Chomsky dispels 9/11 conspiracies with sheer logic [video]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fair enough. There may not be enough evidence to support a theory of controlled demolition. Although I wouldn't be surprised if someone could provide an explosive engineer that was a truther and you still wouldn't agree anyway. I'm the same way, everyone seems to be. I.e. our mental inertia usually weighs a bit more than we claim it does.

There was - Danny Jowenko was a Dutch demolition engineer who was shown the film of WTC7 and opined it was a controlled demolition, but that was simply on appearnce. He was asked to look at a film and give an opinion and was not told until after he said it was demolition that it was WTC7 on 911. He was slightly hounded by the rest of the explosives industry, somewhat unfairly in my view as I felt his interview with the CTers was dishonest and he was suckered into saying what they wanted to hear - and before that starts a whole new thread, it is just my opinion. Then he died in as car accident which just added another level of intrigue. In anycase, he looked at a film in the Netherlands and declared his opinion that it was demolition. He did not write a paper, nor do any calculations, nor ask a single question before declaring it as such. The other guy was a retired bloke who used to work for Controlled Demolition Inc called Tom Sullivan, which A&E made a big fuss about, but when you looked into his qualifications, he was licensed to transport explosives around and not an actual Explosive Engineer. Again, show me something worth looking at and I'll look, but so far all the claims of controlled demolition are implausible or technically unfeasible.

I find it odd that no one has been held accountable. Pretty much, no one. No engineer that should have known about buckling as "basic knowledge" so that WTC 7 wouldn't basically fall in on itself due to some debris and office fires. No engineer that claimed that the Two Towers could withstand airplanes and so forth has been held accountable, as far as I know. Pretty much no one in the intelligence community was held accountable for their billions of dollar a year failures. Instead, no... they need bigger budgets. No general in charge of defenses was demoted or resigned in utter disgrace... weren't they promoted instead? And so forth.

We might actually agree on something here. Im not sure you can blame the architechs or City building inspectors for the buildings collapsing from the plane impacts. They were still high on fuel and the kinetic energy alone would have been fatal I feel (Iv not done the calcs...!) Bear in mind the HMS Sheffield was sunk in the Falklands war by an Exocet missile that did not explode - it destroyed the ship by kinetic energy alone. Regarding accountability, yes there were certainly some intelligence failures, air defence failures and co-ordination between the FAA and NORAD failures, but these are incidental in my view and not evidence supporting a conspiracy.

Apparently neocons have been more interested in holding Obama Inc. accountable for Benghazi where a few Americans died than the other 911 where thousands did. Would that they had the same zeal for accountability, hearings, investigations and a "safety first" attitude on the original 911, huh?

Off topic mate.
 
Forgive me, but in a demolition context I dont think you do. If I want to do a remote controlled demolition then I need to isolate several frequencies so that I can send my signal to set off my charges. That is why on a demolition site cell phones and radios are fobidden with a certain range, but I can control this. On 911, I would have no control over the RF band and all those radios and phone could set off my charges by mistake - hence making your RC initiation theory untenable. So CTers would need to explain how this RF band was isolated without confiscating everyone's phone in the lower manhattan area.
Not only that, but it would have to be FIREPROOF.

Aircraft black boxes have to have a fire rating, because they aren't much use if they go up in smoke. If held in the seat of a crash fire afterward, they struggle to survive for more than forty-five minutes.

The bombers might just have succeeded in fire-proofing the towers' bombs for the time before they collapsed by enclosing the ignitable mixture in a double steel walled box with insulant between, But the electronics would have had to be inside too, and yet the aerial (heatproof nichrome, no doubt) would have to be exposed outside somewhere. And the material would have to cut through the box first.

But when we get to WTC7, the seven hour marathon burn, the bombers would have had to take out the dry insulant from the double-walled box and feed it with a constant supply of cold water, in order to continually remove thermal energy from the receiver and charge for the duration of the fire. The material would have to cut through a single-walled region of the box so as not to disturb the water.

Hmm, water and thermite. Hmmm, water and electronics. Grievous difficulties, mynymal chance of it working. That's it, then. Must be the way. Forward the hyperbole.
 
