The Sensible Doubt - Danish 911

[cheeple]

Here is a video of a shanghai building burning for two days uncontrolled, by the time of this video you'll notice it's pretty much skin and bones yet it's still standing, so either that proves a steel constructed building cannot be brought down by fire alone or the Chinese build stronger buildings than Americans your choice:

​

And again in Beijing

​

 

[cheeple]

Everyone here knows exactly where George W. Bush was when the first plane hit the WTC, here is a video of him lying and claiming he saw it happen:

​

 

[Mick West]

Here is a video of a shanghai building burning for two days uncontrolled, by the time of this video you'll notice it's pretty much skin and bones yet it's still standing, so either that proves a steel constructed building cannot be brought down by fire alone or the Chinese build stronger buildings than Americans your choice:

No, it means something in the circumstances was different.

 

[Mick West]

Everyone here knows exactly where George W. Bush was when the first plane hit the WTC, here is a video of him lying and claiming he saw it happen:

There's an implied/abbreviated "that" there: "I saw[that] an air plane [had] hit the tower."

That's just how he talks.

 

[SR1419]

Here is a video of a shanghai building burning for two days uncontrolled, by the time of this video you'll notice it's pretty much skin and bones yet it's still standing, so either that proves a steel constructed building cannot be brought down by fire alone or the Chinese build stronger buildings than Americans your choice]

Did this building have a fully loaded jet airplane slam into it at 500 mph causing severe structural damage?

If not, I fail to see how and/or why you think this is a valid comparison.

 

[Mick West]

cheeple, you might also want to review this thread, so you avoid bringing up things that are already dealt with. It has a lot of good photos and video you might find interesting

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/364-9-11-Is-this-photo-consistent-with-a-progressive-collapse

 

[cheeple]

Here's a cool little time line to put into perspective:

July 24, 2001

Larry Silverstein signs lease on WTC's and insures them for over 3 billion each, after September 11 declares it two separate attacks and demands over $7 Billion from Insurance, he gets $4.55 Billion - not bad for two months of "work"


September 7, 2001

-Jeb Bush files for executive Police State Powers (order 01-261) which is still shows on the click here > myflorida.com official website but that particular link is now disabled from what I can tell.

-Bomb sniffing dogs conveniently removed from world trade center by Securacom who maintained the Security for the WTC of which Marvin P. Bush was a Board of Director.

September 8-9, 2001

Securacom has all security cameras turned off citing elevator Maintenance and never turns them back on.


September 11, 2001

A CIA/NORAD war game scenario which centers around hijacked jets wrecking into the world trade center and pentagon, is being executed while real terrorist attacks are occuring in real-time.

-FDNY Chief of Safety Albert Turi reports bombs going off inside the world trade center.

-Porter Goss and Bob Grahm, the heads of the House and Senate Intelligence Committee, were eating breakfast in New York with Mahmoud Ahmad, head of the Pakistani ISI, who earlier, it was reported, wired $100,000.00 to the alleged ringleader of the 9/11 attacks, Mohammed Atta.

-Former president and CIA director George Herbert Walker Bush, wasmeeting with Shafig Bin Laden, Osama Bin Laden's brother, at a Carlyle Group function in the Ritz Carlton Hotel in New York, as planes were crashing into the world trade center.


-FAA tapes destroyed

-President's phone logs "fouled up" during communications and are therefore, unobtainable.

September 12, 2001

-Jeb Bush on a plane that removes flight school records en route to Washington.

September 11-30, 2001

- Truck with Gold found under Building 5, the vault was under Building 4, exact amount of Gold heisted unknown.

-Over 80% of the steel in the world trade center was either recycled or shipped to China to be smelted before it could be investigated, which is a violation of federal law.

September 20-23, 2001

-Seven of the alleged 9/11 hijackers found alive.

-Waleed Al-Shehri turns up alive in Morocco

September 11, 2002

-It is reported that one of the 9/11 hijacker's landlord was anFBI/ATF informant.

October 12, 2001

-Passenger lists of all 4 planes hijacked on 9/11 are released and no arab names, much less the names of any of the hijackers are on the lists.

September 2002

-Larry Silverstein, leaseholder of the world trade center explains in the PBS documentary "America Rebuilds", that building number 7 was a controlled demolition, even though according to the official government story, building number 7 fell from fire damage, the third of only three buildings to ever fall from fire damage, all of them on that single day.

