Mainstream media now questioning the official 9/11 narrative

Dohnjoe · 20-09-2019 11:51pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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?

So go post this on the metabunk forum then?

Or let me guess you have some convoluted excuse not to

Cheerful Spring2 · 21-09-2019 12:01am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So go post this on the metabunk forum then?

Or let me guess you have some convoluted excuse not to

I have talked with Mick West already. He ignores new info as it does not fit in with his narrative about the Hulsey Study.

I can quote from the Hulsey study and screenshot what he actually said to prove Mick a liar.

I showed Mick this enigneering research paper, has he mentioned yet on his site?
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/41130%28369%29323

I showed him the simulation Kostack did and still has not posted it.

Mick Penthouse collapse description is nonsense too.

You can see clearly on the actual video- the right side part pivoted outwards before it came down.

Dohnjoe · 21-09-2019 12:15am

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I have talked with Mick West already. He ignores new info as it does not fit in with his narrative about the Hulsey Study.

I can quote from the Hulsey study and screenshot what he actually said to prove Mick a liar.

It's a public forum, you're free to try and post it. Again (unlike most conspiracy forums) sites like metabunk, r/engineering, r/askanengineer, related engineering forums have actual standards - can't get away with posting patent silliness

People who do post irrational nonsense obviously don't like that, so they play themselves off as the victims of a conspiracy by academia and science

Cheerful Spring2 · 21-09-2019 12:26am

Hulsey- linear static analysis was shown by a visualisation.Nowhere does Hulsey say this was a dynamic simulation

Mick right you don't run a linear static analysis in real-time ( only part he's got right)

Mick was saying Hulsey used static analysis where he should have used dynamic?

Mick does not understand it.

Hulsey 100 per cent correct.

In linear static analysis columns is removed from the location being considered and analysis is carried out for following vertical load which shall be applied downward on the structure.

Hulsey highlighted this in his report he began removing columns to see what would happen to the building when they got removed. He tested different scanarios- two different models they showed there may be more.

Atlantic Dawn · 21-09-2019 12:29am

Even if the entire operation to knock that building down took 10 people, one of them would have revealed it by now. In reality hundreds of people would have had to be in on it.

Cheerful Spring2 · 21-09-2019 12:30am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's a public forum, you're free to try and post it. Again (unlike most conspiracy forums) sites like metabunk, r/engineering, r/askanengineer, related engineering forums have actual standards - can't get away with posting patent silliness

People who do post irrational nonsense obviously don't like that, so they play themselves off as the victims of a conspiracy by academia and science

The engineering forum on reddit will be opening a new Hulsey thread at the end of the year. Currently they ban all 9/11 threads. They are waiting for the Hulsey data to be released to the public. If Hulsey did something wrong the data will show it.

Cheerful Spring2 · 21-09-2019 1:18am

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Even if the entire operation to knock that building down took 10 people, one of them would have revealed it by now. In reality hundreds of people would have had to be in on it.

US government is still hiding information about the Saudis role with 9/11 ( 18) years later. How many people inside the US government are coming out exposing this crime? When the US government decides to keep everyone in the dark thats it and there not a hope then of finding out the truth.

They going to use people they trust to keep quiet about the attack. The hundreds of people involved in blowing up buildings never made any sense. The narrative controlled. Nobody inside media after 9/11 claimed demolitions was used. Why would you need to tell anyone outside the circle demolitions were used? Far as everyone else concerned fire was the cause.
.
This was just days ago news.
The FBI said they would release the identity of the Saudi official the victims' families most wanted, according to The Journal's report, citing the "exceptional nature of the case." Other information the families were after will not be released.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-administration-reveal-saudi-who-allegedly-helped-september-11-terrorists-2019-9?r=US&IR=T

Right at the end you see the FBI is still blocking new information from coming out. There not releasing more info due to national security reasons.

US government though is well aware Saudi Arabia helped the 9/11 hijackers carry out the attacks. How else would the 9/11 commission know Saudi officials met hijackers in different cities? Saudi Arabia least publically denies they helped the 9/11 hijackers. CIA had to be monitoring these meetings pre 9/11.

If a rogue group learned of this would they use the attacks as cover to get rid of something in the buildings?

Overheal · 21-09-2019 1:52am

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Mick does not understand it.

Says who?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Hulsey 100 per cent correct.

Says who?

Overheal · 21-09-2019 1:58am

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

US government is still hiding information about the Saudis role with 9/11 ( 18) years later. How many people inside the US government are coming out exposing this crime? When the US government decides to keep everyone in the dark thats it and there not a hope then of finding out the truth.

They going to use people they trust to keep quiet about the attack. The hundreds of people involved in blowing up buildings never made any sense. The narrative controlled. Nobody inside media after 9/11 claimed demolitions was used. Why would you need to tell anyone outside the circle demolitions were used? Far as everyone else concerned fire was the cause.
.
This was just days ago news.
The FBI said they would release the identity of the Saudi official the victims' families most wanted, according to The Journal's report, citing the "exceptional nature of the case." Other information the families were after will not be released.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-administration-reveal-saudi-who-allegedly-helped-september-11-terrorists-2019-9?r=US&IR=T

Right at the end you see the FBI is still blocking new information from coming out. There not releasing more info due to national security reasons.

US government though is well aware Saudi Arabia helped the 9/11 hijackers carry out the attacks. How else would the 9/11 commission know Saudi officials met hijackers in different cities? Saudi Arabia least publically denies they helped the 9/11 hijackers. CIA had to be monitoring these meetings pre 9/11.

If a rogue group learned of this would they use the attacks as cover to get rid of something in the buildings?

Where do these things you mentioned, intersect with the attacks on 9/11?

King Mob · 21-09-2019 2:19am

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Hulsey- linear static analysis was shown by a visualisation.Nowhere does Hulsey say this was a dynamic simulation

.

Lol.
I like the stretchy columns there at the break. Very realistic.

Though it sounds like you should be having this argument with Mick West on Metabunk.
Why are you posting this here?

Cheerful Spring2 · 21-09-2019 2:58am

Overheal wrote: »

Where do these things you mentioned, intersect with the attacks on 9/11?

Earlier incidents or pre 9/11 events need to be understood.

