Proof about WTC 7 !

[Devil's Advocate]

Ok, I have the impression here that not many will change their views no matter what comes from evidence or research.
So it begs the question, When NIST released it's WTC building 7 analysis, could it change you views on the whole 9/11 debate?

*Shakes magic Eight Ball*
'My sources say, "No."'

Let us say, seeing that they are going to use the Demolition theory in their analysis, what if all signs point to it being positive that it was not a CD?
What if it says it was?

Or would a figure be better?
What if they say there is a 90% chance it would have collapsed without CD, would you still believe the building was demolished by explosives?
Or,
What if they said there was only a 10% chance the building would have collapsed without a CD?
Would you think it was a controlled demolition?

I do not think anyone will change sides, no matter what the NIST report says.
The OT believers will say "There is no evidence that proves a CD, so the 10% was obviously good enough for it to happen."
Or,
The CTers will say ,"NIST is government, it's a coverup."


I personally cannot wait for the report myself!

[Gravy]

Ok, I have the impression here that not many will change their views no matter what comes from evidence or research.You're right. We don't rely on evidence and research. :rolleyes:

[Revolutionary91]

The report has been delayed again until the end of the year. I don't know if it will ever see the light of day.

[Devil's Advocate]

You're right. We don't rely on evidence and research. :rolleyes:

Hey, be nice!
=o)

What's my name?
I neutral here.
Well, not totally, but I'll bring up points for and against both sides.

[Devil's Advocate]

The report has been delayed again until the end of the year. I don't know if it will ever see the light of day.

Seriously?
Did they say what is causing the delay?

[Revolutionary91]

Seriously?
Did they say what is causing the delay?

No, they said for a long time that it would be released in Spring but now they say it will be the end of the year. They announced late last year that they were studying hypothetical blast scenarios.

[Revolutionary91]

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html

[Shrinker]

What if they said there was only a 10% chance the building would have collapsed without a CD?
Would you think it was a controlled demolition?

I do not think anyone will change sides, no matter what the NIST report says.
The OT believers will say "There is no evidence that proves a CD, so the 10% was obviously good enough for it to happen."


The probability of Richard F Roberts' (http://cbs2.com/topstories/local_story_195144340.html) winning the July 5 Super Lotto draw without somehow cheating was 0.000003%. Richard F Roberts did win. Do we conclude that there's a 99.999997% likelihood that he cheated?

[Revolutionary91]

The probability of Richard F Roberts' (http://cbs2.com/topstories/local_story_195144340.html) winning the July 5 Super Lotto draw without somehow cheating was 0.000003%. Richard F Roberts did win. Do we conclude that there's a 99.999997% likelihood that he cheated?

That is very misleading. Millions buy a lottery ticket and each has an equal chance. The lottery is won most weeks, but the probability of an individual winning is very small. It bears no relation to building 7.

[Oliver]

Even if WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition, it doesn't make sense and it never had made sense.

Unless someone brings up some good motive, no rational human being will ever be convinced about WTC7, their reactions will be: "So you were right: It was a controlled demolition, fine ... And? So What?".

[Redtail]

Well, If the evidence they have points to a CD then I would reconsider my thoughts on it.

I simply don't have the technical know how to dispute it myself. Having said that what I do have is friends that DO have said "know how" who can explain it to me. (I teach at university level for now.) All of the structural engineers, architects, etc... I've asked say it wasn't CD so at the moment that's my position.

[Shrinker]

That is very misleading. Millions buy a lottery ticket and each has an equal chance. The lottery is won most weeks, but the probability of an individual winning is very small. It bears no relation to building 7.

So you're saying if you focus on the probability of a single event which has already happened, without taking into account all the other possibilities which could have happened but didn't, you get a misleading picture?

[Revolutionary91]

So you're saying if you focus on the probability of a single event which has already happened, without taking into account all the other possibilities which could have happened but didn't, you get a misleading picture?

No im saying that the lottery numbers being drawn is a certainty, the lottery being won by someon is close to certain and is the sum of all the probabilities of the individuals that bought tickets. It bears no relation to building 7 since a building collapsing is not a certainty.

[Shrinker]

No im saying that the lottery numbers being drawn is a certainty, the lottery being won by someon is close to certain and is the sum of all the probabilities of the individuals that bought tickets. It bears no relation to building 7 since a building collapsing is not a certainty.

Ah, so the sheer volume of unlikley potential events stacking up means that somewhere something unlikey will happen?

[uk_dave]

Prove that WTC7 was undamaged by the collapse of the towers and you can have cause to suspect CD.

But since it WAS damaged, why the insistence that it still had to be CD?

Unless you're Pdoh! of course, and believe that it was taken down for humanitarian reasons.

NIST have the difficult task of explaining precisely the mechanism for collapse. Not for 'truthers' who, despite their arrogance, actually matter little to the scientific investigation of the collapse, but for building professionals who could learn important lessons from the collapse.

So if NIST want more time, so be it. Let them do their jobs properly.

[Revolutionary91]

Prove that WTC7 was undamaged by the collapse of the towers and you can have cause to suspect CD.

But since it WAS damaged, why the insistence that it still had to be CD?

Unless you're Pdoh! of course, and believe that it was taken down for humanitarian reasons.

NIST have the difficult task of explaining precisely the mechanism for collapse. Not for 'truthers' who, despite their arrogance, actually matter little to the scientific investigation of the collapse, but for building professionals who could learn important lessons from the collapse.

So if NIST want more time, so be it. Let them do their jobs properly.

FEMA seemed to think the collapse was primarily caused by fire. The damage was not in the location of the initiating event. The building collapsed 7 hours after it was damaged. All in all, the damage wasn't that important.

[stateofgrace]

FEMA seemed to think the collapse was primarily caused by fire. The damage was not in the location of the initiating event. The building collapsed 7 hours after it was damaged. All in all, the damage wasn't that important.

Really ?

Well the FDNY seemed to think it was pretty important because I believe they pulled back from the area a few hours before it collapsed, or are you calling them liars ?

[Oliver]

FEMA seemed to think the collapse was primarily caused by fire. The damage was not in the location of the initiating event. The building collapsed 7 hours after it was damaged. All in all, the damage wasn't that important.


Sooo what??? Yes, it was a controlled demolition. And now? What's next?
It doesn't really matter unless you find the reason and/or the guys who did it. :boggled:

Give it a try: Try to imagine you can proof that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. What's next?

Do you even see the logical "dead-end street"? :confused:

[MaGZ]

Even if WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition, it doesn't make sense and it never had made sense.

Unless someone brings up some good motive, no rational human being will ever be convinced about WTC7, their reactions will be: "So you were right: It was a controlled demolition, fine ... And? So What?".

A good motive to bring down WTC 7 by CD would be to protect the ongoing search and rescue efforts at Ground Zero. The building was damaged to the SW corner due to the collapse of WTC 1 and could have fallen upon the emergency personal in the area. They just didn’t want to talk about it for fear some might say the other buildings may have been brought down by the government–which is the situation we have today.

[Revolutionary91]

Really ?

Well the FDNY seemed to think it was pretty important because I believe they pulled back from the area a few hours before it collapsed, or are you calling them liars ?

Are you calling FEMA liars?

[Revolutionary91]

MagZ I was listening to a radio show the other day and a few callers said the same thing. I thought you believed missiles hit it???

[PhantomWolf]

FEMA seemed to think the collapse was primarily caused by fire. The damage was not in the location of the initiating event. The building collapsed 7 hours after it was damaged. All in all, the damage wasn't that important.

That's like saying that if I cut 3/4 of the way through your chair leg, then kicked one of the others hard, the one I cut wasn't important in the chir toppling over because the one that was kicked broke.

The FDNY was so certain that the building was unstable and going to come down they told everyone to get out of the search area and stay back, a search area that had 343 of their own people missing in it. Are you suggesting that they let their own people die for nothing and then participated in a major cover up of those killings by lying about the condition of the building?

[PhantomWolf]

A good motive to bring down WTC 7 by CD would be to protect the ongoing search and rescue efforts at Ground Zero. The building was damaged to the SE corned due to the collapse of WTC 1 and could have fallen upon the emergency personal in the area. They just didn’t want to talk about it for fear some might say the other buildings may have been brought down by the government–which is the situation we have today.

So to protect the search area they dropping a 47 story building ontop of it? Great tactics....

[The Doc]

A good motive to bring down WTC 7 by CD would be to protect the ongoing search and rescue efforts at Ground Zero. The building was damaged to the SE corned due to the collapse of WTC 1 and could have fallen upon the emergency personal in the area. They just didn’t want to talk about it for fear some might say the other buildings may have been brought down by the government–which is the situation we have today.

No, it is not a good motive, and makes absolutely no sense.

[Revolutionary91]

That's like saying that if I cut 3/4 of the way through your chair leg, then kicked one of the others hard, the one I cut wasn't important in the chir toppling over because the one that was kicked broke.

The FDNY was so certain that the building was unstable and going to come down they told everyone to get out of the search area and stay back, a search area that had 343 of their own people missing in it. Are you suggesting that they let their own people die for nothing and then participated in a major cover up of those killings by lying about the condition of the building?

All high rise fires have a collapse zone around them.

Please stop trying to get me to disrespect firefighters. It won't work.

[uk_dave]

Are you calling FEMA liars?

You use an out of date assessment of the collapse (why is NIST investigating it if FEMA already have the answers?) and then you fail to understand that assessment.

Fire damages buildings.

WTC7 was gouged by debris falling from the towers. It wasn't designed like that.

It was on fire. Fires which were not controlled for 7 hours. Undamaged fire protection would normally have to withstand 4 hours maximum.

If you damage a structure in one area it will put additional strains on other areas. If you introduce fires into those other areas you may cause them to fail catastrophically.

How about you explain:

1. How the demolition charges were installed in the building
2. How they managed to set them off without any external indication (flashes and explosions)
3. Why the insurance companies never tried to wriggle out of paying up by claiming an intentional demolition by the owner
4. Why no one has admitted to CD when, as Oliver points out, it really would not have mattered a jot to the population at large since no one died in that building
5. Why the Fire Department hasn't confirmed that it was CD

[The Doc]

FEMA seemed to think the collapse was primarily caused by fire. The damage was not in the location of the initiating event. The building collapsed 7 hours after it was damaged. All in all, the damage wasn't that important.

The damage was very significant. It was the primary reason that fire was allowed to spread throughout the building.

Also, see these other sections of the FEMA report regarding the impact damage WTC7 suffered.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic of manual suppression activities.http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
It is likely that fires started as a result of debris from the collapse of WTC 1.

Once an investigation is released that details the performance of the fireproofing, I think you'll find that the impact of WTC1 into WTC7 didn't do a whole lot of good for the fireproofing either.

[MaGZ]

MagZ I was listening to a radio show the other day and a few callers said the same thing. I thought you believed missiles hit it???

Yes, I believe one errant missile hit WTC 7 on the 14th floor of WTC 7 at 9:03, fired by a fighter sent to intercept the hijacked aircraft. The fighters arrived a bit too late and missed their target. I saw footage of the missile strike a few days after 9/11. The footage was taken by a FOX News cameraman that was positioned inside the plaza of the WTC. Berry Jennings has stated he experienced a explosion inside WTC 7 before the collapse of the Twin Towers.

