The Truth Behind 9/11

[stevie]

Of course, spelling and typo's are highly relevant to this discussion, well done you! You can't give a straight answer can you? You don't have a clue without your bollocks links.

 

if spelling and typo's aren't relevant to this discussion why did you and all your cronies jump on tameelf all the time about his spelling mistakes?

[slinkydevil]

Of course, spelling and typo's are highly relevant to this discussion, well done you! You can't give a straight answer can you? You don't have a clue without your bollocks links.

 

if spelling and typo's aren't relevant to this discussion why did you and all your cronies jump on tameelf all the time about his spelling mistakes?

 

If you want to be a pedantic cunt:

 

Capital letters are always placed at the beginning of a sentence. Now back to your tin-hat theories please. You suck at being an English teacher.

[Dr_Dave]

But you must admit that the plane being a missile is a well regarded meme in the whole "truther" memeplex?

 

in some people heads, yes. but mine, no.

 

I just find it interesting, that's all. Listen, the problem that many people have with the "truther" memes is that they pretty much entirely ignore the vast majority of the evidence. By which, I'm talking about the eye witness evidence, the engineering evidence, the evidence of experts and emergency workers, photographic evidence and generally evidence derived from common sense (for example, the huge amount of conspirators that would need to maintain the integrity of the plot).

 

I think it's encouraging that you dismiss the "missile into the pentagon" meme with exactly the same critical consistency that most people do. However, I find it intriguing that you're prepared to dismiss such methods when it comes to the whole WTC 7 issue. Perhaps you're seeing some piece of evidence that the rest of us have missed, but I have to say, you haven't yet showed it.

 

the part you might have missed during the "truther" memeplex is not what hit the pentagon, but where it hit the pentagon. do your own research dave, thats all i'll say about it for now.

 

Well, I believe it's well known that the area hit was undergoing renovation at the time and was sparsely populated, but I'm not sure what kind of conspiracy you could form out of this. Are you suggesting that they crashed a planeload of people into that part to avoid paying someone to strip the wallpaper?

 

and yes i know china wants me to come up with some sort of 9/11 commission report on what i think actually happened. there will be a day, but it is simply not as black and white as some people may think. there are parts of the day that i am still unsure about, whichever way i look at it.

 

but i still stand by my first post, i'm here to ask questions that have not yet been answered, not to try and influence people in either way by giving my thoughts about what happened.

 

Then you pose something of a difficulty, because it is very difficult to debate with someone who wants to keep their opinion a secret. I'll tell you what, let's compromise. Rather than a lengthy monologue or timeline of events, would you consent to answer these five yes or no questions? Stick to yes/no if you like, or add clarification if your opinion warrants it.

 

1) Do you believe that Islamic extremists hijacked American Airlines Flight 11, American Airlines Flight 77, United Airlines Flight 175, and United Airlines Flight 93?

 

2) Do you believe that these four planes were the objects that hit the WTC and Pentagon, and crashed into the ground in Pennsylvania?

 

3) Do you believe that the north and south towers of the WTC complex collapsed because of the damage sustained by the impact of the flights and subsequent fire damage?

 

4) Do you believe that WTC 7 collapsed because of damage sustained by the collapse of the the two WTC towers and subsequent fires?

 

5) Do you believe that the US government was directly responsible for planning and executing the hijackings and subsequent attacks?

 

I could ask many questions like this, but I think these cover the basic points of the truther "mythology".

 

Since we already know the answer to number 4, I'd be interested to hear what your thoughts were on this:

 

WTC 7 Full Collapse

 

This is a video that shows the full collapse of WTC 7, not the abbreviated segment that gets bandied around as evidence. You can very clearly see that the corner with the penthouse collapses some seconds before the rest of the structure, presumably as a result of this damage like this documented structural damage on the south west corner:

 

 

This then causes sufficient structural damage on the side that we can't see to cause the remaining structure to fail. My question is, how does the WTC 7 conspiracy meme account for this? Do you still believe that this profile of collapse is consistent with a building being purposefully demolished? If so, did the conspirators purposefully rig that corner of the building to collapse before the rest of it, having anticipated the damage that would occur on that side of the building? Or did the conspirators trigger the other explosives when they saw that corner collapsing?

