If one looks at 9/11 Truth as a scam it becomes clear...

Originally posted by trebor451

I usually don't bother with asking for references or where people find the idiotic crap they post here, but could you do that for me with this comment? I just want to see proof that a 6,000 gallon diesel fuel tank survived the collapse of WTC 7 and was found, full, "during the clean up". That has go to be the second most idiotic claim I have seen on this board.

You have to be kidding, that is old news, very old news.

Engineers from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation investigated oil contamination in the debris of WTC 7. Their principal interest was directed to the various oils involved in the Con Ed equipment. However, they reported the following findings on fuel oil: "In addition to Con Ed's oil, there was a maximum loss of 12,000 gallons of diesel from two underground storage tanks registered as 7WTC." To date, the NY State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEC have recovered approximately 20,000 gallons from the other two intact 11,600-gallon underground fuel oil storage tanks at WTC 7.

www.wtc7.net...

reply to post by ANOK


But, a good tidbit of information to know is that those storage containers were not around the 6th floor, but underground:

In order to supply the generators, 24,000 gallons (91,000 L) of diesel fuel were stored below ground level. Fuel oil distribution components were located at ground level, up to the ninth floor.

Wikipedia - WTC 7


Only distribution components were elsewhere in the building.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

If this is not your point, then I withdraw the statement as it is really not relevent to the point I'm attempting to make in this discussion.

The point still stands, however, that if this is indeed all some false flag then it's clear that the end goal of the operation was to frame Afghanistan for the attack, in which case, there necessarily needs to be a legitimate reason for doing so and it necessarily needs to be so attractive that it makes the monstrous expenditures of time, money, manpower, and the risk of a monumental backlash if it were exposed, worth the effort.

I think we can both agree that after ten years, there really isn't anything coming out of the Afghanistan excusion except casualties. Doesn't it therefore lead one to give second thoughts to the entire cause and effect rationale of these "false flag" suspicions?

I appreciate the withdrawal. I disagree with your certainty that framing Afghanistan is the only clear end goal to a false flag operation, and with your opinion that there haven't been any strategic or economic gains made via US involvement in Afghanistan; but I feel like we're dragging ourselves into an argument that can't be settled about one of many possible motives.

If you don't think the geopolitical / economic significance of Afghanistan makes sense as a motive, I'm okay with that and don't feel the need to argue with you about it. It remains one of the many possibilities in my mind, but not something I feel certain of. There are plenty of other things we can argue about that would be more productive, in my opinion.

I will agree that there are many things that give me second thoughts - and third, and fourth thoughts - about the false flag suspicions. I wish I could dismiss them completely; I'd get a lot more sleep. But the things that lead me away from those suspicions are mostly things like your assessment that there isn't anything coming out of Afghanistan except casualties (nicely turned phrase, by the way) - it's an assumption that may or may not be true, and may not even be provable, given that it includes assumptions about the who as well as the why.

Originally posted by magicrat
I will agree that there are many things that give me second thoughts - and third, and fourth thoughts - about the false flag suspicions. I wish I could dismiss them completely; I'd get a lot more sleep. But the things that lead me away from those suspicions are mostly things like your assessment that there isn't anything coming out of Afghanistan except casualties (nicely turned phrase, by the way) - it's an assumption that may or may not be true, and may not even be provable, given that it includes assumptions about the who as well as the why.

This is one of the misunderstood facets of the 9/11 conspiracy movement- it isn't simply one hypothetical conspiracy, it's an encyclopedia of conspiracies, ranging from what happened to the towers, to what happened to WTC 7, to what happened at the Pentagon, to the gov'ts responses leading up until and during the attack, to Bin Laden/Al Qaida's connection, to even the Afghanistan incursion. Every single one of these has a blizzard of theories with their own armies of supporters, and it's nigh impossible to provide a thirty second answer that satisfies every single question. As you yourself pointed out, answering the question on what happened to the towers doesn't answer the question on what happened to WTC 7.

