Actually..Anok, I've noticed it's more of a common place thing now that you say is true with this board as an entirety now. I've been at several good messageboards that kept up good standing that "trolls" haven't found. But now this messageboard, with still good content is being infested with threads that seek to distort past truths, move out important topics out of the way, turn good threads into a completely different topic and other agendas.

I don't call myself paranoid either, it's more of an honest noticed thing that I've seen as I come to the board every few days.

But yeah.. it's especially with the 9/11 threads. I'm just fed up and don't even bother dealing with it anymore, or then again, I'm just too busy to post anymore.

Originally posted by Masisoar
Actually..Anok, I've noticed it's more of a common place thing now that you say is true with this board as an entirety now. I've been at several good messageboards that kept up good standing that "trolls" haven't found. But now this messageboard, with still good content is being infested with threads that seek to distort past truths, move out important topics out of the way, turn good threads into a completely different topic and other agendas.

I don't call myself paranoid either, it's more of an honest noticed thing that I've seen as I come to the board every few days.

But yeah.. it's especially with the 9/11 threads. I'm just fed up and don't even bother dealing with it anymore, or then again, I'm just too busy to post anymore.

Yes, you have noticed. Now is the time to focus on the truths that are evidenced. The disinfo trolls have no evidence so cannot prevail, only look foolish and evil.

Most of the trolls have never even read the NIST report from which they defend and furthermore with this statement, there are people who even try to defend the skeptical view just to skew it off subject, but this is like discussing the politics of Punk Rock. You're right though, just have to focus on what's there and what we can work with.

[edit on 6/18/2006 by Masisoar]

Im definately a beiliever in the notion of a staged disaster, but Im having a bit of difficulty wrapping my brain around this notion of a "self-distructable WTC". It just seems kind of out there to me. Could there be other ways the towers might have fallen like they did?

I am a New Yorker (and at that time I was a NYC resident) so Id been to the WTC many times and to Ground Zero many times as well. There was definately a lot of rebar everywhere and I can't see building a building that tall without a concrete core.

But if the WTC was a planned detonation, why wouldn't FEMA just have taken over right there? Wouldnt that be the purpose of such an action?

As I type out this post, I feel my head spinning...please help...explain this a little more for the layman please...

Originally posted by LeftBehind

No amount of coincidences will ever amount to evidence. That's why we use different words to explain these concepts.

If coincidences were meaningful then numerology would be an actual science. Theres a reason it's called psuedoscience.

I didn't mean that they amount to any evidence. I just ment that how many coincidences does it take for someone as yourself to say "hum....maybe I'm being lied to"? If it's only a small lie?

This is just me spit-balling, but is it possible that both sides of the WTC argument are inherently correct?

Could it be that the plane crashes did cause enough damage that there would be SOME kind of collapse and that collapse would not be a nice pristine pancake action, but a tree falling in the forest, taking out many other trees so to speak. And to avoid the WTC falling over sideways and wiping out entire blocks with fire and debris they had a "self destruct" built in that allowed the powers-that-be the option to take them down before they fell down. This would mean that a) there was no conspiracy for a staged attack on America, and b) there was indeed a cover up on the details of how the towers collapsed.

That seems to fit the evidence, but like I say, I'm just thinking out loud here.

Originally posted by SKMDC1
This is just me spit-balling, but is it possible that both sides of the WTC argument are inherently correct?

Could it be that the plane crashes did cause enough damage that there would be SOME kind of collapse and that collapse would not be a nice pristine pancake action, but a tree falling in the forest, taking out many other trees so to speak. And to avoid the WTC falling over sideways and wiping out entire blocks with fire and debris they had a "self destruct" built in that allowed the powers-that-be the option to take them down before they fell down. This would mean that a) there was no conspiracy for a staged attack on America, and b) there was indeed a cover up on the details of how the towers collapsed.

That seems to fit the evidence, but like I say, I'm just thinking out loud here.

Your definition of what a partial collapse would look like is correct, and of course a demoliton system could be used to prevent collateral damage as you describe. If we were to assume that tho, we'd have to show that the war games and air defense stand down were not a part, or that the missing video tapes from the pentagon were not to hide events there.

Originally posted by Christophera
Your definition of what a partial collapse would look like is correct, and of course a demoliton system could be used to prevent collateral damage as you describe. If we were to assume that tho, we'd have to show that the war games and air defense stand down were not a part, or that the missing video tapes from the pentagon were not to hide events there.

I agree. I guess what I'm getting at is that your arguments on this particular thread topic (re: concrete core) are relavent nomatter what one thinks of the "staged attack" conspiracy theory.

Christopher, your entire argument is based around one, indeterminate picture and a “TV Show” you supposedly watched 15 years ago, which no one else but you has seen.

You have no concrete proof.

There is ample evidence available on the actual construction of the towers, and it simply does not agree with your claims.

This is not some obscure structure we are talking about here, these were two very well known, studied and copied structural schemes.

There were no concrete walls in the core.

I personally don't believe there was a concrete core, Howard, but you have produced nothing of substance to explain that picture. The debate will continue ad infinitum until you do.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
This is not some obscure structure we are talking about here, these were two very well known, studied and copied structural schemes.

If you want to fall back on this, you'll have to address why so many engineers and others referred to the cores as being reinforced concrete.

Many more have not.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Christopher, your entire argument is based around one, indeterminate picture and a “TV Show” you supposedly watched 15 years ago, which no one else but you has seen.

Not really. I remember in the start of this thread, many links to reports of a concrete core before 9/11. Care to discuss all those reports? Or are they all wrong. Actually, I don't remember you or anyone else providing anything pre 9/11 that doesn't involve a reinforced concrete core.

You have no concrete proof.

There is ample evidence available on the actual construction of the towers, and it simply does not agree with your claims.

You mean from FEMA or NIST? Because the original construction documents are what is needed. Hmm...wonder why nobody can take a peak?

This is not some obscure structure we are talking about here, these were two very well known, studied and copied structural schemes.

Yes, and all these people who studied it pre 9/11 also mentioned a concrete core. Why is that?

There were no concrete walls in the core.

Care to provide anything other than FEMA or NIST as proof?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Many more have not.

I'm sure they wouldn't after FEMA poisoned the wells, but even after 9/11, articles continued to state that the cores were reinforced concrete.

Can you show how many people referred to the towers' cores as only steel before 9/11, as compared to those who referred to reinforced concrete? That would be the relevant comparison, I would think.

The NIST reports actually contain copies of and refer to the actual design criteria documents, which indicate that no concrete was used (other than floor slabs).

I don't know what else you could possibly need.