New Member

[Hyperviolet]

Okay, so long as you realize that it is a "feeling", not a "conclusion". No one can convince another person of anything if that person's belief is based solely on "feelings" and not evidence. So, look around, I hope you find what you are looking for, if you have anything concrete to discuss and are willing to listen to reason (or are open to it), just ask.

Thank You Augustine,
I have already stated that i certainly do not know everything about 9/11 and should a more informed member of the board (of which there are many here) raise something that should rock my current beliefs i will have no problem realigning my stance on the issue of 9/11. As of this message, my stance is still the same. But, i am willing to learn as, i assume, everyone on this board is here to do aswell.

 

[mortimer]

Thank You Augustine,
I have already stated that i certainly do not know everything about 9/11 and should a more informed member of the board (of which there are many here) raise something that should rock my current beliefs i will have no problem realigning my stance on the issue of 9/11. As of this message, my stance is still the same. But, i am willing to learn as, i assume, everyone on this board is here to do aswell.

Are you still "on the fence" as to WTC7? Do you have any response to my posts here and here?

 

[beachnut]

So these thugs are calling you out for posting too many times your first day? Bunch of paranoids.

I think I had that many posts my first day too, just asking questions, and then asking what JAQing off is, and inquiring what a sock puppet is, and who P'doh is. It gets real old; every new member goes through it.

If he had some facts he would not be hung up on pdoh. Just posting like pdoh does not make you as pdoh is. I doubt if you studied pdoh enough to know he was as without fact as you are. I do not understand why you bring it up if you are not him or a want to be to take his place of CTer without out facts.

You may point to Dr Jones's work. His work is full of holes, why not open a thread with Dr Jones work? You could explain why it is so good. But you have not read it, and do not understand it. If you had and did, you would know it is full of holes. You have not one serious work of science to base you 9/11 lies on. No facts, no ideas.

Just like pdoh. Why worry about pdoh if you are not pdoh? Get on to the facts. Just the facts. Start a thread with the top ten facts of Dr Thermite Jones. Or the biggest facts for the truth movement.

I agree they would be short on facts, long on just talk like your experts Griffin of Theology, and Tarpley of Nuts.

Come on roll out the stuff that will prove us all wrong about 9/11 and make us beg for mercy.

 

[Hyperviolet]

Are you still "on the fence" as to WTC7? Do you have any response to my posts here and here?

Yes i am still on the fence on WTC 7. With regards to your statement that WTC 7 looks "nothing like" a controlled demolition. I respectfully disagree with you. I would think if you had to show people the video i posted earlier they would agree that WTC 7 is similar to the controlled demolition. I also would expect few people to go as far to say they look nothing alike in their collapse.

Here is the video in question : http://youtube.com/watch?v=6_czyNCNhDI

Once again - i would like to read the NIST final report on the collapse mechanism of WTC 7.

 

[Minadin]

You are right, many of my beliefs are based on "gut." As an atheist i have criticized creationists on this many a time. However, i do not claim my beliefs are solid evidence. But they are my beliefs, forcing myself to accept something i really don't believe won't make what i accept true.
Should i learn more on the topic that sways me. I will accept it and leave my current persuasion.

Thanks for answering my questions, Violet. I do tend to agree with the bolded portions of what you've posted above (which I tried to include in context). However, I'm a bit confused by this excerpt:

forcing myself to accept something i really don't believe won't make what i accept true.

because, it seems like a poor argument for your case. It doesn't make what you really believe true, either. If you don't feel like there's a strong enough case for the one, it doesn't mean that the case for the other is better. Or, as the Almond likes to say, "Absense of Evidence isn't Evidence of Absense". (or something to that effect)

Typically, in cases where a skeptic finds there to be incomplete evidence (for their own satisfaction, anyway) they put it to the test of Occam's Razor, which I'm sure you've heard of before. Simply put, the test states that when all evidence for either case seem to be equal, the simpler answer is usually correct - the one that has the fewer "if's" that it relies upon. Most people will phrase the question, "Which is more likely?" -- In this case, whether large sections of burning debris from the Twin Towers caused major structural damage and fires near the base of WTC 7, which eventually led to the collapse, or - that a secret cabal of shadow government agents snuck in and out of WTC 7 many many times over the course of several months prior to the attack, and wired the building to blow in such a way that no one noticed any structural damage, explosives, or detonation cord prior to the attack. Not only that, but on the day of the event, they mysteriously waited to demolish the building for more than 6 hours after the collapse of the twin towers, even though it would cause suspicion and the fires in that building would probably pose a serious threat to the explosives they had planted, which of course need to detonate in a very precice timing sequence in order to bring the building down properly. Still, beyond that, they sequenced this detonation in such a way as to cause the building to collapse in a manner that when observed, seemed almost just like a typical building implosion. Except, of course, for the noticable lack of noise or light from the charges, and the fact that WTC7 would have been the tallest steel-framed (or any type)skyscraper that has ever been imploded, anywhere in the world (unless you also believe that the Twin Towers were purposefully imploded from the top-down earlier that day) to this date.

