Donte Stallworth's reflections on 9/11 CTs...

[Jango]

I'm not here to play 20 questions with you.

No, of course not, you just want to insult me. Sorry, I had you pegged as a real person interested in discussing this.

 

[Jango]

I thought it was an attack by terrorists led by Osama bin Ladin who were based in a country called Afghanistan, which I had heard of before 9/11.

1. Though I had never heard of the alleged participants, there was a trail of information about them prior to 9/11 that extended for many years along with American lives. So on 9/11, with you already being aware of OBL and his crew, what did you make of the spectacular attacks? Did you at any point in time on that day ask yourself "How did they do this after being on our radar as a threat for years?"

2. What about the rest of my post -- the CD element. What were your thoughts on that day?

 

[ozeco41]

Assuming that you were watching T.V. that day, what was your POV on the collapses? Do you think they were fire-induced collapses or did you think they collapsed by other means (I.e. controlled demolitions, which mind you, was widely reported that day on live T.V. by field reporters and other media workers, like Dan Rather)?

On the day I was touring in Wales - UK.

My first reactions - in a sequence that took probably 10-15 seconds were:

1) WTF is this special effects video about?
(Pause 2-3 seconds then)
2) "Faeces" it's real. ( I used another word for faeces which this US style forum spells "****")
(Pause a further 2-3seconds)
3) More faeces - you utterly evil bastards (<< Aussie slang - not intended to be endearingly congratulatory. And not referring to the parental marital status at the time of conception.)

THEN a 4-5 seconds pause whilst my Military Engineer trained brain took over.

4) (More faeces) "Oh you devilishly clever evil bastards".**

I was at a disadvantage in that I saw one aircraft crash immediately followed by one tower collapse. Thought that the impact had directly led to collapse. Didn't know about the ~1 hour delay. Wasn't disabused of that till some years later when a conspiracy nut friend of mine asked me about the "CD of the Twin Towers" I smiled sweetly, didn't call him an idiot to his face and quietly researched the topic to find that he wasn't the only conspiracy nut holding to ideas of CD.. (An aside - its funny how the "hatred of Government" which is the main driver of most CT's is international - he could hate the US government even tho' he is true blue Aussie. His belief in CD is necessary part of the "hate government(s)" premise as it is for most CT's - facts and their lack of reasoning skills are not allowed to interfere.)

That experience launched me on my personal crusade to explain the WTC Twin Towers collapses to non engineers - and my decision to do so with professional engineering rigour of argument. Being both civil/structural and military engineer qualified has been helpful. As time progressed I was to learn that a lot of engineers get lost as soon as they face problems outside the "9 dots" of standard boiler-plate solutions - but that is a separate topic.

I've never given the slightest credence to CD - there never was - never has been - a prima facie plausible case favouring CD. Most members will have seen my "Twin Hypotheses":
A) Most truthers cannot think;
B) That is why most of them became truthers.
(And I rigorously defined "cannot think" in terms of cannot formulate explanations which arrange multiple known facts into a coherent whole hypothesis. I said "most" but I've yet to be shown a single example of a truther assembled pro CD hypothesis which meets the prima facie standard of "a case to answer")


** And that one was congratulatory - or at least grudgingly respectful - Military types have a maxim "know your enemy" - and can appreciate clever tactics even when deployed against "our side" - how else can you combat an enemy other than being better than him at the game?

 

[The Big Dog]

1. Though I had never heard of the alleged participants, there was a trail of information about them prior to 9/11 that extended for many years along with American lives. So on 9/11, with you already being aware of OBL and his crew, what did you make of the spectacular attacks? Did you at any point in time on that day ask yourself "How did they do this after being on our radar as a threat for years?"

2. What about the rest of my post -- the CD element. What were your thoughts on that day?

1. Sure. I am certain that everyone did.

2. No, of course not, for cripes sake they crashed three planes into buildings that day. That is the exact opposite of controlled demolition, plus a fourth went down in a field in pa.

 

[LSSBB]

1. Sure. I am certain that everyone did.

2. No, of course not, for cripes sake they crashed three planes into buildings that day. That is the exact opposite of controlled demolition, plus a fourth went down in a field in pa.

My first impression was terrorists had to have killed the pilots and taken over the planes, because I personally know several pilots through the Reserves and couldn't see them doing it.

I never once entertained the thought it could have been CD, because no building that size had ever been CD'd.

