9/11 was an inside job!

Rag-Doll · June 5, 2008

Oh and I don't think anyone is calling Afghanistan illegal.

Oyuki kigan · June 5, 2008

Its OK Soubs, n offense taken. I have been known to get heated up myself on internet arguements. It happens, and apology accepted

back to the issue at hand, a question about tower 7. Back on page 2, you mentioned about tower 7.

Originally Posted By: soubriquet

Quote:

11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).

The buildings were empty of people and the fire department had just lost several hundred men. They lacked the benefit of hindsight. What would you do in these circumstances?

you seem to imply that you don't disagree, that building 7 was 'pulled' (ie taken down on purpose).

Yet just above, you claim

Quote:

Building 7. Simple. The automatic re-fueling system pumped 12,000 gallons of diesel into the fire. It automatically switched on when the power and water failed, and kept going till the building collapsed.

which is it?

I understand that on the surface some views about 9/11 sound wild and extreme, but to my mind, no moreso that claiming that it was coincidence that a) standard interception procedure failed at the FAA and bases (with all its redundancies), b)all the towers' many redundancies failed (as they were designed to take such a hit), that building 7 failed (and looked EXACTLY like a controlled demolition, what are the odds?), that the pentagon was successfully hit by a crap pilot who somehow managed to pull of an extremely difficult maneuver, that the flight that was overpowered by the crew did not crash in any kind of normal way, that ... it was a day of the most amazing coincidences.

I can't name them all, its been a while since i read the book 'A New Pearl Harbor' that details all of it. If anyone is interested in seeing what 'the other side' say, check that out, or see if there are any youtube clips of the doc 'Improbable Collapse".

Rag-Doll · June 5, 2008

What does "Pulled" mean?

How was Silverstein using the word?

Was he referring to the allocation of resources to fight the fire in the building or was he referring to setting off demolition charges presumably laid prior to 911 in the expectation that one or both planes would do sufficient damage to the Towers to create a large enough disaster to create a plausible scenario for Building 7 to collapse in sympathy. Maybe I'm just too trusting, but you know, I reckon he just might have been talking about the fire fighters...

Oyuki kigan · June 5, 2008

I am reluctant to use this site, but it does have video (i can't watch it through on this computer, let me know if it is unrelated)

http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html

Rag-Doll · June 5, 2008

Aaah!

Oyuki, the information these sites present is so biased as to be completely useless. I can't see the vid on this computer either but let's consider what we can see. We have a couple of paragraphs of inflammatory comments that have no probative value whatsoever. CAPS used to distinguish previous text:

Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives. WHAT INDUSTRY - DEMOLITION INDUSTRY(?) ASSUMING THERE IS SUCH A THING, IS SILVERSTEIN IN THAT INDUSTRY? DID HE MEAN THAT OR DID HE MEAN SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY, LIKE GIVING UP TRYING TO SAVE IT? THIS IS AMBIVALENT AT BEST.

We have attempted to call Larry Silverstein's office on several occasions. Silverstein has never issued a retraction for his comments. WHY WOULD HE IF THE WORDS WERE USED IN A COMPLETELY INNOCUOUS WAY? PROVES NOTHING.

Photos taken moments before the collapse of WTC 7 show small office fires on just two floors. PHOTOS FROM THIS ANGLE MAYBE. I THINK I HAVE SEEN THESE PHOTOS AND VID BEFORE AND FROM MEMORY, THE BUILDING COLLAPSES AWAY FROM THE CAMERA. IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE EXACTLY HOW MUCH DAMAGE WAS SUSTAINED ON THE SIDE THAT COLLAPSES - I HAVEN'T LOOKED, BUT ARE THERE ANY PHOTOS OF THAT SIDE? I BET THERE AREN'T BECAUSE IT ISN'T ANYWHERE NEARLY AS SUSPICIOUS WHEN YOU SEE MASSIVELY DAMAGED BUILDING COLLAPSING

Firefighters were told to move away from the building moments before it collapsed. AFTER ALL THE THINGS THAT WENT WRONG ON THE DAY, THOSE POOR BASTARDS FINALLY GOT A BREAK! PROVES NOTHING

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million! INVESTMENT VERSUS REPLACEMENT VALUE. HMMM, YOU DON'T RECKON THAT MAYBE A BIT OF CAPITAL APPRECIATION MAY HAVE OCCURRED BETWEEN WHEN HE BOUGHT THE PLACE AND WHEN IT WAS DESTROYED?

Oyuki kigan · June 5, 2008

Thats why i didn't want to use that site, silly. I know it is over-the-top. the point is in the footage.

the only relevant text in there was

Quote:

Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.

it looks like the video clip is from an actual news program.

