Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

To those who believe the 911 official story


Zaus

Recommended Posts

Just read the NIST report again. The basic reason for collecting steel was to check that it was manufactured to spec. Some from the region of the fire was also used to compare the simulation results with physical evidence.

This is your claim, the burden of proof is on you. Where is there any analysis identifying the nature of the molten metal? Not just a visual report, as one metal looks much like another.

firefighter engineering had quite a bit to say about the botched investigation and the reason for preserving evidence is one that the former prosecutor ghoulianni would have known for sure-- so quite trying to make up excuses for nist's lack of credibility it wasnt "collecting steel" it was preserving evidence and they did more than fail they absconded justice

WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • flyingswan

    313

  • Q24

    205

  • turbonium

    180

  • merril

    113

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

As you mentioned, we have been over the other points ad nauseam but the following is too amusing to leave: -

No, you are asking for something you know I don't have in order to embarrass me. The fact is, you have nothing equivalent for your side of the argument either, so you should be equally embarrassed.

Simultaneous charges will not explain the WTC7 collapse with the delay after the penthouse falls, but my suggestion that the delay is associated with debris falling through the building does explain such a time lapse.

And so official story followers should be embarrassed for gossiping about how complete building collapses are ‘oh so expected’ then completely failing to describe the process in the case of WTC7. The “domino” collapse theory you have vaguely described explains nothing and indeed if you attempted to put a timeline of progressive failure on WTC7 you would find that it simply does not fit. How can you promote an idea with no hint of a plausible theory?

Controlled demolition can clearly explain the WTC7 collapse in various ways. One possibility is that charges weakening the building throughout caused the structure below the penthouse to fail followed by low-level thermite charges to initiate the building collapse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You did not directly address the “orders still stand” controversy last time I raised it, mrbusdriver, though I’m sure you didn’t evade the issue on purpose. What follows is an outline of the issue in case you do not have time to read the entire link.

Got your note, thanks.

I need to do some reading. Mind you, my information is based on the Commission report and a couple of other sources. As stated in the report, bad information was flying wild that morning. The POUS had relayed engagement authority to the VP, who relayed it down the line (there were some conflicting chain of command issues as well, and air event conference problems). The NEADS did NOT relay this to the pilots as they were uncertain as to where it came from, and sought authentication. In any event, they were heading towards DC with the Langley birds (under no-fire ROE, rules of engagement), chasing what they (NEADS) were being told was AA11, when the AA757 hit the Pentagon. The pilots did not know what their mission was, and had been given no target, just a hurry to DC vector. Meanwhile, 2 F-16s from Andrews had been scrambled, NOT by NORAD and NOT under NORAD control, to protect the White House. These were "scrambled" by Secret Service, controlled by I don't know who (ATC?). This is bizzare, and completely against the idea of unified command. These birds were apparently going on "weapons free" (authorized to engage non responsive aircraft, gotten through a parallel command chain) vs the "weapons hold" ROE of the Langley/NORAD birds at that time (from NEADS, who had also been sent "free" ROE, but was verifying it).

I'm thinking the "orders still stand" was not a stand down (as fighters were already airborne), but for engagement ROE.

Either way, the NORAD birds were never in position to stop any of the attacks. They may have been able to stop the ill-fated Shanksville 757 had in continued inbound, had the identification and track information been passed to them and the ROE snafu been sorted out. But the idea of a fighter taking down an airliner is not taken lightly, and would have taken some time, ascertaining the situation and the threat in a timely fashion.

One other thing. The NORAD brass cocked it up big time in their reconstruction of that days events. Whether through CYA or just bad data, they claimed an intercept ability that they did not have-their assets were totally late and out of position. The data coming from the FAA was confused and often incorrect. There were procedural snafus (Langley birds heading to the offshore area in absence of any target data).

Apparently, NORAD started getting assets after the fact, and other armed fighters started showing up from non-alert, non-NORAD bases. Whether these flights were "self armed and launched" and went to NORAD when aloft, or were OPCON'd to NORAD fron the start, I don't know, But it was too late then anyway.

As I said, most of this is from the Commission reconstruction, and it all makes sense. If Cheney was confirming a "stand-down" order, he had 4-6 "renegades" airborne who didn't get the word.