19 hijackers plan was doomed to fail if they acted alone. We know the Saudi government officials gave them money when they arrived, paid their rent and, paid for their flying lessons.

Do you believe it was an intelligent failure by the CIA? Al-Mihdhar and Al-Hazmi ( two of 9/11 hijackers were alleged to be involved in USS Cole bombing in Yemen in 2000. They are on terrorist watch list pre 9/11

Al-Bayoumi a Saudi spy met these two when they arrived. Even gave them a apartment and social security cards. We know too he paid for their flying lessons in Florida.

The Saudis who were never charged set this whole event up to go down. The hijackers are just patsies used by Bin Laden and his friends in Saudi Govenment like Prince Turki. He send Bin Laden to Sudan to help the Saudi government with development projects.

Dohnjoe · 21-09-2019 10:33am

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Earlier incidents or pre 9/11 events need to be understood.

19 hijackers plan was doomed to fail if they acted alone. We know the Saudi government officials gave them money when they arrived, paid their rent and, paid for their flying lessons.

Do you believe it was an intelligent failure by the CIA? Al-Mihdhar and Al-Hazmi ( two of 9/11 hijackers were alleged to be involved in USS Cole bombing in Yemen in 2000. They are on terrorist watch list pre 9/11

Al-Bayoumi a Saudi spy met these two when they arrived. Even gave them a apartment and social security cards. We know too he paid for their flying lessons in Florida.

The Saudis who were never charged set this whole event up to go down. The hijackers are just patsies used by Bin Laden and his friends in Saudi Govenment like Prince Turki. He send Bin Laden to Sudan to help the Saudi government with development projects.

What is this dilution?

You have repeatedly claimed that 911 is an inside job by all of the below

Larry Silverstein
His insurers
Saudi Princes and officials
Bush
Rumsfeld
Cheney
NORAD
CIA Mujahideen
NIST investigators
Mossad (possibly)
US military (unspecified generals)
Various unspecified businessmen
Pakistani ISI

They all worked together to blow up all three towers in New York in broad daylight and fly a missile, military plane, flight 77 at a different angle into the Pentagon

You can't support this bonkers stuff, so, like all truthers your M.O. is to attack the facts, dragging everything down to obtuse granular details and trying to find any grey areas, which you believe magically conjures your personal conspiracy into existence

Sounds like the ravings of a madman. And we are just as bad for debating with such irrationality.

Cheerful Spring2 · 21-09-2019 3:36pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What is this dilution?

You have repeatedly claimed that 911 is an inside job by all of the below
Larry Silverstein

His insurers

Saudi Princes and officials

Bush

Rumsfeld

Cheney

NORAD

CIA Mujahideen

NIST investigators

Mossad (possibly)

US military (unspecified generals)

Various unspecified businessmen

Pakistani ISI

They all worked together to blow up all three towers in New York in broad daylight and fly a missile, military plane, flight 77 at a different angle into the Pentagon

You can't support this bonkers stuff, so, like all truthers your M.O. is to attack the facts, dragging everything down to obtuse granular details and trying to find any grey areas, which you believe magically conjures your personal conspiracy into existence

Sounds like the ravings of a madman. And we are just as bad for debating with such irrationality.

Inside job list.
Saudi officials and princes
Pakistan ISI agency generals
Donald Rumsfield: Yes I do believe his involved

NORAD: I don’t accuse the workers. My believe is a number of Airforce generals knew planes were going to be hijacked on 9/11. This rogue deep state group then prearranged in advance multiple airforce exercises to take place on 9/11 across the country. The exercises helped the hijackers carry out their mission unhindered for two hours. The drills were not ended when it was known the country was being attacked after 8am. The exercise cancel order was only received at Norad when flight 93 went down around 10am.

Al Qeada: is actually Makhtab-al-Khidimat a Pakistan organisation that got established in the late 80s to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Bin Laden, Saudi Royals, Pakistan generals helped finance the group renamed the group Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda fighters during the 90s were send to fight proxy wars in Bosnia and Kosovo. The US supported the Al Qeada jihad war against the Serbs in Yugoslavia. Al Qaeda has been used for least a decade by the US government and its middle eastern friends to overthrow hostile regimes. Since 9/11 it continues in Syria.

NIST : You already know my feelings about this study.

CIA: solid evidence exists they protected 9/11 hijackers plot to attack the United States.

My suspicion list. I open to be wrong about them.
Cheney
Bush
Silverstein

Isreal involvement
I have not seen a whole lot to accuse them.

Capt. Autumn · 21-09-2019 3:39pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Sounds like the ravings of a madman. And we are just as bad for debating with such irrationality.

Well, that's obviously offensive. It got me thinking, though......

Why are you spending so much time on threads such as these if you firmly believe that the events of 9/11 were as reported?

Like, I don't believe the moon landings were faked or that UFOs exist, so I'm sure as f*** not going to waste my time and energy arguing with strangers who hold the opposing view. I do not visit these threads and never will.

Also the vehemence and aggression from the 9/11 Truth-deniers makes me wonder....why do you care so much? You don't believe that there is anything to see here but you'll still devote time into delivering lengthy posts defending your position.

'At times it sounds like the ravings of a madman.' You're okay though 'cos you have a group of like-minded accolades here ready to flame anyone who takes the opposing view to yours.

Dohnjoe · 21-09-2019 3:54pm

Scrummyscrammy wrote: »

Well, that's obviously offensive. It got me thinking, though......

Why are you spending so much time on threads such as these if you firmly believe that the events of 9/11 were as reported?

Same reason people tackle anti-vaxxers. If some individuals decide to make disinformation their hobby on a public forum, they may find others correct that disinfo

Also the vehemence and aggression from the 9/11 Truth-deniers makes me wonder....why do you care so much? You don't believe that there is anything to see here but you'll still devote time into delivering lengthy posts defending your position.

What's a 911 truth-denier?

The events of 911 are widely accepted as historical fact, there is little solid debate over the event outside of fringe circles.

Just because Holocaust deniers, flat-earthers, Sandy Hook truthers, 911 truthers, Bigfoot hunters, etc exist doesn't mean there is truth to their claims. Threads like this examine their arguments and expose them.

