900 replies to this topic

[Liquid Gardens]

Q24, on 03 August 2012 - 03:42 AM, said:

What if there was a former White House staff who had worked with Cheney et al and was regarded highly by Zionist lobby groups... and what if in 1999, during a merger and restructuring, he became CEO of a construction company... a company which contracted not only for demolition work, but also for the military unit which supplied the only reliable source of nanothermite in the United States... and what if that company rented offices in both WTC towers... and that company so happened to hold the contract for the buildings' ongoing steelwork and fireproofing renovation?

I'm saying "what if" here, though the above is all factual.

Are you seeing the potential here?

I see numerous potential ways that you can connect the Vice President to nanothermite so I don't find the above very curious or indicative of anything on it's own.  The Secret Service had an office in WTC7, the military I'm sure already has plenty of nanothermite available, why bother with a civilian company?  One of the tenants I believe is the Zim-Israeli Trading Corp, clearly Zionists, no?  The only real question is, what is the evidence that this former WH staff person and co. install nanothermite in WTC?

Quote

So the setup was airtight, but let's say some movement arises which gathers and presents in the following years evidence of demolition based on physical characteristics of the collapses, reaching its peak in 2006 with the release of Loose Change, significantly increasing public awareness, and experts like physicist Steven Jones and architect Richard Gage forming professional groups against the official collapse theory. Ok, that is a potential risk to uncovering the demolitions. So what then? You already guessed it - an "argument can be made explaining how Al Q managed to get into the WTC": -

"For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."
~President Bush, Oct. 31, 2006

Let's get this straight - in the same year the truth movement go mainstream, immediately follows this pre-emptive counterpunch that the alleged Al Qaeda masterminds had "planned attacks" whereby "explosives" were placed at "high" points in buildings. Now, had any evidence of demolition been introduced which the official narrative could not provide some semblance of explanation for… it’s ok, terrorists planted the bombs that brought down the WTC buildings.

How have you measured what 'year the truth movement' went mainstream in order to designate this 'same year' connection?  Several Loose Change videos were released, from 2005 through 2009, the Truth movement has been around since I believe 2004.

Quote

And you know the masses would have swallowed it whole.

We know no such thing, after all, there are no shortage of people on the net that haven't swallowed it whole.  I think I saw a reference to a poll that said around 20% of Americans think the buildings were demolished; that's a big chunk out of our 'masses'.

Quote

I have yet to see any risk to those responsible.

You've involved 20-70 people in this conspiracy, and I think we can both agree that those numbers are pretty much the minimum required.  These 20-70 people trust each other implicitly, none of them feel like the head conspirators might off them just to ensure their silence?  Maybe some of these conspirators squirreled away some good evidence as an insurance policy?  I'm sure no Democrats would be interested in pinning 9/11 on the Republicans...

Anyway, we seem to be pretty much shooting the breeze with our opinions on alternate histories.  I'm not sure if W Tell is coming back, and I've read a little on WTC7, so maybe that would be a good thing to focus on if you are willing.  I read your link and most of what you are talking about there is your disagreement with the NIST report.  I'm glad that you pointed me to that as it was informative.  I'm entirely willing to say that the NIST report is in error and reached wrong conclusions, which is entirely understandable as they didn't have much to go on.  What then is the evidence for demolition?  There seem to be a few firefighters who were actually there, unlike anyone who compiled the NIST report, and they sure seemed to indicate that they thought the building would collapse, and do talk about some pretty significant damage done and the prevalence of fires.  They also said that they saw structural deformation before the collapse, such as a bulge between a couple of the floors.  What is your theory then on WTC7 and why do you believe it?  One question I'd have is if they were going to demolish it, why let it stand so long and thereby increase the chance that evidence of the demolition might become apparent?  On the link, you said that it is blatant that WTC7 was demolished, so again, they seem to have botched up their master plan.  Why wouldn't they just demolish WTC7 after one of the towers fell?  You could hardly see the building because of all the dust, that would have been the opportune time.

[Babe Ruth]

Since on that day there was no example of a modern steel building collapsing from fire, I wonder upon exactly which experience those firemen based their fears that the building was going to collapse?  Did the training they had been exposed to include scenarios in which a modern steel building collapses at free fall speeds?

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 30 July 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

manworm, on 29 July 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

Q - one small point I would like to raise is how did they know WTC 7 was going to get hit by a chunk of concrete , or are there many co-conspirators . (otherwise it would be obvious it was a mock up ) sorry to butt in.

