jameson
Emperor
Xenocrates said:
It took me a moment to consider the response, however, Al Qaeda's strikes into the WTC and Pentagon cannot be explained by stupidity, and as such, malice is the only remaining sensible explanation
Loose Change
- Thread starter Rik Meleet
- Start date
It took me a moment to consider the response, however, Al Qaeda's strikes into the WTC and Pentagon cannot be explained by stupidity, and as such, malice is the only remaining sensible explanation
Xenocrates
Deity
woody60707 said:
'Pull it' is a shortened form of 'pull it down' which I've heard many many many times.
Also:
from http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc7newspaper.htm
The tape recording in the above link shows beyond doubt that they used the term 'pull' to mean 'demolish' for building 6. There's more bunk in the debunk than there is in the bunk (if you see what I mean). Sorry to disagree with you and everything BTW.
Xenocrates
Deity
jameson said:
The last guy on the end of the remark didn't think of that. Good post though wasn't it? Maybe we should have a "highlights of OT" thread and collect 10 entries and vote on the best post?
woody60707
Deity
The BBC also thinks that the two planes hitting the builds and not explovise was what mades the builds falls. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/5298746.stm
Unless you think the BBC and other world goverments are in on it two.
If it is just so obvious that the goverment was behind what happen in 9/11, why isn't Iran and other goverments standing up in the UN, pointing at the US and saying how bad the U.S. is that it did this to it's own people. the president of Iran doesn't even believe in the holocaust, something like this would be gold to him.
Unless you think the BBC and other world goverments are in on it two.
If it is just so obvious that the goverment was behind what happen in 9/11, why isn't Iran and other goverments standing up in the UN, pointing at the US and saying how bad the U.S. is that it did this to it's own people. the president of Iran doesn't even believe in the holocaust, something like this would be gold to him.
jameson
Emperor
Let's just say I'd need to say the whole thread to comment further .
Anyway, Loose Change gets my blood pressure up too much, so I'll call it a night before commenting any more.
.Anyway, Loose Change gets my blood pressure up too much, so I'll call it a night before commenting any more.
skadistic
Caomhanach
This thread is insulting and degrading.
Xenocrates
Deity
jameson said:Let's just say I'd need to say the whole thread to comment further
Anyway, Loose Change gets my blood pressure up too much, so I'll call it a night before commenting any more.
It was the same as this one, they always are. Sheep v. tin foil hats.
Good night mate.
woody60707
Deity
Xenocrates said:Also:
from http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc7newspaper.htm
The tape recording in the above link shows beyond doubt that they used the term 'pull' to mean 'demolish' for building 6. There's more bunk in the debunk than there is in the bunk (if you see what I mean). Sorry to disagree with you and everything BTW.
If you had video, or the name of the guy talking, it may be helpful. I have no means to tell when that sound was recored, and who was talking on the cell, nor in what context that call or words were in.
In my link you know who is saying what i quoted, what his backround is, and in what context the words are.
CIVPhilzilla
Reagan Republican
Eran of Arcadia said:
This gave me such a great laugh!
Xenocrates
Deity
woody60707 said:
It was on the PBS documentary 'America rebuilds'. More than that I don't know. I'm not American so I don't know if it's a good source. It has a patriotic title so it doesn't sound like a 'conspiracy piece'.
Anyone care to review my summary of the anthrax attacks? It's on page two here.
I'm to bed now cu all.
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
Did you follow up on what was posted before:
Researching what 'pull' a build means is:
And that is what was going on in your tapes because they were demolishing the buildings. This is obviously not what happened with #7. When Silverstein said "pull it", he was referring to pulling the fire brigade (it), that was fighting the fire in the building, out of there. There was nobody in that building to save, so not worth risk losing more firefighters that day. Don't believe me? Then use google.
There are some who have offered scientific evidence and analysis of what happened with WT7. The commission didn't bother dealing much with #7, because frankly, nobody but the theorists care. Nobody died in that building. If the government was so smart and sneaky to pull off bringing the towers down and nobody has busted them, I would think that they would have a smarter way of destroying whatever 'evidence' that was in #7. Supposedly, that would be the only reason for destroying #7, right?
Let's say that I steal your identity and communicate with several people while posing as you, so that everyone knows me as Rik. Terrorists write to me (now known as Rik) and then I then go to a marketplace and blow myself up. The paper prints that Rik did this horrible event. They find out that you weren't the one to commit it and you are alive (you were just a victim of stolen identity). Does that mean that the event didn't take place? Does that mean that the terrorists who wrote to me, didn't help commit the crime? Does it really matter if you know my name, since there is already evidence that someone (posing as you) who the terrorists communicated with, blew himself up?
It doesn't matter if the guy's name was Ali or Muhammed, there were arabs that left evidence of their plots (in their cars, apartments) and these same people got pilot training (witnesses from the flight school) and these same people got on the planes (cameras at the airport terminal) and these same people, whatever their real names are, had communications with Al Queda.
The theorists would never be happy. They would always continue to try and fool people by twisting people's words, manufacturing fake evidence, hiring bogus 'experts', etc. to keep their theories alive. The owners of the conspiracy web sites and authors of books don't want to go out of business, do they?
Theorists will interview 1000 experts, then present you the one expert who agrees with them. Some of the experts that theorists have used in the past have turned out to be some joe working at a gas station. Inflated resumes is the norm.
I don't know what it is, but a few years ago I doubted the accuracy of a documentary that someone said they saw on Dutch TV. I got chewed out by half the forum because Dutch documentaries were 'so good and truthful'. Maybe the Dutch should have made this documentary themselves based on their own research and it would have been way better. Because you can see from the reactions of most people here, that this documentary doesn't deserve to be on Dutch TV.
Black boxes are designed to withstand most crash situations, but not a far-extreme situation of being crushed by hundreds of tons of concrete and steel. Do bullet-proof vests protect you from rockets or missiles?
Didn't they find the passports in their car in the airport parking lot? And cameras showed them boarding the planes.
Xenocrates
Deity
Bamspeedy said:
It's unusual to get a logical post from the other side. Nice one.
1) Building 7: There's some big dispute about whether the fire brigade was in the building and therefore capable of being 'pulled'.
From Popular Mechanics of all places. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y
There are many other sources for this, such as the FEMA report. You can't have it both ways: either a standard office fire destroyed a beefed-up, reinforced building in an unprecedented way because the firemen were busy elsewhere OR the firemen where there and should have been capable of extinguishing the fire. The official theory requires us to to hold contradictory information in our heads simultaneously. It's an insult to the intelligence.
Beside's which, I've heard the phrase 'pull it' as meaning 'demolish with explosives' with my own ears prior to 9/11 and I've provided a tape recording of it's use in building 6. You just can't argue with that!
2) NOOOOOO this building is important: It was Giuiliani's bunker, and:
From all over the internet eg here: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc7newspaper.htm
This building could well have been the primary target in the attacks. It's got 'investigate me' written all over it!
3) Agreed on the identity theft issue. That DOES NOT explain why the FBI still lists living men, who were the victims of identity theft, as the culprits. Maybe they don't want any question marks in the report, which is understandable, but it's still fraud.
4) That's true, there's still speculation over Kennedy and there'll be speculation over this for at least as long. What difference does it make though?
5) Strange you should say that. The other side says exactly the same thing. Evidence being ignored, investigation biased, unexplained anomalies, nonsense logic etc. etc.
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
You took part in demolitions or worked with a demolition crew?
I don't know how to explain this another way since you still don't seem to understand it. I explained it before and the 'pull' IS part of the demolition process, but it is not the moment where the 'button is pushed' which you seem to be thinking about. But rather it is when the demolition crew is getting ready to tear down a building by using equipment to *pull* the building down (EXPLOSIVES ARE NOT USED). Explosives are not the only way to take a building down.
The only people that say 'pull' means to use explosives are the theorists websites. I'm trying to find a 'nuetral' site (not a conspiracy website that spends 90+% of it's energy on information about conspiracies) that deals with implosions every day, to hear from them about what 'pull' means so I can give you more sources than implosionworld. But all of them I find don't have any forums and don't have any articles on the site, other than implosionworld. And implosionworld seems to be down right now. Gee I suspect a conspiracy here to keep me from getting information
.Mass confusion certainly ruled that day. But if any tiny little detail is incorrect because of the confusion or a misspoken word is said, then the theorists jump all over it as proof of some conspiracy. If a witness, interviewed two minutes after the towers collapse, accidently (because he isn't thinking as clearly then as he would be if he was say, sitting on his couch at home) uses the term 'explosion' instead of "large crashing sound', then the theorists jump all over it as 'proof' of a bomb. The theorists don't allow the reader to put things in the proper context or give all the details to allow you to draw your own conclusion. And by theorists, I mean the people who run the web sites and write the books that come up with these theories from the start, not people like you who are just reading the stuff they compiled. They tell you what they want you to see, often in a misleading way.
Um, since when do firefighters destroy large buildings? here is a quote from another forum:
That's what has always puzzled me about the theories regarding explosives. Why wait so long before setting them off?
First time I've heard that one. So now he is in on it too?
There are thousands of conspiracy sites. One of them starts a lie and they all repeat it. It's hard to find normal websites from google when I have to sift through all the junk sites. Last I had heard only the CIA (not the FBI and Secret Service) had an office there and supposedly it was the CIA office that was involved in investigating terrorism. Oh, how the stories change over the years. I'm not saying this isn't true, but give me a source like the BBC or Reuters or AP or a credible, non-conspiracy source.
The theorists show you the pictures of the building at it's early stages and from a great distance away. They don't show you pictures like this:
Does that look like a standard office fire?
More photos here: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html
At least we agree on that. Using their alias is the only way to identify them since we don't know their true name. It's not as honest as putting NAME: ?, but it in no way means that there is a conspiracy.
Why waste the time, effort, and $ to half-satisfy some conspiracy quacks. If a large portion of the families of the 9/11 victims were asking for another hearing then that is a different matter and I'd be more likely to support another hearing.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Undoubtedly, the Loose Change guys are in league with the US Gov't, creating this controversy to divert attention from what's really going on.
Xenocrates
Deity
This audio tape is fascinating of the Charles Goyette show (Arizona). He interviews Devin Cockborn (spelling?). Fast forward the first 3 mins as it’s just advertising.
Link http://911blogger.com/node/2278?page=3
The 9/11 researcher for Popular Mechanics, Cockborn, admits that he was given special access to secret information that has been denied to everyone else. He has no explanation as to why HE was shown this but other researchers haven’t been. This supports the accusation that PM has been used for propaganda.
They start by talking about the withholding of evidence from the public and he says that no evidence has been withheld. By the end of the article he has admitted that several important items have been withheld but he can’t explain why. The interviewer is pretty sharp here.
He also says that ‘pull’ is not a demolition term at all. The host and a caller blow that out of the water entirely. Now you’re telling me that it IS actually a demolition term, but not used for explosives. The story changes frequently. I have searched for details on the way building 6 was ‘pulled’ to find evidence that they were talking about something other than explosives. I couldn’t find anything. If you can find a link to back your theory up (that the term pull was used in reference to building 6 other than to mean 'detonate the explosives' I’d be grateful. Since we know that explosives were used to ‘pull down’ building 6, it seems you’re clutching at straws, but I’ll happily eat my words if you can furnish me with evidence.
They then move on to the false accusations against the accused hijackers. Goyette again has Cockborn over a barrel when he can’t explain either how the DNA survived the heat etc. to identify the suspects. He also can’t explain how the authorities were able to find other DNA belonging to the suspects with which to match with the samples taken from the site. This is interesting. They didn’t get to the issue of how they knew that the DNA found at the scene (if any) proves that the men carried out the attacks or how it was known that the DNA came from within the planes and not from the building or the street.