I do not believe the missile caused WTC 7 to collapse. I think it was brought down by a special national security team later that afternoon.

[Oliver]

A good motive to bring down WTC 7 by CD would be to protect the ongoing search and rescue efforts at Ground Zero. The building was damaged to the SE corned due to the collapse of WTC 1 and could have fallen upon the emergency personal in the area. They just didn’t want to talk about it for fear some might say the other buildings may have been brought down by the government–which is the situation we have today.


*lol* Well, this explanation surely wouldn't make the WTC7-Worshiper happy, that's for sure. :D

But furthermore: It also wouldn't make sense to cover it up in this particular case. The Government would've told this explanation a loooong time ago to shut up the WTC7-Truthers, I highly suppose ... just to cover up the "crime".

I really can't understand that the WTC7 crowd doesn't understand that. :boggled:

[Travis]

I think what MaGZ is saying is that they were afraid the building would somehow collapse into the main WTC debris pile and therefore they brought it down, in a controlled manner, mostly into its own footprint. Now, how WTC7 could have collapsed into the WTC debris pile is beyond me. There's also the complete lack of any evidence of explosive demolition in the debris and the lack of witness testimony, audio recordings or videos of the collapse that show any signs of explosive charges going off.

[MaGZ]

So to protect the search area they dropping a 47 story building ontop of it? Great tactics....

No, they pulled every one back from the area and collapsed the building upon itself. No part of WTC 7 fell south into the area of the WTC complex. The team that pulled WTC 7 knew what they were doing.

[uk_dave]

No, they pulled every one back from the area and collapsed the building upon itself. No part of WTC 7 fell south into the area of the WTC complex. The team that pulled WTC 7 knew what they were doing.


Why don't they admit it? They'd all get medals.

[PhantomWolf]

All high rise fires have a collapse zone around them.

Please stop trying to get me to disrespect firefighters. It won't work.

Well if all high rise fires have a collapse zone about them, doesn't that mean that buildings can collapse due to only fire?

BTW, why didn't WTC 1 and 2 have collapse zones around them?

And, if the FDNY says that the building was unstable and going to collapse, what is unusual about it doing so? Unless you are claiming they are lying, abnd if you aren't, then what's wrong with it collapsing?

[PhantomWolf]

No, they pulled every one back from the area and collapsed the building upon itself. No part of WTC 7 fell south into the area of the WTC complex. The team that pulled WTC 7 knew what they were doing.

So a group of unknown individuals tied a whole heap of cables to the building without anyone noticing, then started up some honking big construction vechiles and yanked the cables really hard to pull the building down? All without anyone noticing?

[MaGZ]

No, it is not a good motive, and makes absolutely no sense.

If they did not do a CD on WTC 7 it would have fallen in the direction of its weakest area: the southwest corner. The building would have fallen in the direction of WTC 6 and would have damaged the Verizon building west of WTC 7.

So, the argument does make sense.

[stateofgrace]

Are you calling FEMA liars?

No, I am not do not put words into my mouth again.

Let me bring a ray of reality into your life sun beam. According to you, two massive buildings have planes flown into them,burn and are then demolished.

It is hoped that the collapse of the towers would not damage WTC 7 enough to cause it collapse and the fires inside it would not cause it collapse. Instead the perps wait 7 hours before demolishing an empty building in full view of the worlds media who are broadcasting it live to the entire planet, and they just hope that nobody would notice at the time it was demolished. Including the fire-fighters on the ground ?

And this somehow makes sense to you ?

[PhantomWolf]

If they did not do a CD on WTC 7 it would have fallen in the direction of its weakest area: the southwest corner. The building would have fallen in the direction of WTC 6 and would have damaged the Verizon building west of WTC 7.


So instead they dropped it all over 30 West Broadway (which then had to be demolished) and a number of other nearby buildings, seriously damaging them instead?

[MaGZ]

Why don't they admit it? They'd all get medals.

The likely reason is due to national security. The building housed several offices that involved national security. Once the building was collapsed, the remains would be taken to a military base where the sensitive material (hard drives and files) were secured.

[PhantomWolf]

The likely reason is due to national security. The building housed several offices that involved national security. Once the building was collapsed, the remains would be taken to a military base where the sensitive material (hard drives and files) were secured.

Only it wasn't, it was taken to FreshKills like the debris of WTC 1 & 2

[Devil's Advocate]

So you want motive?

Let me play off my names sake...

The WTC towers were called 'white elephants'. Meaning they were not cost effective anymore. So, them being brought down would have been good for some.

WTC 7 was where the investigation into insider trading and the infamous put opinions on numerous companies (American Airlines, United, etc) were being conducted. The investigations were localized, so destroying the building destroyed the evidence and saved the people being investigated from criminal prosecution. (And possible proof of prior knowledge of the attacks)

The DoD announced on 9/10/01 that they were missing 3.2 Trillion dollars. There was an internal investigation taking place to figure out where the money had gone. Where was that investigation taking place? Right where flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

[uk_dave]

The likely reason is due to national security. The building housed several offices that involved national security. Once the building was collapsed, the remains would be taken to a military base where the sensitive material (hard drives and files) were secured.

How would that have anything to do with a skillful CD carried out to aid the rescue operation on the pile?

[Gravy]

A good motive to bring down WTC 7 by CD would be to protect the ongoing search and rescue efforts at Ground Zero. The building was damaged to the SW corner due to the collapse of WTC 1 and could have fallen upon the emergency personal in the area. They just didn’t want to talk about it for fear some might say the other buildings may have been brought down by the government–which is the situation we have today.I'd actually love to hear, in detail, MaGZ's explanation of how that could be accomplished.

Have at it, Hushamissile.

[Gravy]

Please stop trying to get me to disrespect firefighters. It won't work.Do you agree with their assessment of WTC 7's fires and condition, and that they ordered their people off the pile because they believed its collapse was imminent?

Yes or no, Revolutionary91?

I await your answer, respecter of firefighters.

[MRC_Hans]

So you want motive?

Let me play off my names sake...

The WTC towers were called 'white elephants'. Meaning they were not cost effective anymore. So, them being brought down would have been good for some.

WTC 7 was where the investigation into insider trading and the infamous put opinions on numerous companies (American Airlines, United, etc) were being conducted. The investigations were localized, so destroying the building destroyed the evidence and saved the people being investigated from criminal prosecution. (And possible proof of prior knowledge of the attacks)

The DoD announced on 9/10/01 that they were missing 3.2 Trillion dollars. There was an internal investigation taking place to figure out where the money had gone. Where was that investigation taking place? Right where flight 77 hit the Pentagon.Funny, no matter how hard they try to pretend they're neutral, or just asking questions, they always give themselves away, usually pretty soon. Welcome truther DA ;).

Hans

[Gravy]

So you want motive?

Let me play off my names sake...

The WTC towers were called 'white elephants'. Meaning they were not cost effective anymore. So, them being brought down would have been good for some.

WTC 7 was where the investigation into insider trading and the infamous put opinions on numerous companies (American Airlines, United, etc) were being conducted. The investigations were localized, so destroying the building destroyed the evidence and saved the people being investigated from criminal prosecution. (And possible proof of prior knowledge of the attacks)

The DoD announced on 9/10/01 that they were missing 3.2 Trillion dollars. There was an internal investigation taking place to figure out where the money had gone. Where was that investigation taking place? Right where flight 77 hit the Pentagon.Still parroting blazing truther idiocy?

All of your "motives" are completely wrong.

Don't you give a damn? Then prove it and do your homework.

[Unfit4Command]

So you want motive?

Let me play off my names sake...

The WTC towers were called 'white elephants'. Meaning they were not cost effective anymore. So, them being brought down would have been good for some.

The Twin Tower's were white elephants? I wasn't aware of this at all. From what I've read, they were about 98% occupied in 2001.
http://www.panynj.gov/AboutthePortAuthority/PressCenter/PressReleases/PressRelease/index.php?id=61

The mall in the complex was also one of the most profitable in the country. It was actually the most profitable per square foot.
http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_138/editorial.html

WTC 7 was where the investigation into insider trading and the infamous put opinions on numerous companies (American Airlines, United, etc) were being conducted. The investigations were localized, so destroying the building destroyed the evidence and saved the people being investigated from criminal prosecution. (And possible proof of prior knowledge of the attacks)

So after WTC 7 collapsed, all of those investigations stopped?

The DoD announced on 9/10/01 that they were missing 3.2 Trillion dollars. There was an internal investigation taking place to figure out where the money had gone. Where was that investigation taking place? Right where flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

It was announced again, the initial reports of the money being unaccounted for came back in 2000.

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The military's money managers last year made almost $7 trillion in adjustments to their financial ledgers in an attempt to make them add up, the Pentagon's inspector general said in a report released Friday.

The Pentagon could not show receipts for $2.3 trillion of those changes, and half a trillion dollars of it was just corrections of mistakes made in earlier adjustments.

Each adjustment represents a Defense Department accountant's attempt to correct a discrepancy. The military has hundreds of computer systems to run accounts as diverse as health care, payroll and inventory. But they are not integrated, don't produce numbers up to accounting standards and fail to keep running totals of what's coming in and what's going out, Pentagon and congressional officials said."
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002hxm

btw, what's your source on where that investigation was taking place?

[MRC_Hans]

A good motive to bring down WTC 7 by CD would be to protect the ongoing search and rescue efforts at Ground Zero. The building was damaged to the SW corner due to the collapse of WTC 1 and could have fallen upon the emergency personal in the area. They just didn’t want to talk about it for fear some might say the other buildings may have been brought down by the government–which is the situation we have today.Ehhh? That would mean that they had to wire the building in the time interval between the collapse of WTC1 and WTC7. How would you suggest that could be done? While the building was on fire, and everybody was looking on??

Hans

[Devil's Advocate]

Funny, no matter how hard they try to pretend they're neutral, or just asking questions, they always give themselves away, usually pretty soon. Welcome truther DA ;).

Hans

What does my names sake mean?
I will play one side or the other.
If someone brings up a point, I may offer a reason for something, whether I agree with it or not. Playing the Devil's Advocate in the topic.

I have said things for and against both sides, and will continue to do so.
That is why I chose this name.
Do not think for a second you know where I sand on 9/11, because I promise you, you do not.
I do not have a side. I am learning.

[MRC_Hans]

No im saying that the lottery numbers being drawn is a certainty, the lottery being won by someon is close to certain and is the sum of all the probabilities of the individuals that bought tickets. It bears no relation to building 7 since a building collapsing is not a certainty.Yes, it does. The lottery example demonstrates that even the highly improbable can happen.

Hans

[stateofgrace]

The likely reason is due to national security. The building housed several offices that involved national security. Once the building was collapsed, the remains would be taken to a military base where the sensitive material (hard drives and files) were secured.

Oh I see.

I take it , it was too easy take out all the sensitive material( Hard drives and files) the night before ? Or would that draw attention to them ?

Unlike demolishing a building in full view of the worlds media and then hunting through the rubble for the said material afterwards and hoping nobody noticed.

[PhantomWolf]

So you want motive?

Let me play off my names sake...


Okay lets...