Forgive me, but in a demolition context I dont think you do. If I want to do a remote controlled demolition then I need to isolate several frequencies so that I can send my signal to set off my charges. That is why on a demolition site cell phones and radios are fobidden with a certain range, but I can control this. On 911, I would have no control over the RF band and all those radios and phone could set off my charges by mistake - hence making your RC initiation theory untenable. So CTers would need to explain how this RF band was isolated without confiscating everyone phone in the lower manhatten area.

This does not even scratch the surface of the whole RF hazard, but one wonders why truthers never go there...

That's that debunked then. Can't use a mobile phone or RF to detonate an explosive. Are you sure about that?

Banned by yt.

http://explosives.wonderhowto.com/how-to/make-cell-phone-detonator-216491/

Do you want to blow things up, but don't want to be too close to the explosion? Well, I have just the video tutorial for you. Check this out to see how to wire your old cell phone into a mobile phone bomb detonator. This is easier than you would think. Wireless detonators are the way to go!
Content from External Source
http://www.geek.com/mobile/cellphones-used-to-trigger-bombs-552798/

The FBI has warned law enforcement agencies of the potential use of cellphones to detonate bombs remotely. Modified cellphones have been found in Saudi Arabia during investigations into the recent bombings. In the FBI's bulletin, officers are warned about using “radios, cellular phones, and pagers within 50 feet” of any suspected bomb. A cellphone was used during the bombing of Hebrew University in July 2002. The device was detonated when a modified cellphone received a phone call from another cellphone. Modified cellphones used to detonate explosions have also turned up in other places, including Paris, France. The cellphones give terrorists the advantage of detonating a device from long distances.

Content from External Source
I think that debunk is debunked then. Using debunking logic, everything else must be bunk as well.
 
Let's look at the possibility first, before we discuss who.

I have asked these questions before, with no answers.

1) WHO rigged the buildings---controlled demo is not a common skill, it takes specially trained folks and an engineer with access to details of a building's construction.
Show us something that says WHO did it, what company.

2) When were the buildings rigged? And why did no one notice it.

3) How did the charges endure the fires? and I will add the problem with the setting off of the charges also.

I have seen nothing reasonable to explain those, without them, discussing who had it done is downright silly.
 
There was - Danny Jowenko was a Dutch demolition engineer who was shown the film of WTC7 and opined it was a controlled demolition, but that was simply on appearnce. He was asked to look at a film and give an opinion and was not told until after he said it was demolition that it was WTC7 on 911. He was slightly hounded by the rest of the explosives industry, somewhat unfairly in my view as I felt his interview with the CTers was dishonest and he was suckered into saying what they wanted to hear - and before that starts a whole new thread, it is just my opinion. Then he died in as car accident which just added another level of intrigue. In anycase, he looked at a film in the Netherlands and declared his opinion that it was demolition. He did not write a paper, nor do any calculations, nor ask a single question before declaring it as such. The other guy was a retired bloke who used to work for Controlled Demolition Inc called Tom Sullivan, which A&E made a big fuss about, but when you looked into his qualifications, he was licensed to transport explosives around and not an actual Explosive Engineer. Again, show me something worth looking at and I'll look,


Not only that...but Jowenko also opined that WTC 1&2 were NOT a controlled demolition - "it can't have been explosives" he says- watch from the 3:30 mark:



so far all the claims of controlled demolition are implausible or technically unfeasible.

These folks at Implosion World agree with you:

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf
 
That's that debunked then. Can't use a mobile phone or RF to detonate an explosive. Are you sure about that?

Am I being unclear?

I said, clearly, that all the mobile phones, and radios and tv transmitters and taxi drivers CBs, Cops, firemen, TV crews etc all emmitting radio signals are a HAZARD to ME, the demolition crew. They can set of my charges when I don't want then to, so in the context of 911, when said evil conspirator arms his devices, they are then at the mercy of this uncontrolled RF spectrum sending random signals into the ionosphere waiting for one of them to hit my charges to set them off.

Where did I say a phone cannot be used to detonate explosives? I said the opposite.

Its just words Oxy, all you have to do is read them.
 
...Right now, you have nothing...

Funny... an EOD officer saying people have no evidence after the official government institution charged with the investigation ignores investigating the physical evidence.

I realise you are struggling with this, but why test for explosives if no-one (serious) suspects explosives? Should they test for salt corrosion too?

