The Sensible Doubt - Danish 911

JRBids

Senior Member.
I think the problem with the "pentagon pilot was too good" theory is that it assumes the pilot did exactly what he was intending to do, that he actually intended to do this maneuver.

Really all he was trying to do was hit the pentagon. He very nearly missed it and ended up short in the ground.

The light poles are indeed good solid evidence it was a plane - but the standard no-plane response to that is that the light poles were "staged" in advance.

Truther mythology can get pretty annoying.


The pilot may not even have been trying to hit the Pentagon. Perhaps he was aiming for the White House. Who knows?
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Thank you for holding the line on this issue mick because you've now confirmed my suspicion that your site is nothing but a propaganda arm for the powers that be.
 

Chuck

Active Member
Without question? Actually I've questioned every aspect of it in great detail. I've also looked at every single objection that AE911 have raised. My conclusion is that planes hit the building, the impact and explosion damage followed by the fire caused the buildings to collapse. I've gone over this many many time, answered many objections, and very carefully verified my facts. So please don't think I'm accepting anything "without question".

Mick, I'm not privy to the "I've gone over this many many time", so bear with me. So far it seems that you argue:

1. The WTC7 collapse was different from the collapses of towers 1&2.
2. The WTC1&2 destruction was due to crashing jetliners.

So, since a jetliner didn't crash into WTC7, what, in your view, caused the uniform collapse? I realize the following is somewhat of a subjective statement, but it doesn't seem that the WTC7 fires looked remotely capable of bringing that building down. How many skyscrapers have collapsed due to fire? This one in Madrid seems far more extensive, yet it remained. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/spain_fire_2005.html

Inferno in Bejing - no building collapse yet it burned for more than a day

[video=youtube_share;6hSPFL2Zlpg]http://youtu.be/6hSPFL2Zlpg[/video]

WTC7 - Minimal fire compared to the above yet it came down in 8 hours

[video=youtube_share;G4SEhMpbo74]http://youtu.be/G4SEhMpbo74[/video]

WTC7 - compared to controlled demolitions

[video=youtube_share;Zv7BImVvEyk]http://youtu.be/Zv7BImVvEyk[/video]
 

Chuck

Active Member
Thanks for the article Bob. The point the article doesn't appear to address, is that the fire shown, though intense, is nowhere close to the breadth or intensity of other fires that haven't taken down similar structures. Listen, I have no dog in this hunt. Matter of fact, I wish I could convince myself that the article had merit. In Footage that Kills the Conspiracy Theories it's stated, "Government analysts part of the 9/11 Commission said that all three of the buildings that fell in New York that day were due to 'total progressive collapse,' which means that when a building has extreme damage in one area, the entire structure of the building is weakened as a result." Doesn't that seems like a rather arbitrary and unsupported statement? Where is evidence of this ever happening? They don't even bother to cite similar fires that caused this kind of "progressive collapse". Is it perhaps because there are none? Thus far, I have to employ far more faith to believe the 9/11 Commission Report than to entertain other possibilities, at least with regard to WTC7.

Below are but a few of the most recent comments left at Footage that Kills the Conspiracy Theories:

"At the risk of repetition. WTC7 was an 81 vertically columned 47 storied steel framed high rise that dropped into its own footprint in 6.5seconds+or-, 2.25seconds of that in total gravitational freefall. Forensic study found temperatures up to 4,735F [Molybdenum spherules-USGS].FEMA reported Steel vaporized and evaporated with holes in it 'like Swiss cheese'. RJ.LEE found spherical metallic particles 150xnormal building dust, spheres produced by Molten droplets being violently introduced into air. Independent analysis of DUST found Active Thermitic Material [Harrit/Jones:Bentham] High grade energetics IN the dust. Molten steel was seen in the piles 'running down the channel rails 'like in a foundry'. Eyewitness testimony of explosive events before during and after aircraft strike were established 118 times in audio transcripts.[Barry Jennings.FDNY transcripts] NIST report is a 'probable THEORY', based on computer modeling un-tested by peers or x-examination paradigms not for public disclosure."

