Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Jim Corr is a legend for having the courage to present a completely alternative view
Options
Comments
-
Firstly, stop trying to tear apart an opinion I don't even have - the photo below doesn't really clear up anything.
And about this Structural Engineering thing its Not 'I'm a Doctor trust me'; I'm not saying I'm right cos I'm Engineer. Don't be ridiculous, attempt to explain the 'facts' as you call them and stop getting personal.
I'm saying by my engineering judgment there are holes in the official statement, there are holes in any conspiracy theory also, but I would like to hope if an opinion was termed 'official' there wouldn't be so much questionable evidence. I'm sitting on the fence here stop putting me in the conspirators box! Either side could persuade me otherwise, but if you think your attempts to attack me personally is aiding your cause or will get you anywhere your wrong.
You seem to defend the 'official' story without any give, why?
Building seven is on the right. Barclay street is 6 or 8 lanes wide. Notice the large chunks of concrete, and rebar. Notice the lack of a core. Notice the damage and debris on the roof and side of the building on the other side of Barclays street.
Highlighted above, yes that's my problem, where's the core, there should be a CONCRETE core standing up in the middle visible isolated from the structural steel.
Also where are the pancaked concrete slabs?? To be honest that photo would support the conspiracy theory more yours..
Find something to explain this (you seem to have enough free time on your hands) and when I get a chance I will research the subject more closely.
Can I ask, you believe that everything happened as the Official story states, or where do you stand?0 -
yeah, where is the core?
what happened to it?
why would you draw attention to its abscence?0 -
AIR-AUSSIE wrote: »Firstly, stop trying to tear apart an opinion I don't even have - the photo below doesn't really clear up anything.
And about this Structural Engineering thing its Not 'I'm a Doctor trust me'; I'm not saying I'm right cos I'm Engineer. Don't be ridiculous, attempt to explain the 'facts' as you call them and stop getting personal.
I'm saying by my engineering judgment there are holes in the official statement,
Okay. What in your engineering judgment are the major holes in the offical story.there are holes in any conspiracy theory also, but I would like to hope if an opinion was termed 'official' there wouldn't be so much questionable evidence.
The only people who make reference to the term "official story" are conspiracy theorists.I'm sitting on the fence here stop putting me in the conspirators box! Either side could persuade me otherwise, but if you think your attempts to attack me personally is aiding your cause or will get you anywhere your wrong.
Highlighted above, yes that's my problem, where's the core, there should be a CONCRETE core standing up in the middle visible isolated from the structural steel.
Did you read the article in structure magazine that I linked to?Also where are the pancaked concrete slabs?? To be honest that photo would support the conspiracy theory more yours..
Really why? You're giving your opinion unsupported by anything. Why should you expect to see pancaking in a building that collapsed at an angle. Why does that photo support the conspiracy theory?Find something to explain this (you seem to have enough free time on your hands) and when I get a chance I will research the subject more closely.
Again as an engineer explain why you expect to see concrete slabs?
Giving reference to the unique design of the WTC7.Can I ask, you believe that everything happened as the Official story states, or where do you stand?
As mentioned I've yet to see a credible alternative hypothesis.
For example how was WTC7 rigged to demolish? How could you bring in the massive explosives, engage in weeks of cutting work on support beams, without any of the dozens of companies and thousands of employees in the building noticing. How did these explosives survive the fires that burned uncontrolled for hours?Mahatma Coat wrote:yeah, where is the core?
what happened to it?
why would you draw attention to its abscence?
Polly want a cracker?0 -
remind me again, how did the fire that 'engulfed' the entire building start, from falling debris, is this like when ya strike 2 stones together to make sparks?, how did fire 'falling' on the outside of the building do all this.
ALSO, and I should no better by now than to employ sarcasam when dealing with the patently thick, I asked did the CONCRETE MELT, what I should have said was
how does fire Weaken concrete?0 -
your opinion
Polly want a cracker?
1 When have I said this my opinion, posting something DOES NOT make it my opinion, how many times do I have to tell you this???
If you are correct then you should be able to answer the question in the above post? "Where is the remains of the core, it couldn't have been damaged by falling debris of by the fire enough to disappear from view under the rubble in the photo.
