Could the fire burn down WTC?

Fact or Fiction? Discuss here.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12324
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

koan;1404317 wrote: NIST believed that finding molten steel would have been evidence to investigate explosives so why wouldn't you believe it. You'd be the only one thinking it doesn't matter. (Other than your anti-Truthers) They claimed that there wasn't any. That there was forces them to reinvestigate.

The thermite isn't just what could have been the cause of something else. The thermite is what they actually found in the dust. They have it. It's in their hands... their labratories... their testing machines... available for anyone to confirm... which has been done. It's thermite. It came from the dust. No video needed.


And how does molten steel prove explosives?

You have actually tested it, yourself, then?

I have seen several reports that say it was not thermite, from reliable labs.

I have yet to actually see a lab report that said it was thermite.

It's all hearsay until you see a lab report from a lab you trust.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

There is ample evidence. I trust this report. Bentham Science Publishers Ltd. Home Page
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12324
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

So, in the end, it all comes down to who you trust, doesn't it.

BTW, have you ever done any research on Bentham?
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

I've looked into both sides of the investigation and made a clear decision as to who I think is more interested in science.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12324
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

Ah, yes. Of course, the science.

We have lots of science.

Well, since you seem to understand the science so clearly and have, indeed made up your mind, then maybe you can help me to understand it all.

So, how, exactly, did the thermite get planted in the buildings. When is a really good question, too, if you happen to know.

Oh, and where?
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

It has been suggested that this type of thermite could have been in spray cans being used by people who thought they were painting anti-rust paint on the joints. There was a lot of work being done on closed off sections of the buildings well before the plane crashes.

How it got there isn't the science, though. That it is there is the science. Figuring out who put it there is the job of other people... and that will only happen if they do a proper inquiry and investigation.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12324
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

So, ignoring all your distractions from the key point, it has been shown that the assertion of the 'truthers' - that the buildings could not have collapsed as they did without explosives - is basically false.

So we don't need a grand conspiracy theory to explain how and why they collapsed.

Fire did not "burn down WTC", but fire, combined with the damage from the impacts resulted in the collapse of the two towers.

Fires and damage caused by debris from the towers' collapse result in WTC 7 collapsing.



Occam's razor.

As for the dust, where is the chain of evidence? Is that not part of the science?

And according to a study hired by Mr Ventura, the EMRTC determined that even should there have been thermitic material in the dust, and that the dust was, indeed from WTC, it would have required enormous amounts to 'melt the steel' and explode with enough force to create a "demolition-style" destruction of the WTC.

Besides, how would the people planting your bombs have know to plant them in the region the plane impacted. Given that there was no sign of collapse initiating at lower levels until the entire upper section caved in, no bombs were in the lower floors.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

We've spent this whole thread negating each of the points you just went about asserting. I don't know how to do these circular conversations. I've already shown you why each of your assertions is not true.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15894
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by Bryn Mawr »

koan;1404625 wrote: We've spent this whole thread negating each of the points you just went about asserting. I don't know how to do these circular conversations. I've already shown you why each of your assertions is not true.


Sorry, the effects of thermite at the thickness left by a spray can would make no difference to the structural integrity of a building - it might explain traces found after the event but it could not be a material factor in the fall of the WTC.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

Whether it was sprayed on, painted on, planted in mass quantities... that it's there lends to the need for another investigation. Getting into the where, who and why is secondary.

The spray format was part of one theory of how it could have gotten there and not left a bunch of people who knew about it. It's just a theory. Like I said early, those are questions to be answered by a proper inquiry. Until a proper inquiry it's all just guessing and it is fodder for people to attack. Getting lured into trying to answer those questions in advance is a trap and I'm getting lured into it now. I truly don't care at this point how it was done. I care about a proper investigation.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15894
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by Bryn Mawr »

koan;1404662 wrote: Whether it was sprayed on, painted on, planted in mass quantities... that it's there lends to the need for another investigation. Getting into the where, who and why is secondary.

The spray format was part of one theory of how it could have gotten there and not left a bunch of people who knew about it. It's just a theory. Like I said early, those are questions to be answered by a proper inquiry. Until a proper inquiry it's all just guessing and it is fodder for people to attack. Getting lured into trying to answer those questions in advance is a trap and I'm getting lured into it now. I truly don't care at this point how it was done. I care about a proper investigation.


To have a method that would explain it's presence that method needs to also explain the purpose of it being there. Spraying it on, or even painting it on, would serve no useful purpose except to leave strange traces to be puzzled over afterwards.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12324
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

koan;1404625 wrote: We've spent this whole thread negating each of the points you just went about asserting. I don't know how to do these circular conversations. I've already shown you why each of your assertions is not true.




Au contraire.

We started this conversation with me stating that knowledge of the unique building design made the assertion that the buildings could not have collapsed as they did without some 'help' invalid.

You countered by posting that silly video.

I rebuked the video.

You accused me of basing my assumptions on the official report.

I had never read the official report.

We bantered a bit on the validity of the 911truthers view vs. the NIST view.

Then you began to offer more info from the truther side of things, and I pretty much held that the truthers arguments are invalid.

Simple statement. There was no need for a bomb to bring the buildings down. They fell because of perfectly explainable causes.

The truthers are misinterpreting the evidence, because they cannot accept it.

They insist there was a bomb, and spent a great deal of time and energy working to find evidence of a bomb.

Most of the evidence they present is not really evidence.

Logic only works if you have valid input to start with.

GIGO.

These people seem to refuse to believe that a couple of dozen 'ragheads' could figure out how to bring down the symbol of American Power and Economic superiority. They have to have another story.

I am sure that the Philistines went home after David's triumph and talked about how it must have been a conspiracy in the ranks cause that little Jewish pipsqueak could not possibly have taken out the mightiest of all philistines all by his lonesome.

Simple truth. There was no need for a bomb.

So why are we looking for one?
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

Fine. I will go through the entire Toronto conference and we can assess each point of science that A&E question numbering them from 1 to whatever the final result is after days of presentations.

Keep in mind that we've already established that the buildings were in free fall and NIST had to add that to their report because they couldn't deny it. The free fall itself calls for another investigation. But we'll put that away for a bit. It's going to be a long haul and I'm not starting tonight.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12324
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

koan;1404687 wrote: Fine. I will go through the entire Toronto conference and we can assess each point of science that A&E question numbering them from 1 to whatever the final result is after days of presentations.

Keep in mind that we've already established that the buildings were in free fall and NIST had to add that to their report because they couldn't deny it. The free fall itself calls for another investigation. But we'll put that away for a bit. It's going to be a long haul and I'm not starting tonight.


It was only with WTC 7 that the NIST acknowledged free fall.

It was in free fall because the primary support failed.

And that was evident after the internal structure collapsed.

You can see that if you watch the penthouse.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12324
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

Oh, dear.

You're not going to expect me to sit and watch that, are you.

Perhaps there are transcripts?

My ADD really acts up on video.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

I will go through the pain of summarizing it for all. Apparently I need to do this because, otherwise, I'll be held to the strawman theory that you can take one element of the argument (thermite) and debate that as if it is the only element you need to deal with. That is not the case. It is a combination of factors that calls for reinvestigation. To isolate one factor is to fabricate a weaker version of my argument. Strawman. I'm sure you've heard of that.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12324
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

Oh, yes, I've heard of Strawman. He's the guy that wanted a brain, wasn't he?

Yes, and Dorothy had to deal with him first after the munchkins sent her on her little journey.

Oh, I can summarize it quite well.

The government is lying. It was all a hoax fostered upon us by Israel to get us to go bomb Saddam.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
flopstock
Posts: 7406
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 2:52 am

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by flopstock »

I'm enjoying both sides of this discussion, even though I stand firmly on one side of it.





I think our behavior after 911 made it easier for folks to buy into these theories.
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.

Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6

koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

LarsMac;1404723 wrote: Oh, yes, I've heard of Strawman. He's the guy that wanted a brain, wasn't he?

Yes, and Dorothy had to deal with him first after the munchkins sent her on her little journey.

Oh, I can summarize it quite well.

The government is lying. It was all a hoax fostered upon us by Israel to get us to go bomb Saddam.
That's a great summary of the Strawman Fallacy. One can doubt that two planes dropped three skyscrapers into their own footprints without making wild accusations about who put the explosives in the buildings. Just as one can dispute the presence of one type of explosive but still have other types of explosives that may have been used alone or in combo.

Though I would like to point out there is no denial that the government lied about the safety of the air when it told people it was a good idea to go back to work and school in the area. The resulting illnesses and deaths are on their heads alone unless Bin Laden supplied their press release officials.

Lets also be clear that a crime was committed by the government when they disposed of the waste from the towers without documenting it all first. There is no denial of that. Architects and engineers rely on that material to do their jobs and guarantee the safety of the public.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12324
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

koan;1404748 wrote: That's a great summary of the Strawman Fallacy. One can doubt that two planes dropped three skyscrapers into their own footprints without making wild accusations about who put the explosives in the buildings. Just as one can dispute the presence of one type of explosive but still have other types of explosives that may have been used alone or in combo.
The fascinating thing about all this is once the conversation starts, usually over one point in the thing, like whether the buildings could have been felled by the airplane and resulting fire, it rapidly spreads to all the other stuff.

Case in point, I mention that the towers were of a fairly unique design and suggest that they could, indeed, have fallen like they did as a result of the impact and fire.

Immediately Building 7 is tossed into the conversation. then, next, some eye-witness who is talking about about building 7, and when I respond to that, then the conversation shifts to the dust.

I suspect shortly we would move on to Flight 93, or the Pentagon, or flt 77, or perhaps the hole in the wall, without ever actually focusing on any one single item.



koan;1404748 wrote:

Though I would like to point out there is no denial that the government lied about the safety of the air when it told people it was a good idea to go back to work and school in the area. The resulting illnesses and deaths are on their heads alone unless Bin Laden supplied their press release officials.


That is a whole other discussion, I think, and actually proves the point I was working on in the above paragraph.

koan;1404748 wrote:

Lets also be clear that a crime was committed by the government when they disposed of the waste from the towers without documenting it all first. There is no denial of that. Architects and engineers rely on that material to do their jobs and guarantee the safety of the public.


Which government are we talking about? And what documentation do you want from the clean-up.

This is one of your straw dogs. I really don't think it even occurred to the folks doing the clean-up that they should keep all the debris around for the next few years so any Tom, Dick or Harry with an engineering or architectural degree could have a look at it.

I think it would be interesting to take each speaker from the conference we were discussing, and look at what they have to say, and what evidence they present, and afterwards look to see what exactly we have at the end of the day.

BTW, I should have a copy of the DVD shortly, and might be able to manage one speaker a day.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

I apologize. I started my discussion with only WTC7 in mind and obviously failed to make that clear. I don't see how the event can be discussed without building 7 as it was three buildings falling from two planes and 7 is the so called "smoking gun". The only unique thing about the design of the towers that I'm aware of is that they were built to withstand an airplane impact. Though the planes that hit them were bigger than the previous model they'd designed for, the ones that hit were going at speeds that fell within the impact force expected. The speeds have been analysed and show no significant variation from the what the design was built to withstand. And there is still the one that didn't get hit by anything.

I very much appreciate that you are willing to watch the conference. That's a big commitment. I just worked a double shift and am starting early again tomorrow so I hope I can keep pace with you. I have fought against believing in any of the "truther" movements and very carefully try to limit myself to the platform of the architects and engineers. Occam's razor is not considered to provide scientific results and is often misused in science to shift the burden of proof.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12324
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

koan;1404805 wrote: I apologize. I started my discussion with only WTC7 in mind and obviously failed to make that clear. I don't see how the event can be discussed without building 7 as it was three buildings falling from two planes and 7 is the so called "smoking gun". The only unique thing about the design of the towers that I'm aware of is that they were built to withstand an airplane impact. Though the planes that hit them were bigger than the previous model they'd designed for, the ones that hit were going at speeds that fell within the impact force expected. The speeds have been analysed and show no significant variation from the what the design was built to withstand. And there is still the one that didn't get hit by anything.

I very much appreciate that you are willing to watch the conference. That's a big commitment. I just worked a double shift and am starting early again tomorrow so I hope I can keep pace with you. I have fought against believing in any of the "truther" movements and very carefully try to limit myself to the platform of the architects and engineers. Occam's razor is not considered to provide scientific results and is often misused in science to shift the burden of proof.


Okay.



WTC 7.

Firstly, it was not designed as the towers were, with the idea of specifically withstanding and airliner impact, as was claimed for the towers.

Though for this discussion, that point is moot, since no plane crashed into it.

It DID as observed, fall at, or damn near free-fall when it fell, indicating that the primary support structure at base level had failed.

I have heard several explanation about how and why, but have never really studied that building.

Now seems like a good time to do that.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

Of all the buildings in america .....why not the Empire state building? That has always had me baffled. In my opinion that would have hit american minds the most. pentigon = military, WTC = finance, that's almost a western style of thought. But a building that is in the hearts of most americans? has history .....why not that one? It would have made so much more of an impact. It's almost like someone was careful not to go too far.

Even the time of day that all this was perpertrated? Dosn't make a lot of sense strategically if you really wanted to hurt americans.
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by AnneBoleyn »

fuzzywuzzy;1404912 wrote: Of all the buildings in america .....why not the Empire state building? That has always had me baffled. In my opinion that would have hit american minds the most. pentigon = military, WTC = finance, that's almost a western style of thought. But a building that is in the hearts of most americans? has history .....why not that one? It would have made so much more of an impact. It's almost like someone was careful not to go too far.

Even the time of day that all this was perpertrated? Dosn't make a lot of sense strategically if you really wanted to hurt americans.


No, fuzz, the twin towers became the symbol of New York, even more so than the Empire State Bldg. There were 2, not 1; they were so tall they stuck out in the landscape; but most of all, I think it was the tenants---the twin towers had as tenants more international and more monetary & financial types.

Also the terrain---it was easier to get clear hits. Two hits, not one. The Empire State Building also is in the wrong neighborhood---shopping, department stores. The area of the twin towers is Wall Street.

A personal aside--my dad had a fervent interest in the modernization of NYC. He watched the progress of it carefully, dragged me along, & he & I were among the first to enter the towers when they opened. On the top floors you could see & feel the buildings sway---I found it best not to think about that! :wah:
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12324
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

Yes, The Towers were the symbol that Bin Laden and his friends wanted to take down. Remember, they tried before.

It Empire State Building was fascinating in its day, but WTC and Wall Street are the symbols of The Great Satan, these days.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

Larsmac I think not taking into account the WTC 7 building is wrong when talking about the other two. . BBC reported the WTC 7, falling 7 minutes and 20 seconds before it actually fell down . An eye wittness who was interviewed in the street gave an eerily exceptional account of the twin towers coming down *and the reasons for it* ..........that days later matched exactly the official story of the government before even experts knew why they fell. Someone wanted to get the 'official so called facts' into your head whilst on an emotional high.

I think it was nomad who had brought this subject up awhile ago when I wasn't quite sure what to think ...I mentioned how there would have to be some kind of emergency demolition of buildings/sky scrapers if ever there was an event that threatened public safety. (such as in these circumstances) . I was shot down for it. I still believe that every major skyscaper around the world would have to have some kind of demolition source built into them for public safety after an event like this. Emergency servicemen and women (actual wittnesses ) talk about the explosions afterward. Other main wittnesses who said things that did not equal the official story are all dead . WHY? it's only been ten years . Now people who inhaled the debri are coming down with cancers and such things. I would like an explanation how dust gives you cancer. it poisons you sure ...but cancer? and now everyone is getting compensation payouts ...what gives? Other wittnesses have shut up completely siting severe stress. WHY? they were all guns when they were first interveiwed . Hasn't anyone noticed from the first eyewitness reports all the stories changed to the official story not long after ...some of them mid interview.
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

Anne and lars...do you realise you just gave exactly the same answer? The official answer. That is really interesting .

I have never heard of nor seen any footage of anyone in the middle eastern countries talk of or about how they hate your countrys' wealth. But over and over again I've heard your government tell everyone who cares to listen the reasons why you guys are hated so much and it is very much along the lines of jealousy over wealth and freedoms. That doesn't make any sense considering these countries that (supposedly) hate you so much are richer than you guys.

the only reasons I've ever heard of about why these people hate america is all about political and military interference. Nothing to do with freedoms or wealth . So the only building that makes sense in this whole debarcle is the pentagon.

You may think I'm going off topic here but I think it has a lot to do with how those towers came down ...find the real answer as to how these buildings were interferred with and you have your answer.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12324
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

I know that they had already determined that WTC 7 was going to collapse a few hours before it actually did.

NYFD recognized that there was nothing they could do to save it.

As for the BBC, unless I can get hard evidence, that is just another piece of hearsay.

So much hearsay around this thing, that is the problem, really - sorting out real info from gobbledegook.

Yes, all three must be considered together, but then each building has its own story that must be examined separately.

Hearing that some guy says he was in bldg 7 before the towers fell and experienced explosions? that is something to be dug into. There is some meat to chew on, because the NIST report says all the damage to it was caused by the North Tower debris.

Very interesting, is it not?

All that other stuff is just distractions until you nail down the details.

You have to take each piece and examine the hell out of it. That is the science.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12324
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

fuzzywuzzy;1404921 wrote: Anne and lars...do you realise you just gave exactly the same answer? The official answer. That is really interesting .

I have never heard of nor seen any footage of anyone in the middle eastern countries talk of or about how they hate your countrys' wealth. But over and over again I've heard your government tell everyone who cares to listen the reasons why you guys are hated so much and it is very much along the lines of jealousy over wealth and freedoms. That doesn't make any sense considering these countries that (supposedly) hate you so much are richer than you guys.

the only reasons I've ever heard of about why these people hate america is all about political and military interference. Nothing to do with freedoms or wealth . So the only building that makes sense in this whole debarcle is the pentagon.

You may think I'm going off topic here but I think it has a lot to do with how those towers came down ...find the real answer as to how these buildings were interferred with and you have your answer.


Official answer?



Have you ever heard Bin Ladin's story before the day of the towers? Do you know why he picked 9/11?

Do you know he and Ho Chi Minh have something in common?

Did you see the people dancing in the streets at the news of the towers' demise?

This is almost a whole thread in itself.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

that dust would have been filled with asbestos and blown up computer bits etc. Lots in there to give you cancer. Concrete dust alone is really terrible to breathe. I used to work with concrete and fibre siding and we had to wear full protective masks whenever the saws were running.
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

LarsMac;1404923 wrote: Official answer?



Have you ever heard Bin Ladin's story before the day of the towers? Do you know why he picked 9/11?

Do you know he and Ho Chi Minh have something in common?

Did you see the people dancing in the streets at the news of the towers' demise?

This is almost a whole thread in itself.


lars so what you're saying is ...you have more evidence than the FBI says they have ? Well I think they need your help. I know exactly what you saw on your TV, in respects to ...hhhhmmmm how many people were dancing in the streets again?. But it's just propaganda, and to make you guys feel better about invading Iraq. Do you honestly believe those who would think that America would retaliate were dancing in the street? I would suggest they would have been relatively sober, and as it turned out proven correct in their thinking.

it's very hard to say hearsay when you have live television and the time is showing on the screen. And the interviews during all that day ? And at the time of the collapses is hearsay?

How long afterward did the NYFD state the fact of the WTC 7 building? Because your own television recordings tell a very different story .

oh and don't worry I shal put up links and so forth but I just want to hear what you guys say first. I would have thought that ten years later that there would be some underlying doubts from you guys ....but it seems the opposite .
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

LarsMac;1404923 wrote: Official answer?



Have you ever heard Bin Ladin's story before the day of the towers? Do you know why he picked 9/11?

Do you know he and Ho Chi Minh have something in common?

Did you see the people dancing in the streets at the news of the towers' demise?

This is almost a whole thread in itself.
The "official" report only includes Bin Laden as part of a conspiracy theory. They were unable to give any evidence of his involvement when Afghanistan asked for it. The whole war in Afghanistan could have been avoided if the US gov't had given them an ounce of evidence. They repeatedly offered to produce Bin Laden given that one single request.

I'm sure Bin Laden was pleased. Whether or not he had anything to do with it is still just conspiracy theory.
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

koan;1404924 wrote: that dust would have been filled with asbestos and blown up computer bits etc. Lots in there to give you cancer. Concrete dust alone is really terrible to breathe. I used to work with concrete and fibre siding and we had to wear full protective masks whenever the saws were running.




Okay .But if that's the case, then why do the victims have to 'prove' that their cancers and so forth came from that day? Wouldn't you think that everyone that day would be coming down with the same thing? That dust was in the air for about a week. Why isn't everyone that was initially there sick?

I believe concrete gives you a specific kind of lung decease rather than cancer.but I'm not a gynocholigist lol lol

Dont get me wrong here, I'm not having a go or anything but we have everything before us now and so do all the engineers and experts in construction and all the other experts all around the world. And there is more eye raising and more questions than answers.

And I just want to say i spent six months (because I have no life) researching plane crashes. And there is not one ....not one crash of a plane leaving no identifiable debri.....ever. And yet at least two happened that day. Doesn't that make you think?
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

koan;1404926 wrote: The "official" report only includes Bin Laden as part of a conspiracy theory. They were unable to give any evidence of his involvement when Afghanistan asked for it. The whole war in Afghanistan could have been avoided if the US gov't had given them an ounce of evidence. They repeatedly offered to produce Bin Laden given that one single request.

I'm sure Bin Laden was pleased. Whether or not he had anything to do with it is still just conspiracy theory.


What concerns me most is the videos shown straight after the event (of bin laden ) were proved to be dubbed and some of them fake. What else was ? maybe the planes goign into the towers?
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

I haven't looked into how they've dealt with the consequences of the choice to tell folks the air was safe to breathe. I'm not surprised they are asking for proof because that's what governments do and this particular government is fully responsible for killing and maiming already shocked citizens so you can't put much expectation on them in the first place.
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

Also what makes a firemans boots decompose? what ever was breathed in that day wasn't computer parts . Granted if you're hit on the head by a modem falling from the 100th floory that could probably kill you .
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12324
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

Well y'all seem to have a lot of faith in that TV ruling my life and telling me what to think, and all, but I really don't watch much TV.

I am still reading a bunch of hearsay, and not seeing a whole lot of evidence.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

I'm just watching the Toronto Hearings now and they start with the general overview of reasons to question. I'd never looked into any of the hearsay stuff or generalizations before. My eyes roll back and I start getting a headache when I hear conspiracy talk. My starting point with this whole subject, aside from having seen Fahrenheit 9/11 a long time ago and admitted there was something "suspicious," is with the architects and engineers who are desperate to make sure they can guarantee the safety of their buildings.

For example: I just, for the first time, watched Lorie Van Auken's accounting of their fight against the government to get an independent investigation established and found out that Henry Kissinger was appointed by Bush to head the 9/11 Commission. My mind goes berserk because I have many opinions of Kissinger involving him being a war criminal. So I'm very carefully gauging my response to the testimonies of their struggles because my mind jumps to there being concealed crime involved. That's not what I want to do here. I want to focus on facts. What I think of Kissinger is irrelevant. I'm quite happy to start with what is fact and then slowly build from there.

Hearing the government spokesperson say they don't want an investigation of the terrorist attack to get in the way of their efforts to prevent another one... well that's just all around good fun, ain't it? (will try to find an isolated clip if you'd like)
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

I would like to know why there are no Arabic names on the military autopsy list for flight 77.

I would like to know why none of the families even ten years later want to speak to the press . We've heard from everyone who was at ground zero or who lost family members at Ground zero but oddly enough not from the reloes of those ont he flights?



and I would also like to know if anyone here has ever in their lives boarded a flight and weren't named on the passenger list?
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

LarsMac;1404933 wrote: Well y'all seem to have a lot of faith in that TV ruling my life and telling me what to think, and all, but I really don't watch much TV.

I am still reading a bunch of hearsay, and not seeing a whole lot of evidence.


what is hearsay to you Lars?
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

fuzzywuzzy;1404937 wrote: I would like to know why there are no Arabic names on the military autopsy list for flight 77.

I would like to know why none of the families even ten years later want to speak to the press . We've heard from everyone who was at ground zero or who lost family members at Ground zero but oddly enough not from the reloes of those ont he flights?



and I would also like to know if anyone here has ever in their lives boarded a flight and weren't named on the passenger list?


It's obvious. They used up all their flame retardant spray on their passports and their bodies were disintegrated by flame... leaving only their passports behind. lol
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

"Dr. Olmsted said about the AFIP autopsy:



"A list of names on a piece of paper is not evidence, but an autopsy by a pathologist, is. I undertook by FOIA request to get the autopsy list. Guess what? Still no Arabs on the list. It is my opinion that the monsters who planned this crime made a mistake by not including Arabic names on the original list to make the ruse seem more believable.



"When airline disasters occur, airlines will routinely provide a manifest list for anxious families. You may have noticed that even before Sep 11th, that airlines are pretty meticulous about getting an accurate headcount before takeoff. It seems very unlikely to me, that five Arabs sneaked onto a flight with weapons."



Dr. Olmsted then calls attention to the blatant discrepancy of the names on the airline passenger manifest and the names provided by the official Pentagon autopsy report, showing also that three names were on the autopsy that never even were listed as passengers on the airplane, an obvious indication of foul play never explained by the Pentagon.



Further Dr.Olmsted found through his FOIA request that although the medical examiners positively all of the passengers, they did not identify any of the Arab hijackers onboard, who were also not listed on the original flight manifest.



"The AFIP suggest these numbers; 189 killed, 125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were passengers on the plane. The AA list only had 56 and the list just obtained has 58. They did not explain how they were able to tell "victims" bodies from "hijacker" bodies," said Dr. Olmsted. "In fact, from the beginning no explanation has been given for the extra five suggested in news reports except that the FBI showed us the pictures to make up the difference, and that makes it so.



"No Arabs wound up on the morgue slab; however, three additional people not listed by American Airline sneaked in. I have seen no explanation for these extras (on the autopsy list but not listed as passengers.) I did give American the opportunity to "revise" their original list, but they have not responded. The new names are: Robert Ploger, Zandra Ploger, and Sandra Teague.



"The AFIP claims that the only "passenger" body that they were not able to identify is the toddler, Dana Falkenberg, whose parents and young sister are on the list of those identified. The satanic masterminds behind this caper may be feeling pretty smug about the perfect crime, but they have left a raft of clues tying these unfortunates together."



Editor's Note: Of course, not all family members of the airline victims have been contacted. If there exists anyone who disagrees with the official 9/11story or wants to comment about this article, the Arctic Beacon requests you contact our office so that your story and opinions can be heard.



Greg Szymanski is an independent investigative journalist.


hhhmmmmmm.......
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

The first eyewittness testemonies of fire officers, police officers, office workers and people ont he street.

Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12324
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

koan;1404926 wrote: The "official" report only includes Bin Laden as part of a conspiracy theory. They were unable to give any evidence of his involvement when Afghanistan asked for it. The whole war in Afghanistan could have been avoided if the US gov't had given them an ounce of evidence. They repeatedly offered to produce Bin Laden given that one single request.

I'm sure Bin Laden was pleased. Whether or not he had anything to do with it is still just conspiracy theory.


Bin Laden and his friends took credit for it, if you remember.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12324
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

fuzzywuzzy;1404938 wrote: what is hearsay to you Lars?



[QUOTE=fuzzywuzzy;1404940]"

Dr. Olmsted said about the AFIP autopsy:

"A list of names on a piece of paper is not evidence, but an autopsy by a pathologist, is. I undertook by FOIA request to get the autopsy list. Guess what? Still no Arabs on the list. It is my opinion that the monsters who planned this crime made a mistake by not including Arabic names on the original list to make the ruse seem more believable.

"When airline disasters occur, airlines will routinely provide a manifest list for anxious families. You may have noticed that even before Sep 11th, that airlines are pretty meticulous about getting an accurate headcount before takeoff. It seems very unlikely to me, that five Arabs sneaked onto a flight with weapons."

Dr. Olmsted then calls attention to the blatant discrepancy of the names on the airline passenger manifest and the names provided by the official Pentagon autopsy report, showing also that three names were on the autopsy that never even were listed as passengers on the airplane, an obvious indication of foul play never explained by the Pentagon.

Further Dr.Olmsted found through his FOIA request that although the medical examiners positively all of the passengers, they did not identify any of the Arab hijackers onboard, who were also not listed on the original flight manifest.

"The AFIP suggest these numbers; 189 killed, 125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were passengers on the plane. The AA list only had 56 and the list just obtained has 58. They did not explain how they were able to tell "victims" bodies from "hijacker" bodies," said Dr. Olmsted. "In fact, from the beginning no explanation has been given for the extra five suggested in news reports except that the FBI showed us the pictures to make up the difference, and that makes it so.

"No Arabs wound up on the morgue slab; however, three additional people not listed by American Airline sneaked in. I have seen no explanation for these extras (on the autopsy list but not listed as passengers.) I did give American the opportunity to "revise" their original list, but they have not responded. The new names are: Robert Ploger, Zandra Ploger, and Sandra Teague.

"The AFIP claims that the only "passenger" body that they were not able to identify is the toddler, Dana Falkenberg, whose parents and young sister are on the list of those identified. The satanic masterminds behind this caper may be feeling pretty smug about the perfect crime, but they have left a raft of clues tying these unfortunates together."

Editor's Note: Of course, not all family members of the airline victims have been contacted. If there exists anyone who disagrees with the official 9/11story or wants to comment about this article, the Arctic Beacon requests you contact our office so that your story and opinions can be heard.

Greg Szymanski is an independent investigative journalist.


hhhmmmmmm.......



Umm, That is a fine example.

fuzzywuzzy;1404937 wrote: I would like to know why there are no Arabic names on the military autopsy list for flight 77.

I would like to know why none of the families even ten years later want to speak to the press . We've heard from everyone who was at ground zero or who lost family members at Ground zero but oddly enough not from the reloes of those ont he flights?



and I would also like to know if anyone here has ever in their lives boarded a flight and weren't named on the passenger list?


So is that.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

LarsMac;1404962 wrote: Bin Laden and his friends took credit for it, if you remember.


No, it was proven by a video and audio expert in the UK to be cut and paste and doctored. That video was from his wedding . That's old news .

So coroners lists are hearsay ?...

Okay larsmac it's obvious you only think evidence is what comes to you by your own government.

There are two types of what you obviously understand of hearsay. Those in a court of law and those investigaters use to acquire evdence.

Okay why did people (new york times and victims families) have to sue the government for the release of the audio and video of that day . And why wasn't it presented at the commission ?
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12324
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

Bin Laden and his friends took credit for it, if you remember.


fuzzywuzzy;1405008 wrote: No, it was proven by a video and audio expert in the UK to be cut and paste and doctored. That video was from his wedding . That's old news .

I have no idea what you're talking about. You offer more hearsay. Edit: If you refer to the so-called confession tape that is claimed to be a fake, eh, I have no opinion about that, but He did take credit for the attack, not confess to it.

fuzzywuzzy;1405008 wrote:

So coroners lists are hearsay ?...

That little write-up is not a coronor's list. It is what somebody is supposed to have said about a Coronor's list. Hearsay

fuzzywuzzy;1405008 wrote:

Okay larsmac it's obvious you only think evidence is what comes to you by your own government.


And which government would that be? My City government? my county government? My,... well, you get the idea. I have, until this last week never actually read any of the "official reports from my government" about all this. You presume too much.

fuzzywuzzy;1405008 wrote:

There are two types of what you obviously understand of hearsay. Those in a court of law and those investigaters use to acquire evidence.


What I understand as hearsay is when someone tells me what they heard from someone else, or offers me what someone else wrote about what someone said. Sorry, you telling me what you read about what someone else says he heard someone else say? Hearsay.

fuzzywuzzy;1405008 wrote:

Okay why did people (new york times and victims families) have to sue the government for the release of the audio and video of that day . And why wasn't it presented at the commission ?


You only give me hearsay, not evidence.

Why do you think I have made up my mind about anything?

I am still looking for answers.

You only have questions.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

Bin Laden actually denied responsibility for the attacks the first time anything was credited to him as any type of admission of guilt (for the WTC) was in a tape widely criticized as being of questionable authenticity.

Responsibility for the September 11 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kind of like it's questionable that Atta's luggage, which accidentally didn't make it on the plane, and which linked Al Qaeda to the attacks had his will inside of it. Generally people about to blow up an airplane that they are hijacking won't take their will on board with them. They leave it somewhere that won't be blown up. Somewhere, in general, where friends can find and execute the contents of the will.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12324
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

Bin Laden was the moneybags for much of the groups activities.

Yes he denied it shortly after it happened, and since he was not actually one of the operatives, he very well was telling the truth that he did not do the deed, but there are numerous recordings and quotes where he took credit for the operation, as well.

IF you want to stick to the "Faked Tape", fine, it was fake. There are several which are not fake.

Don't really know what Atta's will has to do with anything.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

His will is important because planting evidence is a crime.

I haven't researched any of the accused hijackers so I don't know what is fact or fiction about them yet. I understand that more than one of them is still alive and yet their names are still being slandered, but that was from bits in one of the documentaries I've watched lately and, like I said, I haven't researched it yet. There is a wonderful timeline project that gathered every report, public news and government sourced, and placed them in historical sequence.

Complete 911 Timeline

The guy who started this project said that he started to suspect that Pakistan's ISI was involved. He seemed to have good reason but I'll have to gather the info before I can say if I believe the same thing.

Return to “Conspiracy Theories”