9-11 was an inside job

[kola]

  heres a really good summary:

http://911research.wtc7.net/post911/commission/report.html

kola

[kola]

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/commissionlies.html

[Insurgent]

Thanks bro's for your clarity, strength and perseverance.

Yeah, a mind is like a parachute in that it only works when opened. The open and curious mind and concerned and involved man can and does look at all the facts and evidence - the building demolition evidence is just the first opening, the first crack in the Matrix. Working down in the trenches here of getting people to look at the demolition evidence is the entry-level.

Merrimack Valley 911 Truth hopes to provide the resources to our local folk here in a way that all will have an opportunity to have a look at the evidence. When we get all systems cranked up we'll have video showings every Thursday night somewhere in the MV area (that's the plan so far). Scheduled showings will be on the MV911T site. If someone who is curious about the events of September 11th knows of the opportunities and doesn't avail themselves of them, then that is their choice and it's regrettable, but for their own sake only. If someone chooses even to speculate on imagined info or personal theories, rather than on real evidence, and expresses that choice by sniping at or belittling others who do research, that is only an indication of their character and value as a cooperative community member.

We'll keep showing the entry level stuff interspersed with some of the more advanced findings, such as the Michael Ruppert stuff and even more recent material as it becomes available, so check it out when you have the chance.

Thoughtful post, and good points jaqeboy. Words to live by taking in to consideration any discussion, and not just limited to this thread.

Speaking of Mike Ruppert's research, I have an extra copy of "Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil" which I am willing to loan out.

[ThePug]

I've already shown you two buildings that suffered worse damage and didn't collapse - WTC 5 and WTC 6.

Neither of which was even vaguely similar to WTC 7, so your "example" is meaningless.

meaning what?  they didn't have rubble from the twin towers fall on them?  they didn't catch on fire and burn all day on 9/11?

Meaning that you're trying to compare two low, squat buildings (5 and 6 stories tall) to a 47 story skyscraper of a completely different design and method of construction. Not to mention that a big portion of WTC 5 did collapse from fire (even though it didn't have 20 stories above the fire, bearing weight down onto the fire-weakened section).

Once again . . . unsubstantiated facts:

WTC 5 - 9 stories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTC_5

WTC 6 - 7 stories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTC_6

I know these aren't big differences.  Just another example of you and others throwing out information without doing research.  I'll take what you say with a grain of salt from now on. 

You completely ignored the point he was making which is that two squat buildings, 9 and 7 stories tall, aren't comparable to a 47 story tower with a completely different method of construction.

As for Windsor Tower, it did partially collapse.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/TorreWindsor1.JPG

There wasn't nearly as much weight over the most weakened areas, which is why the collapse was contained by the structure. Also, the damage (and construction of the tower) aren't exactly analogous to the WTC, but the fact is that if anything, Windsor Tower proves that fire can cause structural failure in a steel-frame building. 

[ThePug]

I feel that the burden of proof is on you guys.

We're not the ones trying to "prove" anything, we're merely pointing out some flaws in the Truther arguments.

You are, after all, hanging out and posting on a "9-11 was an inside job" topic.  I've provided examples which you choose to ignore and call "meaningless."  Don't just tell me I'm wrong . . . PROVE IT!!! 

We are offering rebuttals to your examples, but you don't seem to be addressing any of the objections raised. For example, how you ignored the point that WTC7 wasn't comparable to WTC 5 and 6. You're also committing several logical fallacies such as challenging us to prove a negative, assuming that all steel-frame buildings are analogous, and the implicit false duality that any flaw in the government's explanation is somehow "proof" of a conspiracy.

You are very quick to condemn and criticize yet you don't provide facts.

Sure we do. WTC7 was 47 stories tall. WTC5 and 6 were 7 and 9 stories tall. Therefore, the buildings aren't analogous. That's a fact.

I have yet to see any of you post anything substantial that contributes to this discussion.

That's a ridiculous ad hominem that you post in place of an actual rebuttal to the objections raised to your posts.

[ThePug]

And, just to lighten the mood...

[alohamonkey]

You completely ignored the point he was making which is that two squat buildings, 9 and 7 stories tall, aren't comparable to a 47 story tower with a completely different method of construction.