Rag-Doll · June 5, 2008

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Oyuki, this site should enable you to sleep at night, without concerns about the Bush Bogeyman! I'm joking, of course! I haven't read much of this and I'm sure it will be just as over the top as other siteson this topic but at least it is coming from my side of the fence, so naturally I think it all completely reasonable

It does provide some info on Building 7, and, importantly, some photos that show just how badly damaged the building was before it fell.

Oyuki kigan · June 5, 2008

Looks really interesting, i will try to read it all later. Thanks for the find

soubriquet · June 5, 2008

Here's No1 son aged 1 day

This is No1 son a little older

Getting conspiracy theories is really important. Idle mind etc.

soubriquet · June 5, 2008

So what?

Anti-science and anti-Engineering. My baby would be dead without science and engineering. Women beware. The anti-technologists will have you die in childbirth, as happened to my father's first wife. He/She also lost two baby girls to preventable disease.

No1 son is a fine 15 year old lad. A much nicer person than his dad. Without science and technology he would have been a stillbirth.

JA2340 · June 5, 2008

Soubs, trust you to inject some sense of perspective into the whole shirtfight!

He looks like a real nice (if a little on the cheeky side) kid. Is this one of the ones that you have had to fight to get to see? If so, that would be worth the effort!

Oyuki kigan · June 6, 2008

Soubs, please stay on topic, or at least refrain from insuating positions that have not even been remotely close to being stated. No one here is anti-science, or suggested as much. thank you.

NoFakie · June 6, 2008

None of the explanations were tested against the actual wreckage which was carted away at double quick speed. Theories and little drawings are nice, but they all need to be compared against the actual evidence for me to believe them. Its what happens in every other criminal case. Its also what proper scientists do too. No serious scientist proves anything on a piece of paper. All you can do is hypothesize.

Anyway, my major concern is not the towers collapsing, especially now the evidence has been destroyed. Its only one small part of the events, none of which have been adequately investigated. I'm sick of saying this, but that's what the people who did the investigating say. If the people who wrote the official story don't have faith in it, neither will I. The US government also lies about every other aspect of the so-called War on Terror, from yellow cake to torture to Jessica Lynch. I don't know what happened, but there is clearly more to it than what we have been told. What and how much more I do not know.

The Taliban government was willing to negotiate. Had they been allowed to, Osama bin Laden would have been caught. If you fight a war when the other side will negotiate, that makes the war and occupation illegal. Lots of people consider the attack on Afghanistan illegal. You won't encounter them very often in the mainstream media, that is all. Perhaps you should read more widely.

thursday · June 6, 2008

OK, for Blair, he used the Royal Perogative to send troops to Iraq. That made it lawful.

Rag-Doll · June 6, 2008

None of the explanations were tested against the actual wreckage which was carted away at double quick speed. Why bother testing for something that is patently irrelevant? It is like asking why, when investigating a crash landing of an airliner, the authorities don't test for damage from anti aircraft missiles? It's like, completely outside the realm of reason to think it necessary.

Theories and little drawings are nice, but they all need to be compared against the actual evidence for me to believe them. Exactly. It is just a pity the 911 Truth peeps don't do this. The two websites Oyuki and I posted yesterday show a dramatic contrast in approaches from the two side of the argument. The Gov-Did-It website selectively presents the Building 7 information in a way to create real doubt as to why it fell over and in the official explanation. The photos show an almost pristine building. Most importantly, that website omits photos from the damaged side of the building, it presents only selected information that supports its case. The other website shows just how much damage the building suffered and once the damage is established and a more fulsome explanation of the actions of the fire-fighters is provided, there is suddenly a lot less reason to question the official explanation, because it is infinitely more plausible than what the 911 truth people will have us believe.

Its what happens in every other criminal case. The standard is beyond reasonable doubt. If we applied even some of the rules of evidence to the spurious claims of the 911 truth nuts, their arguments would melt away. Innuendo, selective presentation of evidence, exclusion of conflicting evidence, hear say, circumstantial evidence, ambiguous evidence - it just doesn't stack up to close analysis. Another important thing about legal process, is the well accepted difficulty of correlating eye witness accounts. Amazingly, people will often have quite different recollections of the exact same event. Memory and perception are very slippery things. The 911 Chicken Littles make a lot out of apparent discrepancies between eye witnesses and descriptions of the events by different people. But these differences are to be expected, it would be far more concerning if we actually had a very high level of consistency in the narrative - that consistency would be far more suggestive of an official orchestrated event.