"For those who complain that opponents of the official 9/11 story just "cry about melted steel and stuff", I'll explain the significance. The laws of probability, thermodynamics and thermochemistry dictate that military-grade unreacted nano-thermite does not form spontaneously, and office fires of hydrocarbons burning in air of up to 21% oxygen cannot melt iron or steel. The time evolution of a spontaneous process will be in the direction of increasing entropy; thus, a sophisticated, highly energetic, nano-engineered accelerant comprising 40 nm-thick aluminum plates and 100 nm iron oxide grains requires a 'creator' - e.g., the U.S. military."

The record is being written longingly--establishing who are complicit in the cover-up. Those who deceive with intent to conceal a crime are as guilty as the perpetrators of the crime. It's not to late to whistle blow about your assignments to cover-up who really did 9/11. It is clear by the ratings that this disinformation article, and the growing awareness of the 9/11 bamboozle, indicate growing awareness and courage to speak truth to those who abuse positions of power--especially in the media. An informed citizenry depend upon media. This article violates the trust in media to inform. Turn yourselves in--but to whom? Wikileaks? We will succeed to the degree that we confront and expose pure evil. All together now!

"Total misinformation... Do they really need to be still feeding us this after all these years? What about all the documented cases where buildings have burned for a lot longer on every single floor and still not collapsed? I guess they just don't make these things like they used to anymore."

"Not only fell in free fall, but fell in near-perfect symmetry. This can happen only if all the structural support is removed simultaneously. And consider that according to NIST's theory of an internal collapse, the columns at the east end of the building failed though they were carrying no load beyond their own weight,"

"At a press conference in Nov 2008 Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator for NIST stated (correctly) that it was impossible for Building 7 to have collapsed at free fall acceleration due to resistance from the steel structure below. The problem was that its easy to measure the acceleration of the collapse so the when the NIST final report was released a month later they were forced to admit in it that the building fell in free fall for 2.25 seconds. They have since completely refused to explain how. This is one of hundreds of problems with the official investigations. The people who believe 19 hijackers managed all this support the Bush Administration conspiracy theory. Acknowledging that the official story is impossible is frightening but our politicians are still making decisions today based on a false flag operation from a decade ago. Those who support the official story avoid facts in their arguments and just rely on abuse and Sara Goldstein is a classic example. Do your own research."

 

SeriouslyDebatable

Active Member
The collapse of building 1 and 2 looked entirely unlike building 7. So what exactly is the hallmark of controlled demolition? And what would uncontrolled collapse look like?
Collapsing symmetrically at freefall Speed straight down into its own footprint through what would be the path of most resistance (itself) means controlled demolition. It could be implosions, it could be explosions... it could be steel being melted extremely fast in a controlled fashion. It could be a nuke or a energy beam from space... how it happened is speculation. The speed it happened at is not speculation. It's all about the speed. Uncontrolled collapses do not exhibit these characteristics.
 

SeriouslyDebatable

Active Member
I've seen thermite used (as well as c-4 demo charges, and some other stuff I don't remember). And I just can't imagine any way that it would be used in demo.

We had thermite grenades/charges in a locked safe for use in destruction of TS crypto gear in the event of no time to follow the standard procedure (which would have taken hours..lol)...and for that it would have been great. The amount and placement of it to reduce a building...is far over the top.

OT Why are so many "references" U-tube vids? How about a link to a professional paper of some sort.

If you do a Google search for ‘thermite’ and ‘building demolition’, you can find all sorts of devices that have been invented to use thermite for building demolition.” For example, a 1984 patent was issued for thermite cutter charges that could shoot molten iron through structural steel in a fraction of a second.

Cross Section, Linear Thermite Cutting Apparatus; US Patent 6183659.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/ThermiteDevicesMoore1.pdf
 

SeriouslyDebatable

Active Member
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.

Here you will find direct claims from experts who side with the official story, and they can not agree with each other.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_oEs33VD5A
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I did not expect this from you Mick. This is a wildly opinionated drive by comment with no counter evidence. Shame on you.

