This is the thread that may very well change the way you look at 9/11 FOREVER!

[chipmunk stew]

Don't let assumptions like this lead you astray. We must tackle only the actual evidence of this crime scene. Let's not cloud our thinking with motives and suspects...just the facts of the event i.e. three building collapses.

And yet your first question does not address the three building collapses.

The fact that no tall skyscraper had ever completely collapsed due to fire before 9/11 is immaterial. "We must tackle only the actual evidence of this crime scene," not get dazzled by the absence of a closely analogous example from the past. 9/11 was unprecedented in more ways than one (for instance, no skyscraper of similar design and mass had ever sustained the kind of structural damage that both twin towers suffered on that day.)

 

[Pardalis]

Sir, you are in the wrong forum.

This is a critical thinking forum, not an esoteric one.

 

[Alt+F4]

If everyone will shut off the voice of their ego, and just meditate - quietly while watching the collapse of WTC 7 on a loop...the truth will find you.

Sorry 28th, but we go by evidence here. You have presented none.

 

[jhunter1163]

Better still, get the full video and time the collapse starting with the fall of the east penthouse, which will increase your meditation time from 6.6 seconds per loop to about 10 seconds per loop. More time for contemplation, you know.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

(snip)
That building from Chicago in 1967 is not even remotely comparable to the WTC buildings. That's a typical roof collapse of a one or two story building. Nothing fancy about it. We're talking about HUGE skyscrapers, that crumble right into their own footprint. (snip)

I answered your question, sir. You did not specify a HUGE skyscraper. You ask for any steel building collapse.

Please be more specific in future, and try not to move the goalposts when someone debunks your statement.

 

[28th Kingdom]

I apologize...to those I haven't replied to yet. I'm NOT ignoring anyone...it's just that I had no idea this many people would reply...and to be honest, it's kind of overwhelming. I'm doing my best to keep up...and if you just hang in there, you will be enlightened to THE truth. Not MY truth...THE truth.

I don't want any of you to think, that if you do decide to change your mind about what you think happened on 9/11, that it means you were WRONG and I am RIGHT. Let us not blindly serve our egos in such a manner, as to conceal the truth from ourselves.

 

[Horatius]

We must not project our uninformed and unsubstantiated assumptions onto the actual hard evidence and facts of this event...lest we distort (the facts of the event) with our preconceived notions.

One could wish that you applied these standards to yourself.

 

[Garb]

I apologize...to those I haven't replied to yet. I'm NOT ignoring anyone...it's just that I had no idea this many people would reply...and to be honest, it's kind of overwhelming. I'm doing my best to keep up...and if you just hang in there, you will be enlightened to THE truth. Not MY truth...THE truth.

I don't want any of you to think, that if you do decide to change your mind about what you think happened on 9/11, that it means you were WRONG and I am RIGHT. Let us not blindly serve our egos in such a manner, as to conceal the truth from ourselves.

Maybe we should get those socks used in Christophera's thread.

 

[twinstead]

28th Kingdom, you can meditate all you want. When shown to the light of day to those who actually question EVERYTHING, not just 'the MAN', the evidence that to you is a slam dunk in actuality is no such thing.

I submit that it is you who must take a step back from your bias and actually READ what these people are telling you in response to your accusations.

I would bet much money that you haven't.

 

[John Blonn]

28th Kingdom. This is a question I ask a lot of 9/11 Twoofers, and one they have a huge problem answering, for some reason.

Is there a chance that you could be wrong? That the official story is exactly how it all happened? No CD, no patsies, no false flags, but just a bunch of sick terrorists flying planes into buildings?

Could you be mistaken?

 

[28th Kingdom]

Good point I hadn't thought of before....especially considering the fact the the collapse of WTC7 was shown on live TV.

Ma'am,

There are massive amounts of video coverage - day of - where firefighters, policemen, reporters etc. ALL claim to hear several bombs going off right before and during the collapses. That is heavily documented.

