The Official Video: ReThink911 September 2013

[damnedifIknow]

[wildbilln864]

1. thanks and k & r! eom

[truebrit71]

2. Interesting..

[Logical]

3. LOL, only 30% of people still have questions about 9/11? Big deal. 30% of Americans....

believe in UFOs, PSI, ESP, Dowsing, etc.

That means 70% of Americans think it is full of crap.

[ConcernedCanuk]

7. "That means 70% of Americans think it is full of crap" - no it doesn't

.
.
.

on average, only around 50% of those eligible even vote.

and regarding 911 - 30% is A LOT!

many are too tired or too lazy to venture an opinion,

or discouraged they cannot make a difference.

And where did you get the info regarding the 30% (interesting, same percentage!) that believe in UFOs, PSI, ESP, Dowsing, etc??

The curious would like to know.

CC

[Logical]

8. LOL, ok, 30% is a lot. n-t

[ocpagu]

17. Yep. It is a lot. Practically 1 in each 3 individuals. n/t

[Logical]

19. LOL, 30% of people believe Cloud Computing involves actual Clouds.....

Same group I imagine.

Here is more information for you:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-morford/37-percent-of-people-comp_b_2864142.html

[Ace Acme]

53. Only 1% of Americans have PhDs

So now I know that they're marginal and I shouldn't listen to anything they say

[Berlum]

4. the k

and the r..
This should be welcomed in GD. Sigh.

[cpwm17]

5. According to the engineers that studied WTC 7

why did it collapse?

What problems do you have with their conclusions?

What qualifications do you have to doubt the conclusions of the engineering and scientific community?

[ocpagu]

18. What is the "engineering and scientific community"?

A couple of engineers close to the government does not equal "the engineering and scientific community".

[cpwm17]

47. A couple – not even close

Here's the Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7: http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

Are the numerous contributers to this report in on your conspiracy theory?

As I asked above:

why did it collapse?

What problems do you have with their conclusions?

What qualifications do you have to doubt the conclusions of the engineering and scientific community, as represented in this report?

[ocpagu]

48. Right.

NIST.gov...

[cpwm17]

49. Not everyone who does any work for the US Government is in on some big conspiracy

They are a diverse group, and many have no love for whomever may be in the White House at any given moment.

What problems do you have with the scientific conclusions in the NIST report, what are your qualifications, and how did you reach your conclusions?

[Ace Acme]

54. One problem is that the computer models show the building folding up like a wet paper bag

while the building itself displays no such behavior, suggesting that contrary to NIST's theory, the floors were still mostly intact.

Another problem is that NIST refuses to release the calculations they used to estimate the thermal expansion that allegedly pushed the girder off its seat.

Another is that they omitted the shear studs from the girder, because shear studs would have kept it on its seat.

Another is that in their models they considered a connection that had 3 of its 4 elements broken to be completely broken.

Yet another is that they removed from their final report every instance in the draft report when they claimed that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles".

Another is that they do not provide the detail justifying their claim that there was a period of invisible buckling of the exterior columns reflected in a change in color of one pixel along the roofline.

Another is that their models of the progress of the fires are not consistent with the photographic evidence of the fires.

Another is that they made the girder seat too small in their calculations, and omitted stiffener plates at the end of the girder.

They seem to have put their thumbs on the scale many times in order to generate the desired results.

[William Seger]

6. "Rethink" Richard Gage's version of 9/11? Why?

Richard Gage's "unanswered questions" have been answered over and over and over, but apparently the only "rethink 9/11" that he's been doing is how to avoid going back to working at a real job.

[damnedifIknow]

9. Not only the event of 9/11

Last edited Mon Jul 22, 2013, 11:30 PM - Edit history (1)

but look what has happened since.

[William Seger]

10. All the more reason...

... to not waste time and energy on controlled demolition nonsense.

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

11. We've never......

.....witnessed the total progressive collapse of a steel-framed building due to fire before. So why should we believe it now?

Why should fire in a steel-framed building now suddenly produce a new result that has never before been observed?

Your contention is as valuable as saying it was done by Martians.

[William Seger]

12. Because we've never...

... witnessed a 7-hour unfought fire in a building constructed like WTC7. If you don't understand why that matters, then you don't understand the NIST hypothesis.

