New Member

[Hyperviolet]

I would be interested in the lack of faith in "Military Intelligence."

I suspect you are using the term improperly. In discussions at the bar with your friends, that is fine, but in seriously exploring a hypothesis it isn't.

Iran/Contra did nothing to impugn Military Intelligence.

Hi Garrette,
It is my understanding that the CIA had involvement in the Iran Contra scandal. As did Oliver North.
If i am incorrect, could you please point me to a thread which i can read more about?

Thank you.

 

[T.A.M.]

You are VERY WELL READ, Hyperviolet. How long have you been following the issues of 9/11 in this detail?

TAM

 

[Horatius]

My personal position in the topic is 9/11 is there is likely some government/military intelligence involvement (guess that makes me a Woo hehe) however, contrary to the believes of many conspiracists i believe there was real hijacked planes, real passenger victims, a plane hit the pentagon and 93 came down in Shanksville.

Hello and welcome. You mention below that you've been reading this forum for a while now, so you may be familiar with the "Mark of Woo", that being the behaviour of coming in and sounding reasonable at first, and then evolving into a full-blown woo. I mention this, as it seems you may be showing some signs of The Mark.

You start out as above, a nice, reasonable LIHOPer, but then you go on:

Hi Minadin - no, i am not P'Doh. I have been a reader of these forums and know exactly who your are referring to and his past "revelation."

Quite frankly, i don't trust Military Intelligence. Iran Contra showed us that.

I am also intrigued as to the collapse of building 7 ( i have seen the comments of Chief Nigro and the burning south face) and the conclusion drawn by Danny Jowenko on the matter. The collapse interests me. There is good points on both sides.

So now you're suggesting that there may be something to the CTs about WTC7 collapsing.

I'd suggest that there's one important difference between LIHOP and MIHOP: You can be just "a little LIHOP", but you can't be "just a little MIHOP".

LIHOP is based mostly on believing that some people in positions of power are more interested in their own gain than in their responsibilities. As such, it doesn't require much in the way of woo thinking, except when the question comes up of how many people would be needed to "let it happen" without others catching on.

MIHOP, however, requires a qualitative difference: you must have people taking an active role: Planting explosives, or whatever. And once you postulate an active role, there really is no limit to what you must start claiming.

I'll explain.

You suggest there was something untoward about WTC7. Let's assume you mean it was a CD, made to look like a result of fire and impact damage.

Well, then, you need to make sure that there was some fire and impact damage, right? Where does that come from? From the collapse of WTC1&2. So we'd better make sure they collapse. Since we can't just assume the planes alone will do the job, we'll have to help them along.

Of course, for the collapse of WTC1&2 to be plausible, they must be hit by planes, or else it'll give the whole game away. So we'll have to make sure they get hit by planes. Can't just try to "let it happen", because you never know when some do-gooder on the plane will screw up your plans (flight 93, right?).

And to make sure we have the planes, we have to make sure we have hijackers, which means we have to make sure they get on the planes. To get on the planes, we have to make sure they're not in prision, so we have to make sure no one arrests them. And we have to make sure they get into the country....and on, and on....


Allow for any part of the day to be MIHOP, and you end up needing almost everything else to be MIHOP, because losing any one link risks exposing the whole plot for all to see.

So I'd suggest sticking with LIHOP. It's just barely plausible, while any MIHOP scenario just gets more crazy as time goes by.

 

[Hyperviolet]

Jowenko is an interesting point. He was initially given no details of the collapse what so ever, simply shown the video and asked what he thought caused the collapse.

After he was told teh circumstances around it, he became very withdrawn on the matter. After some time, and I assume he did some reading, likely some CT reading, he has openly admitted that he believe is was a CD because of the important info that he has been told was held in WTC7.

Now there were many Demolition companies involved in the clean-up of Ground Zero, and Implosionworld created an excellent report on some of the CT allegations. One thing they did was ask a number of the Demolition Teams if there was any evidence of CD, or if the words "pull it" mean to demolish the building with explosives, and they uniformly agreed there was no evidence of a CD, and that the term "pull it" does not refer to explosive demolition of a building, but rather to "pull" the building in a certain direction with steel cables.

Like I said, the Implosionworld paper is a good start, and Gravy's paper on WTC7.

TAM

Thanks again TAM

I have not read the Implosionworld paper, yet. I shall have a read through it either tonight or tomorrow!
Let it be stated that I in no way support the bogus Silverstein - Pull It -"evidence."

 

[Donal]

Well building 7 looks very similar to a controlled demolition (the speed, the symmetry).

What other CD have you compared it to?

My understanding that when steel weakens it starts to yield and gradually bend. Look at how the steel at the windsor reacted to intense heat.

The Windsor had a concrete core. WTC 1,2 and 7 didn't.

Now, clearly the similarities are striking. Moreover, the conclusion drawn by Jowenko seems to hold significant weight. He is an expert, after all.

He concluded that WTC 1 and 2 were not CD. He said WTC looked like CD, but he didn't know he was looking at a video of WTC7. Furthermore, this was not in a published journal based on his scientific analysis. It was from an interview with at CTer.

I think Mr Jewenko made an offhand comment without the full facts and now his pride won't let him retract it.

And keep in mind he is one of only 3 people in a relelvent field to take the CD position, and none of them have published a peer reviewed article in a scientific journal.

I guess those are the "points" which i feel are "good". However, i will wait for the NIST report before making any real judgement on the issue.

Thanks for the welcome!

I believe Gravy thuroughly addresses your concerns.

 

[DavidJames]

Well building 7 looks very similar to a controlled demolition (the speed, the symmetry). My understanding that when steel weakens it starts to yield and gradually bend. Look at how the steel at the windsor reacted to intense heat.

Have a look at this : youtube.com/watch?v=6_czyNCNhDI
Now, clearly the similarities are striking. Moreover, the conclusion drawn by Jowenko seems to hold significant weight. He is an expert, after all.

Are you aware of any analysis that Jowenko has performed? Are you aware of who (other engineers, demolitions experts) he may have consulted in reaching his conclusion? Are you aware of anything he did to reach his conclusion, other then, like you watching a video?

I guess those are the "points" which i feel are "good". However, i will wait for the NIST report before making any real judgement on the issue.

So you agree that your "good points" are limited to what you and others perceive by watching video, and you are satisfied with that? Have you read the preliminary NIST reports? Have you consulted with anyone who has knowledge and experience in structural engineering and demolitions?

Thanks for the welcome!

My pleasure.

 

[scooby]

I know it's early and that this is no way to treat a new member, so I apologize in advance if I am wrong, but I would like to take this opportunity to voice my "gut" feeling of , and dedicate it to P'Doh.

No thats me remember?

 

[Garrette]

Hi Garrette,
It is my understanding that the CIA had involvement in the Iran Contra scandal. As did Oliver North.
If i am incorrect, could you please point me to a thread which i can read more about?

Thank you.

You are correct; the CIA did have involvement.

But the CIA is not remotely equivalent to Military Intelligence. That's my point. If you are going to seriously discuss topics like this, you need to be clear about your terms.

To clarify: Military Intelligence (MI) is one branch (sub-branch) of the U.S. Army which, on a tactical level handles both security and intelligence analysis, as well as limited OPFOR (opposing forces) simulated play. At higher levels, it deals primarily with determination of collection requirements, tasking of organic collectors (primarily electronic and not human), and analysis of enormous amounts of collected data.

MI does not have operatives or agents in the sense the CIA does, nor does it get involved in training of foreign covert groups as the CIA did with Battalion 316 in El Salvador.

Hope that helps.

 

[Hyperviolet]

Hello and welcome. You mention below that you've been reading this forum for a while now, so you may be familiar with the "Mark of Woo", that being the behaviour of coming in and sounding reasonable at first, and then evolving into a full-blown woo. I mention this, as it seems you may be showing some signs of The Mark.

You start out as above, a nice, reasonable LIHOPer, but then you go on:




So now you're suggesting that there may be something to the CTs about WTC7 collapsing.

I'd suggest that there's one important difference between LIHOP and MIHOP: You can be just "a little LIHOP", but you can't be "just a little MIHOP".

LIHOP is based mostly on believing that some people in positions of power are more interested in their own gain than in their responsibilities. As such, it doesn't require much in the way of woo thinking, except when the question comes up of how many people would be needed to "let it happen" without others catching on.

MIHOP, however, requires a qualitative difference: you must have people taking an active role: Planting explosives, or whatever. And once you postulate an active role, there really is no limit to what you must start claiming.

I'll explain.

You suggest there was something untoward about WTC7. Let's assume you mean it was a CD, made to look like a result of fire and impact damage.

Well, then, you need to make sure that there was some fire and impact damage, right? Where does that come from? From the collapse of WTC1&2. So we'd better make sure they collapse. Since we can't just assume the planes alone will do the job, we'll have to help them along.

Of course, for the collapse of WTC1&2 to be plausible, they must be hit by planes, or else it'll give the whole game away. So we'll have to make sure they get hit by planes. Can't just try to "let it happen", because you never know when some do-gooder on the plane will screw up you plans (fligth 93, right?).

And to make sure we have the planes, we have to make sure we have hijackers, which means we have to make sure they get on the planes. To get on the planes, we have to make sure they're not in prision, so we have to make sure no one arrests them. And we have to make sure they get into the country....and on, and on....


Allow for any part of the day to be MIHOP, and you end up needing almost everything else to be MIHOP, because losing any one link risks exposing the whole plot for all to see.

So I'd suggest sticking with LIHOP. It's just barely plausible, while any MIHOP scenario just gets more crazy as time goes by.

Hello Horatius!

I actually havent heard of "The Mark Of Woo" haha. I hope it isnt deadly!
My position on WTC 7 is not that is was a controlled demolition. But that, it interests me and i am keen to learn more on the topic. I shall remain on the fence till i read the NIST final report.


Thank you

 

[Pardalis]

However, i will wait for the NIST report before making any real judgement on the issue.

Finally, reason!

Remember that Jowenko just saw video from one angle of the building, he didn't see the extent of the damage http://911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

Also remember that something isn't necesserally what it looks like. If you dig deeper and analyse thoroughly, you might be surprised of what you find.


To the others: where's is Steve Spak's video of the burning WTC7? It's not on youtube anymore!

 

[Hyperviolet]

You are correct; the CIA did have involvement.

But the CIA is not remotely equivalent to Military Intelligence. That's my point. If you are going to seriously discuss topics like this, you need to be clear about your terms.

To clarify: Military Intelligence (MI) is one branch (sub-branch) of the U.S. Army which, on a tactical level handles both security and intelligence analysis, as well as limited OPFOR (opposing forces) simulated play. At higher levels, it deals primarily with determination of collection requirements, tasking of organic collectors (primarily electronic and not human), and analysis of enormous amounts of collected data.

MI does not have operatives or agents in the sense the CIA does, nor does it get involved in training of foreign covert groups as the CIA did with Battalion 316 in El Salvador.

Hope that helps.

My apologies for the sloppy reference, Garrette.

Man, you really have to be on your game in this place haha

 

[Horatius]

No thats me remember?

Nice to see you finally admit it.

Of course, a SockMaster like Pd'oh could easily have several socks on the line at once. He's truly a phenomenon.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No thats me remember?

False dilemma

 

[Garrette]

My apologies for the sloppy reference, Garrette.

Not a problem. It's a pleasure to speak with someone who admits errors. We all have difficulties with that at times.

Man, you really have to be on your game in this place haha

Which is one reason I mostly stay out of the CT threads; I am in way over my head here.

 

[Hyperviolet]

What other CD have you compared it to?



The Windsor had a concrete core. WTC 1,2 and 7 didn't.



He concluded that WTC 1 and 2 were not CD. He said WTC looked like CD, but he didn't know he was looking at a video of WTC7. Furthermore, this was not in a published journal based on his scientific analysis. It was from an interview with at CTer.

I think Mr Jewenko made an offhand comment without the full facts and now his pride won't let him retract it.

And keep in mind he is one of only 3 people in a relelvent field to take the CD position, and none of them have published a peer reviewed article in a scientific journal.



I believe Gravy thuroughly addresses your concerns.

Hi Donal!

Quick clarification on the Windsor building. I am not using it as a reference point to the actual collapse (as some conspiracy sites do). I am merely referring to the reaction of the steel to the heat. That is, the gradual bending.
I could have used the reference to the toilet factory to make my point. That is all.

Thanks!

 

[T.A.M.]

No thats me remember?

Though right now I am reserving judgement, let me say that PDoh has had enough socks in here to lose a dozen to the dryer, and still clothe his feet for a week.

As for the "Mark of Woo", the first stage is present, but so it is almost all new arrivals. The truth will present itself sooner or later.

For now I am taking Hyperviolet on face value.

TAM

 

[Horatius]

Hello Horatius!

I actually havent heard of "The Mark Of Woo" haha. I hope it isnt deadly!

Well, it hasn't killed any of them yet, but it has made a lot of us sick.

My position on WTC 7 is not that is was a controlled demolition. But that, it interests me and i am keen to learn more on the topic. I shall remain on the fence till i read the NIST final report.

Thank you

Well okay then. I think most of us would agree that it is interesting, in that we may learn something useful about building design, in particular why not to build them the way it was. There were several compromises in the design that a lot of people have suggested contributed to it's collapse.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Hi Donal!

Quick clarification on the Windsor building. I am not using it as a reference point to the actual collapse (as some conspiracy sites do). I am merely referring to the reaction of the steel to the heat. That is, the gradual bending.

This is interesting - I haven't heard of gradual bending of the steel members in the Windsor, but then again it's not a subject I know that much about. Can you point me to any sources that discuss or illustrate the failure mode of the steel-framed part of the Windsor?

Dave

 

[Donal]

In order for you to be on the fence, there needs to be another side you believe to make a legitimate argument.

What are the two sides in the WTC 7 issue you are teetering between?

 

[Horatius]

Hi Donal!

Quick clarification on the Windsor building. I am not using it as a reference point to the actual collapse (as some conspiracy sites do). I am merely referring to the reaction of the steel to the heat. That is, the gradual bending. I could have used the reference to the toilet factory to make my point. That is all.

Thanks!

You'll also have to consider the degree of loading that the members were under. The Windsor tower was (I believe) a much smaller building, and the steel portion was only the top portion of the structure, so it wasn't supporting that much of the building. Whereas, with WTC7, the collapse started much lower in the building, and involved the whole mass of the much larger building. This increased load factor would tend to accelerate any failure. Once it reached the point of collapse, the whole upper structure would come down very rapidly.