You also seem desperate to lower your argument to mere insults, I repeat please refrain from doing this as it continues to weaken your argument.
I'm sitting on the fence I'm open to persuasion, but your attempts are rather useless. Please you obviously have the time find another of these wondrous sources to explain why the core was damaged enoguh to collapse.0 -
Advertisement
-
Mahatma coat wrote: »remind me again, how did the fire that 'engulfed' the entire building start, from falling debris, is this like when ya strike 2 stones together to make sparks?, how did fire 'falling' on the outside of the building do all this.
You don't understand how the fire started?
You lack the imagination to understand what happens when hundreds of tonnes of concrete crash into a building, smashing power lines, breaking electrical equipment, damaging gas lines.
Christ why do you think that the greatest danger after an earthquake, aside from aftershocks, is fire.
If also consider that WTC 7 housed a Con ED power substation, a dozen transformers, and emergency diesel generators, as well as thousands of gallons of fuel, you have a list of excellent reasons why the building was fully engulfed in flame.ALSO, and I should no better by now than to employ sarcasam when dealing with the patently thick, I asked did the CONCRETE MELT, what I should have said was
how does fire Weaken concrete?
Ad homien noted. Did I ever say the fire weakened the concrete? See for the past page you've been claiming the WTC 7 had a "concrete core" when it had nothing of the sort.AIR-AUSSIE wrote:1 When have I said this my opinion, posting something DOES NOT make it my opinion, how many times do I have to tell you this?
Er;you wrote:I'm saying by my engineering judgment there are holes in the official statement,
You're quite clearly saying "In my professional opinion there are holes in the "official" story".
I'm asking you to clarify, what in your "engineering judgment" are the "holes" in the "official statement".Where is the remains of the core, it couldn't have been damaged by falling debris of by the fire enough to disappear from view under the rubble in the photo.
Did you read the article in structure magazine that I linked to?
The building was not held up by a single concrete core.You also seem desperate to lower your argument to mere insults, I repeat please refrain from doing this as it continues to weaken your argument.
Where exactly have I insulted you?
The "polly want a cracker" was clearly directed at Mahatma Coat, I even quoted him, I was refering to his tiresome habit of parroting your posts.Please you obviously have the time find another of these wondrous sources to explain why the core was damaged enoguh to collapse.
How can I explain the collapse of something that wasn't there in the first place?
You did read the article in structure magazine that I linked to?0 -
-
AIR-AUSSIE wrote: »I will when I've time, just wanted to see what you'd say.
Its a short piece only four pages long with diagrams, why are you more interested in my opinion that that of a respected engineering journal?So it doesn't have a concrete core?
It didn't.
No it did not. It was built over a Con Ed power substation. I imagine sinking a concrete core through that would present several significant engineering challenges, wouldn't you?0 -
You claimed there was no primary radar coverage, which has been proved wrong, due to the evidence I have presented. Now you are pretending that this evidence means you were basically right?
I claimed there isn't total primary coverage in the US. You still haven't shown this to be incorrect.
Where flight 77 was when it turned off its transponder, there wasn't real-time primary radar coverage available to the FAA. In effect, this means there wasn't primary radar coverage in that place, at that time.
Not only that, but if you check what your article says about the non-real-time primary coverage that was in the area, you'll see that by its very wording it admits that it was less than complete.
So yes, your evidence supports my position. If you misinterpret it, then it supports your position.VICE PRES. CHENEY: Didn't circle it, but was headed on a track into it. The Secret Service has an arrangement with the F.A.A. They had open lines after the World Trade Center was...
Open line with the FAA, who would have thought it?
No need for them to even make a phone call...
Again, you appear to be misinterpreting your own evidence.
Firstly, Cheney says that they had open lines after something happened earlier that day. Surely the implication of that is that the lines were opened after the earlier event, implying in turn that the lines aren't constantly open.
Secondly, you're showing that at least one group in the Secret Service - not the Air Force, the Secret Service - was in contact with one group in the FAA. It does not follow from this that everyone in the Air Force - not the Secret Service, the Air Force - knew everything that anyone in the FAA knew. It doesn't even follow that everyone in the Secret Service knew everything that anyone in the FAA knew, nor when they learned what they learned.