November 12, 2004

-World Trade Center construction certifiers say that the towers should have "easily" withstood jet fuel temperatures.

 

[cheeple]

Here Larry Silverstein admits he decidied to have Building 7 "pulled" or demolished, so now we have it straight from the Leaseholders mouth.

​

 

[cheeple]

cheeple, you might also want to review this thread, so you avoid bringing up things that are already dealt with. It has a lot of good photos and video you might find interesting

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/364-9-11-Is-this-photo-consistent-with-a-progressive-collapse

Thanks for the links I looked at them, however the evidence otherwise is overwhelming.

 

[cheeple]

There's an implied/abbreviated "that" there: "I saw[that] an air plane [had] hit the tower."

That's just how he talks.

ok? may I state my opinion that I think your rationalizing now, you dont have to put brackets or emphasis on certain words or purport to know he meant one thing when his statement was quite succinct.

 

[Mick West]

Thanks for the links I looked at them, however the evidence otherwise is overwhelming.

Plots of evidence is not the same as good evidence. Slow down. Don't ignore the counter evidence. Look at the "pull" comment for example. Really try to read up on that for ten minutes, instead of just blindly accepting what the truth ears claim.

 

[cheeple]

Plots of evidence is not the same as good evidence. Slow down. Don't ignore the counter evidence. Look at the "pull" comment for example. Really try to read up on that for ten minutes, instead of just blindly accepting what the truth ears claim.

This isnt according to any "truthers" this is straight from Larry Silverstein verbatim

"And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
So now you have to decide to believe the Leaseholder which would negate any previous statement you've made about building 7 coming down due to fire and structural instability or admit it was a controlled demolition, if you accept it was a controlled demolition now that you've heard it straight from Larry Silverstein then it becomes painfully obvious this was weeks or atleast days in the making, no way the fire department went in there and "pulled" it, they dont have the logistics or materials to pull that off in a matter of hours.

 

[Mick West]

What does "pull" mean. And please provide references for the meaning.

 

[SR1419]

It doesn't get any more clear than "And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
]

Except that "pull" in the context of demolitions means actually pulling a building down with cables...and in no way is it ever used describe blowing a building up....

Moreover, you are ignoring the testimony of emergency responders who stated that they interpreted "pull" to mean pull back behind safe perimeter because the building was obviously compromised and it was expected by many to collapse at any moment....

 

[cheeple]

What does "pull" mean. And please provide references for the meaning.

Pull is what Larry Silverstein used in his interview referring to bringing the building down or demolishing it, "pull" is not a word a demolitions expert would use but Larry Silverstein isn't a Demolitions Expert.

 

[SR1419]

This isnt according to any "truthers" this is straight from Larry Silverstien verbatim

Except that is not true....that "pull" means controlled demolition is what truthers claim...when, in fact, larry says that is NOT what he meant.....so, you selectively except his words verbatim...and discard what doesn't fit.

Of course, you also have to acknowledge the unlikely scenario of mr Silverstien admitting his complicity in such a heinous crime on national tv.


....can you also explain why you think the shanghai building is valid comparison when it didn't have severe structural damage due to a plane slamming into or another large building collapsing on it?

 

[Spongebob]

That's good and fine by me, as said "If.."
Me too. I havent been interested in it for a few years. I doubt I am as certain as you about what I believe about it.
I don't know.
I consider myself a conspiracy skeptic, not a "truther" or a "theorist".
It took me a while to get here but I am utterly uninterested in the dogma fights between truthers and the officials - I am pretty sure the smart seeming people in the videos would agree to the futility of this.

Yet you have no idea what thermite is used for - except for the incorrect "information" provided by the experts in your video?

Or what a CD would sound like?

Perhaps you confused "conspiracy skeptic" with "believer" ?

 

[Mat]

I'd also not classify things as "dogma".

"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th"

That is dogma of the highest order.

Anyways, we would both be wasting our time discussing 911 because we will never be able to debunk any covering theory about it.

You seem very confident in the official story, I am not.

