• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged New video! Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of Building 7

Clayton Moore said:
Are you joshing Glenn? The media has been showing the controlled demolitions of the three WTC buildings for over decade and telling people the three were "gravity collapses." People will believe whatever asinine idiocy they are presented with.
Click to expand...

OK, but according to the official theory all three were caused by fire. This is the perps' alibi, as it were, from a CT p.o.v. With no fire, what would be the alibi?
 
Dave Rogers said:
It is backed by physical evidence, and so an explanation derived from it is backed by physical evidence. And so, in the same sense, the NIST hypothesis for the collapse of WTC7 is backed by physical evidence, in the form of measurements of the thermal properties of steel. And this fact, so self-evident as to be obvious to anyone with a scientific or engineering background, and not even considered worth mentioning by NIST because nobody with any relevant knowledge or understanding could possibly be unaware of it, is quite specifically the one you're trying to deny.

RedIbis, your entire position is based on equivocation between "physical evidence" and "physical evidence collected from WTC7". This is clear from the fact that, when asked to choose which of the two you're referring to, you keep changing your mind; you can't get your story straight because you haven't decided what it is.

Dave
Click to expand...

After learning what physical evidence actually is, you must now realize that NIST admitted they did not use physical evidence to come up with their speculative hypothesis. At this point only blind faith and stubborn bias compels you to continue to assert that their conclusions are backed by physical evidence.

Real skepticism does not let the emotional content of an event get in the way of scrutiny. You are obviously not a skeptic but a blind follower of faith.
 
RedIbis said:
After learning what physical evidence actually is, you must now realize that NIST admitted they did not use physical evidence to come up with their speculative hypothesis. At this point only blind faith and stubborn bias compels you to continue to assert that their conclusions are backed by physical evidence.

Real skepticism does not let the emotional content of an event get in the way of scrutiny. You are obviously not a skeptic but a blind follower of faith.
Click to expand...

Oh, so it's just because everybody who has examined the evidence for the collapses hasn't learned what physical evidence actually is. You have, therefore you are in a position to throw the NIST report out. Someday the contributors to the NIST and those who were actually there watching the building that day will learn what REAL evidence is and come out in support of a new investigation.

Thanks for clearing that up.
 
RedIbis said:
After learning what physical evidence actually is, you must now realize that NIST admitted they did not use physical evidence to come up with their speculative hypothesis. At this point only blind faith and stubborn bias compels you to continue to assert that their conclusions are backed by physical evidence.

Real skepticism does not let the emotional content of an event get in the way of scrutiny. You are obviously not a skeptic but a blind follower of faith.
Click to expand...

So because only one piece was extensively analyzed by the FEMA team before all the steel from WTC7 was made unavailable, we should have had no investigation as we could never had had actual physical evidence?

Why lambast NIST then if your logic would lead us to not even have an investigation?

If the above is false assumption on my part then how should they approach another investigation to allay your concerns?
 
RedIbis said:
"After learning what physical evidence actually is, you must now realize that NIST admitted they did not use physical evidence to come up with their speculative hypothesis. At this point only blind faith and stubborn bias compels you to continue to assert that their conclusions are backed by physical evidence.

Real skepticism does not let the emotional content of an event get in the way of scrutiny. You are obviously not a skeptic but a blind follower of faith."
Click to expand...
funk de fino said:
"... Why lambast NIST then if your logic would lead us to not even have an investigation?

If the above is false assumption on my part then how should they approach another investigation to allay your concerns?
Click to expand...

Well Senator Mike Gravel has come up with what appears to be a truly effective means of investigating 9/11.

Senator Mike Gravel said:
"You're not going to get an investigation from the Congress, from the Obama administration. It’s just not going to happen. And if it did it would be another cover-up. So that’s a red herring. We don’t’ even want to go there.

