Nico did a lot of great research on 9/11 suspects quite early on. Now he's off in bluescreen land and likes to talk a lot of divisive trash about other activists and researchers. I think he's even made up a couple scorecards...
Arianna Huffington made a very interesting analogy in her blog yesterday. She states in part:
..."Please. Does anyone really believe that the president, a man who wouldn't testify in front of the 9/11 Commission without Cheney by his side, suddenly woke up one morning and thought: "I need to selectively declassify the paragraphs at the bottom of page 24 of the 2002 NIE so we can perpetuate the myth that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium from Africa."...
Huffinton even imbeds some links in her article that go back to Bush/Cheney "testifying" about 9/11 in 2004.
A respected climate scientist talks about what you all and Scholars for 9/11 Truth(sic) are all about:
April 10, 2006
Politicization of Science 101: How to Use Science to Argue Politics, Manipulate the Media, and Silence your Political Opponents
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Risk & Uncertainty | Science Policy: General
A recipe for effectively using science to advance political aims:
1. Find yourself in a highly political, high-stakes debate that involves considerations of science (or more generally, intelligence).
2. Seek to turn the political debate into a debate about science or information, that is, scientize the politics.
3. Seek to associate your preferred political outcomes with a clear consensus of the relevant expert community, even if this means oversimplifying the issue. This strategy will work best if you use the term “consensus” (scare quotes!) in an undefined manner. Even if there are legitimate areas of uncertainty or debate, keep the focus on “consensus.”
4. Disparagingly characterize anyone who disagrees with your preferred political perspective as a “skeptic” or “contrarian” or “outlying perspective.” Don’t allow any distinction between the typically few consensus areas of knowledge and typically many more areas that have some greater uncertainty. If uncertainty is raised as a concern, emphasize the need for preemptive action in the face of uncertainty.
5. Do whatever you can to associate your opponents with Republicans, Democrats, industry, environmentalists, or a lack of patriotism. The latter is particularly effective.
6. Argue that the media is dealing with mistruths by allowing your political opponents voice because they are not part of the science/information “consensus” (remember, if consensus is undefined you can use it against just about anyone who disagrees with you). Ask the media to favor your political agenda under these circumstances. (If the media can be tricked into thinking that claims about information are the same as political claims, then they just might fall for it, and take sides! Yours!)
If successful, this strategy will allow you to use science to argue for your favored political outcome while denying your opponent the opportunity to do the same, and the beauty of it is that you need not admit to being political at all, simply standing behind the truth, and who could be against the truth?
Two good examples of this strategy in practice are familiar to many of us, and in many ways the political dynamics of information/science are quite similar:
A. Climate science/politics.
B. Bush Administration arguments for going to war in Iraq.
The politicization of science is a bipartisan affair. The real question is whether politicization such as described above is OK (a) in no cases, (b) in all cases, or (c) in those cases in which the ends justify the means.
The more fundamental question that I have about this dynamic, which despite the tongue-in-cheekiness displayed above, is what effect such a strategy -- which I think exists in many venues -- has on the practice of science and the long-term sustainability of science as an effective contributor to policy and politics. Do we risk something in the long-term by using science as a Trojan Horse for political gain in the short term?
Two good examples of this strategy in practice are familiar to many of us, and in many ways the political dynamics of information/science are quite similar:
A. Climate science/politics.
B. Bush Administration arguments for going to war in Iraq.
Global warming is real..lets debate the science
And Bush did use faulty intelligence, state sponsored terrorism, and the media to go to war..lets debate those facts as well
I heard on the radio this morning during a quick blurb about the Moussaoui trial that they will not air the Flight 93 tapes. Gee, we never saw that coming, huh? I am still having a tough time getting my head around that guy Hanson saying he talked to his son as 175 hit the South Tower. Is he flat out lying?
3. Seek to associate your preferred political outcomes with a clear consensus of the relevant expert community, even if this means oversimplifying the issue. This strategy will work best if you use the term “consensus” (scare quotes!) in an undefined manner. Even if there are legitimate areas of uncertainty or debate, keep the focus on “consensus.”
4. Disparagingly characterize anyone who disagrees with your preferred political perspective as a “skeptic” or “contrarian” or “outlying perspective.” Don’t allow any distinction between the typically few consensus areas of knowledge and typically many more areas that have some greater uncertainty. If uncertainty is raised as a concern, emphasize the need for preemptive action in the face of uncertainty.
5. Do whatever you can to associate your opponents with Republicans, Democrats, industry, environmentalists, or a lack of patriotism. The latter is particularly effective.
Sounds like what people try to do to 9/11 researchers:
3. misrepresent that there is "consensus" around the "official theory"
4. characterize those who disagree with the "official theory" as "skeptics" or worse, "conspiracy theorists"
5. label 9/11 skeptics as "ultra-left wing nuts"
benthere (not verified) on Tue, 04/11/2006 - 11:30pm.
6. Argue that the media is dealing with mistruths by allowing your political opponents voice because they are not part of the science/information “consensus” (remember, if consensus is undefined you can use it against just about anyone who disagrees with you). Ask the media to favor your political agenda under these circumstances. (If the media can be tricked into thinking that claims about information are the same as political claims, then they just might fall for it, and take sides! Yours!)
6. Have people like Charlie Sheen on the Entertainment News shows, while ignoring Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, etc. so the public can think that it's only politically motivated Hollywood liberals who disagree with the official version.
Thanks S. King, I think I'm starting to see what you were trying to say.
benthere (not verified) on Tue, 04/11/2006 - 11:37pm.
Speaking of Iran, the word is out that Bush wants to NUKE them. Some senior military officers are set to resign unless Bush takes the nuclear option off the table. Could there be a military coupe in the works? Mike Malloy of Air America thinks so. Check out his Monday night show. http://www.whiterosesociety.org/Malloy.html
maddog (not verified) on Wed, 04/12/2006 - 12:54am.
these testimonies are full of holes. A crashing plane doesn't give off a pressure wave like an explosive....half of these testimonies talk about the blast rocking the hotel or rocking something else.
Suck it up and deal with it Mike :)
Loud Studios (not verified) on Wed, 04/12/2006 - 1:10am.
Gee.... I don't know how anyone would find easily bought eyewitnesses in the cesspool of deceit and whoredom that is Washington, D.C. : )
Shanksville PA has eyewitnesses that absolutely swear to seeing the plane going East and West at the same instant. This is just a guess, but I'd say someone is probably lying.
The only reason anyone says it was flying West is because the pinheads that dug the phony crater oriented it upside down, as if the plane was flying East-West. So now they're stuck with either changing the flight path direction, or having some stooges say it flipped over before it nose-dived. According to my research, they're sticking with both - it was flying West right-side-up and it was flying East upside-down, at the same time.
D. Douglas (not verified) on Wed, 04/12/2006 - 2:00am.
That Chavez video was fun to watch, but I'm a bit suspicious of how confrontational this guy is. It's too reminiscent of the clown in Iran, pretending he can stand up to the combined militaries of the U.S. and Isreal, just beggin to be nuked.
I think the crazy Iran Pres. is a plant by our intel, no other explanation makes sense. Came out of nowhere - how come these new 'leaders' are always like ex-used car dealers 5 years ago? We have too many operative fingers in these places to not suspect a major ruse.
D. Douglas (not verified) on Wed, 04/12/2006 - 3:58am.
> Is there a "who's who" of 9/11 research?
> Is there a scorecard for credibility, validity, etc.?
I like to grab this opportunity to plug Paul Thompson's 911 Timeline, which at least is a very credible and valid source for "who's who" on 9/11. I think the man (and his site) is not getting enough credit for his thorough and unbiased approach to the subject.
Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 04/12/2006 - 4:44am.
"Very informative statements you provide S. King... care to elaborate?"
Sure. Show me the science and physics that conclusively backs up their assertion that, "Physics research establishes that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings."
Show me the physics research.
Show me how WTC 2's collapse time of 13+ seconds is anywhere near a free-fall speed of 9+ seconds.
Show me their evidence.
S. King (not verified) on Wed, 04/12/2006 - 8:10am.
I think the crazy Iran Pres. is a plant by our intel, no other explanation makes sense. Came out of nowhere - how come these new 'leaders' are always like ex-used car dealers 5 years ago? We have too many operative fingers in these places to not suspect a major ruse.
D. Douglas
Your suspicions are legitimate but let me offer two "explanations".
1. Domestic politics.
Coming out strong against the US is very popular with their base of support (legitimately) and in uncertain times with the blatant threats of the US, a strong leader with srtong words is what they want( they remember our past involvement in their countries.)
2. Foreign policy.
Keeping the rhetoric on the front pages and in public view is better than the behind the scenes covert military and economic sabatoge that they have experienced in the past. The overtly and publicly aggressive posture of the US is whats new, not our intentions. This is what pisses off our miltary. The leaders of these countries want our actions and intentions aired and judged in the international press for all to see. What was covert is now overt.
Radical Pragmatist (not verified) on Wed, 04/12/2006 - 8:24am.
It's quite amusing to watch the amount of ignorance afflicting those here.
But, back to the real world:
"On Wednesday, prosecutors plan to air for the first time publicly the cockpit voice recording of passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 who rushed to take back that plane before it crashed in a Pennsylvania field.
"Thirteen more Sept. 11 victims and family members strode to the witness stand Tuesday as jurors endured a third day of graphic evidence of the horrors and haunting impact of the nation's worst terror attack.
"While the material was supposedly toned down in response to defense lawyers' complaints, it included videos of American Airlines Flight 77 hitting the building at 530 miles per hour and photos of charred bodies - one on a stretcher and another sitting upright in an office - of some of the 64 airline passengers and crew and 125 Pentagon workers who died that day.
"Moussaoui, who was found eligible for the death penalty last week, seemed unfazed. He smiled as an FBI agent summarized the damage to the military's headquarters, and during a recess shouted: "Burn all Pentagon next time!"
So you take a word of a man that claims him and a man that was in Britan was suppose to take over a 5th plane? If you believe that I have swamp land for you in Arizona.
You believe anything you read from old Bush don't you? Learn to think for yourself for a chance, then you might be able to carry on a reasonable conversation.
Here is something to ponder while you try to come back to the real world.
Not one plane that crashed into the WTC's went all the way through them. Yet you believe that a similar plane can go through a Cavelar reinforced main wall and 4 or 5 concrete reinforced walls in the pentagon? REALLY? They can't crash all the way through a steel and glass building, but they can a solid building?
Don't you think that there was help at the Pentagon to get through all these walls? Something like explosives in the pentagon, on the plane, or both?
There were several other buildings that had damage from WTC1 and 2 but they did not collaps. Only the WTC's, all of them. Show me any building before or after 9/11 where a steel framed building collapsed due to fire! Just ONE!
Enjoy your hunt, and if you can't produce the evidence I have requested then I submit that you have no clue what you are talking about.
How many laws are there to Newton?
What are the basic principals in the Law of Gravity? How about the Conservation of Energy?
Have fun!
RemoveBush (not verified) on Wed, 04/12/2006 - 11:46am.
S. King. You stated above that so many people knew WTC7 was going to collapse because this stuff isnt rocket science for firemen. If so why were they completely clueless when the Twin Towers collapsed? There is undisputed audio evidence that they made it to the impact area of the South Tower and said the fire could be put out with two lines and everything was under control. Also where is one video or picture that shows WTC7 with the serious damage that supposedly existed for anyone to have reached this conclusion? Compared to the history of ALL hi-rise fires includeing towering infernos none ever disintegrated like those 3 buildings. All 3 buildings went from a stable situation to total devestation in less than 15 seconds. King your ass is mine BEOOTCH!
JAYBIRD (not verified) on Wed, 04/12/2006 - 12:02pm.
"The captain of emergency medical services said "somewhere around the middle of the world trade center there was this orange and red flash coming out ... initially it was just one flash then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode ... and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides ... as far as could see these popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building" (page 15 -- pdf file; Google's web version is here)"
"Similiarly, the Assistant Fire Commissioner stated "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?” . In the same statement, the Assistant Commissioner recounts how a lieutenant firefighter he spoke with independently verified the flashes."
Anyway, anyone who claims there was nothing out of the ordinary happened that day regarding the building collapses has exposed themselves as false opposition with no interest in the truth, any truth, no matter what that might be.
somebigguy (not verified) on Wed, 04/12/2006 - 9:10pm.
"Not one plane that crashed into the WTC's went all the way through them. Yet you believe that a similar plane can go through a Cavelar reinforced main wall and 4 or 5 concrete reinforced walls in the pentagon? REALLY? They can't crash all the way through a steel and glass building, but they can a solid building?"
By that logic, you shouldn't be complaining that a 757 could not have hit the Pentagon becuase "there was no wreakage on the lawn."
You're welcome to present an analysis from any qualified structural engineer supporting your assertion.
I can wait. After all, I've waited 4 years already.
S. King (not verified) on Wed, 04/12/2006 - 10:19pm.
"There is undisputed audio evidence that they made it to the impact area of the South Tower and said the fire could be put out with two lines and everything was under control."
This is an old one. I'm surprised you would repeat it.
If you had bothered to actually follow through, you'd have realized that the uncontrolled fires were on the floors ABOVE the 78th floor where there were no firemen. No firefighting effort got anywhere near the major fires.
Now, ask yourself, why do you not know that? You can see it for yourself. Are you content to let yourself just rely on conspiracy nonsense? Shouldn't you be questionning that?
"Also where is one video or picture that shows WTC7 with the serious damage that supposedly existed for anyone to have reached this conclusion?"