 

[farbot]

Hey guys, new to the site. I tried to find an active post on the 911 insider trading part, but couldn't find it....neither did I find where to start a post for myself (but since I did read the notice that first posts needed to be confirmed, I figured maybe the site 'rules' need you first to contribute to an active discussion before picking out new stuff.

So I found somebody 'debunking' the Loose Change assertions of the 911 insider trading prior to the event (mainly the supposed fact that put options on American Airlines were 11 times higher than 'normal') , but in the end his post or debunking makes it even worse than it was in advance http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1346

 

[Mick West]

There's a much more detailed look at the issue from 9/11 myths here:
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Put_Options

 

[Mat]

Yet you have no idea what thermite is used for - except for the incorrect "information" provided by the experts in your video?

Oh gosh no. I remember in the 80s reading about thermite, I think I even tried to make it. I certainly thought about making it.

Or what a CD would sound like?

#

Better than MP3 but not as good as DAT? Ho Ho!

Please understand I am not sitting watching videos of collapses. I am not looking at timings and trying to work out freefall speeds, yada yada.

But if there are a bunch of people who are qualified to say "I am an Engineer and..." "I am a material scientist and..." then I feel no issue about acknowledging there may be some serious issues here. I wont simply poopoo like is so common on the internet; frankly, I can totally see why its such a comon responce and I do it often. But about homeopathy and paul-is-dead.

Sometimes things are very much not as they seem.

Perhaps you confused "conspiracy skeptic" with "believer" ?

I try hard not to stoop to that silly little nomencultual debate, but to answer your question:

I belive in some conspiracies.

I am skeptical about some conspiracies.

I believe some conspiracies are fully false.


How about you bob?

 

[Mick West]

But if there are a bunch of people who are qualified to say "I am an Engineer and..." "I am a material scientist and..." then I feel no issue about acknowledging there may be some serious issues here. I wont simply poopoo like is so common on the internet; frankly, I can totally see why its such a comon responce and I do it often. But about homeopathy and paul-is-dead.

But you can always find several "experts" who seem on paper to be qualified to give an opinion. Lots of doctors will say homeopathy works. There's probably even several historians who think Paul is dead. There are scientists who look for the Loch Ness Monster, there are scientist who look for fairies.

But in the AE911 case, their expertise is very slight when it comes to the actual experts (in high rise construction and demolition). They are also far, far, in the minority. They are also demonstrably wrong about many of their direct claims.

Consider, if you will, Project Steve, for an illustration of the fallacy of the list of qualified people:

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism."

Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded. NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!

Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, NCSE supporter, and friend.

We'd like to think that after Project Steve, we'll have seen the last of bogus "scientists doubting evolution" lists, but it's probably too much to ask. We hope that when such lists are proposed, reporters and other citizens will ask, "How many Steves are on your list!?"

Content from External Source

 

[Mat]

But you can always find several "experts" who seem on paper to be qualified to give an opinion.

Of course, this is why witnesses and expert opinion, are a key part of any controversy.

There's probably even several historians who think Paul is dead.

Well, I think that as a theory there is nothing wrong with investigating it if you are interested. I don't at all believe it but some of the evidence is compelling, as I recall.

The same form the Obama/Egyptian King images. I don't beleive them at all, but the they have interest.

There are scientists who look for the Loch Ness Monster, there are scientist who look for fairies.

And long may there be! And Orbs. And all that jazz. I think they are probably very wrong, but I am glad they are there focusing on the edges. The same with conspiracy theorists. Would you really prefer a world with no paranoids on the edges? Shudders...

But in the AE911 case, their expertise is very slight when it comes to the actual experts (in high rise construction and demolition).

I havent really known much about them until recently. I do think that the new Explosive Evidence makes me think "Of course there should be an independent investigation"

Why would any skeptic not want that?

Such an attitude is seems odd to me!

cheers

Mat

 

[Mick West]

Why would a skeptic not want an investigation into any Fortean phenomena or conspiracy theory? Because there is generally insufficient evidence to justify an investigation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this another case of a topic where you don't understand the science, but because someone of seeming authority said something, they you think there's something to it? i.e. it's not based on the actual scientific evidence which you've looked at and found to be solid, but upon someone SAYING there is scientific evidence which is solid?

 

[Mat]

Why would a skeptic not want an investigation into any Fortean phenomena or conspiracy theory? Because there is generally insufficient evidence to justify an investigation.