Again, let me try and make a distinction clear. This article discusses in very little detail, some capability of the Secret Service. Just as the Secret Service is not the US Air Force, it also is not the US military. I made a claim about the US military. As far as I can see, this has nothing to do with that.Which is exactly what I have already done, but as per usual, you have no answer to the evidence I have presented, so instead you ignore it and pretend it never happened. Here it is again, so unless you can refute it, then you must accept that you have been proved wrong?
And what does this article really say? It says that there is some sort of tracking system, which uses cameras, but gives no indication of the scope or coverage of this system, whether it is fixed-emplacement, or a system which can be used in a manner similar to AWACS, and deployed where and when it is needed.
It additionally says that the Secret Service - who still are neither the military nor the Air Force have the ability to see what the FAA sees. This doesn't give the FAA, or the military who aren't mentioned in this article at all, any additional, clearly-specificed capabilities that would "disprove" my claims, or "prove" that the people you've claimed are lying were doing so.
So one of the pilots claimed that he was travelling flat-out, at the speeds you say they should have been doing.Apparently longer than it took for them to reach NY. The following statements are from one of the pilots himself.
Now, we have two choices here:
1) The pilot is telling the truth, and was going flat out. The whole "subsonic" account is a lie. Despite going flat-out the planes couldn't get there in time, so the timeline accompanying the subsonic account is also a lie. We don't know why they're lying, but the planes couldn't get there on time.
2) The pilot is not telling the truth, and was not going flat out. We don't know why he said he was, but he wasn't.
In case 1, one should ask why all involved parties are concocting a story that opens them up to more criticism then what really happened.
In case 2, one should ask why you think this suggests the planes could have done this. The pilot claimed something happened that didn't happen....but you think that this fabrication is a trustworthy enough source to base your belief on what is and is not possible.
No, tunaman. If we take the vast majority of his statements, then the conclusion is that we're ignoring evidence thats inconcenient - that being the rest of his statements, and comparing them with everything else.So if we take the vast majority of his statements then the conclusion is that he had no problem going at top speed, all the way to NY.
Thats not accurate.I think you will find it was you who started discussing flight 77, instead of focusing on the blatantly false claim, that the US had no military radar inside the US.
You started (here)with the following statement:
The claim made by the US military that the airliners were invisible to them, as their radar was supposedly pointing the wrong way.
I responded (here
by stating the following:
believe you're misrepresenting not only what was actually said, but a number of issues together.
The point I think you're referring to is the fact that the United States does not have full-coverage primary radar. There are areas of the US where ATC monitor airtraffic only via responder-coverage. This is, I believe, as true today as it was in 2001.
When flight 77 was initially hijacked (it was not the first plane to be hijacked), its transponder was turned off. From the perspective of the local ATC, the plane disappeared. There was no primary radar to find it, and its transponder (i.e. secondary radar coverage) was not giving a signal.
It is also worth noting that - at least up until September 2001, the US military did not routinely watch the skies inside the borders of the continental United States. WHy would they? Doctrine was that any military airborne threat would come from a foreign country, and there were none of those inside the US borders.
You'll notice that I did not make any claim that the military have no radar coverage inside the US. Its correct that I introduced flight 77 into the discussion, but that was because it was one of the planes that there were problems tracking that day.
If you don't want to discuss flight 77, then what, exactly, would you like to discuss regarding your claim about the US military being blind that day?0 -
Mahatma coat wrote: »the Windsor tower in Madrid had a Steel frame and a Concrete Core, when it burned the steel Eventually Collapsed after a 20 Hour inferno, but the Concrete core remained standing and reasonably intact.
Thats incorrect.
The Windsor tower fire lasted 18 hours.
It was brought under control after 14.5 hours.
The steel-frame collapsed completely after 5 hours.
The "reasonably intact" concrete core was beyond repair, and as a result was subsequently demolished.
Who is suggesting it melted?how come the concrete core failed completely? did it MELT too??
Given that you use the word "too", I would also ask who is suggesting that something else melted, and what is it that they're suggesting melted?