I now suspect you are not an EOD officer. If you were you would know a genuine investigation into the events of this 'terrorist' event would obviously call for a
trace chemical analysis of the WTC dust.

I only care about facts and evidence. Why is that concept so difficult for you?

Another pointer that you are not who you say you are. You say you care about facts and evidence yet at the same time you find "not suspecting explosives" a valid scientific reason
for not doing a trace chemical analisys of the the WTC dust which is obviously not a valid scientific reason.

Has ANYONE is the CT world, including the ones that claim immense technical knowledge done the calculations? Please carry on with this thermite avenue for a while, tell me how it was done.

These scientists found in the WTC dust chips that show energetic properties.

 
Some FACTS from the experts.

3. In an effort to further research this assertion, we spoke directly with equipment
operators and site foremen who personally
extracted beams and debris from Ground
Zero (several of whom have requested anonymi
ty to prevent harassment). These men
worked for independent companies in separate quadrants of the site, and many were
chosen due to their extensive experience with debris removal following explosive
demolition events. To a man, they do not recall encountering molten structural steel
beams, nor do they recall seeing any evidence of pre-cutting or explosive severance of
beams at any point during debris removal activities.
4. The assertion that thermite played a role in the towers’ collapse has been put forth by
Steven Jones, a Professor at Brigham Young University. This author spoke with
Professor Jones at length in February 2006, and we have corresponded via email a few
times since. As he has explained it, metallurgic tests were conducted on two sections of
steel beams that were saved for 9/11 memorials in the New York area. These beams
apparently tested positive for “trace amounts of thermite”, which led Jones to conclude
that thermite was used on 9/11 by unknown parties to compromise support beams in
WTC 1, 2 and 7. Professor Jones acknowledges that his investigation is still in the
research phase and that questions regarding the viability of his theory remain
unanswered. For example, it is unknown how thermite’s destructive process could have
been applied and initiated simultaneously on so many beams – in several buildings –
undetected and/or under such extreme conditions. It is also unusual that no demolition
personnel at any level noticed telltale signs of thermite’s degenerative “fingerprint” on
any beams during the eight months of debris removal. And a verifiable chain of
possession needs to be established for the tested beams. Could they have been cut
away from the debris pile with acetylene torches, shears, or other potentially
contaminated equipment while on site?
Could they have been exposed to trace
amounts of thermite or other compounds while being handled, or in storage, or during the transfer processes from Ground Zero to the memorial sites? We do not know the
answers, but these and many related questions should be addressed if this assertion
continues to be pursued.
Content from External Source
Let me point out this part

The assertion that thermite played a role in the towers’ collapse has been put forth by
Steven Jones, a Professor at Brigham Young University. This author spoke with
Professor Jones at length in February 2006, and we have corresponded via email a few
times since. As he has explained it, metallurgic tests were conducted on two sections of
steel beams that were saved for 9/11 memorials in the New York area. These beams
apparently tested positive for “trace amounts of thermite”, which led Jones to conclude
that thermite was used on 9/11 by unknown parties to compromise support beams in
WTC 1, 2 and 7. Professor Jones acknowledges that his investigation is still in the
research phase and that questions regarding the viability of his theory remain
unanswered. For example, it is unknown how thermite’s destructive process could have
been applied and initiated simultaneously on so many beams – in several buildings –
undetected and/or under such extreme conditions.
Content from External Source
 
Not only that...but Jowenko also opined that WTC 1&2 were NOT a controlled demolition - "it can't have been explosives" he says- watch from the 3:30 mark:
Actually, if you listen to/read exactly what he says, it's that it -LOOKS- like a demolition, but couldn't be, because in his opinion the logistics of the set-up would have been too complex.
I said, clearly, that all the mobile phones, and radios and tv transmitters and taxi drivers CBs, Cops, firemen, TV crews etc all emmitting radio signals are a HAZARD to ME, the demolition crew. They can set of my charges when I don't want then to, so in the context of 911, when said evil conspirator arms his devices, they are then at the mercy of this uncontrolled RF spectrum sending random signals into the ionosphere waiting for one of them to hit my charges to set them off.
You're a military demolitions expert, and you seriously expect us to believe there's no such thing as remote technology that's resistant to being triggered accidentally? Come on. That's nonsense. Cellphones are surrounded by other cellphones every hour of every day. They don't tend to ring accidentally when someone else is making a call nearby/using the radio. If a bomb can be detonated using a cellphone as the receiver, and cellphones don't tend to suffer from these disruptive clouds of radio frequencies you describe, then what are we even talking about? How can you, with your professional acumen, suggest a remote detonator that wouldn't be triggered by a hand-radio/passing cellphone would be beyond the capabilities of the sort of people who'd be involved in rigging the WTC to blow?
These folks at Implosion World agree with you:

