, this is one of the most unique events in the history of the world and they was a lot of panic and confusion that day. So why is it impossible that someone reported something like "The building might collapse". Then through the various lines of communication that statement gets turned into "the building is going to collapse"
    Then in turn that gets twisted to "the building has collapsed".

    As the link you provided states, the BBC was careful to check and qualify their statements.

    Now can you please explain, in clear terms what about the explanation is impossible or far fetched? Please be specific and provide reasons for your answer.

    Then, could you explain how your alternative explanation works were mine does not.
    Who provided the fore knowledge?
    Why did they provide it to the BBC?
    Why did the BBC report the collapse early? Was it on purpose or was it by mistake?

    You've once again not addressed any of the previous points put to you. Could you please confirm that you do not intend on addressing them?


  • #41
    Capt. Autumn
    Registered Users Posts: 323 ✭✭Capt. Autumn


    First of all, stop badgering me like I'm in the stand of a courtroom.

    I have no idea why there was fore-knowledge of Building 7's collapse. I have no idea how a never before event could have being predicted before it happened. I also have no idea who was really the brains behind the horrific 9/11 attacks. I wouldn't even guess because I am not qualified enough on these matters. As I said earlier, let's deal in facts and not conjecture or guesswork.

    I initially posted the news on the report and you, amongst others rubbished. I have no problem with that, in fact I welcome it. Once the truth on the events of the day come fully to light (if ever) conversations such as these will no longer be needed. You asked why this issue was in a Conspiracy forum? Well, as you know, that's because it was moved here by the moderators. That does not mean that there are some pretty far-fetched anomalies on the day.

    I am signing off now because you are so entrenched in your viewpoint you are prepared to argue away even the most obvious smoking guns. Go back to the BBC link I sent you. It's the BBC website, not the hangout of conspiracy theorists and crackpots and ask yourself why not one of the posters swallowed the explanation given by Richard Porter vis-a-vis prior knowledge of building collapse. Are they all tin-hat wearing maddos? Or maybe, just maybe, they are right to be concerned about a one-off event being reported on before it happened.

    Now I don't want to explode your head but here's your homework:

    Send me a link to a picture of the 'plane' hitting The Pentagon. this should be difficult as all CCTV footage was confiscated by the FBI.

    Send me a link to a picture of The Shanksville crash site that actually shows plane parts, luggage or passengers. Again, this should prove difficult as all I have ever seen is a crater in the ground.

    Explain how a plane was allowed to hit the most heavily fortified building on earth, one hour after plane attacks in New York.

    Still waiting for the other steel framed buildings that collapsed on their own footprint in 11 seconds, 2.5 of which was freefall.

    Just to remind you, I don't have any answers.
    You are the one that came here to support the official NIST enquiry. So the onus is on you to answer these questions.
    Should be easy enough to answer, shure all those 9/11 conspiracy heads are f***ing nutjobs.....


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,644 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    First of all, stop badgering me like I'm in the stand of a courtroom.

    I have no idea why there was fore-knowledge of Building 7's collapse. I have no idea how a never before event could have being predicted before it happened. I also have no idea who was really the brains behind the horrific 9/11 attacks. I wouldn't even guess because I am not qualified enough on these matters. As I said earlier, let's deal in facts and not conjecture or guesswork.

    I initially posted the news on the report and you, amongst others rubbished. I have no problem with that, in fact I welcome it. Once the truth on the events of the day come fully to light (if ever) conversations such as these will no longer be needed. You asked why this issue was in a Conspiracy forum? Well, as you know, that's because it was moved here by the moderators. That does not mean that there are some pretty far-fetched anomalies on the day.

    I am signing off now because you are so entrenched in your viewpoint you are prepared to argue away even the most obvious smoking guns. Go back to the BBC link I sent you. It's the BBC website, not the hangout of conspiracy theorists and crackpots and ask yourself why not one of the posters swallowed the explanation given by Richard Porter vis-a-vis prior knowledge of building collapse. Are they all tin-hat wearing maddos? Or maybe, just maybe, they are right to be concerned about a one-off event being reported on before it happened.

    Now I don't want to explode your head but here's your homework:

    Send me a link to a picture of the 'plane' hitting The Pentagon. this should be difficult as all CCTV footage was confiscated by the FBI.