Are you one of those who still believe that in the absence of video or pictures, that no other evidence exists? Are you content to dimsiss all other evidence including the reports from the firemen who were there?
"Compared to the history of ALL hi-rise fires includeing towering infernos none ever disintegrated like those 3 buildings. All 3 buildings went from a stable situation to total devestation in less than 15 seconds. King your ass is mine BEOOTCH!"
You're going to show us examples of any building that was comparable to the WTC towers in material and construction, suffered structural damage from aircraft and debris (WTC 7), right?
You see how easy it is to debunk those who haven't a clue what they are talking about? Now, go out and learn something before you speak, Jaybird, ok?
S. King (not verified) on Wed, 04/12/2006 - 10:28pm.
why did you ignore his point of issue that flight 77 supposively penetrated multiple rings of the recently renovated pentagon by associating that logic with nothing being on the lawn? they have nothing to do with each other do they?
So they "pulled" the building as in evacuation and then psychically willed the building to fall into a tiny rubble pile without damageing surrounding buildings rite next door. Interesting in the very same doccumentary Silverstein tells his little "pull it" story (America Rebuilds) there are demolition engineers explaining how they are bringing down remains of other buildings in the WTC complex with explosives useing the term "pull it" to describe controlled demolitions. This can be seen in "911 Martial Law" for free on question911.com. What I dont understand is why they didnt just bring down the remains of these buildings by liteing random fires? Its alot cheaper and any idiot includeing you King could do it.
JAYBIRD (not verified) on Wed, 04/12/2006 - 10:31pm.
"Anyway, anyone who claims there was nothing out of the ordinary happened that day regarding the building collapses has exposed themselves as false opposition with no interest in the truth, any truth, no matter what that might be."
The example of your 911Blogger.com is to make unsupported assertions, repeat debunked conspiracy nonsense, never be able to prove what you say, and automatically dismiss inconvenient evidence.
It is no wonder that this site has the reputation of harboring the largest single group of profoundly ignorant people who spend most of their time tightening their blinders.
You should thank the few of us trying to wake you up.
S. King (not verified) on Wed, 04/12/2006 - 10:32pm.
"why did you ignore his point of issue that flight 77 supposively penetrated multiple rings of the recently renovated pentagon by associating that logic with nothing being on the lawn? they have nothing to do with each other do they?"
Sure they do.
9/11 conspiracists claim a 757 could not have hit the Pentagon because no wreakage was seen on the front lawn.
And they also claim a 757 would have disintegrated when it hit the Pentagon leaving no wreakage on the lawn.
Take your pick. In both cases, 9/11 conspiracists REFUSE to look at or outright dismiss the overwhelming evidence that AA 77 hit the Pentagon and did the damage we see.
It's the nature of the beast.
S. King (not verified) on Wed, 04/12/2006 - 10:37pm.
King - are you really this ignorant or are you paid to be here?
" "why did you ignore his point of issue that flight 77 supposively penetrated multiple rings of the recently renovated pentagon by associating that logic with nothing being on the lawn? they have nothing to do with each other do they?"
Sure they do.
9/11 conspiracists claim a 757 could not have hit the Pentagon because no wreakage was seen on the front lawn.
And they also claim a 757 would have disintegrated when it hit the Pentagon leaving no wreakage on the lawn.
Take your pick. In both cases, 9/11 conspiracists REFUSE to look at or outright dismiss the overwhelming evidence that AA 77 hit the Pentagon and did the damage we see.
It's the nature of the beast.
S. King | 04.12.06 - 9:42 am | # "
Notice that you NEVER once answered the question. I never brought up one comment about the lawn. You make statements that are not supported at all. I have provided you with a very simple question, yet you avoid answering it. But then again, you won't be able to because there is no way that a plane could go through the walls of the Pentagon and not through the WTC.
Try and explain that? Once again for your simple little brain....
You have a building that is made up of steel beams and glass, no plane goes all the way through them.
You have a building that has just been renivated in the area hit by Cavelar reinforced Concrete and several internal concrete reinforced walls.
How does a plane similar in build go through a solid building, but can't through a virtually air building?
Common Mr. Knowitall!
RemoveBush (not verified) on Wed, 04/12/2006 - 10:55pm.
there was no hypocrisy in my statement. i was just wondering why the need for the trash talking or 'holier than though' attitude? perhaps that is why you got banned before?
Kings post responding to me went up while I was doing my previous so I will respond one last time so others interested in the truth can observe how he keeps danceing around my questions. Im debunked? I said the fireman made it to the impact zone in the South Tower. This is where they made their observations that the fires could be put out with two lines. I understand there were fires above the impact zone. At least you admit there is no doccumented evidence of serious damage to WTC7 in your above post. All one needs to do is read your above responses to my comments to see your games are as obvious as a fart in the car. Interested folks should watch 911revisited (911revisited.com) to see what firemen had to say reguarding the destruction of these buildings.
JAYBIRD (not verified) on Wed, 04/12/2006 - 11:16pm.
"there was no hypocrisy in my statement. i was just wondering why the need for the trash talking or 'holier than though' attitude?"
I see the hypocrisy in that you aren't criticizing the likes of RemoveBush and others who are doing wosre than King. At least he's trying to light a fire under you guys to get you to think for yourselves.
Doug Jansen (not verified) on Wed, 04/12/2006 - 11:41pm.
"there is no doccumented evidence of serious damage to WTC7 in your above post."
There is documented evidence. King just said that that the lack of video evidence is irrelevant since there is other evidence like the firemen's testimony and the debris of the North tower mixed in the debris of #7.
Making observations inside the South tower on the 78th floor has nothing to do with the fires they couldn't see above them.
Doug Jansen (not verified) on Wed, 04/12/2006 - 11:47pm.
Doug, perhaps you would like to enlighten us with your all great and knowing knowledge as to my question posted many times?
"you won't be able to because there is no way that a plane could go through the walls of the Pentagon and not through the WTC.
Try and explain that? Once again for your simple little brain....
You have a building that is made up of steel beams and glass, no plane goes all the way through them.
You have a building that has just been renivated in the area hit by Cavelar reinforced Concrete and several internal concrete reinforced walls.
How does a plane similar in build go through a solid building, but can't through a virtually air building?"
Answer it!
Also, as far as WTC7. Show me one steel framed building that has collapsed onto its own footprint in a free fall speed caused by MINOR damage and fire.
Show me just one in the world history.
Show me how Newtons law can be ignored, or how conservation of energy.
Explain this to me oh wise one.
Don't go saying it's in NIST AND FEMA. Because it's not. In fact, there was (I believe it was) sulfer found on the steel anylized.
Finally, explain how a 70 ton hydrolic jack is destroyed in a sub-sub basement of WTC, when the plane hit 70+ stories above? There was not enough energy, and the building was hermetically sealed by design.
Common give the EVIDENCE to your claim. You can't, because there is none.
RemoveBush (not verified) on Thu, 04/13/2006 - 12:03am.
Doug - You know if people like you would have a debate, rather than just saying the evidence is there without providing it, then perhaps people would not make statements that stand their ground to get an answer from evading, non answering, individuals such as yourself.
Notice that not once has any of the questions actually been answered. They are brushed off and given the Bushco blanket statement "its true because I say it is".
Now if you would like to discuss it, I'm willing to but I am not going to sit back and let someone make my 15 year Engineering experience seem like an uneducated moonbat.
"Take your pick. In both cases, 9/11 conspiracists REFUSE to look at or outright dismiss the overwhelming evidence that AA 77 hit the Pentagon and did the damage we see. S. King"
Notice that there is no answer to any of the questions posed or proof to his assertions.
RemoveBush (not verified) on Thu, 04/13/2006 - 12:21am.
i dont see how the damage on the lower floors of WTC7 can be used to suggest that that is why the building collapsed..
the major damage to the lower side of the building facing the north tower obviously played little role in the collapse as the collapse did not favor that side by leaning towards the north tower, but instead fell 100% straight down..
you cant say the damage on one side caused the collapse without ignoring that such damage should have caused an asymetrical collapse.
People who believe the official story cannot answer why or how the top part of the building could stop from falling over when it was at at least a 30 degree angle upon collapse. This breaks EVERY law of physics that we have.
I guess these little things just get by them because of their blinders?
I hear that there are some transcrips of flight 93 that are being released. I just want to know why the information from the WTC and Pentagon are not being released? It is known that 3 of the 4 black boxes were found at WTC, and they found at least 1 at the Pentagon. Why do these people believe that no boxes were found? This would be the first time in aviation history that the black boxes were not recovered. Yet they don't question this.
RemoveBush (not verified) on Thu, 04/13/2006 - 1:34am.
"Also, as far as WTC7. Show me one steel framed building that has collapsed onto its own footprint in a free fall speed caused by MINOR damage and fire."
Demonstratate that there was only minor damage.
"Now if you would like to discuss it, I'm willing to but I am not going to sit back and let someone make my 15 year Engineering experience seem like an uneducated moonbat."
It seems in your exchanges with King and me that you have absolutely no interest in discussing anything.
I question you're so-called engineering experience. You wouldn't be here repeating nonsense that King pointed out to you if you knew anything about structural engineering.
Doug Jansen (not verified) on Thu, 04/13/2006 - 2:10am.
"People who believe the official story cannot answer why or how the top part of the building could stop from falling over when it was at at least a 30 degree angle upon collapse. This breaks EVERY law of physics that we have."
I'm happy to see the scientific proof of your claim. Trouble is, no one comes up with any. They just assert it.
Doug Jansen (not verified) on Thu, 04/13/2006 - 2:15am.
the evidence is any and all video footage of the wtc7 collapse, are you saying it didnt collapse 100% straight down? does that correlate to the '20 story major gash' on one side of the building? or are you saying that the 20 story gash damage was enough to facilitate the collapse, but not enough to cause the collapse to be asymetrical?
its like having a 4 legged chair and saying 'look, it fell over because of the damage to one of the chair legs', but the chair fell completely straight down, not in the direction of the damaged leg.. you cant have it both ways can you?
"pull it" is a common firefighting term for "pull the firefighting effort."
Not pull them, pull it. It, the firefighting effort. I've never heard that before, but I must admit I am not too familiar with firefighter jargon. Well, guess I'm a noob too then.
Funny thing is that Larry seems to be very familiar with firefighter jargon. Larry said "And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse". Which does make sense. I never understood why Silverstein was consulted on WTC7 in the first place. To me it does not seem common practice for a fire department commander to contact a leaseholder of property in the midst of a national emergency. But see, since Larry knows a lot about firefighter jargon, he must have been very close to them, which explains why they consulted him. Average ignorant people would probably say "And they made that decision to retract the firefighters", or "And they made that decision to evacuate the firefighters", or "And they made that decision to clear the building from firefighters", or "And they made that decision to get the firefighters out of the building", or even "And they made that decision to pull the firefighters out". Average ignorant people like me. Not Larry. Larry's down with the NYFD, and knows the slang. Thanks for clearing that out, S. King.
If you will now excuse me, I have to throw up.
(oh and don't let that intimidate you, to "throw up" means "throwing the keyboard up against the ceiling", common slang for signing off in my field of work.)
You're going to show us examples of any building that was comparable to the WTC towers in material and construction, suffered structural damage from aircraft and debris (WTC 7), right?
I don't know if Jaybird will, but I will. Ready? Here we go.
WTC3.
WTC4.
WTC5.
WTC6.
Not to mention the other surrounding structures like the World Financial Center buildings, the Liberty Banker's Trust and the Church Street Federal Building.
Don't believe me? Look here. The severely damaged buildings on the WTC site that are still standing are WTC6, WTC5 and WTC4 (clockwise). The levelled pile of rubble to the right of it is WTC7.
Ohw and it is 'wreckage' and not 'wreakage', as your anonymous predecessor also used to say.
"I'm happy to see the scientific proof of your claim. Trouble is, no one comes up with any. They just assert it."
Really, and what scientific evidence has been brought forth about the fall of WTC7? NONE! Some flimsy statements that the fires weakened the steel and it fell.
Perhaps you can explain to me how it can fall directly upon its self at a near free fall rate? Despite the fact that the resistance of the remaining floors would have NOT allowed that to happen. Unless you are trying to claim that Physics was also asleep that day?
Since ALL the evidence was convienently destroyed (a federal crime by the way), and NIST also claims that WTC7 is a mystery, I would like to see you pull the evidence that it was a natrual collapes (one without explosives).
There is a demolition implossion giveaway when the middle of the building crimps and then falls straight down on its self. This is classic demolition work. If it was by a natural fall, the building would not have fallen so nicely.
Like it has been said before, if it is as easy as lighting a fire in a building to demolish it, the millions could be saved by just starting a fire.
So provide these so called pictures of the damage, because ALL the pictures I have seen of WTC7 there is MINIMAL damage. There are fires seen on 2 or 4 floors, and not that out of control.
Show me evidence of at least ONE building in history of falling like this from minor damage and a fire.
RemoveBush (not verified) on Thu, 04/13/2006 - 3:24am.
"the evidence is any and all video footage of the wtc7 collapse,..."
The evidence is much more than videos and pictures. They only show the collapse of 7 WTC - not why it collapsed. Also there is only one know photo of the South face that shows the building completely shrouded in smoke.
The nature of sientific investigations relies on ALL the evidence, not just video evidence which, as we know in this case, does nothing more than give us a visual picture of the collapse and refutes the claim that it was "free-fall" speeds.
"...are you saying it didnt collapse 100% straight down?"
Where did I say or imply that? Gravity always pulls things straight dowen to the center of the earth.