 

Dave

[stevie]

But you must admit that the plane being a missile is a well regarded meme in the whole "truther" memeplex?

 

in some people heads, yes. but mine, no.

 

I just find it interesting, that's all. Listen, the problem that many people have with the "truther" memes is that they pretty much entirely ignore the vast majority of the evidence. By which, I'm talking about the eye witness evidence, the engineering evidence, the evidence of experts and emergency workers, photographic evidence and generally evidence derived from common sense (for example, the huge amount of conspirators that would need to maintain the integrity of the plot).

 

I think it's encouraging that you dismiss the "missile into the pentagon" meme with exactly the same critical consistency that most people do. However, I find it intriguing that you're prepared to dismiss such methods when it comes to the whole WTC 7 issue. Perhaps you're seeing some piece of evidence that the rest of us have missed, but I have to say, you haven't yet showed it.

 

the part you might have missed during the "truther" memeplex is not what hit the pentagon, but where it hit the pentagon. do your own research dave, thats all i'll say about it for now.

 

Well, I believe it's well known that the area hit was undergoing renovation at the time and was sparsely populated, but I'm not sure what kind of conspiracy you could form out of this. Are you suggesting that they crashed a planeload of people into that part to avoid paying someone to strip the wallpaper?

 

and yes i know china wants me to come up with some sort of 9/11 commission report on what i think actually happened. there will be a day, but it is simply not as black and white as some people may think. there are parts of the day that i am still unsure about, whichever way i look at it.

 

but i still stand by my first post, i'm here to ask questions that have not yet been answered, not to try and influence people in either way by giving my thoughts about what happened.

 

Then you pose something of a difficulty, because it is very difficult to debate with someone who wants to keep their opinion a secret. I'll tell you what, let's compromise. Rather than a lengthy monologue or timeline of events, would you consent to answer these five yes or no questions? Stick to yes/no if you like, or add clarification if your opinion warrants it.

 

1) Do you believe that Islamic extremists hijacked American Airlines Flight 11, American Airlines Flight 77, United Airlines Flight 175, and United Airlines Flight 93?

 

2) Do you believe that these four planes were the objects that hit the WTC and Pentagon, and crashed into the ground in Pennsylvania?

 

3) Do you believe that the north and south towers of the WTC complex collapsed because of the damage sustained by the impact of the flights and subsequent fire damage?

 

4) Do you believe that WTC 7 collapsed because of damage sustained by the collapse of the the two WTC towers and subsequent fires?

 

5) Do you believe that the US government was directly responsible for planning and executing the hijackings and subsequent attacks?

 

I could ask many questions like this, but I think these cover the basic points of the truther "mythology".

 

Since we already know the answer to number 4, I'd be interested to hear what your thoughts were on this:

 

WTC 7 Full Collapse

 

This is a video that shows the full collapse of WTC 7, not the abbreviated segment that gets bandied around as evidence. You can very clearly see that the corner with the penthouse collapses some seconds before the rest of the structure, presumably as a result of this damage like this documented structural damage on the south west corner:

 

 

This then causes sufficient structural damage on the side that we can't see to cause the remaining structure to fail. My question is, how does the WTC 7 conspiracy meme account for this? Do you still believe that this profile of collapse is consistent with a building being purposefully demolished? If so, did the conspirators purposefully rig that corner of the building to collapse before the rest of it, having anticipated the damage that would occur on that side of the building? Or did the conspirators trigger the other explosives when they saw that corner collapsing?

 

Dave

 

1) Do you believe that Islamic extremists hijacked American Airlines Flight 11, American Airlines Flight 77, United Airlines Flight 175, and United Airlines Flight 93?

 

NO. not islamic extemists. islamic people though, yes.

 

2) Do you believe that these four planes were the objects that hit the WTC and Pentagon, and crashed into the ground in Pennsylvania?

 

YES. except the plane did't crash into the ground.

 

3) Do you believe that the north and south towers of the WTC complex collapsed because of the damage sustained by the impact of the flights and subsequent fire damage?

 

NO.

 

5) Do you believe that the US government was directly responsible for planning and executing the hijackings and subsequent attacks?

 

NO. still not sure if they were directly responsible, but definately not soley responsible.