> Your contention is as valuable as saying it was done by Martians.

The NIST hypothesis for the collapse of WTC7 is perfectly consistent with science, logic, and the known facts. The controlled demolition hypothesis, on the other hand, is easily refuted by all three, which makes that hypothesis much less plausible than saying it was done by Martians.

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

13. Actually.....

....I was thinking of the towers, not WTC 7. But it doesn't matter. Fire has never caused a total progressive collapse of a steel-framed building, neither before 9/11 nor afterwards.

So a NIST investigation, that makes the beginning assumption that only fire was available to bring down WTC 7, ("Here, lemme see, if I raise the temperature figures by 15% in my mathematical model then......&quot , resulting in a total progressive collapse no one has ever witnessed before or since.....it must be Martians!

[William Seger]

14. We've never had 767s flying at 500+ mph...

... rip into buildings constructed like the towers, either, so that's an even sillier use of the "never happened before" fallacy.

It would appear that for both the towers and WTC7, there are gaps in your knowledge and understanding of the hypotheses you're arguing against. If you read the WTC7 report, you will see why explosives were considered but dismissed: There was nothing resembling the concussive damage to surrounding buildings that explosives would have caused. If explosives had been used to bring down either the towers or 7, there would have been a very distinctive sound that could have easily been heard in New Jersey (not to mention every camera in Manhattan), and there would have been easily identifiable seismic waves. There is simply not a shred of evidence to support the explosives hypothesis. As I said, we can disprove explosives, but we can't disprove Martians, so you are the one stuck with a ridiculously implausible theory.

When Richard Gage wants to explain the "simultaneous" column failures that led to the collapse of WTC7, he claims explosives. When he wants to explain the lack of explosive sounds and concussive damage, he claims thermite, which of course couldn't be coordinated to cause "simultaneous" column failures. It's hard to believe the he is too stupid to realize he's contradicting himself. It's easier to believe he thinks his target audience is pretty stupid.

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

20. You're right!

What looked like controlled demolitions didn't sound like controlled demolitions, did they?

But your fires and Jones' thermite do not explain the intense, enduring heat.


The intense heat that was required to bend box beams without stress fractures:



The intense heat needed to sinter cement around guns, then cool, then later melt the guns away:



The intense heat needed to sinter cement around rebar and steel plates:



The >1,400 degree fahrenheit temperatures on top of the rubble pile five days later:



This heat cannot be from a few minutes of jet kerosene, an hour wood/plastic fuels or a few seconds of explosives.

Where did it come from?

[AtheistCrusader]

23. Friction.

Every ounce of energy used to hoist the building materials into the air, is released upon collapse in the form of kinetic energy. About 30% of that energy was expended breaking the building apart. The rest goes into friction, meaning, heat. (Rough calc, approximately 1% of a bomb similar to that dropped on Hiroshima)

Once you take that heat into account, suddenly there isn't a lot of room left over for the introduction of tens of thousands of tons of thermite that one would need to cut hundreds of support columns across hundreds of floors.

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

36. Undoubtedly there is....

.....heat released due to friction. But it would largely dissipate into the surrounding air (as many witnesses described) and not smolder at temperatures of at least 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit at the top of a rubble pile five days later.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Where else COULD it smoulder?

You know how they cook pigs in Hawaii right? Big pit, coals at the bottom, wrap a pig in leaves and then bury it on top of the coals. Cooks all day. The rubble pile resembles that scenario. The concrete rubble is pretty resistant to, and insulates in heat.

Atmosphere is a shitty conductor of heat. That's why you can walk barefoot across the same kind of coals in the pig roasting scenario. The coals won't transfer enough heat to you, fast enough to cook your feet. There were certainly some scorched cars at ground zero, a whole street full of them. But that doesn't account for all the hot, burning rubble. Only about 5 floors burned in the collapse, at the initiation. So you have about 95 ACRES worth of books, desks, papers, carpet, paint, tiles, yadda yadda, easily ignited in that collapse, ready to bake and burn in the rubble pile, and all that insulating concrete to hold it in.

There were also things in the rubble that burn better when water is put on them. Some metals burn under certain circumstances too, even iron. But what else could they do? How do you get in there to spray sodium chloride on metal fires? Or copper? All you have is water. So they used water. Break the fire pyramid by quenching it at close range, removing heat. It isn't the best, but it works. That has consequences too. And it only works as you peel back the rubble layer by layer, meanwhile the fire rages on below.

