Maybe more damage?! Look at the top of the building, near the center, above the smoke. Don’t tell me you don’t see the hole. Well, more like a gouge, really.
That was not the first time a steel framed building had collapsed onto itself. We had one do that a couple of miles down the road from my house.
So tell us professsor Jeff since you know so much what speed were those buildings supposed to fall at.
Larry Sylverstein said it was demolished? I’m going to have to call bullshit on that. So you are going to have to prove he admitted to demolition.
This is what I’m talking about.
Regrettably, today, it’s a lot easier to believe in anything, or, succumb to something if you are weak of mind (I don’t mean you, Jeffdirect. I believe you are honestly trying to put your finger onto something)
Above all else, the “loopholes” are a major factor.
I say, with enough information, you can twist anything into something different, especially if a) hundred years have passed, b) some greater force, be it government or the upper class or whatever would potentially profit.
You can find loopholes -where you want, telling you what you want -if you already made up your mind.
Some prominent figure might be gay? There’s no problem in finding evidence over the internet, browsing through hundreds bits of information.
Government doing a cover up job? No problem finding official statements contradicting each other, politicians with ties to an appropriate corporation and former staff members who are now on a mission to tell the world about their former workplace’s corruption and intrigues (as well as to promote their upcoming book).
Just think about how your first girlfriend in your teens believed she constantly caught you contradicting your previous statements and that you were covering up cheating on her.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
You can find loopholes -where you want, telling you what you want -if you already made up your mind.
[/quote]
This is like saying the Zapruder footage is a loophole in the official story of a lone Kennedy shooter.
It isnt’ a loophole; it demolishes the entire official account.
ON 911, there’s DOZENS of major loopholes of this magnitude which, added toegether, completely disproves the official account.
The testimony of William Rodriguez proves there was an explosion in the basement of WTC a few seconds before the first plane hit.
This isn’t a loophole: dozens of co workers made the same testimony, some were treated for burns from the explosion with the hospital records to prove it.
Rodriguez went before the 911 commission and was told to keep quiet; his testimony was entirely censured.
This in itself doesn’t prove the gouvernament did it, but when you add the inexplicable demolition of WTC 7, the inexplicable non response of NORAD, the freefall speed of the WTC towers, the refusal for an independent investigation by the Bush administration, the inexplicable PROMOTION of some of the responsables who instead should have been HELD ACCOUNTABLE, and the ensuing wars in the middle east destined to control it’s oil, you would have to live in a cave not to see the deception and to who profits the crime.
No loopholes there, my friend.
[quote]jeffdirect wrote:
We have a 47 storey steel reinforced building (WTC 7) that didn’t suffer major fires or damage,[/quote]
If it fell down for any reason it did suffer damage, obvious or not. You mean that we aren’t sure of the failure mode. It might have something to do with having a million tons of building land right next to it and induce small earthquakes, collateral damage from falling debris and who knows what else.
Last part is not supported.
[quote]First time ever in history, twin towers nonwhitstanding.
No scientific explanation has been found, 6 years after the facts.[/quote]
And here we have it – the irrationality. You assume that no explanation requires paranoia as a response. Effectively, you make one, huge assumption (the government did do it) and are now undertaking the thankless task of verification. I have no explanation for why there aren’t magnetic monopoles, but I don’t think it’s because of some plot.
The owner is not an engineer and I’ll bet he’d love to tell his insurance adjuster how he needs federal relief from a terrorist attack. The BBC quote seems to only be on 9-11 sites.
Funny, the demolition experts I heard – the ones who actually do take down buildings – said they had no idea how to even try to do a building that size. You realize it was 15 stories taller than the world record implosion?
Can you blame them with all the nuts running around? I’ll bet they’ve gotten really tired of fielding ever asinine question that pops into someone’s head. The commission wrote it’s report, their proper response is “go read it”.
So tell me. WHY destroy this building? Remember this is our government, led by that supreme evil genius George Bush. You know, The one that pays $500 bucks for a toilet seat. So you expect me to believe that in the middle of Hell a crack team decides to rush back into ground zero to set a world record building demolition? Do you have any idea the sort of manpower that would require? And minions they are, not one of them has managed to break silence? If you think any government could have pulled that off you have no idea of the logistical requirements you are assuming. None.
So let me ask you this. If the government asked you to take part in blowing up a building where potentially thousands of innocent people would get killed, you’d just say “yip” and do it? Are you the only one with a sense of ethics?