 

and about WTC 7

 

Well, I believe it's well known that the area hit was undergoing renovation at the time and was sparsely populated, but I'm not sure what kind of conspiracy you could form out of this

 

i agree, no conspiracy alone, but just another massive coincidence that the plane turned round back on itself and decided to hit that exact part of the building.

 

Are you suggesting that they crashed a planeload of people into that part to avoid paying someone to strip the wallpaper?

 

now, now dave you're getting as bad as slim.

 

This is a video that shows the full collapse of WTC 7, not the abbreviated segment that gets bandied around as evidence. You can very clearly see that the corner with the penthouse collapses some seconds before the rest of the structure, presumably as a result of this damage like this documented structural damage on the south west corner

 

dave, as i have said in previos posts, for a building to collapse into its own footprints all its 4 load bearing members must collapse at exactly the same time, and by looking at your picture of WTC 7 it would seem to me that it would be impossible for them all to collapse together, obviosly the SW corner must have gone first if there was so much damage to that corner. so this would indicate that somehow the 4 load bearing members were all made to collapse together.

 

dave please look at the pictures of the marriott hotel, building 3, which also had one side of the building collapse, then tell me how that, too, never collapsed into it's own footprints.

[stevie]

Of course, spelling and typo's are highly relevant to this discussion, well done you! You can't give a straight answer can you? You don't have a clue without your bollocks links.

 

if spelling and typo's aren't relevant to this discussion why did you and all your cronies jump on tameelf all the time about his spelling mistakes?

 

If you want to be a pedantic cunt:

 

Capital letters are always placed at the beginning of a sentence. Now back to your tin-hat theories please. You suck at being an English teacher.

 

NEWSFLASH : I am not an English teacher

[ans]

dave, as i have said in previos posts, for a building to collapse into its own footprints all its 4 load bearing members must collapse at exactly the same time, and by looking at your picture of WTC 7 it would seem to me that it would be impossible for them all to collapse together,

 

Please post your structural engineering qualifications, thanks in advance.

 

so this would indicate that somehow the 4 load bearing members were all made to collapse together.

 

Somehow? SOMEHOW? Oh well that's got me sold. You speculate that 'somehow' this happened, despite the wealth of evidence that it didn't, simply because to accept what every credible expert in the world says would render your entire argument null and void.

 

You pair are not only gullible, but of staggeringly low intelligence. How do you even turn on a PC?

[Dr_Dave]

dave, as i have said in previos posts, for a building to collapse into its own footprints all its 4 load bearing members must collapse at exactly the same time, and by looking at your picture of WTC 7 it would seem to me that it would be impossible for them all to collapse together, obviosly the SW corner must have gone first if there was so much damage to that corner. so this would indicate that somehow the 4 load bearing members were all made to collapse together.

 

Before I accept this, I'd like you to summarise the structural damage that happened to WTC 7. Without first doing that then claims like "it would be impossible for them all to collapse together" are somewhat speculative, not to mention very likely wrong.

 

Look at the picture again. This is the SW corner of the building. The building off to the right is the Verizon building, as seen in this diagram:

 

 

Now, I stand to be corrected here, but this picture is only really giving you a glimpse of the destruction that happened on the side that is not visible. This side that is not visible incidentally is the southern side, the side that was subject to the brunt of the falling debris from WTC 1 and 2. You can get an idea of the amount of stuff that hit the southern side in this picture:

 

 

Again, that's looking south. The large column of smoke is where the 1 million tonnes combined mass of the twin towers previously stood, the mass that has just slammed into the ground and lower south side of WTC 7. Now, the corner you see collapsing first in the above video is not the SW corner, it is the other twin tower facing corner. No pictures exist of the south face damage, but it seems fair to extrapolate from the damage seen to the SW corner, combined with the fact that we see the SE corner collapsing 5 seconds before the rest of the structure, combined with the fact that there were various reports of 10 storey gouges, or significant damage to 1/4 to 1/3 of the south side. And from this, the conclusion that you draw is that the lower parts of WTC 7 suffered significant structural damage, enough to make the structure collpase.