Fire will burn quite happily, slowly, in an environment like that. The Centralia Pennsylvania coal fire started in 1962. 51 years later, it's still an on-going fire, on-going ecological disaster.

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

41. Damn, my scoutmaster lied to me....

....when he told me to cover the fire with dirt. Little did I know I was only insulating it!

By your roast Hawaiian pig logic, the greater than 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit (unfortunately the USGS photos can't tell us how much hotter) measured by the USGS is the cold outside layer of some unimaginably hot inferno.

Which is what I'm saying.

And that heat cannot be accounted for by some short-term, low-temp office fires that didn't even burst windows that were then buried under tons of steel and pulverized concrete and gypsum.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. Your scoutmaster is the reason people will run over a pit full of hot coals with their car

on the beach, not knowing it was there until it's too late. Putting dirt over it might seal in sparks, but it doesn't put the fire out right away. Thank you for that example.

Anyway, not surprising for high temps at the surface of the pile, as they were peeling it back bit by bit, and there is SOME air flow in the rubble, not a lot but enough for some chimney effect.

You're simply wrong about the fires. Sorry. Tons of fuel. Adequate oxidizer. Massive ignition source, from the impact/fuel fires, to the heat of the collapse. TONS of heat to start things burning.

There is no room for leftover tens of thousands of tons of thermite. None. All the heat you might expect in that event is accounted for.

[William Seger]

26. Fire is hot, water is wet, and other revelations

> The intense heat that was required to bend box beams without stress fractures:

One plate of the beam is bent -- the other three are fractured -- and apparently you are unaware that temperatures within the range of office fires weaken steel, even if they are well short of the melting point. At 600 degrees C, structural steel has already lost half its strength. Here's what can happen to steel beams in a fire, even though the wooden beam wasn't destroyed:



> The intense heat needed to sinter cement around guns, then cool, then later melt the guns away:

No "intense heat" is required to explain what the photo actually shows. Sintering happens at all temperatures -- it just happens faster at higher temperatures -- and when you claim that it "later melt(ed) the guns away," you are trying to pass off your over-active imagination as evidence. There's no need to explain things that didn't happen.

> The intense heat needed to sinter cement around rebar and steel plates:

And yet the "intense heat" didn't burn scrapes of paper which can still be read?



> The >1,400 degree fahrenheit temperatures on top of the rubble pile five days later:

1400 degress F is well within the range that should be expected as the material in the office building continued to burn.

Fail.

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

35. As I have sworn....

.....to remedy the disparity noted recently in a study between the hostility of conventionalists vs. non-conventionalists, let me begin by saying, "Sophistry, thy name is William Seger."

Without any further ado, let's proceed to the woodshed.

You photo of dangling steel beams shows not the results of fire insomuch as it shows the results of heat. But maybe you haven't learned the difference. Fire would have consumed the wooden beam. What you show is a piece of charcoal which is a result of anaerobic heat. Which is the same result in the second photo. You're not looking at burnt paper but carbon ash. Everything we know as paper (cellulose) is gone. Again, the result of heat and not fire. And, if you think you can sinter silica (the main constituent of sand) the main constituent of concrete or if you can think that one can sinter calcium (the main constituent in gypsum board) at low temperatures then you're missing out on the big money. A half dozen patents of the last 10 years have been filed that outline new, controlled processes that allow the sintering of the materials at only 700 celsius! Guess all those people were wasting their time. They should have just given you a call.

And, if you think that 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit is to be expected from the smoldering rubble of an office fire, well this is the beginning temperature of a blast furnace - a controlled process. That's simply a laughable notion.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. He clearly made a mistake about that paper, but

(as I have seen that happen plenty as I burn my own bank records after 7 years, etc)

However, everything else was correct. A simple office fire CAN reach temps in excess of 1400f. You can see it quite plainly in the Madrid Tower fire. All the steel above the 2nd technical floor, laying in the street, 3 hours into a fire that grew from a single ignition point. No plane. No kerosene fuel. Just office crap.

All you have to do is get that ATSM steel to its self tempering temperature, or close to it. It rapidly loses strength as you do. Deduct load capacity from the missing beams, weaken the rest with heat...