Thus, you'll forgive me if I suggest that we hold off on these side theories until the central theory beign discussed has been addressed, namely, how the debate over the destruction of the towers ISN'T over how the towers collapsed because the collapse was following the physics that say a collapsing floor has enough force to overcome the resistance of a stationary floor without the need of explosives. The debate is in fact over what caused that initial floor to collapse to begin with. Can we agree on this, at least?

reply to post by GoodOlDave
I completely agree that every aspect of what happened that day has a blizzard of theories, and there's no complete, cohesive Conspiracy Theory that everyone can identify and defend. Similarly, there's really no complete, cohesive Official Story. There are some details that can be proven (that hopefully we should be able to agree on if we're all looking honestly at the same evidence), lots of details that probably can't, and an infinite number of overall narratives that each of us creates from assumptions.

So the question of the cause of initial collapse seems to me like it should be as good place as any to start - I feel like a specific answer to that question should be provable. I've read through a lot of the threads on this site that debate the cause of collapse, though, and I haven't yet been convinced of the proof of either weakening due to fire, controlled demolition, or any other potential causes.

This debate was actually about whether or not the truth movement is a scam, though I admit I've wandered as far off topic as anyone. Like I said earlier though, you've started some gears turning in my head that I hope to build into a thread focused on sorting through my thoughts on provable evidence vs big picture narrative.

Originally posted by magicrat
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

I completely agree that every aspect of what happened that day has a blizzard of theories, and there's no complete, cohesive Conspiracy Theory that everyone can identify and defend. Similarly, there's really no complete, cohesive Official Story. There are some details that can be proven (that hopefully we should be able to agree on if we're all looking honestly at the same evidence), lots of details that probably can't, and an infinite number of overall narratives that each of us creates from assumptions.

To the first, I absolutely agree there no comprehensive "Official story" as you put it because not only is there a lot we don't know yet, there's a lot we probably will never know. If you can entertain the idea that Bin Laden was in fact behind the attack, then you can see that he almost certainly took a few secrets to the grave with him. To the second, my philosophy has always been that it's falsehood, rather than the truth, that needs to fear critique, so if you have evidence I may not be aware of I would certinly like to see it.

So the question of the cause of initial collapse seems to me like it should be as good place as any to start - I feel like a specific answer to that question should be provable. I've read through a lot of the threads on this site that debate the cause of collapse, though, and I haven't yet been convinced of the proof of either weakening due to fire, controlled demolition, or any other potential causes.

Very good...but I didn't get your feedback upon the logic I'm pointing out. Since you agree that physics necessarily apply to these conspiracies just as they apply to everyone else, and since the physics of controlled demolitions say that a building can legitimately be demolished by a chain reaction of falling floors crushing the stationary floors beneath, and since every floor was identical to every other floor so if one floor was legitimately vulnerable against falling debris then they all were vulnerable against fallign debris, do you likewise agree that from the point of impact on down, explosives wouldn't be needed to cause the systematic structural failure we saw?

After all, if there really were saboteurs involved they'd certainly study the design of the building intimately and would logically try to set off a chain reaction without having to stuff every broom closet and trash can with explosives simply for conspiracy's sake.

This debate was actually about whether or not the truth movement is a scam, though I admit I've wandered as far off topic as anyone. Like I said earlier though, you've started some gears turning in my head that I hope to build into a thread focused on sorting through my thoughts on provable evidence vs big picture narrative.

I actually see the discussion of the buildings supposedly coming down from demolitions and the discussion of the 9/11 truth movement being a scam as being one and the same, because if X can be proven wrong, then those people who have built business empires off the supposition that X is actually right are not really the genuine fact finders they make themselves out to be. I think you know who it is I'm referring to without naming any names.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

To the first, I absolutely agree there no comprehensive "Official story" as you put it because not only is there a lot we don't know yet, there's a lot we probably will never know. If you can entertain the idea that Bin Laden was in fact behind the attack, then you can see that he almost certainly took a few secrets to the grave with him. To the second, my philosophy has always been that it's falsehood, rather than the truth, that needs to fear critique, so if you have evidence I may not be aware of I would certinly like to see it.

Yeah, I think we are very much on the same page in this sense. I especially agree with your philosophy vis a vis falsehood and truth, and I hope we'll both continue to show each other new evidence (I think we've both done that already).