We've been discovering it's unhealthy and counter-productive to let this stuff fester on the internet, which is why major platforms (youtube, google, twitter, etc) have been actively taking steps to tackle disinformation like 911 truth and anti-vaxx stuff

Cheerful Spring2 · 21-09-2019 4:06pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The events of 911 are widely accepted as historical fact, there is little solid debate over the event outside of fringe circles.

Look this not right. Sep 13th 2019 BBC news piece.

On Thursday, the department said the decision to unmask the name of the Saudi official was taken by Attorney General William Barr.

It said Mr Barr had decided not to invoke state secrets, and share the person's identity with the attorneys for the victims' families.

"The FBI recognises the need and desire of victims' families to understand what happened to their loved ones and to hold those responsible accountable," the justice department said.

"The families are dedicated to getting to the truth, and we shouldn't have to beg for this sort of basic information, or be kept in the dark, about the Saudi role in the attacks," Terry Strada, a member the 9/11 Families & Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism, was quoted as saying by the AFP news agency.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49686128

All these findings change our understanding of the 9/11 events. The official narrative is Al Qeada acted alone!

King Mob · 21-09-2019 4:13pm

Scrummyscrammy wrote: »

Also the vehemence and aggression from the 9/11 Truth-deniers makes me wonder....

What aggression are you referring to?

Why do you not believe the Moon landings were faked?
The level of evidence for that is about the same as the level of evidence produced to show that the real explanation for 9/11 is questionable.

Dohnjoe · 21-09-2019 4:14pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

All these findings change our understanding of the 9/11 events. The official narrative is Al Qeada acted alone!

Al Qaeda attacked various buildings in the US using planes.

But because there is still somewhat of a grey area over exactly how many people may have known about those attacks within Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the hijackers were from, you are using that as a springboard..

a gigantic springboard

... to launch yourself into cuckoo land, a self-created land where you believe men secretly planted silent explosives and blew up the trade towers with Mossad, and the President and all that zany stuff, without a shred of credible evidence

It's a technique of exploiting any modicum of doubt in order to insert an entirely false and silly narrative that has nothing to do with it

"Hold on, there's a lapse in info about one of the attackers whereabouts for a period prior to the attacks.. theeerefore the CIA blew up the towers!"

Cheerful Spring2 · 21-09-2019 4:16pm

Tucker Carlson had the 9/11 famillies lawyer on recently and could not believe what he heard about the cover-up.

They have names of eleven people- Saudi princes and officials. Robert Mueller
covered it up for the White House

Capt. Autumn · 21-09-2019 4:29pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Just because Holocaust deniers, flat-earthers, Sandy Hook truthers, 911 truthers, Bigfoot hunters, etc exist doesn't mean there is truth to their claims. Threads like this examine their arguments and expose them.

You forgot The Loch Ness Monster.

Never forget Nessie when you are trying to discredit those who are trying to comprehend the many anomalies of 9/11.

Cheerful Spring2 · 21-09-2019 4:36pm

Its all coming out now the US government in 2001 concealed the truth about the 9/11 attacks

But former FBI investigators say their old boss didn’t feel the same concern when they uncovered multiple, systemic efforts by the Saudi government tassist the hijackers in the lead-up to the 9/11 attacks — a far more consequential, to say nothing of deadly, foreign influence operation on America

As the head of the FBI at the time, they say Mueller was not nearly as interested in investigating that espionage conspiracy, which also involved foreign intelligence officers. Far from it, the record shows he covered up evidence pointing back to the Saudi Embassy and Riyadh — and may have even misled Congress about what he knew.

“In October of 2001, Mueller shut down the government’s investigation after only three weeks, and then took part in the Bush [administration’s] campaign to block, obfuscate and generally stop anything about Saudi Arabia from being released,” added Premoli, now a plaintiff in the 9/11 lawsuit against Saudi Arabia.

A Mueller spokesman declined to comment. But some agents say he was merely following White House orders.Any letting the Saudis off the hook came from the White House,” former FBI Agent Mark Rossini said. “I can still see that photo of Bandar and Bush enjoying cigars on the balcony of the White House two days after 9/11.”

This part will people inside the US government be arrested for this?
Time and again, agents were called off from pursuing leads back to the kingdom’s embassy in Washington, as well as its consulate in Los Angeles, where former FBI Agent Stephen Moore headed a 9/11 task force looking into local contacts made by two of the 15 Saudi hijackers, Moore testified in an affidavit for the 9/11 lawsuit. He concluded that “diplomatic and intelligence personnel of Saudi Arabia knowingly provided material support to the two hijackers and facilitated the 9/11 plot.” Yet he and his team were not allowed to interview them, according to the suit.

Excellent piece by the New York Post. Disgusting they got away this for 18 years.

https://nypost.com/2019/09/07/robert-mueller-helped-saudi-arabia-cover-up-its-role-in-9-11-attacks-suit/

Will you skeptics demand a new 9/11 investigation to uncover the real truth?

King Mob · 21-09-2019 4:37pm

Scrummyscrammy wrote: »

You forgot The Loch Ness Monster.

Never forget Nessie when you are trying to discredit those who are trying to comprehend the many anomalies of 9/11.

But you don't seem all that interested in comprehending them when you have no interest in either considering the rational likely explanations or providing or thinking about alternative explanations...

There isn't that much difference between people who believe the moon landing or the holocaust was a hoax and your position.
They also "are just trying to comprehend the many anomalies."

Dohnjoe · 21-09-2019 4:49pm

Scrummyscrammy wrote: »

You forgot The Loch Ness Monster.

Never forget Nessie when you are trying to discredit those who are trying to comprehend the many anomalies of 9/11.

Indeed, anomalies is the key word - it's how denialism works. In the case of 911 conspiracy theories, hundreds of videos have been uploaded over the years, these are carefully crafted collections of "anomalies" designed to cause the viewer to doubt the event. The creators of these videos deliberately leave out explanations, context, counter-information, and so on because their aim is to convince the viewer that something was awry (without ever actually explaining the conspiracy theory itself)

If an unsuspecting viewer has little or no knowledge of 911 and they come across one of these videos, (some of which are extremely convincing) then it's understandable that the video info (disinfo) becomes their only reference point. As we know, watching those videos would, in the past, lead down a rabbit hole of more conspiracy videos (they've been changing the algorithms on this to actually stop this effect)

It doesn't take long for a belief to take root and once it does, the person can easily become resistant to the actual facts or context, or become completely blind to it. Rational changes to irrational.