And finally, no armed alert fighters were airborne for whatever regional or local exercise activities might have been going on. I can only think that the exercise went by the wayside very quickly. The NEADS certainly went real world in just a few seconds, in response to the non-standard call from the FAA center.

Having worked years in the Cheyenne Mtn Air Defense Center and Command Center, I can only wonder what was happening there that morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, in all fairness, i think that anyone who is going to accuse the government of doing horrible things to their own citizens needs to do a little research on a website other than a conspiracy blog. and yes, i am mainly talking to zaus at this moment. because i'm not on this thread all that often, i can't really quote anyone or respond all that well. yeah, i know that the government has assassinated people and stuff like that, but when clinton was in office he went after al-Quaeda right after the first attack on the world trade centers. anyone who believes that our government supports al-Quaeda raise their hands. Anyone? Zaus, put your hand down. yes, i'm talking to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thinking the "orders still stand" was not a stand down (as fighters were already airborne), but for engagement ROE.

Yes, whilst perhaps “stand down” taken literally is not the best description, I think you nail here what the “orders” were - rules of engagement. As NORAD were apparently not authorised to shoot down targets until after Flight 93 crashed, this would imply the “orders” the Vice President mentions are specifically not to attempt engagement of the incoming Flight 77.

These were "scrambled" by Secret Service, controlled by I don't know who (ATC?). This is bizzare, and completely against the idea of unified command.

Or are you saying whilst NORAD had not been issued with shoot down orders, the Secret Service had?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone (looking at no one in particular *ahem* ) yet suggested that they brought down the Twin Towers using something developed by Tesla? Just give it time, and someone ( :blink: ) will, I bet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently, NORAD started getting assets after the fact, and other armed fighters started showing up from non-alert, non-NORAD bases. Whether these flights were "self armed and launched" and went to NORAD when aloft, or were OPCON'd to NORAD fron the start, I don't know, But it was too late then anyway.

As I said, most of this is from the Commission reconstruction, and it all makes sense. If Cheney was confirming a "stand-down" order, he had 4-6 "renegades" airborne who didn't get the word.

And finally, no armed alert fighters were airborne for whatever regional or local exercise activities might have been going on.

Having worked years in the Cheyenne Mtn Air Defense Center and Command Center, I can only wonder what was happening there that morning.

pfft.... here are the facts--

Passenger jet hijackings are not uncommon and the U.S. government has prepared detailed plans to handle them. On Sept. 11 these plans were ignored in their entirety. According to The New York Times, air traffic controllers knew at 8:20 a.m. "that American Airlines Flight 11, bound from Boston to Los Angeles, had probably been hijacked. When the first news report was made at 8:48 a.m. that a plane might have hit the World Trade Center, they knew it was Flight 11." There was little ambiguity on the matter. The pilot had pushed a button on the aircraft yoke that allowed controllers to hear the hijacker giving orders. Here are the FAA regulations concerning hijackings: "The FAA hijack coordinator…on duty at Washington headquarters will request the military to provide an escort aircraft for a confirmed hijacked aircraft… The escort service will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by direct contact with the National Military Command Center (NMCC)." Here are the instructions issued by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on June 1, 2001: "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will…forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."

In addition, as Vice President Cheney explained on Meet the Press on Sept. 16, only the president has the authority to order the shooting down of a civilian airliner.

The U.S. is supposed to scramble military aircraft the moment a hijacking is confirmed. Myers’ revelation to the Senate Armed Services Committee on Sept. 13 that no fighter planes had been launched until after the Pentagon was hit was therefore surprising. Senators and even some tv commentators were a little incredulous. Dan Rather asked: "These hijacked aircraft were in the air for quite a while… Why doesn’t the Pentagon have the kind of protection that they can get a fighter-interceptor aircraft up, and if someone is going to plow an aircraft into the Pentagon, that we have at least some…line of defense?"