For long stretches of this interview, Cockborn is reduced to total incoherence. It’s well worth listening to.
I’ve no good idea on this; I ventured once that explosives had been placed in the towers as a safely precaution, to ensure that they collapsed evenly if attacked and therefore reduce casualties. I don’t know if it’s true though. All I can say is that ALL of the evidence relating to all three collapses is consistent with the explosives theory. NIST et al have invented another theory that may be an alternative (but not for building 7), but it has never happened before and it doesn’t explain some of the evidence, such as the plumes of smoke, the speed of collapse, the police reports of unexploded bombs, or the basement explosion. An incomplete theory is worthless.
No it bloody doesn’t. It looks like bombs have gone off in the building. The official report simply does not explain what we know about building 7.
This interview is far more instructive than Loose Change, but everyone wants to shoot down the easy targets.
There's another link here to the false accusations against the hijackers: http://www.welfarestate.com/911/
Link http://911blogger.com/node/2278?page=3
The 9/11 researcher for Popular Mechanics, Cockborn, admits that he was given special access to secret information that has been denied to everyone else. He has no explanation as to why HE was shown this but other researchers haven’t been. This supports the accusation that PM has been used for propaganda.
They start by talking about the withholding of evidence from the public and he says that no evidence has been withheld. By the end of the article he has admitted that several important items have been withheld but he can’t explain why. The interviewer is pretty sharp here.
He also says that ‘pull’ is not a demolition term at all. The host and a caller blow that out of the water entirely. Now you’re telling me that it IS actually a demolition term, but not used for explosives. The story changes frequently. I have searched for details on the way building 6 was ‘pulled’ to find evidence that they were talking about something other than explosives. I couldn’t find anything. If you can find a link to back your theory up (that the term pull was used in reference to building 6 other than to mean 'detonate the explosives' I’d be grateful. Since we know that explosives were used to ‘pull down’ building 6, it seems you’re clutching at straws, but I’ll happily eat my words if you can furnish me with evidence.
They then move on to the false accusations against the accused hijackers. Goyette again has Cockborn over a barrel when he can’t explain either how the DNA survived the heat etc. to identify the suspects. He also can’t explain how the authorities were able to find other DNA belonging to the suspects with which to match with the samples taken from the site. This is interesting. They didn’t get to the issue of how they knew that the DNA found at the scene (if any) proves that the men carried out the attacks or how it was known that the DNA came from within the planes and not from the building or the street.
For long stretches of this interview, Cockborn is reduced to total incoherence. It’s well worth listening to.
I’ve no good idea on this; I ventured once that explosives had been placed in the towers as a safely precaution, to ensure that they collapsed evenly if attacked and therefore reduce casualties. I don’t know if it’s true though. All I can say is that ALL of the evidence relating to all three collapses is consistent with the explosives theory. NIST et al have invented another theory that may be an alternative (but not for building 7), but it has never happened before and it doesn’t explain some of the evidence, such as the plumes of smoke, the speed of collapse, the police reports of unexploded bombs, or the basement explosion. An incomplete theory is worthless.
No it bloody doesn’t. It looks like bombs have gone off in the building. The official report simply does not explain what we know about building 7.
This interview is far more instructive than Loose Change, but everyone wants to shoot down the easy targets.
There's another link here to the false accusations against the hijackers: http://www.welfarestate.com/911/
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
Xeno,
Planes hit the towers. I may not understand structural dynamics, but I went to school with alot of construction guys and engineers. There were no bombs. Stuff collapsed.
When Commie#4522 agrees with you, re-evaluate your argument. When .Shane. and I actually agree on somethign, you may want to re-evaluate your argument. You cannot argue that because X cannot be accounted for, it must be a conspiracy.
If you were a building engineer, managed your own construction firm, did controlled demos, maybe I would lend you some credence. You aren't. Almost every single such person that I know does not believe in an bomb conspiracy...aside from the large flying airplane crashing theory.