 

[ozeco41]

1. Though I had never heard of the alleged participants, there was a trail of information about them prior to 9/11 that extended for many years along with American lives. So on 9/11, with you already being aware of OBL and his crew, what did you make of the spectacular attacks? Did you at any point in time on that day ask yourself "How did they do this after being on our radar as a threat for years?"

That is one question out of the domain of political management of 9/11 which may be worthy of examination.

BUT the leaders of the truth movement are dead set on making sure that the political questions are not asked or discussed.

How?

By AE911 style - basing strategy for a "New Investigation" on the stupid premise of CD at WTC. Guaranteed a loser if the objective is get a new investigation. BUT a winner if your objective is "drag out your personal source of income as long as there are gullible suckers to milk".

2. What about the rest of my post -- the CD element. What were your thoughts on that day?

Already answered - we "crossed in posting"

I never thought of CD on the day. Within weeks of entering forum debate - Nov 2007 - I had posted the core of my explanations of WTC Twin towers collapses - those core explanations are valid, I've had no reason to change them and I can add a lot of detail now.

I took an unusual path for that era - explaining "what really happened" ^TM. Didn't realise that most "debunker style" activity was down a false trail following some academic models which were partially valid and a whole lot invalid.

Explaining what really happened seems to be slowly gaining ground....there is still a lot of "Bazant can do no wrong" nonsense... but that is also another story.

 

[TJM]

Assuming that you were watching T.V. that day, what was your POV on the collapses?

My POV, which might not be the same as the learned opinions of others here, is, really ******* big planes, traveling really ******* fast, did really ******* massive damage to three really ******* big buildings.

Do you think they were fire-induced collapses or did you think they collapsed by other means (I.e. controlled demolitions, which mind you, was widely reported that day on live T.V. by field reporters and other media workers, like Dan Rather)?

False dilemma.

 

[Axxman300]

I knew it was Al Qaeda right off.

Bin Laden had been on my radar since 1995, and even more so after the embassy attacks and the Cole bombing. In July on 2001 I got into an argument about UBL with a friend who was taking his side, and while the nature and execution of the 9-11 attack were a complete surprise the culprits were not.

A few weeks before the attacks a number of Massachusetts firefighters were killed when a burning building collapsed, so when the buildings went down I knew it was due to the combination of impact and fire.

Never a mystery.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

I knew it was Al Qaeda right off.

Bin Laden had been on my radar since 1995, and even more so after the embassy attacks and the Cole bombing. In July on 2001 I got into an argument about UBL with a friend who was taking his side, and while the nature and execution of the 9-11 attack were a complete surprise the culprits were not.

A few weeks before the attacks a number of Massachusetts firefighters were killed when a burning building collapsed, so when the buildings went down I knew it was due to the combination of impact and fire.

Never a mystery.

So did I and I called it as soon as I saw it. Upon reflection, I never considered it strange that Al-Qaeda pulled it off, after all, they had enough practice and it was clear that the US was caught napping. Hell everyone was caught napping, and were again in Bali, Madrid & London.

As the son of a decorated fire fighter, I had no problems with the buildings collapsing. I was amazed like everyone else, but I didn't jump to irrational conclusions because my father explained the details of the fires he attended quite regularly, and I was interested in how materials behaved in such environments.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Sorry, I had you pegged as a real person interested in discussing this.

Discussing what? It's 2015! What more is there to discuss? I've seen your dishonest discussions with others here. As if I'm going to waste my time on the nitty-gritty with someone who has failed to understand 911 despite having more than a decade to do so.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

I knew it was Al Qaeda right off.

Same. Well, I didn't "know", but they were obviously suspect #1 right from the beginning.

 

[Dave Rogers]

1. Though I had never heard of the alleged participants, there was a trail of information about them prior to 9/11 that extended for many years along with American lives. So on 9/11, with you already being aware of OBL and his crew, what did you make of the spectacular attacks? Did you at any point in time on that day ask yourself "How did they do this after being on our radar as a threat for years?"

Having lived through the 1970s and 1980s in the UK, the idea that a determined terrorist group could carry out effective attacks despite their existence being well-known to the security services was not exactly a shocking one. 9/11 was certainly more effective than anything the IRA pulled off, but then al-Qaeda had the advantage of a sufficiently strong religious element to motivate suicide attacks, something the IRA was never all that keen on.