Explain what's wrong with it. If they are incorrect, then "lying, stupid, or mistaken" are the only three options I could think of. What else could there be?
 

SeriouslyDebatable

Active Member
I'm a debunker. So you think we should have an investigation into the robot spy cats in my neighborhood?
Sure. I will test them free of charge. Just round up a big bag of cats and bring them over.

What I'm FOR is evidence, and evidence based action.
Testing for explosives would have been cheap. If you are for evidence, then you should be for a new investigation that actually tests for explosives residue.
 

Spongebob

Active Member
Thanks for the article Bob. The point the article doesn't appear to address, is that the fire shown, though intense, is nowhere close to the breadth or intensity of other fires that haven't taken down similar structures. Listen, I have no dog in this hunt. Matter of fact, I wish I could convince myself that the article had merit. In Footage that Kills the Conspiracy Theories it's stated, "Government analysts part of the 9/11 Commission said that all three of the buildings that fell in New York that day were due to 'total progressive collapse,' which means that when a building has extreme damage in one area, the entire structure of the building is weakened as a result." Doesn't that seems like a rather arbitrary and unsupported statement? Where is evidence of this ever happening? They don't even bother to cite similar fires that caused this kind of "progressive collapse". Is it perhaps because there are none? Thus far, I have to employ far more faith to believe the 9/11 Commission Report than to entertain other possibilities, at least with regard to WTC7.


CWC: Why would I concern myself with the ignorant "truther" comments posted on the Mail Online?

These people get their "information" from truther sites and nowhere else most of the time.

How many of these commenters have read this - then gone on to explain why it is wrong?

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

(It "may" be wrong in one specific area which has been debated to death)
 

Chuck

Active Member
CWC: Why would I concern myself with the ignorant "truther" comments posted on the Mail Online?

These people get their "information" from truther sites and nowhere else most of the time.

How many of these commenters have read this - then gone on to explain why it is wrong?

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

(It "may" be wrong in one specific area which has been debated to death)

I was hoping for better than this. Labeling everyone who disagrees with the official story as a "truther", is counterproductive at best. You simply showed a picture of WTC7 on fire and alluded to an amusing article. Is that all the proof you have? The article stated, "Government analysts part of the 9/11 Commission said that all three of the buildings that fell in New York that day were due to 'total progressive collapse,' which means that when a building has extreme damage in one area, the entire structure of the building is weakened as a result." So I asked, "Where is the evidence of this happening?" If you want to avoid the question and continue to poison the well by using adhoms to discredit all opposition, then that's your prerogative. Apparently you have no evidence of "progressive collapse" caused by building fires.

So why do you treat all those who aren't buying the government story as disingenuous cultists? Sure, there are plenty of crackpots who view everything as a conspiracy. So what? There are also plenty on the other end of the spectrum who swallow everything the governments puts out. The reality is that there are a growing number of reasonable people who aren't satisfied with the many inconsistencies in the 9/11 Commission Report, and in my view, the WTC7 free-fall collapse is the most disturbing among them.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But you did not prove they were incorrect. You just proclaimed or declared it.

I'm basing their incorrectness on the various discussions on Metabunk, and the linked evidence. It's quite clear they are wrong in SOME aspects, hence the three options are perfectly valid, even if they get some things right.

For example they claim iron microsphere are evidence of nanothermite, when iron microspheres are something you'd expect to find in the dust without thermite.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/



Obviously I could go on. But the point is that AE911 are incorrect in many aspects, hence they are lying or mistaken.
 

Chuck

Active Member
Here's evidence of a free-fall building collapse due to fire. It comes down just like WTC7! Well, not really. Matter of fact, if they continued to film, my guess is that the steel frame was still there. You can see an outline when the smoke clears.

 

Chuck

Active Member
Obviously I could go on. But the point is that AE911 are incorrect in many aspects, hence they are lying or mistaken
Mick, and so it can be said for the official 9/11 story. The many inconsistencies prove they were either lying or mistaken. And that's why people are simply not satisfied with the 9/11 Commission Report.

 

Gunguy45

Senior Member.

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
There are things that nag at me regarding the official story . . . and I have not seen things that explain them or give me a reasonable answer . . .

1) The command and control of the US response during the event appeared to be way too sloppy and disjointed IMO . . .
2) The pancake failure of Towers I, II and VII appear to be unprecedented and therefore, suspicious . . . buildings are usually built so the load bearing capatilities get higher the closer to the foundation one goes . . . Is there evidence that shows the failure slowed as it descended . . .?
3) The hot spots in the debris seem way to extreme in temperature and duration . . . since this type of event has never happened before there is no precedent I understand, but how do you explain such extremes?
4) The corrosion and melting of vehicles in and around ground zero . . . how can this occur without multiple human torches being created by the same forces . . . ?
 

Spongebob

Active Member
I was hoping for better than this. Labeling everyone who disagrees with the official story as a "truther", is counterproductive at best. You simply showed a picture of WTC7 on fire and alluded to an amusing article. Is that all the proof you have? The article stated, "Government analysts part of the 9/11 Commission said that all three of the buildings that fell in New York that day were due to 'total progressive collapse,' which means that when a building has extreme damage in one area, the entire structure of the building is weakened as a result." So I asked, "Where is the evidence of this happening?" If you want to avoid the question and continue to poison the well by using adhoms to discredit all opposition, then that's your prerogative. Apparently you have no evidence of "progressive collapse" caused by building fires.

So why do you treat all those who aren't buying the government story as disingenuous cultists? Sure, there are plenty of crackpots who view everything as a conspiracy. So what? There are also plenty on the other end of the spectrum who swallow everything the governments puts out. The reality is that there are a growing number of reasonable people who aren't satisfied with the many inconsistencies in the 9/11 Commission Report, and in my view, the WTC7 free-fall collapse is the most disturbing among them.

I referred you to this:

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

I posted a link to "an amusing article" to show one of the many images of the extent of the WTC 7 fires. (not a very good one actually) there are many better images which show the fire more clearly.


The reality is that there are a growing number of reasonable people who aren't satisfied with the many inconsistencies in the 9/11 Commission Report, and in my view, the WTC7 free-fall collapse is the most disturbing among them.

And you consider yourself one of these?

Free-fall collapse based on...?

The main discussion (point of disagreement left) around the "inconsistencies" with the report above would be (IYO) ?

I know, by the way - just checking to see if you are up to speed, then we can skip the conspiracy garbage and go for the remaining factual discussion. (which I wish no further part of, but I can direct you to a place that will consume a lot of your time)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There are things that nag at me regarding the official story . . . and I have not seen things that explain them or give me a reasonable answer . . .

1) The command and control of the US response during the event appeared to be way too sloppy and disjointed IMO . . .
2) The pancake failure of Towers I, II and VII appear to be unprecedented and therefore, suspicious . . . buildings are usually built so the load bearing capatilities get higher the closer to the foundation one goes . . . Is there evidence that shows the failure slowed as it descended . . .?
3) The hot spots in the debris seem way to extreme in temperature and duration . . . since this type of event has never happened before there is no precedent I understand, but how do you explain such extremes?
4) The corrosion and melting of vehicles in and around ground zero . . . how can this occur without multiple human torches being created by the same forces . . . ?

I think each of those problems deserves a separate, well-titled, thread. So those who ask the same questions in the future can benefit. If people just answer the questions here, the answers will be lost, like tears in the rain. Pick your favorite, and start a thread.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I think each of those problems deserves a separate, well-titled, thread. So those who ask the same questions in the future can benefit. If people just answer the questions here, the answers will be lost, like tears in the rain. Pick your favorite, and start a thread.

I will think over it . . .
 

Chuck

Active Member
And you consider yourself one of these?

If this is a stab at being cute, I'm not amused. Thanks to SeriouslyDebatable for providing the following. I added the last two. Perhaps you should be asking your question of the NIST apologists.