If you believe that the second scenario is the more likely one, based mostly on your "gut", then I suppose we have a difference of opinion, and perhaps we should wait for the NIST report to come out later this spring, as you suggested.

 

[Hyperviolet]

Thanks for answering my questions, Violet. I do tend to agree with the bolded portions of what you've posted above (which I tried to include in context). However, I'm a bit confused by this excerpt:

because, it seems like a poor argument for your case. It doesn't make what you really believe true, either. If you don't feel like there's a strong enough case for the one, it doesn't mean that the case for the other is better. Or, as the Almond likes to say, "Absense of Evidence isn't Evidence of Absense". (or something to that effect)

Typically, in cases where a skeptic finds there to be incomplete evidence (for their own satisfaction, anyway) they put it to the test of Occam's Razor, which I'm sure you've heard of before. Simply put, the test states that when all evidence for either case seem to be equal, the simpler answer is usually correct - the one that has the fewer "if's" that it relies upon. Most people will phrase the question, "Which is more likely?" -- In this case, whether large sections of burning debris from the Twin Towers caused major structural damage and fires near the base of WTC 7, which eventually led to the collapse, or - that a secret cabal of shadow government agents snuck in and out of WTC 7 many many times over the course of several months prior to the attack, and wired the building to blow in such a way that no one noticed any structural damage, explosives, or detonation cord prior to the attack. Not only that, but on the day of the event, they mysteriously waited to demolish the building for more than 6 hours after the collapse of the twin towers, even though it would cause suspicion and the fires in that building would probably pose a serious threat to the explosives they had planted, which of course need to detonate in a very precice timing sequence in order to bring the building down properly. Still, beyond that, they sequenced this detonation in such a way as to cause the building to collapse in a manner that when observed, seemed almost just like a typical building implosion. Except, of course, for the noticable lack of noise or light from the charges, and the fact that WTC7 would have been the tallest steel-framed (or any type)skyscraper that has ever been imploded, anywhere in the world (unless you also believe that the Twin Towers were purposefully imploded from the top-down earlier that day) to this date.

If you believe that the second scenario is the more likely one, based mostly on your "gut", then I suppose we have a difference of opinion, and perhaps we should wait for the NIST report to come out later this spring, as you suggested.

Fair points Minadin. Although, I personally try to refrain from using Occams Razor. For example, applying the Razor principle to Watergate : The truth might not have been been uncovered. Whilst i agree Occams razor has its place in critical analysis and general skepticism i sometimes question its validity in certain cases.

Most importantly, i would like to wait for the NIST report on WTC7 and listening to the final version of events before endorsing or refuting them.

 

[Babbylonian]

Yes i am still on the fence on WTC 7. With regards to your statement that WTC 7 looks "nothing like" a controlled demolition. I respectfully disagree with you.

As has already been pointed out, the visual similarities between the fall of a building to CD and the fall of a building to structural failure near the bottom of the building are both obvious and irrelevant. In a fight between gravity and an inadequately supported structure, gravity wins and its effects are quite predictable.

I would think if you had to show people the video i posted earlier they would agree that WTC 7 is similar to the controlled demolition. I also would expect few people to go as far to say they look nothing alike in their collapse.

Who are these "people" to whom the video is being shown? Are they engineers, sociologists or fry cooks? Why would their opinion - or rather your speculation as to their possible opinion - be worth your appeal?

Similar to my opinion of family members of 9/11 victims being involved in a 9/11 investigation, I don't care what random people who watch a video on the Internet think when they see a video of a building collapse. Even if they have expertise in the field of structural engineering, their opinion based on a video would still, while being more educated than a random person, be of little to no use.

Now, if they studied the construction of the building, examined evidence of conditions present in the building around the time of its collapse, examined the materials remaining after the collapse, etc. then they could probably develop an opinion - subject to review by their peers, of course - worthy of interest.

Honestly, this is the same nonsense that the last few CTers have come through here with: Innuendo and amateur interpretation of videos. Why would you even develop suspicions based on such flimsy excuses for evidence, unless you were predisposed to believing in CTs?

 

[Minadin]

I personally try to refrain from using Occams Razor. For example, applying the Razor principle to Watergate : The truth might not have been been uncovered.

