This is how normal people discuss 9/11

It always surprises me how easily people can be insulted. But anyway, your list is a waste of time.

It truly is a waste of time. You can't go back in time with the benefit of hindsight and cherry pick small individual incidents as a means of disproving what is known to have actually happened.

For instance, a chain of evidence must be established. If you pick out of the litter a 'free fall' as some kind of proof of building destruction with explosives, you must first explain how the building was rigged, who did it and how the explosives survived fires that burned for hours until the building collapsed.

Every single thing on your list is just like that. The cherry picking of events, as individual events, and not part of a chain of evidence, that you must prove before those incidents are relative.

I'm not in anyway insulting you or anyone else when I say that you just don't have the experience as a professional researcher to understand the concept of motive, means and opportunity. If you had this experience you would never put together such a list of individual, seemingly isolated events, without establishing their origin.

If you tried to take that list to a publisher, as all professional researchers do-that is how they get paid, they would quickly tell you that you can't adjust facts to support theories-you must adjust theories to support facts.

If you took your list and presented it in an acceptable forum, that being your events have origin, opportunity to establish the means and the most important the motive as such this would be done I would be happy to debate every single issue you have.

reply to post by spooky24

For instance, a chain of evidence must be established. If you pick out of the litter a 'free fall' as some kind of proof of building destruction with explosives, you must first explain how the building was rigged, who did it and how the explosives survived fires that burned for hours until the building collapsed.

So when you pass by a abandoned wracked car on a side of the road, you must first explain how it got to the side of the road without a driver, how it managed to wrack itself without a second car or another damaged object near it, or who was the driver, why he or she had an accident, why he or she left the scene and how come all the other drivers are driving by like they don't even see it there? If you can't explain all that then there is no wracked car on a side of the road?

Makes perfect sense.

Originally posted by whatsecret

If you can't explain all that then there is no wracked car on a side of the road?

The question is not whether there is a wrecked car or not (which is analogous to ground zero of the WTC), but whether secret agents did undetectable sabotage to that car because the tail light is damaged in an odd way (which is analogous to secret agents having planted bombs in the WTC because the building collapsed in an odd way).

What you don't understand is the fact that I have found some common ground with researchers who propose government interdiction after the fact. They are considered 'truthers' however they have real research skills other that just typing something into Google.

I know for a fact that a concerted effort was made after the fact to infiltrate certain groups, who were advocating government malfeasance. This was done by contract agents who posted and advocated ridiculous theories and insensitive insulting comments to persons who had lost loved ones in the tragedy. This was done, very successfully, to reduce the credibility of the entire truther movement.

To me this whole program, or effort, was eerily similar to the highly successful disinformation campaign used to destroy the credibility of Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison in 1967.

Matter of fact it's a carbon copy. I have a pretty good idea who lead this campaign to implode the truther movement what I don't understand is why. They have never had anything other than innuendo, supposition and the twisting of facts to support ridiculous accusations. In 12 years not a single bit of evidence supports these falsities have ever emerged.

Except for the disinformation campaign that no one understands.

reply to post by spooky24

Matter of fact it's a carbon copy. I have a pretty good idea who lead this campaign to implode the truther movement what I don't understand is why. They have never had anything other than innuendo, supposition and the twisting of facts to support ridiculous accusations. In 12 years not a single bit of evidence supports these falsities have ever emerged.

And you don't think that you need to explain all the things you expect others to explain if they don't believe that fire destroyed building 7? Let us have it spooky24. Motive, means and opportunity please. Oh and don't forget the evidence of course.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by whatsecret

If you can't explain all that then there is no wracked car on a side of the road?

The question is not whether there is a wrecked car or not (which is analogous to ground zero of the WTC), but whether secret agents did undetectable sabotage to that car because the tail light is damaged in an odd way (which is analogous to secret agents having planted bombs in the WTC because the building collapsed in an odd way).

edit on 30-8-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

I saw a skyscraper suddenly collapse completely in seconds. Don't know who did it or how, but it didn't collapse because of fire because most of the building was not on fire, it didn't collapse because of the damage because most of the building was not damaged. These facts do not change even if I can't explain what happened to it. And because I can't explain that, it doesn't mean that NIST did. But you already know all that don't you?

I think it's pretty simple. People have their comfort zones and when it comes to something as fundamental as the character and intent of government they have a lifetime of conditioning thinking "we're the good guys". 9/11 reality (versus truth) is much like the boogeyman in the closet they're too afraid to open to see if it's real. They will lie to themselves if necessary to retain their image of "how things are".

It would be similar to a child discovering their father is a gangster, in fact a hitman who whacks others for a living. Would you want to know that? If there was any equivocation wouldn't you always give them the benefit of the doubt rather than see your world shattered?

I think there are many otherwise highly intelligent people who cannot get past the threshold of long-held beliefs. Their lives are already problematic enough without having to wonder what kind of evil your own tax money might be funding. It's also rather distant (government is) and in reality there's not much any of us can do to change things even if we wanted to. That's quite a bit to overcome yet to stand on one's own feet intellectually it must be done. We have to be willing to throw out everything we thought we knew to view the facts as they are.

Lastly, there's fear, fear of being isolated, rejected, criticized, fired, divorced or put on a government watch list if your views were to change radically. All we can do is lay a trail of breadcrumbs for others to follow if they should ever wish to do so which may lead them to a fuller understanding of the events of 9/11.

Eta: The subject you broach here is as least as important as the reality of what happened. Without being able to share information with others the truth will remain hidden and the guilty will still run free.

reply to post by whatsecret


Every single piece of evidence points to the fact fire did it. From fire department reporting instability and predicting collapse to a extensive evidence supported report by NIST. Lack of evidence of bombs going off and lack of any leftovers of explosives found in the remains disproves explosives.

Your personal incredulity and ignorance is of no relevance and not at al an argument supporting your cover up theory.

-PLB-
reply to post by whatsecret

 

Every single piece of evidence points to the fact fire did it. From fire department reporting instability and predicting collapse to a extensive evidence supported report by NIST. Lack of evidence of bombs going off and lack of any leftovers of explosives found in the remains disproves explosives.

Your personal incredulity and ignorance is of no relevance and not at al an argument supporting your cover up theory.

So let me get this straight.

Firefighters that said building looked unstable automatically means that building looks like it will totally collapse in seconds and they are accepted as good eyewitnesses.
Firefighters that said there were bombs going off all over the place automatically means that they were confused, had no idea what they were talking about and they are not considered as good eyewitnesses.

NIST disclosed evidence that support their theory automatically disqualifies the secret, undisclosed evidence which one person (NIST Director) determined to be irrelevant.

Did I get that right?

Can you post something that confirms that FDNY expected building 7 to suddenly, symmetrically, and completely collapse in 17 seconds? and also please post something that confirms that the evidence which remain classified are not the evidence of any kind of explosives?

-PLB-

Originally posted by whatsecret

If you can't explain all that then there is no wracked car on a side of the road?

The question is not whether there is a wrecked car or not (which is analogous to ground zero of the WTC), but whether secret agents did undetectable sabotage to that car because the tail light is damaged in an odd way (which is analogous to secret agents having planted bombs in the WTC because the building collapsed in an odd way).

edit on 30-8-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

Looks like you didn't get my point again... Let me try one more time just for you.

This car on the side of the road has front end damage only. The odd looking tail light appears to have two bullet entry holes, unfortunately for the investigators there is not a single bullet found anywhere on scene, just some people saying that they heard something what sounded like a gunshot. Some say it was before the accident and some say it was after. Since a gunshot-like sound could be caused by many things, it is logical to assume that they heard something else. And since there were no bullet recovered it is also logical to assume that this hole might be from something else. Are you with me so far?

I recommend that you read what comes next slowly because it's the most important part of this post.

The official investigation conclude that the tail light anomaly was caused by the accident. They admit that this never happened before but they found no evidence of a shooting. Also no eyewitness saw the actual shooting. And they say that as strange as it may appear there is a perfectly good explanation for it. Experts concluded that during the accident which caused severe front end damage somehow energy transferred to the marbles in the glove compartment and sent it flying . The marbles traveled through two rows of seats then changed direction and went through the driver side tail light. This was consistent with a computer model they created to figure this out. But if they release the details of that model it might jeopardize public safety.

Only crazy people claim that official theory is unrealistic and they must let others to reproduce this scenario to prove that the most obvious explanation is not what happened to this very important car that had a lot of important documents in it and usual very important people used this car for all kings of important missions.

If they say that someone opened fire on this car they must explain who, how, why and when this car was shot at.

reply to post by whatsecret


The building didn't instantaneously collapse, if you paid any attention. The 'spire' is extremely important, as it shows the internal structure of the building surviving the immediate collapse of the open floors before the complete internal structure failed.

Originally posted by whatsecret
So let me get this straight.

Firefighters that said building looked unstable automatically means that building looks like it will totally collapse in seconds and they are accepted as good eyewitnesses.
Firefighters that said there were bombs going off all over the place automatically means that they were confused, had no idea what they were talking about and they are not considered as good eyewitnesses.

There are no Fire fighters that think bombs were going off all over the place. At most you will find firefighters talk about explosions or sounds that are like explosives.

If bombs were going off all over the place we would be able to see it on video and hear it on audio. The fact we don't proves that bombs did not go off all over the place. Beyond any reasonable doubt. If you disagree you "ignore evidence that support official story".

NIST disclosed evidence that support their theory automatically disqualifies the secret, undisclosed evidence which one person (NIST Director) determined to be irrelevant.

Did I get that right?

This reasoning is of course flawed here, it is not my reasoning. We don't even know what this evidence you keep talking about actually is. You complain that you miss something but can't say what it is. Its really a non argument, I can't help you with it. Figure out what it is you miss and come back then.

Can you post something that confirms that FDNY expected building 7 to suddenly, symmetrically, and completely collapse in 17 seconds? and also please post something that confirms that the evidence which remain classified are not the evidence of any kind of explosives?

This is a silly and extremely unreasonable request. If the building had collapsed slowly, asymmetrical and in an hour I could also not comply. Nobody made a prediction at all.

If NIST really has damning evidence it wants to cover up they are not going to proclaim they are covering it up in public. They would just destroy it and never tell a soul. Its cover up basics 101 and a very weak argument from your side.

Originally posted by whatsecret
Looks like you didn't get my point again... Let me try one more time just for you.

No I did get it, your analogy was just flawed.

This car on the side of the road has front end damage only. The odd looking tail light appears to have two bullet entry holes, unfortunately for the investigators there is not a single bullet found anywhere on scene, just some people saying that they heard something what sounded like a gunshot. Some say it was before the accident and some say it was after. Since a gunshot-like sound could be caused by many things, it is logical to assume that they heard something else. And since there were no bullet recovered it is also logical to assume that this hole might be from something else. Are you with me so far?

And these bullet holes are analogous to what exactly in the WTC?

The official investigation conclude that the tail light anomaly was caused by the accident. They admit that this never happened before but they found no evidence of a shooting. Also no eyewitness saw the actual shooting. And they say that as strange as it may appear there is a perfectly good explanation for it. Experts concluded that during the accident which caused severe front end damage somehow energy transferred to the marbles in the glove compartment and sent it flying . The marbles traveled through two rows of seats then changed direction and went through the driver side tail light. This was consistent with a computer model they created to figure this out. But if they release the details of that model it might jeopardize public safety.

Your analogy fails. There is no evidence of "bullet holes" in the WTC. Just evidence of a "tail light" that is broken in an odd way.

And thats the problem with your whole cover up theory. No evidence at all. Just a layman opinion that a building collapsed odd.

Edit, here is a rewrite and much more accurate version of your analogy:

A bystander claims to have heard a gunshot just before the crash. Some people think the broken tail light can only be explained by a bullet hitting it. However, on the video another bystander made there is no evidence of gunshots at all. Unfortunately, he did not catch the taillight on video. None of the photos made of the crashed car shows any damage caused by bullets. Later analysis with computer models shows that the forces as result of the inertia of the tail light assembly was enough to break a screw that attached the assembly to the car, making it come loose and break. The models were never released on request of the car manufacturer.

reply to post by Varemia


Maybe I missed something...there was a spire on WTC 7?

reply to post by -PLB-


For the umpteenth time (and I know you are well aware) the issue is the NIST refusal to release the input data and result data utilized for their computer model. We know what software was utilized. In order to reproduce the outcome, it is important to have the same data inputs. In order to verify results of any scientific study or report, one must be able to reproduce the study or report.

ETA: Your personal opinions, incredulity, etc., do nothing to alter this fact.

reply to post by -PLB-

(which is analogous to secret agents having planted bombs in the WTC because the building collapsed in an odd way).

Who said WTC 7 collapsed in an "odd way?"

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Varemia

 

Maybe I missed something...there was a spire on WTC 7?

Sorry, I jumped in and missed which building you were talking about. You seem to imply that because officials didn't have foreknowledge of the exact way the building would collapse, that it should have collapsed differently? The building collapsed internally before the external structure came down, and this is easy to derive from videos.

If you observe my signature, I have linked to a post full of people who expected the building to come down and were warned that it was going to collapse.

To continue as if this is not true is to be untrue to yourself, since there was warning, and plenty of it. You just seem to think that they should have known exactly how the building was going to collapse, because you have intimate knowledge of building collapses from watching demolished buildings. It didn't behave like a demolition. Demolitions take out the internal structure and external structure at the same time. WTC 7 collapsed internally prior to the exterior collapsing.

Edit: I think I missed something again. Sorry, you're a different person than I was replying to before. Didn't mean to do that. Anyway, I think my general point stands, although I am replying to whatsecret.

reply to post by Varemia

Demolitions take out the internal structure and external structure at the same time.

Hogwash and utter poppycock.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Varemia

 

Demolitions take out the internal structure and external structure at the same time.

Hogwash and utter poppycock.

Am I wrong? I'm really curious now, since if I'm wrong there I'll have to rework my whole argument.

reply to post by Varemia


Do not rework your entire argument. Just provide written support for the erroneous statement. Good luck.

ETA: Watch this video. Controlled demolition. In this video, much of the exterior of the building was already removed by the demolition team. Do you see the remaining exterior and interior affected at the same time? Even with most of the exterior removed, how many times do you see evidence of the explosive charges utilized to bring down the building?


The point is, you made a blanket statement about controlled demolitions. Not all controlled demolitions are performed in the same manner. Many, many variables to consider.

No one has made any claims here. The point of the thread is the refusal of NIST to release the input and result data from the computer modeling to arrive at the result given in their report.