http://www.implosionworld.com/Articl...09-8-06%20.pdf
Just read through it. Interesting how their assessment of building 7 more or less starts and ends at the owner's 'pull it' comments, going into little to no further detail beyond repeating what NIST said. In that section, they state
1. A building owner would never be in a position to dictate to fire personnel or

emergency workers whether his building should be “pulled” or demolished. We know of
no case where command and control of a disaster scene has ever been transferred to a
private third party, much less a disaster of such scope. This action would violate a
number of ethical canons regarding the safety of emergency responders and the general
public, not to mention exposing those who transferred and assumed such authority to
substantial liability risks. Therefore, even if such a statement was made on 9/11, it is
highly doubtful that the comment would have affected decisions at the scene
I find this very interesting, as I've always wondered why in the world a fire-chief would be consulting with a building owner on their future course of action. Maybe that greedy bastard was just making it all up... but wouldn't a reasonable question then be 'why'?
1) WHO rigged the buildings---controlled demo is not a common skill, it takes specially trained folks and an engineer with access to details of a building's construction.
Show us something that says WHO did it, what company.

2) When were the buildings rigged? And why did no one notice it.

3) How did the charges endure the fires? and I will add the problem with the setting off of the charges also.

I have seen nothing reasonable to explain those, without them, discussing who had it done is downright silly.
Cairenn, for the last time, I have linked you a video addressing these questions, unreasonable as they are. You've ignored it. Ignoring the answers to the questions you ask and then claiming the 'failure' to answer these questions negates all argument is ridiculous. Willful ignorance is not a tool of debate.
 
I find this very interesting, as I've always wondered why in the world a fire-chief would be consulting with a building owner on their future course of action. Maybe that greedy bastard was just making it all up... but wouldn't a reasonable question then be 'why'?

Regarding just talking to the building owner - it would seem very sensible to talk to the owner as they would have the most information about the building, and would be able to direct inquiries about that building (like, say they wanted to know about the diesel fuel tanks, or something) to the relevant person.

The fire chief wasn't consulting with Silverstein, he was telling him what the situation was. Silverstein says "They made that decision, to pull".
 
Then he died in as car accident which just added another level of intrigue.

But thousands of other truthers are still alive... if I was a conspirator some of my first targets would be Webster Tarpley and Griffin or even Alex Jones and not some guy who happened to watch a video, expert or not. Perhaps he died... and it only looks like a coincidence if you imagine that it may have possibly been a conspiracy in the first place.

Anyway... you're right, the controlled demolition of WTC 7 could be an illusion just as "coincidence theorists" insist on imagining and simulating. I'm not sure what to make of it. Things would probably have been simpler if NIST had been more interested in a real investigation than their own simulations/imaginations. (Yes, I'm aware that there are a lot of excuses as far as not really thoroughly investigating everything and just simulating the "obvious" conclusion instead. No need to repeat them...)
 
Actually, if you listen to/read exactly what he says, it's that it -LOOKS- like a demolition, but couldn't be, because in his opinion the logistics of the set-up would have been too complex.

Not true- he says because they collapsed from the top down- unlike typical demolitions where explosives are used on the bottom to initiate collapse- which suggest he thinks it doesn't look like a typical demolition:

" (in a typical demolition) You'd place the explosives below, of course...but it collapsed at the exact location where the plane hit and heated it"

"it CAN'T have been explosive because there was a huge fire...if there were explosives they would have already been burned"
Content from External Source
Nothing in that interview suggests he thinks WTC 1&2 "looks" like a CD.
 
The fire chief wasn't consulting with Silverstein, he was telling him what the situation was. Silverstein says "They made that decision, to pull".

Wrong. They obviously consulted.

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
 
Actually, if you listen to/read exactly what he says, it's that it -LOOKS- like a demolition, but couldn't be, because in his opinion the logistics of the set-up would have been too complex.

It's rather telling that the WTC7 portions of Jowenko's interview is wildly popular in the truther community, any yet the previous section is pretty much ignored, and hard to find.

It's also rather telling that he's used as a key piece of evidence by AE911 for WTC7, but totally ignored for WTC1&2

Jowenko's theory is that WTC1 & 2 underwent progressive collapse due to the impact and fire, and that WTC7 was a quick demolition with conventional explosives that were installed AFTER it caught fire, and done simply to save money with the cleanup.

Watch his FULL debunking of Loose Change's WTC1&2 collapse:

 
Release date: September 23, 2007

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)
Content from External Source
https://sites.google.com/site/911guide/danielnigro
 
Wrong. They obviously consulted.

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

Getting into semantics there. According to Silverstein they talked to him on the phone. Then they made the decision. There were not asking his permission.
 
Hasn't this been covered before? He was referring to 'pulling' fire crews, not pulling the building down.

Back to what the implosion experts said

However, from a demolition standpoint, several aspects of this claim are problematic.
1. A building owner would never be in a position to dictate to fire personnel or
emergency workers whether his building should be “pulled” or demolished. We know of
no case where command and control of a disaster scene has ever been transferred to a
private third party, much less a disaster of such scope. This action would violate a
number of ethical canons regarding the safety of emergency responders and the general
public, not to mention exposing those who transferred and assumed such authority to
substantial liability risks. Therefore, even if such a statement was made on 9/11, it is
highly doubtful that the comment would have affected decisions at the scene.
2. We have never, ever heard the term “pu
ll it” being used to refer to the explosive
demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we’ve spoken with. The term is
used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long
cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators,
bulldozers, etc.) to “pull” the frame of the structure over onto its side for further
dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled
over the six-story remains of WTC-6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty
that a similar operation would have been logi
stically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11,
physically impossible for a building the size of WTC 7, and the structure did not collapse
in that manner anyway.
3. Any detonation of explosives within WTC 7 would likely have been detected by
seismographs monitoring ground vibration in the general area (see Assertion #4). To
our knowledge, no such telltale “spike” or vibratory anomaly was recorded by any
monitoring instrument.
Content from External Source
 
it would seem very sensible to talk to the owner as they would have the most information about the building, and would be able to direct inquiries about that building (like, say they wanted to know about the diesel fuel tanks, or something) to the relevant person.
Silverstein had only purchased the WTC complex 6 months prior to the event. He studied law and the arts. He owns a rather large amount of real-estate, and did not reside, work in, or directly manage the WTC. What use could such a man possibly be to the fire-department in the middle of a major crisis?
The fire chief wasn't consulting with Silverstein, he was telling him what the situation was.
Again, why? Why in the world would a fire-chief, during the most important/frenzied day of their career, be taking the time to update Silverstein? It would be like the Captain of a swat-team calling up the CEO of McDonald's while engaged in a shootout at one McDonald's restaurant. Serves no purpose, makes no sense... unless I'm missing something.

Your video did not answer those questions.
It answers the who and the why within the first 20 minutes. Watch it perhaps, when you can find the time.
Why don't you post the points of it that do here?
because it's not my theory, and I strongly feel hypothesizing is largely irrelevant, given how evidently botched the investigation was. Also, in all honesty, I don't feel you've explored the issue enough for yourself.
 
Maybe because the WTC complex is slightly larger than a Micky Ds?

It seems the investigation was only botched according to the truthers.
 
Not true- he says because they collapsed from the top down- unlike typical demolitions where explosives are used on the bottom to initiate collapse- which suggest he thinks it doesn't look like a typical demolition:
The direct quote from the film:

D:"He also says it, (in reference to firefighters speaking to their perception of a floor-by-floor demolition) it simply gave out, at every level the weight was too much."
I: "But he said it was as if..."
D: "That's what it looks like. But don't tell me they put explosives on all 100 floors. That's not possible."
I: "Why not?"
D: "Of course its not."
I: " you wouldn't do it like that?"
D: "it would have taken a year."
I: "A year to plant all those explosives?"
D: "And prepare them, and hook them up."
So, exactly as I said he did, he states the event looked like a top-down demolition, but expressed strong disbelief that such a thing would be logistically possible.