The WTC towers were called 'white elephants'. Meaning they were not cost effective anymore. So, them being brought down would have been good for some.

Only by those that a) don't have a clue to rub together, and b) don't know what they are talking about. The WTC towers were at their highest occupancy in years and were actually highly profitable. Those concerned have lost millions of dollars, if not billions over these attacks.

WTC 7 was where the investigation into insider trading and the infamous put opinions on numerous companies (American Airlines, United, etc) were being conducted. The investigations were localized, so destroying the building destroyed the evidence and saved the people being investigated from criminal prosecution. (And possible proof of prior knowledge of the attacks)

There is a slight problem here, the claims of insider trading in the airlines occured after 9/11 because of the Puts on the airlines and the drop in share prices after 9/11.

The DoD announced on 9/10/01 that they were missing 3.2 Trillion dollars. There was an internal investigation taking place to figure out where the money had gone. Where was that investigation taking place? Right where flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

Well actually the Pentagon couldn't locate the paperwork on 3 trillion dollars worth of transactions, not that they were missing 3.2 trillion dollars. 3.2 Trillion dollars is about 40 years of DoD funding, I think they'd notice if that was missing. Not onl;y that, but the offices hit weren't investigating it, they were working on the 2002 Army Budget.

[Gravy]

I do not have a side. I am learning.I see no sign of that at all.

[Lurker]

Ehhh? That would mean that they had to wire the building in the time interval between the collapse of WTC1 and WTC7. How would you suggest that could be done? While the building was on fire, and everybody was looking on??

Hans


As someone else pointed out, it doesn't take the terrorists very long to do complex wiring in Die Hard so therefore by troother logic, it would not take very long to wire WTC7. Evidence via cinema.

Lurker

[MRC_Hans]

The likely reason is due to national security. The building housed several offices that involved national security. Once the building was collapsed, the remains would be taken to a military base where the sensitive material (hard drives and files) were secured.Are you really reading what you are saying?

- There was a missile, that nobody fired, from a fighter that wasn't here, and you are the only person who saw it?

- They then decided on, prepared, and executed a controlled demolition of a 47 storey building in about 5 hours, while the NYFD and the assembled world press were looking and filming without anybody noticing?

- And they did this because they thought it would be easier to retrieve and hide sensitive material if it was buried inder the rubble of the collapsed building rather than if they walked in and carry it out?

.........:dio:

:nope: :rolleyes: :nope:

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

What does my names sake mean?
I will play one side or the other.
If someone brings up a point, I may offer a reason for something, whether I agree with it or not. Playing the Devil's Advocate in the topic.

I have said things for and against both sides, and will continue to do so.
That is why I chose this name.
Do not think for a second you know where I sand on 9/11, because I promise you, you do not.
I do not have a side. I am learning.What are you learning by parroting truther nonsense and lies?

What is anybody learning?

Hans

[The Doc]

Why oh why must you conspiracists make up absurd fantasies involving "national security teams" and all that, and then state is as if it's fact?!

It's just plain stupid. You say stuff like "then national security teams entered the building and secretly placed explosives". Where is your evidence that any demolitions teams entered WTC7 on 9/11? Surely if you can state such absurd theories as fact you must have evidence for this. Please! Present it!

Magz, you made your insane "secret demolitions team" plot up in your head, and you know it. I can't believe people can believe things that they made up based solely on their imagination, with no supporting evidence to support it. More over, I can't believe you are trying to use your imagination to try and convince others of your theory.

[Devil's Advocate]

Okay lets...



Only by those that a) don't have a clue to rub together, and b) don't know what they are talking about. The WTC towers were at their highest occupancy in years and were actually highly profitable. Those concerned have lost millions of dollars, if not billions over these attacks.



There is a slight problem here, the claims of insider trading in the airlines occured after 9/11 because of the Puts on the airlines and the drop in share prices after 9/11.



Well actually the Pentagon couldn't locate the paperwork on 3 trillion dollars worth of transactions, not that they were missing 3.2 trillion dollars. 3.2 Trillion dollars is about 40 years of DoD funding, I think they'd notice if that was missing. Not onl;y that, but the offices hit weren't investigating it, they were working on the 2002 Army Budget.

Oh, I have to use facts and stuff like that? Well you are making it difficult then. Why can I not just Alex Jones my way through it? Make stuff up on the fly! =o)
Oh, but about put options, yeah, you place put options on a stock betting it is about to fall in value. So, it would *seem* like those that put large amounts of put options on AA and United would have had a reason they were betting that stock would fall. It started like a week before 9/11, and increased every day. ('It' being a volume of put options being placed on AA and United)

[maccy]

So you want motive?

Let me play off my names sake...

The WTC towers were called 'white elephants'. Meaning they were not cost effective anymore. So, them being brought down would have been good for some.

WTC 7 was where the investigation into insider trading and the infamous put opinions on numerous companies (American Airlines, United, etc) were being conducted. The investigations were localized, so destroying the building destroyed the evidence and saved the people being investigated from criminal prosecution. (And possible proof of prior knowledge of the attacks)

The DoD announced on 9/10/01 that they were missing 3.2 Trillion dollars. There was an internal investigation taking place to figure out where the money had gone. Where was that investigation taking place? Right where flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

Among other threads already dealing with these issues:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71810
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=69261
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70904

So far you've just repeated already discredited conspiracy nonsense. Please stop posting until you have at least familiarised yourself with the resources here:

http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18

I'd recommend you start with Ref's brief guide here:

http://www.freewebs.com/911guide/

Before moving onto Gravy's pages:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

If you don't find the answers you're looking for, the Forum has three search facilities (the Google search works best).

It doesn't matter what you say you believe if you're just going to parrot nonsense without doing some basic research. And it's rather tedious and annoying if you are expecting the rest of us to do this for you.

[Devil's Advocate]

Among other threads already dealing with these issues:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71810
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=69261
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70904

So far you've just repeated already discredited conspiracy nonsense. Please stop posting until you have at least familiarised yourself with the resources here:

http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18

I'd recommend you start with Ref's brief guide here:

http://www.freewebs.com/911guide/

Before moving onto Gravy's pages:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

If you don't find the answers you're looking for, the Forum has three search facilities (the Google search works best).

It doesn't matter what you say you believe if you're just going to parrot nonsense without doing some basic research. And it's rather tedious and annoying if you are expecting the rest of us to do this for you.

Read my reply above your post.
It was poking fun at 'facts'.
And I did not mean the thing about the Put Options further down to point a finger or anything. It is just what Put Options are for and why people use that as debate food.

[MaGZ]

Oh I see.

I take it , it was too easy take out all the sensitive material( Hard drives and files) the night before ? Or would that draw attention to them ?

Unlike demolishing a building in full view of the worlds media and then hunting through the rubble for the said material afterwards and hoping nobody noticed.

9/11 was not an inside job.

[Gravy]

Oh, I have to use facts and stuff like that? Well you are making it difficult then. Why can I not just Alex Jones my way through it? Make stuff up on the fly! =o)
Oh, but about put options, yeah, you place put options on a stock betting it is about to fall in value. So, it would *seem* like those that put large amounts of put options on AA and United would have had a reason they were betting that stock would fall. It started like a week before 9/11, and increased every day. ('It' being a volume of put options being placed on AA and United)I'm going to give this one last try.

You say you're interested in learning. Okay, please read Mike Williams (http://www.911myths.com/html/put_options.html)and the 9/11 Commission Report on the put options, and then return for a discussion of the issue. Will you do that? Yes or no?

[Gravy]

Read my reply above your post.
It was poking fun at 'facts'.Nevermind. It was very rude of you to waste our time and to lie. Goodbye.

[Oliver]

I do not have a side. I am learning.


That's the JREF side. ;)

[maccy]

Read my reply above your post.
It was poking fun at 'facts'.
And I did not mean the thing about the Put Options further down to point a finger or anything. It is just what Put Options are for and why people use that as debate food.

So you're just playing games?

Thanks for wasting my time. I shan't be replying to any more of your posts.

[Devil's Advocate]

Nevermind. It was very rude of you to waste our time and to lie. Goodbye.

Oh, I am sorry, oh great one. I was unaware it was against the rules to bait for a joke. Forgive me for having a sense of humor.

[Devil's Advocate]

That's the JREF side. ;)

Your words not mine. Ok, I'll admit. It is very difficult to stay neutral. Or seem to be neutral. Whichever the case may be.

[DGM]

WTC 7 was where the investigation into insider trading and the infamous put opinions on numerous companies (American Airlines, United, etc) were being conducted. The investigations were localized, so destroying the building destroyed the evidence and saved the people being investigated from criminal prosecution. (And possible proof of prior knowledge of the attacks)

So knock the building over a spill this info into the street? The building was damaged, why no just condemn it, seal it of then go in and remove whatever they want.

[Panoply_Prefect]

FEMA seemed to think the collapse was primarily caused by fire. The damage was not in the location of the initiating event.

Its been a while since I read the FEMA report, what exactly was their explanation, and did they claim it was a well founded one?

/S

[Dave Rogers]

We're getting a little off the point here. I, for one, will state that if the NIST report on WTC7 comes to the conclusion that the collapse was most probably caused by a controlled demolition, then I will have to re-examine and probably change radically my entire view of what happened on 9/11, as will most of the rest of the world, because such a conclusion would clearly contradict the currently understood history of events. Quite what, in this hypothetical scenario, would be the specific effect on my views, I cannot say, but I suspect that the enormous criminal investigation that would be sure to follow might have some bearing.

If, on the other hand, the report finds that the collapse was due to some combination of impact and fire damage, then I would be interested in seeing whether members of the truth movement are able to make a similar re-assessment of their views. I suspect not.

Dave

[Revolutionary91]

No, I am not do not put words into my mouth again.

Let me bring a ray of reality into your life sun beam. According to you, two massive buildings have planes flown into them,burn and are then demolished.

It is hoped that the collapse of the towers would not damage WTC 7 enough to cause it collapse and the fires inside it would not cause it collapse. Instead the perps wait 7 hours before demolishing an empty building in full view of the worlds media who are broadcasting it live to the entire planet, and they just hope that nobody would notice at the time it was demolished. Including the fire-fighters on the ground ?

And this somehow makes sense to you ?

You tried putting words in my mouth. Don't give what you can't take. I have never claimed the towers were demolished. Why do you put words in my mouth again?

I have not claimed building 7 was a demolition. I just stated that fire was said by FEMA to be the primary cause. Do you disagree with FEMA?

[CHF]

A good motive to bring down WTC 7 by CD would be to protect the ongoing search and rescue efforts at Ground Zero. The building was damaged to the SW corner due to the collapse of WTC 1 and could have fallen upon the emergency personal in the area. They just didn’t want to talk about it for fear some might say the other buildings may have been brought down by the government–which is the situation we have today.

So they took down WTC7 for a noble reason and then covered it up?

Brilliant. :rolleyes:

Maybe you should start be explaining what kind of demolition charges were used. Remember - they gotta be the quiet kind.

[Minadin]

So you want motive?

Let me play off my names sake...

The WTC towers were called 'white elephants'. Meaning they were not cost effective anymore. So, them being brought down would have been good for some.