Good question. Clearly another, more comforting, story was needed, and on the evening of Sept. 14 CBS launched it by revealing that the FAA had indeed alerted U.S. air defense units of a possible hijacking at 8:38 a.m. on Tuesday, that six minutes later two F-15s received a scramble order at Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod and that by 8:56 the F-15s were racing toward New York. Unfortunately, the fighters were still 70 miles away when the second jet hit the south tower. Meanwhile, at 9:30 a.m., three F-16s were launched from Langley Air Force base, 150 miles south of Washington. But just seven minutes later, at 9:37 a.m., Flight 77 smashed into the Pentagon. The F-16s arrived in Washington just before 10 a.m.

This story, which has now become the "official" version, raises more questions than it answers. F-15s can travel at speeds of 1875 mph while F-16s can travel at 1500 mph. If it took the F-16s half an hour to cover 150 miles, they could not have been traveling at more than 300 mph–at 20 percent capability. Boeing 767s and 757s have cruising speeds of 530 mph. Talk about a lack of urgency! Assuming Otis Air National Guard Base is about 180 miles away from Manhattan it should have taken the F-15s less than six minutes to get here. Moreover, since Washington, DC, is little more than 200 miles from New York, the two F-15 fighters would have had time to get to DC, intercept Flight 77 and grab breakfast on the way.

Ah, but of course the transponders were turned off. So no one could keep track of the planes. If it were true that the moment a transponder is turned off a plane becomes invisible there would be no defense against enemy aircraft. Normal radar echo return from the metal surface of an aircraft would still identify it on the radar scope.

Luckily, we still have first-rate establishment media to make sure that we retain confidence in our government.

9/11 Stand Down

www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ELS305A.html

by Mark Ellis

Exposing NORAD's "Wag the 911 Window Dressing Tale", using NORAD’s own Press Release and Fifth Grade Math

....MORE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pfft.... here are the facts--

9/11 Stand Down

www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ELS305A.html

by Mark Ellis

Exposing NORAD's "Wag the 911 Window Dressing Tale", using NORAD’s own Press Release and Fifth Grade Math

....MORE

Sunofone, have you looked at the 9/11 commission report, or are you simply dismissing it sight unseen?

The link you posted in interspersed with fact and fiction. Hijacks in the US were virtually nonexistant in many years prior to 9/11. Yes, there were procedures for responding to a hijacking, and they were onerous to say the least, assuming a "cooperative" situation. They were not followed due to confusion and lack of knowledge by the FAA folks. The first word came through completely unofficial channels and, based on the very vague information, Otis F-15s were placed on battle stations, a very specific posture. This was NOT a confirmed hijacking at this point, they were not scrambled at this point. There was no information, no target. You don't want to launch fighters and have them burning gas and endurance chasing ghosts. The actual communications chain goes up channel to FAA HQ, to the National Command Authorities, through JCS to NORAD down to the region...very time consuming. Never before had hijacked planes stopped squawking, stopped takling, changed course and run into skyscrapers. With no good comms, confusion was rampant and only the inadvertant transmission by the hijackers pretty well nailed down the hijack for the controller, who didn't know the correct process to get things rolling. There were other coordination and communications along the way.

The bolded part was just nonsense. The top speeds listed are the unclassified, clean top speed. With tanks, missiles and any hope of a reasonable endurance, fighters will not be blasting along in full 'burner with their hair on fire. The engines become akin to "rocket motors" in afterburner, with a matching fuel consumption rate. The real world is not nearly as "gee whiz" as TV would make you believe.

For Q24, I need to check on the timing of the ROE discussion between the POUS and VP, but I understand it was shortly after the VP was "propelled" from his desk to the bunker by the Secret Service. Then, the comms through the SecFef was fouled up, with him out on the lawn doing rescue stuff (nice thought, but not his mission, he had more pressing duties). As for the Andrews birds having the weapons free ROE with the NORAD birds still on weapons cold (having not being passed the weapons free order by NEADS), that was from the report. I need to see what was the deal with those Andrews planes, they were not being worked by NORAD I don't think, there was a seperate NCA chain going on there. Seemed the best situational awareness in the DC area was between Reagan Natl Tower and the Secret Service. NORAD only knew enough to get their Langley birds pointed towards DC after their detour to the offshore warning area, and they thought they were driving them towards AA11, based on nebulous and confusing FAA inputs.

