Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
Also an educated opinion requires educational backing. Hence why i suggest you go back to school and learn how to write a research paper.
This is a serious suggestion.
Can you fund my education?
culorut
quote:
Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
If anyone is trolling its you. You keep on bringing up arguments with no facts behind them.
You would not be ridiculed if you did the following:
A) bring a solid theory or case to the table
B) have substantial supporting evidence to defend it. Scientifically based (<---- this is important!)
C) refrain from using ad hominem attacks if you are wrong, just admit it. Its ok to be wrong.
IF you keep on bantering useless things like "A MISSLE HIT THE PENTAGON AND THEY DROPPED AIRPLANE DEBRIS AT THE SITE WHILE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE SIMULTANEOUSLY BLINKED FOR A SECOND" without evidence or things along those lines, expect to be ridiculed since you are wasting the time of anyone who wants to have a meaningful discussion (if there is even one to be had in the first place).
So you're complaining about not paying attention?
evil_cookie
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
what's your view?
I think you're an idiot--and I've got evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
I'm an idiot.
richard raiban
The last few pages have been focused on "controlled demolition". A few of you are saying there is "no real hard evidence" that controlled demolition was used. Ok, lets take that aspect and put that a side for a moment. Let's assume that the building came crashing down because of the impact of both planes.
Having said that, do the usual suspects in this thread who are arguing "there is no evidence that CD was used" believe that the BUSH Administration are completely innocent and had "absolutely no involvement in the events that took place on 9/11?" I am really curious. Are you guys saying that the Bush Administration has clean hands in all of this?
Regarding CD. I am still skeptical about it even though there is no "real evidence" to prove it. What does intrigue me is the Barry Jennings story.
"Aparently Jennings was in hospital a few days before he died. Dylan Avery recently hired a PI to investigate Jennings' death and not long after, the highly paid PI refunded his money and said "never contact me again". Also, Jennings' family seemed to have dissapeared.
Jennings was trapped in WTC7 for several hours on 9/11 by an explosion on the sixth floor stairwell BEFORE either tower came down. The BBC and NIST twisted his timeline to make it seem like the explosion was the north tower coming down ... which doesn't even make sense - I mean are we supposed to believe he waited on the 23rd floor for like an hour? Also he was on the north side of the building - the opposite side that was hit. Barry died on August 19th, 2008 at the age of 53 - there's been no official cause of death. Michael Hess, who was with him at the time, was interviewed by the BBC in september of 2008 and agreed with the official timeline .... interestingly he's still alive."
Originally posted by richard raiban Regarding CD. I am still skeptical about it even though there is no "real evidence" to prove it. What does intrigue me is the Barry Jennings story.
"Aparently Jennings was in hospital a few days before he died. Dylan Avery recently hired a PI to investigate Jennings' death and not long after, the highly paid PI refunded his money and said "never contact me again". Also, Jennings' family seemed to have dissapeared.
Jennings was trapped in WTC7 for several hours on 9/11 by an explosion on the sixth floor stairwell BEFORE either tower came down. The BBC and NIST twisted his timeline to make it seem like the explosion was the north tower coming down ... which doesn't even make sense - I mean are we supposed to believe he waited on the 23rd floor for like an hour? Also he was on the north side of the building - the opposite side that was hit. Barry died on August 19th, 2008 at the age of 53 - there's been no official cause of death. Michael Hess, who was with him at the time, was interviewed by the BBC in september of 2008 and agreed with the official timeline .... interestingly he's still alive."
Richard, there are any number of things one could find in an office tower that could explode when exposed to high heat, as that which would have been produced by a -load of aviation fuel burning away uncontrolled on a neighbouring building... especially a neighbouring building that shared a water system. I wouldn't dare speculate as to what the explosion noise may have been, or even if it actually came from that tower (certainly, having interviewed hundreds of witnesses through my carear I can assure you that an individual witness accounts are often imperfect; putting it generously). It's an interesting story, no doubt; however, it hardly amounts to credible evidence of a controled demolition or even that there was, in fact, an explosion in that stairwell. Even if one believes that an explosion in the stairwell did happen then the most probable explenation would be expansion of gases inside a sealed container or rather then controlled demolition (hell even the explosion of munitions inside a weapons locker at the Secret Service office on the 9-10th floors is more probable). The long and short is that one man's uncoroborated report of an explosion (heard, not witnessed) without there being any verifiable evidence of same is not evidence that merrits any weight and even if it were the logical conclusion would not be controlled demolition.
With regard to Mr. Jennings death, I would suggest to you that if the man died in hospital (which he did) after several days of treatment for a diagnosed illness (which he did) then it is exceedingly rare that a post mortum would be done on the body. Additionally, the "no official cause of death" thing is absolute hogwash... a death certificate must give a cause of death, which then becomes the official cause. The death certificate is not public information and can only be obtained with the consent of a deceased's estate; I would suggest to you that this consent has not been obtained, which is why the official cause has not been released, as that is a far more plausable explenation then a deep reaching conspiracy.