– jj
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I don’t mean you, Jeffdirect. I believe you are honestly trying to put your finger onto something[/quote]
I agree with that too, so even if I come across as niggling, it’s because I think you are sincere.
Good point. One major fallacy is what I call the “Incompleteness Fallacy”. This relates to large-scale events (like 9-11 or the tsunami from Xmas 2005). In those cases, the event is so large that no one person really can understand it all. On top of this is a lot of reasonable confabulation in the accounts (so they didn’t actually see whatever and therefore don’t know for sure, but to them at the time it made sense that X was the case so that is what they pass along as Gospel.) Different eyewitness accounts will always vary. Since we expect the truth to be consistent, the inference is that there is something suspect about the event itself rather than the accounts of it.
But then we enter a minefield, since if the accounts can at best be only partially accurate (and some might be completely false), how do we determine what to believe and what not? This is precisely why scientific methods came into existence – it’s how mid-sized primates with strong social reflexes “do” reality right. It gives checks and balances for our urges and, while far from infallible, is a hell of a lot better than what we might do otherwise.
– jj
Will someone please answer my question here? If 9-11 was an inside job, and the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition, then that would take a team of demolition experts, right? And for a building the size of the WTC, that would take a team of at least a few dozen men, right? And this team would have to have had to work on the building for at least several weeks, preparing that building for demolition, cutting support columns, stripping it of all the fireproofing, setting up all the wires and charges and stuff. I mean, for a building the size of the WTC, this is a pretty labor intensive job! Right?
Well, this team of a few dozen men, was trudging through the building, cutting support columns, stipping it of the fireproofing material, and setting up all the fucking BOMBS all over the place…
And no one saw anything… Not ONE person saw these guys preparing the building for demolition. Not one security guard thought to himself: “Hmmmmmmmmm, there are a bunch of guys in here putting bombs all over everything, I wonder if I should report this?”
Not one person saw these people, or said anything about it. Not one. These guys were working on the building for weeks, if not months, prepping the building for a “perfect” controlled demolition. Now, I am no expert on controlled demoltion, but I have read that getting these things to go right requires very careful planning, and A LOT of prep work. Your average casino can take up to 3 months to properly prep for demoliton, so how on Earth would anyone be able to pull off such a flawless demolition on 9-11? For all we know then, everyone who died that day was “in on it” too, right?
I ask this question to 9-11 truthers all the time, and so far no one has answered. I expect this question to be ignored here as well.
[quote]skaz05 wrote:
I ask this question to 9-11 truthers all the time, and so far no one has answered. I expect this question to be ignored here as well. [/quote]
William Rodriguez knows how you feel.
[quote]skaz05 wrote:
Will someone please answer my question here? If 9-11 was an inside job, and the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition, then that would take a team of demolition experts, right?
[…]
[/quote]
They probably used the “Stalin’s Domino” method of trust (my grandma used this term, as she had to suffer tremendous hardships and abusings in his camps)
Kill them to silence potential traitors. Then kill the executioner. Then liquidate the executioner’s assassin. This assassin shall then be terminated, too. Then, after some more slaughter, Stalin himself would personally shoot the last guy.
(Did I mention my grandmother hated this guy?)
[quote]skaz05 wrote:
And no one saw anything… Not ONE person saw these guys preparing the building for demolition. Not one security guard thought to himself: “Hmmmmmmmmm, there are a bunch of guys in here putting bombs all over everything, I wonder if I should report this?” [/quote]
There is a funny thing with humans, we tend to ignore people that look like they are where they are supposed to be. Some nice looking uniforms, and some random unrelated equipment is usually all the average person needs to feel assured that 'some crew is doing something, that is their business, I’m not interested"
That said. As far as I know, no survivor has ANY account of ANY activity going on inside the building, ‘official’ or otherwise. So it’s not exactly a loose-end. But, it’s not exactly ‘hard’ to put a crew of people on a job underneath the publics nose.
Heck, look at all those comedy specials from britain where people dress up like policeman and fuck with pedestrians, or set-up goofy signs, or elaborate pranks. People don’t tend to question when they see a ‘crew’ doing ‘work’, they just assume someone asked for them to be there, and whatever they are doing, needed to be done.
Any of you conspiracy theorists; ever hear of Occam’s Razor?
It’s one of the most insidious processes ever. It is with us everywhere we go. It governs nearly all our actions. Don’t be afraid, look it up. You might learn something terrifyingly true!