How so?

 

[Babbylonian]

Fair points Minadin. Although, I personally try to refrain from using Occams Razor. For example, applying the Razor principle to Watergate : The truth might not have been been uncovered. Whilst i agree Occams razor has its place in critical analysis and general skepticism i sometimes question its validity in certain cases.

You're correct that the principle of Occam's Razor can be applied prematurely, and that it shouldn't replace the collection and analysis of evidence. However, in this situation there is a multitude of evidence demonstrating the facts of 9/11.

 

[Hyperviolet]

As has already been pointed out, the visual similarities between the fall of a building to CD and the fall of a building to structural failure near the bottom of the building are both obvious and irrelevant. In a fight between gravity and an inadequately supported structure, gravity wins and its effects are quite predictable.

Who are these "people" to whom the video is being shown? Are they engineers, sociologists or fry cooks? Why would their opinion - or rather your speculation as to their possible opinion - be worth your appeal?

Similar to my opinion of family members of 9/11 victims being involved in a 9/11 investigation, I don't care what random people who watch a video on the Internet think when they see a video of a building collapse. Even if they have expertise in the field of structural engineering, their opinion based on a video would still, while being more educated than a random person, be of little to no use.

Now, if they studied the construction of the building, examined evidence of conditions present in the building around the time of its collapse, examined the materials remaining after the collapse, etc. then they could probably develop an opinion - subject to review by their peers, of course - worthy of interest.

Honestly, this is the same nonsense that the last few CTers have come through here with: Innuendo and amateur interpretation of videos. Why would you even develop suspicions based on such flimsy excuses for evidence, unless you were predisposed to believing in CTs?

Well i think they look similar even to the point of where squibs/airpressure exits the building (eg look at the roofs of both buildings as they fall). To the speed of the collapse (the lower members offering little resistance) the symmetry. Everything about it. Damage to the south side causing a symmetrical global collapse is curious to me.

Also, i don't appreciate the aggressive tone, i shant reply to such posts in the future.

 

[beachnut]

Yes i am still on the fence on WTC 7. With regards to your statement that WTC 7 looks "nothing like" a controlled demolition. I respectfully disagree with you. I would think if you had to show people the video i posted earlier they would agree that WTC 7 is similar to the controlled demolition. I also would expect few people to go as far to say they look nothing alike in their collapse.

Here is the video in question : http://youtube.com/watch?v=6_czyNCNhDI

Once again - i would like to read the NIST final report on the collapse mechanism of WTC 7.

A CD has lots of pops. It has wires, it has preparation. No, WTC7 had out of control fires burning all day long past the 2 to 4 hour fire proofing rating on the steel. CD has wires, there were no wires in WTC7 to do the deed. Hidden wires? Who would do it?

The fire was out of control, CD explosives would have cooked off all day long before the building fell. Get that fire away from my explosives please. Only people without the ability to research fall for WTC7 CD.

No, the real fact is CD looks like what a building failure from fire looks like. NIST already did a lot of work what do you think about it on WTC7 so far. Any points you do not agree with?

What part of this is wrong?

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:
· An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;
· Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
· Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Do not be mislead by truthers who say WTC7 was just a normal building. How many buildings do you know that have large generators to power a large district and over 10,000 to 20,000 gallons of fuel in the building? The buildings did a good job, the stood until everyone was gone for hours. Job complete, the building stood, people left. I can not figure out how the CTers miss the facts about WTC7 burning for the whole day. Fire destroys buildings, this is why we fight them. The silly CTers bring up buildings that did not fall, but some of those buildings are gone, they were totaled by fire. What is going on in the challenged heads of CTers.

Please explain why WTC7 has anything to do with 9/11 besides being damaged like other buildings. How does WTC7 make 9/11 some big inside job?

What, how, and why does WTC7 falling down have anything to do with a CT about 9/11? Maybe you know something new, do you?

Your youtube video shows broken windows messed up by pixels/resolution/video problems for WTC7, or at best breaking windows, but you need to see the damage to that section looks like. That side of WTC7 was already damaged and broken up. The other building was ejecting mistakes made of the CD when parts that were suppose to stay in fell out during the blast. That video actually proves no CD on WTC7, just liars making up "squibs" as the broken windows, already shown as being damaged in other photographs. You know the main energy source for CD? more- http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm Go near the bottom to see the damage to the building the video liars do not tell you was already there. Liars are out there to mislead you. Do not trust anyone you do not know, did you learn this yet? Why the CT world trusts liars everyday who they do not know is the the true CT.

