Debunked: Government officials revealed having foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse

Status
Not open for further replies.
That seems a bit of a stretch?
Article:
Before he stopped talking, however, the naturalized U.S. citizen reportedly "told the FBI that [he and his brother] were angry about the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the killing of Muslims there."

Article:
Dzokhar, the surviving Tsarnaev brother, reportedly told law enforcement officials that he and his brother were inspired by Awlaki sermons available online. Awlaki, an American-born Muslim cleric who encouraged attacks against America and the West, delivered his ideology of extreme intolerance and violence to English-speaking online audiences for several years.
I know that movie scripts are not evidence of anything but you should watch the 2016 movie, Patriots Day. At the 1:12:50 mark the brothers Tsarnaev are driving a guy they kidnapped named Manny to his bank to force him to withdraw money from the ATM. Here is what was said:

CAR RADIO: The Boston marathon tragedy is being described as the worst act of domestic terrorism since the September 11th attacks. However, unlike the attacks on the world trade center...

TAMERLAN: Fuck them! You know that's bullshit, right, Manny?

MANNY: Yes.

TAMERLAN: 9/11...

MANNY: Uh...

TAMERLAN: Muslims didn't blow up those buildings. The U.S. Government did.

MANNY: Yes, I know.

TAMERLAN: You know?

DZHOKHAR: Are you saying yes because you believe it, or are you saying yes because you don't want us to kill you?

MANNY: Sorry, I don't know who did it. 9/11...

DZHOKHAR: Yo, you need to educate yourself, dawg. For real, that's the problem with this country. No one knows what goes down. America is fake as fuck.

TAMERLAN: The government did all that shit. The government… to make Americans hate real Muslims. A lot of people who say they were at 9/11, they're all actors.

MANNY: I didn't know that.

TAMERLAN: Well, now you know.

DZHOKHAR: Of course you didn't. You're conditioned by the media.
Now, maybe the writer of the screenplay was taking liberties with the facts. Nobody knows exactly what was actually said in the car that night. But it seems to me that the writer was trying to make the same logical point I made in my previous post. If charlatans such as David Hooper and Richard Gage were not involved in making false claims about 9/11 and trying to exonerate the terrorists, do you think the Tsarnaev brothers would have come up with their crazy ideas on their own?
 
Last edited:
Now, maybe the writer of the screenplay was taking liberties with the facts.
"Manny" (not going to post his real name) apparently did tell the actor playing the part that story. and some cosmetician posted the night of the attacks that the mother believed 9/11 was an inside job.

Problem is... memory issues, language issues, "Manny" was a new transient Chinese young man, and the fact that if the story was verified with people who knew the brothers the media would have been all over that. Esp. since Sandy Hook had recently happened and conspiracy theories were already tormenting those parents and family members.

i can only find two iffy sounding websites that even bring that up. so.... it is "Manny"'s (according to an interview with the actor) story but ....
 
If charlatans such as David Hooper and Richard Gage were not involved in making false claims about 9/11 and trying to exonerate the terrorists, do you think the Tsarnaev brothers would have come up with their crazy ideas on their own?
No, I think they were exposed to radical ideas from others, e.g. via Awlaki.

It's also very much evident that they held the US wars in the middle East against the US, and the Iraq war alone would qualify as "fake as fuck", given the WMD lie and the 9/11 lie that publicly justified it.

Admittedly, I don't know whether Awlaki used 9/11 as part of his propaganda, but I don't expect that's the core of the Al Quaida outreach program. :p
 
The engineering truth about 9/11 is available for anyone who wants to know and this applies to people with or without engineer backgrounds.
I understand that this view is shared by many people on this forum. I disagree. I, for example, have tried for many years to understand how those buildings collapsed and I still don't. The truth is not easily "available" to people without engineering backgrounds.

The idea that the truth is easily understood by people with such backgrounds is interesting for our discussion here. I obviously don't know either way, since I don't have that background. But I find it hard to believe that all the engineers who have expressed skepticism about the official story have done so knowing that their peers in the discipline know they're lying about obvious facts and basic laws of physics.

In fact, that's one of the reasons that, despite not understanding the offficial explanation, I can't believe in CD. If the official collapses are as "physically impossible" as the truthers say, this must be obvious to thousands of engineers, who are either remaining silent or outright lying about it. That just doesn't seem possible to me.

My approach these days is not to try to expose lies and not to decide which authorities to believe. I'm just trying to get my mind around the nature of the structures and the process of their collapse.

My assumption is that there are sincere people on both sides who are working on (or have already solved) what they think is a genuine puzzle. I'm trying to learn from them in order to solve mine. I try to ignore anything, on either side, that smacks of propoganda, including critiques of the other side's "logic" or sincerity. That's not because I don't think such critiques have a place. It's just not helpful to me at this stage.

I already know people sometimes lie in the pursuit of monetary and political ends. The thing is that sometimes those same people also tell the truth in those pursuits. So you have to take it one idea, one claim, at a time. Not dispose of one opportunistic truther or debunker after another.
 
I understand that this view is shared by many people on this forum. I disagree. I, for example, have tried for many years to understand how those buildings collapsed and I still don't. The truth is not easily "available" to people without engineering backgrounds.