"does that correlate to the '20 story major gash' on one side of the building? or are you saying that the 20 story gash damage was enough to facilitate the collapse, but not enough to cause the collapse to be asymetrical?"
What I said was quite clear: "It's up to you to demonstrate your claim with evidence."
It is it so hard for you to present evidence?
Doug Jansen (not verified) on Thu, 04/13/2006 - 4:19am.
"does nothing more than give us a visual picture of the collapse and refutes the claim that it was "free-fall" speeds.It is it so hard for you to present evidence?
Doug Jansen | 04.12.06 - 3:24 pm |"
So now video evidence is not scientific or evidence to the facts cannot be obtained through video? What exactly is it that you have any technical tallent to make a claim like that?
What educational or work experience do you have?
First of all...... It can and has been proven that the building fell in 6.6 seconds from video information. By using reference buildings in the video, and knowing the height of those buildings, a scientific calculation can be made and was.
Many people here, including myself, have defined reasons why the official explaination is not true. Since you want to claim that this is a court like case and we need proof, then how about your counter proof to our claims? Many have provided calculations, pictures, scientific evidence, and more so where is your counter evidence?
"Gravity always pulls things straight dowen to the center of the earth. "
Yes it does, however, there is a little thing called RESISTANCE. Unless you telling me that nothing in this world provides resistance to gravity, then your claim does not hold water. It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a building 47 stories high to fall as though it was in a vacuum.
Are you at all a technical person? Do you have ANY scientific or engineering experience?
This was my post..... Somehow Anonymous's name was paste into the name field.
" "does nothing more than give us a visual picture of the collapse and refutes the claim that it was "free-fall" speeds.It is it so hard for you to present evidence?
Doug Jansen | 04.12.06 - 3:24 pm |"
So now video evidence is not scientific or evidence to the facts cannot be obtained through video? What exactly is it that you have any technical tallent to make a claim like that?
What educational or work experience do you have?
First of all...... It can and has been proven that the building fell in 6.6 seconds from video information. By using reference buildings in the video, and knowing the height of those buildings, a scientific calculation can be made and was.
Many people here, including myself, have defined reasons why the official explaination is not true. Since you want to claim that this is a court like case and we need proof, then how about your counter proof to our claims? Many have provided calculations, pictures, scientific evidence, and more so where is your counter evidence?
"Gravity always pulls things straight dowen to the center of the earth. "
Yes it does, however, there is a little thing called RESISTANCE. Unless you telling me that nothing in this world provides resistance to gravity, then your claim does not hold water. It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a building 47 stories high to fall as though it was in a vacuum.
Are you at all a technical person? Do you have ANY scientific or engineering experience?
Anonymous | 04.12.06 - 3:32 pm | # "
RemoveBush (not verified) on Thu, 04/13/2006 - 4:29am.
> "pull it" is a common firefighting term for "pull the firefighting effort."
"Not pull them, pull it."
No. Grammatically when referring to an "effort" we say "it", not "them."
"It, the firefighting effort. I've never heard that before, but I must admit I am not too familiar with firefighter jargon."
Is there any reason why you should be?
"Funny thing is that Larry seems to be very familiar with firefighter jargon. Larry said "And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse". Which does make sense."
He is being interviewed months later explaining the situation. I would be pretty familiar with firemen's jargon too after watching the effort to save buildings I leased.
But everyone here is claiming to be smarter than Silverstein, stating that "pull it is a demolition term, only a demolition term, we know it 100% for sure that's what Silverstein meant, and that's final!" Isn't that exactly what your are stating, zuco?
These 9/11 conspiracists must be really smart to know EXACTLY what Silverstein meant. They're real experts, apparently, having had all kinds of training in demolition, right?
Well then, let's get real. "Pull it" is used as a term for demolition crews when they are mechanically destroying a building, as crews did at ground zero when taking the remains of the WTC towers outside walls by pulling them down with chains.
No one wants to speculate why Silverstein - IF he had meant to secretly pull the buildings down - why he would admit it in a pre-planned interview on TV.
You guys need to think more carefully.
Doug Jansen (not verified) on Thu, 04/13/2006 - 4:33am.
> "You're going to show us examples of any building that was comparable to the WTC towers in material and construction, suffered structural damage from aircraft and debris (WTC 7), right?
"I don't know if Jaybird will, but I will. Ready? Here we go."
WTC3.
WTC4.
WTC5.
WTC6.
That's real funny.
Imagine you thinking that all the other buildings suffered the necessary damage to collapse them.
I'll remember that line of hopeless logic.
Doug Jansen (not verified) on Thu, 04/13/2006 - 4:37am.
"No one wants to speculate why Silverstein - IF he had meant to secretly pull the buildings down - why he would admit it in a pre-planned interview on TV."
Sure, that would be the same reason why for several different times Bush stated that he watched the first plane crash into the building. Not that he was confussed because this was before he went into the classroom and he made it clear to state that in both his statements.
It's a slip of the tongue. He was talking and it was not suppose to come out like that, but it did.
I don't know what technical experience you have, but it sure sounds like you have no college education. You fail to look outside the box.
You have yet to provide ONE building that has fallen due to minor damage or fire neatly onto its own footprint. Back up your claim that this is normal, because it is not.
RemoveBush (not verified) on Thu, 04/13/2006 - 4:43am.
"Really, and what scientific evidence has been brought forth about the fall of WTC7? NONE! Some flimsy statements that the fires weakened the steel and it fell."
As an someone claiming 15 years of supposed engineering experience, you don't even realize that NIST's final report on 7 WTC is even complete yet???
"Perhaps you can explain to me how it can fall directly upon its self at a near free fall rate? Despite the fact that the resistance of the remaining floors would have NOT allowed that to happen. Unless you are trying to claim that Physics was also asleep that day?"
You're claiming to know exactly what the structural state of 7 WTC was internally? Great! Give us the evidence we've all been waiting for!
Pretty please?
"There is a demolition implossion giveaway when the middle of the building crimps and then falls straight down on its self. This is classic demolition work. If it was by a natural fall, the building would not have fallen so nicely."
Well don't be timid. Give us the engeneering reports of the collapse for heaven's sake.
"So provide these so called pictures of the damage, because ALL the pictures I have seen of WTC7 there is MINIMAL damage. There are fires seen on 2 or 4 floors, and not that out of control."
Give us the pictures and videos of the South side of 7 WTC you must possess to support your claims. Please don't hold them back any longer!
"First of all...... It can and has been proven that the building fell in 6.6 seconds from video information. By using reference buildings in the video, and knowing the height of those buildings, a scientific calculation can be made and was."
You sure didn't look at the CBS video too cvarefully. Why not?
Doug Jansen (not verified) on Thu, 04/13/2006 - 5:05am.
"Many people here, including myself, have defined reasons why the official explaination is not true. Since you want to claim that this is a court like case and we need proof, then how about your counter proof to our claims? Many have provided calculations, pictures, scientific evidence, and more so where is your counter evidence?"
You haven't provided any scientific "proof" whatsoever.
You made claims. Period. You don't even get your facts right. No one has any reason to accept your assertions without the solid, irrefutable proof to back it up.
I want scientific analysis. I want peer reviewed papers from physicists and structural enginneers that can be falsified under the scientific method.
To date none of you have been able to exclude the evidence that what happened on 9/11 to the WTC towers as explained by NIST and other independent investigations.
I am showing you that fact as much as you hate to admit it.
"It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a building 47 stories high to fall as though it was in a vacuum."
There's a perfect example. Just a run-of-the-mill 9/11 claim with no evidence that it was impossible for 7 WTC to fall from the damage and fire it sustained.
You need to start thinking.
Doug Jansen (not verified) on Thu, 04/13/2006 - 5:14am.
why is it up to the citizenry to provide evidence for what the government claims? why is it up to me to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that i am right and not the government? im not the one using my story of 9/11 to remove rights, attack other countries, etc. etc.
how about this idea? why don't other research bodies actually provide a full and reasonable account? the nist report didnt discuss any of the collapse of the 2 towers after 'global collapse' - a term they never bothered definining.
as for WTC7, i would argue that the evidence that it was controlled demolition is just as strong (in fact much stronger) than the assertions that have been suggested by the incredibly weak FEMA report, and the unfinished NIST report.
i'm not the one that needs to prove my case, because im not claiming that a 47 story tall building collapsed at near freefall speeds into its own footprint because of fire damage.
its called an 'investigation', heaven help us if we ever had a real one, or if the evidence wasn't destroyed in almost all aspects of 9/11.
bah, defend the official story, do it as long as you can, but eventually you too will doubt the honesty of our government surrounding 9/11..
perhaps if you think the physical aspects are all bunk you should take a step back and research the prior knowledge, or the failures of the 9/11 commission, or bush's inaction that morning..
Doug, first of all I admitted that I am not familiar with firefighters jargon. This means that I am very open to accept that "pull it" means "pull the firefighter effort". So no, I am not stating Silverstein meant that they were going to demolish WTC7. I'm stating that two things don't make sense. One, that Silverstein is consulted on what to do about WTC7 on the day of the attacks. Two, Silverstein adapting firefighters jargon. See, I think a NYFD commander has other things to do than to talk with leaseholders of property. I also think after 911 Silverstein was more concerned about his insurance policies (among other things) than about the local NYFD slang. So that's why I ask what I ask. To understand. My only goal is to find some clarity and sense in all of this. Even if that means the outcome doesn't fit most 911 truth seekers' theories. I'm interested in truth, not in being part of a club.
And about those buildings. Have you seen the image I linked in my message? What makes you think building 7 was more damaged than the WTC buildings in the direct vicinity of WTC 1 and 2? And by the way, I'm not saying it's impossible WTC7 collapsed. I'm saying it is impossible for WTC7 to collapse the way it did.
You, Doug, need to read more carefully.
And another thing. 19 gung ho arabs with a passion for flight sims and office cutlery, bypassing the worlds largest security and military authorities, in spite of several national and international high level warnings issued, hitting 3 out of 4 targets. Now that's hopeless logic.
"I want scientific analysis. I want peer reviewed papers from physicists and structural enginneers that can be falsified under the scientific method.
To date none of you have been able to exclude the evidence that what happened on 9/11 to the WTC towers as explained by NIST and other independent investigations."
These are the only links I have at this computer, but I can provide more. They are out there if you READ.
"There's a perfect example. Just a run-of-the-mill 9/11 claim with no evidence that it was impossible for 7 WTC to fall from the damage and fire it sustained."
OK, since you are so sure that PHYSICS does not exist, please show me proof of a building falling at a free fall rate (without explosives) anytime in the worlds history. I'm only asking for ONE example!
Since you are so confident "There's a perfect example" of this provide a previous fact of it happening?
RemoveBush (not verified) on Thu, 04/13/2006 - 5:22am.
"So now video evidence is not scientific or evidence to the facts cannot be obtained through video? What exactly is it that you have any technical tallent to make a claim like that?"
I just showed you what evidence it was. But you can't cotinue to claim it's the only evdidence as I made clear. Stop denying the other evidence.
"First of all...... It can and has been proven that the building fell in 6.6 seconds from video information. By using reference buildings in the video, and knowing the height of those buildings, a scientific calculation can be made and was."
First of all, it can be proven by video of the entire collpase - that which you are evading - that it took longe for 7 WTC to fall than 6.6 seconds.
Nonetheless, you are responsible for providing evidence that it could not have fallen other than by pre-planted explosives.
So far, you refuse to provide us that evidence.
Doug Jansen (not verified) on Thu, 04/13/2006 - 5:23am.
Typical Answer from someone who really has no answers, experience, or idea of what they are talking about.
"Nonetheless, you are responsible for providing evidence that it could not have fallen other than by pre-planted explosives.
So far, you refuse to provide us that evidence.
Doug Jansen | 04.12.06 - 4:28 pm | # "
"
Sure I have, but you refuse to address what I have provided. Good thing you are not a laywer (though you play one on the web) because you would certainly loose EVERY case you worked.
Try refuting the evidence I provided, from the HIGHLY educated and well known individuals.
RemoveBush (not verified) on Thu, 04/13/2006 - 5:32am.
You made claims. Period. You don't even get your facts right. No one has any reason to accept your assertions without the solid, irrefutable proof to back it up.
are you talking about those that question wtc7 or the government sponsored research papers? seems to me you expect one thing from random people on a blog, but have no standards at all when it comes to government reports.
I want scientific analysis. I want peer reviewed papers from physicists and structural enginneers that can be falsified under the scientific method.
you want papers that can be falsified? what? if your saying you want a real investigation then welcome to the crowd.
To date none of you have been able to exclude the evidence that what happened on 9/11 to the WTC towers as explained by NIST and other independent investigations.
this sentence makes no sense. and while you demand information from random people on this blog you provide little to nothing to back up your disagreements. so, here is a response to the recent NIST release, it will be better than wasting your time in circuitous arguements here.
"why is it up to the citizenry to provide evidence for what the government claims?"
There are numerous scientific investigations, NIST being a primary one, made up of a majority of independent scientists with their names on the line.
The final reports on towers 1 and 2 are complete. Tower 7 is not.
The entire report consists of an explanation of their methodologies, assumptions, evidence, facts, investigations, forensic tests, interveiws and so on. Their conclusions are there for all to see and for peer review. Anyone that is qualified to do so can contest any part of the investigation if they believe there is cause.
If you don't believe they are correct and you come here making unsupported claims, it is up to you to bring evidence that refutes NIST entirely. You don't have to do it yourself. But you have to support your own assertions. You can bring any number of scientific papers from credible experts in the fields required that refute NIST.
You haven't done so.
Neither has anyone else.
I am still waiting.