Typically these individuals who believe some conspiracy took place will have a list of these "anomalies" ready to spring on anyone, "explain this", "explain that", and so on

That's because a conspiracy video will highlight e.g. that a hijacker's passport in perfect condition laying in the street, by a policeman

.. but it won't contain the info that many perishable items, such as passports, identify cards, paper itineraries, tickets, seat covers, luggage, clothes, etc were also discovered. That a plane crashing into a building doesn't automatically incinerate everything on board.

If you go to a credible source of information you will receive proper information. If you go to a conspiracy source you will only receive information that is crafted to lead to some conspiracy

As an example, if you wanted to find out about vaccination, well it makes sense to go to credible sites, get the normal information. I presume that's what you would do. However if you went to an anti-vaxx site instead, then went down the rabbit hole of watching questionable youtube videos, reading low quality studies by controversial isolated experts, relying on the subjective views of a handful of doctors and physicians, instead of the overwhelming consensus - then it's easy to understand why you may have a skewed or faulty view of the topic

In this case, posts here by yourself have contained typical truther talking points and deceptive information. After 18 years of trial and error some of these "anomalies" are quite "refined", but it's still nonsense. Easily debunked and explained within reason.

I can understand why individuals may believe 911 was an inside job considering the volume of disinfo out there, but there is no excuse for anyone not to go and read about it using proper sources and credible sites, no excuse whatsoever

Ipso · 21-09-2019 7:20pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Tucker Carlson had the 9/11 famillies lawyer on recently and could not believe what he heard about the cover-up.

They have names of eleven people- Saudi princes and officials. Robert Mueller
covered it up for the White House

Now Robert Mueller is involved. As for Tucker Carlson, his whole schtick is not believing what he’s hearing, and I seem to remember him being very supportive of the Iraq war. In fact he was one of those who thought anyone against it was unpatriotic, a pattern I’m sure he has in common with people who don’t like Robert Mueller (which lets face is down to their support of a particular person who has done nothing but brown nose the Saudis).

Capt. Autumn · 21-09-2019 7:52pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Indeed, anomalies is the key word - it's how denialism works. In the case of 911 conspiracy theories, hundreds of videos have been uploaded over the years, these are carefully crafted collections of "anomalies" designed to cause the viewer to doubt the event. The creators of these videos deliberately leave out explanations, context, counter-information, and so on because their aim is to convince the viewer that something was awry (without ever actually explaining the conspiracy theory itself)

If an unsuspecting viewer has little or no knowledge of 911 and they come across one of these videos, (some of which are extremely convincing) then it's understandable that the video info (disinfo) becomes their only reference point. As we know, watching those videos would, in the past, lead down a rabbit hole of more conspiracy videos (they've been changing the algorithms on this to actually stop this effect)

It doesn't take long for a belief to take root and once it does, the person can easily become resistant to the actual facts or context, or become completely blind to it. Rational changes to irrational.

Typically these individuals who believe some conspiracy took place will have a list of these "anomalies" ready to spring on anyone, "explain this", "explain that", and so on

That's because a conspiracy video will highlight e.g. that a hijacker's passport in perfect condition laying in the street, by a policeman

.. but it won't contain the info that many perishable items, such as passports, identify cards, paper itineraries, tickets, seat covers, luggage, clothes, etc were also discovered. That a plane crashing into a building doesn't automatically incinerate everything on board.

If you go to a credible source of information you will receive proper information. If you go to a conspiracy source you will only receive information that is crafted to lead to some conspiracy

As an example, if you wanted to find out about vaccination, well it makes sense to go to credible sites, get the normal information. I presume that's what you would do. However if you went to an anti-vaxx site instead, then went down the rabbit hole of watching questionable youtube videos, reading low quality studies by controversial isolated experts, relying on the subjective views of a handful of doctors and physicians, instead of the overwhelming consensus - then it's easy to understand why you may have a skewed or faulty view of the topic

In this case, posts here by yourself have contained typical truther talking points and deceptive information. After 18 years of trial and error some of these "anomalies" are quite "refined", but it's still nonsense. Easily debunked and explained within reason.

I can understand why individuals may believe 911 was an inside job considering the volume of disinfo out there, but there is no excuse for anyone not to go and read about it using proper sources and credible sites, no excuse whatsoever

Taking you up on your challenge 'to go and read about it using proper sources and credible sites'

Probably the most widely read 9/11 debunker book was produced by the guys behind Popular Mechanics - Debunking 9/11 Myths - Why 9/11 Conspiracy Theories can't stand up to the facts.

So one would imagine it would be instructive to hear a radio interview with Davin Coburn whose job was to fact-check the material in the book. Mr Coburn was interviewed on the Phoenix, Arizona radio station Independent Talk 1100 KFNX, by Radio host Charles Goye shortly after the release of the Popular Mechanics, in Aug 2006

This really makes for very, very interesting listening.

Three questions remain from this 13 year old interview:

1.Why did Mr. Coburn claim that there were DNA tests proving the identity of the 9/11 hijackers when he could offer no proof of this when challenged.

2. Why did Mr. Coburn contend that he had pictorial proof that a third of the south side of Building 7 was, to use his term, 'scooped out' which made the building structurally unsound when no pictures of this have since emerged and NIST made no mention of this when they released their official findings on Building 7's collapse in 2007.

3. Why did Mr. Coburn contend that the only CCTV image that was released to the public from the Pentagon crash site was from a camera that ran at a frame rate of 1 frame a second. The minimum ips (image per second ) "frame rate" of any CCTV system built in the last 20 years in about 60 ips. We are to believe that the most secure building in the world had one antiquated camera shooting at a frame rate that equalled an 8mm camera from the 60s. Pathetic.