WTC 7 - just like WTC 1 and 2 - collapsed from a combination of uncontrolled fire and significant structural damage.0 -
Advertisement
-
Nothing since I closely examined the smoking gun of 9/11, which is footage of building 7 coming down, and found that there was, and still is, no other rational explanation for how that building came down, so therefore the only logical conclusion is that it was demolished.
Lets look at this allegation that controlled demolition was used, to see whether it is rational, as your comment suggests.
WTC 7 suffered significant structural damage from the collapse of the towers. What does the controlled demolition of a building with significant structural damage look like? We don't know, because they don't use controlled demolition on such buildings because you can't control it.
WTC 7 was apparently "demolished" after no preparation work at all, or with only whatever preparation could be done amidst the evacuation of the building, the initial firefighting efforts, and then amidst the fires that were left raging when the firefighters abandoned it. What does the controlled demolition of a building with so little preparation look like? We don't know, because they don't use controlled demolition with so little preparation.
There was no seismic "signature" of this alleged controlled demolition. What does controlled demolition without a seismic signature look like? We don't know, because controlled demolition has a seismic signature. One may recall the furore caused when this signature was allegedly found for WTC 1 and 2. At the time, it was unquestionable proof of controlled demolition. It was only since the seismic record was properly looked at, and it was shown that there was no such signature, that the notion has surfaced that controlled demolition doesn't need such a signature. This "non-grounded eplosive" excuse, of course, failed to explain why explosives didn't blow out the windows - why there was no airborne shock-wave.
How do the windows of a building being taken down by controlled demolition behave? We don't know, because they take them out to prevent flying glass from the airborne shockwave.
Of course, maybe it wasn't explosives. Maybe thermal cutting charges were used...such as thermite. What does a building taken down with thermite look like? We don't know, because there are no cases on record.
What does the controlled demolition of a 47-storey building look like, anyway? We don't know, because the tallest building on record as being taken down with controlled demolition is the 33-storey J.J. Hudson department store. Taller buildings have been demolished...but never by controlled demolition, mostly because its not safe.
So, tunaman's a "rational" explanation is that with no possibility of proper preparation, a building some 16-stories taller than anything ever demolished by controlled demolition before, suffering from structural damage and uncontrolled fires was brought down using explosives that left no seismic signature, no airborne shock-wave, or using some other technique that isn't used in conventional controlled demolition.
Rational? You decide.
Me...I'd say that its not irrational to suggest that a building suffering significant structural damage and uncontrolled fire could collapse. Tunaman clearly disagrees.0 -
Just in case you thought he had gone away.
http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2008/jun/22/ill-stand-for-election-against-eu-says-jim-corr/0 -
lol, look at the first line of the first response0
-
is_that_so wrote: »Just in case you thought he had gone away.
http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2008/jun/22/ill-stand-for-election-against-eu-says-jim-corr/
Morgan Stack the last "911 truth" candidate got a massive 392 votes in the general election. He spent about 800 odd euro so, if he bought everyone who voted him a drink he'd be a little worse off.
Thats telling about the 911 truth movement in ireland.
As to Jimbo I'm sure he'll get at least three or four times as many votes as morgan.
On a aside . "Firefight: Inside The Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11 " is just out. An account of among others. the Arlington County Fire Department, the Fort Myers Fire Department, the Ronald Reagan National Airport Fire Department, and all the others involved in the Pentagon rescue effort (many of whom lost friends and coworkers in the attack)0 -
On a aside . "Firefight: Inside The Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11 " is just out. An account of among others. the Arlington County Fire Department, the Fort Myers Fire Department, the Ronald Reagan National Airport Fire Department, and all the others involved in the Pentagon rescue effort (many of whom lost friends and coworkers in the attack)
And they've had 7 years to write it, what a farce.0 -
-
-
The "official story" - as you like to refer to it - has the weight of evidence presented as justification for its conclusions (where conclusions have been reached). Thus, it is a position that is evaluable, and which can be judged entirely by the evidence which it presents and references.AIR-AUSSIE wrote: »You seem to defend the 'official' story without any give, why?