 

So we get down to the basics. What is more likely:

 

1) A large building that had suffered significant structural damage to its lower portions by several hundred thousand tonnes of very hot material and had burned for seven hours collapsed asymmetrically and was recorded on video doing so;

 

or

 

2) A large building that had suffered significant structural damage to it's lower portions by several hundred thousand tonnes of very hot material and had burned for seven hours was entered by a number of demolitions experts with explosives who rigged the still burning building to explode after having cleared out firefighters and avoided the gaze of the intense media scrutiny that was focused on New York. The building was then demolished in such a way as to make it unmistakably like a purposeful demolition even though the intent was to make it appear like an accident. While the building was being rigged, worldwide media companies were called and told that the building had already fallen, which was then reported on while the building was standing. Then just to make sure that the secrecy of the plot was maintained, the owner of the building went on TV and told everyone that it was about to be purposefully demolished.

 

I mean come, let's not be coy here. If you think option two misrepresents your views on this matter, then please correct me.

 

The entire WTC 7 meme, the sum of the evidence behind it and the argument in favour of it being a controlled demolition consists of: it looks like a controlled demolition therefore it is a controlled demolition. When in fact, if there was any weight in the argument at all, the last thing a secret demolition would look like would be a controlled demolition. Demolition experts go to great lengths to make buildings fall in a controlled manner in order to avoid casualties. So why, if you wanted to make your building appear to fall by fire or structural damage would you do it so carefully and controlled? This is why you appear so dim when you spout this rubbish, because your own story isn't even internally consistent.

 

Dave

[Chinahand]

One of the biggest problems with the conspiracy theorists is there refusal to accept expert opinion

 

ImplosionWorld is the industry show site run by people who implode buildings professionally. Lots of nice videos of controlled demolitions and stuff.

 

They've got so pissed off with conspiracy theorists misrepresenting their industry they wrote a report about the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7.

 

Implosionworld Report on the Collapses

 

Stevie, Tameelf, Guess what:- they fundamentally disagree with you.

 

The report is authoritative - the people involved were involved in the clear up work at ground zero. Plus they had vibration monitors connected to other projects in lower Manhatten on 911 and so analyse the seismic data involved.

 

Its very easy to see the difference between an explosive demolition and a structural collapse - ones contains sharp seimic spikes (bang) as the explosives detonate followed by the collapse of the section demolished - more muffled seismic spike - the other just has the muffled spikes.

 

Tameelf, Stevie, Guess what:- the seismic traces don't support your ideas.

 

But of course these people were all in on the conspiracy weren't they.

[mojomonkey]

Well if we're doing pictures

 

[WilDDog]

as i have said in previos posts, for a building to collapse into its own footprints all its 4 load bearing members must collapse at exactly the same time, and by looking at your picture of WTC 7 it would seem to me that it would be impossible for them all to collapse together, obviosly the SW corner must have gone first if there was so much damage to that corner. so this would indicate that somehow the 4 load bearing members were all made to collapse together.

 

What a load of absolute twaddle.

[stevie]

as i have said in previos posts, for a building to collapse into its own footprints all its 4 load bearing members must collapse at exactly the same time, and by looking at your picture of WTC 7 it would seem to me that it would be impossible for them all to collapse together, obviosly the SW corner must have gone first if there was so much damage to that corner. so this would indicate that somehow the 4 load bearing members were all made to collapse together.

 

What a load of absolute twaddle.

 

explain please. in YOUR OWN words

[stevie]

hey at least it's not only me that doesn't believe the government's version of 9/11

 

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/...chologists.html

[Slim]

explain please. in YOUR OWN words

 

Why dont you reply to Dr Dave and Chinahand stevie?

 

It's funny that you ask someone to reply IN THEIR OWN WORDS but then post another link to someone else's words that somehow supports your cause. I followed your link, I took the first name off your list, and I googled it. I found the blog that that person writes, it's here:

 

http://biblequotes.blogspot.com/

 

Read it right through, right to the part where she says Bush is Satan. Still think these are people who can be relied on for a sensible judgement?

[stevie]

explain please. in YOUR OWN words

 

Why dont you reply to Dr Dave and Chinahand stevie?

 

because i have already explained numerous times.

[Slim]

explain please. in YOUR OWN words

 

Why dont you reply to Dr Dave and Chinahand stevie?

 

because i have already explained numerous times.

 

No you haven't. You've linked shite which they've very obviously debunked, but you've not got a reply to that have you? You can't think for yourself, you're a sheep.

 

Did you read http://biblequotes.blogspot.com/ yet?