You said: 'In the case of 911 conspiracy theories, hundreds of videos have been uploaded over the years, these are carefully crafted collections of "anomalies" designed to cause the viewer to doubt the event. The creators of these videos deliberately leave out explanations, context, counter-information, and so on because their aim is to convince the viewer that something was awry (without ever actually explaining the conspiracy theory itself)'

This is not one of those videos. This is an unedited live recording of a radio interview.

Looking forward, as ever to your response, this time in debunking the debunker who helped write the ultimate debunking book.

And you guys wonder why we have doubts?

mikekerry · 21-09-2019 8:31pm

Scrummyscrammy wrote: »

Taking you up on your challenge 'to go and read about it using proper sources and credible sites'

Probably the most widely read 9/11 debunker book was produced by the guys behind Popular Mechanics - Debunking 9/11 Myths - Why 9/11 Conspiracy Theories can't stand up to the facts.

So one would imagine it would be instructive to hear a radio interview with Davin Coburn whose job was to fact-check the material in the book. Mr Coburn was interviewed on the Phoenix, Arizona radio station Independent Talk 1100 KFNX, by Radio host Charles Goye shortly after the release of the Popular Mechanics, in Aug 2006

This really makes for very, very interesting listening.

Three questions remain from this 13 year old interview:

1.Why did Mr. Coburn claim that there were DNA tests proving the identity of the 9/11 hijackers when he could offer no proof of this when challenged.

2. Why did Mr. Coburn contend that he had pictorial proof that a third of the south side of Building 7 was, to use his term, 'scooped out' which made the building structurally unsound when no pictures of this have sinse emerged and NIST made no mention of this when they released their official findings on Building 7's collapse in 2007.

3. Why did Mr. Coburn contend that the only CCTV image that was released to the public from the Pentagon crash site was from a camera that ran at a frame rate of 1 frame a second. The minimum ips (image per second ) "frame rate" of any CCTV system built in the last 20 years in about 60 ips. We are to believe that the most secure building in the world had one antiquated camera shooting at a frame rate that equalled an 8mm camera from the 60s. Pathetic.

You said: 'In the case of 911 conspiracy theories, hundreds of videos have been uploaded over the years, these are carefully crafted collections of "anomalies" designed to cause the viewer to doubt the event. The creators of these videos deliberately leave out explanations, context, counter-information, and so on because their aim is to convince the viewer that something was awry (without ever actually explaining the conspiracy theory itself)'

This is not one of those videos. This is an unedited live recording of a radio interview.

Looking forward, as ever to your response, this time in debunking the debunker who helped write the ultimate debunking book.

And you guys wonder why we have doubts?

Interesting article here
https://gumshoenews.com/2016/09/10/analysis-of-9-11-part-7-what-really-happened-to-bobby-mcilvaines-son/
The dad of the guy that died is heavily involved trying to get answers.

Dohnjoe · 21-09-2019 8:47pm

Scrummyscrammy wrote: »

Taking you up on your challenge 'to go and read about it using proper sources and credible sites'

It's not a challenge, it's common sense

1.Why did Mr. Coburn claim that there were DNA tests proving the identity of the 9/11 hijackers when he could offer no proof of this when challenged.

Dunno, I don't speak for him.

2. Why did Mr. Coburn contend that a third of the south side of Building 7 was, to use his term, 'scooped out' which made the building structurally unsound when no pictures of this have sense emerged and NIST made no mention of this when they released their official findings on Building 7's collapse in 2007.

A side of building 7 sustained significant damage from debris from the adjacent WTC tower.

There are no clear photos (due to smoke, angles, etc) but there are photos where the damage can partially be seen, e.g. in the Weidlinger report
http://s3.amazonaws.com/tt_assets/pdf/WTC_7_Collapse_Analysis_and_Assessment_Report.pdf

3. Why did Mr. Coburn contend that the only CCTV image that was released to the public from the Pentagon crash site was from a camera that ran at a frame rate of 1 frame a second. The minimum ips (image per second ) "frame rate" of any CCTV system built in the last 20 years in about 60 ips. We are to believe that the most secure building in the world had one antiquated camera shooting at a frame rate that equalled an 8mm camera from the 60s. Pathetic.

Yup, most CCTV footage from that era was pretty awful in comparison to what we have today, have watched footage released from FOI requests, a lot of it is grainy 1 FPS type stuff. Most cameras were pointing at parking lots, foyers, entrances. Few were pointing at the sky. Maybe the Pentagon has "better" footage, maybe they don't, up to them if they want to release.

Due to the overwhelming evidence, it's not required

You said: In the case of 911 conspiracy theories, hundreds of videos have been uploaded over the years, these are carefully crafted collections of "anomalies" designed to cause the viewer to doubt the event. The creators of these videos deliberately leave out explanations, context, counter-information, and so on because their aim is to convince the viewer that something was awry (without ever actually explaining the conspiracy theory itself)

This is not one of those videos. This is an unedited live recording of a radio interview.

Cool

Looking forward, as ever to your response, this time in debunking the debunker who helped write the ultimate debunking book.

Doesn't matter what a magazine editor says or claims. He could be full of lies, or mistakes, or errors, or not. It's irrelevant.

And you guys wonder why we have doubts?

I don't, but you are coming across like you are deep into all this truther nonsense.

We know what happened on 911, it's not some mystery

Be aware we are very used to this "explain that!" fallacy being abused here(as already mentioned). Whereby someone will go through all the perceived anomalies and truther talking points one by one demanding that each be explained to them personally, and they will decide, subjectively, that if they don't "get it" it's some conspiracy.

Dohnjoe · 21-09-2019 9:09pm

Scrummyscrammy wrote: »

1.Why did Mr. Coburn claim that there were DNA tests proving the identity of the 9/11 hijackers when he could offer no proof of this when challenged.

Again I can't speak for that Coburn guy, but it literally took me 10 seconds to find this article (from 2008)

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us/21hijackers.html

"For the World Trade Center site, with a much larger area to search and an initially undetermined number of victims, the F.B.I. identified the 10 terrorists’ DNA profiles from personal items, Mr. Kolko said, which included recovered luggage and cigarette butts left in a rental car. The unnamed DNA profiles of those terrorists were then supplied to the medical examiner’s office.

But, since the DNA profiles were unnamed by the bureau, the office could not say which hijackers have been identified, just that 4 of the 10 have been so far.

Three of them were identified as hijackers within two years of the 2001 attack. But the fourth set of remains was not found until September 2007, when the discovery of numerous bone fragments at a building near the World Trade Center site prompted a reinvestigation of the entire site."

King Mob · 22-09-2019 1:16am

Scrummyscrammy wrote: »

Taking you up on your challenge 'to go and read about it using proper sources and credible sites'

Maybe instead of bringing up random new points, you could go back and address some of the points you did not address in previous posts?

Or maybe you could explain why you did not address them?

Overheal · 22-09-2019 2:14am

Re: the CCTV FPS, it’s not a capabilities question of the camera, it’s a capacity question at the pentagon, circa 2001, for storing/managing security tapes. At 1 FPS vs 20 FPS you use 1/20th the storage.

Capt. Autumn · 22-09-2019 6:47am

King Mob wrote: »

Maybe instead of bringing up random new points, you could go back and address some of the points you did not address in previous posts?

Or maybe you could explain why you did not address them?

Maybe you should ask yourself why you are posting on a 'Conspiracy Theories' thread after midnight on a Sat night/ Sun morning.

You've ether got a vested interest in this **** or you have a particularly sad life.

King Mob · 22-09-2019 6:58am

Scrummyscrammy wrote: »

Maybe you should ask yourself why you are posting on a 'Conspiracy Theories' thread after midnight on a Sat night/ Sun morning.

Different time zone.

Scrummyscrammy wrote: »

You've ether got a vested interest in this **** or you have a particularly sad life.

Why are you resorting to personal insults?
Why do simple direct questions upset you so much?

I honestly don't understand this.

Dohnjoe · 22-09-2019 9:39am

Scrummyscrammy wrote: »

Maybe you should ask yourself why you are posting on a 'Conspiracy Theories' thread after midnight on a Sat night/ Sun morning.

You've ether got a vested interest in this **** or you have a particularly sad life.

Why the personal insults?

It's an historical event. You are attempting to revise that history, but appear to be annoyed when asked questions about it. On top of that you are dodging those questions and now dishing out personal insults

That's a very weak position. We haven't even gotten to your version of events (which I suspect will not stand up to any form of basic scrutiny)

Capt. Autumn · 22-09-2019 10:36am

King Mob wrote: »

Different time zone.

Why are you resorting to personal insults?
Why do simple direct questions upset you so much?

I honestly don't understand this.

Different time zone?
My apologies, I wasn't aware that debunking conspiracy theories was a multi-time zonal around the clock activity. I will set my alarm earlier from now on and invest in trays of red bull for the long nights ahead.

Tell me, do you guys work shifts?

On the personal insults, well as they say, if you dish it out then you better be able to take it too. What was it one of you said a few posts back, 'the deranged ramblings of a madman..'. Now that's not very nice, is it?

Nice try playing the wounded victim though.....

King Mob · 22-09-2019 10:43am

Scrummyscrammy wrote: »

What was it one of you said a few posts back, 'the deranged ramblings of a madman..'. Now that's not very nice, is it?

Nice try playing the wounded victim though.....

It wasn't me.

But again you have avoided questions and points directed at you.

Why are you so upset about people asking you simple questions that you have to insult them, then accuse them of being paid shills?

Capt. Autumn · 22-09-2019 10:44am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Why the personal insults?

It's an historical event. You are attempting to revise that history, but appear to be annoyed when asked questions about it. On top of that you are dodging those questions and now dishing out personal insults

That's a very weak position. We haven't even gotten to your version of events (which I suspect will not stand up to any form of basic scrutiny)

Sorry, to disappoint you but I don't have a version of events.

I am not a pilot, firefighter, structural engineer or an expert on the inner workings of government or terrorist groups so why would I feel qualified enough to offer my opinion on the real story on the tragic events of 9/11.

You guys have set yourselves up as paragons of the official narrative of the day. The rest of us are here to pick holes with that narrative.

Dr. Bre · 22-09-2019 10:48am

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Even if the entire operation to knock that building down took 10 people, one of them would have revealed it by now. In reality hundreds of people would have had to be in on it.

Absolutely. You put hundreds of people in a room tell them a secret - someone bound to squeal

Dohnjoe · 22-09-2019 11:34am

Scrummyscrammy wrote: »

Sorry, to disappoint you but I don't have a version of events.

I am not a pilot, firefighter, structural engineer or an expert on the inner workings of government or terrorist groups so why would I feel qualified enough to offer my opinion on the real story on the tragic events of 9/11.

No one has anything credible. That should give you a pretty big clue

You guys have set yourselves up as paragons of the official narrative of the day. The rest of us are here to pick holes with that narrative.

The facts speak for themselves.

By your own admission you are a part of this bizarre hobby of "picking holes" in an event, the same way individuals do with the moon landings, Newtown shootings, Boston marathon bombing, Aurora shooting, 7/7, Charlie Hebdo shootings, Paris attacks, London attacks, the list is endless

Precisely the same technique - attacking something to hint at some vague conspiracy that they haven't the faintest interest in detailing or supporting. The art of planting a false narrative by sowing doubt.

The irony of these individuals lecturing others on the truth is pretty staggering when you think about it

Dohnjoe · 22-09-2019 11:42am

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Absolutely. You put hundreds of people in a room tell them a secret - someone bound to squeal

Indeed, and add time to that equation - the more time that passes, the more likely that the real information will come out. Deathbed confessions, leaks, admissions, anonymous whistle-blowers.

Especially so in a "false flag" involving hundreds of co-conspirators to treasonously murder thousands of their countrymen for no other reason than to start unpopular wars that cost thousands more lives

King Mob · 22-09-2019 11:45am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

By your own admission you are a part of this bizarre hobby of "picking holes" in an event, the same way individuals do with the moon landings, Newtown shootings, Boston marathon bombing, Aurora shooting, 7/7, Charlie Hebdo shootings, Paris attacks, London attacks, the list is endless

I think that's being too generous. A lot of the time these holes aren't new or revolutionary. They are simply rehashes of claims made by conspiracy theory producers that have been around forever.
So it's more a hobby of repeating these catchphrases without actually understanding them.
Then I believe the aim is to play the victim and misunderstood enlightened rebel when people wave off the idea as a silly conspiracy theory.

