|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5449 days) Posts: 67 From: Scottsdale, Az, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Was the destruction of the twin towers scientifically possible on 9/11 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
They could have known, we don't know. Really? They sat on 3000 deaths, not a peep. Wow.
Correction, The united states mainstream media is ignoring the biggest story in the history of the world. Remarkable! Journalists are willing to dig up the Pentagon Papers and bring down a President and yet, wonder of all wonders, they ignore the biggest story of the 21st century. Just remarkable!
Osama bin laden could have planted the explosions. We do not know. Well, now, this one I believe. From the NIST link you ignored upthread.
... many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. THOUSANDS of pounds. HUNDREDS of columns. On the same floors where the planes hit. Yep. Entirely plausible. Especially if Bin Laden's involved. Hey, I think you're on to something here!
People have been spilling the beans... Go here, it has quotes of government officials, scientists, and 9/11 surviors. Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report You know, I tried. I honestly tried. I clicked on the first link I came to, an NYC firefighter named Richard Banaciski, clicked on the link http://www.graphics8.nytimes.com to see supporting documentation of his story ... and there is no such link. Graphics 8 New York Times my aunt's fanny. Whoever put this site together went to an awful lot of trouble to make up a bunch of crap to fool a bunch of people who are too stupid or too lazy to check the supporting documentation. So. What research have you done on the "other side"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I'll start with your last point first, the Itie video, taking it point by point as the film runs.
"[N]o steel structure had ever collapsed before due to fire." And WTC 7 didn't collapse just due to fire. It sustained heavy damage in several floors at or near the bottom from debris from the collapse of one of the towers. What's more, this answers your basic question, why did it collapse. It was not in pristine condition before it collapsed. Moreover, its problems ran deeper than just a few fires throughout the building. It sustained heavy structural damage when the towers collapsed. "The 9/11 Commission report, in fact, avoids mentioning the building altogether, as if it had never existed." So what? What are they trying to suggest in this video, that the Commission thought everyone would forget about it if they didn't mention it? This kind of pointless, snarky comment does nothing but undermine the credibility of the video. Next they present some guy I've never heard of who claims to be a demolitions expert who gives his opinion in no uncertain terms that it came down by controlled demolition. Big deal, argument by appeal to authority. Ho hum, seen it a million times, means nothing. He doesn't explain how he knows it is. As far as we can tell from watching the video, he came to his conclusion based on watching the collapse on film. Certainly nobody has explained why I should take the word of some guy who's only seen it on film over the conclusion of those who actually investigated the site. Follow that up with a string of videos showing WTC 7 falling in split screen with other controlled demolition collapses. Now, one thing I will give them is that it looks, to my untrained eye, a lot more like the tower collapses, which quite obviously were not controlled demolitions. However, the mere fact that it looks like it to me isn't enough to convince me that 100s or 1,000s of people are covering it up. Next they tell us that the BBC reported the collapse of the building 20 minutes before it happened. Okay, they've convinced me that the BBC made a mistake during perhaps the most stressful and confusing day on the job that anyone in NYC has ever had. So what? Uncharacteristically for this kind of journalism by innuendo, this piece actually explains why the BBC made the mistake. They were relying on a CNN report from an hour earlier that the building "has either collapsed or is collapsing." What conclusions can we draw from this sequence? Well, the first thing we notice is that apparently about 1.5 hours before WTC 7 fell, it showed signs of significant enough damage that the media was told that the building "has either collapsed or is collapsing." Please explain to me how someone observing that kind of damage to the building an hour and a half before the building collapses is consistent with demolition. However, instead of exploring this obvious conclusion, the video asks the rhetorical question, "How could anyone know the building would collapse more than an hour before it did, when no steel structure had ever collapsed before due to fire, and the fires in WTC 7 had been anything but devastating?" Of course, the people who made this thing aren't interested in answering questions, just asking them as if they were unanswerable. Next we have someone who is represented to be a first responder calling into a radio program who claims the fire department told her at about 1:00 that she would have to move the triage area away because they were going to bring the building down. So what we have here is hearsay presented by someone who is virtually unidentified. In order for me to give any credence to what this person is saying, I would have to believe all of the following: she is who she is purported to be by the video and the radio program; she accurately remembers exactly what the person from the fire department told her; the person from the