I'd also say, though, that if you're able to entertain the idea that bin Laden was not in fact behind the attack, then he almost certainly took a whole different set of secrets to the grave with him. Either way, there are probably plenty of things we're never going to fully know with certainty.

Very good...but I didn't get your feedback upon the logic I'm pointing out. Since you agree that physics necessarily apply to these conspiracies just as they apply to everyone else, and since the physics of controlled demolitions say that a building can legitimately be demolished by a chain reaction of falling floors crushing the stationary floors beneath, and since every floor was identical to every other floor so if one floor was legitimately vulnerable against falling debris then they all were vulnerable against fallign debris, do you likewise agree that from the point of impact on down, explosives wouldn't be needed to cause the systematic structural failure we saw?

Sorry; I thought I had responded to this, but maybe not. I agree in the sense that what you're describing matches my logical instincts, but I don't know enough about construction or engineering or demolition to know for sure how accurate it is.

I do have a hard time believing that a naturally occurring chain reaction would cause a failure as complete, efficient and symmetrical as we saw - three times consecutively - but I agree with the basic premise that if one floor fails due to falling debris, then a similarly constructed floor would behave in a relatively similar manner.

After all, if there really were saboteurs involved they'd certainly study the design of the building intimately and would logically try to set off a chain reaction without having to stuff every broom closet and trash can with explosives simply for conspiracy's sake.

When you put it this way, I feel comfortable agreeing completely.

I actually see the discussion of the buildings supposedly coming down from demolitions and the discussion of the 9/11 truth movement being a scam as being one and the same, because if X can be proven wrong, then those people who have built business empires off the supposition that X is actually right are not really the genuine fact finders they make themselves out to be. I think you know who it is I'm referring to without naming any names.

I see your point. I don't believe X (in this case, I assume X is a controlled demolition theory) has been proven wrong, but you're right - if it is conclusively wrong, and the people who promote it know it's wrong, then they are scammers. That's not my read of the situation, but I understand what you're saying. And yes, I think I have a good idea of who you're referring to.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Very good...but I didn't get your feedback upon the logic I'm pointing out. Since you agree that physics necessarily apply to these conspiracies just as they apply to everyone else, and since the physics of controlled demolitions say that a building can legitimately be demolished by a chain reaction of falling floors crushing the stationary floors beneath, and since every floor was identical to every other floor so if one floor was legitimately vulnerable against falling debris then they all were vulnerable against fallign debris, do you likewise agree that from the point of impact on down, explosives wouldn't be needed to cause the systematic structural failure we saw?

But Dave the physics of demolitions doesn't say that.

The physics of demolitions is no different to the physics of any objects colliding, they all follow the same laws as outlined by the 'Laws of Motion'.

If you apply those laws, when two floors collide they would both be damaged, if you apply those laws to demolitions then only if the collapse starts in the middle can the floors all crush themselves, and it only works with concrete buildings, not steel, because of steels weight to strength ratio.

It doesn't explain what happened to the core, and why the core started dropping before the floors. It doesn't explain how lightweight trusses can put a pulling force on massive box columns when it sags from heat. It doesn't explain how less than one hour of fire can get the steel hot enough to sag in the first place. So Dave you have failed to explain even how the collapses initiated let alone continued to collapse against an increasing mass and path of most resistance.

No more stretching theories, or links to Bazzant, explain it Dave. Mention equal opposite reaction, and conservation of momentum, explain thermal transfer, explain thermal expansion. While you're at it, angular momentum needs to be covered also as you talk about the tilt of WTC 2, and how it applies to your claims.
Also whilst you explain why you think 5/8", and 1" bolts, would be stronger than massive box columns, you could mention how the core columns tapered in size from bottom to top, and even provide a link to that NIST information...

You can philosophize about theories all day long, but you keep missing the details.

Originally posted by ANOK

If you apply those laws, when two floors collide they would both be damaged, if you apply those laws to demolitions then only if the collapse starts in the middle can the floors all crush themselves, and it only works with concrete buildings, not steel, because of steels weight to strength ratio.