    Send me a link to a picture of The Shanksville crash site that actually shows plane parts, luggage or passengers. Again, this should prove difficult as all I have ever seen is a crater in the ground.

    Explain how a plane was allowed to hit the most heavily fortified building on earth, one hour after plane attacks in New York.

    Still waiting for the other steel framed buildings that collapsed on their own footprint in 11 seconds, 2.5 of which was freefall.

    Just to remind you, I don't have any answers.
    You are the one that came here to support the official NIST enquiry. So the onus is on you to answer these questions.
    Should be easy enough to answer, shure all those 9/11 conspiracy heads are f***ing nutjobs.....

    At least we can agree on one thing.


  • #43
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,027 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    First of all, stop badgering me like I'm in the stand of a courtroom.

    I have no idea why there was fore-knowledge of Building 7's collapse. I have no idea how a never before event could have being predicted before it happened. I also have no idea who was really the brains behind the horrific 9/11 attacks. I wouldn't even guess because I am not qualified enough on these matters. As I said earlier, let's deal in facts and not conjecture or guesswork.

    I initially posted the news on the report and you, amongst others rubbished. I have no problem with that, in fact I welcome it. Once the truth on the events of the day come fully to light (if ever) conversations such as these will no longer be needed. You asked why this issue was in a Conspiracy forum? Well, as you know, that's because it was moved here by the moderators. That does not mean that there are some pretty far-fetched anomalies on the day.

    I am signing off now because you are so entrenched in your viewpoint you are prepared to argue away even the most obvious smoking guns. Go back to the BBC link I sent you. It's the BBC website, not the hangout of conspiracy theorists and crackpots and ask yourself why not one of the posters swallowed the explanation given by Richard Porter vis-a-vis prior knowledge of building collapse. Are they all tin-hat wearing maddos? Or maybe, just maybe, they are right to be concerned about a one-off event being reported on before it happened.

    Now I don't want to explode your head but here's your homework:

    Send me a link to a picture of the 'plane' hitting The Pentagon. this should be difficult as all CCTV footage was confiscated by the FBI.

    Send me a link to a picture of The Shanksville crash site that actually shows plane parts, luggage or passengers. Again, this should prove difficult as all I have ever seen is a crater in the ground.

    Explain how a plane was allowed to hit the most heavily fortified building on earth, one hour after plane attacks in New York.

    Still waiting for the other steel framed buildings that collapsed on their own footprint in 11 seconds, 2.5 of which was freefall.

    Just to remind you, I don't have any answers.
    You are the one that came here to support the official NIST enquiry. So the onus is on you to answer these questions.
    Should be easy enough to answer, shure all those 9/11 conspiracy heads are f***ing nutjobs.....

    “Why do you keep taking about conspiracy theories?
    I'm only interested in facts.”


  • #44
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    First of all, stop badgering me like I'm in the stand of a courtroom.
    I wouldn't have to keep asking you to address points if you just addressed them directly the first time they are asked.
    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    I have no idea why there was fore-knowledge of Building 7's collapse. I have no idea how a never before event could have being predicted before it happened. I also have no idea who was really the brains behind the horrific 9/11 attacks. I wouldn't even guess because I am not qualified enough on these matters. As I said earlier, let's deal in facts and not conjecture or guesswork.
    So there's no alternative explanation.
    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    I initially posted the news on the report and you, amongst others rubbished. I have no problem with that, in fact I welcome it. Once the truth on the events of the day come fully to light (if ever) conversations such as these will no longer be needed. You asked why this issue was in a Conspiracy forum? Well, as you know, that's because it was moved here by the moderators. That does not mean that there are some pretty far-fetched anomalies on the day.
    But to believe those anomalies, you have to believe in a far fetch bizarre conspiracy that you yourself can't actually explain.