 

[milesalpha]

Sir,

Thanks so much for writing. See, this is what I am referring to, when I say, "Over analyzing," this issue. We must not project our uninformed and unsubstantiated assumptions onto the actual hard evidence and facts of this event...lest we distort (the facts of the event) with our preconceived notions.

True enough, that all of our bodies are in the physical world - manifested from an invisible metaphysical realm, but for us to try and conceive and/or analyze this process (manifestation) as a means to prove our existence only moves us away from the actual physical evidence (our body) that is so clearly evident before us. We need not question the odds or probability of such a manifestation to occur in order for us to unequivocally state that our bodies are in fact, present in the material world.

Thus, we need not have a firm understanding of how such an operation (inside job) would be orchestrated and/or executed, in order for us to clearly espy the fact that three steel-structured buildings collapsed by controlled demolitions.

That building from Chicago in 1967 is not even remotely comparable to the WTC buildings. That's a typical roof collapse of a one or two story building. Nothing fancy about it. We're talking about HUGE skyscrapers, that crumble right into their own footprint. Someone pull a video of WTC 7's collapse. Get a real short clip...of just where it shows the building disappear from the skyline in about 7 seconds. So what's the answer to how this one fell? Did fire melt some floors and cause a pancake collapse? But, all the floors just fall at the same time. There is no domino effect. So we've got 47 stories here. I mean, just say fire completely melted 10 floors (fire, that's not even visible but from one side of the building...I'm sure you've seen buildings that have fires so big, that you can see the blaze from all sides, and these buildings didn't even attempt to collapse like WTC 7) okay, so let an expert step up...and explain technically, how that caused all 47 stories to vaporize all at the same time.

If everyone will shut off the voice of their ego, and just meditate - quietly while watching the collapse of WTC 7 on a loop...the truth will find you.

You should watch out for things like that closing statement, it becomes evident that this is a religion to you and not a science based debate. Quite a few experts have weighed in on WTC 7, they do not seem to concur with you. Since you seem to lack the necessary education to make such judgements yourself, who are the experts (you know, people who will do calculations, study materials, etc as opposed to staring at some meaningless video) that support your story?

 

[R.Mackey]

We must not project our uninformed and unsubstantiated assumptions onto the actual hard evidence and facts of this event...lest we distort (the facts of the event) with our preconceived notions.

Follow your own advice. You've brought nothing but distortions and preconceptions. For example:

Thus, we need not have a firm understanding of how such an operation (inside job) would be orchestrated and/or executed, in order for us to clearly espy the fact that three steel-structured buildings collapsed by controlled demolitions.

Dead wrong. To make this assertion, you must have evidence of demolition. You have none. The collapse is consistent with fire. There was no evidence of explosives found in the debris. There were no audible or visible signatures of explosives. It is ludicrous to expect explosives to have survived the fire.

So what's the answer to how this one fell? Did fire melt some floors and cause a pancake collapse? But, all the floors just fall at the same time. There is no domino effect.

NIST WTC 7 Prelminary Report -- the final is due out soon. But this preliminary explains it. A large failure low in the structure, due to the cantilevered construction and possibly exacerbated by huge fuel storage, led to a bottoms-up collapse. No domino effect is expected.

This report has been out for over a year and a half. Are you avoiding it, or incapable of comprehending it?

I'm sure you've seen buildings that have fires so big, that you can see the blaze from all sides, and these buildings didn't even attempt to collapse like WTC 7) okay, so let an expert step up...and explain technically, how that caused all 47 stories to vaporize all at the same time.

No expert will explain that because it didn't happen. Vaporize?? Stop making things up, or nobody will ever even take you seriously.

If everyone will shut off the voice of their ego, and just meditate - quietly while watching the collapse of WTC 7 on a loop...the truth will find you.

It's your ego, not mine, that's in play. You're the guy who thinks you know better than people on the scene, than firefighters, than professional demo techs, and than scientists, based on watching a video on a loop while meditating.

Hypocrisy, thy name is 28th Kingdom.

 

[chipmunk stew]

But, there is even a video of someone at ground zero, who uses the word, "Pull," to describe them taking down the remains of WTC 5 or 6. I forget which one. But, you can clearly see the person radio in...that they just pulled it. Referring to them demolishing it.

If it's the video I'm thinking of, find a clip that shows the whole thing, including them "pulling" the building. You'll find that they are LITERALLY pulling the building walls over with heavy cables, not demolishing them with explosives.

 

[WilliamSeger]

If everyone will shut off the voice of their ego, and just meditate - quietly while watching the collapse of WTC 7 on a loop...the truth will find you.

Sir,

Virturally every assertion of fact that you've made has been shown to be false or irrelevant, and your every attempt at logic has been shown to be fallacious. Your response is that we should "meditate" and watch a tape loop until the Truth Fairy pays us a visit?

After your opening post, this is quite a let-down.

 

[Alt+F4]

I apologize...to those I haven't replied to yet. I'm NOT ignoring anyone...it's just that I had no idea this many people would reply...and to be honest, it's kind of overwhelming. I'm doing my best to keep up...and if you just hang in there, you will be enlightened to THE truth. Not MY truth...THE truth.

Take your time and yes, especially on the weekends, lots of people post. Please however address the points that have been made so far:

1. WTC7 didn't vaporize.
2. "pull" is not a demolition industry term.
3. No FDNY member was told that WTC 7 was a controlled demoliton.
4. The collapse of WTC 7 was a suprise to no one, it's collapse was predicted on live TV throughout the day.
5. No explosions were heard at WTC 7 just before it's collapse.
6. WTC7 was badly damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 and was on fire.

 

[Horatius]

I don't want any of you to think, that if you do decide to change your mind about what you think happened on 9/11, that it means you were WRONG and I am RIGHT. Let us not blindly serve our egos in such a manner, as to conceal the truth from ourselves.

Oh GAG.

If we were to change our minds about 9/11, we would have to admit we were wrong*. You might not be right, but we would certainly be wrong.

This happy-feely BS does nothing to help your cause.




*The difference between a skeptic and a believer is, the skeptic is willing to admit he's wrong - when the evidence shows it. Take a look at the discussion of the fire codes that's going on right here in this thread - Two skeptics, asking for evidence, and at some point, once evidence has been presented, or it is acknowledged that such evidence is unavailable, one of them will admit that they were wrong.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Ma'am,

There are massive amounts of video coverage - day of - where firefighters, policemen, reporters etc. ALL claim to hear several bombs going off right before and during the collapses. That is heavily documented.

Almost every one of those reports are of "explosions". Some say they heard something that "sounded like" a bomb. Almost none claims that they believed that the sounds they heard were bombs or explosives being detonated.

Read them again with an honest mind. You'll find that what I say is correct.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Your response is that we should "meditate" and watch a tape loop until the Truth Fairy pays us a visit?

Actually, I think a visit from the Truth Fairy requires that you put a quarter under your pillow before bed.

 

[jhunter1163]

28K, I for one appreciate your nonconfrontational manner, but you have to understand that this is a skeptics' forum. Doubting what we're told, by ANYONE, is built into our nature; we demand more than just someone's word or some grainy, truncated video before we'll be swayed. Skeptics like hard, uncontested facts.

I feel that you are sincere in your beliefs, and that you really are trying to keep the debate civil and open. However, I also believe that you're wrong. And, if you look around the site a bit and read with an open mind some of the guides that have been compiled, I think you'll come to the same conclusion. We don't hold things against you, though. Our very own JAStewart is a former Truther, and he's now an accepted and respected member of JREF.

I hope that you take the time to examine the evidence you're citing critically; I think you'll find that it really doesn't stand up under scrutiny. And if you come back to this thread and admit the error of your ways, we'll cheer you heartily. I'll be the first to buy you a beer.