Finally, with regard to the PI aspect... it's hearsay at best; no one knows if he actually said what he's alleged to have said, what motivated the alleged statement, what motivated the abandonment of the investigation, or even if the investigator was actually retained. Certainly, if the PI was retained, abandoned the investigation, refunded the money, and asked to never be contacted again there are any number of explenations that are more plausable then someone trying to silence the unsubstantiated account of one person.... such as "holy you're an annoying client. I don't have time for your . Here's your in' money back. Don't contact me again.... prick!" One person becoming annoyed with another seems more likely then a shady secretive group killing a man to keep him from talking to a public that isn't actually listening, no?
edit: what I'm getting at, Richard, is that while stories such as this one of Jennings may be interesting and entertaining they are not necessarally indicitive of anything. Some are using them to support a pre-conceived conclusion; however, they simply don't add to the discussion because antecdotes aren't credible evidence.
culorut
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Richard, there are any number of things one could find in an office tower that could explode when exposed to high heat, as that which would have been produced by a -load of aviation fuel burning away uncontrolled on a neighbouring building... especially a neighbouring building that shared a water system. I wouldn't dare speculate as to what the explosion noise may have been, or even if it actually came from that tower (certainly, having interviewed hundreds of witnesses through my carear I can assure you that an individual witness accounts are often imperfect; putting it generously). It's an interesting story, no doubt; however, it hardly amounts to credible evidence of a controled demolition or even that there was, in fact, an explosion in that stairwell. Even if one believes that an explosion in the stairwell did happen then the most probable explenation would be expansion of gases inside a sealed container or rather then controlled demolition (hell even the explosion of munitions inside a weapons locker at the Secret Service office on the 9-10th floors is more probable). The long and short is that one man's uncoroborated report of an explosion (heard, not witnessed) without there being any verifiable evidence of same is not evidence that merrits any weight and even if it were the logical conclusion would not be controlled demolition.
With regard to Mr. Jennings death, I would suggest to you that if the man died in hospital (which he did) after several days of treatment for a diagnosed illness (which he did) then it is exceedingly rare that a post mortum would be done on the body. Additionally, the "no official cause of death" thing is absolute hogwash... a death certificate must give a cause of death, which then becomes the official cause. The death certificate is not public information and can only be obtained with the consent of a deceased's estate; I would suggest to you that this consent has not been obtained, which is why the official cause has not been released, as that is a far more plausable explenation then a deep reaching conspiracy.
Finally, with regard to the PI aspect... it's hearsay at best; no one knows if he actually said what he's alleged to have said, what motivated the alleged statement, what motivated the abandonment of the investigation, or even if the investigator was actually retained. Certainly, if the PI was retained, abandoned the investigation, refunded the money, and asked to never be contacted again there are any number of explenations that are more plausable then someone trying to silence the unsubstantiated account of one person.... such as "holy you're an annoying client. I don't have time for your . Here's your in' money back. Don't contact me again.... prick!" One person becoming annoyed with another seems more likely then a shady secretive group killing a man to keep him from talking to a public that isn't actually listening, no?
edit: what I'm getting at, Richard, is that while stories such as this one of Jennings may be interesting and entertaining they are not necessarally indicitive of anything. Some are using them to support a pre-conceived conclusion; however, they simply don't add to the discussion because antecdotes aren't credible evidence.
There is no doubt certain things in WTC building 7 might have exploded with the office fires which did sustain in certain areas. It's just that these type of explosions and fires do not cause buildings to crumble to the ground in a manner that has only been accomplished in the history of mankind by means of controlled demolition. Explosions were heard by hundreds of people not just Barry Jennings, most of their testimonies if not all were left out of the official reports.
Fire is sporadic and in order for a symmetrical collapse of WTC building 7 to happen the fire would have had to sever the support columns all at exactly the same time. We know controlled demolition can do this and fires cannot. NIST's final report concludes WTC 7 collapsed due to sporadic fires.
Jet fuel burns off rapidly, there was no direct path between WTC building 1 which stood over 350 feet away from WTC building 7. The debris or fires from WTC building 1 would have had to travel that distance and straight through WTC building 6 to get to WTC building 7.
I'm questioning the impossible things the official reports and stories are trying to pass off as believable. They completely omitted and ignored more information then all of their books and reports stacked up together.
culorut
quote:
Originally posted by evil_cookie
I think you're an idiot--and I've got evidence.
Not really, if you had some sort of legitimate backing to your reasoning you might have had a good shot at it. Otherwise it just looks like more meaningless stroking on your keyboard.
Maybe writing that twice will work for you.
Moral Hazard
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
There is no doubt certain things in WTC building 7 might have exploded with the office fires which did sustain in certain areas. It's just that these type of explosions and fires do not cause buildings to crumble to the ground in a manner that has only been accomplished in the history of mankind by means of controlled demolition. Explosions were heard by hundreds of people not just Barry Jennings, most of their testimonies if not all were left out of the official reports.
The explosion Jennings claimed to have heard was prior to the collapse, agreed? Richard suggested that this is evidence of controlled demolition. I have just argued that it is not evidence of controlled demolition, as we seem to agree there are many things in an office building that can explode when exposed to heat. Nothing I said was an argument against the possibility of controlled demolition (there are plenty of them but I didn't advance one), just that this story should not be confused as evidence.
quote:
Fire is sporadic and in order for a symmetrical collapse of WTC building 7 to happen the fire would have had to sever the support columns all at exactly the same time. We know controlled demolition can do this and fires cannot. NIST's final report concludes WTC 7 collapsed due to sporadic fires.
Your theory is flawed in that a symmetrical collapse can be the result of pancake type failure of one floor causing the floor deck below to collapse as well. In order for such a thing to happen there needs to be significant fire damage to horizontal load bearing members on one floor. If you can produce an engineer's report that concludes something different from an engineer that had access to the same evidence as the official investigators then it may be worth considering; however, the opinions of high school physics teachers examining video tape does not carry the same weight as those of engineers examining the physical evidence.
Claude Hughes
quote:
Originally posted by richard raiban
The last few pages have been focused on "controlled demolition". A few of you are saying there is "no real hard evidence" that controlled demolition was used. Ok, lets take that aspect and put that a side for a moment. Let's assume that the building came crashing down because of the impact of both planes.
Having said that, do the usual suspects in this thread who are arguing "there is no evidence that CD was used" believe that the BUSH Administration are completely innocent and had "absolutely no involvement in the events that took place on 9/11?" I am really curious. Are you guys saying that the Bush Administration has clean hands in all of this?
This question has been asked and not one "usual suspect" (as Richard calls them) has answered this question
Anyone?
Moral Hazard
quote:
Originally posted by Claude Hughes
This question has been asked and not one "usual suspect" (as Richard calls them) has answered this question
Anyone?
Sure, I'll answer. It's pretty clear and widely accepted that warnings of an impending attack, even rather specific warnings, were ignored by the Bush Administration. Why, I can't speculate; however, there was most certainly an apparent lack of action on their part with regard to this intellegence. Is that involvement, no, it's negligence; however, the phrase "are there hands clean" would normally mean they have no culpability, I would disagree with that. Am I willing to make the greater leap that they took no appreciable action in hopes of a pre-text to war presenting itself, no; however, they certainly did use the attacks as a pre-text to a war that Rumsfeld and Cheney were planning since they were acting as consultants prior to GDubs bid for the white house. I think I should be clear here... what I've stated above is a long in' way from "it was an inside job as an excuse for war."
culorut
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
The explosion Jennings claimed to have heard was prior to the collapse, agreed? Richard suggested that this is evidence of controlled demolition. I have just argued that it is not evidence of controlled demolition, as we seem to agree there are many things in an office building that can explode when exposed to heat. Nothing I said was an argument against the possibility of controlled demolition (there are plenty of them but I didn't advance one), just that this story should not be confused as evidence.
That's just your opinion, you feel it was not important to leave out Barry Jenning's account and the hundreds of other testimonies in the official reports from the people that were actually there which stated otherwise.
It was and has always been important, a huge percentage of the populace tends to agree.
quote:
Your theory is flawed in that a symmetrical collapse can be the result of pancake type failure of one floor causing the floor deck below to collapse as well. In order for such a thing to happen there needs to be significant fire damage to horizontal load bearing members on one floor. If you can produce an engineer's report that concludes something different from an engineer that had access to the same evidence as the official investigators then it may be worth considering; however, the opinions of high school physics teachers examining video tape does not carry the same weight as those of engineers examining the physical evidence.
The pancake theory is flawed, a structure cannot fall to the ground at nearly the rate of free fall due to fires. You're right that fires would have had to damage the support columns in order for it to happen but fires cannot do this to all the support columns at the same exact moment. If what you say is true the collapse would not have been symmetrical. Better still fire has never caused a symmetrical collapse of a building at the rate of free fall before or after 9/11.
You're asking to provide the same type of evidence the professionals did but what you fail to understand is that we are, NIST and FEMA are being questioned based on what they told us. It's their conclusions and proposed evidence that is asking people to believe in miracles.
I don't buy it and it most certainly doesn't mean others shouldn't be subjective. NIST and FEMA should be held accountable for their outrageous explanations just like everyone else.
culorut
quote:
Originally posted by Claude Hughes
This question has been asked and not one "usual suspect" (as Richard calls them) has answered this question