It wasn't a good day, we were caught completely unprepared for the rapidly unfolding and unprecedented events that morning. The air defense system wasn't postured for it, the FAA had never experienced anything like it, softaware failures, confused communications. The response was just too late, but not due to sinister intent. Situational awareness just took a day off...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pfft.... here are the facts--

9/11 Stand Down

www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ELS305A.html

by Mark Ellis

Exposing NORAD's "Wag the 911 Window Dressing Tale", using NORAD’s own Press Release and Fifth Grade Math

....MORE

Sunofone, have you looked at the 9/11 commission report, or are you simply dismissing it sight unseen?

The link you posted in interspersed with fact and fiction. Hijacks in the US were virtually nonexistant in many years prior to 9/11. Yes, there were procedures for responding to a hijacking, and they were onerous to say the least, assuming a "cooperative" situation. They were not followed due to confusion and lack of knowledge by the FAA folks. The first word came through completely unofficial channels and, based on the very vague information, Otis F-15s were placed on battle stations, a very specific posture. This was NOT a confirmed hijacking at this point, they were not scrambled at this point. There was no information, no target. You don't want to launch fighters and have them burning gas and endurance chasing ghosts. The actual communications chain goes up channel to FAA HQ, to the National Command Authorities, through JCS to NORAD down to the region...very time consuming. Never before had hijacked planes stopped squawking, stopped takling, changed course and run into skyscrapers. With no good comms, confusion was rampant and only the inadvertant transmission by the hijackers pretty well nailed down the hijack for the controller, who didn't know the correct process to get things rolling. There were other coordination and communications along the way.

The bolded part was just nonsense. The top speeds listed are the unclassified, clean top speed. With tanks, missiles and any hope of a reasonable endurance, fighters will not be blasting along in full 'burner with their hair on fire. The engines become akin to "rocket motors" in afterburner, with a matching fuel consumption rate. The real world is not nearly as "gee whiz" as TV would make you believe.

For Q24, I need to check on the timing of the ROE discussion between the POUS and VP, but I understand it was shortly after the VP was "propelled" from his desk to the bunker by the Secret Service. Then, the comms through the SecFef was fouled up, with him out on the lawn doing rescue stuff (nice thought, but not his mission, he had more pressing duties). As for the Andrews birds having the weapons free ROE with the NORAD birds still on weapons cold (having not being passed the weapons free order by NEADS), that was from the report. I need to see what was the deal with those Andrews planes, they were not being worked by NORAD I don't think, there was a seperate NCA chain going on there. Seemed the best situational awareness in the DC area was between Reagan Natl Tower and the Secret Service. NORAD only knew enough to get their Langley birds pointed towards DC after their detour to the offshore warning area, and they thought they were driving them towards AA11, based on nebulous and confusing FAA inputs.

It wasn't a good day, we were caught completely unprepared for the rapidly unfolding and unprecedented events that morning. The air defense system wasn't postured for it, the FAA had never experienced anything like it, softaware failures, confused communications. The response was just too late, but not due to sinister intent. Situational awareness just took a day off...

Hey, don't confuse someone who knows the Facts with the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Q24, I need to check on the timing of the ROE discussion between the POUS and VP, but I understand it was shortly after the VP was "propelled" from his desk to the bunker by the Secret Service. Then, the comms through the SecFef was fouled up, with him out on the lawn doing rescue stuff (nice thought, but not his mission, he had more pressing duties).

The Commission Report alleges a shootdown order was confirmed between Bush and Cheney at around 10:18am. The “order” that Mineta was witness to was in place before his arrival at the PEOC at 09:20am. Of course, the Commission Report says that Cheney did not even arrive at the PEOC until 09:58am therefore implying the events in Mineta's account could never have occurred. Either the Commission or Minetta got this wrong.

Then even if Cheney has made the decision himself on a shootdown prior to 09:20am I find it completely unbelievable, bearing in mind Major General Arnold's testimony, that these orders would have taken over 45 minutes to reach NORAD.

I await with anticipation your response mrbusdriver, of precisely what Cheney’s “the orders still stand” was likely in reference to. Apparently though, the only conclusion is that this was a specific “do not engage/shootdown” order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You haven't replied to my question, Zaus, so I'll post it again:

Zaus, you claim that Satam Al Suqami, the terrorist whose passport was found amongst the debris, was later found to be alive and you give this website as proof:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html

However, you must not have read it very closely, because it does not list Satam Al Suqami as one of the hijackers to later be found alive. So how is this evidence that the passport was planted?

I'm not trying to attack your claims or anything, just trying to get the facts straight while still keeping an open mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I await with anticipation your response mrbusdriver, of precisely what Cheney’s “the orders still stand” was likely in reference to. Apparently though, the only conclusion is that this was a specific “do not engage/shootdown” order.

Actually, normal peacetime ROE defaults to just that, "tail#/type", no orders need be given. It's the authorization to fire on a civilian craft (or anything else for that matter) that would require a specific NCA order. So an order not to fire from the President would not make sense...it's a given.

Going to run over and have a peek at the report, the ROE/NCA part gets pretty confused. Frankly, I'm not sure what orders those would be. The engagement order was discussed between POUS/VP while the VP was in the tunnel enroute the bunker IIRC. Mineta wasn't there in the small group.

Be back...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, normal peacetime ROE defaults to just that, "tail#/type", no orders need be given. It's the authorization to fire on a civilian craft (or anything else for that matter) that would require a specific NCA order. So an order not to fire from the President would not make sense...it's a given.

Yes, generally I agree. There are ways a “do not engage/shootdown” order could make sense though. For instance, the officers updating Cheney on the airliner's approach the Pentagon… is it possible they requested shootdown authority? After Cheney had replied negative, it would then be quite reasonable for the officer to later ask “do the orders still stand?”

Going to run over and have a peek at the report, the ROE/NCA part gets pretty confused. Frankly, I'm not sure what orders those would be. The engagement order was discussed between POUS/VP while the VP was in the tunnel enroute the bunker IIRC. Mineta wasn't there in the small group.

Again I agree, though this is further confirmation a shootdown order had not been given at the time of the events described by Mineta.

Be back...

Do you ever feel this “order” is one of those issues the 9/11 Commission Report should have investigated and clearly detailed? Why was the Commission misleading about Cheney's initial time of arrival at the PEOC? Why did Cheney not testify under oath to the Commission? Why would he only testify alongside Bush? Why was he not questioned specifically on Mineta’s account? Why are the answers to these questions not immediately available to us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone (looking at no one in particular *ahem* ) yet suggested that they brought down the Twin Towers using something developed by Tesla? Just give it time, and someone ( :blink: ) will, I bet.

I notice that desperate people in a debate will dishonestly attempt to fictionalise the argument and misrepresent what the other side is saying rather than dealing with the real issues and evidence cited.

Stick to the subject, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you ever feel this “order” is one of those issues the 9/11 Commission Report should have investigated and clearly detailed? Why was the Commission misleading about Cheney's initial time of arrival at the PEOC? Why did Cheney not testify under oath to the Commission? Why would he only testify alongside Bush? Why was he not questioned specifically on Mineta’s account? Why are the answers to these questions not immediately available to us?

Interesting. The Commission report gives a pretty detailed timeline of events, and Mineta's account doesn't fit. I'd like to read some of the other key player testimony. There is no mention of Mineta in the shelter, but that doesn't mean anything. I have no idea what order he was talking about, unless it was an hour later.

Some observations after wading through this mess...

The shelter was not communicating directly with NORAD. They were getting second hand info from the Secret Service who was getting it from a contact at the FAA. The data was not reliable. ROE direction was being passed to NMCC from the shelter. Where/how it went from there, I'm not certain. Passed via the Air Event/Threat Conference? There was an action message sent from CONR CC with the ROE to the NEADS, very late in the game.

The first inbound (80 miles etc) was based on "coasting" data of UAL93...it had crashed and the data tag was extrapolating along the last good information. It was a "ghost", relayed by FAA contact to Secret Service in the shelter. The VP appears to have confirmed the shootdown order 3 times as the phantom approached. No assets were CAP'ed over, or even near DC at the time.

Another track, same information chain, pops up 5-10 miles out. VP confirms engage ROE. Turns out to be medivac chopper. No air assets to respond.