As for Windsor Tower, it did partially collapse.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/TorreWindsor1.JPG

There wasn't nearly as much weight over the most weakened areas, which is why the collapse was contained by the structure. Also, the damage (and construction of the tower) aren't exactly analogous to the WTC, but the fact is that if anything, Windsor Tower proves that fire can cause structural failure in a steel-frame building. 

I didn't ignore what he said . . . I chose not to respond.  I am done arguing with people who don't take the time to get their facts straight. 

I am completely OK with the fact that the Windsor Tower and WTC 5 partially collapsed.  In fact, that is what I would expect to happen.  But if you look at the picture of the Windsor building that you provided . . . all of the central core support beams are still intact.  That is where my issue lies with what happened on 9/11.  The central support beams would have all had to fail SIMULTANEOUSLY for the building to collapse at free-fall speed into it's own footprint.  If they didn't all fail simultaneously, the building would have tilted to its side and we would have seen a partial collapse.  I have yet to see one other example of a steel structure collapse like WTC 7 did.  In fact, I haven't actually seen any structure collapse like that with minor structural damage and fire damage.  If you can show me an example that contradicts what I said, go ahead.  Also, keep in mind that the Windsor building burned for 24 hours . . . WTC 7 burned for roughly 8. 

[alohamonkey]

Actually Pug, you did it again.  You claimed that the fire in the Windsor building proves that fire can cause structural damage.  I would like proof of your claim.  In the photo, I see damage to the exterior of the building.  The exterior was most likely made of concrete and rebar.  I do not see any damage done to the central core steel beams of the building (i.e. the beams that support the structure).  I do not see anything that shows that this building's structural integrity was compromised and in danger of collapse.  If you have evidence showing I'm wrong, please provide. 

[jaqeboy]

And, don't forget, de-bunkers and debunker debunkers, Richard Gage is at Keene State College tonight to present a collection of pics and videos of building failures of various kinds and compare the visual differences. He's got the best presentation going for this type of analysis. After the presentation tonight, we should resume the discussion, while being informed of much more than has even been discussed here before. He also talks about the flaws in the official reports. And, I'm sure you can get in Q & A at the end and maybe a discussion with him over pizza after the talk.

Details on tonight are at MerrimackValley911Truth.org.

[alohamonkey]

And, don't forget, de-bunkers and debunker debunkers, Richard Gage is at Keene State College tonight to present a collection of pics and videos of building failures of various kinds and compare the visual differences. He's got the best presentation going for this type of analysis. After the presentation tonight, we should resume the discussion, while being informed of much more than has even been discussed here before. He also talks about the flaws in the official reports. And, I'm sure you can get in Q & A at the end and maybe a discussion with him over pizza after the talk.

Details on tonight are at MerrimackValley911Truth.org.

I wish I could make that tonight.  I've got my company's holiday party though.  Let me know how it is. 

[jaqeboy]

Attending tonight's talk by Richard Gage ought to be the ticket to continue discussing the collapses. An older version of this talk is on DVD (he's added new info since then), and is probably viewable on his site: ae911truth.org or on YouTube. MV911T posts an interview with him and possibly a link to the presentation (I forget) in the "About Us" section of the site. The MV911T MySpace page has other vids and links to other sites.

[ThePug]

Actually Pug, you did it again.  You claimed that the fire in the Windsor building proves that fire can cause structural damage.  I would like proof of your claim.  In the photo, I see damage to the exterior of the building.  The exterior was most likely made of concrete and rebar.  I do not see any damage done to the central core steel beams of the building (i.e. the beams that support the structure).  I do not see anything that shows that this building's structural integrity was compromised and in danger of collapse.  If you have evidence showing I'm wrong, please provide. 

That is where my issue lies with what happened on 9/11.  The central support beams would have all had to fail SIMULTANEOUSLY for the building to collapse at free-fall speed into it's own footprint.  If they didn't all fail simultaneously, the building would have tilted to its side and we would have seen a partial collapse.

If you have ten central supports, all bearing 98% of their total load capacity, and one weakened support collapses- the load on all the others instantly increases to 108% of their max load. Another support goes, and the load on the remaining 8 increases to 120%. It's a chain reaction. That's very simplified, but that's the basic process. That's why those sorts of buildings almost never fall to the side. The fraction of a second's difference between one side of the building's supports going and the rest of the supports going makes little difference to which way the building falls, which is, in accordance with gravity, typically straight down.


As for Windsor Tower, there was a partial collapse. The top floors of the lower "block" thingy totally collapsed, and they were steel, too. Not just concrete and rebar. The central core didn't collapse, but the fact is that fire weakened steel structural supports to the point where they failed, something many truthers adamantly insist is impossible.

I didn't ignore what he said . . . I chose not to respond.

Neener, neener, you're wrong and I'm just not going to respond!

That's not how debate/intelligent conversation works.

I am done arguing with people who don't take the time to get their facts straight.

You haven't so much "argued" as just moved from factoid to factoid without really answering any objections raised.

But if you look at the picture of the Windsor building that you provided . . . all of the central core support beams are still intact.

Maybe the building design was stronger. Maybe the fire wasn't as intense. Maybe the design of the building didn't lend itself to a "chimney" effect. Who knows. The two examples aren't exactly the same. The only thing that Windsor Tower "proves" is what's objectively true- that fire alone caused structural steel to fail, resulting in a partial collapse.

I have yet to see one other example of a steel structure collapse like WTC 7 did.

Well, modern steel structures are pretty safe things. Assuming that the "official" explanation for WTC7 is completely true, it still wouldn't be unexpected that it would be a completely unique occurrence. Most engineering disasters tend to be unique occurrences, as a matter of fact. Prior to the British Comet jetliner, no aircraft had ever crashed due to cracks formed around the windows due to metal fatigue caused by repeated compression/decompression of the cabin. Doesn't mean that's not what happened.

In fact, I haven't actually seen any structure collapse like that with minor structural damage and fire damage.

For obvious reasons, the damaged face of WTC7 wasn't really accessible to photography. What pictures we do have shows a bunch of smoke pouring out of that side of the building, and the SW corner of the building essentially carved off. So, engaging a slight bit of false duality myself, that leaves us with two choices. A)The collapse of not one, but two of the largest buildings in the world right next door caused significant structural damage and ignited fires which weakened the steel supports of the building until it collapsed. or B)Unknown nefarious forces for unknown reasons set complicated demolitions explosives in the building in the days/weeks/months before the attack, without any one noticing. Very complicated and precisely calibrated explosives which were completely unaffected by what must be acknowledged to be at least some fire and structural damage. These unknown nefarious forces then chose to demolish the building several hours after the most opportune time to hide the evidence, allowing its collapse to be fairly well-documented, rather than allowing the building to simply disappear in the cloud of dust and debris that resulted in the collapse of the two main towers.


Occam's Razor acknowledges no confirmation bias.

If you can show me an example that contradicts what I said, go ahead.

With some of your assertions, it's not so much that they're factually incorrect as it is that they're irrelevant. For example, the point that Windsor Tower didn't collapse completely. There are an infinite number of reasons what that might be, but you leap to the one explanation that confirms your pre-existing belief. Namely, that fire can't cause structural failure in steel-frame buildings. The confirmation bias is so extreme that you ignore facts that point to your explanation being incorrect- namely, that the fire at Windsor Tower did cause structural steel supports to fail, causing a partial collapse.

There's no need to be nasty. Instead of instantly assuming any one who disagrees with you has some ulterior motives, or assuming that the fact that they disagree with you somehow proves that they're not willing to engage in intelligent conversation, why not simply engage in the give-and-take of logical debate? Instead of getting all huffy and pissy when someone refutes (or attempts to refute) a point you make- answer it in a calm, dispassionate manner. That's how it works.

[kola]

all 3 buildings fell inwards AND at free fall speed   .

there is only one way this can happen.

magic beans. 

kola

[Kat Kanning]

kola, is that you in your new avatar? 

[kola]

..umm...yeah... Kat...

I took down that last one (of the good looking guy) and decided to post my real picture. 

umm..i ain't too handsome.. but i have a nice personality..

oh wait..i don't even have that.

anyway, thats me. 

now if i can just break this habit of sticking lightbulbs in my mouth maybe i can get a date for christmas eve.

sincerely,
Kola ( real name Uncle Fester Adams)