However, when someone asks them to detail their opinion and treats the conspiracy theory seriously, that ruins the fun.

Overheal · 22-09-2019 5:56pm

Scrummyscrammy wrote: »

Different time zone?
My apologies, I wasn't aware that debunking conspiracy theories was a multi-time zonal around the clock activity. I will set my alarm earlier from now on and invest in trays of red bull for the long nights ahead.

Tell me, do you guys work shifts?

On the personal insults, well as they say, if you dish it out then you better be able to take it too. What was it one of you said a few posts back, 'the deranged ramblings of a madman..'. Now that's not very nice, is it?

Nice try playing the wounded victim though.....

Both sides knock it off, and report substandard posts. /mod

Cheerful Spring2 · 22-09-2019 9:46pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Al Qaeda attacked various buildings in the US using planes.

But because there is still somewhat of a grey area over exactly how many people may have known about those attacks within Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the hijackers were from, you are using that as a springboard..

a gigantic springboard

... to launch yourself into cuckoo land, a self-created land where you believe men secretly planted silent explosives and blew up the trade towers with Mossad, and the President and all that zany stuff, without a shred of credible evidence

It's a technique of exploiting any modicum of doubt in order to insert an entirely false and silly narrative that has nothing to do with it

"Hold on, there's a lapse in info about one of the attackers whereabouts for a period prior to the attacks.. theeerefore the CIA blew up the towers!"

See now trying to downplay the significance of Saudi Arabia’s involvement in helping the hijackers. What not getting is these people had to have known about the 9/11 plot ahead of time. These people implicated by FBI agents are Saudi princes and government officials, and they conspired with Al Qeada to kill American citizens on 9/11. The 9/11 hijackers were met when they arrived at the airport. They were provided housing, bank accounts, transport, flying lessons. The entire Al Qeada operation was dependent on reaching support inside the United States. They are not meeting an Al Qeada support network. The network is Saudi Intelligence and Pakistan ISI.

Why are you downplaying CIA allowing Al Qeada terrorists inside the United States? The CIA has never told the American public why they were allowed to come in freely and operate inside the United States. You don't seem all that curious about it. They were on a terrorist watch list and Al Qeada was previously bombing Embassies in Africa and attacking a US Warship in Yemen pre 9/11. Both these men were linked to the attacks.

Lost them how? Care to explain how that's possible when they were using their real names? These men were meeting the others 9/11 cells throughout their time in America. Different Countries were warning the United States Al Qaeda was planning an operation inside the United States early 2001 and here you have the CIA recovering information two high level operatives had already entered the country. Anyone with a brain would have known they only there to carry out an attack. The White House repeated lies that nobody could have known an attack was coming, that completely false. Look back at the history and you see the received numerous warning planes would be used to attack buildings.

I don't use it as a Springboard. I look at the evidence. Repeated claims made by people there they saw molten steel. I also look at the history of structural engineering and never in history has a steel beamed skyscraper collapsed due to fire. They're not a single reference you have that shows an entire building would come down during a fire. You one outline in Iran and basically a building that Iranian reports said had gas canisters and oil tanks inside the building. Plus, the building was structurally unsound for decades. When WTC7 came down like a controlled demolition, and history doesn't support a fire collapse hypothesis, it's not Odd question the official 9/11 story.

Even NIST had to go to ridiculous scenario to get their global model to collapse due to fire. You find they cheated to get the building fall due to fire, most sane people don't accept their theory. They have never shown how fire would cause the building to collapse with its structural components in place as they were when the building was constructed. They removed construction elements throughout the floors to have the columns buckle and girders fail in a fire condition.

All the lies and distortions lead me to the conclusion they covering up the building was demolished by explosives. NIST fire scenario did not work, they cheated, and still refuse to release their building seven computer data for others verify it.

Cheerful Spring2 · 22-09-2019 10:01pm

Ipso wrote: »

Now Robert Mueller is involved. As for Tucker Carlson, his whole schtick is not believing what he’s hearing, and I seem to remember him being very supportive of the Iraq war. In fact he was one of those who thought anyone against it was unpatriotic, a pattern I’m sure he has in common with people who don’t like Robert Mueller (which lets face is down to their support of a particular person who has done nothing but brown nose the Saudis).

It's the 9/11 families believe Robert Muller covered up the Saudi Arabia involvement. FBI agents who have given court testimony allege the White House told Muller to shut down investigations, and he was just acting on orders given. Or just maybe you hear the truth and not really an agenda at play here? The 9/11 family's lawyer doesn't care if you democrat or Republican.

Cheerful Spring2 · 22-09-2019 10:20pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Indeed, and add time to that equation - the more time that passes, the more likely that the real information will come out. Deathbed confessions, leaks, admissions, anonymous whistle-blowers.

Especially so in a "false flag" involving hundreds of co-conspirators to treasonously murder thousands of their countrymen for no other reason than to start unpopular wars that cost thousands more lives

Whistleblowers have come forward. You don't follow conspiracy sites so you don't see these people videos. Many people in the military and FBI have come out and said there was a coverup. Even the 9/11 commission council admitted they were set up to fail. Two commisoners even resigned over not receiving documentation and materials from the agencies involved in investigating 9/11.

I agree to this.
What's missing is a whistleblower who admits the blew up buildings on 9/11.
What's missing is a high level whistleblower who admits the US allowed the attacks to take place and helped it succeed.

I don't understand why there needs two be hundreds or thousands of people involved in planting explosives or helping the hijackers complete the mission. Skeptics have never explained this for 9/11 conspiracy theorists to understand. Planting explosives is something achieved pre 9/11 in secret and only a number of people need to know or be told.

Dohnjoe · 22-09-2019 10:51pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

See now trying to downplay the significance of Saudi Arabia’s involvement in helping the hijackers.

Nope you are trying to distort and exploit it in order to push your extreme theory.

Is there a grey area anywhere at all in the event? that means it's a gigantic conspiracy involving silent bombs and President Bush and Jews and Joe Biden. This is the level of debate we are constantly dealing with here.

Whistleblowers have come forward.