The outcome is inevitable.

The hot rubble pile is inevitable.

All of this is normal. There is nothing strange about the rubble being hot. There is nothing strange about the collapse. There is no extra energy to account for.

[William Seger]

39. WTF?

> You photo of dangling steel beams shows not the results of fire insomuch as it shows the results of heat. But maybe you haven't learned the difference. Fire would have consumed the wooden beam. What you show is a piece of charcoal which is a result of anaerobic heat.

The point I actually made was that steel loses considerable strength at temperatures well below its melting point, as the photo demonstrates. It was a response to your claim that a bent column plate must have been the result of temperatures too high to be explained by an ordinary office fire. Your response here is too irrelevant to the issue to even criticize, but I guess you felt you had to say something and irrelevant smoke-blowing was the best you could do.

> You're not looking at burnt paper but carbon ash. Everything we know as paper (cellulose) is gone.

Maybe some arrows will help you locate it:



Or if you think the photo isn't clear enough, perhaps these frames from a BBC video about the "meteorite" will help:



> And, if you think you can sinter silica (the main constituent of sand) the main constituent of concrete or if you can think that one can sinter calcium (the main constituent in gypsum board) at low temperatures then you're missing out on the big money.

Yes, I think I think I can sinter silica and calcium and anything else at low temperatures, because:

Sintering is a method used to create objects from powders. It is based on atomic diffusion. Diffusion occurs in any material above absolute zero, but it occurs much faster at higher temperatures. (Emphasis added.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sintering

The sintering seen in that photo did not need to happen fast enough, or produce a solid strong enough, to have any commercial value. And I see you don't have any defense of your claim that the gun parts melted.

> And, if you think that 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit is to be expected from the smoldering rubble of an office fire, well this is the beginning temperature of a blast furnace - a controlled process. That's simply a laughable notion.

Office fires can reach a temperature of over 1,800 degrees F. Oxygen-starved underground coal fires have been measured at temperatures over 1,900 degrees F. The only people who seem to be amazed at the hot-spot temperatures are "truthers" who desperately search for "anomalies" but the only reason they can offer is hand-waving assertions.

> "Sophistry, thy name is William Seger."

Hypocrisy, thy name is "truth movement." Seems to me there's a simple reason why none of your claims stand up to scrutiny: They are sophistic attempts to rationalize beliefs that are not actually the result of evidence-based reasoning.

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

40. Here's evidence-based...

.....reasoning. Where's the evidence for temperatures above 600-700 celsius? At that temperature glass windows begin bursting. That was not seen, was it? So your magic fire is just bullshit hand-waving.

[William Seger]

42. It must be hard to find evidence when you deliberately avoid it

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101030

Hint: Search for "glass". If you have trouble finding what you're looking for, I'll help you later.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. That's not actually paper anymore.

It's carbon ash. It would crumble to dust if you touched it.

[William Seger]

45. I've heard that claim, too, but I don't think so

I can't find any confirmation from a direct observation; it appears to be a supposition based on the presumption that the "meteorite" was formed under such intense heat that paper couldn't survive intact. But it doesn't look like carbonized paper in many pics (especially the ones from the BBC video) and there are reports of unburned carpet and wood in there, too. If you've got a source that determined the paper was carbonized by actual inspection, I'd like to read it.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. Oh, that's a good point.

Ok, it sounded like maybe you didn't know that paper could do that, or something. I agree, I cannot tell from the photo if that is actually the case. It kinda looks like it, but looks can be deceiving.

I think the 'meteorite' is mostly from compression, not from heat. Certainly none of the rebar that is sticking out was melted.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. Untrue.

The Madrid Tower fire collapsed all steel framed components above the 2nd technical floor 3 hours into the fire. The only standing components are concrete pillar construction.

That's 3 hours into a fire that started from a single electrical short, and spread. Far less than the 7h, multiple floor ignition points problems that WTC7 experienced.

[Frank_Norris_Lives]

21. Back at you bro.....

.....I was speaking really of WTC 1&2 but it stands for all three buildings. No steel-framed building has totally, progressively collapsed due to fire, before or after 9/11, regardless of its type of construction.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. Again, all the steel framed components exposed to fire in Madrid Tower collapsed 3 hours into the

fire. You are right, the ENTIRE building didn't collapse, because the ENTIRE building wasn't made of steel. The components made like WTC 1,2,7 out of steel framing utterly failed without even the presence of jet fuel, without a massive impact, without widespread ignition points for the fire. Just a single electrical short, started a fire, and within three hours you have steel so soft it rains down in the street in front of the building.

WTC7 burned for almost 7 hours before it failed.

Total progressive collapse is a rare bar to meet, because frankly, most fires don't go un-fought for so long. (There are other steel framed total collapse examples, but you really don't give a shit. You want to see something that looks just like WTC 1/2, and there simply aren't any other examples)

[Ace Acme]

55. Actually, there are no photos of fires in WTC7 until noon, and those fires didn't last

NIST tells us that fires persisted on only 6 floors, and photos of those are only available starting at 2:00 (floors 7, 11,12)
at 2:30 (13), 3:40 (8) and 4:00 (9).

So rather than 7-hour fires there's evidence for 3-1/2 hour fires.

Since 9/11 of course we've had spectacular high-rise fires in Shanghai, Beijing, Dubai, Moscow, and Grozny. None of those buildings fell down. I guess we just build shoddy buildings in NYC, right?

The Madrid tower was under construction, so the steel had no fireproofing at all. WTC7 had fire ratings of 2 hours and 3 hours--and NIST tells us that office fires burn only 30 minutes in one place until all the fuel is consumed.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. Cite your spectacular high rise fires, building by building.

I'll knock 'em down for you. (So to speak)

The Beijing TV Cultural Center building fire occurred in a building where Arup (the engineering firm) designed the building SPECIFICALLY with results and data from the WTC collapses in hand, and with a mind to preventing a similar collapse.

The fire was also actively fought by 600+ firefighters.

[Ace Acme]

58. And even fought by 600 firefighters it was a conflagration and burned all night

whereas WTC7's fires were so wimpy there was little evidence of them from outside the building.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. You apparently never saw the side of the building facing the main towers.

Smoke evidence suggests it was pretty widespread.

Fuck your 'wimpy' bullshit. We changed fire codes nationwide in response to that data, and real world engineers deal with those numbers every fucking day.

[Ace Acme]

60. Yes I saw it, and unlike you I didn't believe the people who lie about it

NIST says fires only persisted on 6 floors. The smoke that appears to be belching out of every window was sucked up from WTC6 because the wind from the NW caused a low-pressure zone on the S. side of the building. The exact same phenomenon was exhibited by WTC1 after WTC2 fell down. WTC1 appears to be belching dust from every window on the S side. It's not. It sucked up the dust from WTC2.

The fires were wimpy. Probably the reason FDNY didn't fight them was because they were so wimpy they didn't consider them worth fighting--and since they had good reason to fear bombs in the building (two witnesses reporting an explosion, and an elevator car blown out into the hall) it just didn't seem prudent to send men in there. Then after the building fell down they had to explain why they didn't fight the fires, and by then talk of explosions was verboten.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. Talk of explosions is not verboten, and never was.

Talk of EXPLOSIVES has been discounted utterly. There is a difference. You short circuit 100 acres of office equipment x2, plus ancillary damage to surrounding buildings, you tend to have problems at the power substation. The con Edison substation is below WTC7, and is the reason for the three 'yokes' that make up the core frame of the building on the lower levels. Things also go boom in fires, from overpressure, that aren't actually explosives/bombs.

NIST used audio evidence to discount the sort of charges needed to cut a main support, they didn't rule out things going bang for other lesser/different reasons. Nothing about transformers blowing up either. Big boom to a witness, pathetic when considering the force required to cut a beam of a certain size.

I'm sure there is some dust uptake in the damage, but some of the smoke is black, not the prevailing grey of the dust, and the convection/chimney effect through WTC7 is quite obvious. There's plenty of heat in that fire. It is a long span cantilever steel frame. The outcome does not seem suspicious to me.

Your commentary on the 'looking for explanations after' bit rings false for me. There were plenty of updates on the impending doom of that building as the day wore on, and as the kink in the outer walls became visible to inspectors on the ground.

I have a couple questions remaining about the timeline of events of what happened to WTC7, but they are not fatal to the official explanation. First, I want to know where the portside engine of flight 175 went. Starboard went over the post office. Landing gear just barely missed WTC7 and hit 45 Park Place. Where did the port engine go? Where did that 7" thick, 5000rpm titanium javelin go, that makes up the heart of the engine? Seems to me it would have hit WTC7 if it exited the face of WTC2. Second question I have, was there any major electrical damage in the substation prior to, or during the collapse of WTC2/1. Any fires.

That's it. That's all that is unresolved about WTC7 for me.

[Ace Acme]

64. NIST's discounting of charges was based on the use of RDX,

a WWII-era explosive. Why?

Use of explosive charges inside the hollow core columns sized to bulge out, but not break, incendiary-preheated column walls
would not make any noise at all, because the noise would be contained inside the column and absorbed in the work of bulging the column walls. Bulged columns would then buckle and fail.

The outcome may be plausible to you, but that is because you have never bothered to familiarize yourself with the issues and because you have believed lying liars who lie to you about a building belching smoke from every window.

The "kink" only exhibited itself as the building started the collapse. You are probably referring to what Chief Hayden called a "bulge". I'm not aware that Chief Hayden's account of a bulge around the 13th floor on the SW corner has ever been corroborated by anyone, and it is contradicted by the NYPD helicopter photo that seems to show that at the 13th floor there was no SW corner.

The NIST report on WTC7 indicates that some people went into the basement at about 3:00 pm to rescue some security dogs from the kennels there, and they found such severe damage in the basement that they abandoned their mission. I'm not aware that NIST ever addressed the question of the engine shaft. Of course, if we'd had a proper scientific deconstruction of the pile, we would know exactly where it was if it was stopped by WTC7.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. RDX is a common and widely available explosive, with similar properites to many other explosives.

The form of demolition you describe (preheat-bulge charges) doesn't make any fucking sense. Why go to such lengths to make it look like a classic demolition? This theory never adds up. The alleged bombers are somehow such fucking geniuses they can pull it off flawlessly, through EXTREME risk and complication, but yet too stupid to make it look like a fire-induced progressive collapse. Don't even need to collapse it to justify tearing it down for insurance purposes. A large enough multi-floor fire would be sufficient, and then ta-da, you get PAID to tear it down. The whole thing doesn't make a lick of sense.

And don't try to tell me I'm not familiar with the issues. You have absolutely NO idea how familiar I am with the design of the building, or the eyewitness testimony from the event.

The Chief probably miscounted the floor, owing to the design peculiarities of the building, and the somewhat pressing concerns/excitement of the day.

Damage to the basement seems expected to me. Hell, even the subway station was damaged.

[Ace Acme]

67. Why would you expect first-class demolitionists to use WWII-era explosives?

Aren't widely-available explosives marked with taggants? Hypothetical first-class demolitionists would hypothetically use hypothetical custom-made explosives.

Hypothetical first-class demolitionists would have hypothetically planned that WTC7 hypothetically come down when it was hypothetically hidden in the hypothetical dust clouds from the hypothetical collapse of WTC1. They would have hypothetically planned that it come straight down so as to minimize damage to adjacent buildings. WTC7 would go unnoticed--nobody died there, and the assumption would be that debris from WTC1 knocked it down. In this hypothetical case there is no hypothetical reason for hypothetical first-class demolitionists to try to hypothetically simulate a hypothetical fire-induced collapse.

Your attempt to dispose of the preheat/bulge/buckle hypothesis by conflating it with the straight-down collapse is irrational. They are independent issues. The reason to use the preheat/bulge/buckle technique would be to contain the sounds of explosives. It could be used to bring the building straight down, or used to create a more believable collapse.

Chief Hayden's story of the 13th floor bulge has not been corroborated by anybody that I know of. Rather than improve the story by "correcting" it, perhaps you should do some actual investigation of an issue with which you seem to be unfamiliar. Did the NIST report cite Chief Hayden's story, or did they ignore it?

[truth2power]

15. damnedifiknow - Just so you're aware...

You will NEVER get an honest discussion about the events of 9/11 here on DU. You might as well not waste your time.

I think the "noise" is going to ramp up now that the Re-Think 9/11 campaign is set for Sept. Expect it. There are those who are tasked with making sure that any discussion about 9/11 goes in endless circles. You can tell when that's happening, as opposed to a discussion that has some sort of direction.

All the arguments about the "paint" , the nano-thermite etc. have been effectively, and specifically, explained in the video 9/11: Explosive Evidence. Experts Speak Out. http://ae911truth.org There are people with open minds out there who you can have a rational discussion with. Pick your battles.

Just my very humble opinion. YMMV.

[William Seger]

24. There are sites where 9/11 bullshit goes unchallenged

... and damnedifIknow probably would do better to pick his "battles" on one of them, but you are being dishonest with him and yourself about why DU isn't one of them. And then you whine about, "You will NEVER get an honest discussion about the events of 9/11 here on DU."

It appears to me that you will never get an honest discussion with a "truther" about why the "truth movement" failed. The Re-Think 9/11 campaign is just the latest in a series of attempts by Richard Gage to make a profession out of exploiting gullible people with "endless circles" of recycled bullshit that's already been debunked over and over. It's sad that some people will fall for it, but if you think it's going to re-ignite the failed "truth movement," I do believe you're setting yourself up for another disappointment. It's too bad that you aren't open-minded enough to re-think why that's so.

[truth2power]

25. From your mouth to God's ear, of course.

"The Re-Think 9/11 campaign is just the latest in a series of attempts by Richard Gage to make a profession out of exploiting gullible people with "endless circles" of recycled bullshit that's already been debunked over and over."

I've seen Gage's scientific treatment of the issue. Your complaining about it doesn't negate its value.

Oh, and, "too bad you aren't open-minded enough..." Ridicule. Disinformation tactic # 235.

[William Seger]

27. You've seen Gage's "scientific" treatment of the issue

... and completely ignored every attempt to explain to you why it often isn't even factual, much less "scientific." You protect your "controlled demolition" delusions with willful ignorance. Apparently you have a non-standard definition of "open-minded" and it isn't a "tactic" to point that out.

[truth2power]

31. William...

I see you've been here since 2003, so you no doubt remember back on the old DU that there was a Sept. 11th forum where the arguments went on and on and on, in circles, rehashing the same information. It's over.

Two thousand plus architects, engineers and physicists, in addition to individuals from other walks of life, are calling for a truly independent investigation into the events of 9/11. They are saying that the official narrative can't be true, and are eager to submit evidence as to why this is so.

One would think that those, like yourself, who claim to be able to explain, clearly and definitively, how all these scientific professionals are wrong, would be willing to bring that to the table once and for all.

One would think that those with the irrefutable counterarguments would be calling the loudest for an official public venue to present their arguments, if only to get those scientists to finally shut the hell up. But that's not happening. I wonder why?

Thanks for your time.

[William Seger]

33. So much for "honest discussion"

Many people here and elsewhere have spent considerably time and effort explaining "clearly and definitively," in excruciating detail, why the claims by Gage and other "truthers" fall far short of what is required to substantiate extraordinary claims about controlled demolitions. I doubt that anyone is surprised that you aren't convinced, but can't you at least be honest enough with yourself to admit that such explanations exist?

On the other hand, you are impressed with "two thousand plus architects, engineers and physicists, in addition to individuals from other walks of life" who have made extremely few serious attempts at producing serious technical arguments based on actual evidence. You seem to be unaware that each of those attempts -- from Gordon Ross's "Momentum Transfer" to Tony Szamboti's "Missing Jolt" to Niels Harrit's exploding paint -- has gone down in flames from technical rebuttal. Instead, you'd rather convince yourself that valid technical arguments are being ignored.

But you are wrong in thinking that I wouldn't personally love to see Gage humiliated by bringing his nonsense to the table with "truly independent" investigators who are also technically competent to evaluate it. But that's has already happened; you'd rather convince yourself that anyone who doesn't buy Gage's crap must not be "independent."

Suit yourself.

[LanternWaste]

51. I used to say that also when people disagreed with me

"You will NEVER get an honest discussion about the events of 9/11 here..."

I used to say that also when people disagreed with me about various things. It lessened the sting, albeit only in my own head, of not being validated by those with different opinions. So I can readily empathize as to why you'd rationalize it as such.

On the other hand, by the time I got to fifth grade and stopped doing that, I found that discussion flowed much more easily. Hope it happens for you as well!