[video=youtube_share;RXZnvn7O2NY]http://youtu.be/RXZnvn7O2NY[/video]

[video=youtube_share;FYR9Xvo3Ofw]http://youtu.be/FYR9Xvo3Ofw[/video]

[video=youtube_share;1Vh1GjMdLyU]http://youtu.be/1Vh1GjMdLyU[/video]
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I am not sure what the free-fall "admission" actually accomplishes - AFAIK a building will always fall at freefall rate because if the structure is overloaded then it does not "slowly" give way - it stretches and breaks in a very short period of time - a period insufficient to slow anything down.

structures only fail slowly if they are subjected to loads barely above their ultimate strengths - such as in tensile testing of samples wher it is important to know what the strength is after heat treating or similar, so you "creep" up the loading very slowly tosee when failuer happens. If the load greatly exceeds that strength then they essentially just go "bang".

At least that's what I was taught at engineering school in the 1980's.

And of course the momentum and kinetic energy of the falling masses were way, way about the static design load of the buildings. so that is why the buildings took a while to start to collapse - the loads were increasing on remaining members slowly as they took over from damaged members - and as subsequent members failed to carry the load it continued to be spread until the structure no long had any ability to support it - and then failure was very fast indeed. this is just classic/basic structural mechanics AFAIK.
 

SeriouslyDebatable

Active Member
I am not sure what the free-fall "admission" actually accomplishes - AFAIK a building will always fall at freefall rate because if the structure is overloaded then it does not "slowly" give way - it stretches and breaks in a very short period of time - a period insufficient to slow anything down.

structures only fail slowly if they are subjected to loads barely above their ultimate strengths - such as in tensile testing of samples wher it is important to know what the strength is after heat treating or similar, so you "creep" up the loading very slowly tosee when failuer happens. If the load greatly exceeds that strength then they essentially just go "bang".

At least that's what I was taught at engineering school in the 1980's.

And of course the momentum and kinetic energy of the falling masses were way, way about the static design load of the buildings. so that is why the buildings took a while to start to collapse - the loads were increasing on remaining members slowly as they took over from damaged members - and as subsequent members failed to carry the load it continued to be spread until the structure no long had any ability to support it - and then failure was very fast indeed. this is just classic/basic structural mechanics AFAIK.

Watch part 2 which explains the implications.
EDIT: I mean part 3
 

cheeple

Member
I am not sure what the free-fall "admission" actually accomplishes - AFAIK a building will always fall at freefall rate because if the structure is overloaded then it does not "slowly" give way - it stretches and breaks in a very short period of time - a period insufficient to slow anything down.

structures only fail slowly if they are subjected to loads barely above their ultimate strengths - such as in tensile testing of samples wher it is important to know what the strength is after heat treating or similar, so you "creep" up the loading very slowly tosee when failuer happens. If the load greatly exceeds that strength then they essentially just go "bang".

At least that's what I was taught at engineering school in the 1980's.

And of course the momentum and kinetic energy of the falling masses were way, way about the static design load of the buildings. so that is why the buildings took a while to start to collapse - the loads were increasing on remaining members slowly as they took over from damaged members - and as subsequent members failed to carry the load it continued to be spread until the structure no long had any ability to support it - and then failure was very fast indeed. this is just classic/basic structural mechanics AFAIK.
The freefall point is what the Architects and Engineers for truth maintain is an impossiblity.
Cui Bono?
The Military Industrial Complex of contractors, the Republican party who had a new vulnerable president George Bush who they would now proclaim as a War President calling anyone who didnt support a retaliation on Iraq as a liberal or unpatriotic it didn't matter the hijackers were Saudi's, Saddam wanted to sell his oil in currencies other than the Dollar and we needed a reason to kick him out and send a message to the rest of the world this is what will happen if you drop the U.S. Petro dollar.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Is there anythng in there that is not debunked by this or this?

'cos if we can cut to the chase that would be good - I'd rather not have to wade through a bunch of truther carp that has been covered ad nauseum already.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
:rolleyes:

Oh well - of course if you say "its true" then that is obviously all the information I need..... thanks.
 