The default position should be to accept these conclusions unless it can be meaningfully shown that the evidence presented as their justification is wrong or insufficient.
You say, for example, that there are holes in the "story". YOu've given an example - that the building collapsed too neatly. However, all you've offered is an opinion. You haven't provided any evidence to show that buildings of comparable height, with comparable damage cannot fall in this manner. You haven't provided any evidence to suggest that buildings of comparable height with comparable damage don't typically fall in this manner. To be fair, you haven't provided this because you can't provide this evidence. There are no such buildings which you can draw comparisons to...but that hasn't stopped you making the claim.
This is a hole in your argument. You're making claims with no evidence on which to judge them, and any evidence you can drawn on will, perforce, be indirect at best. You won't find a 40+ storey building collapsed by controlled demolition, nor by damage-and-fire. You won't find a high-rise building suffering from major structural damage which was subsequently dropped from controlled demolition, let alone dropped by CD before that structural damage was assessed. You won't find a comparable-height building brought down in any pre-planned manner which was occupied that very morning.
Going back to what I was saying about evidence...Highlighted above, yes that's my problem, where's the core, there should be a CONCRETE core standing up in the middle visible isolated from the structural steel.
Why should there be a concrete core still standing? Can you show that there was a concrete core? Can you explain why that core should have remained standing?
Looking at that picture, it would appear that the surface of the rubble-pile is predominantly made up of building facade. That would suggest that the building internals collapsed before the outer walls. Given that the typical camera-view of collapse doesn't show any walls standing after the north face begins its collapse, this would suggest that the north face was the last part of the building to collapse.Also where are the pancaked concrete slabs??
Where are the floors? I'd imagine that they're buried in the rubble, underneath that outer wall. I'd be amazed if the roof, and outer wall managed to fall under those floors you expect to see.
I would have said that it supports the notion that the building collapsed "south-to-north" or "inside-to-out", either of which could be consistent with the damage inflicted to the south face, and the lack of damage to the north face.To be honest that photo would support the conspiracy theory more yours..Find something to explain this (you seem to have enough free time on your hands) and when I get a chance I will research the subject more closely.
Thats a strange question for an engineer who's not taking sides to ask.Can I ask, you believe that everything happened as the Official story states, or where do you stand?
The "official story" (again, strange phrasing for someone alleging to be impartial) isn't just a set of empty claims. It has presented the evidence on which those claims are based. Thus, they are available for scrutiny.
There are two good reasons for rejecting claims:
1) Evidence is not presented, and the claim is expected to be taken at face value. An example of this would be the insistence that WTC 7 had a core which should have remained standing.
2) Evidence is presented, but fails to stand up to scrutiny. The scrutiny does hold up to being scrutinised in turn.
When one of those conditions is met, I'm sure Diogenes will - like me - be more than happy to accept that there is a case to be answered.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »I'd settle for a coherent alternative hypothesis for a start.
I'd settle for a consistent decision on what is and is not true in the official accounts.
It seems at times that other than agreeing that some buildings fell down, and the Pentagon suffered damage on September 11, 2001, every single detail regarding the events of that day has been turned into a lie or covered up.....for no clearly-articulable reason.0 -
I claimed there isn't total primary coverage in the US. You still haven't shown this to be incorrect.
Yes I have, but you just won't accept it.But the 9/11 Commission notes that other centers had primary radars that covered the missing areas yet they weren’t asked to do a primary radar search.Where flight 77 was when it turned off its transponder, there wasn't real-time primary radar coverage available to the FAA. In effect, this means there wasn't primary radar coverage in that place, at that time.
No, it means somebody had to make a phone call.So yes, your evidence supports my position. If you misinterpret it, then it supports your position.
You are the one trying to twist the evidence to suit your position, not me.Firstly, Cheney says that they had open lines after something happened earlier that day.
That "something" was the WTC being hit, which happened at 8:46. Flight 77 lost contact at 8:56, so at that time there should have been an open line.Again, let me try and make a distinction clear. This article discusses in very little detail, some capability of the Secret Service. Just as the Secret Service is not the US Air Force, it also is not the US military. I made a claim about the US military. As far as I can see, this has nothing to do with that.