Doug Jansen (not verified) on Thu, 04/13/2006 - 5:33am.
I must've missed any 'evidence' or links, or references, etc. in your arguement.. all i have seen is a bunch of rhetoric, circuitous arguements, and an avoidance of any real information.
so, how about you provide an arguement for your case? you get so angry at those that believe WTC7 was intentionally brought down, what do you beleive? how about you tell us your personal opinions and then we will trash you without any real evidence, references, or making any specific points?
you haven't proven much of anything here, but i'd like to see you argue your opinion - if you have one.
"are you talking about those that question wtc7 or the government sponsored research papers? seems to me you expect one thing from random people on a blog, but have no standards at all when it comes to government reports."
A 9/11 conspiracist making the wrong assumptions, getting his facts wrong, with no expertise in the fields qualifies as an "expert" in structural engineering, phsyics, and forensics to you?
No wonder you will not escape the ignorance and devotion to political causes that afflcits 9/11 conspiracists instead of dealing with facts, truth, and reality.
Now we know why you can't present any evidence.
Doug Jansen (not verified) on Thu, 04/13/2006 - 5:44am.
"so, how about you provide an arguement for your case? you get so angry at those that believe WTC7 was intentionally brought down, what do you beleive?"
Try reading my post just above yours.
Doug Jansen (not verified) on Thu, 04/13/2006 - 5:46am.
If you don't believe they are correct and you come here making unsupported claims, it is up to you to bring evidence that refutes NIST entirely. You don't have to do it yourself. But you have to support your own assertions. You can bring any number of scientific papers from credible experts in the fields required that refute NIST.
I do believe the recent NIST report is heavily flawed, and for a number of reasons. I pasted a link above which lays out a number of reasons why the NIST report was incomplete, or dishonest, here it is again:
this is just an inflamitory comment, you should know pretty well that Jim Hoffman has made numerous recent appearances on the radio and at different functions.. and he has a very good list of ways in which the NIST report fell well short of proving anything.
but, since you dont really want to read the counter-arguement, but would rather just continue to bash others (while not arguing your own opinions) here is the #1 reason i take with the NIST report:
#1) they didnt analyze anything past the point of 'global collapse' - which they didnt define, and which arguably is the most important part of the event since it is the first time in history such a 'global collapse' has happened in a steel super-structure building.
shouldnt we demand a full investigation into the collapses? not one that just covers how it might have started and then ignores the actual event itself?
A 9/11 conspiracist making the wrong assumptions, getting his facts wrong, with no expertise in the fields qualifies as an "expert" in structural engineering, phsyics, and forensics to you?
No wonder you will not escape the ignorance and devotion to political causes that afflcits 9/11 conspiracists instead of dealing with facts, truth, and reality.
Now we know why you can't present any evidence.
Do you have anything to provide as a counter arguement to Hoffman's work, or can you just wave it off with insults without providing any science, research, or evidence?
S. King said: "The example of your 911Blogger.com is to make unsupported assertions, repeat debunked conspiracy nonsense, never be able to prove what you say, and automatically dismiss inconvenient evidence."
"The captain of emergency medical services said "somewhere around the middle of the world trade center there was this orange and red flash coming out ... initially it was just one flash then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode ... and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides ... as far as could see these popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building" (page 15 -- pdf file; Google's web version is here)"
"Similiarly, the Assistant Fire Commissioner stated "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?” . In the same statement, the Assistant Commissioner recounts how a lieutenant firefighter he spoke with independently verified the flashes."
Inconvenient to the official story I guess. Sorry, no amount of misinformation or circular arguments can erase these statements or the dozens of others just like it.
S. King, you and your government have lost. Enjoy that paycheck while you can.
somebigguy (not verified) on Thu, 04/13/2006 - 5:56am.
"this is just an inflamitory comment, you should know pretty well that Jim Hoffman has made numerous recent appearances on the radio and at different functions.. and he has a very good list of ways in which the NIST report fell well short of proving anything."
I know that Hoffman is unqualified and made assumptions that are flat out wrong. He has been debunked thoroughly.
That you have to use him as a crutch rather than qualified structural engineers shows how weak your position is.
"but, since you dont really want to read the counter-arguement, but would rather just continue to bash others (while not arguing your own opinions) here is the #1 reason i take with the NIST report:"
I've read it all for years and heard these same tired, repeated, debunked assertions for as long.
"#1) they didnt analyze anything past the point of 'global collapse' - which they didnt define, and which arguably is the most important part of the event since it is the first time in history such a 'global collapse' has happened in a steel super-structure building."
This is one of the ridiculous assumptions Hoffman makes and which you accepted without bothering to investigate any further.
You can talk to any QUALIFIED structrual engineer, you can study, physics, you can visit all the physics forums available on the net, and you will come away with actual physics of why, once the causes of the collapses of the upper stories were known, once they started to fall in towers 1 and 2, it was inevitable that the collapses would be global for those towers.
That is precisely why it is immaterial to undertake a study, much less spending the money, of what happened after the collapses of the upper blocks on 1 and 2 started.
If a bomb goes off in a jet at 30,000 feet, do investigators spend the money modelling the fall of the plane after the explosion? Of course not.
Hoffman is a laughing stock.
"shouldnt we demand a full investigation into the collapses."
Only if there is a valid reason. So far, what you believe is not based on anything anyone would accept as a basis for any investigation of anything.
You need to get your facts correct as a start and stop believing what these absurd conspiracists like Hoffman like gospel.
Doug Jansen (not verified) on Thu, 04/13/2006 - 6:40am.
Please provide some further information on your previous statement as listed here: I know that Hoffman is unqualified and made assumptions that are flat out wrong. He has been debunked thoroughly.
You can say things, just like those that question 9/11 can say things, but references or further details would help a lot in making your case.
Also, the following statement seems a bit far fetched, do you have any further information you can link me to?
it was inevitable that the collapses would be global for those towers.
How is it considered 'inevitable'? I could understand if it had happened a million times, or had been prepared for and fully modeled, etc. but seeing as how it is a first of sorts, one would think any real investigation would be as thorough as possible.. if the pile of rubble had been 2x as tall would that have been innevitable too?
you are more than welcome to your opinion, but provide some substance like what you are demanding from others.
All he can do is call anyone who does not believe the governments version a consperiacy theorist.
My assumption from his comments is that he believes the theory of the "power driver". This is just insane.
They never account for resistance and try to say that the weight of the upper floors was too much. I argue that the lower floors and structures should be stronger as it goes down. Your not going to build a building that is just as strong at the top as it is at the bottom. Therefore, the notion that the power driver could CRUSH the building like there was nothing below it is ludicruse.
The people making these types of statements don't explain how PHYSICS is then broken by this theory.
They can NEVER provide evidence to support it. Nor can they provide anyone else who has this evidence. Yet we can provide people with credentials who state the opposite and they call us conspiracy theorists.
RemoveBush (not verified) on Thu, 04/13/2006 - 8:03am.
P.S. Prof. Steven Jones, co-head of Scholars for 9/11 Truth was asked to address it months ago. A member of his group reported to me a month ago that Jones is "working on it."
One has to wonder why Jones would need to "work on it" since he has already stated on his site that, "Physics research establishes that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings."
I know none of you here are used to questionning your sources but don't you think you should?
So, have at it. Debunk physics. Jones's too scared to.
S. King (not verified) on Thu, 04/13/2006 - 11:46am.
These "true deniers" here can't deal with real physics for the life of them. They put there blinders on and whine incessantly that facts, physics, science, and real evidence is unfair to them.
Doug Jansen (not verified) on Fri, 04/14/2006 - 12:01am.
Doug, King, before you start waxing each others fists here, allow me one question. I haven't had time to read this entire thing, and won't have any in the next couple of days, but is this report of yours about pancaking floors?
Who is Nico Haupt? Is there
Who is Nico Haupt?
Is there a "who's who" of 9/11 research?
Is there a scorecard for credibility, validity, etc.?
Nico did a lot of great
Nico did a lot of great research on 9/11 suspects quite early on. Now he's off in bluescreen land and likes to talk a lot of divisive trash about other activists and researchers. I think he's even made up a couple scorecards...
check
check http://www.team8plus.org and http://911closeup.com/nico/
Like him or not, Nico is STILL digging up a lot of interesting stuff.
Also, the yahoogroup 911insidejobbers has quite a lot of interesting stuff.
Peter
Arianna Huffington made a
Arianna Huffington made a very interesting analogy in her blog yesterday. She states in part:
..."Please. Does anyone really believe that the president, a man who wouldn't testify in front of the 9/11 Commission without Cheney by his side, suddenly woke up one morning and thought: "I need to selectively declassify the paragraphs at the bottom of page 24 of the 2002 NIE so we can perpetuate the myth that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium from Africa."...
Huffinton even imbeds some links in her article that go back to Bush/Cheney "testifying" about 9/11 in 2004.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
A respected climate
A respected climate scientist talks about what you all and Scholars for 9/11 Truth(sic) are all about:
April 10, 2006
Politicization of Science 101: How to Use Science to Argue Politics, Manipulate the Media, and Silence your Political Opponents
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Risk & Uncertainty | Science Policy: General
A recipe for effectively using science to advance political aims:
1. Find yourself in a highly political, high-stakes debate that involves considerations of science (or more generally, intelligence).
2. Seek to turn the political debate into a debate about science or information, that is, scientize the politics.
3. Seek to associate your preferred political outcomes with a clear consensus of the relevant expert community, even if this means oversimplifying the issue. This strategy will work best if you use the term “consensus” (scare quotes!) in an undefined manner. Even if there are legitimate areas of uncertainty or debate, keep the focus on “consensus.”
4. Disparagingly characterize anyone who disagrees with your preferred political perspective as a “skeptic” or “contrarian” or “outlying perspective.” Don’t allow any distinction between the typically few consensus areas of knowledge and typically many more areas that have some greater uncertainty. If uncertainty is raised as a concern, emphasize the need for preemptive action in the face of uncertainty.
5. Do whatever you can to associate your opponents with Republicans, Democrats, industry, environmentalists, or a lack of patriotism. The latter is particularly effective.
6. Argue that the media is dealing with mistruths by allowing your political opponents voice because they are not part of the science/information “consensus” (remember, if consensus is undefined you can use it against just about anyone who disagrees with you). Ask the media to favor your political agenda under these circumstances. (If the media can be tricked into thinking that claims about information are the same as political claims, then they just might fall for it, and take sides! Yours!)
If successful, this strategy will allow you to use science to argue for your favored political outcome while denying your opponent the opportunity to do the same, and the beauty of it is that you need not admit to being political at all, simply standing behind the truth, and who could be against the truth?
Two good examples of this strategy in practice are familiar to many of us, and in many ways the political dynamics of information/science are quite similar:
A. Climate science/politics.
B. Bush Administration arguments for going to war in Iraq.
The politicization of science is a bipartisan affair. The real question is whether politicization such as described above is OK (a) in no cases, (b) in all cases, or (c) in those cases in which the ends justify the means.
The more fundamental question that I have about this dynamic, which despite the tongue-in-cheekiness displayed above, is what effect such a strategy -- which I think exists in many venues -- has on the practice of science and the long-term sustainability of science as an effective contributor to policy and politics. Do we risk something in the long-term by using science as a Trojan Horse for political gain in the short term?
Posted on April 10, 2006 04:26 PM
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_gen...
Two good examples of this
Two good examples of this strategy in practice are familiar to many of us, and in many ways the political dynamics of information/science are quite similar:
A. Climate science/politics.
B. Bush Administration arguments for going to war in Iraq.
Global warming is real..lets debate the science
And Bush did use faulty intelligence, state sponsored terrorism, and the media to go to war..lets debate those facts as well
I heard on the radio this
I heard on the radio this morning during a quick blurb about the Moussaoui trial that they will not air the Flight 93 tapes. Gee, we never saw that coming, huh? I am still having a tough time getting my head around that guy Hanson saying he talked to his son as 175 hit the South Tower. Is he flat out lying?
Yizzo wrote: "Global warming
Yizzo wrote:
"Global warming is real..lets debate the science."
Too bad Steven Jones and his "scholars" are doing everything to avoid debating the science and physics of the collapses, isn't it?
And that, Yizzo, is the point.
S. King: "Too bad Steven
S. King: "Too bad Steven Jones and his "scholars" are doing everything to avoid debating the science and physics of the collapses, isn't it?"
Aren´t they(he) doing just that?
"Aren´t they(he) doing
"Aren´t they(he) doing just that?"
No, not at all.
Very informative statements
Very informative statements you provide S. King... care to elaborate?
Hey Anonymous, so they
Hey Anonymous, so they didn't play the flight 93 tapes at the trial?
I could post some quotes
I could post some quotes from someone without explaining their significance to me or the topics at hand...
but I wouldn't.
Stating your own opinions probably makes more sense in a forum. And none of the passive-aggressive indirect BS.
I scanned the Nico Haupt
I scanned the Nico Haupt site and noticed he does a lot on L-3 Communications. Some people sure made a lot of money there in the last 5 years.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=LLL&t=5y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
Actually, I should have
Actually, I should have gotten the chart from pre-911 and you can see it going straight up from 13 to the 80's.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=LLL&t=my&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
3. Seek to associate your
3. Seek to associate your preferred political outcomes with a clear consensus of the relevant expert community, even if this means oversimplifying the issue. This strategy will work best if you use the term “consensus” (scare quotes!) in an undefined manner. Even if there are legitimate areas of uncertainty or debate, keep the focus on “consensus.”