Why do you assume anyone knew WTC7 would be impacted by the tower debris?

I was hoping that manworm would follow up on this, as I think he raises a valid point.  Given that he hasn't, I'll take a stab at why he may have asked the question.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that WTC7 had to go according to the predominant conspiracy theory.  Let's also assume that it went essentially unscathed by the collapse of the North Tower.  What would then be the 'excuse' for its collapse?  In our hypothetical scenario WTC7 wasn't hit by any falling debris, which of course isn't what happened, but let's assume that by some happenstance it did.

Had that been the case, how would our conspirators have explained the collapse?



Also, LG raises another extremely compelling point along another hypothetical path...  Why indeed wouldn't they have just demolished WTC7 immediately after or even during the North Tower collapse, as it was being hit by debris or as it was shrouded in smoke and dust?

[Babe Ruth]

That's a question I have always wondered about Boo.

Why wait until 5 in the afternoon?

The irony is that I quit watching TV that day after the towers fell.  Just turned around and went home and left the TV off.  Never knew for 4 years that 7 fell.

There must be a compelling reason, what with Silverstein's comical statements.

[Liquid Gardens]

booNyzarC, on 05 August 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

For the sake of argument, let's assume that WTC7 had to go according to the predominant conspiracy theory.  Let's also assume that it went essentially unscathed by the collapse of the North Tower.  What would then be the 'excuse' for its collapse?  In our hypothetical scenario WTC7 wasn't hit by any falling debris, which of course isn't what happened, but let's assume that by some happenstance it did.

Had that been the case, how would our conspirators have explained the collapse?

Excellent question Boony, as always.  The planned demolition only makes sense under the cover of damage being inflicted and the multiple fires.  They made a lucky guess?  What if enough of the debris had fallen and essentially flattened WTC7?  They then take the risk of someone in the recovery process finding these undetonated demolitions.  I know Q has essentially said that this is no risk, they'll just assert Al Q planted it, which assumes of course that no investigation will be able to ascertain that it may actually have been Cheney's friend's company or whomever.  Silverstein wasn't worried at all that if anything went wrong, he'd be the most likely to be exposed as a conspirator, served up as a Zionist extremist?  And I don't know if nanothermite was also supposedly used on 7, but the necessity to include nanothermite anywhere in the demolition works against a proposed Al Q demolition operation; how did, and is it believable that, Al Q got a hold of nanothermite?  It seems to be a pretty scarce compound, please correct if I'm wrong about that.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 04 August 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

I see numerous potential ways that you can connect the Vice President to nanothermite so I don't find the above very curious or indicative of anything on it's own. The Secret Service had an office in WTC7, the military I'm sure already has plenty of nanothermite available, why bother with a civilian company? One of the tenants I believe is the Zim-Israeli Trading Corp, clearly Zionists, no? The only real question is, what is the evidence that this former WH staff person and co. install nanothermite in WTC?

You have gone on a slight tangent/missed the point - perhaps that's my fault for providing too much information. You started out by suggesting a risk that the demolition setup could be uncovered. The information I provided, in particular the last remark, "that company so happened to hold the contract for the buildings' ongoing steelwork and fireproofing renovation" was intended to address your concern. If there was potential for the demolition unit to have unhindered access to the core structure under guise of legitimate work, there is no reason the setup should be uncovered - the problem you envision is void.

Your question, "why bother with a civilian company?" further seems to indicate that I wasn't clear the first time around. The reason we bother with Turner Construction is that the company held the contract for the ongoing steelwork and fireproofing renovation - this would provide the access required. As mentioned previously, we cannot just send in a team of military/intelligence 'Men In Black' to sneak around the building installing demolition charges.

Regarding Zim-Israeli Trading Corp... if you can link them to the White House Neocons, plus military and demolition contracts, perhaps show some significant company restructuring in the couple years prior 9/11, and prove those employees had unhindered access to the buildings' steel structure... (all in the same way as Turner Construction)... then sure I'm interested... otherwise we cannot lump them into the mix purely on the basis they were Israeli and happened to be present.

Now regarding any of this as evidence of the WTC demolitions... that is not the intention. What this is evidence of, is the possibility of the setup. Unless we can firmly close doors like this through investigation, there is no basis to claim the setup could not be achieved without detection.

Liquid Gardens, on 04 August 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

How have you measured what 'year the truth movement' went mainstream in order to designate this 'same year' connection? Several Loose Change videos were released, from 2005 through 2009, the Truth movement has been around since I believe 2004.

In part, I lived it...

It was Loose Change: 2nd Edition that went viral in 2006 and raised awareness to new heights on internet forums. I'm not sure how to prove this to you, but I found this reference: "Since it appeared on the Web in April 2005, the 80-minute film has been climbing up and down Google Video’s "Top 100," rising to No. 1 this May [2006], with at least 10 million viewings."

Apart from that, there was a noticeable increase in television coverage and media articles surrounding the truth movement that year. I think this due to the discussion generated by documentaries like Loose Change: 2nd Edition, amongst others and the creation of the two largest, coherent, professional groups, to which I referred: Scholars for 9/11 Truth (founded 2006 by Steven Jones) and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (founded 2006 by Richard Gage).

Also Pilots for 9/11 Truth were another significant group founded 2006... but we don't like to talk about them.

Absolutely that year marked a very visible step-up in the public awareness, distribution of evidence and expert led discussion, particularly around the WTC demolitions. Then toward the end of the same year, Bush comes out with this new information about how 'Al Qaeda' operatives planned to plant explosives high up in buildings... nice one... what's that saying about politics and coincidence?  There was no coincidence - it appears the Neocon group were worried about losing the public mind and set to pre-empt that.  They need not have worried - counter intelligence operatives did a fine job of splitting the truth movement from within (former Bush employee Morgan Reynolds with his 'no plane at the WTC' theory, pffft, brilliant).

Liquid Gardens, on 04 August 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

We know no such thing, after all, there are no shortage of people on the net that haven't swallowed it whole. I think I saw a reference to a poll that said around 20% of Americans think the buildings were demolished; that's a big chunk out of our 'masses'.

I would suggest the same 80% from that poll who did not initially accept the WTC buildings were demolished would have happily conformed to an official declaration that 'Al Qaeda' actually planted explosive charges to bring the buildings down. It is clear that most people (defined as "the masses") accept the government and media word without question - that is the reality they are content to live in. But then this is a whole other subject.

Liquid Gardens, on 04 August 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

You've involved 20-70 people in this conspiracy, and I think we can both agree that those numbers are pretty much the minimum required. These 20-70 people trust each other implicitly, none of them feel like the head conspirators might off them just to ensure their silence? Maybe some of these conspirators squirreled away some good evidence as an insurance policy? I'm sure no Democrats would be interested in pinning 9/11 on the Republicans...

Are you saying that you think those responsible would talk? If so, then you are not in the head of these people. It makes no sense for any to talk - it would be a stab in the back to any benefit their work could derive; everything they most believe in and hold dear - there are deep-rooted patriotic, religious and racial ideals involved here. It is not about 3,000 people, sad as it may be, the loss of those lives had no lasting effect in the grand scheme of global history... it is about the pre-eminence of the United States and Israel, or perhaps better put, the West and aligned nations. You are thinking like yourself on an individual level, instead of like them in directing the largest scale events. Their loyalty is not to the individual, but the long term greater good of the state.

"It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own pride is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole; that pride and conceitedness, the feeling that the individual ... is superior, so far from being merely laughable, involve great dangers for the existence of the community that is a nation; that above all the unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and the will of an individual; and that the higher interests involved in the life of the whole must here set the limits and lay down the duties of interests of the individual. ... By this we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men."
~Adolf Hitler, Oct. 7, 1933

Much like suggestion at the risk of the WTC demolition discovery, this concern of those responsible speaking out really has no merit. No individual would be participating in the operation in the first place if they did not believe in what they were trying to achieve; only those with the required philosophies and values inbuilt are selected.

Liquid Gardens, on 04 August 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

Anyway, we seem to be pretty much shooting the breeze with our opinions on alternate histories. I'm not sure if W Tell is coming back, and I've read a little on WTC7, so maybe that would be a good thing to focus on if you are willing. I read your link and most of what you are talking about there is your disagreement with the NIST report. I'm glad that you pointed me to that as it was informative. I'm entirely willing to say that the NIST report is in error and reached wrong conclusions, which is entirely understandable as they didn't have much to go on. What then is the evidence for demolition?

To begin, the complete failure of the official study to explain the collapses through the damage and fire scenario - that alone is quite huge evidence of an alternative method employed. After that, all the collapse features of demolition and none of a fire based process - that should be speaking volumes to us. Here we are talking about the sudden/rapid onset, the lack of prior obvious gradual deformation, the virtual symmetry, the near freefall, the completeness of collapse, the lack of partial collapse, the foreknowledge of the event (more on that below). What is not the evidence for demolition? All of this, regarding the physical features, is a case of using one's eyes and comparing to previous examples of building fires/demolitions. Which best matches that witnessed on 9/11 in the case of WTC7? There is no contest based on precedent/experience.