    But I'm not rubbishing them. I asked you several direct questions to outline your opinion and support it. You are now running away.
    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    I am signing off now because you are so entrenched in your viewpoint you are prepared to argue away even the most obvious smoking guns. Go back to the BBC link I sent you. It's the BBC website, not the hangout of conspiracy theorists and crackpots and ask yourself why not one of the posters swallowed the explanation given by Richard Porter vis-a-vis prior knowledge of building collapse. Are they all tin-hat wearing maddos? Or maybe, just maybe, they are right to be concerned about a one-off event being reported on before it happened.
    Yes, I have read the BBC website you linked. I quoted from it where it shows that you were mischaracterising it. I explained in detail how you are mischaracterising it.
    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    Now I don't want to explode your head but here's your homework:

    Send me a link to a picture of the 'plane' hitting The Pentagon. this should be difficult as all CCTV footage was confiscated by the FBI.

    Send me a link to a picture of The Shanksville crash site that actually shows plane parts, luggage or passengers. Again, this should prove difficult as all I have ever seen is a crater in the ground.

    Explain how a plane was allowed to hit the most heavily fortified building on earth, one hour after plane attacks in New York.

    Still waiting for the other steel framed buildings that collapsed on their own footprint in 11 seconds, 2.5 of which was freefall.

    Just to remind you, I don't have any answers.
    You are the one that came here to support the official NIST enquiry. So the onus is on you to answer these questions.
    And all common canards spouted by conspiracy theorists without any scrutiny or criticial thought.
    Like you previous claims if any one of them is pinned down it quickly falls apart.
    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    Should be easy enough to answer, shure all those 9/11 conspiracy heads are f***ing nutjobs.....
    It's very easy.
    All you need to do is ask some very basic simple questions.
    Then people throw a strop and stomp off.


  • #45
    Capt. Autumn
    Registered Users Posts: 323 ✭✭Capt. Autumn


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    At least we can agree on one thing.

    Great, someone has the answers to these legitimate queries:

    Send me a link to a picture of the 'plane' hitting The Pentagon. this should be difficult as all CCTV footage was confiscated by the FBI.

    Send me a link to a picture of The Shanksville crash site that actually shows plane parts, luggage or passengers. Again, this should prove difficult as all I have ever seen is a crater in the ground.

    Explain how a plane was allowed to hit the most heavily fortified building on earth, one hour after plane attacks in New York.

    Links to other steel framed buildings that collapsed on their own footprint in 11 seconds, 2.5 of which was free-fall, prior to 9/11.

    I'm here all day.....


  • #46
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    Great, someone has the answers to these legitimate queries:
    I've answered every one of your points directly and clearly.
    You have answered nothing.


  • #47
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,027 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    Great, someone has the answers to these legitimate queries:

    Send me a link to a picture of the 'plane' hitting The Pentagon. this should be difficult as all CCTV footage was confiscated by the FBI.

    Send me a link to a picture of The Shanksville crash site that actually shows plane parts, luggage or passengers. Again, this should prove difficult as all I have ever seen is a crater in the ground.

    Explain how a plane was allowed to hit the most heavily fortified building on earth, one hour after plane attacks in New York.

    Links to other steel framed buildings that collapsed on their own footprint in 11 seconds, 2.5 of which was free-fall, prior to 9/11.

    I'm here all day.....

    mod: your ‘legitimate queries’ are no more special than any other question you’ve ignored in this thread. This is tantamount to soapboxing. This forum works when users contribute in good faith to answer each other’s questions. Do not soapbox; let’s try to keep discussion to one thing at a time, there are active threads for WTC 7 discussion for instance. There is also already a recent thread about the BBC.


  • #48
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    Remind us again what NIST said caused the collapse...

    King Mob wrote: »
    Extensive uncontrolled office fires that were left burning for many hours.

    Why did you say "isolated"?

    You asked a question, Sammy, it was answered and a follow up question was asked of you which you ignored.
    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    Explain again the 2.5 seconds freefall speed of WTC Building 7.
    Part of the building's facade fell at free fall acceleration for a few seconds.
    This is because it was in the middle of the collapse.
    This short period of free fall is not indicative of a conspiracy, nor does it invalidate the real explanation from NIST.
    There's nothing that requires explaining.

    However, such a period of freefall is impossible in the models discussed in Husley's report.

    Why exactly do you think that this period of free fall is important?

    Also you have not addressed any points others have made at you. Could you please go back and address them now?
    Particularly, could you explain why you used the term "isolated" as if it was part of NISTs explanation?

    Can you also explain why you mischaracterised Hulseys study as "a four year peer reviewed scientific study from a respected university" when it was none of those things?