Its also what proper scientists do too. No serious scientist proves anything on a piece of paper. All you can do is hypothesize. I don't know what you point is. They can't rebuild the Towers to re-enact the event. They don't need to test for explosives because there is no need to. Likewise, they don't need to test for radiation from a mini nuke or Alien death ray.

Anyway, my major concern is not the towers collapsing, especially now the evidence has been destroyed. Its only one small part of the events, none of which have been adequately investigated. It has! Get past the first page of google where all the crack pot pages are and read the actual reports.

I'm sick of saying this, but that's what the people who did the investigating say. Really? Who exactly and what do they actually say? This is a big claim and I would be very interested to read about anybody who was intimately involved in the several investigations saying that what they did was not thorough and complete. You reckon you're sick of saying this, so put up the info. No second hand extracts, real and complete statements from people who were involved in the process and know what they're talking about.

If the people who wrote the official story don't have faith in it, neither will I. The US government also lies about every other aspect of the so-called War on Terror, from yellow cake to torture to Jessica Lynch. I don't know what happened, but there is clearly more to it than what we have been told. What and how much more I do not know. Of course governments spin and manipulate information. The US gov probably more than anyone. Don't you think it is odd that we have such a good understanding of those examples you've mentioned but nothing concrete from 911? Why is that do you reckon? There is a vast difference between political oppitunism and constructing an elaborate plan to kills thousands of civilians. Sure, when its soldiers are killed one can say that governments kill its own citizens for political purposes but even that is different from 911. It has always been the prerogative of governments to make use of its armed services for political reasons, so long as those reasons are dressed up as national interests - that has occurred for as long as there have been armies and governments.

The Taliban government was willing to negotiate. Had they been allowed to, Osama bin Laden would have been caught. If you fight a war when the other side will negotiate, that makes the war and occupation illegal. Lots of people consider the attack on Afghanistan illegal. You won't encounter them very often in the mainstream media, that is all. Perhaps you should read more widely. ..and you shouldn't believe everything that you read.

Rag-Doll · June 6, 2008

[quote=Rag-Doll

I'm sick of saying this, but that's what the people who did the investigating say. Really? Who exactly and what do they actually say? This is a big claim and I would be very interested to read about anybody who was intimately involved in the several investigations saying that what they did was not thorough and complete. You reckon you're sick of saying this, so put up the info. No second hand extracts, real and complete statements from people who were involved in the process and know what they're talking about.

Mr. W,

I've spent the last couple of hours having at look at what the commissioners have said about their access to information. You're completely right about them expressing concerns about access to info and the level of help they got from different departments, but it seems to be more of a case of departments withholding info that would paint them or the Government in a bad light than any suggestion that the government was complicit in the 911 event over and above simple incompetence. I can't find any indication that the commissioners were concerned that there was an over arching conpiracy involved.

spacefrog · June 10, 2008

ok boys now explain the Pentagon. Can`t wait to hear this one. Or does FEMA have some credulous explanation?

journey_man · June 10, 2008

Easy. Check out the eyewitnesses, heaps's of them. For some reason the 911ers don't mention them much.

I posted some links earlier in this thread to some sites that mention eyewitnesses.

BTW until a week ago I thought the Pentagon bit was dodgy as hell too. Then someone mentioned eyewitnesses. I changed my tune rapidly.

spacefrog · June 10, 2008

eyewitnesses that actually saw a plane fly into the Pentagon?

Funny when you go back to the original reports all those years ago we hear all of these eyewitnesses that say nothing resembling a plane came near. Then the gasstation security footage that shows nothing until we see flames and smoke but no plane debris.

Curious

journey_man · June 10, 2008

Please check out the links I mention below:

Originally Posted By: Journey Man

<snip>

I decided I'd pick up on the Pentagon story, as it was one of the conspiracy theories I have wondered about. Rag Doll mentioning there were eye witnesses was news to me. It took me about 10 minutes to be sure it was a plane. Too many eye witnesses. The CNN transcript was the clincher:

About.com Normally a legit site.

What Really Happened Hysterical sounding name for balance

CNN Normally reliable

If you think any of the sites have got it wrong please say why and provide evidence I can easily access, preferably websites. Otherwise we're just going to go around in circles. Again.

spacefrog · June 11, 2008

Originally Posted By: soubriquet

The air strike thing is another red herring. The claim that the twin towers were "designed to be resistant" is false. This is addressed in the FEMA report.