Whilst WTC7 is the most visually obvious demolition, it is perhaps with the twin towers that most physical evidence exists. Where should I start? The molten (thermite immitating) flow from WTC2 in the 7 minutes prior collapse? Please see the pictures here. How is that not evidence indicative of thermite in the tower? The match could not possibly be better. What do you think LG? Are you of the group that claims this must be anything but thermite, despite the match? I mean, what better indication could there reasonably be?

How about another of my favourites - the Israeli intelligence agents detained on the scene on 9/11 for celebrating the tower collapses with sniffer dogs reacting as though explosives were carried in the mens' van? How much do you know about them? Would you fall into the group that claims they must have been anything but involved in the collapses? Again, what better indication of complicity should there reasonably be? What evidence must be come up with to convince people?

Heck, back to the physical collapses, the official study even demonstrates within the bounds of reality a large (majority) impact and fire range where the towers would not collapse - whilst admitting this non-collapse range was the best match to video/photographic evidence, the collapse range actually found was never even proven to be within the reality witnessed on 9/11 - NIST had no right to put the collapses down to inputs/a degree of damage which never existed on the day.

Then did you know that the complete failure of the official study, the match to examples of demolition but not damage/fire, the WTC2 thermite immitating flow and the Israeli intelligence agents, etc, etc, etc, can all be explained through a single answer: demolition. And there's more and more, a huge body of evidence/observation which can always be accounted for in that one answer, opposed to the myriad of disparate and coincidental solutions which the official theory must continuously invoke. And some dare say that Occam's Razor is not on the demolition theory's side: "a principle urging one to select from among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect". There is only one assumption I need to make to comprehensively account for all evidence, observation and circumstances (issues the official theory prefers not to view in its selective usage) - that demolition charges were placed in the WTC buildings.

Liquid Gardens, on 04 August 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

There seem to be a few firefighters who were actually there, unlike anyone who compiled the NIST report, and they sure seemed to indicate that they thought the building would collapse, and do talk about some pretty significant damage done and the prevalence of fires. They also said that they saw structural deformation before the collapse, such as a bulge between a couple of the floors.

Please see the thread I started: WTC7 Foreknowledge of Collapse (it would be worth reading a few pages into the thread to get the drift). Essentially none of the firefighters predicted the collapse of their own independent judgement - the collapse warning filtered through their ranks from unnamed independent individuals on site. The accuracy of the collapse prediction sourced from that third party individual, miraculously including severity and timing of the WTC7 collapse in a case where no conceivable engineering rationale existed, is evidence of foreknowledge; a pre-planned event.

Liquid Gardens, on 04 August 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

One question I'd have is if they were going to demolish it, why let it stand so long and thereby increase the chance that evidence of the demolition might become apparent? On the link, you said that it is blatant that WTC7 was demolished, so again, they seem to have botched up their master plan. Why wouldn't they just demolish WTC7 after one of the towers fell? You could hardly see the building because of all the dust, that would have been the opportune time.

I like your thinking - having WTC7 taken down under cover of the WTC1 dust cloud would appear to be the opportune moment and exactly how I would have gone about it also. So what happened? I wonder, what effect did that large, unpredictable chunk of WTC1 debris have on the WTC7 demolition setup? Could it have knocked out the central charges or disrupted the pre-set sequence? Perhaps rather than a blessing to cover of the WTC7 demolition as official story adherents (including booNy above) always assume, it was actually a curse, which delayed the building fall until the setup was reconfigured in the afternoon.

Elsewhere we have mentioned the presence of the Secret Service in that building, and indeed the maximum deflection (collapse initiation level) of the column failure was on the floor occupied by that unit... coincidence too I suppose, it always is.  The official narrative states that no one was killed during the WTC7 collapse... though the Congressional Record tells different... the death of U.S. Secret Service Special Officer, Craig Miller, during the collapse. Is the demolition reconfiguration the reason this individual was the last left in the building?

The official investigation never addressed these questions, never asked Silverstein a thing, did not seek out the individual with 'on the money' foreknowledge of the WTC7 collapse which so influenced and deterred the FDNY. I mean, what is there to argue against here, an empty political/propaganda driven narrative? I don't understand why anyone would accept the official story in lieu of a competent investigation and with so much evidence suggesting an alternative version of events. Has the world lost its mind or just doesn't care that we went to war on this pretext?

Anyhow, I'm jumping from point to point on this post with too much to talk about. Please pick out any points/evidence you wish to discuss and I'll try to focus/drill down to the detail.

[Liquid Gardens]

Thanks as always for the thorough reply, Q. I agree, we've got too much to talk about here and I have a lot of comments and some disagreements with you, but I'm going to try and comment briefly and then try and focus on WTC7 in isolation. I know I'm responsible for so many topics going on, so I'm going to just focus on 7, and if possible, let's not talk about the towers unless we need it for some evidential point.

Q24, on 06 August 2012 - 01:29 AM, said:

You have gone on a slight tangent/missed the point - perhaps that's my fault for providing too much information. You started out by suggesting a risk that the demolition setup could be uncovered. The information I provided, in particular the last remark, "that company so happened to hold the contract for the buildings' ongoing steelwork and fireproofing renovation" was intended to address your concern. If there was potential for the demolition unit to have unhindered access to the core structure under guise of legitimate work, there is no reason the setup should be uncovered - the problem you envision is void.

It's the 'so happened' that I disagree with if you are asserting that this is somehow unusual; I'm utterly unsurprised that you've found some way that perhaps nanothermite may have been placed in the building; Silverstein leases the building, right there alone we have myriad alternatives for introducing these explosives unseen. Also, you've been mentioning 'coincidence' a lot, which, speaking of 'void', is essentially how I find such arguments. As usual, someone else says it better than I:

"That a particular specified event or coincidence will occur is very unlikely. That some astonishing unspecified events will occur is certain. That is why remarkable coincidences are noted in hindsight, not predicted with foresight."--David G. Myers

Exactamundo. Most people's brains are really not well suited for dealing with large numbers, let alone accurately assessing probabilities without training. On 9/11, we have tens of thousands of people, hundreds of companies, hundreds if not thousands of people that Cheney and co. are 'friends' with or exert influence over, involvement of people at all levels of govt, Israel... there is a mammoth constellation of points available here to make connections and note coincidences. Let's change your connection to Turner Construction to be not the whomever person who was on Cheney's staff, but that person's brother. Is it fair to say that you would still bring this up, it's close enough? Because by doing that you have just doubled the number of connections you can make from this company to the supposed conspiracy, 'coincidentally'.

Quote

The reason we bother with Turner Construction is that the company held the contract for the ongoing steelwork and fireproofing renovation - this would provide the access required. As mentioned previously, we cannot just send in a team of military/intelligence 'Men In Black' to sneak around the building installing demolition charges.

Turner Construction held the contract I thought because they were going to be part of the conspiracy; I thought I saw some documents from Dec 2000 talking about the renovation work or whatever, but maybe that wasn't when they got the contract. You're making it sound like our conspirators had no choice but to go through Turner because they already held the contract, is that true? This company was awarded contracts based on nothing having to do with 9/11, and they also had access to nanothermite?

Quote

Regarding Zim-Israeli Trading Corp... if you can link them to the White House Neocons, plus military and demolition contracts, perhaps show some significant company restructuring in the couple years prior 9/11, and prove those employees had unhindered access to the buildings' steel structure... (all in the same way as Turner Construction)... then sure I'm interested... otherwise we cannot lump them into the mix purely on the basis they were Israeli and happened to be present.

What was Silverstein's link to the neocons, I thought it was just because he's a Zionist. I have a bad feeling you're going to connect him to Wolfowitz because they are both Jewish. Regardless, Zim-Israeli with offices in the building would also have access to the structure, and you underestimate the capabilities of our Black Ops military units. In addition, I just found this on wiki: "ZimAmerican Israeli Shipping Company was on the 16th floor and officially moved out of the World Trade Center to Norfolk, Virginia on Sept. 4, 2001. However, some computer systems were still in use in WTC at the time of the attacks." Ah-HA! (No, not 'ah-ha'...)

Quote

Are you saying that you think those responsible would talk? If so, then you are not in the head of these people. It makes no sense for any to talk - it would be a stab in the back to any benefit their work could derive; everything they most believe in and hold dear - there are deep-rooted patriotic, religious and racial ideals involved here. It is not about 3,000 people, sad as it may be, the loss of those lives had no lasting effect in the grand scheme of global history... it is about the pre-eminence of the United States and Israel, or perhaps better put, the West and aligned nations. You are thinking like yourself on an individual level, instead of like them in directing the largest scale events. Their loyalty is not to the individual, but the long term greater good of the state.