    Again, question asked and answered and multiple follow-up questions are ignored.


    Followed swiftly by.....
    Scrummyscrammy wrote: »
    Look, I'll presume that you are reasonably intelligent, so I know you don't really believe this. No steel framed building had collapsed from fire alone before that day and it is reported on before it happened.

    This is pre-knowledge. I know and you know it too.

    The firefighter at the start of this video knows that Building 7 is about to collapse also. Remember, we are talking about something that never happened before, a steel framed building collapsing due to office fires (NIST explanation)

    ****Youtube video****

    On your other points. 2 year or 4 year study. Semantics.

    Is the University of Alaska a respected university? Well you can make that a point of conjecture if you want but let's deal in facts.

    How did that first responder know Building 7 was about to to collapse?
    Was that another case of 'misreporting'?

    .......a gish gallop and changing of the goalposts into a different line of questioning. Each of your points and queries has been addressed and, essentially, refuted.

    Bottom line: you either disagree or agree with King Mob's explanations. You have failed to acknowledge any of this, let alone contest it. You then change the avenue of attack without so much as a by your leave. In what world do you think that any sane and reasonable person would engage with you any further if all you're going to do is make challenges, ignore the responses and go off on another tangent, then act the old soldier (Don't Pester Me!) when you're being pressed to stick to the topic at hand? Why would anybody argue with someone who's arguing in bad faith?

    I would normally suspect you of being a re-reg of a previous poster only your grammar and spelling are, comparatively speaking, exceptional.


  • #49
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    I was messaging the mod on the engineering reddit forum and he told me they will have a thread at the end of the year about the Hulsey study.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=491169&stc=1&d=1569015680

    Mick West video. He got caught lying and still has not fixed it. He adamant he's right when he's not.

    Mick has stated that a major study used the wrong analysis and every engineer, university and analysis tool in the world says Mick is wrong.

    Mick says using linear static anyasis is outrageously wrong and could understand why Hulsey would use it

    Paper is written by FEA engineers. Mick userbase does not see this stuff, he hides it to cover up his mistakes.
    https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/41130%28369%29323


  • #50
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Another progressive collapse WTC7 Simulation was produced by Kostak studios in 2017. There progressive collapse after removing columns 79 and 81 on the eastside titled the building southeast exactly like the Hulsey model. Was strange at the time and nobody understand why this happened!

    I showed this to Mick West and he could not debunk it. He just left our private conversation on his site.

    Southeast tilt.
    491170.png


  • #51
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2




    This video is a pack of lies.

    Mick says Hulsey only talked about girder A2001 collapse in his study - 12:30
    Mick also claims NIST never used this collapse in their global model (false)

    Nothing he said was factual of course.

    In the Hulsey report- you find this written down
    Hulsey does talk about different collapses around column 79.

    "NIST report posits that the northernmost of five beams to the east of the
    girder, beam G3005, buckled due to its thermal expansion being restrained by girder A2001
    NIST posits that the buckling of beam G3005 then precipitated the buckling of the other
    beams to the east of the girder, causing girder A2001 to be rocked off its seats at columns 44 and
    79 NIST simply claims that this initial north girder failure at Floor 13 precipitated a
    the collapse of the south girder framing into Column 79 at Floor 13, which NIST claims had
    previously buckled due to thermal expansion!

    Why is Mick West lying about this? Did he read the report and if he did, does he not understand it?

    Hulsey new discovery.
    "The NIST report posits that beam G3005 buckled because it's thermal expansion was restrained by girder A2001. Our analysis found that this can only happen when the three lateral support beams S3007, G3007, and K3007 spanning from beam G3005 to the north exterior wall are not included in the model.

    NIST left off support beams in their model that Hulsey believes would prevent buckling of other beams around column 79.

    There two versions of the Hulsey model- One model is removing the core columns only ( the building titled southwest) and other is removing columns 76 to 81 ( north face east side) the building titled southeast. Mick for some reason thinks Hulsey simulated NIST progressive collapse ( from east to west)

    There different simulations that Mick still does not understand.

    Linear static analysis, Hulsey images are noted as visualations there not running in real time. Did Mick tell his userbase this?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement