"100 Critical Points About 9/11 "

Status
Not open for further replies.
The first thing that's wrong with it is that you should always begin with an explanation/theory that has many precedents instead of trying to imagine or simulate miraculous events and so forth. If I write something on lunch break or cite a website or Youtube video that you've already seen it's not going to be as good as the time it would take to meditate on the knowledge and make a satire out of it. Just kidding. I mean quote the NIST report and go through the parts where they apparently simulated/imagined expanding beams while neglecting to imagine expanding floor slabs and so forth..

Ah yes, I remember looking into that a while ago, and I believe it was simply conflating two separate parts of the report. Perhaps you could (later) quote the bit you mean though?

Given that I can't go through the NIST report now (maybe later) here's an interesting question in the meantime. Is there anything in the "official report" and "official story" that you find questionable? Because it seems like the overall tone of Metabunk is generally that every time the best official report that the bankster's paper ponzi* can buy is made, the assumption is that it's not bunk. But every time a conspiracy theorist says something, it is bunk.

Bunk is bunk regardless of the source. I don't discriminate.

I don't remember seeing anything in the NIST report that was questionable. That does not mean there's nothing questionable there. But maybe you could point out some examples?
 
So other than them not testing for explosives..... what? What's incorrect in the report?

“An unflinching determination to take the whole evidence into account is the only method of preservation against the fluctuating extremes of fashionable opinion.”
- Alfred North Whitehead

By not testing the WTC 7 dust & steel NIST ignored the relevant evidence. In a scientific sense this is both
perplexing and unforgivable and obviously raises a red flag. And this is just WTC7 we are talking about.
Like I said before the whole event smells to high heaven.

 
“An unflinching determination to take the whole evidence into account is the only method of preservation against the fluctuating extremes of fashionable opinion.”
- Alfred North Whitehead

By not testing the WTC 7 dust & steel NIST ignored the relevant evidence. In a scientific sense this is both
perplexing and unforgivable and obviously raises a red flag. And this is just WTC7 we are talking about.
Like I said before the whole event smells to high heaven.


But there's nothing actually WRONG in it then? It's just all suspicious because they did not do this test? But there's no MISTAKES in it?

Do you think they should have tested for radiation, in case mini-nukes were used?
 
But there's nothing actually WRONG in it then? It's just all suspicious because they did not do this test? But there's no MISTAKES in it?

Mick one can write 1000's of pages of report and still not though the key investigatory avenues... NIST shows it can be done... just omit the important stuff.

Do you think they should have tested for radiation, in case mini-nukes were used?

Just a simple official test for accelerant & explosive residue would have sufficed. Very simple... it's not like we are asking them to build a colony on Pluto.
 
Mick one can write 1000's of pages of report and still not though the key investigatory avenues... NIST shows it can be done... just omit the important stuff.

So yes or no, other than the lack of this one test, was there anything wrong in the report?
 
So yes or no, other than the lack of this one test, was there anything wrong in the report?

Yes. The lack of vital chemical analysis on the WTC 7 steel & dust invalidates the whole report.
WTC 7 totally collapsed... the 2 vital remaining substances were its dust & steel... both were not investigated and you're asking me if there is something wrong with the report.
 
Yes. The lack of vital chemical analysis on the WTC 7 steel & dust invalidates the whole report.
WTC 7 totally collapsed... the 2 vital remaining substances were its dust & steel... both were not investigated and you're asking me if there is something wrong with the report.

Yes that's what I'm asking.

You've said that there was no test for explosives. And there was none in the NIST report.

But other than that you can't find a single thing wrong with it?
 
Yes. The lack of vital chemical analysis on the WTC 7 steel & dust invalidates the whole report.
WTC 7 totally collapsed... the 2 vital remaining substances were its dust & steel... both were not investigated and you're asking me if there is something wrong with the report.

The following excerpts are from http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

27. Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?
Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and to facilitate emergency responders' efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.

Content from External Source
and

13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.
For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

Content from External Source
This has been said before but in case anyone stumbled here and wondered about the background. It's is important to note that NIST did not test the steel from WTC-7 not because they didn't want to but because they couldn't tell if a piece of steel came from WTC-7 or somewhere else.
 
Lol... did you include enough names and labels there?

By the same token, your source seems to be a Jewish supremacist of the sort that might say that the Palestinians aren't worth one Jewish fingernail and so forth. (Or whatever it is they say, like any ethnicity or "race" they have their own supremacists.) And therefore, given that he's a supremacists who probably believes that a Jewish Messiah will rule all the goyim and shear or slaughter the sheeple at will there's no need to look to the actual evidence.

Actually he appears to be a National Liberationist (he believes that everything Israel does is "automatically good" which is where I disagree actually) but it appears though you hate Israel for the wrong reasons though which is a nothing more than a apartheid white/European colonialist state of the Middle East analogous to South Africa though contrary what your overblown Anti-Semitic conspiracy fear mongering says.
 
I have a question for the folks that feel that not testing for explosives is a 'red flag'. Do you feel that every gun shot victim that is autopsied, should be tested for all types of poisons and radioactives?
 
But other than that you can't find a single thing wrong with it?

Mick this question is invalid.

If NIST had followed the scientific method and properly investigated all the evidence...
then this question "can you find a single thing wrong with it?" would be valid.

NIST not investigating vital evidence scientifically undermines the whole report.
 
Mick this question is invalid.

If NIST had followed the scientific method and properly investigated all the evidence...
then this question "can you find a single thing wrong with it?" would be valid.

NIST not investigating vital evidence scientifically undermines the whole report.

I think you already made that point.

But it's not true. Sure, you might argue it undermines their credibility, but it can't undermine actual facts.

It's just a way of avoiding addressing the fact that the fire actually is a perfectly reasonable reason for the collapse.

But let's put it another way. Can you find ONE factual claim in the report that the lack of test for explosives renders invalid.
 
They disagree:





If it suited the plotters then they would have. Why do you suppose that it didn't? I'd imagine that it was the same reason that their scapegoat was left to read "My Pet Goat" on 911. But that's just me, you can imagine what you will.

But with respect to this:

Seriously?

P.S. thanks for your service to our country... or at least, your attempt at it. Truth is, it wasn't in our interests to attack Iraq just as it won't be in our interests to attack Syria (If they ever get around to finding WMDs in Assad's underwear, etc. Chertoff should probably find another dual citizen to help ship some of his Rapiscan underwear scanners over there, etc.) but we don't seem to have political leaders that aren't corrupt or competent intelligence services that aren't compromised at this point.


Netanyahu is a fruitcake, and I have met the man. You still have not explained how it has benefitted Israel. Israel has been weakened since 911, has withdrawn from Gaza, has a Hamas enclave in its place firing rockets near daily, had an embarassing War in 2006 against Hizbollah in which it is percieved (regardless of reality) that they came off worst, another silly War against Gaza in which they looked rediculous claiming to be victims whilst simultaneously firing White Phos into built-up areas and a lame economy.... Iraq was no threat to Israel, and Afghanistan has never been a threat. Israel gets no oil from Iraq and it has appalling relations with all the countries it once had good relations with. Tell me the benefits please....?

Thanks for your unnecessary thanks, but I have lost a lot of friends, more cruelly maimed, have lost my hearing on one side and went half-crazy from continuous tours to the badlands. Iv looked at all the conspiracy theories surrounding all of these things and found NOTHING, which it would be comforting to have someone to blame for all this nonsense.
 
Did you read the documents? A bomb sniffing dog was brought in and there was a positive result on the van for traces of explosives.

I work with Explosive Detection Dogs. they are not 100% ever, and there are endless items that can give false positives to dogs. the dog detects and then an analysis is made of what it has drawn your attention to. I don't suppose you have the actual forensic lab detection of what that was, or do you just have a dog indicating, because that is not evidence of explosives mate.
 
Mick, I'm curious as to what your view of the Israelis arrested on 911 with $4,000 in their shoes, tickets to leave the country within the month and so forth is? What would you imagine that they were doing there?

mynym, I have duel British and Israeli citizenship and Ill be in the US in August. Please tell me the best way to carry my cash and ticket that will cause least suspicion that I am not part of some Jewish conspiracy to commit terrorist attacks with the co-operation of thousands of US citizens (none of whom have ever spoken out). I'd hate to be arrested and deported for having some concealed money, which is mine.
 
The official explanation wants people to believe fire made WTC7 come down like a controlled demolition.
Talking about wild theories.

Feel free to write a peer reviewed paper and submit it. Or a computer simulation of the explosives required.

I'll wait....
 
I think that dogs are often more reliable than people.

Then you think wrong then. The dog merely narrows it down to an area, he does not bark "RDX" in morse code or anything. Have you ever worked with a search dog?

How was it documented that no traces of explosives were found after the dog supposedly made a mistake.
I don't know how it works in NY, but we only document finds if they are confirmed. The dog barking is neither here nor there.





I think I'll stick with the dog.

Then you will probably be killed as they also fail to detect quite regularly as well, for a variety of reasons.
 
Netanyahu is a fruitcake, and I have met the man.

Is he? Did you tell him? The debunkers on this site seems to get around and meet a lot of people most folks don't get to meet.

Israel has been weakened since 911, has withdrawn from Gaza,

What does that have to do with 9/11?

has a Hamas enclave in its place firing rockets near daily, had an embarassing War in 2006 against Hizbollah in which it is percieved (regardless of reality) that they came off worst, another silly War against Gaza in which they looked rediculous claiming to be victims whilst simultaneously firing White Phos into built-up areas and a lame economy....

Nothing changed there then. Still acting the victim whilst being the perpetrator.
Iraq was no threat to Israel, and Afghanistan has never been a threat. Israel gets no oil from Iraq and it has appalling relations with all the countries it once had good relations with. Tell me the benefits please....?

The U.S backs it because it uses it in the area to create havoc.

I have lost a lot of friends, more cruelly maimed, have lost my hearing on one side and went half-crazy from continuous tours to the badlands.

War is terrible. But at least you signed up for it... the people living there had no option.

Why do you think you are out there?

Do you think the people want it?

Do you think it makes the west safer?

Stops terrorism?

Iv looked at all the conspiracy theories surrounding all of these things and found NOTHING, which it would be comforting to have someone to blame for all this nonsense.

Well somone is to blame. It didn't happen by accident. There were a lot of lies told to bring this situation about and a lot of opposition ignored. Over 1million protesters in London alone... the largest demonstration ever held in the U.K!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/15/iraq-war-mass-protest

A father goes out to see why his reservist son died over there and comes away with a different point of view.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rgrn9
 
“An unflinching determination to take the whole evidence into account is the only method of preservation against the fluctuating extremes of fashionable opinion.”
- Alfred North Whitehead

By not testing the WTC 7 dust & steel NIST ignored the relevant evidence. In a scientific sense this is both
perplexing and unforgivable and obviously raises a red flag. And this is just WTC7 we are talking about.
Like I said before the whole event smells to high heaven.


Did they test for salt corrosion, being so close to the sea?
 
Is he? Did you tell him? The debunkers on this site seems to get around and meet a lot of people most folks don't get to meet.



What does that have to do with 9/11?



Nothing changed there then. Still acting the victim whilst being the perpetrator.


The U.S backs it because it uses it in the area to create havoc.



War is terrible. But at least you signed up for it... the people living there had no option.

Why do you think you are out there?

Do you think the people want it?

Do you think it makes the west safer?

Stops terrorism?



Well somone is to blame. It didn't happen by accident. There were a lot of lies told to bring this situation about and a lot of opposition ignored. Over 1million protesters in London alone... the largest demonstration ever held in the U.K!

A father goes out to see why his reservist son died over there and comes away with a different point of view.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rgrn9



Totally off topic but it does piss me off a little when you get people and families going on about their kids dying in vain. I know they are grieving but they show little insight into a professional soldier. They don't join for an ideology they join for the job and at the end of the day that job is look after your mates. That is the ideology. A soldier never dies in vain as he is always remembered by his mates. Sorry for the rant.
 
Is he? Did you tell him? The debunkers on this site seems to get around and meet a lot of people most folks don't get to meet.

I was in a line of soldiers when I was in the IDF doing my National Service. I said 'Hello' if I recall, but we did not get to chat. He did go on to address us all and went into Religious duties of people in the IDF and lots of other Nationalistic crap.



What does that have to do with 9/11?

Im still waiting for a benefit to Israel of 911...



Nothing changed there then. Still acting the victim whilst being the perpetrator.

Id even agree with that point, but not always the perpetrator, but always acting the victim.


The U.S backs it because it uses it in the area to create havoc.

Sounds more like the US controls Israel, and not the other way round?



War is terrible. But at least you signed up for it... the people living there had no option.

Neither did the people on 911.

Why do you think you are out there?

Do you think the people want it?

Do you think it makes the west safer?

Stops terrorism?

Im here to protect people from the explosive threat here, which is everywhere. The Afghan government is doing everything in its power to prevent us from leaving, the people I'm less sure about, but most Afghans probably (my opinion, rather than based on some hugely expensive survey) could not care less either way.

Success is difficult to judge, as it is hard to know what the people we kill were planning on doing. If they are running from location to location from aircraft, special forces, ISAF and drones, its hard for them to set up training camps and plot aircraft hijackings. I must concede that it also motivates people to commit terrorist acts as well.


Well somone is to blame. It didn't happen by accident. There were a lot of lies told to bring this situation about and a lot of opposition ignored. Over 1million protesters in London alone... the largest demonstration ever held in the U.K!

What does that prove?
 
Totally off topic but it does piss me off a little when you get people and families going on about their kids dying in vain. I know they are grieving but they show little insight into a professional soldier. They don't join for an ideology they join for the job and at the end of the day that job is look after your mates. That is the ideology. A soldier never dies in vain as he is always remembered by his mates. Sorry for the rant.


My only real motivation is to look after my blokes, and I am less interested in the fate of Afghanistan.
 
My only real motivation is to look after my blokes, and I am less interested in the fate of Afghanistan.

Exactly. I took redundancy in the late 90's with Options for Change. When the Iraq invasion was brewing my old brigade was going but they could not call me up. A few phonecalls from mates and I was on the phone to Aldershot and on a train down 5 days later. My thoughts on the war went out the window. Just wanted to be there for my mates.
 
Exactly. I took redundancy in the late 90's with Options for Change. When the Iraq invasion was brewing my old brigade was going but they could not call me up. A few phonecalls from mates and I was on the phone to Aldershot and on a train down 5 days later. My thoughts on the war went out the window. Just wanted to be there for my mates.

I suppose I can see where he is coming from as I work with Americans who are definitely in it for ideology and its a bit weird when Im in the States and constantly getting thanks for stuff... I just to end with the same number of blokes I started with...
 
Totally off topic but it does piss me off a little when you get people and families going on about their kids dying in vain. I know they are grieving but they show little insight into a professional soldier. They don't join for an ideology they join for the job and at the end of the day that job is look after your mates. That is the ideology. A soldier never dies in vain as he is always remembered by his mates. Sorry for the rant.

That's it is it. A job and looking after your mates. F... anything else?
 
But it's not true. Sure, you might argue it undermines their credibility, but it can't undermine actual facts.

The WTC 7 steel & dust were the key pieces of factual evidence of the collapse.
They far outweigh any other facts you allude to...


It's just a way of avoiding addressing the fact that the fire actually is a perfectly reasonable reason for the collapse.

No Mick fire is not a reasonable explanation for a controlled demoliton-like collapse.

But let's put it another way. Can you find ONE factual claim in the report that the lack of test for explosives renders invalid.

Let me ask you a question... Of the total remains of WTC 7 what physical piece was scientifically investigated?

I'll help.. it was not the steel and not the dust... so what did they investigate?
 
That's it is it. A job and looking after your mates. F... anything else?

I dont wish to speak for Biggerdave, but I interpret his post as not a job but the job, which in British parlance means the profession, rather than simply employment - joining to become a soldier, which most of the time is it's own reward. Again, that is my interpretation of Biggerdaves post, but do you see something wrong with looking after your mates?
 
That's it is it. A job and looking after your mates. F... anything else?

Essentially yes, but more. you cannot define the bond between you and your mates. It is at times stronger than that of family. The military is a unique way of life. However soldiers still do have a conscience and a moral compass.
 
I dont wish to speak for Biggerdave, but I interpret his post as not a job but the job, which in British parlance means the profession, rather than simply employment - joining to become a soldier, which most of the time is it's own reward. Again, that is my interpretation of Biggerdaves post, but do you see something wrong with looking after your mates?

Exactly and far more eloquent than me.
 
The WTC 7 steel & dust were the key pieces of factual evidence of the collapse.
They far outweigh any other facts you allude to...

The dust has proven nothing. No-one has written a paper with this hypothesis, unless you can correct me?




No Mick fire is not a reasonable explanation for a controlled demoliton-like collapse.

Controlled demoliton is not a reasonable explaination as there is no evidence of controlled demolition. None. Once a buildings structure fails, it falls.
 
Let me ask you a question... Of the total remains of WTC 7 what physical piece was scientifically investigated?

I'll help.. it was not the steel and not the dust... so what did they investigate?

I'm not sure they directly examined any physical pieces, why don't you just tell me?

What they did examine in incredible detail were the fires. They did a very careful floor by floor and window by window recreation of exactly when and where the fire was burning.

The also examined in incredible detail the actual collapse. They studied exactly what collapsed, and when it collapsed.

These things match up. The highly asymmetric collapse happened under the penthouse that sits over column 79. This is the column that has both the largest open floor are surrounding it (and hence the largest fire load, 2-3 hours worth), and the longest floor spans (hence is most vulnerable to connections being unseated via thermal expansion).

So using actual known facts that you can verify yourself, they demonstrated that the fires would cause a collapse, and that it would look like what happened.

You can keep dodging this point all you like, but that's the plain truth.
 
Essentially yes, but more. you cannot define the bond between you and your mates. It is at times stronger than that of family. The military is a unique way of life. However soldiers still do have a conscience and a moral compass.

I understand where you are coming from here when you are talking about commitment to keeping each other safe but what is worrying to me is, I feel that you are being used by the government for a job which was never intended and which puts you in an extremely difficult position. As I see it, the role of the military is to protect the Country from attack. The role foisted on you was one of invading foreign Countries without just cause.

There are many military people who have come back and are outraged at being so used. Not only these wars but other wars as well.

Where does it end, do you turn on the home population, like the police have on occasions, simply because you are ordered to?

I know it is hard but these things have to be faced... how far are you prepared to go for 'the job and your mates'? You must discuss these issues amongst yourselves from time to time.
 
I understand where you are coming from here when you are talking about commitment to keeping each other safe but what is worrying to me is, I feel that you are being used by the government for a job which was never intended and which puts you in an extremely difficult position. As I see it, the role of the military is to protect the Country from attack. The role foisted on you was one of invading foreign Countries without just cause.

There are many military people who have come back and are outraged at being so used. Not only these wars but other wars as well.

Where does it end, do you turn on the home population, like the police have on occasions, simply because you are ordered to?

I know it is hard but these things have to be faced... how far are you prepared to go for 'the job and your mates'? You must discuss these issues amongst yourselves from time to time.


We do talk about these things, but never in terms of 'false-flags', 'illuminati', 'zionist plots' or any other such nonsense. Obviously Iraq is seen as a massive mistake, but just that - a mistake. Mistaken intelligence and we were not properly prepared, and then we (Brits anyway) wande some stupid errors while we were there. Protecting your country does not mean you need to sit at home and wait for your enemy to come to you - I prefer to stonk them on their turf and if AQ have training camps in Afghanistan, it is perfectly normal for me to want to stonk them there. But, if someone believes all these things are inside jobs, then the point is moot...
 
I understand where you are coming from here when you are talking about commitment to keeping each other safe but what is worrying to me is, I feel that you are being used by the government for a job which was never intended and which puts you in an extremely difficult position. As I see it, the role of the military is to protect the Country from attack. The role foisted on you was one of invading foreign Countries without just cause.

There are many military people who have come back and are outraged at being so used. Not only these wars but other wars as well.

Where does it end, do you turn on the home population, like the police have on occasions, simply because you are ordered to?

I know it is hard but these things have to be faced... how far are you prepared to go for 'the job and your mates'? You must discuss these issues amongst yourselves from time to time.

All I can talk about is personal experience. I joined at 16 as a Junior Leader. By 17 I was a trained medic and looking at joining the airborne. Before I was 18 I was in Northern Ireland. It was there I was involved in a car blast that left be with 6 inch wide piece if car sticking out of my skull. While still in hospital an officer came with discharge papers expecting that would be my reaction. Hell no. To me it was a way of life and one I wanted to be in. Cut a long story short I trained to be a nurse and did both Gulf Wars, Bosnia and Rwanda but we where based in NI for nearly 7 years. I prefered to be there because I was actually doing my job. To me that was all. Admittedly I did take redundancy at the first chance but I missed my kids.
 
I'm not sure they directly examined any physical pieces, why don't you just tell me?

A scientific investigation of the WTC 7 steel & dust would be of paramount importance if one is to genuinely investigate the collapse.
NIST also knows this.

What they did examine in incredible detail were the fires. They did a very careful floor by floor and window by window recreation of exactly when and where the fire was burning.

The also examined in incredible detail the actual collapse. They studied exactly what collapsed, and when it collapsed.

WTC 7 totally collapsed.
Investigating what went on inside the building at the time of the collapse is fully open to speculation and manipulation to say the least.
All this while ignoring to investigate the remaining physical evidence being the steel and the dust.

So using actual known facts that you can verify yourself, they demonstrated that the fires would cause a collapse, and that it would look like what happened.

You can keep dodging this point all you like, but that's the plain truth.

The plain truth is that NIST blatantly ignored investigating the physical evidence. You don't seem to have a problem with this... I do.
 
The plain truth is that NIST blatantly ignored investigating the physical evidence. You don't seem to have a problem with this... I do.

So you keep saying :)

But they analyzed the actual events of the day in vast and precise detail, and showed just what happened, and it fit perfectly.

There were no sounds consistent with a controlled demolition.

The fires burned for hours, but somehow did not set off any hidden explosives.

And the dust was analyzed, and no explosive residue was found.

The observed collapse exactly matched the pattern expected from the fires and the structure of the building.

So that's it really.
 
Mick what are the chances of fire weakening a local part of a steel high rise and making it come down like a controlled demolition and this happening on 9/11 of all days?

Sorry to chip in again, but you keep using this 'like a controlled demolition' phrase. Other than gravity, what other similarity do you see with controlled demolition? I ask as I see none.

Secondly, how would perpetrators of such an event fireproof their explosive charges?

Thirdly, why is structural collapse due to weakened steel so absurd to you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cambridgeshire/3970807.stm
 
Mick, I'm curious as to what your view of the Israelis arrested on 911 with $4,000 in their shoes, tickets to leave the country within the month and so forth is? What would you imagine that they were doing there?

How does one carry 4,000 in their shoe? I remember when I worked in Manhattan, people on the night shift would carry their cash in their socks and shoes incase they were robbed. Did you ever try to stuff cash in your shoe?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top