[truth2power]

52. It's not just about honest disagreement. i'm sure you know that...

Your smiley aside, on the old 9/11 site it was infested with people who just kept discussion going in endless circles and nothing really being accomplished.

I think most of that was purposeful. Isn't it interesting how there's always that teeny bit of ridicule to show how immature one is for not accepting the Official Narrative.

I stand by what I said.

[snappyturtle]

28. K&R Over the years since 9/11 I've gone from

believing the essence of the 9/11 commission's report to absolute
disgust with it. I've read and watched hours upon hours of reports
from 100's of experts. If I were to post what I believe what really
occurred, I'd be flamed. It's a difficult concept for some to wrap
their heads around because it vaporizes what we've been told and
.....believed. Thanks for posting this.

[William Seger]

29. In other words, you've been propagandized

The antidote to propaganda is information. Maybe this will help:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

http://www.911myths.com/indexold.html

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

http://www.debunking911.com/

But here's a challenge: If you have "watched hours upon hours of reports from 100's of experts" and found it convincing, then you should be able to present three pieces of evidence that can stand up to scrutiny. Please proceed.

[snappyturtle]

30. Au contraire! THanks for the links...I've been to 3 of the

4. Yes, I could take my time and list my links for you to tear
apart and then we can get into a circular pissing contest. No
thank you. You've probably seen them anyway. Would my links
change your mind....doubtful. Yours, mine....no way. So.....

[truth2power]

32. Thanks, snappyturtle, for not taking the bait. As you said, so succinctly...

it all ends up being a "circular pissing contest". Pointless.

[William Seger]

34. "Take your best shot" = "bait" ?

[Ace Acme]

56. Popular Mechanics?

Is that your authority? That ridiculous collection of straw-man arguments from 2005?

How about this whopper on the second page;

"NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle."

Maj. Nasypany said the problem was not a hole in the middle, it was too many blips.

[William Seger]

61. Yes, Popular Mechanics

> That ridiculous collection of straw-man arguments from 2005?

In the first place, they weren't "straw-man arguments" -- they were responses to actual claims made by actual "truthers" -- and second, there's nothing "ridiculous" about calling bullshit on those claims. But I do recall that someone at 911blogger thought that calling them "straw-man arguments" was sufficient to justify ignoring them, so I know at least one of the sources of your misinformation.

> How about this whopper on the second page;

> "NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle."

> Maj. Nasypany said the problem was not a hole in the middle, it was too many blips.

You are conflating two different things -- NORAD's radar system and the FAA's radar system for commercial aviation -- and you are taking Martin's factual comment about NORAD's system out of context. With a poor start like that, I suppose it's just as well that you didn't actually try to make an actual argument.

[Ace Acme]

63. They were straw man arguments

By the time PM printed that article, February 2005, most of those silly theories had been rejected by the legitimate truth movement.

I conflated nothing. PM claimed that NORAD's radar was a doughnut. Major Nasypany claimed that NORAD's radar showed every plane in the sky. Either Martin or Nasypany is lying. I don't see that Nasypany has a reason to.

[William Seger]

65. Which "legiimate truth movement" is that?

The one that agrees with your speculations? Please look up the definition of "straw-man" and try again.

And please show me where "Nasypany claimed that NORAD's radar showed every plane in the sky." I have my own theory about who is lying.

[Ace Acme]

68. You've never heard of the 9/11 Truth Statement? You haven't read the Bronner VF article?

Last edited Thu Oct 24, 2013, 04:10 PM - Edit history (1)

You're really not very familiar with the issues, are you. Or are you just pretending you're not?

You've got a lot of catching up to do. The legitimate truth movement is the one associated with the 2004 9/11 Truth Statement endorsed by 3 presidential candidates, by Daniel Ellsberg, by Ray McGovern, by Howard Zinn. There's not a plane-pod or a chemtrail in the statement.

The Nasypany statement was in Vanity Fair in August 2006. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608 (see p. 2)

"You would see thousands of green blips on your scope," Nasypany told me, "and now you have to pick and choose. Which is the bad guy out there? Which is the hijacked aircraft? And without that information from F.A.A., it's a needle in a haystack."

[Bully Taw]

50. HAHAHA!!! n/t