fire department accurately expressed to her what the intention of the fire department was; and that we can correctly glean from that stated intention that the fire department was going to bring the building down. Now, if we in fact can believe all of these things, then we also have to believe that in the confusion, horror, death and destruction of all that was happening that day, the fire department was going to go ahead and rig the building for demolition. You may think that all of those are perfectly reasonable conclusions to come to. I don't. Next we have montage of various firefighters on the scene warning people back, saying things like, "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down," "The whole thing is about to blow up, move it back," "The building is about to blow up." Then a scene of a firefighter on the phone, with two very loud explosions in the background. Then one of them says, "We gotta get back, 7 is exploding." Of course, to maximize the manipulation, the play the bit with the explosions repeatedly. So, several firefighters on the scene, in all the confusion, thought the building was exploding. Of course, none of them are saying it now, after many, many investigations. I'm pretty sure I covered everything that was in the Itie video. If I missed anything, feel free to tell me about it. But there's nothing of substance in it. It's full of conjecture, innuendo, emotional manipulation, confusion, and conclusions, but with no real supporting evidence. Some of your other points: I said, "The firefighters who were in the buildings cannot see the obvious evidence of this, or they are complicit in the cover-up of the deaths of 3,000 some people, including some of their fellow firefighters." You said, "They could have known, we don't know." Of course, you are correct, they could have. But I find it completely unbelievable that everyone on the entire NYC fire department would take part in that kind of cover-up. If that sounds credible to you, there's very little point in our discussing this any further, our perceptions of reality are completely different. I said, "The media is ignoring the biggest story in the history of the world." You replied, "Correction, The united states mainstream media is ignoring the biggest story in the history of the world." That doesn't really take much oomph out of my point. Why in the world would the United States mainstream media ignore the biggest story in the history of the world? If you meant to suggest that other media sources are exploring the story, and that Itie thing was an example, well, I've already discussed how underwhelming it is. You next suggest that the planes could have been empty. If that's the case, you need to explain the passenger manifests that were released showing the names of the dead, one of who was a rather prominent reporter, if I recall correctly. I said, "None of the dozens, 100s or even 1,000s of people who must have been involved in the planning and execution of the demolition has spilled the beans." Your response either carelessly or deliberately reinterpreted my point into something different and you gave me a list of a bunch of people with some connection to the government, either past or present, who express disagreement with some aspect of the official report. As far as I can tell, your link didn't give one single account of anyone who was actually involved, which is what I was talking about. It's getting rather late. I'm not going to look at 911revisited.com right now. Maybe I'll get to it later and give you my reaction. A good part of that depends on how you receive and respond to what I'm saying here. Before I put too much more time into this, I'm curious to see what you think about what I've said here. Mostly in response to my last post, you had a lot of "we don't know"s. That's not a very compelling argument in the face of what I saw happen on television that day and common sense conclusions. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lost-apathy Member (Idle past 5449 days) Posts: 67 From: Scottsdale, Az, USA Joined: |
quote: Heavy structural damage? Lets see your evidence for this. You like to talk about evidence, lets compare the two sides. From your point of view. The evidence: 1. A couple small fires are seen within the building.2. The government said so. 3. Please add to this list, because it sucks. From my point of view. The evidence:1. Eyewitness accounts show that people hear explosions, and in one we do hear a huge explosion. 2. Firemen and police officers Know prior knowledge of the collapse. 3. The building collapses strait down in 6 seconds. watch the video and count yourself. 4. Huge dust clouds encircle the site after the collapse. This says that the concrete was pulverized into dust by some huge force. 5. BBC announced the collapse 20 minutes before it happened. 6. The building collapsed in a fashion similar to that of a building being demolished. 7. It obviously wasn't the pancake theory because it collapses from the bottom. 8. No steel building that big has ever collapsed in that fashion ever in the history mankind. Something had to have triggered the collapse. It didn't collapse until long after the twin towers collapsed. Now please explain the physics of this. Did somehow some magical fire cause a huge chain reaction which cause every single steel beam to break? It just suddenly fell down randomly.
quote: This just shows they did not do a thorough investigation. They left it out most likely because they don't have a good explanation for its collapse.
quote: What damage? Lets see evidence. Pictures, interviews, whatever. From looking at the collapse it seemed perfectly fine before.
quote: What investigations? Give me sources. There was one main investigation, and it ignored this subject. You keep bringing up non relavent evidence. Such as "it couldn't have happened because that many people wouldn't help cover it up." However this is just making blatant assumptions. I do admit the video isnt perfect but I linked it not for what they argue but the video of its collapse, eyewitness accounts, and how the media covered it.
quote:There are three main media's in america. Fox, cnn, and nbc. All of them are huge coporrations that are influenced by money and the government. quote: There are thousands of quotes over 500 people. Now I find it hard to believe that you read it all within the time you read my post.
quote: I don't understand how this is common sense. Some debris hit the building causing some damage, then randomly the building collapses 7 hours after it got hit by debris in a perfectly neat fashion. Please tell me what triggered this collapse I really would like to know. Its funny how the the explanation for wtc 7 is different with so many people. Here's Larry Silverstein's explanation.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100 Edited by lost-apathy, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Heavy structural damage? Lets see your evidence for this. You like to talk about evidence, lets compare the two sides. From your point of view. The evidence: 1. A couple small fires are seen within the building.2. The government said so. 3. Please add to this list, because it sucks. You know, when you lie to your opponents about what their opinions are, you do convince them of something. You convince them that you're a liar. But not much else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lost-apathy Member (Idle past 5449 days) Posts: 67 From: Scottsdale, Az, USA Joined: |
Why don't you add to the list then? I asked him to add to it. I even used please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Its funny how the the explanation for wtc 7 is different with so many people. Here's Larry Silverstein's explanation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100 Two things: #1 "They didn't know if they would be able to control the fires." --Larry Silverstein
1. A couple small fires are seen within the building. Thems some lousy firefighters. Two lil ole fires? Sheesh.
Fire in SW corner near floors 10 or 11 Fire on floors 6, 7, 8, 21, 30 Multiple fires observed on floors numbered 20’s and 30’s World Trade Center Investigation | NIST #2 "Just pull it. I made the decision to pull and watch the building collapse." --Larry Silverstein Hmmmmm. Lemme see. Larry Silverstein is in cahoots with Bin Laden (after all, he's rich so he's in on it) and he orders the destruction of the building? Or. Larry was telling them to pull the firefighters OFF THE JOB? Silverstein and Bin Laden. Definitely.
1. Eyewitness accounts show that people hear explosions, and in one we do hear a huge explosion. Provide link.
2. Firemen and police officers Know prior knowledge of the collapse. Explained upthread.
3. The building collapses strait down in 6 seconds. watch the video and count yourself. Debris Damage from WTC 1 After WTC 1 collapsed Heavy debris on Vesey Street and WTC 7 PromenadeNo heavy debris observed in lobby area, white dust coating SW Corner Damage floors 8 to 18 South face damage between two exterior columns roof level down 5 to 10 floors, extent not known South Face Damage Middle 1/4 -1/3 width south face, 10th floor to groundLarge debris hole near center around 14th floor 1/4 width south face, above 5thfloor, atrium glass intact 8th/ 9thfloor from inside, visible south wall gone with more Damage to west, 2 elevator cars dislodged into elevator lobby World Trade Center Investigation | NIST There was a hole in the building between floors 8 and 18. 1/3 of the building was missing. btw, there are over 2 dozen pictures illustrating this damage on this NIST site.
4. Huge dust clouds encircle the site after the collapse. This says that the concrete was pulverized into dust by some huge force. Yes. A building collapsed.
5. BBC announced the collapse 20 minutes before it happened. Explained upthread.
6. The building collapsed in a fashion similar to that of a building being demolished. Silverstein and Bin Laden were in on it. WAITAMINUTE!!! That would explain how Bin Laden got into WTC 1 & 2. OMG!!!)
7. It obviously wasn't the pancake theory because it collapses from the bottom. The hole in the building was between floors 8 and 18. 1/3 of the building was missing.