Well if you looked at the source for the article, then you would have seen the following.
[US Department of Defense, 2000; US Department of the Navy, 9/2000, pp. 28 pdf file]
I suppose you will now claim that they have nothing to do with the military either? :rolleyes:Among its responsibilities, the Secret Service protects America’s highest elected officials, including the president and vice president, and also provides security for the White House complex. [US Congress, 5/1/2003]
How could they possibly do that without relying on the US military?And what does this article really say? It says that there is some sort of tracking system, which uses cameras, but gives no indication of the scope or coverage of this system, whether it is fixed-emplacement, or a system which can be used in a manner similar to AWACS, and deployed where and when it is needed.
So unless you see evidence from the US military themselves, which goes into detail about how advanced their radar system is, then it simply didn't exist, way back in 2001? :rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyene_mountainDuring the Cold War and continuing to today, the Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center and Cheyenne Mountain Directorate collect data from a worldwide system of satellites, radars, and other sensors and process that information in real time.
Controlled by United States Air Force
As to be expected, they don't give away any detail there, unless you have secure access.
# Cheyenne Mountain Directorate (official site/secure access only)The pilot claimed something happened that didn't happen....but you think that this fabrication is a trustworthy enough source to base your belief on what is and is not possible.
So you are calling him a liar?
I just presented evidence from a man, who was apparently flying the plane.Its correct that I introduced flight 77 into the discussion
That's all you had to say.If you don't want to discuss flight 77, then what, exactly, would you like to discuss
I have no problem discussing flight 77, but it was you who told people to stick to one issue and nothing else, and then berated people for not sticking to your rules of engagement.regarding your claim about the US military being blind that day?
It was the US military who made the claim about being blind, not me.0 -
Advertisement
-
WTC 7 suffered significant structural damage from the collapse of the towers.
Where is the evidence to support this claim?What does the controlled demolition of a building with significant structural damage look like? We don't know, because they don't use controlled demolition on such buildings because you can't control it.
You are wrong.
Gambling barge goes ‘kaboom’ in Mississippi
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9426909/A demolition crew blew up a section of the barge that has been blocking U.S. Highway 90 near Gulfport ever since Hurricane Katrina heaved it ashore.
Three explosions in rapid succession brought down the five-story structure in a demolition overseen by the state Transportation Department.
Here is the video, which if you watch it, will see that it is also a good example of a top-down demolition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8
If we believed all the claims from the anti-conspiracy sites like 911myths.com, then these top-down demolitions never ever happen.WTC 7 was apparently "demolished" after no preparation work at all
Nobody has even made that claim, so it's simply a case of you attempting to use a straw man.
All you have done is show the weakness of your position.then amidst the fires that were left raging when the firefighters abandoned it.
Evidence for these supposedly raging fires, other than blatantly false claims of fire on every floor?How do the windows of a building being taken down by controlled demolition behave? We don't know, because they take them out to prevent flying glass from the airborne shockwave.
You are wrong, again.
Here is a video of a demolition, with the windows still intact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d77E0E46c2k&feature=relatedWhat does the controlled demolition of a 47-storey building look like, anyway? We don't know
We know exactly what it looks like, but you just don't want to know.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v491/reprehensor/wtc7-demolitionlg.gif
Sudden and total collapse, in near perfect symmetry.Taller buildings have been demolished...but never by controlled demolition, mostly because its not safe.
So they supposedly demolish them in an uncontrolled way, because it's safer?So, tunaman's a "rational" explanation is that with no possibility of proper preparation, a building some 16-stories taller than anything ever demolished by controlled demolition before
14 stories taller, than anything ever admitted on record.suffering from structural damage and uncontrolled fires was brought down using explosives that left no seismic signature, no airborne shock-wave, or using some other technique that isn't used in conventional controlled demolition.
Asymmetrical surface damage and a few small uncontrolled fires, which supposedly results in a 47 storey steel-framed skyscraper being completely destroyed in seconds, is not a rational or logical explanation.0 -
Has anyone got any proof the yanks did september the 11th?0
-
What I really want to know is the eternal question: Would you do the corrs sisters if you also had to do Jim?0
-
Watched the documentary recommended by Jim Corr.