The idea that the truth is easily understood by people with such backgrounds is interesting for our discussion here. I obviously don't know either way, since I don't have that background. But I find it hard to believe that all the engineers who have expressed skepticism about the official story have done so knowing that their peers in the discipline know they're lying about obvious facts and basic laws of physics.

In fact, that's one of the reasons that, despite not understanding the offficial explanation, I can't believe in CD. If the official collapses are as "physically impossible" as the truthers say, this must be obvious to thousands of engineers, who are either remaining silent or outright lying about it. That just doesn't seem possible to me.

My approach these days is not to try to expose lies and not to decide which authorities to believe. I'm just trying to get my mind around the nature of the structures and the process of their collapse.

My assumption is that there are sincere people on both sides who are working on (or have already solved) what they think is a genuine puzzle. I'm trying to learn from them in order to solve mine. I try to ignore anything, on either side, that smacks of propoganda, including critiques of the other side's "logic" or sincerity. That's not because I don't think such critiques have a place. It's just not helpful to me at this stage.

I already know people sometimes lie in the pursuit of monetary and political ends. The thing is that sometimes those same people also tell the truth in those pursuits. So you have to take it one idea, one claim, at a time. Not dispose of one opportunistic truther or debunker after another.
Ask Ozeco... He's brilliant this.
 
Are you going to continue the Hoffman test thread?
Did you notice that Hooper's "simple metaphor" at 11:30 has a Hoffmanesque quality to it? I'm actually curious to know how people here would modify his ovens (and what loads they would put between them) to make his metaphor serve as a model of the collapses. It neatly illustrates what I think puzzles people like me about the collapses. But, like I say, I don't think that's a discussion people here are interested in having again.
 
Did you notice that Hooper's "simple metaphor" at 11:30 has a Hoffmanesque quality to it? I'm actually curious to know how people here would modify his ovens (and what loads they would put between them) to make his metaphor serve as a model of the collapses. It neatly illustrates what I think puzzles people like me about the collapses. But, like I say, I don't think that's a discussion people here are interested in having again.
Totally does not understand the structure of these high rises. Leggos? This guy has the critical thinking skills of a fence post.
Clues:
buildings a 95% air
structures came apart (in different ways) from mechanical impacts of the COLLAPSE
planes only destroyed a small part of the structures
planes supplies jet fuel for massive fires.
steel doesn't and is not expected to liquefy in fires
steel is expected to lose strength and expand when subjected to high temperatures
floor slabs were crushed by dynamic loads of materials falling from above
building structures are complex systems and are subject to progressive runaway failures
 
Did you watch the clip?
the buildings weren't built like stacked stoves, or stacked cardboard boxes. and you certainly wouldn't need 4 legs of the stove to fail simultaneously even if the buildings were built like a stack of stoves.
 
stacked stoves?
I don't waste time on truther rubbish.
the buildings weren't built like stacked stoves,
It's like I thought. I understand that you don't want to engage with it. I'll just restate what I said:
I'm actually curious to know how people here would modify his ovens (and what loads they would put between them) to make his metaphor serve as a model of the collapses.
Your response is that if you even begin to imagine the towers as a stack of stoves, then there's no way to help you. My gut tells me this is wrong, and it's a missed opportunity. It should be possible to tell us what the structure of the stoves would have to be like and how big a slab of concrete you'd have to put between them before you could in fact burn one so hot that the whole thing would progressively collapse.

That's just my layman's opinion, of course. But the refusal to go down this road is why I continue not to understand how these buildings collapsed. In that sense, I have some sympathy for Hooper. I guess even a little empathy.
 
It's like I thought. I understand that you don't want to engage with it.

i did engage with it. You are the guy who built all those paper towers, so you already know the multitude of ways that stoves do not resemble the blueprints of the towers.

then there's no way to help you.

sure there is, you can look at the blueprints or watch all the documentaries on the construction of the towers and look at the film and photographs of how it was constructed.

how about YOU tell me what is wrong with the stoves. Because i remember you, so i know you already know. Think it through. I'll even accept just 3 ways the stoves are grossly inaccurate representations of the towers.

Go!....
 
@Thomas B oh i should note, before you try to shine me on, i chagned my avatar pic. i'm the gal who built that giant paper tower for you because i had the big roll of paper available. it was sky blue, remember?
 
Yes. I understand that you think it's been dealt with adequately. I still don't get it. But that's fine.
well a big big big problem is the scale of your stoves, makes the welds about a million times stronger than the welds in the Towers.

also the walls of a stove rest ON the bottom plate, and the top plate of the stove rests ON the walls. This is not the case in towers, as you know the floors hang off the walls.

also the welds on a stove are solid all around the edges, where in the towers floor joists "welded to the walls)" are just a grid.

walls of a stove are one solid piece, which is different to the Towers.

the T0wer floors dont have feet :)

stuff like that.
 
The topic is did government officials have foreknowledge of building 7 collapse. Stick to that topic.
how fore?
FDNY.... government officials.... determined the building's collapse was imminent in the afternoon and called for a safety zone around the building and that all persons move outside the zone. I believe this was conveyed to the Mayor and the EM staff.
 
how fore?
FDNY.... government officials.... determined the building's collapse was imminent in the afternoon and called for a safety zone around the building and that all persons move outside the zone. I believe this was conveyed to the Mayor and the EM staff.
That is on topic. Discussions of stoves is not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top