Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[Grizzly Bear]

Yeah you're right, just another coincidence. You guys could pile up coincidences til they o'ertop old Pelion.

Speaking of which, did you ever figure out why the logic you apply to the first time incident with the space shuttle columbia is so radically different than the logic you apply to the collapse of a building?

"Columbia - from a link on wikipedia: "Incidents of debris strikes from ice and foam causing damage during take-off were already well known, and had actually damaged orbiters, most noticeably during STS-45, STS-27, and STS-87.[21]"

Been waiting since December 2, 2008...
Have you taken the time to think over an answer as to why steel framed structures cannot fail in any fashion other than a controlled Demolition despite more than 100 years of records showing that steel fails from excessive heat exposure? Five months should yield an interesting answer I hope...

 

[RedIbis]

Speaking of which, ...

I know the Turner Construction stuff is strange, but is this how you prevent your head from exploding?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I know the Turner Construction stuff is strange, but is this how you prevent your head from exploding?

I just found it strange that you can accept a first time event for something based on a rational chain of events, but you seem incapable of applying the same to a building. It's as if you do this intentionally

You still haven't told me how this hypocritical thinking works...

 

[Hokulele]

In case anyone's wondering how the towers could have been accessed to be prepped for demo.

So you have evidence that it was their demolition unit doing these renovations? You have evidence that the quantity of explosives required were brought in? You do know how much explosive material was required, yes? Otherwise, you would do just as well with accusing the janitorial staff of performing this preparation.

 

[RedIbis]

So you have evidence that it was their demolition unit doing these renovations? You have evidence that the quantity of explosives required were brought in? You do know how much explosive material was required, yes? Otherwise, you would do just as well with accusing the janitorial staff of performing this preparation.

Did you notice that I put the words "could have" in italics? That's so that I would qualify my statement to address the oft-repeated debunker tactic of asking how the towers could be prepped for demo.

Did you read through the documents? Do you find the work orders interesting? Do you find Leppert's connections to Bush interesting?

 

[Hokulele]

Did you notice that I put the words "could have" in italics? That's so that I would qualify my statement to address the oft-repeated debunker tactic of asking how the towers could be prepped for demo.

Did you read through the documents? Do you find the work orders interesting? Do you find Leppert's connections to Bush interesting?

I read through enough of that glorious exercise in paranoid stupidity. Why is it suspicious they were working up through September 11? Was the author expecting them to continue renovations on the 12th? Regarding the work orders, it was well-known that there were issues with the fire-proofing and other elements of the Towers. Heck, that was part of the documentation in the NIST report.

Again, this simply shows that the contractor had access to certain areas, it isn't evidence that anything resembling explosives were brought into those areas. Inspection tours are very well documented to prevent fraud and inspection teams are far, far smaller than what would have been needed to prep such buildings in the limited time demonstrated by a December 2000 invitation to bid. As such, no, it isn't a decent explanation of how the towers could have been prepped. A 12 man office? You have to be kidding me.

Like I said, you may as well accuse the janitorial contractors of being "in on it". After all, they had access to most sensitive areas of the buildings, they were in and out every day, and they even brought material into the buildings in their lunch pails. Did anyone ever think to compare the janitors' "output" to their input? Does anyone have the sewage records? No? Hmmm, suspicious...


ETA: And regarding Leppert, I suppose you will be claiming the state of Hawai'i is in on it as well. Castle & Cooke? Campbell Estate? Bank of Hawai'i? I have worked with all three. Yikes, I must be in on it!!!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

EDIT: Removed...

 

[A W Smith]

Redignorance

Really? Focused on the columns and the elevator shafts by the same company that supervised the demo of the Kingdome and participated in the clean up at GZ?

Yeah you're right, just another coincidence. You guys could pile up coincidences til they o'ertop old Pelion.

Turner is not a primarily a demolition contractor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_Construction

Turner has 46 offices in the U.S., is active in 20 countries around the world and averages 1,500 projects per year. Turner services include construction management, general contracting, consulting, construction procurement, insurance and risk management. According to Engineering News-Record’s 2008 Top 400 Contractors Sourcebook, Turner is the largest general builder in the U.S. in green building, healthcare, education, correctional and commercial office facilities. Turner ranked second in the sports sector, and was a “Top 10” firm in airports, auto plants, entertainment, pharmaceutical, hotels, motels, convention centers, religious and cultural, government and light industrial processing facilities. In 2008, Turner completed more than $3 billion of green construction projects. In addition, the firm’s sustainable construction work has grown to 40% of its backlog. Turner’s green building projects are in wide array of building types including in the education, commercial, healthcare and aviation segments. Turner has completed 80 projects that have been LEED Certified by the U. S. Green Building Council (USGBC). An additional 130 projects are LEED Registered. Turner City illustrates projects Turner has successfully completed in a given year. It has been produced by the company annually since 1910.

 

[Hokulele]

Turner is not a primarily a demolition contractor

They are a general contractor and do offer basic demolition services, primarily associated with renovations. However, all of the project data I can find on them talks about mechanical demolition, not explosive. I wouldn't find it hard to believe that they would offer such services, but provide them through a sub-contractor rather than directly through their own staff.

Just to make them seem even more conspiratorial, they offer risk assessment and services to help owners and developers determine proper insurance coverage.

 

[johnny karate]

Really? Focused on the columns and the elevator shafts by the same company that supervised the demo of the Kingdome and participated in the clean up at GZ?

Yeah you're right, just another coincidence. You guys could pile up coincidences til they o'ertop old Pelion.

Just out of curiosity Red, do you take everything you read on conspiracy websites at face value? Or do you ever bother to do your own research to verify the claims they make?

I'm guessing the answer to that last question is a resounding "No".

Because had you done so in this case, you would have found out that Turner Construction didn't "supervise", or otherwise directly involve themselves, in the demolition of the Seattle Kingdome.

As it turns out Turner Construction, being a construction company isn't actually in the business of controlled demolition. As project manager for the construction of Qwest Field, which was to occupy the space where the Kingdome was, Turner Construction sub-contracted to an actual demolition company to have the Kingdome demolished. You can read all about it here.

Your clever conspiracy website used the word "supervised" (which you in turn parroted) in a shameless attempt to make it seem like Turner Construction had some kind of involvement in the actual demolition, thus making their renovations at WTC prior to 9/11 seem suspicious. And good little Truther that you are, you promptly linked that nonsense here without thought or care as to whether the insinuations were true.

Turner Construction is not in the controlled demolition industry. Nor does it engage in, or have any particular expertise or knowledge about, performing controlled demolitions.

This took me about two minutes to figure out.

9/11 Blogger is a fraud. And as promoter of their propaganda, so are you.


ETA: Beaten to the punch. But still added some relevant material.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I am pleased that you assert here that it DID resemble the nose cone of the plane TAM. It gets us off to a positive start.

Let's cut straight to the positive conclusion. Ace Baker posed a challenge to the members of this forum a year or two ago, in which he posted six stills from the Chopper 5 video and asked which were the nose of the airliner prior to impact, and which the ejecta from the south face of the tower. Everyone who answered the challenge was able correctly to group three of the photographs into one category and three into the other, with the only error being that some posters identfied the wrong group as the airliner nosecone. The conclusion drawn by everyone except Ace Baker (who appears psychologically incapable of drawing conclusions that disagree with his predetermined conclusions) was that, although the ejecta have an appearance that is superficially similar to the appearance of an airliner nosecone, it is a distinct and visibly different object from the nose of the Boeing 767 that struck the North Tower.

Dave

 

[T.A.M.]

Really? Focused on the columns and the elevator shafts by the same company that supervised the demo of the Kingdome and participated in the clean up at GZ?

Yeah you're right, just another coincidence. You guys could pile up coincidences til they o'ertop old Pelion.

ok red, so if that evidence is damning in anyway, go report them, I mean you have proof that they were in on it, right. I mean you yourself just implied that it is more than just a co-incidence.

Seriously Red, i thought more of you then to be a full blown MIHOPer...disappointing.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

ok red, so if that evidence is damning in anyway, go report them, I mean you have proof that they were in on it, right. I mean you yourself just implied that it is more than just a co-incidence.

Seriously Red, i thought more of you then to be a full blown MIHOPer...disappointing.

TAM

Ah, the 'go report them' gambit. Last refuge of the desperate.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Ah, the 'go report them' gambit. Last refuge of the desperate.

Apart from your dismissive statement of opinion, what exactly is wrong with the suggestion that someone claiming to have proof of a crime should report it to someone in a position to investigate that crime?

Dave

 

[twinstead]

I'm still in awe that somebody as supposedly intelligent as red insists on believing every single word he reads on conspiracy websites.

 

[Myriad]

Ah, the 'go report them' gambit. Last refuge of the desperate.

But that is the next step, isn't it?

If not, then what? What do you plan to do with the airtight proof you think you have?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[DavidJames]

The last refuge of the desperate is seeking attention by trolling on a skeptics forum posting anti-intellectual, sophomoric and trite comments.

 

[RedIbis]

But that is the next step, isn't it?

If not, then what? What do you plan to do with the airtight proof you think you have?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Where did I say I had "airtight proof"?

What we are engaged in is research and inquiry. Monaghan continues to do excellent work receiving documents per FOIA request. These work orders present a clear response to the oft-repeated debunking tactic of asking how the towers could have been prepped for CD.

If anyone has the intellectual integrity to actually read through the documents they may be intrigued by the relationship between Bush, Leppert, and NAVSEA.

 

[T.A.M.]

Ah, the 'go report them' gambit. Last refuge of the desperate.

How often do I say it, compare to HOW OFTEN IT SHOULD BE SAID?

The fact is, that if you REALLY BELIEVED the contention that the WTCs were brought down by CD, and now you have a possible accomplice, is it not your duty to report it, or have the guilt of allowing the real culprits to remain free.

I mention it, not because I actually believe you have a point, and it should be revealed to the world, but to show you just how much you and many others in the truth movement do not actually believe the crap they bring here...if they did they would report it to people who can do something about it.

The TMs biggest problem, is its lack of conviction...but I understand why they lack it.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

If anyone has the intellectual integrity to actually read through the documents they may be intrigued by the relationship between Bush, Leppert, and NAVSEA.

no more intrigued, then I was by his (Bush's) second cousin being the "head of security at the WTC" in the years leading up to 9/11.

TAM