Some interesting points in there and a few bits of info I hadn't heard.
But lets be realistic, 90% of that was muck. With such irrefutable facts as "smoke indicates a cold fire".
Laughable in parts, taking bystanders opinions, passing them off as fact.
7/10 for effort, and music, (Carmina Burana i think)
2/10 for content.
Sorry Jim, its a fail this time.0 -
Jack Sheehan wrote: »What I really want to know is the eternal question: Would you do the corrs sisters if you also had to do Jim?
Whos first? Does he do you or vice versa?0 -
Yes I have, but you just won't accept it.
I've already responded to this point, complete with making the distinction between there not being complete coverage of the entire continental united states and there not being realtime coverage of this particular area.
Repeating the point doesn't change that. You're still not showing that my claim that coverage over the entirety of the continental United States is less than 100% is false and you are verifying that they did not have real-time coverage of the area in question.
I did see the source. Its one of the reasons why I didn't ask you to verify the authenticity of the claim. I still stand by the fact that the source is talking about a capability of a group who are not the US military.Well if you looked at the source for the article, then you would have seen the following.
[US Department of Defense, 2000; US Department of the Navy, 9/2000, pp. 28 pdf file]
I suppose you will now claim that they have nothing to do with the military either? :rolleyes:
You want this article to somehow support the notion that the US military had coverage where they needed it, on the day in question. The onus is on you to explain - with detail rather than supposition - how it does that.How could they possibly do that without relying on the US military?
I have pointed out that the report goes into few specifics about the nature of the system, particularly whether it is fixed-emplacement or deployable, and stresses that it is a capability that a group other than the military - who is whom we were discussing - are supposed to have.
Simply put, I'm showing why it doesn't necessarily support what you claim it does. If you can show that it is available to the military, and that it was operational in the relevant areas (whether fixed-emplacement or deployable) on the relvant day, then you've made your point. If you can't do that, then all you've got is supposition and assumption.
ETA: Let me put it differently. I agree 100% that if we assume that this system has the capabilities that would mean the US Military were lieing, and if we assume the US military had access to it, then on the basis of those two assumptions we can conclude that they were lying. Unfortunately, that doesn't get you anywhere, because what you're basically saying is that if we assume the US military had access to a system which had the capability they claimed they didn't, then they lied. Reworded even more simply : if we assume the US military lied, then we can conclude they lied. I agree with this. No question. I'm just pointing out that the conclusion is based on an assumption that the conclusion is true.
Where have I said it didn't exist? I have said that its capabilities are not clearly known, and therefore it is nothing but assumption on your part to suggest that its capabilities are what you want them to be.So unless you see evidence from the US military themselves, which goes into detail about how advanced their radar system is, then it simply didn't exist, way back in 2001? :rolleyes:
I presented two scenarios, tunaman. I clearly gave the possibilities that he was, or was not, telling the truth. I never chose between the two.So you are calling him a liar?
In one, he tells the truth, and it doesn't help your position because he didn't get to the plane on time despite going flat out.
In the second, he was not telling the truth, which doesn't help your position either, because you're now trusting a liar.
So which is it...the planes could and did travel flat-out, but couldn't and didn't get there in time...or you're trusting the lie of a liar that the planes could have maintained those speeds?
How, exactly, do you want me to discuss either the capabilities of the FAA or the military to see what was happening in the skies that day, if we don't discuss what it was they were looking for?I have no problem discussing flight 77, but it was you who told people to stick to one issue and nothing else, and then berated people for not sticking to your rules of engagement.
Where did they make this statement? All I've seen is you claiming that they did.It was the US military who made the claim about being blind, not me.0 -
Where is the evidence to support this claim?
Here's a reasonably good summary: http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
I'm sure you're already familiar with what NIST have said, so I presume I don't need to bring that up.You are wrong.
Gambling barge goes ‘kaboom’ in Mississippi
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9426909/
Here is the video, which if you watch it, will see that it is also a good example of a top-down demolition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8
A barge is not a building. Its a boat.