The buildings were designed in the 1960s, before the outbreak of hijackings, and well before suicide bombings became commonplace. Terrorist activity wasn't on the radar. What was considered was the impact of a lost 707 flying slowly and pretty much empty of fuel at the end of its flight. Not loaded with fuel and at cruising speed. This consideration was obviously rejected, because there is nothing in the design or construction of the twin towers which indicates any attempt to "aircraft proof" them. This is an important point because all the 9/11 conspiracy theories are predicated on the claim that the towers shouldn't have collapsed.

This is where some understanding of engineering is useful. The twin towers were lightweight structures. The columns were all hollow box sections. The floor beams were all trusses. A truss is a triangulated open beam made from rod and strip, not a massive "I" section. The trusses rested on brackets welded to the columns and were located by two bolts at each end. The internal space of each floor was completely open, other than the service section of the central core. The core itself was walled with plasterboard.

This is where it becomes a frustrating dialogue of the deaf because there is nothing whatsoever in the design of the twin towers to suggest they were built to be aircraft proof. However, the 9/11 conspiracists refuse to look at the evidence in front of them, preferring to chant the mantra "they were designed to resist aircraft strike". They were not.

Funny that, Les Robertson the WTC structural engineer says in a TV interview that the towers were designed to withstand a crash of a FULLY laden 707. He then goes on to say they didn`t consider the fuel load. Seriously, a man who designs 2 modern towers overlooks this fact.

The core of the building in his words was a steel cage made up of 47 steel beams. A cage not a tube! A cage which load bearing capacity would be too strong to just collapse in under 10 seconds!

Next the construction of the building was in 3 tiers! so at 1/3 and 2/3 the floors were reinforced to take the load. The pancaking would have had a very hard time getting through the first one let alone the second one.

The jet would never have been full of fuel(not a long haul flight) and most of that would have burnt off in the initial impact. Then we see fire with dark smoke signifying a low temp fire with little oxygen.
The fire could never have been the cause to melt the steel core or warp it to the point it would fall in on itself neatly in under 10secs!

The melting point of steel is way above the maximum temperature that the fire could have reached. Pancaking of the floors would have had a slowing effect as resistance comes into play but yet you think it`s plausible scientifically that it would suddenly neatly collapse in it`s own footprint in under 10 seconds. Surely based on scientific models you must come to the conclusion that it would have taken well over a minute to fully collapse with your pancaking theory.

The FEMA report contains many facts that have had science bent in it`s favour. You can say the conspiracist use antiscience, and they do. That report is so full of holes and pushed as scientific fact. It`s disgraceful and the people who propagate it are the conspiracists who try to pull the wool over the sheeples eyes by assuming they can use antiscience that will never be questioned.

And Oyuki please watch the following video that uses scientific facts that can be verified by the science community to disprove the official story.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=9%2F11&hl=en&sitesearch=#q=911%20mysteries&hl=en&sitesearch=

Rag-Doll · June 11, 2008

911 peeps bang on about the fires not being hot enough to bring the towers down and bang on about the impact of the planes not being enough to bring the towers down. The FEMA report Soubs posted even says that neither of these two event separately would have caused the collapse BUT combined they were. Why do we not hear from the 911 nutters about the likely effects of the two events combined?

The melting point of steel is way above the maximum temperature that the fire could have reached. No one is saying they were melted. What do your models say about the strength of the structure when massively damaged and then heated so that the remaining steel loses a large amount of its strengtth?

Pancaking of the floors would have had a slowing effect as resistance comes into play but yet you think it`s plausible scientifically that it would suddenly neatly collapse in it`s own footprint in under 10 seconds. Two separate points confusingly presented together. What resistance? The collapse would speed up as larger and larger forces are applied to each suscessive floor, until towards the end the building would be in near free fall. This isn't an object falling through the floors - which would slow as each floor acted to take away some of the energy, it is the floors themselves landing on the floor below with the combined weight of the rest of the building above. Has anyone claimed that floor 10, for example, of the North Tower was designed and built to withstand the entire weight of the building aboove it crashing on to it? I think not.

Surely based on scientific models you must come to the conclusion that it would have taken well over a minute to fully collapse with your pancaking theory. What models are you using? The funny things about models is that they are built around certain assumptions. Any chance those asumptions are wrong? I'd say probably more chance than of someone lacing the towers with explosives! Reading the FEMA reports, it too contains assumptions because it is simply impossible to know exactly what the conditions were like inside the impact zone and how the parts of the plane and the building behaved during the impact. To say that we do is simply wrong. So that leaves us with deciding which on the balance of probabilities is more likely - 911 mystery people have got their science/facts wrong or there was a massive, unprecedented level of government complicity in the murder of thousands of its citizens. Now honestly, which do you reckon is more likley?

journey_man · June 11, 2008