Maybe because the WTC complex is slightly larger than a Micky Ds?
and the buildings being significantly larger would somehow give Silverstein GREATER insight into their structure/inner workings/the sort of information a firefighter in the middle of a crisis would be seeking? Again, Silverstein was wholly unqualified to offer any substantial assistance to a fire-chief. A fire-chief consulting with/conversing with Silverstein would be a fire-chief wasting his time at a moment when he had no time to waste.
 
The direct quote from the film:

D:"He also says it, (in reference to firefighters speaking to their perception of a floor-by-floor demolition) it simply gave out, at every level the weight was too much."
I: "But he said it was as if..."
D: "That's what it looks like. But don't tell me they put explosives on all 100 floors. That's not possible."
I: "Why not?"
D: "Of course its not."
I: " you wouldn't do it like that?"
D: "it would have taken a year."
I: "A year to plant all those explosives?"
D: "And prepare them, and hook them up."
So, exactly as I said he did, he states the event looked like a top-down demolition, but expressed strong disbelief that such a thing would be logistically possible.

You missed few lines there where he explains that it could not have been explosives, and explains WHY.



[Watching video from Loose Change of plane hitting WTC2]

J: This is bizarre, bizarre

Loose Change Audio: ... the south east corner, the majority of the jet fuel exploding outside in a massive fireball, yet this tower collapses first, even thoguht he North tower was hit straight on and had already been burning for 18 minutes longer.

Jowenko: It crashed in a more favorable spot, a bit more in the center. Plus, the building's own weight on top...

Interviewer: So it's logical the second went first?

J: Of course. Of course. You clearly see that the building that was hit first was hit higher, so it went last because there was less weight to bring
it down. That's essential knowledge for anyone who knows anything about demolition: you have to use the building's own weight."

Jowenko sees another sign that no explosives were used. The building collapses from the top down. If it had been done with explosives it would have collapsed from below.


J: "You'd place the explosives below, of course."

I: "And it would have started underneath."

J: "Yes, that's how you get the full weight. That's a present [gift]. The less you have to blow up. But the tower collapsed top down. It collapsed at the exact location where the plane hit and heated it."

The conspiracy theory assumes that the explosions began at the top. Jowenko says that's impossible.

J: "It can't have been explosives, as there was a huge fire. If there had been explosives, they would already have been burned. What's more, before being burned their igniters would have gone off at 320 degrees Celcius, so they'd have detonated sooner."

Where conspiracy theorists see explosions Jowenko sees something else, which may explain the rapid collapse.

J: "You also see, as it were, the bolts springing loose at each turn. It had a very strong core, and the beams were pretty long, but they're joined, and it was 410 metres tall. The energy is very uneven. So every vertical column has to carry a certain weight at a slightly different moment from its neighbour, so to speak. It can't bear it, so it breaks to pieces across its entire length, bolts and all. It comes loose, all the way down. And the side structures, also strong because of the wind stress, which is how the building was built, were mainly pressed outward."

[Cut to clip of firefighters (?) discussing the collapse]

FF1: "We saw ..., floor by floor it started popping out."

FF2: "It was if, if they had detonators (?), as if they had planned to take down a building, boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom [indicates rapid progression of explosions downwards]"

J: "He also says it, it simply gave out. At every level the weight was too much."

I: "But he says it was as if..."

J: "That's what it looks like. But don't tell me they put explosives on all 100 floors. That's not possible."

I: "Why not?"

J: "Of course it's not."

I: "You wouldn't do it like that?"

J: "It would take a year."

I: "A year to place all those explosives?"

J: "And prepare them and hook them up. With all the cables down there.
Content from External Source
 
It seems the investigation was only botched according to the truthers.
'Truthers' seem the only one's willing to address the issue of obstruction of justice through the destruction of evidence.
 
It's a fact that the WTC 7 steel was cleared having undergone no examination, removing the opportunity to physically explain the most unorthodox building-collapse in history. This goes against procedure in any building collapse, and given the criminal nature of the specific event amounts to spoliation of evidence and obstruction of justice. Apparently facts are only facts when they're convenient.
 
'Truthers' seem the only one's willing to address the issue of obstruction of justice through the destruction of evidence.