There is no such thing as a concrete building, except maybe in Puerto Rico, and those are only one or two stories. Concrete by itself is actually brittle, as anyone walking on a sidewalk with a tree's root pushing up underneath can attest. Skyscrapers of many stories like the WTC or the Empire State building aren't concrete, but in fact steel reinforced concrete, which means it's the steel that's giving the building its structural integrity, not the concrete.

In the WTC the only concrete was in the floors, and even then they used rebar to reinforce the strength of the concrete. Much of the white dust pouring out of structure as it collapsed wasn't concrete, but drywall, which has no structural integrity whatsoever.

It doesn't explain what happened to the core, and why the core started dropping before the floors. It doesn't explain how lightweight trusses can put a pulling force on massive box columns when it sags from heat. It doesn't explain how less than one hour of fire can get the steel hot enough to sag in the first place. So Dave you have failed to explain even how the collapses initiated let alone continued to collapse against an increasing mass and path of most resistance.

I wanted to separate the initial collapse from the cascading collapse because they were two different issues, and you are right, it doesn't explain what happened to the core because I was discussing what happened to the floors. THIS explains what happened to the columns:



This is one of the core columns recovered from ground zero being stored at the hanger at JFK, and you can tell it's a core column because it has a very pronounced rectangular cross section. When you look at this, you can see three things right away

1) The column is hollow. If this were one solid beam it would have been stong enough to have supported a hundred times it's weight, but the fact that it's hollow means it merely looked a lot stronger than it really was

2) By the way the column is peeled open like a banana it means the column had an inherent weakness along the seams of the welds.

3) By the angular way the column is bent at a very specific point, you can see something was pulling it sideways at that specific point at the same time something was pushing down on it. We know what was pulling it sideways (the floor that was fastened to it) and we know what was pushing down on it (the structure above), so the story of what happened to this column is plain to see, which is why they preserved this particular specimen- When the floor above came crashing down onto the floor attached to this column, the floor yanked the column sideways at the point where it was fastened to the column and the weight from the structure above caused the entire column to fail, which in turn caused it to split, bend, and deform along the columns' own structural weakness.

Multply that by about a billion, and you have a general understanding on how the collapse of the floors caused the failure of the columns in turn, without the assistance of so much as a firecracker. You many not accept this analysis, but you cannot deny that there is more legitimate evidence that shows the collapse was just a simple chain reaction of physics than from any demolitions. For one thing, you'll notice there is no sign of any blast damage or any sabotage whatsoever on this column, and this is the one of the very columns that demolitions would need to destroy.

You can philosophize about theories all day long, but you keep missing the details.

OR, it's the case that you want a 30 words or less synopsis of a 400 page explanation, and you're simply never going to get one under the terms you're demanding. You see yourself that it took quite a number of posts just to explain what happened to the floors.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
There is no such thing as a concrete building, except maybe in Puerto Rico, and those are only one or two stories. Concrete by itself is actually brittle, as anyone walking on a sidewalk with a tree's root pushing up underneath can attest. Skyscrapers of many stories like the WTC or the Empire State building aren't concrete, but in fact steel reinforced concrete, which means it's the steel that's giving the building its structural integrity, not the concrete.

Concrete, brick, none steel, you know what I meant.

In the WTC the only concrete was in the floors, and even then they used rebar to reinforce the strength of the concrete. Much of the white dust pouring out of structure as it collapsed wasn't concrete, but drywall, which has no structural integrity whatsoever.

So what? That is not what we were discussing Dave, stick to the point.

I wanted to separate the initial collapse from the cascading collapse because they were two different issues, and you are right, it doesn't explain what happened to the core because I was discussing what happened to the floors. THIS explains what happened to the columns:

This is one of the core columns recovered from ground zero being stored at the hanger at JFK, and you can tell it's a core column because it has a very pronounced rectangular cross section. When you look at this, you can see three things right away

1) The column is hollow. If this were one solid beam it would have been stong enough to have supported a hundred times it's weight, but the fact that it's hollow means it merely looked a lot stronger than it really was

All box columns are hollow, box columns resist warping and bending better than solid beams.
Strike one in your construction knowledge.

