Ed All 43 videos "Second Hit"" [Explosion]at WTC 2: Plane or No Plane?

[TSR]

You also mentioned that NIST did not continue their report after the collapse had started. Why do you think they SHOULD have (don't forget the report was geared toward professionals)?

.
Not to mention that NIST wasn't tasked with reporting on the collapse itself -- they were to report on how the collapse was initiated only.
.

 

[twinstead]

Yea yea, blah blah blah anybody who dares disagree with charmer disagrees only because he relies solely on 'official' sources, because how could anybody dare actually look at all the sources HE uses and come to a different conclusion? It must simply be because we haven't been exposed to the right 'sources'.

yada yada yada this isn't old at all, is it?

 

[MIKILLINI]

Yea yea, blah blah blah anybody who dares disagree with charmer disagrees only because he relies solely on 'official' sources, because how could anybody dare actually look at all the sources HE uses and come to a different conclusion? It must simply be because we haven't been exposed to the right 'sources'.

yada yada yada this isn't old at all, is it?

Nope; In fact it's typical. Jamm is a bot.

 

[Oystein]

What a dissection you made there. But hey, I chose my wording carefully to not address your particular beliefs or opinions I couldn't have known in advance. I spoke about general trends that correspond with my experience and knowledge. If you have found yourself in them, that's another matter. I am also not aware I was poisoning the well. I have by no means implied that the historical record I spoke of and the management of secrets in US was the grounds to lump everything together and come up with some kind of black-and-white picture. My point was to introduce the realm of possibilities based on past evidence and current modus operandi. Though it may sound trivial to you, I've met many people who were completely unaware of these contexts when backing up the govt one way or another.

I've met many people who were completely unaware that the Cuban Sparrow (Torreornis inexpectata) is listed as "Endangered" due to habitat loss on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Yet I would not push that fact in connection with 9/11 as long as I can't show evidence that Cuban Sparrows were actually involved in the events of 9/11.

By the way what _do_ you count in the historical record? Your words sound like the sole reliance on some "official" sources (and I'd gladly be wrong in that).

a) It really doesn't matter what I count. What matters is: You seem to be claiming that some books and films constitute evidence that would inform us who was responsible for 9/11. You have so far not actually made that connection. It is your case. Make it.
b) "The historical record" is generally not kept by "official" sources if by that you mean people and works of and by government agencies. The science of History is mainly furthered by independent scholars.

Thank you for this. It's been a long time a "non-truther" used the term 'OCT'
in my presence. But mind you, OCT is by no means complete, NIST didn't cover the progression of the towers' fall and there's virtually nothing about WTC7 in the 9/11 omission report, just to name a couple of examples. Sometimes when no question is asked, there's no need to answer it, right? As much as my time allows me, I try to learn to what extent the OCT and other theories are lacking or wrong . The whole 9/11 aftermath picked my interest...

The 9/11 commission did not cover WTC7 for the same reason that NIST did not cover Al Qaida: That was outside of their scope and expertise. You see, WTC7 was not attacked by terrorist. The 9/11 commission had the task of figuring out why the terrorists were able to do what they did, and NIST had the task of figuring out why the buildings collapsed. The progress of the fall is not of interest to the scope of NIST, as it is more than clear that collapse, once initiated, could not be stopped by any change in building codes.

Finally, you're welcome to comment on my points which are still unresolved any time you see fit.

I think I commented your entire post.

 

[Andy_Ross]

"Omission report!" I get it. You see, the word "commission" meaning (in this context) a committee or deputation such as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States, which issued a report of its findings in 2004, is very similar in spelling and phonetics to the word "omission" meaning something left out. One need only change a couple of letters.

Note how effectively this implies -- without any need to offer any analysis, evidence, fact-based argument, or rationale whatsoever -- that the 9/11 Commission Report "omits" relevant and important information or findings within its purview.

This is so clever and so darned persuasive, it's no wonder Truthers can't resist using it at every opportunity, even when they're trying to pretend to be unbiased critical thinkers who just want to have a few points accounted for.

Ingenious persuasive methods like that probably explain how Truthers have been so successful, in so short a time, at bringing 9/11 truth to the forefront of public political attention in the U.S. and around the world.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Apollo Hoax nuts do it with 'Astronot' when they insult the men that went to the Moon.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Apollo Hoax nuts do it with 'Astronot' when they insult the men that went to the Moon.

I have noticed that most Truthers I've had the misfortune to meet believed in a number of conspiracies- most thought the moon landings never happened, they thought JFK, MLK and RFK were all killed by government agents, FDR allowed the Pearl Harbor attacks, etc, etc.

I'm telling you, paranoia and mental illness go hand in hand.

Ask 10 Truthers if they think we ever landed on the moon, odds are they will all say no..

Yet oddly enough, not a crumb of evidence for any of their theories.

 

[charmer]

You mentioned for one building 7. Why do you think it SHOULD have been included in the report? You do know what the commission was tasked to do, don't you? You might not be aware but NIST did a very nice report on it.

You also mentioned that NIST did not continue their report after the collapse had started. Why do you think they SHOULD have (don't forget the report was geared toward professionals)?

Okay let's see. One quote of the commission's mandate was "to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks". Now that's certainly subject to interpretation but I for one can't consider the report full or complete if it deliberately leaves out the unprecedented, extraordinary and complete destruction of the building where one of the emergency agencies responsible for response (OEM) had their new and supermodern headquarters. Not to mention other important offices of CIA, IRS and others. It's like when the fires started the whole building was just condemned - like no one really cared to just stop the fires at least...

But more importantly, it was a political decision that it was left out. Just like it was a political decision to define the mandate of the commission as it is, or to wait (= ignore victims' families) more than a year to even set up the investigating body, or to underfinance the whole effort, or to limit commissioners' access to information, or to order private hearings or testimonies _not_ under oath... The whole thing is a mess - you may want to look at the Without Precedent written by the chairmans themselves where they state the commission was 'set up to fail' and point out the lies and misleading information from NORAD and FAA also corroborated by the testimony of senator Dayton. There's of course more to the story but I shall stop here and let you ponder why did you choose to consider this report to be conclusive, reliable and complete.

As to address the NIST issue, why do I think they shouldn't have stopped at the initiation of the collapse. I recall 3 things from the top of my head: speed of the fall and complete destruction afterwards, reported secondary explosions and the pools of molten metal. Each point would make enough to a start a separate thread I guess.

---

There are people called "historians." They write books.

Historians. Books. Excellent. A cookie for carlitos. But wait, do the historians have the monopoly to produce and shape the historical record? Well, no. So what else do we have? Anyone?

Nice job butchering the non-Jefferson / Ben Franklin quote, BTW. Truthers never do that here.

Butchering, is it? As I wanted to quickly check the quote I relied on the ThinkExist.com's attribution of the paraphrased quote to Jefferson... Well, if they're wrong then I'm wrong. But if you want to continue in this smearing, please, next time just pick a typo in my post and call it a butchering of your mother language or whatever, will you?

Yea yea, blah blah blah anybody who dares disagree with charmer disagrees only because he relies solely on 'official' sources, because how could anybody dare actually look at all the sources HE uses and come to a different conclusion? It must simply be because we haven't been exposed to the right 'sources'.
yada yada yada this isn't old at all, is it?

What is this? Oh, I know what it is, it's a strawman ad hominem. Doesn't it get old? I do care to know your opinion on the sources I mentioned - as soon as you cut this crap.

 

[TSR]

As I wanted to quickly check the quote I relied on the ThinkExist.com's attribution of the paraphrased quote to Jefferson... Well, if they're wrong then I'm wrong.

.
Well, ThinkExist.com isn't wrong, but you still were. In fact, trying to specifically match to T.J. returns "Your search - jefferson security liberty deserve - did not match any quotation"

Keep making up excuses, lying about your sources and trying to blame others -- it's really good for your credibility.