SeriouslyDebatable

Active Member
Mike the articles you posted deal with the entire collapse time... of over 8 seconds which of course was not equivalent to freefall speed. 9/11 myths is trying to debunk through distraction and omission. The video I posted deals with a period of time during the collapse, of about 2 seconds that was measured at freefall speed. The point is that ANY period of time at freefall speed is impossible if there is something in the way. They are not saying the building fell from start to finish at freefall speed. They are saying that a portion of the collapse happened at freefall speed. This is undebunkable.

You can call ae911 "truther" crap, but I call 911myths "truster" crap. I do not consider myself a truther, but still if I am going to be labeled then I would much rather be a labeled truther than a truster. hehehe

P.S. NIST already admitted to freefall speed so the question of freefall should no longer be on the table. Only the implications of freefall speed should be on the table.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
What is the bunk at the sites I posted?

Given the inaccuracies in trying to measure times, and my pervious posts, I do nto see 2 seconds at freefall speed as being indicative of anything at all.

and actual link to the original NIST claim and changes made regarding this 2 seconds of freefall would also be useful.
 

SeriouslyDebatable

Active Member
The changes made can be found in the final nist report.
Now come on dude... you said that you did not want to go through the same debunked crap ad nauseum, and I explained how it was not the same crap. I personally have the same opinion on not wanting to go through the same crap ad nauseum. If you have a specific question then I will answer it, but please I do not think explaining it again is going to be beneficial. The information is in video format, and is about 10 minutes long. I am not asking you to scour a library here. I am asking you to sit, and watch. I hope that didn't sound too rude!

P.S. I am talking about building 7 here... and it looks like you are talking about the twin towers. Might help if we are on the same page first.
 

Boston

Active Member
I'm surprised no one mentioned that sticky little issue of the size of the hole in the pentagon vs the size of the airplane. Its those troublesome facts that seem to be the problem here. Same with the color of the glowing metal in the WTC rubble pile the size of the hole in the pentagon definitively negates any argument of a large jet liner hitting the building. Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable.

In any jet liner crash the pieces are again mapped out precisely where they landed, but again at the pentagon we have what look like office workers out putting debris into trash bags and hauling it off to parts unknown. Where is the reconstructed plane from the debris ? Why is the hole in the building wildly smaller than the plane that supposedly hit the building.

If I were a magician and I wanted people to believe a rabbit can disappear, I'd show them the rabbit, I'd show them the hat, I'd make sure those in the front row thought they saw that rabbit go into that hat and I'd be depending on all those people sitting way in back to take mime the reaction of the people up front.

The simple truth is that the rabbit can't disappear into a hat and an air plane with a 125' wing span and at least 45' tall can't disappear into a whole roughly a third that size. Sorry kids, but that plane doesn't fit that damage. Conclusion, we may not know what did hit the pentagon, but we can be pretty sure what didn't.



oh and there's a whole other pretty good argument that a plane that large can't fly that fast that low due to ground effects, or the engines sucking up the lawn, sooooo where's the engine damage on the lawn, for that matter where's the engines ? Those titanium cores are pretty much indestructible, and certainly survived the WTC attacks.


OK I moved this from another thread. Having read this thread I've so far seen an unrecognizable bit of debris I'm being told is a flight recorder. I'm also being told that a government agency claims to have been able to read information off that unrecognizable bit of debris and that, that information just happens to match the policy/party line from another government agency. With the sole physical evidence is a really really small hole in the pentagon, some downed poles that may or may not represent the party line and some type of aircraft debris which independent investigators have never seen or been allowed to reassemble into whatever it may be.

Sorry but I remain extremely skeptical of a 757 disappearing into the proverbial hat.

I will also remain skeptical of bodies having been pictured within the rubble, or of any recovery of bodies during the never before seen citizen scrubbing of this airplane crash site. If you or I walked onto a debris field of a commercial flight disaster and started picking up debris, we'd be arrested on the spot for interfering with a federal investigation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Graham2001 Aulis article uses NASA documents to cast doubt on the reality of Apollo Conspiracy Theories 26

Related Articles

Top