2) By the way the column is peeled open like a banana it means the column had an inherent weakness along the seams of the welds.

Hmm even if there was a weakness, it doesn't prove the weakness caused the collapse. In fact the peeling doesn't prove it was weak either. That is just an assumption you've decided to believe is fact, while ignoring other possible explanations.

3) By the angular way the column is bent at a very specific point, you can see something was pulling it sideways at that specific point at the same time something was pushing down on it. We know what was pulling it sideways (the floor that was fastened to it) and we know what was pushing down on it (the structure above), so the story of what happened to this column is plain to see, which is why they preserved this particular specimen- When the floor above came crashing down onto the floor attached to this column, the floor yanked the column sideways at the point where it was fastened to the column and the weight from the structure above caused the entire column to fail, which in turn caused it to split, bend, and deform along the columns' own structural weakness.

Lol more assumptions. How did the columns bend without cracking along the inner bend? The column had to have been very hot for that to happen. How did columns not in contact with fire get hot enough to bend that way?

OR, it's the case that you want a 30 words or less synopsis of a 400 page explanation, and you're simply never going to get one under the terms you're demanding. You see yourself that it took quite a number of posts just to explain what happened to the floors.

Huh? No I just wanted to see you use physics terms relevant to the collapses, which again you haven't done.
None of what you said means anything but your imagination is active, and you think because you can imagine something then it must happen that way.

Unless you can explain the equal opposite reaction and conservation of momentum, then you have explained and understood nothing. We're talking physics not philosophical theories.

Originally posted by ANOK
So what? That is not what we were discussing Dave, stick to the point.

You're the one making much ado about concrete, not me. I'm pointing out that whatever caused the collapse of the building, it affected the steel, not the concrete, becuase the concrete offered no structural integrity to the building.

All box columns are hollow, box columns resist warping and bending better than solid beams.
Strike one in your construction knowledge.

The discussion isn't over how resistant to warping and bending box columns are. The issue is what happens to it once it begins warping and bending and what happens to the surrounding components once it does begin warping and failing. From the condition of this column there's literally no way you can refute that severe warping and bending occurred here.

Hmm even if there was a weakness, it doesn't prove the weakness caused the collapse. In fact the peeling doesn't prove it was weak either. That is just an assumption you've decided to believe is fact, while ignoring other possible explanations.

I'm not making any assumptions when I say that if controlled demolitions were used to destroy the buildings, this column is where they'd need to be, and it's not an assumption to say this column shows no sign of sabotage whatsover. It's a demostratable fact. This is why I took so long to establish exactly how controlled demolitions are up until now, as well as establish the fact that these hypothetical controlled demolitions necessarily need to follow the laws of physics that apply to the rest of us.

Lol more assumptions. How did the columns bend without cracking along the inner bend? The column had to have been very hot for that to happen. How did columns not in contact with fire get hot enough to bend that way?

Look who's making assumptions now. Why are you making the assumption that the steel would have to crack rather than bend? I'm not a metallurgist but it seems to me that if the steel was of a composition that would crack under these types of stresses, it would necessarily crack when put under the stress of flexing as the building swayed.

Unless you can explain the equal opposite reaction and conservation of momentum, then you have explained and understood nothing. We're talking physics not philosophical theories.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Can you point out how the conservation of momentum explains how controlled demolitions would have caused this column in the aforementioned photo to get in the condition it's in, all without leaving any signs of sabotage? As I said, the laws of physics necessarily applies to your conspiracy theories just as they do everyone else.

reply to post by GoodOlDave
You and ANOK are both talking way over my head now, and I don't see any hard proof on either side, so I'm going to lay low and continue reading both of your opinions.

I do want to ask you to clarify this point, though, since it seems to be crucial to your overall argument:

I'm not making any assumptions when I say that if controlled demolitions were used to destroy the buildings, this column is where they'd need to be, and it's not an assumption to say this column shows no sign of sabotage whatsover. It's a demostratable fact.

I assume the column you're referring to is the one in the photo you posted above. Do we know with certainty where that column came from? I assume we would need to know that to verify your assertion that this column is where demolitions would need to be placed.