WTC 7 was where the investigation into insider trading and the infamous put opinions on numerous companies (American Airlines, United, etc) were being conducted. The investigations were localized, so destroying the building destroyed the evidence and saved the people being investigated from criminal prosecution. (And possible proof of prior knowledge of the attacks)

The DoD announced on 9/10/01 that they were missing 3.2 Trillion dollars. There was an internal investigation taking place to figure out where the money had gone. Where was that investigation taking place? Right where flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

The WTC was statistically at full occupancy - I don't know where people get the idea that they were losing money.

The Pentagon wasn't missing 3.2 trillion dollars. Donald Rumsfeld was lobbying for more budget to improve their accounting system, and brought up 2.3 trillion in spending over the course of literally decades that the administration didn't feel was properly tracked.

These are all incredibly old and long-debunked canards.

[The Doc]

I have never claimed the towers were demolished.

Really?

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2658
You want proof of thermite usage and molten metal? Here ya go.
(Posted Image (http://www.mysitegotblocked.com/cgiproxy/nph-proxy.cgi/000010A/http/img95.imageshack.us/img95/2250/randomtk4.jpg))
http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/2250/randomtk4.jpg (http://www.mysitegotblocked.com/cgiproxy/nph-proxy.cgi/000010A/http/img95.imageshack.us/img95/2250/randomtk4.jpg)

(Posted Image (http://www.mysitegotblocked.com/cgiproxy/nph-proxy.cgi/000010A/http/img95.imageshack.us/img95/3162/d1jo7.jpg))
http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/3162/d1jo7.jpg (http://www.mysitegotblocked.com/cgiproxy/nph-proxy.cgi/000010A/http/img95.imageshack.us/img95/3162/d1jo7.jpg)This one is particularly hilarious
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3154
Yeah, I also though of newton when it came to the WTC.

-Take a quarter (This will represent the lower part from the impact zone)
-Get a dime (This will represent the building above the impact zone)
-Now take both coins and place them flt on a table
-Swiftly move the dime towards the quarter
-Quarter didn't move much did it?

Newton's law supports that then official story is a lie (As far as the collapse goes)http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=729
i believe it was a controlled demo, but i dont know how the explosives got in there...its a tough question to answer

Caught lying buddy.

[Devil's Advocate]

We're getting a little off the point here. I, for one, will state that if the NIST report on WTC7 comes to the conclusion that the collapse was most probably caused by a controlled demolition, then I will have to re-examine and probably change radically my entire view of what happened on 9/11, as will most of the rest of the world, because such a conclusion would clearly contradict the currently understood history of events. Quite what, in this hypothetical scenario, would be the specific effect on my views, I cannot say, but I suspect that the enormous criminal investigation that would be sure to follow might have some bearing.

If, on the other hand, the report finds that the collapse was due to some combination of impact and fire damage, then I would be interested in seeing whether members of the truth movement are able to make a similar re-assessment of their views. I suspect not.

Dave

I do not think they would say it was a controlled demolition.

I think they would say this is how it could have happened without a CD.
And, they will say there is not enough evidence to support the claims of a CD.
Of course that is just my opinion.

[Pardalis]

Oh, I am sorry, oh great one. I was unaware it was against the rules to bait for a joke. Forgive me for having a sense of humor.

Don't quit your day job. Comedy is not your forte.

[Devil's Advocate]

Don't quit your day job. Comedy is not your forte.

When I care about your opinion of humor I'll A) ask for it, and B) take your critique(s) to heart.

[BillyRayValentine]

All high rise fires have a collapse zone around them.


Don't know what you mean by "collapse zone", but the entire firefighting effort at wtc7 was withdrawn ("pulled", if you prefer, hehe). The fire was left to burn and the firefighters - every single one of them - were called back a safe distance.

Are you saying this is common in high rise fires?

[Pardalis]

When I care about your opinion of humor I'll A) ask for it, and B) take your critique(s) to heart.

An amateur comedian should always listen to his audience. When he only hears crickets, then it's time to step off.

[Dave Rogers]

I do not think they would say it was a controlled demolition.

I think they would say this is how it could have happened without a CD.
And, they will say there is not enough evidence to support the claims of a CD.
Of course that is just my opinion.

Personally, I think they'll say that they have a complete and physically reasonable hypothesis as to how the collapse occurred, that in their hypothesis the causes were fire and impact damage, and that they will give a very thorough and clear explanation of their hypothesis and of how it agrees with all the available physical evidence. I think they will also advance expert opinions on what could have been observed had a controlled demolition taken place, and demonstrate that none of those observations were recorded at the time and place, and conclude from this that the possibility of a controlled demolition is negligible.

Of course, that too is just my opinion, and neither of these opinions relate in any deterministic way to what will actually be written in the final report. This uninformed speculation may be an amusing diversion, but it has very little to do with your original question, which I think I answered honestly and completely.

I would question why you "do not think they would say it was a controlled demolition"; what exactly are you suggesting here?

Dave

[Belz...]

A good motive to bring down WTC 7 by CD would be to protect the ongoing search and rescue efforts at Ground Zero.

We've already explained to you that that's nonsense. Why don't you learn things, MaGZ ?

[Belz...]

So it begs the question, When NIST released it's WTC building 7 analysis, could it change you views on the whole 9/11 debate?

Let us say, seeing that they are going to use the Demolition theory in their analysis, what if all signs point to it being positive that it was not a CD?
What if it says it was?

Then that's that. Hopefully, if they reach that conclusion they'll have better evidence and reasoning than truthers.

I do not think anyone will change sides, no matter what the NIST report says.

Belz... follows the evidence. I have no side.

The WTC towers were called 'white elephants'.

By CTers, yes.

So, them being brought down would have been good for some.

Only in the CTer's twisted mind. Blowing up something that you own is not good, ever.

The DoD announced on 9/10/01 that they were missing 3.2 Trillion dollars. There was an internal investigation taking place to figure out where the money had gone.

If that's the kind of research skills you have, then may I suggest you drop out of this subject entirely and focus on simpler things ?

Nice try attempting to hide your REAL opinions, by the way.

[Belz...]

That is very misleading. Millions buy a lottery ticket and each has an equal chance. The lottery is won most weeks, but the probability of an individual winning is very small.

Actually, that's wrong. Even if that ONE person had bought a ticket and no one else, he'd still have won. Does that mean he cheated ?

It bears no relation to building 7 since a building collapsing is not a certainty.

It IS a certainty once it's structure is sufficiently compromised.

I don't think you know quite half as much about probabilities as you think you do.

FEMA seemed to think the collapse was primarily caused by fire. The damage was not in the location of the initiating event. The building collapsed 7 hours after it was damaged. All in all, the damage wasn't that important.

Debris -> fire -> collapse.

How was the damage not important, again ?

All high rise fires have a collapse zone around them.

Really ? Then why do they build them so close to one another ? Or did you try to say something different ?

[Belz...]

If they did not do a CD on WTC 7 it would have fallen in the direction of its weakest area: the southwest corner. The building would have fallen in the direction of WTC 6 and would have damaged the Verizon building west of WTC 7.

So, the argument does make sense.

No, it doesn't, because you have no idea where it would have collapsed: EXACTLY WHERE IT DID.

You're arguing in circles, my anti-semite friend. You're using your CONCLUSION that it was demolished to explain WHY it was demolished.

The likely reason is due to national security.

Sure. That works. In the X-Files.

[Belz...]

What does my names sake mean?
I will play one side or the other.

Which means you have little or no interest in the actual truth.

What the hell are you doing here, troll ?

[Alferd_Packer]

I am personally of the opinion that the collapse was the result of an engineering flaw in the Solomon emergency generator system. I suspect that one of the reasons that the report keeps getting delayed is that NIST has to figure out a way of proving that without getting sued by the engineers that designed it. But then again, that is just my opinion.

[Corsair 115]

An amateur comedian should always listen to his audience. When he only hears crickets, then it's time to step off.But what if those crickets are roaring with laughter? :D

[stateofgrace]

You tried putting words in my mouth. Don't give what you can't take. I have never claimed the towers were demolished. Why do you put words in my mouth again?

I have not claimed building 7 was a demolition. I just stated that fire was said by FEMA to be the primary cause. Do you disagree with FEMA?

The answer was no when you first asked this question and the answer, a few hours later is still no. Since you clearly have not read the FEMA report please do so.

the degree of impact damage to the south Facade could not be documented . However damage was evident from review of photograph and video evidence
The extent and severity of the damage is currently unkown. However, from the photographic evidence and eyewitness accounts disscussed below, it is assummed the south facade was damged to some degree.However there was damge to the southwest conrer of WTC 7According to fire fighters, eyewitness accounts, outside of the building, approximately floors 8-18 were damagedWith limited information currently available, fire development in this building needs additional study]Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY
The cases are presented not as conclusions, but as a basis for further investigation
Further reseach is neededFurther reseach , investigation and analyses are needed to reslove this issue.Certain issues should be exploded before final conclusions are reached and additional studies of the performance of WTC 7 and related buildings performance issues should be conducted. these include the following: Additional data should be collected to confirm the extent of the damage to the south face.
Suggested mechanisms for a progressive collapse should be studied and and confirmedStop making people do the reseach for you and read the report yourself. There are no conclusion whatsoever here, it is a preliminary report, nothing else. FEMA do not conclude that fires alone brought down WTC 7.Now are you calling FEMA liars ? Are you calling the firefighters liars?

( The PC I am on will not allow me to link the FEMA WTC 7 report, I am at work,use google if you cannot find it)

[Viper Daimao]

Why should the NIST WTC7 report change any truthers mind when they already reject the NIST report on WTC1 & 2 as being part of the govt cover-up?

[PhantomWolf]

I am personally of the opinion that the collapse was the result of an engineering flaw in the Solomon emergency generator system. I suspect that one of the reasons that the report keeps getting delayed is that NIST has to figure out a way of proving that without getting sued by the engineers that designed it. But then again, that is just my opinion.

Interesting idea. Have you any evidence that this might be the case, or is it just idle speculation on your part?

[T.A.M.]

Why should the NIST WTC7 report change any truthers mind when they already reject the NIST report on WTC1 & 2 as being part of the govt cover-up?

Ahh...it was all in the magic words..

"Will examine Blast Scenarios"

lol

TAM:)

[Devil's Advocate]

Which means you have little or no interest in the actual truth.

What the hell are you doing here, troll ?

Didn't you say essentially the same thing above?
"Belz... follows the evidence. I have no side."
Or am I not allowed to do the same?
So I guess you're a Troll as well?

[Devil's Advocate]

I would question why you "do not think they would say it was a controlled demolition"; what exactly are you suggesting here?

Dave

Lack of Evidence.

[Devil's Advocate]

I am personally of the opinion that the collapse was the result of an engineering flaw in the Solomon emergency generator system. I suspect that one of the reasons that the report keeps getting delayed is that NIST has to figure out a way of proving that without getting sued by the engineers that designed it. But then again, that is just my opinion.

That is an interesting thought indeed.

[PhantomWolf]

Didn't you say essentially the same thing above?
"Belz... follows the evidence. I have no side."
Or am I not allowed to do the same?
So I guess you're a Troll as well?