From the experts again. I notice that some folks like to ignore them a lot

ASSERTION #6
“Debris removed from Ground Zero – particularly the large steel columns from
towers #1 and 2 – were quickly shipped overseas to prevent independent
examination or scrutiny.”
PROTEC COMMENT: Not according to those who handled the steel.
The large steel support members extracted from Ground Zero were handled differently
than other debris, mostly because of their size and quantity (this type of initial separation
increases jobsite efficiency and is not unusual on demolition projects).
Once the steel was extracted and/or cut away from other debris, it was piled in staging
areas just outside the work zone. These piles were then loaded onto trucks that
transported them a few blocks north to a secondary staging area on the Hudson River.
Cranes transferred the steel from the trucks onto barges, which were shipped to Fresh
Kills Landfill in Staten Island. At this point it transferred into the control of Yannuzzi
Demolition, whose team was responsible for off-loading the barges and storing the steel
in an area separate from general debris arriving on other barges. It was then examined
and cataloged by a series of forensic investigators, city officials and site managers.
Some time later (the timing varied due to logistical factors), the steel was shipped off site
to China.
Our research team can personally verify the Lower Manhattan chain of possession, as
we witnessed and documented this chain. We then reviewed activities that occurred at
Fresh Kills by speaking with John Yannuzzi, President of Yannuzzi Demolition. Our
team also reviewed commentary made by D
ennis Dannenfelser, Yannuzzi’s Fresh Kills
Site Supervisor, who oversaw the entire operation from start to finish and spoke candidly
and extensively at the National Demolition Association’s annual Convention in March
2003. According to all parties, the steel went through the same series of steps as it
would have on any other demolition project, albeit on a larger scale and with an
increased presence of examiners. No one we spoke with perceived an attempt to “rush”
or hide the process, and to the opposite, dozens if not hundreds of unrelated individuals
– working for various entities and possessing various types of expertise – came in close
contact with the steel over a period of mont
hs before it was eventually shipped overseas.
In consideration of these first-hand experiences and interviews, and absent any
dissenting commentary, we can find nothing to support this assertion.
Content from External Source
Doesn't sound the 'destruction of evidence' to me. Can you explain why you think it is, considering what is in my post?
 
'Truthers' seem the only one's willing to address the issue of obstruction of justice through the destruction of evidence.

Because they are the only ones who think it is an issue.

I've addressed it countless times here. Hiper brings it up in nearly every post he makes (and he's made 226).

It strikes me as an argument of last resort, almost an admission that there's really no evidence that the buildings did not collapse as the result of fire. So they have to start asking unanswerable questions like "why no explosives tests". Then asking it again and again and again, and ignoring any answers given.
 
Doesn't sound the 'destruction of evidence' to me. Can you explain why you think it is, considering what is in my post?
What is quoted in your post solely and conveniently speaks toward Buildings 1 and 2. It fails to mention building 7 entirely because no review of the building 7 steel was conducted whatsoever, steel which never made it to Fresh Kills, that total creepshow of a landfill, or any other site for examination. Even the examinations of WTC 1/2 steel were openly reported as being inadequate by a leading expert and proponent of the official account who was instrumental in the composition of the NIST report.

You're defending the investigation fiercely. Did you notice this post?
Amount of money allocated for the 9/11 Commission: $14 million
Budget of 'World Trade Center', the tasteless Hollywood film staring Nicholas Cage that portrayed the events of 9/11: $65 million
When a dumb-assed movie about the most significant criminal event in modern history costs nearly five times more than the investigation of that event, while still remaining at a relatively low budget for a modern Hollywood feature, can you seriously suggest that investigation was adequate? Chronicles of Riddick, one of the dumbest movies of all time, cost roughly 120million, or nearly 8 times what was spent on the investigation of the most heinous crime in US history. The wars which this event inspired have, to date, cost roughly ninety-thousand times the cost of the investigation.
 
It strikes me as an argument of last resort, almost an admission that there's really no evidence that the buildings did not collapse as the result of fire. So they have to start asking unanswerable questions like "why no explosives tests". Then asking it again and again and again, and ignoring any answers given.
Again, too hung up on 'explosives tests'. Why no tests of the WTC 7 steel AT ALL is the pertinent question. The didn't even try to physically determine the cause of the failure, instead spending 6 years hypothesizing with footage, speculation and simulations.
 
Again, too hung up on 'explosives tests'. Why no tests of the WTC 7 steel AT ALL is the pertinent question.

