My goodness--the sheer nonsense. You're saying the building falling from structural damage is the "same thing" as it NOT falling from structural damage?? Alrighty then.triplemultiplex wrote:Whatever, same thing as far as I'm concerned.
I love the way you presume to define what is the "conventional narrative". Apparently, you believe the 'conventional narrative' is that version that is "reported" on Good Morning America with Ken and Barbie? Wow.triplemultiplex wrote:a rejection of the 'conventional' narrative that a bunch of terrorists jacked some planes, crashed them into buildings, and they fell down.
The absolute top governmental authorities on 9/11 (the 9/11 Commission commissioners) would have a much stronger claim on what the conventional view should be...and 7 out of 10 of those guys have repudiated the Report...therefore, the "conventional" view is that we don't have a clue as to what happened on 9/11!
Another group which could lay a strong claim as to 9/11 "convention"...the actual experts on the various facets of 9/11 who have actually researched in-depth on these matters. And (ready for some bad news?) among actual 9/11 experts...the numbers, once again, run about 1000-1 against the 9/11 Commission Report...in resounding agreement with the 7-out-of-10 commissioners' rejection of their own report.
If having "conventional" views is that important to you...I'm only trying to help out!
Again, the sheer nonsense. The 47-story WTC7 was one of the tallest buildings in America. When a structural behemoth like this collapses straight down into its own footprint at virtual free-fall speed...no need to go "anomaly hunting", my friend. Good grief.triplemultiplex wrote:, focusing in on such a tiny event in the context of the entire disaster is an easy way to get distracted...We skeptics call that "anomaly hunting."
What "weight"? How much weight? What ARE you talking about? The examination of WTC7's collapse is simply a part of any overall study of 9/11.triplemultiplex wrote:Giving so much weight to a small inconsistency...
Yes, it is a bit of an attention-getter...because the collapse is absolutely and utterly anomalous and utterly unexplained...except for placed explosives. It's a nice lead-off, I'll grant you.
Do you have a source? I have it on good and documented authority...fighter jets were scrambled 75 to 150 times per year for at least ten years leading up to 9/11.triplemultiplex wrote:Prior to 9/11 the United States did not keep armed fighter jets on immediate standby for any potential threats.
Not to mention the very high profile case involving golfer Payne Stewart. Jets were scrambled within mere minutes upon the report that his jet was off course. This was 1999.
Robin Hordon, FAA air traffic controller for 12 years at the Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center:
"FAA and NORAD continuously monitor our skies and fighter planes and pilots are on the ready 24/7 to handle these situations. Jet fighters typically intercept any suspect plane over the United States within 10 - 15 minutes of notification of a problem."
"This type of "immediate, high speed, high priority and emergency" scramble had been happening regularly approximately 75 - 150 times per year for ten years." LINK
It doesn't require "hyper-competency". It's a matter of routine military procedures.
I'd challenge you to visit the Pilots For 9/11 Truth. And the "pilots and aviation professionals" page over at PatriotsQuestion9/11 site.
Once again, among those aviation experts who have actually studied and examined 9/11...they have come out at least 100-1 (more like 1000-1) in favor of rejecting the "official story".
Good Morning America
Because that's the only, or primary, source that muslims crashed planes into the twin towers? No, and neither was the 9/11 commission. People knew what happened long before the first of those came out.
7 out of 10 of those guys have repudiated the Report
Problems in the official report does not mean your alternative to it is correct. This is like creationists arguing evolution is false because Gould and Dawkins argue; the details may be in dispute whie the general theory is safe. The report could have been badly made, and the government could have wanted to hide things (like incompetence) without the main story being false.
Your conspiracy covers for the negligence of the Bush administration that let 9/11 happen. You are the useful idiot for the real cover-up, not of a conspiracy but of stupidity and incompetence.
The 47-story WTC7 was one of the tallest buildings in America.
Notice how only 7 of those stories are shown on the videos of the collapse, used to show it fell at free-fall speed.
collapses straight down into its own footprint
All the lungs of rescue workers and city blocks of New York dust and debris from the towers fell on now "the footprint" of the towers? I guess tower 7 was in the footprint of the twin towers too, given debris light the fires that caused that building to fall.
the collapse is absolutely and utterly anomalous and utterly unexplained
Except for all the fire. Steel like all materials melt. Shoddy building work is more likely to account for it, than a grand conspiracy. All conspiracy sites show the north side (which wasn't facing the towers and was relatively undamaged) not the south side of the towers (which was hit by the debris that did not fall in the "footprint" as you say) and burned as shown above. People said a steel ship like the titanic couldn't sink, steel buildings can fall in a fire it's hubris to deny it.
The fires lasted SIX hours before the eventual collapse. At 5:20:33 pm EDT the building started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, and at 5:21:10 pm EDT it collapsed completely. Not quite free-fall speed. Notice how late in the day it fell, compared to when the fires on the lower floors started. It had ample time to do unprecedented damage to a steel structure's lower floors, why was the damage unprecedented, because the fire brigade had bigger sh*t to deal with next door and were caught unprepaired.