A plane sliced through an level two of a building. It blew up. Stuff that was combustible blew up too. This weakened the steel. With the massive weight of the floors above, the steel eventually could not support the weight. Thus it collapsed. and that is exactly how such a collapse occurs.
However, you cannot be convinced otherwise, because you've made up your mind. And I've made up mine. So stop trying to convince me that you're right, and I'll stop trying to convince you you're wrong, and we can let these threads stop popping up every three months.
We've all seen it. Get over it. Move on.
Planes hit the towers. I may not understand structural dynamics, but I went to school with alot of construction guys and engineers. There were no bombs. Stuff collapsed.
When Commie#4522 agrees with you, re-evaluate your argument. When .Shane. and I actually agree on somethign, you may want to re-evaluate your argument. You cannot argue that because X cannot be accounted for, it must be a conspiracy.
If you were a building engineer, managed your own construction firm, did controlled demos, maybe I would lend you some credence. You aren't. Almost every single such person that I know does not believe in an bomb conspiracy...aside from the large flying airplane crashing theory.
A plane sliced through an level two of a building. It blew up. Stuff that was combustible blew up too. This weakened the steel. With the massive weight of the floors above, the steel eventually could not support the weight. Thus it collapsed. and that is exactly how such a collapse occurs.
However, you cannot be convinced otherwise, because you've made up your mind. And I've made up mine. So stop trying to convince me that you're right, and I'll stop trying to convince you you're wrong, and we can let these threads stop popping up every three months.
We've all seen it. Get over it. Move on.
Xenocrates
Deity
JerichoHill said:
NIST admit that they didn't look for evidence of bombs. So how can you be so sure that there weren't any?
JerichoHill said:
This is actually your strongest point here.
JerichoHill said:
Why do I doubt that? Falling buildings are subject to the same laws of physics as everything else. Can YOU explain why NIST said that there was no resistance to the fall when every schoolboy knows that a feather will decelerate a train? That air resistance acts to slow things down? That while a lot of mass was falling there was also a lot of mass retarding that fall? It's pretty basic stuff actually. You could collapse a building through the logic hole in NIST's report. The laws of physics are something that I do know about. But I don't ask people to just believe me as you're doing, I argue the case.
JerichoHill said:
Actually I haven't, I have no ultimate theory here. I'm just asking questions and pointing out defects in the official conspiracy theory as any curious individual would be and as any good citizen should be.
I'm entitled to a better explanation than 'stuff collapsed'
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
Steel weakened. Once that steal weakened the weight and stress of the above floors could not be supported. Thus the entire top floor structure collapsed. As it collapsed, each subsequent floor could not handle the force and momentum, so they too collapsed. Since the plane flew into the building and exploded INTO the build, it stands to reason that the likeliest weakest points were on the side where the plane entered and the middle. When watching the collapse, the top section, when collapsed, tilts towards the side where the plane entered, thus supporting this primitive hypothesis. The structural design of the building (essentially steel girders and ribar), holds the structure together below as each floor collapses downward and into it (steel bends then snaps). Thus, the collapsed occurs straight down (due to standard design practices hat are there for stability).
However, it does not travel far to that side as it picks up speed (falling object speed), and the collapse occurs very quickly. The Descent picks up speed. Bingo.
I could actually explain how tall buildings are made, which essentially deals with the various load-bearing structures. These load bearing structures are not on the outside, but rather on the inside, and surrounding in between. But the main drive shaft of the building that supports the weight will be internal, in the middle, meaning that if its going to collapse, it will collapse there.
However, it does not travel far to that side as it picks up speed (falling object speed), and the collapse occurs very quickly. The Descent picks up speed. Bingo.
I could actually explain how tall buildings are made, which essentially deals with the various load-bearing structures. These load bearing structures are not on the outside, but rather on the inside, and surrounding in between. But the main drive shaft of the building that supports the weight will be internal, in the middle, meaning that if its going to collapse, it will collapse there.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Building demolition experts have said that rigging a building like the wtc takes several months without people in the building. With people in it, and it had to be a covert operation it could easily have taken years. They also pointed out that one or two plumes of smoke is rediculous as a sign for demolition. You'd see a whole floor of 'plumes'.Xenocrates said:
edit: Oh, and they'd rig the bottom floors, not the top ones.
It's a silly theory really.
edit2: I have also heard Engineers support JerichoHill's hypothesis.
So, if I have to choose between specialists know-how or a students best guess...
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
Building Construction
Several technological advances occurred in the late nineteenth century that combined to make skyscraper design and construction possible. Among them were the ability to mass produce steel, the invention of safe and efficient elevators, and the development of improved techniques for measuring and analyzing structural loads and stresses. During the 1920s and 1930s, skyscraper development was further spurred by invention of electric arc welding and fluorescent light bulbs (their bright light allowed people to work farther from windows and generated less heat than incandescent bulbs).
Traditionally, the walls of a building supported the structure; the taller the structure, the thicker the walls had to be. A 16-story building constructed in Chicago in 1891 had walls 6 ft (1.8 m) thick at the base. The need for very thick walls was eliminated with the invention of steel-frame construction, in which a rigid steel skeleton supports the building's weight, and the outer walls are merely hung from the frame almost like curtains. The first building to use this design was the 10-story Home Insurance Company Building, which was constructed in Chicago in 1885.
The 792-ft (242-m) tall Woolworth Building, erected in New York City in 1913, first combined all of the components of a true skyscraper. Its steel skeleton rose from a foundation supported on concrete pillars that extended down to bedrock (a layer of solid rock strong enough to support the building), its frame was braced to resist expected wind forces, and its high-speed elevators provided both local and express service to its 60 floors.
In 1931, the Empire State Building rose in New York City like a 1,250-ft (381-m) exclamation point. It would remain the world's tallest office building for 41 years. By 2000, only six other buildings in the world would surpass its height.
8 In most tall buildings, the weight of the structure and its contents is borne by the support columns and the building's core. The exterior walls themselves merely enclose the structure. They are constructed by attaching panels of such materials as glass, metal, and stone to the building's framework. A common technique is to bolt them to angle brackets secured to floor slabs or support columns.
Whole Link
http://www.madehow.com/Volume-6/Skyscraper.html
Several technological advances occurred in the late nineteenth century that combined to make skyscraper design and construction possible. Among them were the ability to mass produce steel, the invention of safe and efficient elevators, and the development of improved techniques for measuring and analyzing structural loads and stresses. During the 1920s and 1930s, skyscraper development was further spurred by invention of electric arc welding and fluorescent light bulbs (their bright light allowed people to work farther from windows and generated less heat than incandescent bulbs).
Traditionally, the walls of a building supported the structure; the taller the structure, the thicker the walls had to be. A 16-story building constructed in Chicago in 1891 had walls 6 ft (1.8 m) thick at the base. The need for very thick walls was eliminated with the invention of steel-frame construction, in which a rigid steel skeleton supports the building's weight, and the outer walls are merely hung from the frame almost like curtains. The first building to use this design was the 10-story Home Insurance Company Building, which was constructed in Chicago in 1885.
The 792-ft (242-m) tall Woolworth Building, erected in New York City in 1913, first combined all of the components of a true skyscraper. Its steel skeleton rose from a foundation supported on concrete pillars that extended down to bedrock (a layer of solid rock strong enough to support the building), its frame was braced to resist expected wind forces, and its high-speed elevators provided both local and express service to its 60 floors.
In 1931, the Empire State Building rose in New York City like a 1,250-ft (381-m) exclamation point. It would remain the world's tallest office building for 41 years. By 2000, only six other buildings in the world would surpass its height.
8 In most tall buildings, the weight of the structure and its contents is borne by the support columns and the building's core. The exterior walls themselves merely enclose the structure. They are constructed by attaching panels of such materials as glass, metal, and stone to the building's framework. A common technique is to bolt them to angle brackets secured to floor slabs or support columns.
Whole Link
http://www.madehow.com/Volume-6/Skyscraper.html