Because they (NIST) don't have anything that was unequivocally WTC7 steel when they started the WTC7 investigation.

Same answer as last time this question was asked.
 
Again, too hung up on 'explosives tests'. Why no tests of the WTC 7 steel AT ALL is the pertinent question. The didn't even try to physically determine the cause of the failure, instead spending 6 years hypothesizing with footage, speculation and simulations.

Or, you could just look in the FAQ

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


 
Because they (NIST) don't have anything that was unequivocally WTC7 steel when they started the WTC7 investigation.
Exactly. Because the crime-scene was contaminated/the evidence removed.

Or, you could just look in the FAQ

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi.../faqs_wtc7.cfm

Content from external source:

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.
Right. The 'facts', as NIST states them, as to why the WTC 7 steel went undocumented and was destroyed without examination = 'woops', with a dose of 'Oh well.'
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Right. The 'facts', as NIST states them, as to why the WTC 7 steel went undocumented and was destroyed without examination = 'woops', with a dose of 'Oh well.'

So..........

So if you know the answers, why not start by stating your case, not asking questions?

Asking a question gives your position an air of false authority, as if the question has not been answered. When really all you are saying is "I do not believe anything NIST says".

Why waste time asking questions? Just tell people what you think.
 
I suppose Chomsky will be talking a load of 'bunk' in this video though.

http://rt.com/op-edge/drone-strikes-campaign-terrorist-679/

Full video at link.

[h=1]'Obama must be taken before ICC for the war on terror' - Chomsky to RT[/h]
The US war on terror is in fact the most massive terror campaign ever, and the invasion of Iraq was the worst crime in recent history, prominent liberal thinker Noam Chomsky told RT, adding that he wants to see Bush, Blair and Obama tried at the ICC.
The ‘father of modern linguistics,’ Chomsky reflects on the language of the war on terror, coming to the conclusion that the freer the society, the more sophisticated its propaganda.

NC: Two days after the Boston bombing there was a drone strike in Yemen, one of many, but this one we happen to know about because the young man from the village that was hit testified before the Senate a couple of days later and described it. It was right at the same time. And what he said is interesting and relevant. He said that they were trying to kill someone in his village, he said that the man was perfectly well known and they could have apprehended him if they wanted.
A tribesman walks near a building damaged last year by a U.S. drone air strike targeting suspected al Qaeda militants in Azan of the southeastern Yemeni province of Shabwa (Reuters / Khaled Abdullah)


A drone strike was a terror weapon, we don’t talk about it that way. It is, just imagine you are walking down the street and you don’t know whether in 5 minutes there is going to be an explosion across the street from some place up in the sky that you can’t see. Somebody will be killed, and whoever is around will be killed, maybe you’ll be injured if you’re there. That is a terror weapon. It terrorizes villages, regions, huge areas. In fact it’s the most massive terror campaign going on by a longshot.

What happened in the village according to the Senate testimony, he said that the jihadists had been trying to turn over the villagers against the Americans and had not succeeded. He said in one drone strike they’ve turned the entire village against the Americans. That is a couple of hundred new people who will be called terrorists if they take revenge. It’s a terrorist operation and a terrorist generating machine. It goes on and on, it’s not just the drone strikes, also the Special Forces and so on. It was right at the time of the Boston marathon and it was one of innumerable cases.
Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Exactly. Because the crime-scene was contaminated/the evidence removed.
Nice try.

But it wasn't a "crime-scene", was it? The crimes were committed on WTC1&2, were they not?

Had not the first plane hit its target dead-on, but to the right, like the other plane did, it would have fallen on top of some other tower, and no doubt you would be arguing how that was full of explosives, and how "they" hid the evidence of that steelwork.

Or, I suppose, you might theorize that all of the surrounding buildings were wired for explosives, and they were going to go for broke if they could.

Hang on - why? LOL.
 
Did the government fund the movie? Would the investigation make money? To compare the to is like comparing an apple to a computer or a recording studio, they are not even related except that money was used.

Time to retire that piece of nonsense.

In spite of all you say, you can not offer a reasonable explanation of why explosives should have been even considered. No indications of explosions, no way to set them, or protect them and NO ONE that could have done it. With your reasoning, they should have looked at any possible way, no matter how preposterous it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top