4. Disparagingly characterize anyone who disagrees with your preferred political perspective as a “skeptic” or “contrarian” or “outlying perspective.” Don’t allow any distinction between the typically few consensus areas of knowledge and typically many more areas that have some greater uncertainty. If uncertainty is raised as a concern, emphasize the need for preemptive action in the face of uncertainty.
5. Do whatever you can to associate your opponents with Republicans, Democrats, industry, environmentalists, or a lack of patriotism. The latter is particularly effective.
Sounds like what people try to do to 9/11 researchers:
3. misrepresent that there is "consensus" around the "official theory"
4. characterize those who disagree with the "official theory" as "skeptics" or worse, "conspiracy theorists"
5. label 9/11 skeptics as "ultra-left wing nuts"
6. Argue that the media is
6. Argue that the media is dealing with mistruths by allowing your political opponents voice because they are not part of the science/information “consensus” (remember, if consensus is undefined you can use it against just about anyone who disagrees with you). Ask the media to favor your political agenda under these circumstances. (If the media can be tricked into thinking that claims about information are the same as political claims, then they just might fall for it, and take sides! Yours!)
6. Have people like Charlie Sheen on the Entertainment News shows, while ignoring Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, etc. so the public can think that it's only politically motivated Hollywood liberals who disagree with the official version.
Thanks S. King, I think I'm starting to see what you were trying to say.
Another 9/11 to legitimize
Another 9/11 to legitimize attack on Iran?
http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=11080
Speaking of Iran, the word
Speaking of Iran, the word is out that Bush wants to NUKE them. Some senior military officers are set to resign unless Bush takes the nuclear option off the table. Could there be a military coupe in the works? Mike Malloy of Air America thinks so. Check out his Monday night show. http://www.whiterosesociety.org/Malloy.html
Anybody have any idea why
Anybody have any idea why Rivero is clinging onto the boeing hitting the pentagon story? http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html
these testimonies are full of holes. A crashing plane doesn't give off a pressure wave like an explosive....half of these testimonies talk about the blast rocking the hotel or rocking something else.
Suck it up and deal with it Mike :)
i think that there may also
i think that there may also be a military rebellion. they will attack using leaks to destroy bush. i think its happening now.
these testimonies are full
these testimonies are full of holes.
-- Loud Studios
Gee.... I don't know how anyone would find easily bought eyewitnesses in the cesspool of deceit and whoredom that is Washington, D.C. : )
Shanksville PA has eyewitnesses that absolutely swear to seeing the plane going East and West at the same instant. This is just a guess, but I'd say someone is probably lying.
The only reason anyone says it was flying West is because the pinheads that dug the phony crater oriented it upside down, as if the plane was flying East-West. So now they're stuck with either changing the flight path direction, or having some stooges say it flipped over before it nose-dived. According to my research, they're sticking with both - it was flying West right-side-up and it was flying East upside-down, at the same time.
David Ray Griffin is on Alex
David Ray Griffin is on Alex Jones' show for the next hour. You guys listening to it?
http://infowars.com
Here's some funny stuff... A
Here's some funny stuff... A video of Hugo Chavez blasting Bush, calling him all kinds of names... Wow.
http://www.11abril.com/index/videos/ChavezHitBush20060319.wmv
Thanks Anonymous, I needed
Thanks Anonymous, I needed that!
That Chavez video was fun to
That Chavez video was fun to watch, but I'm a bit suspicious of how confrontational this guy is. It's too reminiscent of the clown in Iran, pretending he can stand up to the combined militaries of the U.S. and Isreal, just beggin to be nuked.
I think the crazy Iran Pres. is a plant by our intel, no other explanation makes sense. Came out of nowhere - how come these new 'leaders' are always like ex-used car dealers 5 years ago? We have too many operative fingers in these places to not suspect a major ruse.
> Is there a "who's who" of
> Is there a "who's who" of 9/11 research?
> Is there a scorecard for credibility, validity, etc.?
I like to grab this opportunity to plug Paul Thompson's 911 Timeline, which at least is a very credible and valid source for "who's who" on 9/11. I think the man (and his site) is not getting enough credit for his thorough and unbiased approach to the subject.
Does anyone know WHY so many
Does anyone know WHY so many videos of Building 7 exist?
It's clear why video cameras would have been focused on the twin towers after the North tower was hit.
Doesn't the mere existance of so many Building 7 videos prove that at least some of those videographers knew the building was coming down?
Good point s_r. Also, some
Good point s_r. Also, some of the 9/11 DVDs show cops & firemen warning people that WTC-7 is going to go down.
Mr. Silverstein cleared this up by stating that he & the fire dept. decided to "pull-it."
Peter K. wrote, "Very
Peter K. wrote,
"Very informative statements you provide S. King... care to elaborate?"
Sure. Show me the science and physics that conclusively backs up their assertion that, "Physics research establishes that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings."
Show me the physics research.
Show me how WTC 2's collapse time of 13+ seconds is anywhere near a free-fall speed of 9+ seconds.
Show me their evidence.
Loud Studios wrote: "Anybody
Loud Studios wrote:
"Anybody have any idea why Rivero is clinging onto the boeing hitting the pentagon story?"
Because a Boeing 757 did. Why else would you think?
S_R wrote: "Does anyone know
S_R wrote:
"Does anyone know WHY so many videos of Building 7 exist?
"It's clear why video cameras would have been focused on the twin towers after the North tower was hit.
"Doesn't the mere existance of so many Building 7 videos prove that at least some of those videographers knew the building was coming down?"
Yes, everyone was aware that there was a distinct possibility that WTC 7 would collapse. Just like they were for WTC 1 and 2.
That's why WTC 7 was evacuated 2+ hours before it actually did collapse. That's why ALL the news agencies and TV media knew it might collapse.
That's also why police were getting people out of the WTC area before either WTC 1 and 2 had collapsed.
It wasn't rocket science to structural engineers or firemen.
So why confiscate all the
So why confiscate all the video of this 757?
Anonymous wrote, "Good point
Anonymous wrote,
"Good point s_r. Also, some of the 9/11 DVDs show cops & firemen warning people that WTC-7 is going to go down.
"Mr. Silverstein cleared this up by stating that he & the fire dept. decided to 'pull-it.'"
No one believes your Silverstein fairy tale, A.
"So why confiscate all the
"So why confiscate all the video of this 757?"
For evidence. Standard procedure in all murder cases.
Yes, S. King's uncle Larry
Yes, S. King's uncle Larry told everyone he was going to pull-it, pull-it real good.
(S. King = disinfo artist.)
Kingy, your pulling all of
Kingy, your pulling all of our middle legs right now.
I think the crazy Iran Pres.
I think the crazy Iran Pres. is a plant by our intel, no other explanation makes sense. Came out of nowhere - how come these new 'leaders' are always like ex-used car dealers 5 years ago? We have too many operative fingers in these places to not suspect a major ruse.
D. Douglas
Your suspicions are legitimate but let me offer two "explanations".
1. Domestic politics.
Coming out strong against the US is very popular with their base of support (legitimately) and in uncertain times with the blatant threats of the US, a strong leader with srtong words is what they want( they remember our past involvement in their countries.)
2. Foreign policy.
Keeping the rhetoric on the front pages and in public view is better than the behind the scenes covert military and economic sabatoge that they have experienced in the past. The overtly and publicly aggressive posture of the US is whats new, not our intentions. This is what pisses off our miltary. The leaders of these countries want our actions and intentions aired and judged in the international press for all to see. What was covert is now overt.
Damn, King, you're the most
Damn, King, you're the most inept disinfo artist I've seen so far.
I was going to write to
I was going to write to rebutt King's comments, until I read this:
"No one believes your Silverstein fairy tale, A."
I now know this person is either 5 years old or a plant by Bushco.
This is on record, and video, yet it's a fairy tale.
GEEZE!
Don't spontaneous chain
Don't spontaneous chain reactions occur in all steel buildings making them crumble into dust?
The King is here merely to
The King is here merely to break balls. He seems to think it's "cute" to help the perpetrators get away with murdering 3,000 innocent people.
Yeah and planes can't crash
Yeah and planes can't crash through steel/glass buildings, but can throug concrete reinforced buildings.
Now that's a fairy tale. Too bad it's true by the governments claim.
It's quite amusing to watch
It's quite amusing to watch the amount of ignorance afflicting those here.
But, back to the real world:
"On Wednesday, prosecutors plan to air for the first time publicly the cockpit voice recording of passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 who rushed to take back that plane before it crashed in a Pennsylvania field.
"Thirteen more Sept. 11 victims and family members strode to the witness stand Tuesday as jurors endured a third day of graphic evidence of the horrors and haunting impact of the nation's worst terror attack.
"While the material was supposedly toned down in response to defense lawyers' complaints, it included videos of American Airlines Flight 77 hitting the building at 530 miles per hour and photos of charred bodies - one on a stretcher and another sitting upright in an office - of some of the 64 airline passengers and crew and 125 Pentagon workers who died that day.
"Moussaoui, who was found eligible for the death penalty last week, seemed unfazed. He smiled as an FBI agent summarized the damage to the military's headquarters, and during a recess shouted: "Burn all Pentagon next time!"
http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=MOUSSAOUI-04-11-06&cat=WW
RemoveBush, displaying
RemoveBush, displaying fatuous ignorance for all to see, wrote:
"I now know this person is either 5 years old or a plant by Bushco.
"This is on record, and video, yet it's a fairy tale."
You must be a one of those late-bloominng 9/11 conspiracy newbies, RB.
Silverstein never said "pull the building down." Imagine you claiming otherwise despite the record.
As I always say, one can never underestimate the intelligence of the 9/11 Denial Movement.
ShitKing, is the money good
ShitKing, is the money good in the psy ops trade nowadays? How much are you paid?
"Silverstein never said
"Silverstein never said "pull the building down." Imagine you claiming otherwise despite the record."
This shows your ignorance King! "pull it" is a term for demolition. Perhaps you should really do some investigation before you speak garbage?
If he meant evacuate, he would have said "maybe we should evacuate the building?", but he did not. It's not a word game, its fact!
Try looking up what the words "pull-it" means! Then come back here and perhaps we can talk. Until then.... Grow up!
"But, back to the real
"But, back to the real world:"
So have you came back? I doubt it!
So you take a word of a man that claims him and a man that was in Britan was suppose to take over a 5th plane? If you believe that I have swamp land for you in Arizona.
You believe anything you read from old Bush don't you? Learn to think for yourself for a chance, then you might be able to carry on a reasonable conversation.
Here is something to ponder while you try to come back to the real world.
Not one plane that crashed into the WTC's went all the way through them. Yet you believe that a similar plane can go through a Cavelar reinforced main wall and 4 or 5 concrete reinforced walls in the pentagon? REALLY? They can't crash all the way through a steel and glass building, but they can a solid building?
Don't you think that there was help at the Pentagon to get through all these walls? Something like explosives in the pentagon, on the plane, or both?
There were several other buildings that had damage from WTC1 and 2 but they did not collaps. Only the WTC's, all of them. Show me any building before or after 9/11 where a steel framed building collapsed due to fire! Just ONE!
Enjoy your hunt, and if you can't produce the evidence I have requested then I submit that you have no clue what you are talking about.
How many laws are there to Newton?
What are the basic principals in the Law of Gravity? How about the Conservation of Energy?
Have fun!
S. King. You stated above
S. King. You stated above that so many people knew WTC7 was going to collapse because this stuff isnt rocket science for firemen. If so why were they completely clueless when the Twin Towers collapsed? There is undisputed audio evidence that they made it to the impact area of the South Tower and said the fire could be put out with two lines and everything was under control. Also where is one video or picture that shows WTC7 with the serious damage that supposedly existed for anyone to have reached this conclusion? Compared to the history of ALL hi-rise fires includeing towering infernos none ever disintegrated like those 3 buildings. All 3 buildings went from a stable situation to total devestation in less than 15 seconds. King your ass is mine BEOOTCH!
Yeah, I guess since the
Yeah, I guess since the collapses we saw on 9/11 were so commonplace, the firefighters saw nothing out of the ordinary going on that day.
Except maybe for these guys:
http://www.911podcasts.com/view.php?cat=4&med=0&ord=Name&strt=0&vid=24&e...
And maybe these guys:
"The captain of emergency medical services said "somewhere around the middle of the world trade center there was this orange and red flash coming out ... initially it was just one flash then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode ... and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides ... as far as could see these popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building" (page 15 -- pdf file; Google's web version is here)"
"Similiarly, the Assistant Fire Commissioner stated "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?” . In the same statement, the Assistant Commissioner recounts how a lieutenant firefighter he spoke with independently verified the flashes."
Find it all here:
http://sfgate.com/gate/pictures/2005/09/10/ga_karin_deshore.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Grego...
Anyway, anyone who claims there was nothing out of the ordinary happened that day regarding the building collapses has exposed themselves as false opposition with no interest in the truth, any truth, no matter what that might be.
RemoveBush
RemoveBush wrote,
>"Silverstein never said "pull the building down." Imagine you claiming otherwise despite the record."
"This shows your ignorance King! "pull it" is a term for demolition. Perhaps you should really do some investigation before you speak garbage?"
I did, bunky. Four years ago.
"Pull it" is not a term used by demolitions experts who use explosives.
"If he meant evacuate, he would have said "maybe we should evacuate the building?", but he did not. It's not a word game, its fact!"
"pull it" is a common firefighting term for "pull the firefighting effort."
Which is EXACTLY what they did.
You really ARE a newbie, RB. It's best to actually know what you are talking about before opening your mouth, don't you think?
s. king, i'm all for useful
s. king,
i'm all for useful discussion, but is the trash talking really necessary?
weren't you banned from here once already?