I don't know if we're still just talking about 'possibility' or if you are actually suggesting something about the actual conspirators. Assuming it's the latter, I'm not in the head of these people but you are?! How do you know this? These head conspirators just 'know' who's faithful to the cause, how exactly? None of these conspirators are in it mostly for the money? There are ample precedents for that as I'm sure you know (yeesh, this is America...) as well as for conspirators turning on one another.

Quote

Much like suggestion at the risk of the WTC demolition discovery, this concern of those responsible speaking out really has no merit. No individual would be participating in the operation in the first place if they did not believe in what they were trying to achieve; only those with the required philosophies and values inbuilt are selected.

You don't know anywhere near this level of specificity what it would take for an individual to participate in the operation, all individuals are unique. Please suggest some way that 'they' can tell, with certainty, that their chosen accomplices had the required philosophies. And I literally mean 'with 'certainty', which is of course a bar you cannot feasibly clear. I only demand this certainty because of what I find to be your unrealistic assertions that the risks were 'non-existent' and have 'no merit'. This is absurd, that is not the way this reality works. You can argue that the risk may be less than we may initially think, and you've suggested some scenarios where the risk is lessened, which is a credit to your knowledgability on this topic. But it took one curious security guard to blow open Watergate. And the downside of this crime being discovered doesn't get any worse for those involved.

Ha, so much for commenting briefly. I have more detailed points concerning WTC7 based on what you've posted and the link to the earlier discussion about 'foreknowledge', but I'm going to break those out separately when I get a chance.

[Liquid Gardens]

Quote

To begin, the complete failure of the official study to explain the collapses through the damage and fire scenario - that alone is quite huge evidence of an alternative method employed. After that, all the collapse features of demolition and none of a fire based process - that should be speaking volumes to us. Here we are talking about the sudden/rapid onset, the lack of prior obvious gradual deformation, the virtual symmetry, the near freefall, the completeness of collapse, the lack of partial collapse, the foreknowledge of the event (more on that below).

Technically, the failure of the official study to explain the collapse adequately shows that they failed to explain the collapse adequately. At best, it removes one possibility from the zillions of alternatives that could have occurred (not just 'employed'). I've found references to witnessed structural deformation, that it was leaning (I'll discuss your 'foreknowledge' below), and I thought the video shows that the south side collapsed first (virtual symmetry?). What should be speaking volumes to us is the fact that there are, what, thousands of structural engineers, demolition experts, material scientists, physicists, who are staying silent about this 'blatant' demolition.

Quote

What is not the evidence for demolition? All of this, regarding the physical features, is a case of using one's eyes and comparing to previous examples of building fires/demolitions. Which best matches that witnessed on 9/11 in the case of WTC7? There is no contest based on precedent/experience.

What is not the evidence for demolition? The lack of any evidence to differentiate the collapse of WTC7 due to fire and damage from your proposal that it was demolished. The lack of any good need to demolish 7, we are way far-removed from any Pearl Harbor tie-in here with piddly irrelevant WTC7. The disagreement of many experts concerning the demolition scenario. The possibility of debris from the twin tower not damaging WTC7 and thus ruining that plot (conspirator risk #4,764,393). The main point of your evidence seems to be that some experts disagree, from watching a video, that the way the collapse occurred 'looks like' a demolition and they disagree with the idea that the building only collapsed from fire and damage. Unfortunately, lots of other experts disagree; not sure how you plan to resolve that between us, I'm not an engineer. I think I can make a good case though that MIT experts > Brigham Young experts.

Not sure why 'precedent' is even being brought up, unless you have several examples of buildings suffering unknown damage and extensive fires burning for several hours matching the approximate parameters of the WTC7 construction. By definition, precedent has limited applicability to the unprecedented.

Quote

Are you of the group that claims this must be anything but thermite, despite the match? I mean, what better indication could there reasonably be?

An indication that somewhere in some universe it has been shown that we can have confidence in the determination of the chemical composition of a molten compound based on watching a video taken from hundreds of feet away. I am of a group that claims that what you are seeing is possibly thermite, and possibly several other things. I'm sure you've read up enough on this to know what these several other things can be.

Quote

How about another of my favourites - the Israeli intelligence agents detained on the scene on 9/11 for celebrating the tower collapses with sniffer dogs reacting as though explosives were carried in the mens' van? How much do you know about them? Would you fall into the group that claims they must have been anything but involved in the collapses? Again, what better indication of complicity should there reasonably be? What evidence must be come up with to convince people?

I can find references to this but nothing indicating they are 'intelligence agents'. Are these the same 'agents' who then later filed suit because of their mistreatment during their detainment? How covert.....

Quote

Heck, back to the physical collapses, the official study even demonstrates within the bounds of reality a large (majority) impact and fire range where the towers would not collapse - whilst admitting this non-collapse range was the best match to video/photographic evidence, the collapse range actually found was never even proven to be within the reality witnessed on 9/11 - NIST had no right to put the collapses down to inputs/a degree of damage which never existed on the day.

I thought we were throwing away the NIST study, now we want to selectively pick the things out of it that support our theory but dismiss the things that don't agree?

Regardless, even if we accept some of what the NIST study says, I think you inadvertantly touched on the weakest link in both your and the official explanation: the video/photographic evidence, or lack thereof. It is my understanding that there are almost no shots that clearly show the extent of the damage to 7 prior to the collapse, how then could the NIST or CTs or anyone say for sure what did or did not happen? That is a huge amount of possible variability, and it appears that WTC7 was specifically vulnerable to progressive collapse. Even me taking this as working against what I think is likely to be true also, that the building collapsed from damage and fire, and thus moves me to the neutral position which is 'we don't know have enough information to know how and why exactly WTC7 collapsed the way it did', I'm still miles away from 'blatant demolition'.

Quote

Then did you know that the complete failure of the official study, the match to examples of demolition but not damage/fire, the WTC2 thermite immitating flow and the Israeli intelligence agents, etc, etc, etc, can all be explained through a single answer: demolition. And there's more and more, a huge body of evidence/observation which can always be accounted for in that one answer, opposed to the myriad of disparate and coincidental solutions which the official theory must continuously invoke. And some dare say that Occam's Razor is not on the demolition theory's side: "a principle urging one to select from among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect". There is only one assumption I need to make to comprehensively account for all evidence, observation and circumstances (issues the official theory prefers not to view in its selective usage) - that demolition charges were placed in the WTC buildings.

Again, if the official study failed this is not evidence that your theory is correct, it means we still don't know. All the plaster footprints, all the grainy videos and photos, the numerous worldwide sightings and encounters throughout history can all be explained through a single answer: Bigfoot. And that has got to be hyperbole, 'only one assumption', come on. You are making a giant assumption that the experts you are agreeing with based on their analysis of loads of incomplete data are actually correct in their assessments.

Quote

Essentially none of the firefighters predicted the collapse of their own independent judgement - the collapse warning filtered through their ranks from unnamed independent individuals on site. The accuracy of the collapse prediction sourced from that third party individual, miraculously including severity and timing of the WTC7 collapse in a case where no conceivable engineering rationale existed, is evidence of foreknowledge; a pre-planned event.

Here was your response to being provided a list of quotes from WTC7 eyewitnesses:

"The comments you posted display a lot of confidence that collapse was imminent. There are other comments still which I have posted previously and put prior knowledge in even more certain terms. This all meshes perfectly well with the anonymous advisor(s) on scene disseminating information which prepared everyone to expect complete collapse. Unfortunately for you, not a single statement demonstrates firefighter observation alone led them to determine with certainty that the building would collapse, not one. Of course there isn’t, there was no physical observation apparent which could lead to such a dead-set conclusion."

Now that was one helluva long thread I didn't read through all of it, so my criticisms here you may have already dealt with. I'm having trouble picking up from the thread posts the relevance that 'certainty' has to do with anything, but you do seem to trying to make some point concerning the fact that it wasn't purely the firefighters assessment that the building was going to collapse because of the unknown person. You have not shown that the source for every quote concerning indications of collapse comes from this one unknown person. Most importantly, the existence of this anonymous source does not explain the eyewitness accounts of the structural deformation they saw, that you just above said the lack of which was evidence of the demolition. You're not suggesting that this source also planted the idea about the bulge, that it was leaning, the whole corner of the building is missing, didn't look straight, and was creaking? That sounds like structural deformation to me.

You said this in reply to Boony and laid out your timeline concerning how FDNY was 'unconcerned' prior to talking to conspirator #19 (12 for the setup, Silverstein and his two Zionist buds, I'm going very light and only counting Cheney, Rummy and Wolfy in the govt; ah I guess our mystery source could be only #18, maybe one of the 12 is doing double duty):

"The FDNY were not concerned of collapse before the warnings from ‘unnamed’, i.e. they were influenced"

Right, I'm sure that unnamed source was a much larger influence than the fact that they were standing in the rubble and debris from two other buildings-turned-graveyards they also didn't think were going to collapse. In spite of that, I'm supposed to believe that they were still feeling confident about their collapse risk assessments?

Quote

I like your thinking - having WTC7 taken down under cover of the WTC1 dust cloud would appear to be the opportune moment and exactly how I would have gone about it also. So what happened? I wonder, what effect did that large, unpredictable chunk of WTC1 debris have on the WTC7 demolition setup? Could it have knocked out the central charges or disrupted the pre-set sequence? Perhaps rather than a blessing to cover of the WTC7 demolition as official story adherents (including booNy above) always assume, it was actually a curse, which delayed the building fall until the setup was reconfigured in the afternoon.

Really, you wonder about the demolition setup? Why aren't you wondering what effect that large, unpredictable chuck of WTC1 debris had on the structure of the building? Wouldn't that be the first assessment to thoroughly complete, since we're sure that actually happened? As long as we're bantering about Occam's cutlery and all that. It's an assessment that's going to be tough to complete given the questionable veracity of the NIST study and the few pictures/videos we have though.  And our conspirators were feeling pretty confident they could reconfigure the setup in the middle of a large buildlng fire, unseen?  Come on, man, at least give me a tiny back-off from 'non-existent' risk.

Edit: Also, I got this all off my brain in one dump since I'm likely not going to have time to post over the next few days, stupid work interfering with fun stuff.  Take your time.  And W Tell, where are youuuu?

Edited by Liquid Gardens, 07 August 2012 - 02:10 AM.

[Babe Ruth]

The chemical by-products of the thermite reaction was found in dust samples gathered there.  Without that reaction, they do no occur thusly in nature.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 07 August 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

The chemical by-products of the thermite reaction was found in dust samples gathered there.  Without that reaction, they do no occur thusly in nature.

No one planted thermite in the WTC buildings. Check it out, because Steven Jones goofed again!

[Czero 101]

Babe Ruth, on 07 August 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

The chemical by-products of the thermite reaction was found in dust samples gathered there.  Without that reaction, they do no occur thusly in nature.

Wow... and who would've thought that "nano-thermite" is the only possible way for there to be aluminum, sulfur and iron residue present at the collapse of two of the worlds largest office towers built with exterior cladding made of aluminum, steel interior structure that required welding which produces iron residue, and dry wall / sheet rock that produces sulfur residue when burned not, to mention the sulfur residue created when steel is heated for extended periods of time(even though the tests that allegedly confirm the presence of "nano-thermite" didn't perform the proper test(s) to see if what they had was actual "nano-thermite" or thermite of any kind)....?










Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 08 August 2012 - 06:52 AM.

[Babe Ruth]

Cz

You will earn 1 molecule of credibility when you manage to put your photogrammetric money where your mouth is.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 08 August 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

Cz

You will earn 1 molecule of credibility when you manage to put your photogrammetric money where your mouth is.

You don't seem to understand that CZ is correct. Have you ever wondered why thermite is not in widespread use by the demolition companies?

[Czero 101]

Babe Ruth, on 08 August 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

Cz

You will earn 1 molecule of credibility when you manage to put your photogrammetric money where your mouth is.

You are SUCH a joke, BR...

You seem to be under them impression that I have something to prove, when it is YOU that is making the claim that requires proof.

YOU are the one claiming to have been able to determine that the "tail was too small" just by looking at the picture of AA77 from the Pentagon parking lot security camera.

YOU are the one who has not produced ANY evidence to back up that claim.

YOU are the one who has to earn credibility by showing your work.

So I will ask you once again (since you ignored it in the thread it was originally posted in):

Czero 101, on 05 August 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

Are you going to fulfill your burden of proof and produce evidence - showing how you used proper photogrammerty techniques and calculations based solely on the one photograph that the "tail was too short" for it to have been a 757 - to defend your position or not, BR...?

Yes or No...?

That's the only question that needs answering right now.

If yes, then please, show your work.

If no, then please stop the handwaving, red herrings, intellectual dishonesty and all the other distractions and just admit that you have no evidence to back up your claims and no intent of providing any.

Time to crawl out from under that bridge you live under and either back up your claim for once or admit you can't / won't prove it.








Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 08 August 2012 - 08:40 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Let's not pollute this thread Cz, OK?

LG and Q have developed this into the most functional thread here, and I am enjoying reading it.