Since you are new (hey I'm pretty new here too) I'll try and explain something. A lot of people that turn up and act in a similar fashion to you (I'm just asking questions, I don't understand, can you explain how... etc,) quickly turn out to be dyed in the wool Truthers who are attempting to hide their true agender. Thus new posters who don't come out and state their position or who want to "sit on the fence and play both sides" tend to get treated with a lot of suspicions here. Heck I got called a sock within my first few days because of my posting style, if it wasn't for the fact a few posters here also post on my other boards and vouched for me, I might have just thrown in the towel and said "bugger you lot, I'm going back to where my posting is actually appreciated without my style being criticised"

In the end, most people will see your jumping back and forth between the Truther position and the Official one as trouble stirring, or trolling. Following the evidence is fine. Asking questions and learning is fine, but just tread carefully where you are now because that ice is rather thin.

Remember also that there are a number of NYers here that experienced 9/11, or know people that did. As such it can be a sore point and they tend to shot first ask questions later. If you truely want to learn, great, I'm sure that everyone here is willing to help, but if you only want to bounce around and stir the pot, well then things are going to get rough, so you might need an asbestos lifejacket on.

[Devil's Advocate]

Since you are new (hey I'm pretty new here too) I'll try and explain something. A lot of people that turn up and act in a similar fashion to you (I'm just asking questions, I don't understand, can you explain how... etc,) quickly turn out to be dyed in the wool Truthers who are attempting to hide their true agender. Thus new posters who don't come out and state their position or who want to "sit on the fence and play both sides" tend to get treated with a lot of suspicions here. Heck I got called a sock within my first few days because of my posting style, if it wasn't for the fact a few posters here also post on my other boards and vouched for me, I might have just thrown in the towel and said "bugger you lot, I'm going back to where my posting is actually appreciated without my style being criticised"

In the end, most people will see your jumping back and forth between the Truther position and the Official one as trouble stirring, or trolling. Following the evidence is fine. Asking questions and learning is fine, but just tread carefully where you are now because that ice is rather thin.

Remember also that there are a number of NYers here that experienced 9/11, or know people that did. As such it can be a sore point and they tend to shot first ask questions later. If you truely want to learn, great, I'm sure that everyone here is willing to help, but if you only want to bounce around and stir the pot, well then things are going to get rough, so you might need an asbestos lifejacket on.

Well thanks for that. I can clearly see the paranoia here, and the gang mentality of slamming rather than talking. Name calling, etc. To which I stated previously that I understand some people are tired of certain things with regard to new posters. But just because something is understandable does not make it right.

My point on the debate is that I have not taken a side in it. I would be foolish to be young in the research of a topic to choose a side as I start the research. People can be easily mislead and warped to opinion that way. I want a broader understanding of many factors before I commit to anything. And I play both sides in that. I have to understand what the points of debate are from both sides to know there is a reason for debate to begin with.

Example; If someone states that there is no evidence that even hinted that the government knew flight 77 was about to hit the Pentagon and did nothing, I would point to the testimony that was withheld from the 911 Commission report. The testimony that Cheney was warned of the position of something, and the orders regarding it. But was the soldier doing that reporting known? What was he talking about? To this point I have no evidence on it to know for a fact what he and Cheney were talking about.
But with regard to the example, I could play that any number of ways for the purpose of speculation. Saying that it *could be* a hint that they knew exactly where flight 77 was, and then wonder as to what the 'standing orders' were. Or, I could go another direction if someone said it was 100% proof that they did not shoot the plan down on purpose, and the standing orders were to not intercept the plane. Yes, it is just an example, but I'm sure you understand my point. If someone wants to toss around speculation, I may offer counters just to see where it leads. I like debate and the formulation of ideas and theory. But with regard to facts, there is little room for speculation.

Just like when someone asked what happened to the telephones in the towers, and the furniture....I cannot say for sure what happened to them. He is speculating that they were destroyed by explosive charge, and I countered with the idea that 'how could they survive with all that weight crushing them.' Though my point was logical, it was not 100% factual. Because I have not seen all the debris to know if all the phones and furniture were destroyed to begin with. It was just a counter speculation, though a logical one.

I have said it before...my agenda is to learn, that is it.
I may make jokes from time to time, but should not be taken as an indicator that I am up to something.

[PhantomWolf]

Fair enough, however in saying that, you seem to know the CT theories pretty well for someone that says they are just starting out. ;)

If someone states that there is no evidence that even hinted that the government knew flight 77 was about to hit the Pentagon and did nothing, I would point to the testimony that was withheld from the 911 Commission report. The testimony that Cheney was warned of the position of something, and the orders regarding it. But was the soldier doing that reporting known? What was he talking about? To this point I have no evidence on it to know for a fact what he and Cheney were talking about.

You're talking about Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta. The short story is that his testimony was 30 minutes out of kilter with everyone else's and once the timing is adjusted then it fits in very nicely with what we already know and so doesn't actually add anything of interest to the picture. The CT claim however is that his timing is correct and so they claim the plane was 77. The trouble with this is that Mineta describes the evacuation of the White House and surrounding buildings saying it was at 9:20am, when it actually happened at 9:45am, and states that both Cheney and his wife were in the PEOC before him, when we know that Cheney was taken to an underground hallway/bunker by the Secret Service when Flight 77 was spotted, and that Mrs Chaney didn't get to the PEOC until 9:50am. So what was the plane? They were likely tracking an incoming flight on a system called Tigerwall. This is a projection of a flight based on last known heading and speed. That flight was Flight 93, and the orders that stood? They were a shoot down order. Further confirmation comes from the pentagon where we get told that they people at the triage centre on the lawn were getting the exact same information that Cheney was, that a 2nd plane was incoming and was 20 miles out, 10 miles out... So why was he out? The likelihood is that he recalls the events that occured up to the news getting to the PEOC that Flight 77 had hit the Pentagon quite correctly, but that information didn't actually get there for about 30-40 minutes after the crash. He has then worked his way back from when he learned of the crash under the impression that it had just occured, rather then it had occured over half an hour previously. You can probably learn more on this topic if you do a search for Mineta.. In fact I suggest that you do searches on each topic before starting a thread, a lot of stuff has been covered repeatively.

[Devil's Advocate]

Fair enough, however in saying that, you seem to know the CT theories pretty well for someone that says they are just starting out. ;)



You're talking about Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta. The short story is that his testimony was 30 minutes out of kilter with everyone else's and once the timing is adjusted then it fits in very nicely with what we already know and so doesn't actually add anything of interest to the picture. The CT claim however is that his timing is correct and so they claim the plane was 77. The trouble with this is that Mineta describes the evacuation of the White House and surrounding buildings saying it was at 9:20am, when it actually happened at 9:45am, and states that both Cheney and his wife were in the PEOC before him, when we know that Cheney was taken to an underground hallway/bunker by the Secret Service when Flight 77 was spotted, and that Mrs Chaney didn't get to the PEOC until 9:50am. So what was the plane? They were likely tracking an incoming flight on a system called Tigerwall. This is a projection of a flight based on last known heading and speed. That flight was Flight 93, and the orders that stood? They were a shoot down order. Further confirmation comes from the pentagon where we get told that they people at the triage centre on the lawn were getting the exact same information that Cheney was, that a 2nd plane was incoming and was 20 miles out, 10 miles out... So why was he out? The likelihood is that he recalls the events that occured up to the news getting to the PEOC that Flight 77 had hit the Pentagon quite correctly, but that information didn't actually get there for about 30-40 minutes after the crash. He has then worked his way back from when he learned of the crash under the impression that it had just occured, rather then it had occured over half an hour previously. You can probably learn more on this topic if you do a search for Mineta.. In fact I suggest that you do searches on each topic before starting a thread, a lot of stuff has been covered repeatively.

Thanks for all that. I was just using that as an example of what I mean about people speculating, point and counter point.
Apart from you, I do not feel welcome here.

[The Doc]

Devil's Advocate,

It's just a natural reaction. 90% of conspiracy theorists who post here follow this M.O:

1. Introduce themselves.
2. Pretend like they are on the fence.
3. Make out as if JREF members are not convincing.
4. Tell us that the conspiracy theorists know more than us, and are correct.
5. Probably think that them "hoping down from the fence" and joining the conspiracy crowd upsets makes us feel sad/stupid/angry or whatever (it doesn't).
5. Start posting the same re-hashed conspiracy theories we've all heard.
6. Possibly revealed to be a sock puppet of a previously banned member.

That's happened a couple of times in the past. So now whenever someone follows steps one and two, people may jump the gun. However, that being said, they're usually correct.

I believe the term "the mark of woo" was coined by someone to explain it.

[MRC_Hans]

Well thanks for that. I can clearly see the paranoia here,

Paranoia is if you are suspicious for no reason. As PW just carefully explained to you, we have very good reasons to be suspicious.

and the gang mentality of slamming rather than talking. Name calling, etc.

Another typical troll behaviour: Accusations of gang mentality. We are very evidently a bunch of individualists here. The prevailing opinion on 911 is the same, but agreement does not make a gang.


To which I stated previously that I understand some people are tired of certain things with regard to new posters. But just because something is understandable does not make it right.


Don't be a crybaby. You have no more privilege to be treated right than anybody else. Follow the culture of a place, or take the flak. Or get out.

My point on the debate is that I have not taken a side in it. I would be foolish to be young in the research of a topic to choose a side as I start the research.

You have not taken a side? Either the US was/is under attacke from terrorists or the US government is involved in mass murder of its own citizens. You don't have an opinion on that?


People can be easily mislead and warped to opinion that way. I want a broader understanding of many factors before I commit to anything. And I play both sides in that. I have to understand what the points of debate are from both sides to know there is a reason for debate to begin with.


Quite frankly, I don't think that is a reasonable, or likely, position. When one of the positions must assume that one of the worst crimes in history was comitted, and comitted using the most complex plot in history, then there is no fence to sit on.

Just like when someone asked what happened to the telephones in the towers, and the furniture....I cannot say for sure what happened to them. He is speculating that they were destroyed by explosive charge, and I countered with the idea that 'how could they survive with all that weight crushing them.' Though my point was logical, it was not 100% factual. Because I have not seen all the debris to know if all the phones and furniture were destroyed to begin with. It was just a counter speculation, though a logical one.

That is idle speculation. For sure, he probably wanted to hint at that, but it doesn't make any sense at all. Explosives do not in any particular way make phones and furniture disappear, unless every item is actually wrapped in explosives, which is absurd in any scenario.

The talk about inventory is a perfect example of Truther tactics: Point to something you claim is strange, and assume this must be explained in order to uphold the historical account. The condition of phones etc. is a complete non sequiteur. That condition would be exactly the same no matter if the building collapsed due to fires etc. or was brought down by explosives.


I have said it before...my agenda is to learn, that is it.


Then I suggest you start by learning the ropes around here. Also, if you want us to teach you, it is not only sensible, but the only honest thing to inform us of your present position. Otherwise we make take trouble to try to teach you something you already know.

I may make jokes from time to time, but should not be taken as an indicator that I am up to something.

By all means do.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Thanks for all that. I was just using that as an example of what I mean about people speculating, point and counter point.

Not quite. You were presenting a very one-sided version. Since that was not how things were, it is not a reasonable example of a good discussion.

I'm sorry; you may not be a truther, but you sure smell like one.

Apart from you, I do not feel welcome here.

Anybody is welcome here. But respect and appreciation is not something you can demand. It is something you earn.

And about your "devils advocate" position. The traditional role of "devil's advocate" is always taken by a well known and respected member of the group. Someone whose actual position is not in doubt. If you just walk in the door and try to do it, expect to be taken on face value.

Hans

[Unfit4Command]

Devil's Advocate,

It's just a natural reaction. 90% of conspiracy theorists who post here follow this M.O:

1. Introduce themselves.
2. Pretend like they are on the fence.
3. Make out as if JREF members are not convincing.
4. Tell us that the conspiracy theorists know more than us, and are correct.
5. Probably think that them "hoping down from the fence" and joining the conspiracy crowd upsets makes us feel sad/stupid/angry or whatever (it doesn't).
5. Start posting the same re-hashed conspiracy theories we've all heard.
6. Possibly revealed to be a sock puppet of a previously banned member.

That's happened a couple of times in the past. So now whenever someone follows steps one and two, people may jump the gun. However, that being said, they're usually correct.

I believe the term "the mark of woo" was coined by someone to explain it.

Exactly, some people didn't take my first thread here very nicely.. I was still pretty uneducated about 9/11 at the time and I came across as a conspiracy theorist, but that quickly changed when I began arguing with Conspiracy Theorists invading my thread. I think the thread was about the WTC cores, but I'm too lazy to go back and check now.

Perhaps the same thing is going on now, but it's too early to tell.

btw, I forgot to Welcome Devils Advocate to the forum, welcome :)

[Devil's Advocate]

Not quite. You were presenting a very one-sided version. Since that was not how things were, it is not a reasonable example of a good discussion.

I'm sorry; you may not be a truther, but you sure smell like one.



Anybody is welcome here. But respect and appreciation is not something you can demand. It is something you earn.

And about your "devils advocate" position. The traditional role of "devil's advocate" is always taken by a well known and respected member of the group. Someone whose actual position is not in doubt. If you just walk in the door and try to do it, expect to be taken on face value.

Hans

I agree, but I will not be disrespected without cause and be expected not to return it in kind, either.
I have been very nice and thankful for help up until the past day. And short of two people, I have remained respectful.
I show respect until I am given a reason not to, not the other way around.

As far as where I stand. I have looked into a lot of the CT claims, and I have not seen evidence to support their claims as yet.
That does not mean I have closed my mind to the possibility that there could be a conspiracy in it. However, I have seen no solid evidence to back one up.
I will say however, that if something causes me a problem, I will ask about it.
That is where I stand.
(Do I smell better now?...lol)



Thanks for the welcome, Unfit4Command.

[Undesired Walrus]

No, they said for a long time that it would be released in Spring but now they say it will be the end of the year. They announced late last year that they were studying hypothetical blast scenarios.

So, when a drop-out sits around his house all day cutting and pasting same tired, debunked old garbage again, and delays it by 2 years, that is fine....

But when an organisation with scientists, professionals and critical thinkers delay their findings, that is somewhat bad?

[Revolutionary91]

So, when a drop-out sits around his house all day cutting and pasting same tired, debunked old garbage again, and delays it by 2 years, that is fine....

But when an organisation with scientists, professionals and critical thinkers delay their findings, that is somewhat bad?

Yes. I don't care what drop outs do. There are a million drop outs delaying all sorts of things. I care about what my Government is doing, especially highly trained scientists whose job it is to explain a collapse that you all say was so obviously going to happen.

[MRC_Hans]

I agree, but I will not be disrespected without cause and be expected not to return it in kind, either.
I have been very nice and thankful for help up until the past day. And short of two people, I have remained respectful.
I show respect until I am given a reason not to, not the other way around.

You know, do unto others ....

As far as where I stand. I have looked into a lot of the CT claims, and I have not seen evidence to support their claims as yet.

What makes you think you ever will?


That does not mean I have closed my mind to the possibility that there could be a conspiracy in it. However, I have seen no solid evidence to back one up.


Have you closed your mind to the possibility that there migh NOT be a conspiracy in it?


I will say however, that if something causes me a problem, I will ask about it.
That is where I stand.


Well, to each his own, I suppose. Personally, I cannot imagine not having a firm position on this. I don't know where you are, I'm not even in the US, but if I could imagine that the present US administration had dome something like this, I would have to loudly request that my own government sever any cooperation with it.

It is a little like saying "I see no evidence that my brother raped his daughter, but I'm open to possibilities".


(Do I smell better now?...lol)


Sniff, sniff ..... Perhaps. ... What do you call that aftershave?

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Yes. I don't care what drop outs do. There are a million drop outs delaying all sorts of things. I care about what my Government is doing, especially highly trained scientists whose job it is to explain a collapse that you all say was so obviously going to happen.Fair enough. And since we all know that government projects are usually never late, .........

Wait .....

Nevermind.

Hans

[The Doc]

I care about what my Government is doing, especially highly trained scientists whose job it is to explain a collapse that you all say was so obviously going to happen.

So would you care if the government released a technical engineering report into the collapse of WTC7 that was based on eye-witness testimony?

Wouldn't you rather a complete investigation into the engineering aspects of why WTC7 collapsed?

[Revolutionary91]

So would you care if the government released a technical engineering report into the collapse of WTC7 that was based on eye-witness testimony?

Wouldn't you rather a complete investigation into the engineering aspects of why WTC7 collapsed?

Yes I want a thorough investigation. That seems unlikely given that the subcobtracted company has had its analysis resticted to floors 7 through 46.

To reverse the point made earlier, why are people here always making a big deal about delays in Final Cut. Don't you want it to be as complete and accurate as possible?

[Devil's Advocate]

You know, do unto others ....



What makes you think you ever will?



Have you closed your mind to the possibility that there migh NOT be a conspiracy in it?



Well, to each his own, I suppose. Personally, I cannot imagine not having a firm position on this. I don't know where you are, I'm not even in the US, but if I could imagine that the present US administration had dome something like this, I would have to loudly request that my own government sever any cooperation with it.

It is a little like saying "I see no evidence that my brother raped his daughter, but I'm open to possibilities".



Sniff, sniff ..... Perhaps. ... What do you call that aftershave?

Hans

Well, my point is that I refuse to close my mind to possibilities. People that think they have all the answers, in my experience, are self-diluted or are extremely egotistical.
There could be something out there that we just have not seen that will make us all 'V-8 our foreheads' and say,"Well I'll be damned." A whistle blower comes out and blows everything out of the water. But until that time, I will stand by the evidence at hand. And that evidence does not prove a conspiracy in my opinion at this time. I am still learning. And until something major happens, I do not see myself starting/joining a revolution against the U.S. Government.

The aftershave? It's Drakkar. "For the times you want to release the animal within."

Ok, that is not their slogan, but I wanted to feel powerful just then.
:D

[PhantomWolf]

especially highly trained scientists whose job it is to explain a collapse that you all say was so obviously going to happen.

Being able to determine that something is going to happen, and figuring out why it happened are two totally separate things.

WTC 7 was leaning over, had an incresing bluge in one side, was creaking and groaning, had serious structural damage, and according to the FDNY was fulling involved to the point where one of their senior officers stated that they had multiple 6 alarm fires throughout the building. How is it not obvious that a building suffering from those things was highly unstable and likely to collapse? Or are you going to claim that the FDNY made it all up and that the buildings wasn't in the state they claim it was?

[Undesired Walrus]

Yes I want a thorough investigation. That seems unlikely given that the subcobtracted company has had its analysis resticted to floors 7 through 46.

People who certainly didn't have restriction were firefighters. Don't you find it a tad hypocritical you trust a bloke in the basement of the WTC, 70 floors or so from the impact in which people died horrific deaths, yet the testimony of 100 firefighters who say about WTC7 "This building is going to collapse, it is going to collapse" is somewhat null and void. Don't you think it is a remarkable coincidence the building was looking like it was going to collapse to a vast majority, yet it was actually wired to explode?

Tell that to their face clown.

To reverse the point made earlier, why are people here always making a big deal about delays in Final Cut. Don't you want it to be as complete and accurate as possible?

Um... So you want the NIST report to be unfinished, incomplete and non-sensical?

[Revolutionary91]

People who certainly didn't have restriction were firefighters. Don't you find it a tad hypocritical you trust a bloke in the basement of the WTC, 70 floors or so from the impact in which people died horrific deaths, yet the testimony of 100 firefighters who say about WTC7 "This building is going to collapse, it is going to collapse" is somewhat null and void. Don't you think it is a remarkable coincidence the building was looking like it was going to collapse to a vast majority, yet it was actually wired to explode?

Tell that to their face clown.



Um... So you want the NIST report to be unfinished, incomplete and non-sensical?

Ok, have it your way. You can't be civil and seem somewhat obsessed with me. If I have offended you on LC forums then I apologise. As for this forum, im going to put you on ignore. I won't bother reporting your attacks.

[MRC_Hans]

Oh, is UW not banned on LC yet?

Hans

[The Doc]

Yes I want a thorough investigation. That seems unlikely given that the subcobtracted company has had its analysis resticted to floors 7 through 46.


So you want a thorough investigation, yet you can't understand why NIST wouldn't rely on witness testimony to write their report?

Eyewitness testimony shows us one piece of the puzzle. It goes a long way towards showing us that the building was damaged to the point of no return, but it certainly doesn't answer NIST's goals. Eyewitness testimony doesn't give us information on preventing future building collapse, nor does it give us detailed engineering analysis.

Interesting to note that you missed my point though.


To reverse the point made earlier, why are people here always making a big deal about delays in Final Cut. Don't you want it to be as complete and accurate as possible?

I'd hardly say we're making a "big deal" out of it. I couldn't care less when Final Cut comes out, but I do find it amusing how Dylan is keeping all of you on his bandwagon. Dylan doesn't have the research capabilities or the nonpartisan viewpoint to create a complete and accurate representation of the events of 9/11 anyway, so no one here really "wants" Loose Change to be anything.

[Dave Rogers]

Yes I want a thorough investigation. That seems unlikely given that the subcobtracted company has had its analysis resticted to floors 7 through 46.

Do we have to go over this one again? One subcontracted company has been contracted to study floors 7 through 46. That says nothing about who may be studying other floors, and doesn't restrict the subcontracted company from studying other floors if they choose to do so on their own time. All it says is that NIST will only pay them to study floors 7 through 46.

Dave

[MortFurd]

I am personally of the opinion that the collapse was the result of an engineering flaw in the Solomon emergency generator system. I suspect that one of the reasons that the report keeps getting delayed is that NIST has to figure out a way of proving that without getting sued by the engineers that designed it. But then again, that is just my opinion.
Interesting choice of name:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/history/alfred_packer/index.html

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2758595#post2758595)

I would question why you "do not think they would say it was a controlled demolition"; what exactly are you suggesting here?

Dave


Lack of Evidence.

If there's no evidence of controlled demolition, I too think that NIST wouldn't say it was a controlled demolition. You seemed to be suggesting that they wouldn't say it was a controlled demolition under any circumstances; I was just curious whether I'd understood you right.

Dave

[Lurker]

Apart from you, I do not feel welcome here.

Well I am enjoying your posts, DA. I'm not a CT but I enjoy reading reasoned debate. You will learn that the preponderance of evidence supports the official story while merely innuendo supports the CT.

Lurker

[Newtons Bit]

FEMA seemed to think the collapse was primarily caused by fire. The damage was not in the location of the initiating event. The building collapsed 7 hours after it was damaged. All in all, the damage wasn't that important.

You're falling down the slippery slope of Christopher7. Just because the damage wasn't directly adjacent to the "initiating event", doesn't mean that that the damage wasn't (or was) significant.

[Belz...]

Didn't you say essentially the same thing above?

No, I didn't. I said I follow the evidence, not that I play both sides for the sheer fun of sparking reactions.

I can clearly see the paranoia here

In the real world, we call it experience.

and the gang mentality of slamming rather than talking

What is this crap about gang mentality ? I don't even know these other guys.

I refuse to close my mind to possibilities.

Some possibilities you should.

[Belz...]

Ok, have it your way. You can't be civil and seem somewhat obsessed with me.

What's this truther obsession with obsession ?

[kookbreaker]

What's this truther obsession with obsession ?

Truthers (and by extension many CTs) want to be special, famous and be paid attention to. But they lack the skills, effort, and talent needed for fame so they make themselvees special by latching onto the movement and being loud. Their first experience with attention is positive since they are playing to the crowd that already bought into this stuff.

When they go elsewhere, the attention is much more critical and negative. Their mindset that decides that anyone being critical of their work has to have something either wrong with them or is paid off. Ergo, you must be obsessed to counter the troother.

Comic time:

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g157/kookbreaker/its-like-an-assembly-line-really.png

[Devil's Advocate]

No, I didn't. I said I follow the evidence, not that I play both sides for the sheer fun of sparking reactions.



In the real world, we call it experience.



What is this crap about gang mentality ? I don't even know these other guys.



Some possibilities you should.

1: So you just came to the knowledge you had like magic, or did you have to look at it from both sides? See what they say, then agree with or counter it through your own research and help from others?
I do seek to spark theory when there is a call for it, but not with regard to facts and evidence.
(perhaps 'play' is a bad choice of words)

2: It is paranoia, bro. Hell, Hanz even said I smelled like a CT in disguise.
:)

3:Mentality - "a habitual or characteristic mental attitude that determines how you will interpret and respond to situations"
That seems accurate to me so far. But again, that is simply my opinion based off things I have been told, attacked with, and gotten in PM's.
:D

4: I should close my mind to possibilities such as what?
I disagree before you even answer. I do not believe the path to wisdom or truth can be closed. It is a choice to seek and continue in knowledge.
If I close my mind to say, the CT movement, then I would be just like most of them. I would have to ignore what I did not want to see to further my own comfort with the twisted perception(s) I have chosen to accept, rather than the real truth that is.
A person that believes that they are never wrong just debunked themself.

[Undesired Walrus]

Ok, have it your way. You can't be civil and seem somewhat obsessed with me.

Isn't this like my... second post adressed to you? And I'm on Ignore already? I understand you are 15, but the real world is a tough place buddy. Learn to cope with a question or two.... Are you obsessed with getting someone unobsessed to obsess over you?? :confused:

I posted on LCF once, and was banned instantly.

It's just a shame you fail to obsess of firefighters quotes from the day. Quotes that spiral into the 100's.

[Cuddles]

2: It is paranoia, bro. Hell, Hanz even said I smelled like a CT in disguise.

Cliched as it may be, it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. As has been pointed out to you several times, in this case they really are out to get us. Truthers turn up all the time pretending not to be truthers and acting very much like you have. Assuming you are just another one may or may not be right, but it is certainly not paranoid.

4: I should close my mind to possibilities such as what?

As has been said many times before, there's a big difference between being open-minded and leaving your mind so open your brain dribbles out. Some ideas are not even worth considering, while others have been proven wrong. If you don't close your mind to these then you have no hope of ever knowing anything. Do you consider it possible that elves knocked the towers over?

The simple fact is that pretty much all the information needed to come to a conclusion is known. For example, planes hit the towers. There is no arguing with that. Anyone who does is simply insane or an idiot. Various other CTs seem more or less plausible, but they have all been proven wrong. There is absolutely no point in you trying to play Devil's advocate. The relevant questions have already been asked, and they have mostly been answered. If you just want to learn, ask. There is no point in trying to play games.

Many people here have done a lot of work in this area. Many of them were personally affected by these events. The more you play games, the less respect you will get. The more you spout debunked truther garbage, the less respect you will get. The more you play the offended innocent, the less respect you will get. The more you talk about being "open-minded" the less respect you will get. The more you accuse people here of being sheep or gangs, the less respect you will get. You want respect here, you earn it. You don't like that, leave.

[Belz...]

1: So you just came to the knowledge you had like magic, or did you have to look at it from both sides?

Let's see what's behind door #2.

See what they say, then agree with or counter it through your own research and help from others?

Something like that. Asking questions is fine, but you have to know when to trust the answers.

I do seek to spark theory when there is a call for it, but not with regard to facts and evidence.

That made no sense to me.

2: It is paranoia, bro.

Expecting something that happens every week to happen again is paranoia ? Look up the word.

Hell, Hanz even said I smelled like a CT in disguise.

Maybe that's because that's the impression you give. Why don't you start debating rationally, stating what you think and know, and asking questions for which you don't already have an answer for yourself and we'll see.

3:Mentality - "a habitual or characteristic mental attitude that determines how you will interpret and respond to situations"
That seems accurate to me so far. But again, that is simply my opinion based off things I have been told, attacked with, and gotten in PM's.

Well, I didn't send you any PMs, and as I've said before, I respect other posters here, but I really don't care much about their opinions when it comes to facts. Not Ace, not Gravy, not you.

4: I should close my mind to possibilities such as what?

There's a pink winged elephant under my bed.

I disagree before you even answer.

You think it's a possibility, however remote, that there IS a full-size, live, pink, winged elephant under my bed ?

I do not believe the path to wisdom or truth can be closed.

Keeping too much of an open mind can lead to other problems.

If I close my mind to say, the CT movement, then I would be just like most of them.

Sure, but what of my elephant ?

A person that believes that they are never wrong just debunked themself.

No, but they do make themselves look ridiculous when engaging people who know better.

[Minadin]

There's a pink winged elephant under my bed.


You think it's a possibility, however remote, that there IS a full-size, live, pink, winged elephant under my bed ?
(bolding mine)

Now, for one thing, you never said that it was a full-size winged elephant in your initial statement. But I digress, because secondarily, and you are no doubt aware, everyone knows that the winged variety of the elephant is a relative miniature compared to it's non-winged african or asian counterparts. If your bed is sufficiently high off the ground, it's entirely possible that you keep one there - or that it at least fits.

Proof:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1253246965bcf6a132.jpg

[Devil's Advocate]

Let's see what's behind door #2.
That is what I am doing. I see what one side states, and then go to the other. I compare information with logic, reason, and evidence and that tells me which to put faith in.

Something like that. Asking questions is fine, but you have to know when to trust the answers.
See #1

That made no sense to me.
If someone speaks of say, motive for a action for example, they will say A to the B leads to conclusion C.
I will say, But maybe X to the Y leads to conclusion Z.
Not pertaining to just theory, but ideas, directions, interpretations, etc.
I am not talking about speaking against evidence to propose Nikola Tesla's death ray was used to bring down the towers. Nothing like that.

An example of it could be....Dave says,"I think the U.S. is doing the right thing by invading Iraq and Afghanistan because all leads pointed to those two places."
I might reply, "Well, if the hijackers were Saudi, and the money to Atta did trace back to the ISI in Pakistan and it could be proven, would you think we should have invaded Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in stead of Iraq and Afghanistan?"

Expecting something that happens every week to happen again is paranoia ? Look up the word.
But thinking everyone that comes is a CT person in disguise is.

Maybe that's because that's the impression you give. Why don't you start debating rationally, stating what you think and know, and asking questions for which you don't already have an answer for yourself and we'll see.
I have been doing just that. I asked questioned and got jumped for it. Why? Because the question made me seem like a CT antagonist.
I openly stated I still have questions about 9/11, but have also stated I see no evidence that supports the CT side. But, I do not have all the answers to my questions because I am still reading and asking questions as I go. (You did not have to edit your insult)

Well, I didn't send you any PMs, and as I've said before, I respect other posters here, but I really don't care much about their opinions when it comes to facts. Not Ace, not Gravy, not you.
ok

There's a pink winged elephant under my bed.
ok


You think it's a possibility, however remote, that there IS a full-size, live, pink, winged elephant under my bed ?
That is not what I am saying. I do not deny facts. What I mean by I keep my mind open is with regard to the possibility of being mistaken. If Bush went on T.V. and said all the CT guys were telling the truth, I would have a hard time buying it because of the evidence at hand. But if he were to say the government planned it and paid for it all, I would be shocked, but that in a sense would make the CT side right, because then it was proven to be an inside job.

Keeping too much of an open mind can lead to other problems.
So can closing it.

Sure, but what of my elephant ?
See #8

No, but they do make themselves look ridiculous when engaging people who know better.
People that ignore evidence, data, and logic always will. Because they cannot know much if they ignore what leads to knowledge.


*edit* Sorry, I need to do the multi-quote...I'm new to forums. :D

[T.A.M.]

D.A.

You, as of late, have been playing out your username quite well, but I would suggest that if you make the fact that you are playing the role of Devil's Advocate more clear (ie...I do not think the CTs have it right, but for the sake of argument...), it might help...

Just a thought

TAM:)

[aggle-rithm]

Even if WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition, it doesn't make sense and it never had made sense.

Unless someone brings up some good motive, no rational human being will ever be convinced about WTC7, their reactions will be: "So you were right: It was a controlled demolition, fine ... And? So What?".

The only possible motive I can think of for a controlled demolition of Building 7 would be to avoid the delay and expense of demolishing the building in the only way that is legal in NYC...piece by piece. This would have cost Silverstein a lot of money, as it would have been at least a year before he could start rebuilding.

Still, even if true, how would he assemble a team of demo experts so soon, not to mention those who would be willing to go into a dangerously unstable building that is on fire? Wouldn't it be better to pay off the firefighters to stop fighting the fire, and let it burn down?

[T.A.M.]

If Silverstein wanted to bring down the WTC7 for what was in it in terms of documents, consider what would be easier...

1, Hire some top notch arsonists to burn down the place, or atleast the floors with the supersekrit organizations in them.

2. Paper shredders and large magnets and hammers...not a harddrive left, not a document unshredded.

These are just 2 alternatives that would have been much easier, and much less expensive than a CD of the building.

TAM:)

[Devil's Advocate]

D.A.

You, as of late, have been playing out your username quite well, but I would suggest that if you make the fact that you are playing the role of Devil's Advocate more clear (ie...I do not think the CTs have it right, but for the sake of argument...), it might help...

Just a thought

TAM:)

Yeah, it would seem that would be a wise move.
The "Playing off my names sake" does not seem to be clear enough at the start of my posts to avoid friendly fire.
:duck:

[T.A.M.]

good choice of smilie.

TAM;)

[DarkMagician]

If Silverstein wanted to bring down the WTC7 for what was in it in terms of documents, consider what would be easier...

1, Hire some top notch arsonists to burn down the place, or atleast the floors with the supersekrit organizations in them.

2. Paper shredders and large magnets and hammers...not a harddrive left, not a document unshredded.

These are just 2 alternatives that would have been much easier, and much less expensive than a CD of the building.

TAM:)
Also, they could use the "demolition" to hide the fact that such documents were destroyed this way.

Oh wait, they still put together most of the evidence on some of these cases, even putting together some convictions.

[Devil's Advocate]

The only possible motive I can think of for a controlled demolition of Building 7 would be to avoid the delay and expense of demolishing the building in the only way that is legal in NYC...piece by piece. This would have cost Silverstein a lot of money, as it would have been at least a year before he could start rebuilding.

Still, even if true, how would he assemble a team of demo experts so soon, not to mention those who would be willing to go into a dangerously unstable building that is on fire? Wouldn't it be better to pay off the firefighters to stop fighting the fire, and let it burn down?

And when they think about that, the reply is, "See? That PROVES they were already planted because no one would have went into the building with it the way it was, plus there was not enough time to rig it for demo. Thanks for proving 9/11 was an inside job, lizard aliens, beam weapons ,etc"

[aggle-rithm]

The DoD announced on 9/10/01 that they were missing 3.2 Trillion dollars. There was an internal investigation taking place to figure out where the money had gone. Where was that investigation taking place? Right where flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

Let's assume that the crash into the Pentagon was done to cover up wrongdoing. The only problem with this plan is that the wrongdoing executed to cover up the original wrongdoing is even worse. Now you have to cover this up. I would expect, then, if they would continue to follow this tactic to its logical conclusion, you would see an ever-escalating series of buildings being destroyed by various means to cover up the fact that buildings were being destroyed to cover up the destruction of the buildings by various means. All of this would have been initiated by the need to cover up a massive failure of an overburdened accounting system.

Haven't they heard of paper shredders?

[DarkMagician]

Let's assume that the crash into the Pentagon was done to cover up wrongdoing. The only problem with this plan is that the wrongdoing executed to cover up the original wrongdoing is even worse. Now you have to cover this up. I would expect, then, if they would continue to follow this tactic to its logical conclusion, you would see an ever-escalating series of buildings being destroyed by various means to cover up the fact that buildings were being destroyed to cover up the destruction of the buildings by various means. All of this would have been initiated by the need to cover up a massive failure of an overburdened accounting system.

Turtles all the way down.

[Devil's Advocate]

Let's assume that the crash into the Pentagon was done to cover up wrongdoing. The only problem with this plan is that the wrongdoing executed to cover up the original wrongdoing is even worse. Now you have to cover this up. I would expect, then, if they would continue to follow this tactic to its logical conclusion, you would see an ever-escalating series of buildings being destroyed by various means to cover up the fact that buildings were being destroyed to cover up the destruction of the buildings by various means. All of this would have been initiated by the need to cover up a massive failure of an overburdened accounting system.

Haven't they heard of paper shredders?

Well, another problem is they are using the flight 77 data recorder as proof that the plane did not hit the Pentagon...so where the hell did the FDR come from? I keep forgetting about the 'Unknown Technology' of the NWO I guess.
My bad. :D

[beachnut]

1: So you just came to the knowledge you had like magic, or did you have to look at it from both sides? See what they say, then agree with or counter it through your own research and help from others?
I do seek to spark theory when there is a call for it, but not with regard to facts and evidence.
(perhaps 'play' is a bad choice of words)

2: It is paranoia, bro. Hell, Hanz even said I smelled like a CT in disguise.
:)

3:Mentality - "a habitual or characteristic mental attitude that determines how you will interpret and respond to situations"
That seems accurate to me so far. But again, that is simply my opinion based off things I have been told, attacked with, and gotten in PM's.
:D

4: I should close my mind to possibilities such as what?
I disagree before you even answer. I do not believe the path to wisdom or truth can be closed. It is a choice to seek and continue in knowledge.
If I close my mind to say, the CT movement, then I would be just like most of them. I would have to ignore what I did not want to see to further my own comfort with the twisted perception(s) I have chosen to accept, rather than the real truth that is.
A person that believes that they are never wrong just debunked themself.
Does this mean you have not discovered any facts to support any 9/11 truth conclusion?

[Devil's Advocate]

Does this mean you have not discovered any facts to support any 9/11 truth conclusion?

Nope. You holding out on me?
:D

[kookbreaker]

Well, another problem is they are using the flight 77 data recorder as proof that the plane did not hit the Pentagon...so where the hell did the FDR come from? I keep forgetting about the 'Unknown Technology' of the NWO I guess.
My bad.

See, DA, this is why we are having a problem. You are given a decent explanation for why a cover-up is unlikely, and rather than accept it and makes some comments, you sashay onto another topic in order to avoid any admission that just maybe us big meany debunkers might be right about something. You last sentence is sort of a backhanded admission that CTs might be goofy, but its not enough. You Devils Advocacy is looking far too much like troofer light.

[Eckolaker]

Even if WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition, it doesn't make sense and it never had made sense.

Unless someone brings up some good motive, no rational human being will ever be convinced about WTC7, their reactions will be: "So you were right: It was a controlled demolition, fine ... And? So What?".

Well I guess one has to ask the question, How did the building get rigged for controlled demolition? and by who? Considering it would take more then 9 hours for a 47 story building to be wired for demolition, and its extremely unlikely that a person(s) with nefarious purposes could enter that building un-noticed.

So you're saying that if NIST concludes that bldg. 7 was brought down by CD, your conclusion will still remain that fires and exterior damage brought the building down? Or will you assert that terrorists gained access to the building and filled it full of explosives?

[Devil's Advocate]

See, DA, this is why we are having a problem. You are given a decent explanation for why a cover-up is unlikely, and rather than accept it and makes some comments, you sashay onto another topic in order to avoid any admission that just maybe us big meany debunkers might be right about something. You last sentence is sort of a backhanded admission that CTs might be goofy, but its not enough. You Devils Advocacy is looking far too much like troofer light.

I have no idea where you got anything CT supportive in my post.
My original post in reply to his paper shredder I thought to be in bad taste so I took it out. I'll mail it to you. You'll understand why I did not post it.

The last part about NWO 'Unknown Technology' was my way of saying that it is the only way the the flight data recorder could have gotten into the Pentagon is through an adjusted CT theory. Implying that is all they could fall back on is secret technology that no one knows of. Because nothing known or logical could explain it being there without the plane crashing into the Pentagon.

I guess when my 'suspect status' ends, I'll be able to post and have someone read it for what it says rather than having to dissect it for council review.

[Devil's Advocate]

Well I guess one has to ask the question, How did the building get rigged for controlled demolition? and by who? Considering it would take more then 9 hours for a 47 story building to be wired for demolition, and its extremely unlikely that a person(s) with nefarious purposes could enter that building un-noticed.

So you're saying that if NIST concludes that bldg. 7 was brought down by CD, your conclusion will still remain that fires and exterior damage brought the building down? Or will you assert that terrorists gained access to the building and filled it full of explosives?

If NIST says it was a CD, then an investigation would follow. There is not point in speculating as to what it 'proved' or did not prove as far as who was behind it. It would just proved someone was. An investigation would have to find out who was behind it.
And yes, if NIST says it was for certain a CD, I would believe it.

[CHF]

Here's another really obvious problem with WTC7's "demolition."

Why would they blow it up at 5:20pm?

Even twoofers admit that wiring up the place up with explosives would have taken at least days if not weeks or months.

So why on earth would they flip the switch seven hours after the last tower came down? At 10:30am the area was covered in dust - the perfect smokescreeen. Yet they waited for the dust to clear. Why?

[DGM]

I have no idea where you got anything CT supportive in my post.
My original post in reply to his paper shredder I thought to be in bad taste so I took it out. I'll mail it to you. You'll understand why I did not post it.

The last part about NWO 'Unknown Technology' was my way of saying that it is the only way the the flight data recorder could have gotten into the Pentagon is through an adjusted CT theory. Implying that is all they could fall back on is secret technology that no one knows of. Because nothing known or logical could explain it being there without the plane crashing into the Pentagon.

I guess when my 'suspect status' ends, I'll be able to post and have someone read it for what it says rather than having to dissect it for council review.
We make these kind of remarks too. Simple put a:D after it. NWO code :D

[Devil's Advocate]

We make these kind of remarks too. Simple put a:D after it. NWO code :D

Alrighty. I'm still new to forums. I'm learning. And thanks to people like you for helping me get into the swing.

[Myriad]

On the original topic, I suspect the delay is occurring for the following reason:

The investigators set up a big honking computer model of the intiation and propagation of the collapse, and started it running. A little progress bar appeared on the screen and a few seconds later, the first pixel of the bar was filled in and a message appeared saying "Time remaining: about 17 months." So they scheduled the release of the results accordingly.

Only later did they realize that for every month that goes by, the "time remaining" only decreases by 12 days. By the time they realized this, it had already been running for a long time so they didn't want to interrupt it and start over. So they've had to push the release date back, and they're just hoping that the thing doesn't freeze before it finishes.

This happens to me all the time, on a much smaller scale. :D

And actually, though the above is a joke, I think it glances off the likely truth of the matter: the extra time is all going to additonal computation, after earlier computer simulations revealed that the initiation and propagation of the WTC7 collapse was much more complex than the towers'.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Alferd_Packer]

wtc.nist.gov/media/testimony/TestimonySept8_06.pdf

The key thing to remember is that the reason that they installed a pressurized system in the first place was to sidestep the building code restriction on how much bulk fuel was allowed to be stored on a single floor. Since there were already day tanks on the floor, they could not add more conventional gen sets. Therefore they built this elaborate fuel supply system. The system was solidly built and anchored to the building.

Unfortunately, I suspect that it was too rigid and too solid and was unable to cope with the shock of the debris impact on WTC 7.

What happened to the 12,000 gallons of fuel in the UST? It didn’t leak into the ground. It had to have burnt up. The key question is did it burn up before or after the collapse? If after, how did the pumping system survive to keep pumping?

[T.A.M.]

Welcome to the forum Alfred, and a belated welcome to Devil's Advocate. So many new members lately...but that is a good thing.

TAM:)

[Corsair 115]

4: I should close my mind to possibilities such as what?
I disagree before you even answer. I do not believe the path to wisdom or truth can be closed. It is a choice to seek and continue in knowledge.But are there no practical or reasonable limits to this open-mindedness of yours? For example, you would not close your mind to the suggestion that the Sun goes around the Earth? Or that the stars in the night sky are just holes in the crystal firmament? Surely there are some possibilities that can be discounted straight away based on the overwheling evidence available?

[PhantomWolf]

Well, another problem is they are using the flight 77 data recorder as proof that the plane did not hit the Pentagon...so where the hell did the FDR come from? I keep forgetting about the 'Unknown Technology' of the NWO I guess.
My bad. :D

Heh... The other major problem here is that the FDR data is unreadable at the time of the crash, meaning the last usuable data occured approximately 5 seconds before impact. At 300 mph that puts the aircraft a little under half a mile from the impact site not directly overhead like the PFT tried to claim.