RemoveBush, continuiung his
RemoveBush, continuiung his streak, wrote:
"Not one plane that crashed into the WTC's went all the way through them. Yet you believe that a similar plane can go through a Cavelar reinforced main wall and 4 or 5 concrete reinforced walls in the pentagon? REALLY? They can't crash all the way through a steel and glass building, but they can a solid building?"
By that logic, you shouldn't be complaining that a 757 could not have hit the Pentagon becuase "there was no wreakage on the lawn."
You're welcome to present an analysis from any qualified structural engineer supporting your assertion.
I can wait. After all, I've waited 4 years already.
JAYBIRD wrote, "There is
JAYBIRD wrote,
"There is undisputed audio evidence that they made it to the impact area of the South Tower and said the fire could be put out with two lines and everything was under control."
This is an old one. I'm surprised you would repeat it.
If you had bothered to actually follow through, you'd have realized that the uncontrolled fires were on the floors ABOVE the 78th floor where there were no firemen. No firefighting effort got anywhere near the major fires.
Now, ask yourself, why do you not know that? You can see it for yourself. Are you content to let yourself just rely on conspiracy nonsense? Shouldn't you be questionning that?
"Also where is one video or picture that shows WTC7 with the serious damage that supposedly existed for anyone to have reached this conclusion?"
Are you one of those who still believe that in the absence of video or pictures, that no other evidence exists? Are you content to dimsiss all other evidence including the reports from the firemen who were there?
"Compared to the history of ALL hi-rise fires includeing towering infernos none ever disintegrated like those 3 buildings. All 3 buildings went from a stable situation to total devestation in less than 15 seconds. King your ass is mine BEOOTCH!"
You're going to show us examples of any building that was comparable to the WTC towers in material and construction, suffered structural damage from aircraft and debris (WTC 7), right?
You see how easy it is to debunk those who haven't a clue what they are talking about? Now, go out and learn something before you speak, Jaybird, ok?
S.King, why did you ignore
S.King,
why did you ignore his point of issue that flight 77 supposively penetrated multiple rings of the recently renovated pentagon by associating that logic with nothing being on the lawn? they have nothing to do with each other do they?
So they "pulled" the
So they "pulled" the building as in evacuation and then psychically willed the building to fall into a tiny rubble pile without damageing surrounding buildings rite next door. Interesting in the very same doccumentary Silverstein tells his little "pull it" story (America Rebuilds) there are demolition engineers explaining how they are bringing down remains of other buildings in the WTC complex with explosives useing the term "pull it" to describe controlled demolitions. This can be seen in "911 Martial Law" for free on question911.com. What I dont understand is why they didnt just bring down the remains of these buildings by liteing random fires? Its alot cheaper and any idiot includeing you King could do it.
somebigguy wrote, " "Anyway,
somebigguy wrote, "
"Anyway, anyone who claims there was nothing out of the ordinary happened that day regarding the building collapses has exposed themselves as false opposition with no interest in the truth, any truth, no matter what that might be."
The example of your 911Blogger.com is to make unsupported assertions, repeat debunked conspiracy nonsense, never be able to prove what you say, and automatically dismiss inconvenient evidence.
It is no wonder that this site has the reputation of harboring the largest single group of profoundly ignorant people who spend most of their time tightening their blinders.
You should thank the few of us trying to wake you up.
King have the last word.
King have the last word. Either your minds eye is closed or your a paid liar (hey that would be a first).
"why did you ignore his
"why did you ignore his point of issue that flight 77 supposively penetrated multiple rings of the recently renovated pentagon by associating that logic with nothing being on the lawn? they have nothing to do with each other do they?"
Sure they do.
9/11 conspiracists claim a 757 could not have hit the Pentagon because no wreakage was seen on the front lawn.
And they also claim a 757 would have disintegrated when it hit the Pentagon leaving no wreakage on the lawn.
Take your pick. In both cases, 9/11 conspiracists REFUSE to look at or outright dismiss the overwhelming evidence that AA 77 hit the Pentagon and did the damage we see.
It's the nature of the beast.
JAYBIRD wrote, "King have
JAYBIRD wrote,
"King have the last word. Either your minds eye is closed or your a paid liar (hey that would be a first)."
It should be quite clear that you are the one with your eyes closed since evidence is of little meaning to you.
I don't have to be paid to remind you of the truth. I do it freely and willingly.
Anonymous wrote, "i'm all
Anonymous wrote,
"i'm all for useful discussion, but is the trash talking really necessary?
"weren't you banned from here once already?"
I love the blatant hypocrisy of your statement.
King - are you really this
King - are you really this ignorant or are you paid to be here?
" "why did you ignore his point of issue that flight 77 supposively penetrated multiple rings of the recently renovated pentagon by associating that logic with nothing being on the lawn? they have nothing to do with each other do they?"
Sure they do.
9/11 conspiracists claim a 757 could not have hit the Pentagon because no wreakage was seen on the front lawn.
And they also claim a 757 would have disintegrated when it hit the Pentagon leaving no wreakage on the lawn.
Take your pick. In both cases, 9/11 conspiracists REFUSE to look at or outright dismiss the overwhelming evidence that AA 77 hit the Pentagon and did the damage we see.
It's the nature of the beast.
S. King | 04.12.06 - 9:42 am | # "
Notice that you NEVER once answered the question. I never brought up one comment about the lawn. You make statements that are not supported at all. I have provided you with a very simple question, yet you avoid answering it. But then again, you won't be able to because there is no way that a plane could go through the walls of the Pentagon and not through the WTC.
Try and explain that? Once again for your simple little brain....
You have a building that is made up of steel beams and glass, no plane goes all the way through them.
You have a building that has just been renivated in the area hit by Cavelar reinforced Concrete and several internal concrete reinforced walls.
How does a plane similar in build go through a solid building, but can't through a virtually air building?
Common Mr. Knowitall!
s. king, there was no
s. king,
there was no hypocrisy in my statement. i was just wondering why the need for the trash talking or 'holier than though' attitude? perhaps that is why you got banned before?
anyways..
Kings post responding to me
Kings post responding to me went up while I was doing my previous so I will respond one last time so others interested in the truth can observe how he keeps danceing around my questions. Im debunked? I said the fireman made it to the impact zone in the South Tower. This is where they made their observations that the fires could be put out with two lines. I understand there were fires above the impact zone. At least you admit there is no doccumented evidence of serious damage to WTC7 in your above post. All one needs to do is read your above responses to my comments to see your games are as obvious as a fart in the car. Interested folks should watch 911revisited (911revisited.com) to see what firemen had to say reguarding the destruction of these buildings.
Truth + Justice = PEACE.
Truth + Justice = PEACE.
Anonoymous said... "there
Anonoymous said...
"there was no hypocrisy in my statement. i was just wondering why the need for the trash talking or 'holier than though' attitude?"
I see the hypocrisy in that you aren't criticizing the likes of RemoveBush and others who are doing wosre than King. At least he's trying to light a fire under you guys to get you to think for yourselves.
Jaybird said.... "there is
Jaybird said....
"there is no doccumented evidence of serious damage to WTC7 in your above post."
There is documented evidence. King just said that that the lack of video evidence is irrelevant since there is other evidence like the firemen's testimony and the debris of the North tower mixed in the debris of #7.
Making observations inside the South tower on the 78th floor has nothing to do with the fires they couldn't see above them.
Doug, perhaps you would like
Doug, perhaps you would like to enlighten us with your all great and knowing knowledge as to my question posted many times?
"you won't be able to because there is no way that a plane could go through the walls of the Pentagon and not through the WTC.
Try and explain that? Once again for your simple little brain....
You have a building that is made up of steel beams and glass, no plane goes all the way through them.
You have a building that has just been renivated in the area hit by Cavelar reinforced Concrete and several internal concrete reinforced walls.
How does a plane similar in build go through a solid building, but can't through a virtually air building?"
Answer it!
Also, as far as WTC7. Show me one steel framed building that has collapsed onto its own footprint in a free fall speed caused by MINOR damage and fire.
Show me just one in the world history.
Show me how Newtons law can be ignored, or how conservation of energy.
Explain this to me oh wise one.
Don't go saying it's in NIST AND FEMA. Because it's not. In fact, there was (I believe it was) sulfer found on the steel anylized.
Finally, explain how a 70 ton hydrolic jack is destroyed in a sub-sub basement of WTC, when the plane hit 70+ stories above? There was not enough energy, and the building was hermetically sealed by design.
Common give the EVIDENCE to your claim. You can't, because there is none.
RemBush.... Anonymous
RemBush....
Anonymous wrote...
"i was just wondering why the need for the trash talking or 'holier than though' attitude?"
Doug - You know if people
Doug - You know if people like you would have a debate, rather than just saying the evidence is there without providing it, then perhaps people would not make statements that stand their ground to get an answer from evading, non answering, individuals such as yourself.
Notice that not once has any of the questions actually been answered. They are brushed off and given the Bushco blanket statement "its true because I say it is".
Now if you would like to discuss it, I'm willing to but I am not going to sit back and let someone make my 15 year Engineering experience seem like an uneducated moonbat.
"Take your pick. In both cases, 9/11 conspiracists REFUSE to look at or outright dismiss the overwhelming evidence that AA 77 hit the Pentagon and did the damage we see. S. King"
Notice that there is no answer to any of the questions posed or proof to his assertions.
i dont see how the damage on
i dont see how the damage on the lower floors of WTC7 can be used to suggest that that is why the building collapsed..
the major damage to the lower side of the building facing the north tower obviously played little role in the collapse as the collapse did not favor that side by leaning towards the north tower, but instead fell 100% straight down..
you cant say the damage on one side caused the collapse without ignoring that such damage should have caused an asymetrical collapse.
Anonymous, exactly! People
Anonymous, exactly!
People who believe the official story cannot answer why or how the top part of the building could stop from falling over when it was at at least a 30 degree angle upon collapse. This breaks EVERY law of physics that we have.
I guess these little things just get by them because of their blinders?
I hear that there are some transcrips of flight 93 that are being released. I just want to know why the information from the WTC and Pentagon are not being released? It is known that 3 of the 4 black boxes were found at WTC, and they found at least 1 at the Pentagon. Why do these people believe that no boxes were found? This would be the first time in aviation history that the black boxes were not recovered. Yet they don't question this.
RemBush wrote.... "Also, as
RemBush wrote....
"Also, as far as WTC7. Show me one steel framed building that has collapsed onto its own footprint in a free fall speed caused by MINOR damage and fire."
Demonstratate that there was only minor damage.
"Now if you would like to discuss it, I'm willing to but I am not going to sit back and let someone make my 15 year Engineering experience seem like an uneducated moonbat."
It seems in your exchanges with King and me that you have absolutely no interest in discussing anything.
I question you're so-called engineering experience. You wouldn't be here repeating nonsense that King pointed out to you if you knew anything about structural engineering.
Anonymous wrote... "the
Anonymous wrote...
"the major damage to the lower side of the building facing the north tower obviously played little role in the collapse"
There was a 20-story major gash.
It's up to you to demonstrate your claim with evidence.
I'm all ears.
RemBush wrote... "People who
RemBush wrote...
"People who believe the official story cannot answer why or how the top part of the building could stop from falling over when it was at at least a 30 degree angle upon collapse. This breaks EVERY law of physics that we have."
I'm happy to see the scientific proof of your claim. Trouble is, no one comes up with any. They just assert it.
Doug, the evidence is any
Doug,
the evidence is any and all video footage of the wtc7 collapse, are you saying it didnt collapse 100% straight down? does that correlate to the '20 story major gash' on one side of the building? or are you saying that the 20 story gash damage was enough to facilitate the collapse, but not enough to cause the collapse to be asymetrical?
its like having a 4 legged chair and saying 'look, it fell over because of the damage to one of the chair legs', but the chair fell completely straight down, not in the direction of the damaged leg.. you cant have it both ways can you?
"pull it" is a common
"pull it" is a common firefighting term for "pull the firefighting effort."
Not pull them, pull it. It, the firefighting effort. I've never heard that before, but I must admit I am not too familiar with firefighter jargon. Well, guess I'm a noob too then.
Funny thing is that Larry seems to be very familiar with firefighter jargon. Larry said "And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse". Which does make sense. I never understood why Silverstein was consulted on WTC7 in the first place. To me it does not seem common practice for a fire department commander to contact a leaseholder of property in the midst of a national emergency. But see, since Larry knows a lot about firefighter jargon, he must have been very close to them, which explains why they consulted him. Average ignorant people would probably say "And they made that decision to retract the firefighters", or "And they made that decision to evacuate the firefighters", or "And they made that decision to clear the building from firefighters", or "And they made that decision to get the firefighters out of the building", or even "And they made that decision to pull the firefighters out". Average ignorant people like me. Not Larry. Larry's down with the NYFD, and knows the slang. Thanks for clearing that out, S. King.
If you will now excuse me, I have to throw up.
(oh and don't let that intimidate you, to "throw up" means "throwing the keyboard up against the ceiling", common slang for signing off in my field of work.)
You're going to show us
You're going to show us examples of any building that was comparable to the WTC towers in material and construction, suffered structural damage from aircraft and debris (WTC 7), right?
I don't know if Jaybird will, but I will. Ready? Here we go.
WTC3.
WTC4.
WTC5.
WTC6.
Not to mention the other surrounding structures like the World Financial Center buildings, the Liberty Banker's Trust and the Church Street Federal Building.
Don't believe me? Look here. The severely damaged buildings on the WTC site that are still standing are WTC6, WTC5 and WTC4 (clockwise). The levelled pile of rubble to the right of it is WTC7.
Ohw and it is 'wreckage' and not 'wreakage', as your anonymous predecessor also used to say.
"I'm happy to see the
"I'm happy to see the scientific proof of your claim. Trouble is, no one comes up with any. They just assert it."
Really, and what scientific evidence has been brought forth about the fall of WTC7? NONE! Some flimsy statements that the fires weakened the steel and it fell.
Perhaps you can explain to me how it can fall directly upon its self at a near free fall rate? Despite the fact that the resistance of the remaining floors would have NOT allowed that to happen. Unless you are trying to claim that Physics was also asleep that day?
Since ALL the evidence was convienently destroyed (a federal crime by the way), and NIST also claims that WTC7 is a mystery, I would like to see you pull the evidence that it was a natrual collapes (one without explosives).
There is a demolition implossion giveaway when the middle of the building crimps and then falls straight down on its self. This is classic demolition work. If it was by a natural fall, the building would not have fallen so nicely.
Like it has been said before, if it is as easy as lighting a fire in a building to demolish it, the millions could be saved by just starting a fire.
So provide these so called pictures of the damage, because ALL the pictures I have seen of WTC7 there is MINIMAL damage. There are fires seen on 2 or 4 floors, and not that out of control.
Show me evidence of at least ONE building in history of falling like this from minor damage and a fire.
Does WTC7 look as bad as
Does WTC7 look as bad as this?
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
Heres a very informative page on the very topic and provides a SCIENTIFIC reason for things.
ENJOY!
http://www.physics911.net/stevenjones.htm
Anonymous wrote... "the
Anonymous wrote...
"the evidence is any and all video footage of the wtc7 collapse,..."
The evidence is much more than videos and pictures. They only show the collapse of 7 WTC - not why it collapsed. Also there is only one know photo of the South face that shows the building completely shrouded in smoke.
The nature of sientific investigations relies on ALL the evidence, not just video evidence which, as we know in this case, does nothing more than give us a visual picture of the collapse and refutes the claim that it was "free-fall" speeds.
"...are you saying it didnt collapse 100% straight down?"
Where did I say or imply that? Gravity always pulls things straight dowen to the center of the earth.
"does that correlate to the '20 story major gash' on one side of the building? or are you saying that the 20 story gash damage was enough to facilitate the collapse, but not enough to cause the collapse to be asymetrical?"
What I said was quite clear: "It's up to you to demonstrate your claim with evidence."
It is it so hard for you to present evidence?
"does nothing more than give
"does nothing more than give us a visual picture of the collapse and refutes the claim that it was "free-fall" speeds.It is it so hard for you to present evidence?
Doug Jansen | 04.12.06 - 3:24 pm |"
So now video evidence is not scientific or evidence to the facts cannot be obtained through video? What exactly is it that you have any technical tallent to make a claim like that?
What educational or work experience do you have?
First of all...... It can and has been proven that the building fell in 6.6 seconds from video information. By using reference buildings in the video, and knowing the height of those buildings, a scientific calculation can be made and was.
Many people here, including myself, have defined reasons why the official explaination is not true. Since you want to claim that this is a court like case and we need proof, then how about your counter proof to our claims? Many have provided calculations, pictures, scientific evidence, and more so where is your counter evidence?
"Gravity always pulls things straight dowen to the center of the earth. "
Yes it does, however, there is a little thing called RESISTANCE. Unless you telling me that nothing in this world provides resistance to gravity, then your claim does not hold water. It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a building 47 stories high to fall as though it was in a vacuum.
Are you at all a technical person? Do you have ANY scientific or engineering experience?
This was my post.....
This was my post..... Somehow Anonymous's name was paste into the name field.
" "does nothing more than give us a visual picture of the collapse and refutes the claim that it was "free-fall" speeds.It is it so hard for you to present evidence?
Doug Jansen | 04.12.06 - 3:24 pm |"
So now video evidence is not scientific or evidence to the facts cannot be obtained through video? What exactly is it that you have any technical tallent to make a claim like that?
What educational or work experience do you have?
First of all...... It can and has been proven that the building fell in 6.6 seconds from video information. By using reference buildings in the video, and knowing the height of those buildings, a scientific calculation can be made and was.
Many people here, including myself, have defined reasons why the official explaination is not true. Since you want to claim that this is a court like case and we need proof, then how about your counter proof to our claims? Many have provided calculations, pictures, scientific evidence, and more so where is your counter evidence?
"Gravity always pulls things straight dowen to the center of the earth. "
Yes it does, however, there is a little thing called RESISTANCE. Unless you telling me that nothing in this world provides resistance to gravity, then your claim does not hold water. It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a building 47 stories high to fall as though it was in a vacuum.
Are you at all a technical person? Do you have ANY scientific or engineering experience?
Anonymous | 04.12.06 - 3:32 pm | # "
zuco wrote... > "pull it" is
zuco wrote...
> "pull it" is a common firefighting term for "pull the firefighting effort."
"Not pull them, pull it."
No. Grammatically when referring to an "effort" we say "it", not "them."
"It, the firefighting effort. I've never heard that before, but I must admit I am not too familiar with firefighter jargon."
Is there any reason why you should be?
"Funny thing is that Larry seems to be very familiar with firefighter jargon. Larry said "And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse". Which does make sense."
He is being interviewed months later explaining the situation. I would be pretty familiar with firemen's jargon too after watching the effort to save buildings I leased.
But everyone here is claiming to be smarter than Silverstein, stating that "pull it is a demolition term, only a demolition term, we know it 100% for sure that's what Silverstein meant, and that's final!" Isn't that exactly what your are stating, zuco?
These 9/11 conspiracists must be really smart to know EXACTLY what Silverstein meant. They're real experts, apparently, having had all kinds of training in demolition, right?
Well then, let's get real. "Pull it" is used as a term for demolition crews when they are mechanically destroying a building, as crews did at ground zero when taking the remains of the WTC towers outside walls by pulling them down with chains.
No one wants to speculate why Silverstein - IF he had meant to secretly pull the buildings down - why he would admit it in a pre-planned interview on TV.
You guys need to think more carefully.
zuco wrote... > "You're
zuco wrote...
> "You're going to show us examples of any building that was comparable to the WTC towers in material and construction, suffered structural damage from aircraft and debris (WTC 7), right?
"I don't know if Jaybird will, but I will. Ready? Here we go."
WTC3.
WTC4.
WTC5.
WTC6.
That's real funny.
Imagine you thinking that all the other buildings suffered the necessary damage to collapse them.
I'll remember that line of hopeless logic.
"No one wants to speculate
"No one wants to speculate why Silverstein - IF he had meant to secretly pull the buildings down - why he would admit it in a pre-planned interview on TV."
Sure, that would be the same reason why for several different times Bush stated that he watched the first plane crash into the building. Not that he was confussed because this was before he went into the classroom and he made it clear to state that in both his statements.
It's a slip of the tongue. He was talking and it was not suppose to come out like that, but it did.
I don't know what technical experience you have, but it sure sounds like you have no college education. You fail to look outside the box.
You have yet to provide ONE building that has fallen due to minor damage or fire neatly onto its own footprint. Back up your claim that this is normal, because it is not.
Here's some more evidence
Here's some more evidence Doug! Still waiting for yours.
http://www.physics911.net/kevinryan.htm
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
RemBush wrote... "Really,
RemBush wrote...
"Really, and what scientific evidence has been brought forth about the fall of WTC7? NONE! Some flimsy statements that the fires weakened the steel and it fell."
As an someone claiming 15 years of supposed engineering experience, you don't even realize that NIST's final report on 7 WTC is even complete yet???
"Perhaps you can explain to me how it can fall directly upon its self at a near free fall rate? Despite the fact that the resistance of the remaining floors would have NOT allowed that to happen. Unless you are trying to claim that Physics was also asleep that day?"
You're claiming to know exactly what the structural state of 7 WTC was internally? Great! Give us the evidence we've all been waiting for!
Pretty please?
"There is a demolition implossion giveaway when the middle of the building crimps and then falls straight down on its self. This is classic demolition work. If it was by a natural fall, the building would not have fallen so nicely."
Well don't be timid. Give us the engeneering reports of the collapse for heaven's sake.
"So provide these so called pictures of the damage, because ALL the pictures I have seen of WTC7 there is MINIMAL damage. There are fires seen on 2 or 4 floors, and not that out of control."
Give us the pictures and videos of the South side of 7 WTC you must possess to support your claims. Please don't hold them back any longer!
RemBush wrote... " Does WTC7
RemBush wrote...
" Does WTC7 look as bad as this?
:http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsl.../ nwsltr69c.html"
It's a sure sign when a person who knows nothing about structural engineering posts the pictures of the Madrid fire.
You really stuck your foot in your mouth on that one, RemBush!
Anonymous wrote... "First of
Anonymous wrote...
"First of all...... It can and has been proven that the building fell in 6.6 seconds from video information. By using reference buildings in the video, and knowing the height of those buildings, a scientific calculation can be made and was."
You sure didn't look at the CBS video too cvarefully. Why not?
"As an someone claiming 15
"As an someone claiming 15 years of supposed engineering experience, you don't even realize that NIST's final report on 7 WTC is even complete yet???"
Of course I do, but do you see any statement there about it. Besides the report that was provided previously does state that WTC7 was a mystery.
"You're claiming to know exactly what the structural state of 7 WTC was internally? Great! Give us the evidence we've all been waiting for!
Pretty please?"
No I'm not! I'm claiming that PHYSICS makes the straight down at a free fall rate IMPOSSIBLE!
"Well don't be timid. Give us the engeneering reports of the collapse for heaven's sake."
http://www.physics911.net/kevinryan.htm
http://911review.com/articles/gr...iffin/ nyc1.html
"Give us the pictures and videos of the South side of 7 WTC you must possess to support your claims. Please don't hold them back any longer!"
See above, just a small portion of information should you decide to do any research on the matter.
"It's a sure sign when a
"It's a sure sign when a person who knows nothing about structural engineering posts the pictures of the Madrid fire."
You really stuck your foot in your mouth on that one, RemBush!
Doug Jansen | 04.12.06 - 4:09 pm | # "
Really? So now I need to be a structural engineer to understand and demonstrate PHYSICS?
Well then, how about this one. Or are you going to claim that this was not as severe as the WTC7 fire?
http://www.wtc7.net/buildingfires.html
Anonymous wrote... "Many
Anonymous wrote...
"Many people here, including myself, have defined reasons why the official explaination is not true. Since you want to claim that this is a court like case and we need proof, then how about your counter proof to our claims? Many have provided calculations, pictures, scientific evidence, and more so where is your counter evidence?"
You haven't provided any scientific "proof" whatsoever.
You made claims. Period. You don't even get your facts right. No one has any reason to accept your assertions without the solid, irrefutable proof to back it up.
I want scientific analysis. I want peer reviewed papers from physicists and structural enginneers that can be falsified under the scientific method.
To date none of you have been able to exclude the evidence that what happened on 9/11 to the WTC towers as explained by NIST and other independent investigations.
I am showing you that fact as much as you hate to admit it.
"It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a building 47 stories high to fall as though it was in a vacuum."
There's a perfect example. Just a run-of-the-mill 9/11 claim with no evidence that it was impossible for 7 WTC to fall from the damage and fire it sustained.
You need to start thinking.
"You sure didn't look at the
"You sure didn't look at the CBS video too cvarefully. Why not?
Doug Jansen | 04.12.06 - 4:10 pm | # "
Provide it!
I have looked at several of videos from the different angles that are available.
How many have you looked at?
"It is it so hard for you to
"It is it so hard for you to present evidence?"
why is it up to the citizenry to provide evidence for what the government claims? why is it up to me to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that i am right and not the government? im not the one using my story of 9/11 to remove rights, attack other countries, etc. etc.
how about this idea? why don't other research bodies actually provide a full and reasonable account? the nist report didnt discuss any of the collapse of the 2 towers after 'global collapse' - a term they never bothered definining.
as for WTC7, i would argue that the evidence that it was controlled demolition is just as strong (in fact much stronger) than the assertions that have been suggested by the incredibly weak FEMA report, and the unfinished NIST report.
i'm not the one that needs to prove my case, because im not claiming that a 47 story tall building collapsed at near freefall speeds into its own footprint because of fire damage.
its called an 'investigation', heaven help us if we ever had a real one, or if the evidence wasn't destroyed in almost all aspects of 9/11.
bah, defend the official story, do it as long as you can, but eventually you too will doubt the honesty of our government surrounding 9/11..
perhaps if you think the physical aspects are all bunk you should take a step back and research the prior knowledge, or the failures of the 9/11 commission, or bush's inaction that morning..
Doug, first of all I
Doug, first of all I admitted that I am not familiar with firefighters jargon. This means that I am very open to accept that "pull it" means "pull the firefighter effort". So no, I am not stating Silverstein meant that they were going to demolish WTC7. I'm stating that two things don't make sense. One, that Silverstein is consulted on what to do about WTC7 on the day of the attacks. Two, Silverstein adapting firefighters jargon. See, I think a NYFD commander has other things to do than to talk with leaseholders of property. I also think after 911 Silverstein was more concerned about his insurance policies (among other things) than about the local NYFD slang. So that's why I ask what I ask. To understand. My only goal is to find some clarity and sense in all of this. Even if that means the outcome doesn't fit most 911 truth seekers' theories. I'm interested in truth, not in being part of a club.
And about those buildings. Have you seen the image I linked in my message? What makes you think building 7 was more damaged than the WTC buildings in the direct vicinity of WTC 1 and 2? And by the way, I'm not saying it's impossible WTC7 collapsed. I'm saying it is impossible for WTC7 to collapse the way it did.
You, Doug, need to read more carefully.
And another thing. 19 gung ho arabs with a passion for flight sims and office cutlery, bypassing the worlds largest security and military authorities, in spite of several national and international high level warnings issued, hitting 3 out of 4 targets. Now that's hopeless logic.
"I want scientific analysis.
"I want scientific analysis. I want peer reviewed papers from physicists and structural enginneers that can be falsified under the scientific method.
To date none of you have been able to exclude the evidence that what happened on 9/11 to the WTC towers as explained by NIST and other independent investigations."
Here you go!
http://mujca.com/jonesphysics.htm
http://mujca.com/newyork.htm
These are the only links I have at this computer, but I can provide more. They are out there if you READ.
"There's a perfect example. Just a run-of-the-mill 9/11 claim with no evidence that it was impossible for 7 WTC to fall from the damage and fire it sustained."
OK, since you are so sure that PHYSICS does not exist, please show me proof of a building falling at a free fall rate (without explosives) anytime in the worlds history. I'm only asking for ONE example!
Since you are so confident "There's a perfect example" of this provide a previous fact of it happening?
RemBush wrote... "It's a
RemBush wrote...
"It's a slip of the tongue. He was talking and it was not suppose to come out like that, but it did."
Yet you can't ptovide any evidence? LOL>
"I don't know what technical experience you have, but it sure sounds like you have no college education. You fail to look outside the box."
You poor soul. You haven't a clue about anything.
You have yet to refute me on anything OR provide a single piece of evidence on anything.
And you made the horrendous mistake of trying to use the Madrid tower fire to support your assertions!
That, son, is really stupid.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote...
Strawman.
"So now video evidence is not scientific or evidence to the facts cannot be obtained through video? What exactly is it that you have any technical tallent to make a claim like that?"
I just showed you what evidence it was. But you can't cotinue to claim it's the only evdidence as I made clear. Stop denying the other evidence.
"First of all...... It can and has been proven that the building fell in 6.6 seconds from video information. By using reference buildings in the video, and knowing the height of those buildings, a scientific calculation can be made and was."
First of all, it can be proven by video of the entire collpase - that which you are evading - that it took longe for 7 WTC to fall than 6.6 seconds.
Nonetheless, you are responsible for providing evidence that it could not have fallen other than by pre-planted explosives.
So far, you refuse to provide us that evidence.
RemBush.... "Provide
RemBush....
"Provide it!"
I'm not doing your homework for you.
"I have looked at several of videos from the different angles that are available."
Looks like you didn't look really hard.
"I'm not doing your homework
"I'm not doing your homework for you."
Typical Answer from someone who really has no answers, experience, or idea of what they are talking about.
"Nonetheless, you are responsible for providing evidence that it could not have fallen other than by pre-planted explosives.
So far, you refuse to provide us that evidence.
Doug Jansen | 04.12.06 - 4:28 pm | # "
"
Sure I have, but you refuse to address what I have provided. Good thing you are not a laywer (though you play one on the web) because you would certainly loose EVERY case you worked.
Try refuting the evidence I provided, from the HIGHLY educated and well known individuals.
You made claims. Period. You
You made claims. Period. You don't even get your facts right. No one has any reason to accept your assertions without the solid, irrefutable proof to back it up.
are you talking about those that question wtc7 or the government sponsored research papers? seems to me you expect one thing from random people on a blog, but have no standards at all when it comes to government reports.
I want scientific analysis. I want peer reviewed papers from physicists and structural enginneers that can be falsified under the scientific method.
you want papers that can be falsified? what? if your saying you want a real investigation then welcome to the crowd.
To date none of you have been able to exclude the evidence that what happened on 9/11 to the WTC towers as explained by NIST and other independent investigations.
this sentence makes no sense. and while you demand information from random people on this blog you provide little to nothing to back up your disagreements. so, here is a response to the recent NIST release, it will be better than wasting your time in circuitous arguements here.
http://www.911research.com/essays/nist/index.html
I am showing you that fact as much as you hate to admit it.
i don't see you accomplishing much other than to waste your time and others.
Anonymous wrote... "why is
Anonymous wrote...
"why is it up to the citizenry to provide evidence for what the government claims?"
There are numerous scientific investigations, NIST being a primary one, made up of a majority of independent scientists with their names on the line.
The final reports on towers 1 and 2 are complete. Tower 7 is not.
The entire report consists of an explanation of their methodologies, assumptions, evidence, facts, investigations, forensic tests, interveiws and so on. Their conclusions are there for all to see and for peer review. Anyone that is qualified to do so can contest any part of the investigation if they believe there is cause.
If you don't believe they are correct and you come here making unsupported claims, it is up to you to bring evidence that refutes NIST entirely. You don't have to do it yourself. But you have to support your own assertions. You can bring any number of scientific papers from credible experts in the fields required that refute NIST.
You haven't done so.
Neither has anyone else.
I am still waiting.
Doug, I must've missed any
Doug,
I must've missed any 'evidence' or links, or references, etc. in your arguement.. all i have seen is a bunch of rhetoric, circuitous arguements, and an avoidance of any real information.
so, how about you provide an arguement for your case? you get so angry at those that believe WTC7 was intentionally brought down, what do you beleive? how about you tell us your personal opinions and then we will trash you without any real evidence, references, or making any specific points?
you haven't proven much of anything here, but i'd like to see you argue your opinion - if you have one.
Anonymous wrote.... "are you
Anonymous wrote....
"are you talking about those that question wtc7 or the government sponsored research papers? seems to me you expect one thing from random people on a blog, but have no standards at all when it comes to government reports."
Red Herring.
"http://www.911research.com/essay...nist/ index.html"
A 9/11 conspiracist making the wrong assumptions, getting his facts wrong, with no expertise in the fields qualifies as an "expert" in structural engineering, phsyics, and forensics to you?
No wonder you will not escape the ignorance and devotion to political causes that afflcits 9/11 conspiracists instead of dealing with facts, truth, and reality.
Now we know why you can't present any evidence.
Anonymous wrote... "so, how
Anonymous wrote...
"so, how about you provide an arguement for your case? you get so angry at those that believe WTC7 was intentionally brought down, what do you beleive?"
Try reading my post just above yours.
Doug, If you don't believe
Doug,
If you don't believe they are correct and you come here making unsupported claims, it is up to you to bring evidence that refutes NIST entirely. You don't have to do it yourself. But you have to support your own assertions. You can bring any number of scientific papers from credible experts in the fields required that refute NIST.
I do believe the recent NIST report is heavily flawed, and for a number of reasons. I pasted a link above which lays out a number of reasons why the NIST report was incomplete, or dishonest, here it is again:
http://www.911research.com/essays/nist/index.html
You haven't done so.
Neither has anyone else.
this is just an inflamitory comment, you should know pretty well that Jim Hoffman has made numerous recent appearances on the radio and at different functions.. and he has a very good list of ways in which the NIST report fell well short of proving anything.
but, since you dont really want to read the counter-arguement, but would rather just continue to bash others (while not arguing your own opinions) here is the #1 reason i take with the NIST report:
#1) they didnt analyze anything past the point of 'global collapse' - which they didnt define, and which arguably is the most important part of the event since it is the first time in history such a 'global collapse' has happened in a steel super-structure building.
shouldnt we demand a full investigation into the collapses? not one that just covers how it might have started and then ignores the actual event itself?
Doug, A 9/11 conspiracist
Doug,
A 9/11 conspiracist making the wrong assumptions, getting his facts wrong, with no expertise in the fields qualifies as an "expert" in structural engineering, phsyics, and forensics to you?
No wonder you will not escape the ignorance and devotion to political causes that afflcits 9/11 conspiracists instead of dealing with facts, truth, and reality.
Now we know why you can't present any evidence.
Do you have anything to provide as a counter arguement to Hoffman's work, or can you just wave it off with insults without providing any science, research, or evidence?
S. King said: "The example
S. King said: "The example of your 911Blogger.com is to make unsupported assertions, repeat debunked conspiracy nonsense, never be able to prove what you say, and automatically dismiss inconvenient evidence."
Inconvenient evidence? Like this:
http://www.911podcasts.com/view.php?cat=4&med=0&ord=Name&strt=0&vid=24&e...
And this:
"The captain of emergency medical services said "somewhere around the middle of the world trade center there was this orange and red flash coming out ... initially it was just one flash then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode ... and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides ... as far as could see these popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building" (page 15 -- pdf file; Google's web version is here)"
"Similiarly, the Assistant Fire Commissioner stated "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?” . In the same statement, the Assistant Commissioner recounts how a lieutenant firefighter he spoke with independently verified the flashes."
Inconvenient to the official story I guess. Sorry, no amount of misinformation or circular arguments can erase these statements or the dozens of others just like it.
S. King, you and your government have lost. Enjoy that paycheck while you can.
Anonymous wrote... "this is
Anonymous wrote...
"this is just an inflamitory comment, you should know pretty well that Jim Hoffman has made numerous recent appearances on the radio and at different functions.. and he has a very good list of ways in which the NIST report fell well short of proving anything."
I know that Hoffman is unqualified and made assumptions that are flat out wrong. He has been debunked thoroughly.
That you have to use him as a crutch rather than qualified structural engineers shows how weak your position is.
"but, since you dont really want to read the counter-arguement, but would rather just continue to bash others (while not arguing your own opinions) here is the #1 reason i take with the NIST report:"
I've read it all for years and heard these same tired, repeated, debunked assertions for as long.
"#1) they didnt analyze anything past the point of 'global collapse' - which they didnt define, and which arguably is the most important part of the event since it is the first time in history such a 'global collapse' has happened in a steel super-structure building."
This is one of the ridiculous assumptions Hoffman makes and which you accepted without bothering to investigate any further.
You can talk to any QUALIFIED structrual engineer, you can study, physics, you can visit all the physics forums available on the net, and you will come away with actual physics of why, once the causes of the collapses of the upper stories were known, once they started to fall in towers 1 and 2, it was inevitable that the collapses would be global for those towers.
That is precisely why it is immaterial to undertake a study, much less spending the money, of what happened after the collapses of the upper blocks on 1 and 2 started.
If a bomb goes off in a jet at 30,000 feet, do investigators spend the money modelling the fall of the plane after the explosion? Of course not.
Hoffman is a laughing stock.
"shouldnt we demand a full investigation into the collapses."
Only if there is a valid reason. So far, what you believe is not based on anything anyone would accept as a basis for any investigation of anything.
You need to get your facts correct as a start and stop believing what these absurd conspiracists like Hoffman like gospel.
Doug, Please provide some
Doug,
Please provide some further information on your previous statement as listed here:
I know that Hoffman is unqualified and made assumptions that are flat out wrong. He has been debunked thoroughly.
You can say things, just like those that question 9/11 can say things, but references or further details would help a lot in making your case.
Also, the following statement seems a bit far fetched, do you have any further information you can link me to?
it was inevitable that the collapses would be global for those towers.
How is it considered 'inevitable'? I could understand if it had happened a million times, or had been prepared for and fully modeled, etc. but seeing as how it is a first of sorts, one would think any real investigation would be as thorough as possible.. if the pile of rubble had been 2x as tall would that have been innevitable too?
you are more than welcome to your opinion, but provide some substance like what you are demanding from others.
dz - he can't! All he can do
dz - he can't!
All he can do is call anyone who does not believe the governments version a consperiacy theorist.
My assumption from his comments is that he believes the theory of the "power driver". This is just insane.
They never account for resistance and try to say that the weight of the upper floors was too much. I argue that the lower floors and structures should be stronger as it goes down. Your not going to build a building that is just as strong at the top as it is at the bottom. Therefore, the notion that the power driver could CRUSH the building like there was nothing below it is ludicruse.
The people making these types of statements don't explain how PHYSICS is then broken by this theory.
They can NEVER provide evidence to support it. Nor can they provide anyone else who has this evidence. Yet we can provide people with credentials who state the opposite and they call us conspiracy theorists.
Im done with trolls.
Im done with trolls.
somebigguy
somebigguy wrote,
"Similiarly, the Assistant Fire Commissioner stated "I thought...."
Amazing scientific evidence you've got there.
I guess you beleive it trumps all those structural engineers out there, huh?
I posted a link several
I posted a link several weeks ago that no one was able to address.
Let's see if any of you new guys here are willing to take up the challenge.
This is physics. Debunk it:
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf
P.S. Prof. Steven Jones, co-head of Scholars for 9/11 Truth was asked to address it months ago. A member of his group reported to me a month ago that Jones is "working on it."
One has to wonder why Jones would need to "work on it" since he has already stated on his site that, "Physics research establishes that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings."
I know none of you here are used to questionning your sources but don't you think you should?
So, have at it. Debunk physics. Jones's too scared to.
The silence is deafening.
The silence is deafening.
Good work, skyking. Dr.
Good work, skyking.
Dr. Greening's papers have completely flummoxed the 9/11 deniers here. Have you seen his latest addendum here: http://911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf?
and the one nailing the phony Jim Hoffman here: http://911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf?
These "true deniers" here can't deal with real physics for the life of them. They put there blinders on and whine incessantly that facts, physics, science, and real evidence is unfair to them.
Doug, King, before you start
Doug, King, before you start waxing each others fists here, allow me one question. I haven't had time to read this entire thing, and won't have any in the next couple of days, but is this report of yours about pancaking floors?
Ohw and Doug, you still owe
Ohw and Doug, you still owe me an answer. The silence is deafening, you know..