Loose Change - Part II

[Stellafane]

Mutton-Head, I really have nothing to contribute to this thread. But it's very unlikely I will ever be able to call someone "Mutton-Head" without ticking them off, and I just couldn't let the opportunity pass.

 

[XXX]

Thanks for the info Dubfan. However, I would still like to hear from someone if they know what the definative status of the blueprints is, and if they were shared with the investigators.

 

[WildCat]

Does anybody disagree with any of these points?

Yes. For starters, you're confusing the support base for the construction cranes for the core columns. These are temporary structures that only support the 4 cranes used in the construction, they are removed as the building is completed. If you live in a big city where high-rise construction is taking place you can see them for yourself, up close.

 

[Polaris]

Now I'm almost half-way throught the first movie (I admit I fast-forwarded alot of the long bits and the interview with the non-expert-in-anything-witness-from-the-other-side-of-the-river-guy). They are trying to make us believe that there were multiple explosions before the first collapse. But they only rely on the footage of a camera set on the other side of the river, so we can't really see or hear anything (except some wind blowing into the camera's mic).

There's also speculations about helicopter having something to do with the collapse because of "suspicious" flashes of light... Gosh... How can I take this seriously?

Anyway, just for the sake of argument, I'll finish watching it...

The part of that "documentary" that pisses me off the most is when he starts blaming the pilots for not being there in time. "Where were you guys when we needed you?"

 

[Gravy]

Thanks for the info Dubfan. However, I would still like to hear from someone if they know what the definative status of the blueprints is, and if they were shared with the investigators.

Have you contacted the Port Authority of NY & NJ, or the City of New York Buildings Dept., or any of the investigative bodies?

ETA: Sorry if that sounded rude. I've been through all of the recent threads, and the only mention of the blueprints I've seen is referred to in dubfan's post. You can also use this forum's search features, at the top of the window.

 

[steve s]

Gunshots!! I heard gun shots. Oh, wait. No I didn't.

Republican rep Jim Saxton reported hearing gunshots in the Rayburn House Office garage near the capitol building. "I heard what I thought to be between six and ten shots. It sounded exactly like gunfire to me," Saxton told Fox News Channel. It turned out just to be some noise made by an elevator repair crew.

But as we know from the CTs, if someone reports hearing gunshots (or explosions) then they really must have heard gunshots. After all, nothing else could possibly sound like gunshots, right?

Steve S.

 

[XXX]

Not as of yet Gravy. Documents in the NIST report do say that they have been reproduced with the permission of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which lead me to believe that they did indeed have the rights to them. But it seems like another one of those issues that are often discussed with conflicting information given out, like in the other "free fall" thread where the claim is made that the Mayor took them (though in his link it doesn't specifically say the blueprints, it just makes reference to "World Trade Center documents), and with all the research that many others have done I was hoping someone here might have a definative answer having looked into it before.

I read in the other thread about the "free fall" of the buildings that someone has written the Port Authority to ask them. I'll wait to see if he gets a response. Otherwise I have no problem with contacting them myself.

 

[Polaris]

I want to ask again, do any of you know the difference between evidence and conclusion? The wacky kooky Cters are saying that if a firefighter says, “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building,” that is evidence. Evidence, not conclusion. The NIST took assumptions and called them conclusions, ignoring the firefighters statements.

You're right - the firefighter's quote, along with audio from the video taken across the river, etc., ARE evidence of explosions.

That's just step one when moving toward a conclusion (providing you haven't already made your conclusion and looked for evidence to verify it while discarding anything inconvenient).

So here's a question for you. Are these explosions evidence of explosives? You're interested in understanding what happen from the moment the first plane hit the first tower to the moment the last bit of rubble from the last falling building stopped moving. Am I wrong? Unless you're only interested in collecting evidence for its own sake, then I can safely assume you are eventually interested in an unbiased conclusion. The evidence is there for explosions, but explosions are not necessarily caused by explosives (in fact, most explosions are not). There is no evidence for explosives - the explosions are easily explained by other factors (factors for which there IS evidence). That would lead an honest person to the conclusion that explosions did occur in the WTC but were not caused by explosive devices.

 

[XXX]

Have you contacted the Port Authority of NY & NJ, or the City of New York Buildings Dept., or any of the investigative bodies?

ETA: Sorry if that soulded rude.

No worries. Just another reminder that, as I have learned and I'm sure you have too in your own research, that you have to go to the source whenever possible in order to get you info. Otherwise you could end up with a bunch of BS.

In doing some more searching, I actually found what might be an answer to one of my questions. In an article written by Paul H.B. Shin who writes for the New York Daily News (I found other articles by the guy to see if he was just a CT author) he mentions..."The lead investigator in the case, Gene Corley of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said the Port Authority refused to hand over blueprints for the twin towers - crucial for evaluating the wreckage - until he signed a waiver saying his team would not use the plans in a lawsuit against the agency. and in another article, written by Eric Lipton of the NY Times (who has written a number of good articles about 9/11) it says..."The full investigative team set up by FEMA was not allowed to enter ground zero to collect other potentially critical evidence in the weeks after the attack, and it did not get a copy of the World Trade Center blueprints until early January, a delay House members found infuriating... A Port Authority spokesman defended the agency, saying that building plans had been given to federal officials within a week of the attack and that the agency was cooperating fully with the inquiry."

This leads me to believe that the investigators did indeed eventually recieve the blueprints themselves, regardless of the question of who handed over what and when. Now all I'm looking for is the answer on their status as of now.

 

[Sultanist]

Take a look at this photo...

http://www.rense.com/general70/320.jpg

It's being suggested by some that those columns would not have been sheared like that unless something like thermite was used on them.
Now I know no one here accepts the claims that thermite would have been used. But I would be very interested in a possible explanation for how this may have occurred. Any thoughts?

 

[no one in particular]

Take a look at this photo...

Take a look at this post...

 

[Gravy]

Oops, you beat me to it.

ETA: Huntsman makes the very important point here that thermite cannot make an effect like that, because it burns down, with gravity.

 

[XXX]

You talking about the column in the backround there? It was cut with a blowtorch, after the towers fell as were some other columns as a part of the clean up afterwards.

 

[Sultanist]

Thanks. You dudes (and dudettes) are surely a wealth of information.

 

[geggy]

Murrah building after the bombing: http://www.osbi.state.ok.us/History/bombing.jpg

WTC7 before the fall: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/images/340_wtc7_damage.jpg

Power of christ compels you 3x

 

[Pardalis]

Murrah building after the bombing: [qimg]http://www.osbi.state.ok.us/History/bombing.jpg[/qimg]

WTC7 before the fall: [qimg]http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/images/340_wtc7_damage.jpg[/qimg]

Relevance??????????????????????????????????????

 

[Pardalis]

The part of that "documentary" that pisses me off the most is when he starts blaming the pilots for not being there in time. "Where were you guys when we needed you?"

Yeah, I like the part when he takes off his glasses and looks at the camera while saying that same line.... Scary stuff.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

The relevance, as someone noted in Pt. 1 of this thread, is that some great analytical minds seem to think there is this object called a "building," each one constructed in the same fashion. On top of that, regardless of whether a bomb goes off within their walls, an airplane flies into one, or someone bounces a tennis ball against the outside, they all should fail in the same way.

 

[Pardalis]

The relevance, as someone noted in Pt. 1 of this thread, is that some great analytical minds seem to think there is this object called a "building," each one constructed in the same fashion. On top of that, regardless of whether a bomb goes off within their walls, an airplane flies into one, or someone bounces a tennis ball against the outside, they all should fail in the same way.

Ah, I see...

geggy-boy, it would be nice if you posted some comments along with your pictures, this is a discussion forum.

 

[Gravy]

If only geggy could, as his sig states, "turn the knob of mediocrity," rather than just banging his troll head against the brick wall of stupidity.

Some day you may be mediocre, geggy, but you're going to have to buckle down and work at it.

And how about that apology for calling me a liar? Real men apologize when they insult people without cause.

ETA: oh, and while you're at it, please provide photos of the south side of WTC 7. You know, the side that was heavily damaged. I await your apology and your photos with equal confidence.