NOT!
.

 

[TJM]

As to address the NIST issue, why do I think they shouldn't have stopped at the initiation of the collapse. I recall 3 things from the top of my head: speed of the fall and complete destruction afterwards, reported secondary explosions and the pools of molten metal. Each point would make enough to a start a separate thread I guess.

Aflac.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Aflac.

 

[twinstead]

What is this? Oh, I know what it is, it's a strawman ad hominem. Doesn't it get old? I do care to know your opinion on the sources I mentioned - as soon as you cut this crap.

Frankly I could care less about what you think and what your 'theory' is about 9-11; I'm just here for the laughs.

Get back to me when you can convince a respected engineering, scientific, judicial, journalistic, or law enforcement organization--anywhere on Earth--that you are right, because I get the impression you're peeing into the wind right now.

 

[charmer]

.
Well, ThinkExist.com isn't wrong, but you still were. In fact, trying to specifically match to T.J. returns "Your search - jefferson security liberty deserve - did not match any quotation"

Keep making up excuses, lying about your sources and trying to blame others -- it's really good for your credibility.




NOT!
.

You could have asked before calling me a liar. Sheesh, some of you are really good at strawman. This is what I typed to google to check if I was right: will lose both thomas jefferson. And it's a 'I feel lucky' hit. My wording as I remembered it is slightly different but you can find even more paraphrases on other sites... Now who's seeing lies everywhere

But while we're at it, tell me, is that quote on ThinkExist correct or not? I'd like to know for future reference.

 

[X]

<snip>

As to address the NIST issue, why do I think they shouldn't have stopped at the initiation of the collapse. I recall 3 things from the top of my head: speed of the fall and complete destruction afterwards, reported secondary explosions and the pools of molten metal. Each point would make enough to a start a separate thread I guess.

Each of those three things have been discussed ad-nauseum. Simple answer: you're wrong. Do a little searching, before you embarrass yourself.
Protip: Along the bottom of the black top bar is the word "Search". It is a little less than 2/3 of the way across the screen (from the left). Use it.

<snip>

What is this? Oh, I know what it is, it's a strawman ad hominem. Doesn't it get old? I do care to know your opinion on the sources I mentioned - as soon as you cut this crap.

That wasn't an ad hominem. It was mockery. There is a difference. You come in here, spouting long-since debunked rubbish without bothering to do some basic homework, you really shouldn't expect anything different.
It may be unwelcoming, but after hearing the same wrong, ignorant and often moronic claims over and over and over, patience can wear thin.

Don't like it? Do your homework.

 

[bardamu]

Our assumptions are reasonable:
- Insurances employ people with relevant skills in the subject fields of the insurance policies they offer, otherwise they'd be doing risky business
- Insurances generally have their experts check the validity of claims
- We comclude from this a high probability that the insurances had experts check and confirm the validity of the claims made by the airlines

What are your assumptions, bardamu? Please list, show work, and present conclusions!

My assumption is that many fraudulent insurance claims are successful and an insurance payout in itself is not proof that an incident occurred exactly as reported.

May I assume that you assume insurances would NOT check the validity of claims?

This is instructive for anybody who wants to learn how debunking works.

1. A DEBUNKER puts forward an argument based on unsupported assumptions.

2. A TRUTHER points out that THE DEBUNKER's argument is based on unsupported assumptions.

3. THE DEBUNKER asks THE TRUTHER to justify contradicting assumptions that THE TRUTHER hasn't made and doesn't need to make.

4. THE TRUTHER points out that he doesn't need to make the contradicting assumptions.

5. THE DEBUNKER declares that he's won the argument by default.

No it isn't, and a child would see why not:
This case assumes that neither airline nor insurance were in on it. That is, AA and UA were operating scheduled commercial flights that day, business usual. If AA and UA are innocent, it stands to reason that they have records that show they actually operated flights 11, 175, 77 and 93. All 4 flights took off. If the flights arrived at their planned destination, then AA and UA would have records that show this. Apparently, they however have concluded from their records that all four planes were diverted from their flight plans and crashed.
This is most extraordinary: Why woul 2 airlines think that 4 flights which they operated did a) take place and b) crash, when in fact they did not? You would have to account for that by explaining how the real perpetrators either a) tricked the airlines into thinking their 4 flights took off or b) tricked the airlines into thinking their 4 flights crashed.

It's illogical to argue that physical evidence of a crime can be dismissed simply because the whereabouts of some of the victims is not known.

You assume the consequent, namely, that no thorough investigation was carried out. That assumption is unsupported and most likely false.

You are assuming that a thorough investigation was carried out, in spite of an almost total lack of documentation and in spite of the "sources" quoted in the only report found so far indicating that if there was a payout, it was completed within days of the events happening.

 

[Oystein]

Okay let's see. One quote of the commission's mandate was "to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks". Now that's certainly subject to interpretation but I for one can't consider the report full or complete if it deliberately leaves out the unprecedented, extraordinary and complete destruction of the building where one of the emergency agencies responsible for response (OEM) had their new and supermodern headquarters. Not to mention other important offices of CIA, IRS and others.

The Commission was stacked with professionals in fields such as public administration, politics, intelligence. It was not stacked with engineers. Not even with police investigators.

You quoted the mandate correctly as far as I can tell, and yes, it is vague and encompasses more - much much much much MUCH much more - that the Commission in the end reported upon. But you need to understand:
- The crimininal and forensic investigation were already being done by qualified agencies who put thousands of relevant experts to the task. It is totally inconceivable that a political Commission ought to be tasked to do the job of police or engineers. That idea can only hold foot in the brains of underinformed amateurs.
- The Commission was tasked to figure out how come that Al Qaida successfully organized, planned and carried out the attacks without being found out and intercepted by any US agencies such as secret services, police, FAA or military. It was an assessment of preparedness
- The Commission was tasked to make recommendations to lawmakers and others about how to improve those organisations and processes that should have intervened in Al Qaida's path
- None of that has anything to do with how and why WTC7 was destroyed. WTC7 was obviously not attacked. It does therefore not really count as one of the circumstances of 9/11 - it was a collateral end result. Much like the destructions of WTC 3, 4, 5, 6, Fiterman Hall and all the other things that were lost by the attack on the towers.
- Maybe they should/could have looked into the way that emergency responses were hindered by the loss of headquarter facilities in WTC7. I suggest that this is not really that interesting as emergency response organisation must be housed somewhere and that somewhere itself could always become subject to an emergency. Such is the nature of emergencies: You can never know where they strike next.

It's like when the fires started the whole building was just condemned - like no one really cared to just stop the fires at least...

I assume you simply lack the required knowledge here. The FDNY did care, but found itself unable to stop the fire due to the following reasons:
- They had just lost hundreds of their own men and were much more than stretched thin
- WTC7 had been safely evacuated, no more loss of life had to be feared there, no person was there to be rescued
- They had a much huger problem next door: Searching for survivors in the rubble of the towers. Rescuing people always always always has higher priority than saving property. Do you acknowledge that? It is important!
- The collapses of the towers had ruptured water supplies to WTC7. Without water, it is very difficult to extinguish fires
- After a while, experts had assessed WTC7 and found it to be in critical condition and likely to collapse, which put firefighters at risk of their lives.
So the FDNY made a conscious decision to pull (as you surely have heard) all their men from WTC7, protect their lives, and put them to the much more important task of saving other people.

But more importantly, it was a political decision that it was left out. Just like it was a political decision to define the mandate of the commission as it is, or to wait (= ignore victims' families) more than a year to even set up the investigating body, or to underfinance the whole effort, or to limit commissioners' access to information, or to order private hearings or testimonies _not_ under oath... The whole thing is a mess - you may want to look at the Without Precedent written by the chairmans themselves where they state the commission was 'set up to fail' and point out the lies and misleading information from NORAD and FAA also corroborated by the testimony of senator Dayton. There's of course more to the story but I shall stop here and let you ponder why did you choose to consider this report to be conclusive, reliable and complete.

Yes. Some commentators, among them members of the Commission, protested along these lines. You even find some such criticism in the report itself.
However, you need to find a single person from that circle who thinks that someone else than 19 hijackers, inspired by Al Qaida, perpetrated the attacks, or that a more probing investigation might have found evidence for such claims. The real deal is close to this: As the Commission was tasked to find and name the shortcomings of several organizations, these organizations had incentives to be tight-lipped and even dishonest, lest someone find whatever fault with them. Negligence, whatever. This may even be worthy of a new investigation; but none that would topple the OTC.

As to address the NIST issue, why do I think they shouldn't have stopped at the initiation of the collapse. I recall 3 things from the top of my head: speed of the fall and complete destruction afterwards, reported secondary explosions and the pools of molten metal. Each point would make enough to a start a separate thread I guess.

Good idea, that with the separate threads. Except that we already have urrrr 60 or 145 threads about these topics already. Try the Search function or just browse this subforum. To fill you in quickly:
- Several independent papers have found the speed of the falls to be consistent with expectations, once you go through the effort of applying math and engineering science to them. There is nothing suspicious about it. The Truther argument here rests on only two jelly pillars: 1. some lie about the acceleration and exaggerate it 2. Some can't imagine that towers would collapse so fast.
- Complete destruction is no big surprise once you figure out the total potential energy available in the collapse just from the fact that towers are high and have mass. We are talking about the equivalent of a small nuclear bomb. No one would be surprised that a nuclear bomb could completely destroy a block of office buildings, yet some are surprised that the same energy could not do the same if non-nuclear.
- Molten metal: That non-starter is based on non-expert anecdotes, hearsay and third-hand-witnesses. There is virtually no physical evidence for it, and, more importantly, no internally coherent theory ever advanced by any Truther linking molten metal to cause of collapse that would make any sense whatsoever in any of their destruction-schemes.

Historians. Books. Excellent. A cookie for carlitos. But wait, do the historians have the monopoly to produce and shape the historical record? Well, no. So what else do we have? Anyone?

Historians tend to fend for themselves. They are not a tightly controlled, hierarchical organisation. In all fields of history you find competing theories and hot debates. That monopoly you are fantasizing about is just one more proof of something that you have no idea about, namely how social science is done.

 

[Oystein]

My assumption is that many fraudulent insurance claims are successful and an insurance payout in itself is not proof that an incident occurred exactly as reported.

My assumption: Insurances generally check the validity of claims before paying, lest they be defrauded
Your assumption: Many fraudulent insurance claims are successful

Both assumptions are correct, would you agree? I do.
However, I claim: There are many more claims are NOT fraudulent than claims that ARE.
From this, I argue, that, prima facie, my assumption carries more weight - it is the default assumption. Yours is less likely true than mine, so you are in more dire need to present evidence to justify your assumption.

This is instructive for anybody who wants to learn how debunking works.

1. A DEBUNKER puts forward an argument based on unsupported assumptions.
2. A TRUTHER points out that THE DEBUNKER's argument is based on unsupported assumptions.
3. THE DEBUNKER asks THE TRUTHER to justify contradicting assumptions that THE TRUTHER hasn't made and doesn't need to make.
4. THE TRUTHER points out that he doesn't need to make the contradicting assumptions.
5. THE DEBUNKER declares that he's won the argument by default.

Aha.

It's illogical to argue that physical evidence of a crime can be dismissed simply because the whereabouts of some of the victims is not known.