For the conspiracy theorists, a request.
There are many, many conspiracy theories out there - why, between the Rothchilds, the Freemasons, the Zionists, the Illuminati, and the military-industrial complex, there is no shortage of conspiracies.
I have one request: name one reasonably well-known conspiracy theory youdon’t believe in…you think it is bunk, hokum, and people who are driving it are wrong.
And, a brief explanation as to why you don’t believe in it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
For the conspiracy theorists, a request.
There are many, many conspiracy theories out there - why, between the Rothchilds, the Freemasons, the Zionists, the Illuminati, and the military-industrial complex, there is no shortage of conspiracies.
I have one request: name one reasonably well-known conspiracy theory youdon’t believe in…you think it is bunk, hokum, and people who are driving it are wrong.
And, a brief explanation as to why you don’t believe in it.[/quote]
The official 9/11 story is a conspiracy! There, I pre-empted that one.
Jeffdirect you never did answer my question about how fast was the building supposed to fall.
I have asked you a very reasonable question. If it was not supposed to fall that fast, then how fast and why?
Perhaps the reason why you haven’t answered my question is because you haven’t got a clue, you are just repeating what some other clueless idiot told you.
The reason why the WTC collapsed as fast as it did is because of the forces involved. The floors of the WTC had a finite load bearing capacity. Once one floor failed and all the building above it began falling, that process was unstoppable. Those buildings were not put together with the little bolts who thought they could. When all that weight came crashing down onto the floor below it went trough it in an instant. Why? Because of the forces involved and the design of the building.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Jeffdirect you never did answer my question about how fast was the building supposed to fall.
[/quote]
Mate, that’s because the guy in your avatar looks so strange i decided your questions weren’t to be taken seriously…()
So you concede I’m right then, good!
Also, we have to remember that NO ONE is a 100% credible witness, NO ONE. It has been shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that human memory is certainly fallible, even so called “light bulb” memories like these (Where were you when 9/11 happened…JFK was shot) have been shown to be 100% wrong when people recall them, even though they swear up and down its the truth. Granted this does not mean that everyone is wrong all the time, but it has been shown that people can be wrong even when they are 100% certain of their words.
Taking that into effect, while we do have to consider eye witness testimony, it certainly does not prove anything 100%. The fact that one guy remembers a blast from below, no matter how credible he likes to think he is or how certain he is of this memory, does not infact mean a bomb went off below him.
A bomb very well could have gone off below him, but does this mean the goverment did it? It could have simply been another method of attack that Osama and the gang used to bring the building down. Which sounds more likely to me because it wouldnt be the first time the government let someone explode a bomb in the parking structure below the building.
Jeff, since you are so keen on the free-fall theory here are some videos that they did not fall at free fall speed.
Here is some info on the “squibs:”
Hell, read the whole web site, it will be good for you. I dont say that in jest, and I honestly mean to take a few days to read the whole web site. I’ve read a fair amount of “Truth” to balance out my views and get the whole story from the other side. I like to keep myself intellectually honest and not block out one side totally.
Another great, albeit heavy, paper on the falling speed of the towers.
I’ll give them credit, the “truthers” raise some interesting points using very convincing language. Thats about where it ends though, nothing they say holds up under close scientific scrutiny. And remember, the plural of anecdote is “anecdotes”, not “evidence.”
Having said all that, I tend to believe that the Bush administration did use this as a way to get into Iraq. This is only a cursory examination of the evidence, but i think its convincing based off of what I have heard and seen. As with any good skeptic, I’m willing to be convinced otherwise.
[quote]jj-dude wrote:
Funny, the demolition experts I heard – the ones who actually do take down buildings – said they had no idea how to even try to do a building that size. You realize it was 15 stories taller than the world record implosion?
[/quote]
I found a clip of the tallest building ever imploded:
http://www.history.com/media.do?id=most_hudsons_implosion_broadband&action=clip
J. L. Hudson’s Dept. store. Listen to the amount of work they had to do, including testing every part of the building and laying in explosives for weeks. Think about how much planning it takes to do this.
So is it possible that someone could bring down building 7 undetected? Sure. Is it probable? Not bloody likely.
– jj
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
As with any good skeptic, I’m willing to be convinced otherwise.[/quote]
Well, a lot of people i have talked to realise , after reviewing the evidence, that the gouvernament was complicit in 911.
I have yet to see one of them changing back his mind.