Also, can you demonstrate the fact that the column shows no sign of sabotage? I'm seeing obvious damage, and don't know how to distinguish conclusively between naturally caused damage and sabotage caused damage, so I don't see the logic of dismissing sabotage as a possibility based on this photo alone.

Thanks -

Originally posted by magicrat

 

I'd also say, though, that if you're able to entertain the idea that bin Laden was not in fact behind the attack, then he almost certainly took a whole different set of secrets to the grave with him. Either way, there are probably plenty of things we're never going to fully know with certainty.

You actually brought up the next point I wanted to make, here. Since we both agree that bin Laden took a few secrets to the grave with him, it necessarily means we both agree there are many other things that we will probably never know, either because the only people we can ask are dead, or because there isn't enough material evidence for us to make an informed opinion yet. This leads to three questions...

1) Do you agree that although they can look at the evidence and try to reverse engineer the evidence into a plausible scenario, and although it will still leave areas which we simply cannot know, it can still be enough to allow us to know what DIDN'T happen? For instance, If someone had been shot, they can determine whether the murder weapon was a revolver, pistol, or rifle from the bullet but not the make, model, or serial number of the weapon...but it's still enough to determine the victim wasn't stabbed or pushed out of a window.

2) Because there is this admitted vacuum of information, do you agree the possibility exists that there may be multiple logical scenarios that may contradict each other and still conform to the available facts? For instance, one police detective may deduce suspect A is the one who shot the victim while another police detective may deduce suspect B as being the culprit, even though both detectives agree that the victim was shot.

3) Do you agree there are people who simply cannot be satisfied with the possibility that an answer doesn't exist yet and they may attempt to fill the vacuum with their own ready made answers? For example, if someone was shot and no suspects are found yet, the temptation can arise for some to railroad some innocent minority for the crime simply because for them, the desire to resolve the case is stronger than the desire to find the actual guilty party.

As you're an intelligent person, you'll almost certainly know where I'm going with this.

Originally posted by magicrat
I assume the column you're referring to is the one in the photo you posted above. Do we know with certainty where that column came from? I assume we would need to know that to verify your assertion that this column is where demolitions would need to be placed.

No, I don't, and I doubt the people who recovered this column would know either for the simple fact there were so many of these things. The only thing that can be said for certainty is that it is a core column because the cross section of the ones in the core were rectangular like this one is, while the ones that made up the prefabricated "waffles" at the perimeter were more square. Plus, it was identified as a core column when I looked it up so I have to presume there's more identifying features other than this. I can look up photos of construction of the towers to show what the different columns looked like, if you'd like.

As the central argument of the controlled demolitions proponents is that the core columns were destroyed by sabotage, this is necessarily one of the columns that would need to be sabotaged. Otherwise, they're necessarily acknowledging the point I made previously- the force of impact from the collapsing floors was legitimately enough to compromise the stationary floors below them without the need of any demolitions, which, as you certainly have to know, discredits more than a few theorists' scenarios right there.

Also, can you demonstrate the fact that the column shows no sign of sabotage? I'm seeing obvious damage, and don't know how to distinguish conclusively between naturally caused damage and sabotage caused damage, so I don't see the logic of dismissing sabotage as a possibility based on this photo alone.

Yes I can, in fact- If this beam was sabotaged by demolitions this beam would have necessarily been cut rather brutally. Here are a few more photos of this same piece- you can see by the very intact and evenly formed ends that this is a whole piece that was broken at the joints by the mechanical force of the collapse. Keep in mind just how gigantic these columns were. There was some enormous forces crashing down upon this thing for this column to wind up like this, and controlled demolitions are simply not a suitable explanation.

reply to post by GoodOlDave
Yeah, I feel pretty good about agreeing with all three of your points here, and yeah, I do have a pretty good idea of where you're going with this.

Your last point (which I could not have written better myself)...

Do you agree there are people who simply cannot be satisfied with the possibility that an answer doesn't exist yet and they may attempt to fill the vacuum with their own ready made answers? For example, if someone was shot and no suspects are found yet, the temptation can arise for some to railroad some innocent minority for the crime simply because for them, the desire to resolve the case is stronger than the desire to find the actual guilty party.