2. What about the rest of my post -- the CD element. What were your thoughts on that day?

I was sitting in bed with a broken leg when I watched WTC fall. (By the way, Tony, that's my alibi.) My immediate thoughts were that the combination of the impact and the fire was just too much punishment for one building to take, a generally resonable conclusion that I have never seen effectively challenged. I noted two resemblances to a controlled demolition; the buildings were (a) still standing before, and (b) a pile of rubble afterwards. Neither of these has ever struck me as particularly indicative of a controlled demolition as opposed to any other cause of collapse.

Incidentally, for those not in the know, who is Donte Stallworth, and why are his opinions on 9/11 worthy of note?

Dave

 

[Jango]

Discussing what?

Pre-9/11, the day of and post-9/11, of course.

It's 2015! What more is there to discuss?

As Bertrand Russell said, "In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted."

Have you ever done this with 9/11 or has it been a case closed kind of thing for you since the attacks happened?

 

[Jango]

Having lived through the 1970s and 1980s in the UK, the idea that a determined terrorist group could carry out effective attacks despite their existence being well-known to the security services was not exactly a shocking one. 9/11 was certainly more effective than anything the IRA pulled off, but then al-Qaeda had the advantage of a sufficiently strong religious element to motivate suicide attacks, something the IRA was never all that keen on.

Would it have been shocking to you, in the case of the IRA, if they had conducted a mass casualty attack in which the elements of MI6 and MI5 responsible for the IRA problem had the same track record as the U.S. security services in the run-up to 9/11?

I was sitting in bed with a broken leg when I watched WTC fall. (By the way, Tony, that's my alibi.) My immediate thoughts were that the combination of the impact and the fire was just too much punishment for one building to take, a generally resonable conclusion that I have never seen effectively challenged. I noted two resemblances to a controlled demolition; the buildings were (a) still standing before, and (b) a pile of rubble afterwards. Neither of these has ever struck me as particularly indicative of a controlled demolition as opposed to any other cause of collapse.

So your immediate thoughts entirely discounted what was being reported across the U.S. MSM networks and the local NYC news. What makes that weirder is in the aftermath of 9/11, your membership here has pretty much guaranteed that you have viewed many 9/11 videos (on Youtube, of course) that clearly show that the collapses were not impact+fire induced...yet you dismiss them out of hand just as you did with the on-scene people who said the obvious: the collapses in NYC, all 3 of them, were controlled demolitions because 1) they sounded like it & 2) they looked like it.

 

[GlennB]

So your immediate thoughts entirely discounted what was being reported across the U.S. MSM networks and the local NYC news. What makes that weirder is in the aftermath of 9/11, your membership here has pretty much guaranteed that you have viewed many 9/11 videos (on Youtube, of course) that clearly show that the collapses were not impact+fire induced...yet you dismiss them out of hand just as you did with the on-scene people who said the obvious: the collapses in NYC, all 3 of them, were controlled demolitions because 1) they sounded like it & 2) they looked like it.

So much wrong in one paragraph it's hard to know where to start. But let's try this - the characteristic explosions that precede a CD collapse were entirely missing on 9/11, despite many thousands of witnesses being with easy earshot.

 

[Jango]

So much wrong in one paragraph it's hard to know where to start. But let's try this - the characteristic explosions that precede a CD collapse were entirely missing on 9/11, despite many thousands of witnesses being with easy earshot.

NIST said virtually the same thing. They were wrong, just as you are. If you're actually interested in this, I suggest that you go through the open credible record of the event, not Infowars, but the NYTimes (the interviews of first responders) or the footage from the various U.S. news companies who had people on the ground reporting what they had been witness to or the interviews on that day of people in or around the WTC complex, such as first responders and the people who worked in the buildings, such as those who were dozens of floors below the impacts, like in the basement and lobbies, who reported injuries resulting from explosions.

The highlighted bit of your post has ignored all of that.

Why?

 

[pgimeno]

As Bertrand Russell said, "In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted."

"taken for granted" is not the same as "examined and dismissed". There would need to be a wealth of new, overwhelming evidence that not only contradicts what we know, but also explains why and where it was false, to change my mind. Or as Sagan used to put it, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[beachnut]

NIST said virtually the same thing. They were wrong, just as you are. If you're actually interested in this, I suggest that you go through the open credible record of the event, not Infowars, but the NYTimes (the interviews of first responders) or the footage from the various U.S. news companies who had people on the ground reporting what they had been witness to or the interviews on that day of people in or around the WTC complex, such as first responders and the people who worked in the buildings, such as those who were dozens of floors below the impacts, like in the basement and lobbies, who reported injuries resulting from explosions.