So when you look at the body politic, you say, “Well, how can we bring something about?” Well, we’re fortunate enough, as a result of the courageous leadership of politicians and progressives 100 years ago, to have 24 states that have initiative laws, where people can make laws. California is one of them. I came up with this suggestion in New York at a conference on 9/11, saying that what we ought to do is write an initiative that would set up a commission that would have subpoena powers or grand jury powers to go ahead and investigate what happened leading up to 9/11, what happened on 9/11 and the aftermath of 9/11, which is three wars – one of them, which is totally ridiculous, the war on terror, which is no more than the economic underpinning for the continuation of the appropriations for the military-industrial complex. That’s all that is.
Edited by Locknar: 
<SNIP>'ed, breach of rule 4.

Now, there’s another feature of those joint powers. Not only can states latch onto this joint powers agreement, but also cities can. And so you have the anomaly where Texas, which has no statewide initiative but has over 50 cities that do have the initiative, that these 50 cities could tie on to this joint powers agreement and, I’ll tell you, George Bush, who can’t go to Europe anymore, won’t even be able to get out of Crawford..."
Click to expand...

You can read the rest of his speech here;

http://9-11cc.org/index.php/2011/08/30/a-new-path-to-peace-and-prosperity/#more-708

MM
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Clayton Moore said:
Are you joshing Glenn? The media has been showing the controlled demolitions of the three WTC buildings for over decade and telling people the three were "gravity collapses." People will believe whatever asinine idiocy they are presented with.
Click to expand...

Controlled demolitions are gravity collapses.
 
twinstead said:
What a bunch of idiotic rhetoric
Click to expand...

If there was any "right way" to approach the "new independent investigation" of the WTC collapses it would have been in the 9/11 truth movements' grassroot base. Recent examples like the Tea Party and Occupy Wallstreet are pretty good examples of what a movement with large scale grassroot support looks like. Despite what many think of them both they've easily eclipsed the achievements of 9/11 truth in a tiny fraction of the time. That's how a grassroots movement gets things done, people participate and are serious about it.

Should have been particularly in the interest of A&E to get this done successfully early on. 1,600 isn't a very motivating "number" if it took several years to find that many willing to sign up. That indicates either a highly lackluster marketing campaign, or making claims that make them seem, and prove they are nuts. From what I've seen thus far, it's both.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
If there was any "right way" to approach the "new independent investigation" of the WTC collapses it would have been in the 9/11 truth movements' grassroot base. Recent examples like the Tea Party and Occupy Wallstreet are pretty good examples of what a movement with large scale grassroot support looks like. Despite what many think of them both they've easily eclipsed the achievements of 9/11 truth in a tiny fraction of the time. That's how a grassroots movement gets things done, people participate and are serious about it.

Should have been particularly in the interest of A&E to get this done successfully early on. 1,600 isn't a very motivating "number" if it took several years to find that many willing to sign up. That indicates either a highly lackluster marketing campaign, or making claims that make them seem, and prove they are nuts. From what I've seen thus far, it's both.
Click to expand...

What I find interesting is that the "truth" movement can't even manage to hitch their wagon on the occupy Wallstreet movement star, even though I would imagine that they share a similar world view.

I personally know a few folks who whole heatedly support the occupy Wallstreet protesters who not only think truthers are idiots, but that they are also counter-productive to the occupy wallstreet movement. If truthers actually had as much evidence as they like to imagine they do, people would be in the streets demanding a new investigation in droves--including me.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
Well Senator Mike Gravel has come up with what appears to be a truly effective means of investigating 9/11.


You can read the rest of his speech here;

http://9-11cc.org/index.php/2011/08/30/a-new-path-to-peace-and-prosperity/#more-708

MM
Click to expand...

Has Senator Mike Gravel solved the "Mystery of Building 7"? If so, what is the solution? Can you answer that in a concise paragraph? Better yet - can you give us the objective of Senator Mike Gravel's "new investigation"? I'd expect some theory about who did what and why on 9/11 with regard to 4 planes, the WTC buildings, the Pentagon, and so forth.
You know, we have acurrent thread going where all posters here, including you and other Trurthers, are asked to present their working theory of 9/11. It seems that you have no such theory, and don't have a first idea about "what happened on 9/11, who did it, how they did it, and why they did it.". With such a clueless stance, you'd have no idea what to investigate. Does Senator Mike Gravel have a better clue?

If not, does Senator Mike Gravel make any suggestions that help us solve the "Mystery of Building 7"? If no - can you explain why your post is not off-topic in this thread?


On a side note, this...
Senator Mike Gravel said:
In Germany a reputable poll was taken and it showed that 86 percent of the people do not believe the story about 9/11. They feel it was a false flag operation
Click to expand...
...is FALSE. No German poll that 86% answered with "no" had a question similar to "I don't believe the story about 9/11". The question was whether responders believe that the government tells the full truth about everything about 9/11, and the answer is of course a "no", which does NOT mean responders think it was a fals flag. Even I would answer "no", despide my conviction that the common story about 9/11 is (by and large) correct. Senator Mike Gravel lies here.
 
twinstead said:
What I find interesting is that the "truth" movement can't even manage to hitch their wagon on the occupy Wallstreet movement star, even though I would imagine that they share a similar world view.

I personally know a few folks who whole heatedly support the occupy Wallstreet protesters who not only think truthers are idiots, but that they are also counter-productive to the occupy wallstreet movement. If truthers actually had as much evidence as they like to imagine they do, people would be in the streets demanding a new investigation in droves--including me.
Click to expand...
It's probably truest in the sense that many of the claims lie in very specialized professions where absolute politics and ideology cannot account for things, in other words, the evidence, or message isn't driven by an ideological standpoint.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
It's probably truest in the sense that many of the claims lie in very specialized professions where absolute politics and ideology cannot account for things, in other words, the evidence, or message isn't driven by an ideological standpoint.
Click to expand...

Yea, it most likely would come from a trigger, for example if the NSPE or the ASCE suddenly called for a new investigation.
 
Miragememories said:
Straight out of the Grimm's Book of Fairy Tales, like most of what you have to say.

Lets try a more honest description.
MM
Click to expand...


Irony at its best.

So only the supervisors are in on the plot? and of course all the firefighters who "pretend" hear the noises the building was making, and of course the guys operating the transit to measure the failure? Do you have any proof of this? No? Any suggestion this true? No? And you have the cheek to talk about Fairy Tales:rolleyes:
 
Miragememories said:
engineered rate of collapse
Click to expand...


What is an "engineered rate of collapse"? Why would "they" care how fast it fell????? and was it faster or slower than it would have been if it just collapsed say under impact by a 767 at 500mph and burning for an hour?
List all assumptions made and show working............

And since you are not any sort of engineer (yes, it is that obvious) who are you to comment on engineering issues? If you can't do the above calculation than how can possibly say it was too fast or too slow? Was it just a idea you pulled out of a dark malodorous place?
 
sheeplesnshills said:
Irony at its best.

So only the supervisors are in on the plot? and of course all the firefighters who "pretend" hear the noises the building was making, and of course the guys operating the transit to measure the failure? Do you have any proof of this? No? Any suggestion this true? No? And you have the cheek to talk about Fairy Tales:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This is where things invariably fall apart for truthers. They eventually realize that 9-11 wasn't some video game. There were real people with boots on the ground that day paying pretty damn close attention to what was going on with WTC7.

The ways this is hand waved away varies from truther to truther, but the conclusion from rational people is always the same; in order for the truthers to be right, a whole bunch of people who risked their lives that day are either incompetent or in on it.

It is inescapable.
 
Miragememories said:
Now, there’s another feature of those joint powers. Not only can states latch onto this joint powers agreement, but also cities can. And so you have the anomaly where Texas, which has no statewide initiative but has over 50 cities that do have the initiative, that these 50 cities could tie on to this joint powers agreement and, I’ll tell you, George Bush, who can’t go to Europe anymore, won’t even be able to get out of Crawford..."

http://9-11cc.org/index.php/2011/08/30/a-new-path-to-peace-and-prosperity/#more-708

MM
Click to expand...

I mentioned in one of the 9/11 threads the possibility that Bush or Cheney could be detained outside of the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom