Reasonable doubt...All truthers(and whoever esle) please read

[jaydeehess]

Ok first of all it seems like Boeing was working with them for 10 days, and there comment was (paraphrasing) for national security concerns we can't tell you.

Actually it seems more like Boeing was putting them off rather than 'working with them'

Seems like there is something there to "tell" I find it hard to believe they couldn't just say it was a fairing. But I commend them for not taking the easy way out.

They did take the easy way out by refusing to speak with conspiracy theorists. Their response amounts to neither confirming or denying anything. What you read into it comes from you, not them.
Second, if they were 'taking the easy way out' by saying "National security" does that mean to you that they are hiding something? I thought you said Boeing was not in on it? Now you are saying that they are hiding something and therefore in on it, covering something up?

Make up your mind.

Before I actually talk about the POD, I want to make a few things clear. I am not saying there is a POD. Simply saying I won't say there isn't a POD.

I will. There was no 'pod'.

Next this isn't to address how it may have gotten there. There are several ways i can think of but it is all speculation so I would rather not go into it.

I can't see why not after all you are willing to buy into speculation that there was a pod in the first place.

I guess the first thing to address is what the device might actually look like. If you go here you will find a picture of it. Looks like what could be the pod in the picture. http://www.nogw.com/articles/zakheim_911_conspiracy.html Incidentally it is very hard to find a picture of one of those devices.

Holy carp, another 'The JOOS did it" site. Colour me suprised.

Next when looking at photos of the impact to the south tower you see that POD appear to push in concrete. As seen in the picture.

What concrete? The 4 in thick flooring? You have pretty good eyesight there tmd. OTOH the faring is the location of the wheel assembly and the wheels and the struts they are attched to are responsible for taking the entire weight of the aircraft as it drops onto, and then runs out down, the runway at 200 MPH. Its a very robustly built piece of equipment and quite heavy in its own right. Probably caused a lot of damage when it entered the building.

Next if you look at NIST's impact scar diagram you will notice a hole where the POD would be, this is noticed by the lack of symmetry. One other thing to notice is the left or Port side engine (in the impact diagram) seems to be tilted slightly to the left, again causing a lack of symmetry. Could this be to compensate for the added weight of the POD? Now I know the plane was in a bank and this could explain some of it.

First we are told that the plane should not have sliced neatly into the structure and now you point out that there is a somehow suspicious lack of symmetry in the resultant hole in the building which might also indicate that the plane was coming apart as it impacted the building.

Make up your mind.

Does this "prove" anything. No. But I certainly won't say there is no POD.

True, it proves nothing and as I have shown in other photos of 767s its more than probable that what we are discussing is the wing faring I will say it(again) ;
There is no 'pod'.

 

[jaydeehess]

I would say...buildings 1 and 2 do not look like classic CD. While I believe the evidence is there for it and they probably are....I would say just by seeing it you would not necessarily think it is CD, but some might. As I did when I began really looking at this stuff.

When I watched the towers fall I never once thought it looked like a CD.
However if the only view I had had of it was of the top 5 storeys I might have thought it did. (see below)

As for WTC 7 I 100% disagree with you it looks just like a CD. In fact every person I show it to, because at least 80% of people do not know about it, have questions about it. They usually look stunned, and say are you sure it was the same day? Did they have that planned? Now I won't say these people become "truthers" but they have questions. Many more so than they did before they saw it.

,,,, and in the case of WTC 7 we do not have a view of the lower floors where the initial internal collapse began. We do however know for certain that the collapse began in the core area since we watched the rooftop structures fall inward along the core first and only then did the facade also fail.
We cannot see the lower floors and thus we do not know what this collapse actually looked like in the same way that we know what it looked like for the towers. As I said if all you could see of the towers were the top few floors above the initial collapse zone you might think it looks like a video of a CD.

When I saw video of the collapse of WTC 7 my first thought was not that it looked like CD since the structure twisted and went all over the place. that looked random rather than planned. Indeed part of it went south and part went north which is to say it fell towards it long sides rather than its short, angled, sides.

As to what has thermate shown it can do or not. To my knowledge no one has shown it can't do those things either.

Oh come now tmd... no one has shown that pixie dust can't do it either yet you don't believe that pixie dust was responsible.

Besides with the fires remaining hot, didn't all I hear you guys say is that landfill fires are hard to put out, they burn for a while etc etc. Would it matter how it started wouldn't it keep burning? I mean this is according to you guys, in less I grossly mis-understood you.

Oh no, you understood correctly but if underground fires of normal carbon based office and parking garage contyents was responsible for the heat then how that got started is fairly easy to explain withouit introducing magic substances. Crushed cars in the parking gargaes would have leaked gasoline and in a structure that had thousands of tons of steel structural members colliding with each other, electrical cables being snapped, and for that matter car battery connections being torn apart there are multiple ways for liquid fuels to ignite.

Why do you suppose its neccessary to say that thermite(thermate) is a better candidate for the origin of these fires? It does not make sense.

 

[Reactor drone]

........
I guess the first thing to address is what the device might actually look like. If you go here you will find a picture of it. Looks like what could be the pod in the picture. http://www.nogw.com/articles/zakheim_911_conspiracy.html Incidentally it is very hard to find a picture of one of those devices.

From that site talking about the flight termination system,

This is a system used to destroy target drones (craft that would be fired on by test aircraft or weaponry) in the event of malfunction or "misses". This highly sophisticated war-game technology allows the control of several 'drones' from a remote location, on varying frequencies, and has a range of several hundred miles. This technology can be used on many different types of aircraft, including large passenger jets.

You see how they go from talking about a remote operated explosive designed to destroy wayward drones to the actual drone guidance package so as to conflate the two? That page is just a random string of unrelated information stuck together to try to support their pre-existing conclusion. If that is your standard of proof, and you dont even realise that there isn't a picture of a "pod" on that site, I can see why you have no idea what happened on 9/11.

 

[tmd2_1]

Actually it seems more like Boeing was putting them off rather than 'working with them'


They did take the easy way out by refusing to speak with conspiracy theorists. Their response amounts to neither confirming or denying anything. What you read into it comes from you, not them.
Second, if they were 'taking the easy way out' by saying "National security" does that mean to you that they are hiding something? I thought you said Boeing was not in on it? Now you are saying that they are hiding something and therefore in on it, covering something up?

Make up your mind.


I will. There was no 'pod'.



I can't see why not after all you are willing to buy into speculation that there was a pod in the first place.




Holy carp, another 'The JOOS did it" site. Colour me suprised.



What concrete? The 4 in thick flooring? You have pretty good eyesight there tmd. OTOH the faring is the location of the wheel assembly and the wheels and the struts they are attched to are responsible for taking the entire weight of the aircraft as it drops onto, and then runs out down, the runway at 200 MPH. Its a very robustly built piece of equipment and quite heavy in its own right. Probably caused a lot of damage when it entered the building.



First we are told that the plane should not have sliced neatly into the structure and now you point out that there is a somehow suspicious lack of symmetry in the resultant hole in the building which might also indicate that the plane was coming apart as it impacted the building.

Make up your mind.


True, it proves nothing and as I have shown in other photos of 767s its more than probable that what we are discussing is the wing faring I will say it(again) ;
There is no 'pod'.

No Boeing could have just said it was a fairing, and didn't. They should be commended for it.

That site was one of the few with a picture on it. In fact if you look at the bottom of the page they try to clear up their intentions. Another obvious tactic trying to label me an anti-semite.

You can clearly see concrete being pushed in, in that picture. Whether it is by a POD or not I don't know.

In this thread I never questioned how the plane would enter the building. I started another thread that had video and questioned whether it was a missile or not. I've never once said there was a missile or a pod. Simply asking questions about what appear to be discrepancies. Am I to take your answer that you agree with me about the lack of symmetry? You didn't say that it wasn't there?

Those pictures show nothing.

 

[tmd2_1]

When I watched the towers fall I never once thought it looked like a CD.
However if the only view I had had of it was of the top 5 storeys I might have thought it did. (see below)

,,,, and in the case of WTC 7 we do not have a view of the lower floors where the initial internal collapse began. We do however know for certain that the collapse began in the core area since we watched the rooftop structures fall inward along the core first and only then did the facade also fail.
We cannot see the lower floors and thus we do not know what this collapse actually looked like in the same way that we know what it looked like for the towers. As I said if all you could see of the towers were the top few floors above the initial collapse zone you might think it looks like a video of a CD.

When I saw video of the collapse of WTC 7 my first thought was not that it looked like CD since the structure twisted and went all over the place. that looked random rather than planned. Indeed part of it went south and part went north which is to say it fell towards it long sides rather than its short, angled, sides.



Oh come now tmd... no one has shown that pixie dust can't do it either yet you don't believe that pixie dust was responsible.



Oh no, you understood correctly but if underground fires of normal carbon based office and parking garage contyents was responsible for the heat then how that got started is fairly easy to explain withouit introducing magic substances. Crushed cars in the parking gargaes would have leaked gasoline and in a structure that had thousands of tons of steel structural members colliding with each other, electrical cables being snapped, and for that matter car battery connections being torn apart there are multiple ways for liquid fuels to ignite.

Why do you suppose its neccessary to say that thermite(thermate) is a better candidate for the origin of these fires? It does not make sense.

WTC 7 looks 100% like a CD. No doubt about it. Roof line falling intact. The time it took.

I mean think about it there's a reason why companies spends lots and lots of money on CD. I mean why not just light a few fires let them burn and the building will come down nice and intact. Simple right?

As for thermate, again you asked why would thermate still be burning. You kind of gave the answer. It could have simply started the fire and as you yourself said, it would have been hard to put out. Now of course gas from cars..and other things would contribute. So I guess the point is, things were burning...who says it was thermate?

 

[BStrong]

WTC 7 looks 100% like a CD. No doubt about it. Roof line falling intact. The time it took.

I mean think about it there's a reason why companies spends lots and lots of money on CD. I mean why not just light a few fires let them burn and the building will come down nice and intact. Simple right?As for thermate, again you asked why would thermate still be burning. You kind of gave the answer. It could have simply started the fire and as you yourself said, it would have been hard to put out. Now of course gas from cars..and other things would contribute. So I guess the point is, things were burning...who says it was thermate?

Because no insurance company or jurisdiction would buy it?

Try explaning to the city planning commission - anywhere - that you intend to do a demo via fire.

 

[Animal]

I mean why not just light a few fires let them burn and the building will come down nice and intact. Simple right?

Maybe be cause WTC 7 damaged OTHER buildings when it collapsed!!!

 

[tempesta29]

WTC 7 looks 100% like a CD. No doubt about it. Roof line falling intact. The time it took.

I mean think about it there's a reason why companies spends lots and lots of money on CD. I mean why not just light a few fires let them burn and the building will come down nice and intact. Simple right?

As for thermate, again you asked why would thermate still be burning. You kind of gave the answer. It could have simply started the fire and as you yourself said, it would have been hard to put out. Now of course gas from cars..and other things would contribute. So I guess the point is, things were burning...who says it was thermate?

And to think some CDs go off and don't even take down the buildings. It takes a lot to bring a building like WTC 7 down.

 

[tempesta29]

Because no insurance company or jurisdiction would buy it?

Try explaning to the city planning commission - anywhere - that you intend to do a demo via fire.

Look over your head. I think his point is passing right over it. Woops--nevermind. It's gone.

 

[triforcharity]

Not to mention the insane amount of variables involved that you would need to account for, but would be nearly impossible to account for 100% accurately.

Wind direction, speed, shift, humidity, time, barometric pressure, etc. etc. etc.

 

[tmd2_1]

Look over your head. I think his point is passing right over it. Woops--nevermind. It's gone.

LOL funny!!

We sleep they live! At least I think that is your idea for the picture?

 

[tmd2_1]

Not to mention the insane amount of variables involved that you would need to account for, but would be nearly impossible to account for 100% accurately.

Wind direction, speed, shift, humidity, time, barometric pressure, etc. etc. etc.

Let's look at your post. Even if we accept fire can bring down a building like that (I certainly don't) You mean to tell all these in sane amount of variables just happened to play out on that day???

 

[TJM]

It takes a lot to bring a building like WTC 7 down.

Really. Do tell. I'd love to hear it.

 

[triforcharity]

Let's look at your post. Even if we accept fire can bring down a building like that (I certainly don't) You mean to tell all these in sane amount of variables just happened to play out on that day???

No, to do it in a controlled manner, without hitting any other buildings, or falling the wrong direction, those are just SOME of the hundreds of variables that you would need to account for.

Please pay attention to context. Thanks.

 

[tmd2_1]

No, to do it in a controlled manner, without hitting any other buildings, or falling the wrong direction, those are just SOME of the hundreds of variables that you would need to account for.

Please pay attention to context. Thanks.

Isn't that what happened on that day? Hence those in sane amount of variables all must have been in place.

 

[TJM]

Isn't that what happened on that day?

No.

 

[BStrong]

LOL funny!!

We sleep they live! At least I think that is your idea for the picture?

It's perfect - a Hollywood movie used to prop up a intellectual fictional construct.

 

[Reactor drone]

Not to mention the insane amount of variables involved that you would need to account for, but would be nearly impossible to account for 100% accurately.

Wind direction, speed, shift, humidity, time, barometric pressure, etc. etc. etc.

Plus you'd have to fill the building up with combustible material, you'd have smoke presenting a major nuisance, if not a health hazard, and a collapsed building that could smoulder for months requiring post demolition firefighting and you wouldn't be able to clear the land in a timely manner. Lighting a few fires to bring down a building would be insanely costly and inconvenient compared to a normal demolition to say nothing of the time and expense required to fully model a building to even see if it could be brought down reasonably completely in that way.

 

[Dave Rogers]

WTC 7 looks 100% like a CD. No doubt about it. Roof line falling intact. The time it took.

Firstly, the roof line wasn't intact, because two mechanical penthouses had just fallen through it. Secondly, CDs may or may not result in the roofline falling intact, depending on constructional details. Thirdly, we don't know how long it took, because the final stages of the collapse are hidden on videos by other buildings. Fourthly, nobody's ever tried to produce a figure for how long a CD would have taken, so this is a classic example of the fallacy that I coined the name "Unevaluated inequality fallacy" to describe: you are asserting that the difference between two numbers falls below some threshold value, despite the undeniable fact that you don't know the value of either number or the threshold.

I mean think about it there's a reason why companies spends lots and lots of money on CD.

As has been pointed out ad nauseam, the reason why companies spend lots and lots of money on CD is so that the building won't do billions of dollars' worth of damage to all the buildings around it, as WTC7 did.

I mean why not just light a few fires let them burn and the building will come down nice and intact. Simple right?

If you can't see how horribly stupid that statement is, I don't think there's much hope of explaining it to you. "Come down nice and intact"? Seriously?

As for thermate, again you asked why would thermate still be burning. You kind of gave the answer. It could have simply started the fire and as you yourself said, it would have been hard to put out. Now of course gas from cars..and other things would contribute. So I guess the point is, things were burning...who says it was thermate?

Truthers do. They say that only thermite burns hot enough to keep steel molten, so the molten steel - which exists, of course, only in eyewitness reports characterised by hyperbole, assumption and a complete absence of quantitative analysis - must indicate that thermite was still reacting very shortly before the molten steel was observed. If you concede that other combustibles were capable of maintaining sufficiently high temperatures to account for all observations made of the rubble weeks after the collapses, then you have no argument for the presence of thermite, because a heat source capable of maintaining these temperatures is quite obviously also capable of attaining them in the first place. If, on the other hand, you claim that thermite was responsible for the high temperatures weeks after the collapses, then you must provide an explanation as to how thermite could continue reacting for this time, because according to everything we know about thermite this is impossible; without any such explanation, the simplest conclusion to be drawn is that the very few eyewitness reposts of molten steel in the rubble pile were inaccurate. So you need a hypothesis for how thermite carried on reacting for months, or else you have no coherent line of argument.

Dave

 

[jaydeehess]

No Boeing could have just said it was a fairing, and didn't. They should be commended for it.

I do not understand what your position on Boeing is. Are they covering something up and therefore in on it to at least some extent, or is Boeing in no way involved at all?
A little clarification please.

That site was one of the few with a picture on it. In fact if you look at the bottom of the page they try to clear up their intentions. Another obvious tactic trying to label me an anti-semite.

You, no I was labeling the authors of that page as Jew-bashers. Are you the author of that site?

You can clearly see concrete being pushed in, in that picture. Whether it is by a POD or not I don't know

What concrete are you talking about? The 4 inch thick lightweight concrete of the WTC floors? How is it that you can see a 4 inch thick object in those pictures?

In this thread I never questioned how the plane would enter the building. I started another thread that had video and questioned whether it was a missile or not. I've never once said there was a missile or a pod. Simply asking questions about what appear to be discrepancies. Am I to take your answer that you agree with me about the lack of symmetry? You didn't say that it wasn't there?

Those pictures show nothing.

The pictures I posted, especially the last one DO SHOW the wing faring in the exact same location of the supposed 'pod'. In that last photo its also the starboard faring that shows most prominantly because of the lighting and what the background against the faring is.
I have addressed all of your discrepancies about a pod. I have told you my conclusion about the existance of a pod. I am willing to objectively look at all the evidence and come to a conclusion. If you wish to try and make your position more amenable by simply being wishy-washy and refusing to declare any conclusion I suppose that's your perogative. However its quite clear that your position is to simply give some credence to just about any conspiracy contention that might come around and basically only look at conspiracy websites. You say you are not agreeing with such website's conclusions but you steadfastly refuse to give any credence to any facts presented to you to the contrary. That is the reason why many here assume that you are a 911 conspiracy believer. You simply give no one any reason to believe otherwise.