The experts say the fireproofing wasn't thick enough and wasn't as thick as safety regulations require. If steel requires fireproofing, how can it not buckle under fire? You're a USEFUL IDIOT to shoddy workers who built a sub-par building that collapsed.
The trusses were bolted on with 2 weak bolts, a weak point and again unsafe shoddy workmanship you're a useful idiot excusing.
When you say it's never happened before, how many other similarly sized buildings, hit by a strong force, and left on fire for hours, do you have to compare it with?
Being a pilot makes you an expert on this now? What next, being a fireman makes you an expert?
triplemultiplex wrote:Prior to 9/11 the United States did not keep armed fighter jets on immediate standby for any potential threats.
In other words...you don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about, yet you take a very harsh stance, including lots of discourteous name-calling. That's pretty ironic, no?triplemultiplex wrote:...7 WTC was severely damaged by the collapse of the other towers...
Likewise, you don't have a clue, to be frank. First, you point me to a video from this "dprjones" phony in which he inserts both feet into his mouth in arguing that WTC7 collapsed due to structural damage caused by the collapsing twin towers.Unassumption wrote: Except for all the fire. Steel like all materials melt.
Now you switch your story on a dime...arguing that the building "melted". lol
I honestly don't know whether I should feel sorry for you or something? I mean...your thinking is so addled. I truly wonder if maybe there's a 'problem' here. Any other posters want to help me out? Maybe a private message, if there is such an option here at South Park.Unassumption wrote:Problems in the official report does not mean your alternative to it is correct.
When I say "addled"...this is at least the 3rd time you've recycled this false complaint about me using the commissioners' repudiation as proof of 9/11 being an inside job.
Is there a problem with short term memory loss or something? This is at least the 3rd time I am explaining I do NOT claim their repudiation as proof of an inside job.
That wasn't even the subject. The other guy (triple-something) was presuming to define what is the "conventional" version...from what he's heard reported in the mainstream. I was challenging his presumption.
The commissioners are in a much more legitimate position to define what is the" conventional" version of 9/11. And in their version...no one in official government officially knows what happened.
this false complaint about me using the commissioners' repudiation as proof of 9/11 being an inside job.
You're the one who keeps bringing it up. Either you're using it as evidence for your conspiracy, OR you're bringing it up for no goddamn reason. I'm giving you the credit of actually having a reason to post the things you post, and not throwing random words onto the screen. If you have some other reason for bringing the 9/11 commision up, I've yet to hear it.
Yes I know, you're not using it DIRECTLY as evidence of a conspiracy, you're trying to prove "the official story" has holes in it, but since I know what you're going to fill those holes with, without any extra evidence that isn't just other 'holes' you think you can make, and I also know pointing out those "holes" is motivated by your desire to fill them with your pet theory, the comment is really your way of 'evidencing' your theory.
Now you switch your story on a dime...arguing that the building "melted".
It's possible for it to melt is all i said, not that it actually melted. If you're going to play the "it's possible so it happened" game so can I, but I know better so won't. It doesn't need to actually melt it for the fires to cause a collapse.
I'm not changing my story - the debris from the other tower caused the fires and other structural damage (as dprjones said) and the prolonged fires damaged the steel.
Always hated the term "conspiracy theory."
What else would we call people who believe obviously false conspiracies? It's cute you think you're not the same as people who think the devil and magic space aliens control everything because you just think the illuminati and NWO pull the strings.
I don't care what happened on 9/11 anymore
Sanest comment yet.
For those who lost someone the event will never be over but hopefully none of us had to deal with that.
The rest of us have spent a decade dealing with it's aftermath, it's probably time to move on. Especially now the wars it started, which are more likely to have killed someone we know, are rounding down.
Lock away and let's bury this thing?
skurtz wrote:nwt000 wrote:Get your trolling ass out of here!
I'm more friendlier drinking some espresso.
I only get those two choices...lol? It's for neither of those reasons.Unassumption wrote:Either you're using it as evidence for your conspiracy, OR you're bringing it up for no...reason.
I bring it up because it destroys the fantasy...that Bin Laden and "Arab terrorists" are the explanation for 9/11.
I repeat this fact about the commissioners because TripleMulti had trotted out his fantasy about the "conventional" understanding of 9/11.
The Bin Laden theory is concocted out of thin air. Both you and Triple believe this mainstream-media-concocted fable. The rejection of the 9/11 Report is proof that, so far, there is NO official understanding of what happened.
Each time you guys trot out your thin-air-concocted fantasies about Bin Laden...I point to the rejection of the official government report...not to prove my personal beliefs about 9/11...but to simply point out the two of you believe in a fantasy.
You two believe the Bin Laden yarn...because Ken and Barbie on Good Morning America told you to believe it. I find that sad.
My belief in the "9/11 inside job" model doesn't arise from the commissioners' rejection of their report. It comes from evidence presented by thousands of experts. I've linked to many such sources in this thread.
Wait a minute. You're actually trying to double-talk...in writing? That's not going to go very well. I can go to the dprjones video link which you offered as the explanation for WTC7's collapse (structural damage)...then I can go to your above comment in which you've changed your story. Your first position was that "structural damage" caused the collapse. Now you're saying "fire" caused the collapse.Unassumption wrote:I'm not changing my story - the debris from the other tower caused the fires and other structural damage (as dprjones said) and the prolonged fires damaged the steel. .
There you go again...for the umpteenth time: Forbidding me from making presumptuous leaps which I'm not even making in the first place (commissioners rejection = controlled demolition -- lol)...Unassumption wrote:What else would we call people who believe obviously false conspiracies?
...but then you give yourself all the freedom in the world to make crazy leaps...such as this one about something being "obviously false". Pure intellectual hypocrisy.
Widely-held views about "American corporations reaping profits from wars" and "the government trying to expand its powers" is on par with "magic space aliens" in your mind?? Oh my stars and garters...lol. Where in the world do you get your national and world news? The back of a Cap'n Crunch cereal box?Unassumption wrote:It's cute you think you're not the same as people who think the devil and magic space aliens control everything
OK. Lock me out then, I guess. Or "lock the thread" or whatever. If this is the last log-in I'm being allowed then...thanks for the opportunity here.Big-Will wrote: Please be on your way...don't come back.
The topic of conspiracies (like religion and UFO sightings) hold bags of theories, evidence fragments, ideas and concepts which allow others to visualize and reconstruct their own understanding and adopt other people's idea of how (name a conspiracy) happened and why. instead of attempting to question one's bag of holes. (an idea or theory with holes or flaws) such as Marxism (the class gap thingy). try and understand, (this is confusing sorry) why and how they come to that resolution and question how. and suggest your own ideas and allow them to question your concepts. the problem here is that there are so many ideas, flaws, issues and vantage points which have caused people to swear by their eyesight and research and reject others.
What i am trying to get at is that civil conversation comes from collection of ideas and test warping it to fit new ideas. the reason we feel you must quiet is because you appear to me bashing other people up with your own judge's gavel of ideas, concepts and theories without stopping to wonder why they have ending their statement. you feel that you are right. the problem is. no one is right. we are all gaining ideas of our own research and understanding. and that is where the theories come in and the theories are spouting out of an even more clouded subject. conspiracies. and conspiracies are theories.
It is a Japanese film and it won the Academy Award for best foreign film in 1950.
It is called: Rashomon.
Here are two links. The first is to wiki re: The Rashomon Effect.
The second is to the IMDB listing about the film.
A crime was committed. Four witness saw what happened. But to hear their stories you wonder what exactly the facts are. That's human nature. From page one of this thread:
RedStone2 wrote:And as you can see in the other thread, the original post is just some silly sloppy generalizations which I then answered with specific facts. That's all I'm interested in...facts.
Let's talk about facts after you watch Rashomon.
That hypothesis is sitting on a large mass of people's ideas and theories. what you have simply done is pluck out the favorable data from the masses and masses of concepts that have surfaced surrounding a topic in question. that is where our ideas come from. some larger than others due to larger amounts of research and personal opinions and others are simply ideas or speculations. I shall give you an example of each demonstrating it's strength. the big bang theory and the 9/11 theory with the government being behind it. These two are merrily theories, born from years of thought and plenty of research and personal research (and witness vantage points if you take zzyzx1's story into account) one theory is simply stronger than the other lets say the big bang theory, we have scientists examining rocks and wondering about stars. for the 9/11 govt. business, we have other people looking at bank notes and making hypothesis and ideas.
A theory can be believed in like a religion. Don't believe it, Don't beat them up for simply believing it.
you just gotta theorize and wonder in order to get there.
False impressions are easy to get. Stuff we've seen can be interpreted in many ways. However, if you consider everything we've seen, there's usually not that many which fit it all. Any theory can be made to fit if things we don't see are incorporated in, but we usually have to include some of that. balance is cool. People can find evidence for any idea if they look hard enough.
This isn't locked yet so I guess I'll reply?
Your first position was that "structural damage" caused the collapse. Now you're saying "fire" caused the collapse.
How do you see those as mutually exclusive? The debris caused the fire which then caused the collapse. The debris also caused structural dammage, so both are contributing causes. Not every event has one single cause which is both the ultimate and proximate cause.
I bring it up because it destroys the fantasy...
It implies something may have been hidden, not what was hidden. Their incompitence seems more likely what they were trying to hide, as this would not require the event to change.
Being widely held does not make it more likely.
You're not saying something as simple as those statements, you're saying the "government" (whoever that includes) brought down 9/11. Since people holding such ideas tend to resort to "the whole cold war was a lie" (or aliens) when pushed to explain inconsistencies, it's ultimately about as valid. The aliens are less likely, but the mindset of people believing these things seems similar enough that a word describing them is useful if not abused.
Witness vantage points can mostly be eliminated, by focusing on the objective facts.
We have to put our limited resources on a limited number of theories. Even though everything is possible, we have to go with what's most probable. Even if we can't find one explanation we can usually narrow it down.
I should probably stop posting here, until someone quotes me again lol.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests