New 911 photos

[Chris Fleming]

"It showed how the 911 truthers are psychologically unable..."

Interesting. Were there psychologists giving out this mass diagnosis in the program too?

[Bill]

Chris
If you're interested I'm sure the show will be repeated so you can watch for yourself.
It was fascinating the way the truthers were unable to acccept any of the evidence. They would always find what they thought was a flaw and then disregard the results and conclusions. In my view the 'flaws' were not flaws at all. They just had a need to find any little thing with which they could grasp onto in order to support their own flawed theories.

[Steve James]

Well, here we go again. Non-experts who weren't there or even near (and I'm talking about the 'truthers' here, specifically, on RSF) the Towers, or worked on steel, or studied engineering who are calling something nonsense. As to how much damage bldg #7 suffered... you weren't there. Even from the pictures, it should be clear that it must have sustained 'some' damage. As to which plane brought it down, why ask if it isn't believed that planes brought down T1 and T2? I mean, why go through the hassle? Besides, there's nothing or no one who could convince you any differently --and that's what's called being "open minded" and not "sheeple." But, fwiw, again, I worked in construction while the Towers were being built. They weren't built like any other Towers before. No one, absolutely no one, had demolished anything like them before or knew what would demolish them. Steel doesn't have to melt to fail; if you've cut steel, you'll know. I.e., I can heat a rebar to bend at half the temp that it'd take to melt. Add tremendous pressure and failure comes even more rapidly. i don't buy any of the "impossible" ... "nonsense" stuff. I was a "burner." Incidentally, I also believe that the gov't is capable of doing all the things that the truthers claims. I can point to loads of gov't atrocities committed against the people. I don't believe 9/11 was one of them, and most of all that's because of the alleged 'evidence' presented. I'd actually change my mind, if I hadn't seen Loose Change. Like when they point to the melting point of steel versus the burning temperature of jet fuel. Geesh, it's almost as silly as Beck and what's his face pointing to the blizzard and saying that it disproves climate change (or, better, "global warming").

[Michael]

How is it relevant whether or not I was physically present when I'm referencing people who were there at the time. The best information on the theories of how the buildings couldn't have fallen comes from architects and engineers for 9/11 truth, a group of architects and engineers who have studied the various 9/11 Commission, FEMA, and NIST claims about how the buildings fell. They were linked earlier in the thread. None of them were present, which is also true for all the people in the 9/11 Commission, FEMA, and NIST, so what's your point?

You talk about evidence, but 9/11 truth is primarily a response to the official story from the US govt. What evidence do they have? As much evidence as possible was destroyed as quickly as possible. The Underwriters Laboratories essentially proved in their own testing the buildings coudln't come down from plane strikes or fire, and when one of their engineers, Kevin Ryan, published this information, he was fired.

Instead of taking potshots at straw men, try and hold up any single, substantial part of the 9/11 Commission Report. Not a bit of it can withstand scrutiny or analysis.

Why do you dismiss Larry Silverstein plainly stating the building was brought down by controlled demolition? How long does it take to wire such a large, 47 story building? Weeks. So how did they know weeks in advance that the planes would hit WTC 1 & 2, and when they fell there would be so much damage that WTC 7 would need to be demolished? Larry Silverstein, Reuters, BBC, and CNN all knew in advance. How?

[Chris Fleming]

"If you're interested I'm sure the show will be repeated so you can watch for yourself."

Great. What was it called again? And in the mean time, did they cover why NORAD stood down while 4 planes were hijacked?

BTW, is there a certain point you are trying to make with the posting of these new pictures? Don't see anything really different.

"They just had a need to find any little thing"

Yes, those pesky little things like NORAD standing down and running mock drills on the day of the bombing, the hijackers being issued visas when they were known to have terrorist ties, Cheney calling for a "cataclysmic event" well before 9/11 which would bring about the changes his administration wanted to bring about (i.e., the Patriot Act), the government wanting an excuse to invade Iraq AND planning it BEFORE 9/11, the Pentagon making up simulations regarding it being hit by a plane BEFORE 9/11 happened, the government immediately removing any and all evidence of all of the wreckage, the planes being utterly obliterated yet one of the terrorists identification miraculously surviving all that and being found by the authorities, and so on. Pesky little things, all that.

[Steve James]

so what's your point?

That you are so sure of things that you claim others spout nonsense.

but 9/11 truth is primarily a response to the official story from the US govt. What evidence do they have? As much evidence as possible was destroyed as quickly as possible.

Right ... assume that's true, it doesn't strengthen any argument at all about the event.

The Underwriters Laboratories essentially proved in their own testing the buildings coudln't come down from plane strikes or fire, and when one of their engineers, Kevin Ryan, published this information, he was fired.

Er, i.e., someone at UL published a report that went counter to what the UL wanted published. That is not evidence that what the UL wanted to publish was false. Only an engineer would be able to say. But, a bigger problem is that there's no way 'truthers' would accept the UL anyway. That's not an accusation; they openly admit it. Their position is infallible; any and all evidence to the contrary is nonsense.

It's true that you can ask me all sorts of "how come" questions that I can't answer. Like I said, I worked in construction (on foundations, superstructures and demolition). I saw the planes hit, watched the towers fall, and went by the site later that day. I never saw anything like it. I can tell you that I don't know if a plane or fire could do what happened. But, truthers know for sure. Yet, clearly, they accept the science or view of whoever agrees with them; and they ridicule and laugh at those who disagree.

Instead of that, how about getting some government official or soldier to admit to participating. It is certainly possible. Well, unless they've all been assassinated. That'd be acceptable "proof" for me.

[Michael]

I hear what you're saying Steve, but it sounds like you are just stating a position that has little to do with the specifics of this thread. I can't give you an admission from a participant, but you can watch the 9/11 Commission testimony of Transportation Sec. Minetta, who describes Dick Cheney giving orders to the Pentagon that are obviously telling it to allow the Pentagon to be attacked.

In order to understand what was going on, it is necessary to know that from NORAD's inception in 1949 until the summer of 2001, military commanders had the authority to order the destruction of any aircraft in US & Canadian air space without authorization from the President or anyone in the political structure. In the summer of 2001, V.P. Dick Cheney changed the NORAD protocols and made himself the only person in the US govt who could give such orders, and then it was put back to normal a month or two after the attacks. Therefore, on Sept. 11, 2001, V.P. Dick Cheney was the only person who could order the attack of a civilian aircraft, such as the four alleged passenger jets that crashed on 9-11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO-9LQDFE2Y

[Steve James]

Mike, the specifics of the thread are the newly released photos. They don't provide or illustrate anything to justify any pov except that debris hit T7. But, my main point was/is that I can define what I mean by proof. A controlled demolition of whatever kind involves a signal and a signal sender, lots of wires or lots of independent explosions set by lots of people. So, there's obviously someone who was there, who knows, and who can prove it. It's not like producing an alien.

Otoh, as I said, in general, those who believe the gov't was responsible offer no alternative. So, no matter how many architects, engineers or scientists say it was possible, they'll believe the ones who say it wasn't. If the majority of those professions agree with the gov't view, the 'truthers' will say that they're under gov't control. Well, when the majority of those professions agree with the truthers, we will surely know. Until then, the only evidence that will be acceptable to the truthers will be that which supports their foregone. Ok, that's not so bad. My point was that they'll ridicule those who don't agree --as if they're qualified to ridicule any scientist. Get over it; it's only the internet.

Yes, btw, I did read that T7 was a controlled demolition. T7 was not built anything like T1 or T2. And, we're waiting for an admission that those two were controlled. I ain't saying that it's impossible, either. I'm saying believing it didn't happen that way is not ridiculous.

[zenshiite]

I'm open to either the official story being true, I trend towards that these days, or the 'truther' position.

The major problem I have with the truther position, however, is that it essentially takes for granted that the US government(or some cabal of persons behind and controlling it secretly) is essentially infallible. IE, no one could have conceivably successfully attacked the United States in this way without the participation of the United States government or at least the conspicuous ambivalence of the security apparatus. That bothers me, bothers me a great deal. That point of view, in fact, makes the "truther" movement totally pointless as the government is therefore so infallible that this "truth" can never get out or even be perceived as actual truth on any large scale so as to force some kind of change upon the government. Let alone any other kind of change, electoral or even revolutionary. Because the government(or the shadow government behind it) is ubiquitous.

[bustr]

Most of the theories can be debunked. That's why they have been disseminated among skeptics. There are a few anomalies though. Building 7 was obviously a controlled demolition; However this doesn't offer proof of anything other than a cover-up around WTC 7.

5:20 PM: Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapses. [CNN, 9/12/01] Though the media claims fires brought the building down, the building's owner Larry Silverstein later recounts the story of the collapse of this 47-story skyscraper in a PBS documentary America Rebuilds, "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander. ... I said ... maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it. And they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse." [PBS Documentary]

I also found Theodore Olsen's reaction to his wife's death kind of suspicious. Though it would make perfect sense if she was actually still alive. Flight 77 did disappear from the radar screen for a while between 9:32 am and 9:37 am when it (or it's replacement) crashed. He has also been caught lying about his alleged conversation with her.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=8514

Some info on 77

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2007/08 ... r-856.html

Timelines

http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Ameri ... 7_Timeline

[Chris Fleming]

I'm open to either the official story being true, I trend towards that these days, or the 'truther' position.

The major problem I have with the truther position, however, is that it essentially takes for granted that the US government(or some cabal of persons behind and controlling it secretly) is essentially infallible. IE, no one could have conceivably successfully attacked the United States in this way without the participation of the United States government or at least the conspicuous ambivalence of the security apparatus. That bothers me, bothers me a great deal. That point of view, in fact, makes the "truther" movement totally pointless as the government is therefore so infallible that this "truth" can never get out or even be perceived as actual truth on any large scale so as to force some kind of change upon the government. Let alone any other kind of change, electoral or even revolutionary. Because the government(or the shadow government behind it) is ubiquitous.

Why is it so hard to believe that THIS attack couldn't have been done except by design? Do we really believe that some guy with a long beard in a cave in Afghanistan made NORAD stand down? I sure don't. After the bombing Bush and Rice went on and on saying that they had no idea such a thing could happen and no one ever would have thought that planes could have been used. And that, is a total lie. This isn't some Bruce Willis move. You can't just hijack a plane like summertime blockbusters. This sort of thing was well covered by NORAD. But surprisingly, this line of defense was gone.

Interestingly, in the 7/7 bombing of London, their emergency agencies were also running drills on the day of an actual "terrorist" attack. Coincidence? Sure. If you have a super computer feel free to calculate those odds.

[Michael]

I'm open to either the official story being true, I trend towards that these days, or the 'truther' position.

The major problem I have with the truther position, however, is that it essentially takes for granted that the US government(or some cabal of persons behind and controlling it secretly) is essentially infallible. IE, no one could have conceivably successfully attacked the United States in this way without the participation of the United States government or at least the conspicuous ambivalence of the security apparatus. That bothers me, bothers me a great deal. That point of view, in fact, makes the "truther" movement totally pointless as the government is therefore so infallible that this "truth" can never get out or even be perceived as actual truth on any large scale so as to force some kind of change upon the government. Let alone any other kind of change, electoral or even revolutionary. Because the government(or the shadow government behind it) is ubiquitous.

I don't know how you jump from A to B to Z like that. Obviously someone planned the attacks, and based on your logic whoever they are are infallible, whether the government or the 19 alleged hijackers, five of whom are alive, and Bin Laden was never charged or indicted, so not him. In either case, you're saying that because the attacks were successful, whoever carried them out is invincible. Do you see the problem here? Kind of a defeatist policy. Anyway, which specific part of the 9/11 Commission report do you believe is true?

Steve, you failed to respond to any of the specifics of what I wrote, and that's fine. I know how you feel about 9-11. I didn't even want to think about it once I'd gotten over the initial shock, which took a few weeks.

[cerebus]

I'mma leave this discussion alone like religion...

[Doc Stier]

The major problem I have with the truther position, however, is that it essentially takes for granted that the US government (or some cabal of persons behind and controlling it secretly) is essentially infallible. IE, no one could have conceivably successfully attacked the United States in this way without the participation of the United States government or at least the conspicuous ambivalence of the security apparatus. That bothers me, bothers me a great deal.

I don't know how you jump from A to B to Z like that. Obviously someone planned the attacks, and based on your logic whoever they are (is) infallible... In either case, you're saying that because the attacks were successful, whoever carried them out is invincible.

I agree that "someone planned the attacks", and based upon previous experience with explosive ordinance, I believe that the WTC buildings were brought down by a well planned and well executed demolition, not by fires or airplane crashes. However, the more difficult determination of who planned and executed their demolition remains open to question and further investigation, IMO.

Hostile foreign insurgents bombed the WTC previously, and vowed to attempt a more successful attack again thereafter. Judging from the dismal level of security at airports, government buildings, and elsewhere in the USA, and the ease with which terrorist perpetrators have breached this so-called security, attackers clearly don't need any inside help to implement their plans, much less Government cooperation to do so. The USA is far more vulnerable to such attacks, and much less capable of preventing such attacks, than the Government apparently believes it is, or than most Americans will likely ever realize it is.

As a result, it seems quite possible, if not also quite probable, that enemy terrorists could breach building security to plant demolition explosives, and simply employ the plane crashes as a deceptive diversion to cover their tracks by confusing the perception of what actually did occur.

Sun Tzu essentially stated in The Art of War that all success and victory in warfare is ultimately the result of well planned deceptions and well executed illusions.

[Michael]

Hostile foreign insurgents bombed the WTC previously, and vowed to attempt a more successful attack again thereafter.

What's interesting is that it was actually the FBI who bombed the WTC by proxy. They hired an Egyptian intelligence agent named Emad Salem, who was tasked with recruiting the "terrorists" and then providing them with a plan and a bomb. When Salem realized the FBI wanted to give the "terrorists" a real bomb, he began secretly recording his meetings with FBI officials.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtcbomb.html
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1kqyb ... nowle_news