8. No steel building that big has ever collapsed in that fashion ever in the history mankind. Tall buildings have generally been made with a rigid steel skeleton, sheathed in the lightest materials to keep out the weather. Alternatively, reinforced concrete, where the compression-resisting and protecting concrete surrounds the tough, tension-resisting steel, integrated into a single body, has been used. Such structures have never failed and stoutly resist demolition. However, when the lower supports of a steel skeleton are destroyed, the weight of the building seems to crush the lower parts and the upper parts descend slowly into the pile of debris. Error 404 - Page Not Found Btw, while researching this last quote I ran across a website called WHY DIDN'T WTC 5 COLLAPSE??? Can't win for losing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
lost:
This just shows they did not do a thorough investigation. They left it out most likely because they don't have a good explanation for its collapse. NIST:
The NIST reports include the overall investigation report for the WTC towers, 8 project separate project reports, and 34 supporting technical reports, totaling some 10,000 pages. This enormous task has taken NIST longer to accomplish than originally anticipated. WTC 7 report will be issued as a supplement to the main report: draft planned for October 2005; final for December 2005. Decoupling of WTC 7 report necessary to accommodate overlapping staffing demands for work on WTC towers. This change affects mainly the collapse analysis; other WTC 7 work will be reported with the other Investigation reports. lost:
What investigations? Give me sources. There was one main investigation, and it ignored this subject. NIST.National Institute of Standards and Technology Administration U.S. Department of Commerce You keep bringing up non relavent (sic) evidence. Such as "it couldn't have happened because that many people wouldn't help cover it up. Well. Let's see. FDNY lies. NYPD lies. The families of the victims lie. Each of the airlines lies. Every newspaper, every radio station, every television station in this country lies. Who am I forgetting? Yeah, I see your point. All these folks would lie. The bastards.
There are three main media's (sic) in america. Fox, cnn, and nbc. All of them are huge coporrations that are influenced by money and the government. Wow. What have you got against CBS and ABC?
There are thousands of quotes over 500 people. Now I find it hard to believe that you read it all within the time you read my post. You're absolutely right! I am going to take the next 2 or 3 days and read each and every one of those 500 eyewitness accounts!
What research have you done on the "other side"? Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given. Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
There are three main media's in america. Fox, cnn, and nbc. All of them are huge coporrations that are influenced by money and the government. Not just the mainstream media, either. The press on the left also hasn't has much to say about this. The Nation, a liberal weekly, and Monthly Review, a Marxist monthly don't have much to say about this "controlled demolition". I've also checked Democracy Now! and Znet, as well as Alexander Cockburn's Counter Punch. All of these are very critical of the Bush administration, and have discussed illicit activities and conspiracies before, many quite serious. Yet none of these publications have taken this issue and run with it. In fact, several of these publications have published opinions and articles criticizing this conspiracy theory. I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Hi Lost-apathy,
There's really no sense arguing on the evidence, you're a True Believer, after all. There's far more benefit to pointing out where your failing to make rational assessments of evidence. You won't accept this yourself, of course, but hopefully there will be some benefit to others who might read this.
lost-apathy writes: quote: They could have known, we don't know. We don't know? This is like the creationists who argue that evolution is just a conspiracy that tens of thousands of scientists have kept secret for over 150 years. This kind of reasoning is central to many conspiracy theorists, that large numbers of people over periods of many years can successfully maintain a secret without any break in the ranks and without any actual evidence becoming exposed. One can't argue against such logic, only marvel at it. As Lewis Black quipped about his reaction to one particularly incredible creationist argument, "I had to remind myself to breath."
Correction, The united states mainstream media is ignoring the biggest story in the history of the world. And passing up how many Pulitzers and best-sellers, not to mention world-wide fame and a permanent place among the pantheon of great reporters, right up there with Woodward and Bernstein? This is another hallmark of the conspiracy theorist, that whatever is necessary for their particular fantasy to be possible, that must be what happened. If it requires thousands of reporters, including energetic and enthusiastic young reporters eager to make a name for themselves, to pass up potential career-making stories, so be it!
quote: Yup, however they could have been empty without people, they could have been osama bin ladens men just like they say. Osama bin laden could have planted the explosions. We do not know. This is another one of those "remind yourself to breath" affairs. The planes were empty???? The mind boggles! Once again, there's no point arguing this on the merits. If the conspiracy theorist's pet beliefs require that hundreds of people entered planes and then disappeared off the planes without a trace while somehow still leaving their DNA at the WTC site, then that's what happened.
quote: People have been spilling the beans... Go here, it has quotes of government officials, scientists, and 9/11 surviors.Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report This fallacy is called "responding while (probably) purposefully misunderstanding the argument," it probably has a simpler name. What you've done is link to a webpage listing people caught up in the same fantasy as yourself. What Subbie was referring to wasn't people involved in post-facto speculation, but as he very clearly said, and as you even quoted, "None of the dozens, 100s or even 1,000s of people who must have been involved in the planning and execution of the demolition has spilled the beans." In other words, and as if it weren't already incredibly obvious, he said no one involved in the conspiracy has been exposed or come forward. This is a familiar "misstep" in discussions with conspiracy theorists. Don't have an answer for something? Then just respond to something else.
I just want to ask one last question. How did WTC 7 collapse. No one has given me a reasonable explanation. One person accused me of not reading the 911 commission report, one person said it was from all the debris falling onto it. The report doesn't even mention this building. I think most reasonable people would concede that the collapse of WTC-7 was unexpected. It still seems surprising even today. So if there really had been a 911 conspiracy, then the last thing the perpetrators would want to do is bring down an unrelated building not hit by airplanes, since it would raise suspicions that something other than airplanes was involved. In other words, 911 conspiracy theorists are citing as evidence for a conspiracy an event that argues against a conspiracy. I'm sure the "fallacy of irrationality" has a more proper name, but that's what this is. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Why don't you add to the list then? I asked him to add to it. I even used please. Because I have already told you why I thought WTC7 collapsed. Then you lied about it. To reiterate: there was a 20 storey hole in it, there were fires raging through the building, and, as your own links prove, experienced firefighters knew that the building was so structurally weakened that collapse was inevitable. You will notice that the phrase "the government said so" did not appear anywhere in my explanation, because you are a liar and you made that up in your head. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So if there really had been a 911 conspiracy, then the last thing the perpetrators would want to do is bring down an unrelated building not hit by airplanes, since it would raise suspicions that something other than airplanes was involved. In other words, 911 conspiracy theorists are citing as evidence for a conspiracy an event that argues against a conspiracy. I'm sure the "fallacy of irrationality" has a more proper name, but that's what this is. "Bush moves in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Not just the mainstream media, either. The press on the left also hasn't has much to say about this. The Nation, a liberal weekly, and Monthly Review, a Marxist monthly don't have much to say about this "controlled demolition". I've also checked Democracy Now! and Znet, as well as Alexander Cockburn's Counter Punch. All of these are very critical of the Bush administration, and have discussed illicit activities and conspiracies before, many quite serious. Yet none of these publications have taken this issue and run with it. In fact, several of these publications have published opinions and articles criticizing this conspiracy theory. And this is another way in which CTs are like creationists. Creationists, despite all the evidence, insist that everyone who disagrees with them is driven by an atheist ideology. CTs, despite all the evidence, insist that everyone who disagrees with them is driven by a neoconservative ideology. The fact that many of their opponents are devout Christians doesn't stop the creationists from lying about it, and the fact that many of their opponents are liberals (a label that I'm happy to wear) doesn't faze the CTs in the slightest. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
This fallacy is called "responding while (probably) purposefully misunderstanding the argument," it probably has a simpler name. Yes, it's called a straw man. Anyone with experience of the EvC debate will now be feeling an acute sensation of deja vu. --- Do you know, the CTs even their own lie about "the second law of thermodynamics"? No, I'm not making it up. I wish I was. * bangs head repeatedly on desk *
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
This is another one of those "remind yourself to breath" affairs. The planes were empty???? The mind boggles! This just gets funnier and funnier. Now, in addition to the folk mining the buildings (at least three buildings), we add the folk at the originating airports, the folk that checked in the passengers and their luggage, the ones that checked tickets at the gate, as well as all of the ground crew for each plane. We now add another body of bad guys that somehow abduct all of the passengers between the point where they enter the ramp and the door to the plane, somehow secretly herd all of them into some invisible bus, to be whisked off to some invisible destination, never to be seen again. Oh yes. One more thing. Between the time they are abducted and the plane leaves the gate, they are also persuaded to tape the recordings which are then somehow smuggled back onto the planes to be later sent as phone calls to folk on the ground. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I don't understand how this is common sense. The common sense that I was referring to was giving a moment's thought to the consequences of any of the various conspiracy theories being accurate. Why would every organized media source in the country ignore this story if it were true? Why would any news source ignore it? Why would the firefighters go along with it? As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, even if there are anomalous observations, for any explanation of them to be plausible, it has to raise fewer problems than the anomalies, not more. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024