The highlighted bit of your post has ignored all of that.

Why?

There no explosives. Who died from explosives on 911? Name them.

You mean witnesses who heard? What?

first responder descriptions of explosive noises well before the towers collapsed:

"Sounded like bombs" –Keith Murphy
"A huge explosion" –Gerard Gorman
"Sound of popping and exploding" –Alwish Monchery
"Explosions" –William Burns
"Kept hearing these large boom, boom" –Rosario Terranova
"Sounded like explosions." –Anthony Fitzgerald
"Like a shotgun going off" –Mark Meier
"Sounded like explosions" –Wilfred Barriere
"Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters" –John Murray
"You could hear explosions" –Richard Smiouskas
"Sounded like an M-80, that's how loud they were" –Tim Pearson
"Sounds like a shotgun" –Eric Ronningen
"Sounded like an explosion" –John Morabito
"There were lots of explosions" –Jeff Birnbaum
"Under the assumption that the sounds were secondary bombs." –Andrew Rodriguez
"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." –FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

Is this evidence for explosives?

Assuming that you were watching T.V. that day, what was your POV on the collapses? Do you think they were fire-induced collapses or did you think they collapsed by other means (I.e. controlled demolitions, which mind you, was widely reported that day on live T.V. by field reporters and other media workers, like Dan Rather)?

Dan Rather never said it was CD. Look up simile.

Dan the man said it looked like CD. In reality; CD looks like a gravity collapse. CD uses tiny amounts of explosives to start the building falling, and uses E=mgh released to destroy the building; thus CD is a gravity collapse because gravity is the prime mover; this is simple physics.

On 911 the logical reason the WTC collapse, the giant office fires started with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. The first time in history the bad guys brought 10,000 gallons of acceleration to a fire started on purpose to kill Americans.

If we could not figure this out on 911, we could gather evidence after 911 to understand it was fire. But quote mining is the major source of 911 truth evidence, you use it a lot. Using Dan Rather saying CD as proof of CD is silly.

For 911 truth claims, use of explosives is BS backed in with quotemines.

From BS on smoke, and remote control, to full blown CD 911 truth claims...
faster than free fall...

... your membership here has pretty much guaranteed that you have viewed many 9/11 videos (on Youtube, of course) that clearly show that the collapses were not impact+fire induced...yet you dismiss them out of hand just as you did with the on-scene people who said the obvious: the collapses in NYC, all 3 of them, were controlled demolitions because 1) they sounded like it & 2) they looked like it.

wow, there was no evidence presented on 911, or in youtube videos for CD - gullible people see controlled demolitions, and are fooled by lies of CD.
wow - a CD 911 truth believer - guess the moving smoke was the key. ...dropped remote control fantasy, and go for the dumbest claim based on quotemining, CD.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Would it have been shocking to you, in the case of the IRA, if they had conducted a mass casualty attack in which the elements of MI6 and MI5 responsible for the IRA problem had the same track record as the U.S. security services in the run-up to 9/11?

No.

So your immediate thoughts entirely discounted what was being reported across the U.S. MSM networks and the local NYC news. What makes that weirder is in the aftermath of 9/11, your membership here has pretty much guaranteed that you have viewed many 9/11 videos (on Youtube, of course) that clearly show that the collapses were not impact+fire induced...yet you dismiss them out of hand just as you did with the on-scene people who said the obvious: the collapses in NYC, all 3 of them, were controlled demolitions because 1) they sounded like it & 2) they looked like it.

So this week it was definitely a CD, was it? Sorry, no. There's nothing about the collapses that makes them obviously due to anything other than fire and impact, just a range of mistaken or dishonest interpretations that try to make them seem that way. And why should there be anything suspicious about the fact that I didn't share the same incorrect impression with people on the scene?

So, getting back to the topic, who is Donte Stallworth and why are his opinions about 9/11 worthy of note?

Dave

 

[pgimeno]

So, getting back to the topic, who is Donte Stallworth and why are his opinions about 9/11 worthy of note?

I was wondering the same thing.