You completely lost me there. How does this reply at all address my post? What physical evidence are you talking about? What unknown whereabouts have I been talking about?
Again: IF the airlines are innocent, THEN they have records that show the 4 planes took off on scheduled flights with passengers and crews aboard and never arrived at their destination. Otherwise the airlines would clearly be able to determine from their records that the planes did not crash, because they either never took off or did land.
Because such records are created live during the operation of commercial airplanes: Mechanics service the planes; caterers ship in food and drinks; luggage handlers load luggage; passenger check in, go through security and board; tower directs plane to taxi to runway and start; Crew communicates in-flight both with ATC and with airline. Etc.
If any of those records were missing or showing something else, and the airline was innocent, then someone would have blown the whistle.

You are assuming that a thorough investigation was carried out, in spite of an almost total lack of documentation and in spite of the "sources" quoted in the only report found so far indicating that if there was a payout, it was completed within days of the events happening.

A total lack of what investigation? What are you talking about? Care to name any event in US history that was more thoroughly investigated and/or had its investigation procedings and results more comprehensively published? So if we don't know the details of business procedings, of the kind that are generally treated confidentially, that does not undermine anything. Again, the report that claims for 4 crashed planes have been settled, and settled quickly, corroborates the OCT which posits that 4 planes crashed with huge mountains of evidence for it. The insurance experts figured out the reality of 9/11 within days, and were so sure about it they payed hundreds of millions on it for the planes alone. Why can't you figure out 9/11 after 9 years??

 

[carlitos]

Historians. Books. Excellent. A cookie for carlitos. But wait, do the historians have the monopoly to produce and shape the historical record? Well, no. So what else do we have? Anyone?

Your question is ridiculous, but I have to say, it made me think. Yes? I mean, in 100 years, if you want to know 'what happened,' you are probably going to have to use the work of historians to find out. Does each individual historian have a 'monopoly' to produce and shape the historical record? No. In aggregate, do historians produce and shape the historical record? Yes. Do you acknowledge that things happened before you were born, before youtube? Those things are recorded in history. Check it out.

Butchering, is it? As I wanted to quickly check the quote I relied on the ThinkExist.com's attribution of the paraphrased quote to Jefferson... Well, if they're wrong then I'm wrong. But if you want to continue in this smearing, please, next time just pick a typo in my post and call it a butchering of your mother language or whatever, will you?

You come to the JREF forum, "just asking questions," and you are "on the fence" about whether a goddamned plane hit the WTC on 9/11/2001. I think that the kind of research that might have found the correct quote is probably beyond your grasp, so I apologize for bringing it up. Your behavior in this thread, as noted by others, is completely typical. Misquotes like the one you linked is also typical. You need better information sources.

Not to mention, when I searched at thinkexist.com (new site to me), I got this:

Quotations Results
Your search - thomas jefferson liberty safety - did not match any quotation

Suggestions:
Check your spelling
Try different words
Try more general words
Also, you can try the Advanced Search Help

Anyway, best of luck in finding the truth.

 

[triforcharity]

Erm, have you noticed I have provided two examples of what is effectively missing or was omitted in the official line? Might as well address it if you're so sure with _your_ analysis. In this case it's very easy - either it is in the official report or it is not. Wanna make it a case for a separate thread?
.

Why would the 9/11 Commission Report talk about 7WTC in detail, as it was not a target on 9/11? That makes no sense.

NIST was only tasked with finding out WHY it fell. I don't believe it would be possible the collapse progression once it began, as there are too many variables.

Do you understand that?

 

[BigAl]

My assumption is that many fraudulent insurance claims are successful and an insurance payout in itself is not proof that an incident occurred exactly as reported.

You can presume anything you want but the fact that insurance fraud happens occasionally does nothing to dismiss any of the massive amount of evidence we have that shows that 19 Arab Islamists lead by bin laden hijacked 4 jets and this caused all the death and destruction on 9/11.

 

[TSR]

You could have asked before calling me a liar. Sheesh, some of you are really good at strawman. This is what I typed to google to check if I was right: will lose both thomas jefferson.

.
Ah, so you didn't try to find the source, you tried to see if what you already believed was right.

Typical twoofer "research" -- nevermind the glaring grammatical error in that "citation" which should have been a red flag....
.