 

[Horatius]

... i am equally not convinced that the official account is the complete narrative of what happened that day. At least that is my feelin upon typing this message. I can absolutely assure you i dont want to believe in a LIHOP or a MIHOP, however. I cant imagine anything more horrifying.

This is another problem. We'll likely never know the complete narative of what happened. There are things that it are simply physically impossible for us to know, and there are other things that are only known by people we will likely never be able to question, or known by people who will never tell the truth, even if we do get them. The best we can do is eliminate the more obviously wrong ideas, and support the ideas most supported by evidence.

This applies to almost all the 9/11 Cts, as well as other CTs out there. You'll just have to learn to live with "good enough", because we'll never have "complete" or "perfect", even if we may learn more than we know now.

 

[Babbylonian]

Well i think they look similar even to the point of where squibs/airpressure exits the building (eg look at the roofs of both buildings as they fall).

The "squibs/airpressure" issue has been dealt with numerous times. If one floor of a building falls onto another, where does the air in between the two go?

To the speed of the collapse (the lower members offering little resistance) the symmetry. Everything about it.

Speed: How fast is a building with its supports failing supposed to fall? Again, if the object of a CD is to let gravity do the work, and gravity did its work on the WTC buildings after weakening of the supports, why would the two look any different?

Damage to the south side causing a symmetrical global collapse is curious to me.

Who asserts that it was the "damage to the south side" that caused WTC7 to collapse? Most (apart from CTers, of course) assert and it was likely the out-of-control fires within the building that weakened the structure of the building, with the "damage to the south side" obviously contributing, which ended in collapse. The existence of said fires, and their creation of potential collapse conditions, is only in question if one is asserting that FDNY was in on the plot.

Also, i don't appreciate the aggressive tone, i shant reply to such posts in the future.

Your lack of appreciation is noted.

 

[HeyLeroy]

Hey, Hyperviolet. Welcome to the forum.

This isn't necessarily directed toward you, but it's as good as any place to make this point:

controlled demolitions are rarely symmetrical:

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/images/client/villa_panamericanas.mpg
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/images/client/jlhudson.mpg
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/images/client/kingdome.mpg

Many more examples exist.

 

[Hyperviolet]

Hey, Hyperviolet. Welcome to the forum.

This isn't necessarily directed toward you, but it's as good as any place to make this point:

controlled demolitions are rarely symmetrical:

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/images/client/villa_panamericanas.mpg
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/images/client/jlhudson.mpg
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/images/client/kingdome.mpg

Many more examples exist.

Leroy - thank you for your great post!

Very interesting.

 

[WildCat]

Well i think they look similar even to the point of where squibs/airpressure exits the building (eg look at the roofs of both buildings as they fall).

Can you show a single CD where the "squibs" go off after the collapse is initiated?

 

[Hyperviolet]

The "squibs/airpressure" issue has been dealt with numerous times. If one floor of a building falls onto another, where does the air in between the two go?

Speed: How fast is a building with its supports failing supposed to fall? Again, if the object of a CD is to let gravity do the work, and gravity did its work on the WTC buildings after weakening of the supports, why would the two look any different?

Who asserts that it was the "damage to the south side" that caused WTC7 to collapse? Most (apart from CTers, of course) assert and it was likely the out-of-control fires within the building that weakened the structure of the building, with the "damage to the south side" obviously contributing, which ended in collapse. The existence of said fires, and their creation of potential collapse conditions, is only in question if one is asserting that FDNY was in on the plot.

Your lack of appreciation is noted.

My lack of appreciation is noted? Get over yourself. You offered nothing but an accusing and condescending post. I have came here admittedly to learn not to be belittled by folk like you.

 

[Hyperviolet]

Can you show a single CD where the "squibs" go off after the collapse is initiated?

The video that i posted. Look at at the dust coming out the roof as it falls, exactly like WTC 7. Now the reason i said squibs/air pressure and not squibs is that i believe it might just be air pressure. That said, they are similar in that video.

 

[Babbylonian]

My lack of appreciation is noted? Get over yourself. You offered nothing but an accusing and condescending post. I have came here admittedly to learn not to be belittled by folk like you.

Fair enough. While I don't think that I was out of line, I'll step out of this thread and wish peace to you.

 

[Hyperviolet]

Fair enough. While I don't think that I was out of line, I'll step out of this thread and wish peace to you.

Maybe its just cause its over the internet its hard to tell how exactly a person is sayin something but it came across to me as condescending through your choice of words. Either way, no hard feelings.

I think ill bow out of this thread (unless something needs to be addressed) as the point was just to give a brief introduction of who i am and what my views are and just to say hello to the fellow forum members.