I think that is nonsense Mick. It is the investigation that determines the quality of the evidence. Are you a debunker or a denier?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this another case of a topic where you don't understand the science, but because someone of seeming authority said something, they you think there's something to it?

You are probably being a big disingenuous with your simplification, but yes.

Are you saying you are for or against an independent investigation of 911?

 

[Trigger Hippie]

Are you saying you are for or against an independent investigation of 911?

Who would be paying for it?

 

[GuitKitty]

Are you saying you are for or against an independent investigation of 911?

Unfortunately, this is where a lot of these arguments break down into semantic squabbles. There has already been an investigation of the events of 9/11. The vast majority of experts in relevant fields all over the world (including countries who would love to have this kind of dirt on the US) agree with the fundamental outcome of that investigation. How woul you define an "independent" investigation? Who would perform this "independent" investigation? And if it it was performed, and the outcome was the same as the investigations already performed, would you poo-poo those results, too, and claim they weren't truly independent?

 

[Mat]

Unfortunately, this is where a lot of these arguments break down into semantic squabbles. There has already been an investigation of the events of 9/11. The vast majority of experts in relevant fields all over the world (including countries who would love to have this kind of dirt on the US) agree with the fundamental outcome of that investigation. How woul you define an "independent" investigation? Who would perform this "independent" investigation? And if it it was performed, and the outcome was the same as the investigations already performed, would you poo-poo those results, too, and claim they weren't truly independent?

Oh hey look. Please don't talk like I am championing some conspiracy and we have some essential conflict that we are both dogmatising.

I would like to see an independent investigation into 911 performed by those Danes in that video. This is not a passionate cause of mine, i would just like to see it.

I think it is probable they would conclude that it was 19 muslims and zero aliens; which would be nice.

What we have now is the climate of denial where anyone who thinks this is considered in some sense crazy. Which, if there are aliens and if they did 911, would be exactly the climate the aliens would want to propagate

 

[Mat]

Who would be paying for it?

The Danes

 

[Mick West]

I think that is nonsense Mick. It is the investigation that determines the quality of the evidence. Are you a debunker or a denier?

I'm a debunker. So you think we should have an investigation into the robot spy cats in my neighborhood? Are you for or against it? Should we have an investigation into the chemspot phenomenon?

Are you saying you are for or against an independent investigation of 911?

Neither. But I'd be against spending taxpayer money on something unless there's good reason.

Or course you can't actually have the investigation called for by the AE911 folk, as they require unrestricted access to CIA records. So cunningly it will never happen, and they will get to keep on asking for it.

What I'm FOR is evidence, and evidence based action.

 

[BRoI]

"Are Skyscrapers Safe? They May Be Safer Than Your Home"

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...world-trade-center plane fire&pg=7087,4658593

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hometruths/dakotaonroof.shtml

This house is about ½ mile from where I live, it's still there today.

Seems 1960s builders of steel framed skyscrapers could have learn a thing or two from the builders of pre-war, suburban, 3-bed semis.

 

[Mick West]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hometruths/dakotaonroof.shtml

This house is about ½ mile from where I live, it's still there today.

Seems 1960s builders of steel framed skyscrapers could have learn a thing or two from the builders of pre-war, suburban, 3-bed semis.

Clearly they should have built the WTC from brick with a timber frame, only two stories, and ensured only small planes with no fuel run into it at very slow speed. How foolish they were.

 

[BRoI]

The Seattle Times
February 27, 1993

Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision


"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

[...]

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

How do you think Mr Skilling would have answered if told by the journalist?

Actually, under an hour after they will hit by a jet planes—an incident they were specifically designed to withstand—they'll completely collapse, in around 15 seconds, that's roughly seven floors per second, in a classic pancake collapse (minus the stack of pancakes once collapsed). That's both of them by the way.


I think Mr Skilling would have looked at the journalist thus so:

 

[BRoI]

Clearly they should have built the WTC from brick with a timber frame, only two stories, and ensured only small planes with no fuel run into it at very slow speed. How foolish they were.

Yes Mick, they plane had just taken off with "no fuel."

 

[BRoI]

Pancake collapse

 

[Mick West]

Yes Mick, they plane had just taken off with "no fuel."

