Two planes, Three buildings. Do the maths.

page: 9
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Oh goody; a truther combat vet. Truthfully, I doubt you are however that's neither here nor there.

You can doubt all you want, I really don't care.

As I said, it's neither here nor there though your reticence at recognising that the fog of war could apply to any other situation in life save war suggests to me the sort of inflexible thinking of a mind not actually exposed to war despite claims to the contrary.


Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
What's with this "press release" junk?
Businesses put out press releases about their latest widget; news organisations (like Reuters) put out wire stories. Significant difference. Remember what I said about the fog of war?

Junk?

Junk!


Originally posted by ANOK
Almost all news, especially government, comes from press releases. You call them 'wires', I call them press releases, same thing.

Sorry but what orifice did you pull that assertion from? I suppose if you're talking about your local paper that uses news as an filler between advertisements, perhaps. Not the case in any larger news operation worthy of the name.

Have you any clue how news operations work? You see, they have these assets. Those assets are called "reporters". These reporters have assets of their own. They're called "contacts". They talk to these contacts. The contacts tell them things. Sometimes in the rush to be first out with a particular bit of news, wires gets crossed and a misunderstanding or mistranslation happens. You may have heard of a military acronym: SNAFU. Being a combat vet, I'm sure I don't have to explain to you what that stands for. If you've forgotten, Google it. Thing is, misunderstanding/mistranslation happens all the time, even when there isn't the pressure of multiple terrorist attacks using airliners. You just want to pillory BBC/Fox/Reuters/whomever because you desperately want to hang onto a "whoops" moment as if that whoops moment was more meaningful than any other whoops moment.

I notice that you're at pains not to address the Scooby Doo-quality of this whoops moment being emblematic of a fantastically complex conspiracy laid bare by the simplest of oversights.

Why's that, I wonder?


Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Because Reuter's screwed up trying to beat AP and UPI with a flash. But you know this. You've read it over and over again. You just choose not to believe it because a Scoody Doo-class mystery with an ultra-intricate plot being foiled by meddling kids seems somehow more believable to you than a news wire service screwing Benji.

Wish as you may like but the mundane reality is that someone put out incorrect information and a news outlet or two ran with it without verifying. Hate to break it to you but such things happen all the time, even in less-harried news cycles. It's pretty thin gruel to keep dining out on a decade plus after the fact.

So how did Reuters get the press release early? How could they have any idea WTC 7 collapsed if no one told them it did?

There was no press release, Humpty Dumpty. Just because you want to call a bit of wire service news copy a "press release" that doesn't make it so. And if we want to parse things with even more excruciating accuracy, they aren't "wire services" anymore as the information is disseminated over the Internet. The name's a throwback to when the telegraph was high tech.

Reuters pooched it and admitted as much. That WTC7 was going to come down was not a surprise to the FDNY. Unless they were in on it too, you should perhaps find a new hobby.


Originally posted by ANOK
BTW again please note, another OSer who doesn't want to tackle to more important stuff I bring up to focus on easily argued non-points.

More importantly can you explain how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns they are attached to? If you can do that I will take your reply more seriously.

For the most part, I stick to my area of expertise (though even a cursory glance at your assertion by someone with a high school physics background shows it as being meaningless). And I noticed your earnest thread over on JREF. How's that going for you? My read from scanning it is that you're having body part handed to you on a platter.

I'm sorry you feel a need to create conspiracy in the mundane realities of an unfortunate day. As I said previously, "It's pretty thin gruel to keep dining out on a decade plus after the fact".

Fitz




posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Fitzgibbon
 


"Fog of war"? you call it? BBC reports that a building has collapsed.....and then 20 mins later it does!? "Pretty damned lucky guess" might have sounded slightly more credible.......



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Amazing interview with Dimitri Khalezov, former Nuclear Intelligence officer of the Soviet Union. Because of the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty of 1976 between the USA and the former USSR and Dimitri's military role in the USSR's Nuclear Intelligence division, Dimitri had certain knowledge of the WTC demolition scheme, which was required to obtain the original WTC building permit in New York (i.e. NY did not issue a building permit without submitting a demolition scheme). Dimitri uses his insider information combined with his military background to explain the events of 911 in depth. He leaves no 911 question unanswered.






2 lengthy videos, definitely worth a watch, I find his explanation much more plausible than the official story, as I'm sure many others will.

In Part 1, Dimitri explains:
- Dimitri Khalezov background
- Planes and explosions
- Pentagon mentioned (explained fully in Part 2)
- Nuclear detonations explained
- WTC1 & WTC2 nuclear demolition

In this Part 2, Dimitri explains:
- WTC 7
- Ground Zero definition
- Pentagon missile attack in detail
- Seismic readings
- 911 media manipulation
- F93 crash in Shanksville, PA
- Cell phone calls
- Hijackers
- 911 rescue workers and illness
- Ground Zero cleanup

Make sure to listen in stereo because of the way the microphones are set up.
Some other opinions on this would be interesting...



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by Fitzgibbon
 


"Fog of war"? you call it? BBC reports that a building has collapsed.....and then 20 mins later it does!? "Pretty damned lucky guess" might have sounded slightly more credible.......


It was hardly a "lucky guess". Collapse of WTC 7 had been long anticipated :-

www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
'Fog of war' circumstance as I detailed in my last post. If the news media is infallible, how is it that so much of what was reported in real-time turned out not to be correct after the fact? The reality is that the immediacy of the news cycle now (as then) makes such errors inevitable. The only people for whom such errors are unacceptable and emblematic of something sinister are those with an agenda that flies in the face of logic.

And this is emblematic of the need-to-believe mindset of truthers, that a fabulously complex conspiracy could be shown to be undone by such a simple error. I mean, it beggars belief that any sentient adult could buy into such simplistic plots that are more commonly seen in an episode of Scooby Doo.

It's sad, really

Fitz


Seems like you're so overwhelmed with the official story fog that you cannot see beyond the fog.

It was no mistake that at least 3 media channels reported WTC7 had come down before it actually had. No other building collapsed around that time of day, so it had to be WTC7, and it was.

I see you have just come on here to try and attack the character of people that do not believe the official story, it's obvious from your writing you have no real interest in 9/11, but just an interest in trolling people that do not believe the official story.

It seems you're not someone who we can have a rational debate with, so will ignore your irrelevant posts in future. I come here to have adult discussions, not playground name calling.

It seems you're not aware of the house rules, which I find odd seeing how long you have been here.

If the 'official story' was not so unbelievable there would be no 'truthers' trying to find out what really happened.



edit on 24-3-2013 by DeeKlassified because: edited quotations



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by Fitzgibbon
 


"Fog of war"? you call it? BBC reports that a building has collapsed.....and then 20 mins later it does!? "Pretty damned lucky guess" might have sounded slightly more credible.......


I you want to continue to sup on that thin gruel of 'conspiracy', knock yourself out.


The facts of the circumstance that the FDNY had for hours expected that the building was going to collapse have been known for years and all you have to hang your hats on is a mistake in tense. I also notice truthers don't bother to address that there were a multitude of assertions 'reported' that day that didn't come to pass.

You're welcome to continue chasing your tail as if the collapse of WTC7 was suspicious but it's only so to truthers.

Fitz



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

It was hardly a "lucky guess". Collapse of WTC 7 had been long anticipated :-

www.youtube.com...


I bet the firemen were not 'anticipating' a complete global collapse!

Those behind 9/11 knew it was coming down though, it was part of the plan.
edit on 24-3-2013 by DeeKlassified because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   


I you want to continue to sup on that thin gruel of 'conspiracy', knock yourself out.
reply to post by Fitzgibbon
 


Lol. Fine. I shall continue to sup on that thin gruel of conspiracy, while you suckle on the teat of your benevolent government. Then we can both be happy with our respective choices. Have a nice day



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeeKlassified

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
'Fog of war' circumstance as I detailed in my last post. If the news media is infallible, how is it that so much of what was reported in real-time turned out not to be correct after the fact? The reality is that the immediacy of the news cycle now (as then) makes such errors inevitable. The only people for whom such errors are unacceptable and emblematic of something sinister are those with an agenda that flies in the face of logic.

And this is emblematic of the need-to-believe mindset of truthers, that a fabulously complex conspiracy could be shown to be undone by such a simple error. I mean, it beggars belief that any sentient adult could buy into such simplistic plots that are more commonly seen in an episode of Scooby Doo.

It's sad, really

Fitz

Seems like you're so overwhelmed with the official story fog that you cannot see beyond the fog.

Not at all. The problem for you is that I work in television (not on the news side anymore) and am full well aware of the processes involved and just how easily such a mistake can happen. Where you see a Scooby Doo mystery, I see a not-that-uncommon side effect of the push to be the first out with some tidbit of news. You're satisfied with your mystery as emblematic of truthers revealing the 'man behind the curtain'. So be it. More the fool truthers


Originally posted by DeeKlassified
It was no mistake that at least 3 media channels reported WTC7 had come down before it actually had. No other building collapsed around that time of day, so it had to be WTC7, and it was.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, how many people knew by sight which WTC buildings (aside from the twin towers) were which? All that this tempest-in-a-teapot has done is shown the desperate lengths some who need to believe in a conspiracy will go to find anything they can to leech to. Nothing more


Originally posted by DeeKlassified
I see you have just come on here to try and attack the character of people that do not believe the official story, it's obvious from your writing you have no real interest in 9/11, but just an interest in trolling people that do not believe the official story.

I was under the impression the motto of ATS was "Deny ignorance". My bad.


Originally posted by DeeKlassified
It seems you're not someone who we can have a rational debate with, so will ignore your irrelevant posts in future. I come here to have adult discussions, not playground name calling.

I come for them too. I'm sorry you're put off by observation. Not being a sycophant ≠ being antagonistic


Originally posted by DeeKlassified
It seems you're not aware of the house rules, which I find odd seeing how long you have been here.

I don't think I've crossed any of the rules no matter your choice of suggesting otherwise. I was in this forum many years ago but even then, I could see the river of unreason that was flowing and how repeatedly pointing out the disconnect from observed evidence, logic and common sense was then as now met with antagonistic tirades. That's why I only very occasionally post in this forum


Originally posted by DeeKlassified
If the 'official story' was not so unbelievable there would be no 'truthers' trying to find out what really happened.

That's your take. A small group of people have believed unbelievable things about Masons for near three centuries so 9/11 is hardly evidence of something new under the sun. Personally, I have no problem believing that the energy imparted by the high-speed inertial impact of fully-fuel-laden airliners combined with the fires started and the comparatively-light-weight design of the WTCs a satisfactory explanation for the observed phenomenon. However there are a rather few who choose not to accept that 19 men with boxcutters could have caused that day's mayhem and instead look hither and nigh for any excuse to cobble-together an expanding conspiracy of Rube Goldbergian proportions to try to come to grips with what happened. After a decade, reason is not going to dent the armour of belief and more the fool I for thinking otherwise.

Fitz



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


So how did Reuters get the press release early? How could they have any idea WTC 7 collapsed if no one told them it did?


The same way they reported car bombs at the Capitol Building, car bombs in tunnels, car bombs on bridges, plane crashing into the Mall in DC, car bombs at the Mall in DC, plane hitting the Sears Tower, etc etc etc:

Can be read here:

Erroneous Reports and False Alarms
Here is a good one:
10:12 am: CNN reports an explosion on Capitol Hill.
(I guess CNN had the wrong script too.
)

This is what is called "fog of war". As a soldier you should know this.





More importantly can you explain how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns they are attached to? If you can do that I will take your reply more seriously.

edit on 3/23/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)


Once again, has been brought to your attention multiple times in the past. Just because you are blind or willfully ignorant does not mean it hasnt been answered.
edit on 3/24/2013 by GenRadek because: xtra info



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 



AARON: Hang on one second. We have a report now of an explosion on Capitol Hill, and we are checking that out. We have a report of a plane crashing at the Pentagon, the Pentagon being evacuated. Fire on the Mall in Washington, the State Department evacuated, and we have all flights shut down across the county as officials sort out what is happening here.


CNN Transcripts 9/11


More examples of erroneous reports:
More Reports



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeeKlassified

Originally posted by Alfie1

It was hardly a "lucky guess". Collapse of WTC 7 had been long anticipated :-

www.youtube.com...


I bet the firemen were not 'anticipating' a complete global collapse!

Those behind 9/11 knew it was coming down though, it was part of the plan.
edit on 24-3-2013 by DeeKlassified because: (no reason given)


Why would you bet that ? The fire department had pulled all their men back and a collapse zone of 4 blocks radius had been set up.

Clearly a major event was expected and why would anyone think there was likely to be only a partial collapse ? The building was leaning and belching smoke from top to bottom so who in their right mind is going to think well it will only be a 65% collapse etc.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


According to the Truth Movement, firefighters can 100% tell what causes the sound of a "boom", they accurately can predict just how much of a building will collapse, and they blindly follow orders. However, they cannot be counted on making accurate estimates of a building's compromised structural integrity, observed damage, or using proper terms.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


A great article explain the term "pull it" can be read here:

"Pull it" explained



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
It was hardly a "lucky guess". Collapse of WTC 7 had been long anticipated :-

www.youtube.com...


No one on planet earth could have ever anticipated a complete global collapse of a steel framed building.

There was no precedence to make such a claim, steel framed building do not collapse into their own footprints from fire.

But warnings were being issued from somewhere that is was going to collapse. Obviously some people had to know it was rigged to be imploded, and probably wanted to make sure it was clear of first responders etc.

This line of argument though doesn't change the fact that WTC7 could not have collapses the way it did from fire and asymmetrical damage. Post collapse pics prove the collapse could not have been natural.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Alfie1
It was hardly a "lucky guess". Collapse of WTC 7 had been long anticipated :-

www.youtube.com...

No one on planet earth could have ever anticipated a complete global collapse of a steel framed building.

FDNY was. Otherwise, why pull their personnel?


Originally posted by ANOK
There was no precedence to make such a claim, steel framed building do not collapse into their own footprints from fire.

Never happened=can't happen; is that your position?

What about heavier-than-air powered flight pre-Wright Brothers? What about nuclear explosion pre-Trinity?


Originally posted by ANOK
But warnings were being issued from somewhere that is was going to collapse. Obviously some people had to know it was rigged to be imploded, and probably wanted to make sure it was clear of first responders etc.

Golly. Wouldn't want to kill any more firefighters that day, right? Sudden attack of conscience? And what of the firefighters who were anticipating the collapse? And what about the lack of explosions? You know....the sort of thing that happens just prior to a controlled demolition?

Oy vey!


Originally posted by ANOK
This line of argument though doesn't change the fact that WTC7 could not have collapses the way it did from fire and asymmetrical damage. Post collapse pics prove the collapse could not have been natural.

And you got your degrees in architecture et al from......?

Fitz



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
FDNY was. Otherwise, why pull their personnel?


Again obviously someone new the building was going to collapse, but not because of fire, and wanted to reduce the loss of life.



Never happened=can't happen; is that your position?

What about heavier-than-air powered flight pre-Wright Brothers? What about nuclear explosion pre-Trinity?


But lol it has never happened because it can't happen. But that is not the point, you cannot predict something like a building collapsing when there is no precedence to make such a claim. Seeing as no other steel framed building collapsed from fire, then what did they base the claim on exactly? Simple physics tells us that a steel framed building will not collapse from fire. So again how did they make the conclusion that WTC 7 would globally collapse into its footprint from fire?

Heavier than air power was something that had been theorised on, and thought possible, for years before it was put into practice.

Nuclear explosion pre-Trinity? Hmmm lol.
back at ya because you're really reaching here.



Golly. Wouldn't want to kill any more firefighters that day, right? Sudden attack of conscience? And what of the firefighters who were anticipating the collapse? And what about the lack of explosions? You know....the sort of thing that happens just prior to a controlled demolition?


Hmmm another OSer denying that explosions were heard, that line of argument is getting tiring when there is fire fighters who said they heard explosives.

But regardless, a building cannot collapse vertically into its own footprint from fire, and asymmetrical damage, so I can only conclude some other outside energy was acting on the building (other than gravity, PLB). What that energy was I cannot say.



And you got your degrees in architecture et al from......?


You're not an architect either, are you? You are simply working from faith in the government, not any kind of science or engineering. No I am not an architect, you don't need to be an architect to understand simple physics and engineering principles. I do have a degree in engineering fundamentals, and I have worked in industry.

So when are you going to answer my question? How can sagging trusses put a pulling force on the columns they were attached to? Don't forget to explain how the 1" and 5/8" bolts didn't fail first?

That is a lot more important to this discussion than what fire fighters said.

edit on 3/24/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Again obviously someone new the building was going to collapse, but not because of fire, and wanted to reduce the loss of life.

Ah! So the FDNY was in on your 'controlled demolition', eh?
Gotcha. Guess the 10-storey gash and heavy unfought fire combined with the building's unique construction was meaningless in their decision.


Originally posted by ANOK
But lol it has never happened because it can't happen.

Says you. And please enlighten on your extensive multi-storey building design background combined with your firefighting experience. The vast majority of credentialed professionals seem not to have an issue with it; what do you know that everyone else is missing. And why do they keep missing it?


Originally posted by ANOK
But that is not the point,

Au contraire. That is EXACTLY the point. An inconvenient point for trutherdom but a point nonetheless


Originally posted by ANOK
you cannot predict something like a building collapsing when there is no precedence to make such a claim.

And this assertion is emanating from your extensive architectural and firefighting experience?


Originally posted by ANOK
Seeing as no other steel framed building collapsed from fire, then what did they base the claim on exactly?

Oh I dunno. Seeing as two other steel-framed buildings that had gashes and unfought fires had already collapsed that day, there was too-recent precedent. Plus the bulge, the groaning sounds, etc. That'd make most people leery.


Originally posted by ANOK
Simple physics tells us that a steel framed building will not collapse from fire.

Then why does fire code dictate fireproofing on the steel? I mean, it isn't as if steel burns, right? Or are you being disingenuous? And what "simple physics" would these be, BTW?


Originally posted by ANOK
So again how did they make the conclusion that WTC 7 would globally collapse into its footprint from fire?

I think it's self-evident that they didn't know that it'd collapse into its own footprint (though OTTOMH, I don't believe it actually did though did it?). Otherwise, why pull their crews four blocks away? Surely two blocks would've been quite sufficient given that guilty foreknowledge you seem to be indicating they had


Originally posted by ANOK
Heavier than air power was something that had been theorised on, and thought possible, for years before it was put into practice.

Which is nice but it'd never happened. So by your line of reasoning, having not happened it shouldn't have happened.


Originally posted by ANOK
Nuclear explosion pre-Trinity? Hmmm lol.
back at ya because you're really reaching here.

Not at all. Just a couple of examples disproving your 'never before=never can' assertion


Originally posted by ANOK
Hmmm another OSer denying that explosions were heard, that line of argument is getting tiring when there is fire fighters who said they heard explosives.

Explosions≠explosives. And more importantly, where's your sequential demolition explosives emblematic of every other controlled demolition?


Originally posted by ANOK
But regardless, a building cannot collapse vertically into its own footprint from fire, and asymmetrical damage, so I can only conclude some other outside energy was acting on the building (other than gravity, PLB). What that energy was I cannot say.

Oh Lordy, you're a Judy Woo spay-rayer acolyte! 'Nuff said



Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
And you got your degrees in architecture et al from......?

You're not an architect either, are you?

Never claimed to be. You, on the other hand make grunts as if your opinion on such matters is any more informed.


Originally posted by ANOK
You are simply working from faith in the government, not any kind of science or engineering.

Not at all. Even someone with high school physics should be able to understand the forces in play.


Originally posted by ANOK
No I am not an architect, you don't need to be an architect to understand simple physics and engineering principles. I do have a degree in engineering fundamentals, and I have worked in industry.

You're arguing from incredulity. Full stop.


Originally posted by ANOK
So when are you going to answer my question? How can sagging trusses put a pulling force on the columns they were attached to? Don't forget to explain how the 1" and 5/8" bolts didn't fail first?

That is a lot more important to this discussion than what fire fighters said.

That isn't the subject of this thread. Why don't you go back and argue your thread out on JREF? Or are you going to continue the Sir Robin imitation?

Fitz



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 




There was no precedence to make such a claim, steel framed building do not collapse into their own footprints from fire.

Yes there was.
Twice that morning.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 




But that is not the point, you cannot predict something like a building collapsing when there is no precedence to make such a claim. Seeing as no other steel framed building collapsed from fire, then what did they base the claim on exactly?

So why is it the fire training manuals?



new topics
 
23
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join