The VP was relaying the ROE but no one was overhead to do anything with them. The NORAD fighters were heading inbound from the hold in the offshore warning airspace, and the Andrews fighters got airborne 15 minutes after the helicopter radar appearance. UA93 was a hole in the ground with no fighters remotely nearby. The Andrews fighters were apparently scrambled by the Secret Service guy in the shelter, who the Andrews fighter commander was forwarded to after freelancing an offer to support the DC defense. Not sure of the chain of events at Andrews leading up to this ad hoc scramble, arming up etc. I seem to recollect an account of fighters running on each other that day, this may explain that with different sets of fighters under different control agencies. (Maybe Andrews was operating "autonomously" on CAP?)

A lot of questions and missing details, not sure what the Mineta discrepency is about. The timing is way off.

Multiple, parallel chains of command, inaccurate/misleading target info, lousy/informal lines of communications. "Improvised" is a good description...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, whilst perhaps “stand down” taken literally is not the best description, I think you nail here what the “orders” were - rules of engagement. As NORAD were apparently not authorised to shoot down targets until after Flight 93 crashed, this would imply the “orders” the Vice President mentions are specifically not to attempt engagement of the incoming Flight 77.

Or are you saying whilst NORAD had not been issued with shoot down orders, the Secret Service had?

NORAD got the ROE from an action message from CONR CC at/after 1031, but did not immediately relay it to the pilots. The Andrews fighters, under Secret Service/whoever scramble got the ROE fom their commander, who got it from the Secret Service guy in the shelter, with the VP. How it was "authenticated" is a question.

Really messy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to attack your claims or anything, just trying to get the facts straight while still keeping an open mind.

Sorry i missed your last post, and true it is, he wasn't found alive, but seriously here who has less cred? The guy who got 1 guy's name wrong, or the governmental agencies that got 7 people's names wrong, if not all of them?

Everyone got to see their faces in the mass media, regardless of whether they did anything at all, and then how could they if they were alive and well and NOT on the planes?

EDIT: tyop... lol

Edited by Zaus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the information needed to be aware of the 9/11 false flag is already here, right now. Not everybody is yet ready to accept the reality but I believe, when history looks back, the event will be seen for what it was. There is a saying, “History never looks like history when you are living through it.”

If all the information is there, why doesn't a court case succeed? Fact is, you lack any credible "smoking gun", and you always will.

I have a question – do you believe the Nazis were complicit in the Reichstag fire?

Possibly, though I wouldn't put money on it either way.

Edited by flyingswan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

firefighter engineering had quite a bit to say about the botched investigation and the reason for preserving evidence is one that the former prosecutor ghoulianni would have known for sure-- so quite trying to make up excuses for nist's lack of credibility it wasnt "collecting steel" it was preserving evidence and they did more than fail they absconded justice

What is firefighter engineering? Source?

If you can't come up with something that hasn't been debated to death already, why do you bother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And so official story followers should be embarrassed for gossiping about how complete building collapses are ‘oh so expected’ then completely failing to describe the process in the case of WTC7. The “domino” collapse theory you have vaguely described explains nothing and indeed if you attempted to put a timeline of progressive failure on WTC7 you would find that it simply does not fit. How can you promote an idea with no hint of a plausible theory?

You do love to pretend to misunderstand my points, don't you?

You asked for the sort of detail that is simply not available and likely never will be. You did that to try and embarrass me. However, that sort of detail is not a requirement. Long ago on the other thread, I described a general process, based on my knowledge of engineering, that would fit the evidence. Subsequently, a structural engineer has run a computational model and published an article describing a similar process to mine with extra supporting evidence. If you claim that it doesn't fit the evidence, the onus is on you to prove that statement, not just repeat your unsupported opinion ad nauseam.

On the other hand, you have utterly failed to provide any sort of technical argument to support your CD theory, not just the fine detail that you expect me to produce, but even a general reason for the way the collapse happened.

Controlled demolition can clearly explain the WTC7 collapse in various ways. One possibility is that charges weakening the building throughout caused the structure below the penthouse to fail followed by low-level thermite charges to initiate the building collapse.

Why? Where is the reason for any of this? You keep saying this, but you never say why there should have been that long delay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do love to pretend to misunderstand my points, don't you?

You asked for the sort of detail that is simply not available and likely never will be. You did that to try and embarrass me. However, that sort of detail is not a requirement. Long ago on the other thread, I described a general process, based on my knowledge of engineering, that would fit the evidence. Subsequently, a structural engineer has run a computational model and published an article describing a similar process to mine with extra supporting evidence. If you claim that it doesn't fit the evidence, the onus is on you to prove that statement, not just repeat your unsupported opinion ad nauseam.

On the other hand, you have utterly failed to provide any sort of technical argument to support your CD theory, not just the fine detail that you expect me to produce, but even a general reason for the way the collapse happened.

Why? Where is the reason for any of this? You keep saying this, but you never say why there should have been that long delay.

the collpases themselves,preserved on video for all to see, are all that is necessary to prove beyond doubt that the building were demolished

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the collpases themselves,preserved on video for all to see, are all that is necessary to prove beyond doubt that the building were demolished

Your controlled demolition theory is hardly proven beyond doubt. I certainly doubt that they were demolished by any other means than having aircraft flown into them or other buildings fall on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If all the information is there, why doesn't a court case succeed? Fact is, you lack any credible "smoking gun", and you always will.

There is no end of “smoking guns” that altogether make an overwhelming case for the inside job. That anyone may choose to make up excuses or be ignorant of the evidence does not mean it isn’t there.

As for the courts - in a world where power did not corrupt then no doubt with presentation of the full evidence a case would succeed. In reality the US Judiciary is not so perfect. Just a couple of examples: -

The
shows how the President can pick and choose attorneys at a whim. The courts, the Supreme Court at least, are for the government more than for the people.

The
, an Orthodox Jew hand picked by the President, made campaign contributions to Giuliani for president and Joe Lieberman for Senate as well as judging in the litigation between Larry Silverstein and several insurance companies arising from 9/11.

The Neocons in the US Administration are not going to sit idly by and allow their own court to sentence them.

Possibly, though I wouldn't put money on it either way.

The Communist, Marinus van der Lubbe, in 1933 was found guilty by the German court of starting the Reichstag fire. In 1967 a West German court reduced van de Lubbe’s sentence for arson and treason to a prison term of eight years. In 1980 the same court lifted the sentence entirely, but the German federal court reversed this decision. And now, 75 years after the event, van der Lubbe’s conviction has been overturned by the German federal prosecutor under a 1998 law that allows pardons for people convicted of crimes under the Nazi regime. This complete reversal, not only in the court’s judgement but also seemingly in the public view, has taken 75 years to come about.

In regard to evidence of an inside job, the 9/11 attacks and Reichstag fire have much in common – pretexts which each have their “smoking guns” and yet are disputed. I would surmise the only reason anyone would proclaim one is possible, and the other not, is due to nothing more than the 68 years between events.

Edited by Q24
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You asked for the sort of detail that is simply not available and likely never will be. You did that to try and embarrass me. However, that sort of detail is not a requirement.

I asked for details of your WTC7 “domino” collapse theory for no other reason than understanding and to enable a fair evaluation. It says a lot that you admittedly construe the lack of detail to be embarrassing. What you are effectively telling me is there is no plausible process whereby your theory can be fit to the witnessed collapse. The detail is absolutely necessary – just saying “column 79 failed due to heating, leading to progressive virtually symmetrical, near freefall, complete collapse” is nothing more than hand-waving.

Long ago on the other thread, I described a general process, based on my knowledge of engineering, that would fit the evidence. Subsequently, a structural engineer has run a computational model and published an article describing a similar process to mine with extra supporting evidence. If you claim that it doesn't fit the evidence, the onus is on you to prove that statement, not just repeat your unsupported opinion ad nauseam.

How can anyone disprove a half-theory that is unproven to begin with?

Why? Where is the reason for any of this? You keep saying this, but you never say why there should have been that long delay.

I have demonstrated that the delay between initial charges and the main building collapse is apparent in many other controlled demolitions: -

- 5 second delay

- 5 second delay

- 8 second delay

- 9 second delay.

In the

, the delay between initial charges causing the penthouse collapse and the main building collapse was approximately 7 seconds. This time delay fits in very well with the above controlled demolitions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.