...is a perfectly accurate description of the "Official Story" defenders, in my opinion, starting right from day one when the assumption that "this has bin Laden's fingerprints all over it" became the accepted narrative without any evidence being presented. I absolutely acknowledge that it's an accurate description of many in the "Truth Movement" as well, and I won't try to defend or justify that, but you've got to acknowledge the truth of it on both sides.

reply to post by GoodOlDave
I'm confused by this then. You established the premise that structural failure on a single floor, at "critical locations," could cause a chain reaction resulting in a full building collapse. But if we aren't able to definitely prove what part of the building this column came from (aside from being part of one of the core columns, which was my assumption as well), how can we assume that it was one of those "critical locations" where demolitions would need to be placed?

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding your point.

Originally posted by magicrat

 

Your last point (which I could not have written better myself) is a perfectly accurate description of the "Official Story" defenders, in my opinion, starting right from day one when the assumption that "this has bin Laden's fingerprints all over it" became the accepted narrative without any evidence being presented. I absolutely acknowledge that it's an accurate description of many in the "Truth Movement" as well, and I won't try to defend or justify that, but you've got to acknowledge the truth of it on both sides.

I do, actually. Since we do in fact have domestic terrorists with a penchant for blowing up buildings (I.E. Timothy McVeigh), as well as there being fanatic terrorist groups that have nothing to do with Al Qaida who are equally willing to stage spectacular terrorist attacks (I.E. Black September) the possibility does exist that Bin Laden was railroaded either intentionally, or due to a lack of direct evidence. The bulk of the evidence linking Al Qaida to the attack is classified on the explanation that revealing how we know he's responsible can compromise our intelligence sources, which does have merit...but it doesn't quite disprove the "railroading" scenario either.

In such a case, why can't it be the case that the 9/11 attack really was a legitimate terrorist attack and there were no demolitions AS WELL AS Bin Laden had really been railroaded? The two don't cancel each other out.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

In such a case, why can't it be the case that the 9/11 attack really was a legitimate terrorist attack and there were no demolitions AS WELL AS Bin Laden had really been railroaded? The two don't cancel each other out.

I think that's an entirely possible scenario. Wait, why are we arguing?

Originally posted by magicrat
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

I'm confused by this then. You established the premise that structural failure on a single floor, at "critical locations," could cause a chain reaction resulting in a full building collapse. But if we aren't able to definitely prove what part of the building this column came from (aside from being part of one of the core columns, which was my assumption as well), how can we assume that it was one of those "critical locations" where demolitions would need to be placed?

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding your point.

That is actually part two. Part one is where I am demonstrating that the collapse of the towers from below the initial floor that failed on down (excluding the initial floor that failed, itself) could legitimately occur without controlled demolitions. I present the photo of this column to show in that at least in some areas, the impact from the falling floors was legitimately enough to cause a standing floor to collapsel. This goes hand in hand with the previous statement that since all floors had the exact same design, whatever happened to one intact floor could and did happen to all the floors. Ergo, all the floors (excluding that first floor that failed, obviously) could have legitimately collapsed from being impacted by the collapsing floors. Whatever happened to cause that initial floor to fail, I wish to show, and I think we both can agree, that it was due to a completely different reason from why the remainder of the building collapsed.

Before I continue to part two, let me ask you- do we both agree that regardless of what the "completely different reason" is that caused that initial floor to fail, the chain of collapse begain in the vicinity of the locations where the planes impacted the towers? As in BOTH of them? Feel free to review as many videos of the collapse that you'd like before answering.

reply to post by GoodOlDave
Well, I'm still a little confused, and I can feel the springs on your trap tightening, so let me try to come back to this when I'm less distracted and see if I can make sense of it before committing myself to an answer. It might take a few days, but right now all I can do is read posts and throw in the occasional snarky comment, and I think your line of questioning deserves more attention than that.

Thanks for trying to clarify, though - I really do appreciate that, even if it didn't clear it up for me right off the bat.