Really? name one who directly supports your vast conspiracy.

Cheerful Spring2 · 22-09-2019 11:01pm

Scrummyscrammy wrote: »

Taking you up on your challenge 'to go and read about it using proper sources and credible sites'

Probably the most widely read 9/11 debunker book was produced by the guys behind Popular Mechanics - Debunking 9/11 Myths - Why 9/11 Conspiracy Theories can't stand up to the facts.

So one would imagine it would be instructive to hear a radio interview with Davin Coburn whose job was to fact-check the material in the book. Mr Coburn was interviewed on the Phoenix, Arizona radio station Independent Talk 1100 KFNX, by Radio host Charles Goye shortly after the release of the Popular Mechanics, in Aug 2006

This really makes for very, very interesting listening.

Three questions remain from this 13 year old interview:

1.Why did Mr. Coburn claim that there were DNA tests proving the identity of the 9/11 hijackers when he could offer no proof of this when challenged.

2. Why did Mr. Coburn contend that he had pictorial proof that a third of the south side of Building 7 was, to use his term, 'scooped out' which made the building structurally unsound when no pictures of this have since emerged and NIST made no mention of this when they released their official findings on Building 7's collapse in 2007.

3. Why did Mr. Coburn contend that the only CCTV image that was released to the public from the Pentagon crash site was from a camera that ran at a frame rate of 1 frame a second. The minimum ips (image per second ) "frame rate" of any CCTV system built in the last 20 years in about 60 ips. We are to believe that the most secure building in the world had one antiquated camera shooting at a frame rate that equalled an 8mm camera from the 60s. Pathetic.

You said: 'In the case of 911 conspiracy theories, hundreds of videos have been uploaded over the years, these are carefully crafted collections of "anomalies" designed to cause the viewer to doubt the event. The creators of these videos deliberately leave out explanations, context, counter-information, and so on because their aim is to convince the viewer that something was awry (without ever actually explaining the conspiracy theory itself)'

This is not one of those videos. This is an unedited live recording of a radio interview.

Looking forward, as ever to your response, this time in debunking the debunker who helped write the ultimate debunking book.

And you guys wonder why we have doubts?

Good watch. The host gave him a hard time and rightly so.

Identifying the hijacker DNA. What DNA was the comparison to? Hijackers Families would likely have to give DNA samples to carry out a comparison check. Since the bodies were burned to ash that likely never happened. You may find scraps of bones and human tissue, maybe?

I have seen photographs of damage on the southwest side of building seven. There are images that appear to show a long hole down the side of building seven, but the image is blurry and obscured by smoke. All engineering studies agree the final collapse started on the eastside of the building whereas the damage is on the opposite side south side corner. The building stood for another 6 hours- so most people think the damage caused by the towers falling had very little impact on the structure stability.

I was given an official document recently explaining what happened to the cameras around the building. Just say discovered some new things about the event. I leave it for another thread.

Cheerful Spring2 · 22-09-2019 11:16pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Nope you are trying to distort and exploit it in order to push your extreme theory.

Is there a grey area anywhere at all in the event? that means it's a gigantic conspiracy involving silent bombs and President Bush and Jews and Joe Biden. This is the level of debate we are constantly dealing with here.

Really? name one who directly supports your vast conspiracy.

You asking me to trust the explanation given and just ignore NIST silently removed construction elements in their local and global models to achieve a progressive collapse scenario. You live in a totally different world to me. Cheating is unacceptable and if they were positive about the outcome, they would have told the truth about it.

NIST can release their computer data and let the engineering world verify it. If they show fire could still collapse the building with the construction elements, I will accept your post that nobody rigged the building in secret. Their computer collapse model is an obvious deception of what happened on 9/11. Most people have eyes and can see it fell very differently to the way NIST says it did.

Your word Vast, that have no meaning here. You believe the demolition conspiracy needed hundreds of people?

Dohnjoe · 22-09-2019 11:28pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You asking me to trust the explanation given

I'll ask again, which whistle-blower supports your personal theory?

You believe the demolition conspiracy needed hundreds of people?

It's not "the" demolition theory (there are none that are in any way detailed or credible), this is your personal demolition theory. It's entirely yours with your own suspects and your own subjective descriptions of what "really happened", your own story, unique to you. Of an event that happened in the world.

I forget, in your version are the explosives totally silent, or are they actual explosives that.. explode with noise and sound?

Or are they special ones that are somewhere in between? they make a faint thud perhaps?

Cheerful Spring2 · 22-09-2019 11:47pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I'll ask again, which whistle-blower supports your personal theory?

It's not "the" demolition theory (there are none that are in any way detailed or credible), this is your personal demolition theory. It's entirely yours with your own suspects and your own subjective descriptions of what "really happened", your own story, unique to you. Of an event that happened in the world.

I forget, in your version are the explosives totally silent, or are they actual explosives that.. explode with noise and sound?

Or are they special ones that are somewhere in between? they make a faint thud perhaps?

What difference does that make no whistleblower have stepped forward?

The fact is NIST was charged with finding an explanation for the collapse and when they found one they had to remove the supports beams, shear studs, web plates, and stiffeners to help it collapse due to fire. How is this scenario going to work in reality? It amazes me people accept this study, knowing all this happened and is verified. Even Mick West is aware of these problems, but seems to think it doesn't hurt NIST credibility. I know Skeptics want to believe fire caused this somehow, but you still have to show work that matches reality on 9/11 and conforms to the construction of the building.

If the fire theories are suspect what you left with? The fire caused the collapse on the eastside there only one or two probable theories how it started. NIST theory is nonsense. They even have half the building collapsing on one side and other side just waiting to collapse. NIST, for some reason, thinks internal collapses don't affect the whole floor.

Demolition theory is supported by outside observables and how the building came down on 9/11. Nobody provided a credible fire scenario, i have seen yet.

King Mob · 23-09-2019 4:08am

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

What difference does that make no whistleblower have stepped forward?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Whistleblowers have come forward.

Lol. Slight contradiction here.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I was given an official document recently explaining what happened to the cameras around the building. Just say discovered some new things about the event. I leave it for another thread.

And a big old fib here.

Mainstream media now questioning the official 9/11 narrative

Comments