Ah, well in that case the WTC designers should have also ensured that the fuel did not catch fire. How foolish of them.

 

[Mick West]

How do you think Mr Skilling would have answered if told by the journalist?

Actually, under an hour after they will hit by a jet planes—an incident they were specifically designed to withstand—they'll completely collapse, in around 15 seconds, that's roughly seven floors per second, in a classic pancake collapse (minus the stack of pancakes once collapsed). That's both of them by the way.


I think Mr Skilling would have looked at the journalist thus so:

You mean when he realized he forgot to account for the effect of a full load of jet fuel, three times faster than they anticipated, end the effects of the resultant fire of fuel combined with office material, on steel beams with the insulation stripped by impact and explosion?

Are you really going to start bringing up the ENTIRE litany of debunked stories? Can you at least include your rebuttal of the debunkings, to save time?

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/minu-trans.html

"It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time.

Content from External Source

 

[BRoI]

You mean when he realized he forgot to account for the effect of a full load of jet fuel, three times faster than they anticipated, end the effects of the resultant fire of fuel combined with office material, on steel beams with the insulation stripped by impact and explosion?

What's your evidence "he forgot"? What's your evidence for any of that. Except posting links. I don't frequent many forums, but on the other one I do, your post would be deleted by the moderator, he doesn't allow link posting as an attempted rebuttal.

Are you really going to start bringing up the ENTIRE litany of debunked stories? Can you at least include your rebuttal of the debunkings, to save time?

That's doesn't even make sense.

"It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time.

Content from External Source

[/QUOTE]

The interview I posted with Skilling was from 1993 Mick.

btw, Jet planes can't fly anywhere near "full speed" at such low altitude. That's a indication your source is an idiot.

 

[Mick West]

What's your evidence "he forgot"? What's your evidence for any of that. Except posting links. I don't frequent many forums, but on the other one I do, your post would be deleted by the moderator, he doesn't allow link posting as an attempted rebuttal.



That's doesn't even make sense.

My point is that you are bringing up issues that have quite conclusively explained elsewhere. Hence I posted links to them. These are well worn arguments, and it seems rather foolish to have to start at the beginning of the argument every time. Perhaps bring some new information to the table.

The interview I posted with Skilling was from 1993 Mick.

So?

btw, Jet planes can't fly anywhere near "full speed" at such low altitude. That's a indication your source is an idiot.

They generally don't. That does not mean they can't. The actual impact speeds of the planes, more specifically the second plane, can be determined from video analysis and other factors. The first plane, AA11hit WTC1 at 465 mph. The second plane, United 175, hit the WTC2 at around 590 mph.

Now if they really CAN'T, then why not focus on that, one inarguable inconsistency in the story - you could blow the thing wide open.

 

[BRoI]

My point is that you are bringing up issues that have quite conclusively explained elsewhere. Hence I posted links to them. These are well worn arguments, and it seems rather foolish to have to start at the beginning of the argument every time. Perhaps bring some new information to the table.

As previously alluded to. On the other forum I frequent, you are expect to "quote" the applicable part of the link on which your argument is based. No just post a link claiming this disproves it. If you've "debunked" Skilling's 1993 interview with the Seattle Times, post a quote.

The interview I posted with Skilling was from 1993 Mick.

So?

So, Mick, your argument, or your idiot's argument, about them *old-time jet liners* is completely invalid. As in 1993, Skilling would have been well aware of such things as 747s, never mind 767s, hitting the WTC. Yet he still foresaw no danger of a rapid pancake collapse, 1hr after impact.

btw, Jet planes can't fly anywhere near "full speed" at such low altitude. That's a indication your source is an idiot.

They generally don't. That does not mean they can't. The actual impact speeds of the planes, more specifically the second plane, can be determined from video analysis and other factors. The first plane, AA11hit WTC1 at 465 mph. The second plane, United 175, hit the WTC2 at around 590 mph.

Now if they really CAN'T, then why not focus on that, one inarguable inconsistency in the story - you could blow the thing wide open.

Have you "debunked" the Pilots for 911 Truth videos on this forum too!

Yes, the planes were travelling at speeds which vastly exceeded what standard 767s can reach at low altitude, vastly exceeding.

They generally don't. That does not mean they can't.

They generally don't. Because they can't.