That aside though...I agree, this is an excellent example of a top-down demolition. We can see that there are massive explosions severing the support columns in an ordered sequence. We can see that the explosions race in front of the collapse, and that they occur uniformly around the structure....features we don't see with the towers.
ETA:
Its also a whopping 5 stories in height. May I take it that this means you no longer feel there's a distinction to be made between high-rise structures and non-high-rise structures?Nobody has even made that claim, so it's simply a case of you attempting to use a straw man.
No, I'm highlighting the reality that there is a serious issue here with any theory of controlled demolition.
The Hudson department store had several people in the crew, working for weeks, who's only job was the setting up of the explosives, while the rest of the crew did the pre-cutting, the stripping, etc. The quantity of explosives used was also impressive. Do you know how much explosives were used, tunaman? Do you have an estimate for how much were used in any of the three buildings you claim were taken down? Do you have an explanation as to how the entirety of the buildings weren't riddled with det-cord, or how synchronised explosions could otherwise be managed?
If I'm attacking a straw-man, then I'm only too happy for you to explain how the preparations were done to prove that preparation does figure in your hypothesis.
I agree the frames are still there, but you don't see any breaking glass in the video, even as the frames break up. How, exactly, do you figure that the windows are still there?You are wrong, again.
Here is a video of a demolition, with the windows still intact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d77E0E46c2k&feature=related
Ho ho. Very funny. Maybe you should read up on how they took down the Singer building.So they supposedly demolish them in an uncontrolled way, because it's safer?
My bad.14 stories taller, than anything ever admitted on record.
Of course, given that you've been referencing top-down demolition, why don't you apply those mathematical skills and tell us how many stories taller the towers were than any top-down demolition ever admitted on record?
I agree.Asymmetrical surface damage and a few small uncontrolled fires, which supposedly results in a 47 storey steel-framed skyscraper being completely destroyed in seconds, is not a rational or logical explanation.
If that were the official explanation, I'd agree that it was completely unsatisfactory.
It is not, however, the official explanation of what happened to WTC7. You might be referring to the conclusions of FEMA, but you know as well as I do that they themselves concluded that this was an unsatisfactory answer, which is why they initiated a further investigation into it. I'd also be amazed if you weren't aware that the interim findings of this official investigation reference the damage you asked for evidence of at the start of the post I'm responding to and offered a significantly different hypothesis for the building's collapse to what you are refusing to accept.0 -
Where is the evidence to support this claim?
Tunaman why do we need to do this dance?
Bonkey, or Oscar or myself will yet again post the photos of the damage to the south side, you'll yet again ignore it, drop it and raise it again six months later in the hope someone will believe you this time.
Tunaman do you really need to dance these worn out steps again?Nobody has even made that claim, so it's simply a case of you attempting to use a straw man.
No tunaman no conspiracy theorist has ever give a rational explanation as to how the WTC 7 was rigged for demolition while being at full occupation at the day of the attacks.
Tunaman when working out guilt you work out the who, why, and how.
No conspiracy theorist has given an explanation as to who rigged the WTC7
Why they rigged it,
Or How they rigged it.
Saying the WTC7 looks like a demolition without explaining how it was rigged for demolition is a valid query.
So Tunaman where are the Witnesses from the WTC7 who talk about the immense structural work required to rig a building for conventual demolition.Evidence for these supposedly raging fires, other than blatantly false claims of fire on every floor?
Because the testimony of dozens of EMTs and firefighters about a building engulfed with fire isn't enough? Or the photos of smoke coming from every floor?Asymmetrical surface damage and a few small uncontrolled fires, which supposedly results in a 47 storey steel-framed skyscraper being completely destroyed in seconds, is not a rational or logical explanation.
I don't suppose you have evidence to support your claims.0 -
The topic of 'how long it would take? and how many explosives would be needed for a controlled demolition?' seems to be constantly coming up.
Is it absolutely inconceivable that the US military could have developed a bunker-bustery type weapon with the purpose of taking down skyscrapers?
Explosives that used timers?
Or, hiring a team of engineers to develop new ways of carrying out a controlled demolition in a fast manner?0 -
Advertisement
-
Well everyone would still have to subscribe to it. Everyone would have to be ok with murdering innocent fellow citizens.0
Advertisement