WTC 7 (Building 7)

[hiper]

The obvious conclusion under these circumstances is that rebuttal of any kind is pointless because it will either never be accepted or there will just be a new conspiracy to "prove" that government and authority are evil.
Thoughts?

F4Jock...

NIST using "no audible evidence for a blast event" as a fig leaf for not testing the WTC 7 dust is scientifically incriminating... as is the fig leaf "the steel was gone" for not investigating the steel.

Trying to chat your way around this is pointless.
There isn't really much more to say about this.

 

[F4Jock]

It is reasonable to assume NIST unofficially tested the dust leaving in the middle the results of that test (because we don't know what those possible unofficial results are).

NIST as the government agency tasked with the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse is the only entity we have to look at regarding the trace chemical analysis of the WTC 7 dust.
What 'ANYBODY' else did regarding the WTC 7 dust is of secondary importance.

Maybe I haven't had enough coffee but I don't think you answered my question? May I restate it? Did anybody test the dust and if so, were the results mixed?

 

[George B]

So George, what you are in effect saying is that ultimately the genesis of conspiracy is rooted in distrust of government or authority of some sort. That no matter what is done or said in research and explanation the questions surrounding past events like 9/11 or things that may occur in the future or have happened in the more recent past will continue based largely on this mistrust.

The obvious conclusion under these circumstances is that rebuttal of any kind is pointless because it will either never be accepted or there will just be a new conspiracy to "prove" that government and authority are evil.

Oh and I'm not sure exactly how the second amendment figures into this......

Thoughts?

1) second amendment . . . The free and unrestricted right to criticize and publicly debate the governments flaws. . .

2) In the case of 911, I don't think the Govenment has properly managed the investigation or disclosure. . . They have guaranteed fodder for criticism and suspicion which has resulted in unnecessary harm to the government's image and reputation . . . and yes I think they could have done a MUCH better job . . .

3) I can only speak for myself. . . if the whole affair had been handled better I don't believe I would be harboring these concerns . . . I was a strong supporter of the Bush Administrations voting for both father and son . . . I presently regret my choice in the voting booth . . .

 

[F4Jock]

F4Jock...

NIST using "no audible evidence for a blast event" as a fig leaf for not testing the WTC 7 dust is scientifically incriminating... as is the fig leaf "the steel was gone" for not investigating the steel.

Trying to chat your way around this is pointless.
There isn't really much more to say about this.

You misinterpreted my post. It was far more broad than 9/11. My question to George had nothing at all to do with dust or other specifics. What I was postulating was that the genesis of ANY conspiracy theory is general distrust of government and authority and thus no "proof" of anything will ever be effective in disabusing them.

 

[George B]

You misinterpreted my post. It was far more broad than 9/11. My question to George had nothing at all to do with dust or other specifics. What I was postulating was that the genesis of ANY conspiracy theory is general distrust of government and authority and thus no "proof" of anything will ever be effective in disabusing them.

I totally disagree. . . your enemies might not but your friends will. . . In fact many want to do just that . . . TRUST. . .

 

[F4Jock]

1) second amendment . . . The free and unrestricted right to criticize and publicly debate the governments flaws. . .

2) In the case of 911, I don't think the Govenment has properly managed the investigation or disclosure. . . They have guaranteed fodder for criticism and suspicion which has resulted in unnecessary harm to the government's image and reputation . . . and yes I think they could have done a MUCH better job . . .

3) I can only speak for myself. . . if the whole affair had been handled better I don't believe I would be harboring these concerns . . . I was a strong supporter of the Bush Administrations voting for both father and son . . . I presently regret my choice in the voting booth . . .

1) Isn't that the First Amendment?

2) Perhaps true, but being made up of fallible and imperfect human beings you expect perfection from it?

3) Your politics are not at all in question nor do I care for whom you or anyone voted. You've stated in the past that you come from a long line of cynics and mistrust almost everything. My question is that given this mindset, will any explanation of any CT ever satisfy you or will it just lead to the next CT.

 

[F4Jock]

I totally disagree. . . your enemies might not but your friends will. . . In fact many want to do just that . . . TRUST. . .

Interesting thought, but I don't see that predisposition being demonstrated at all.

 

[George B]

1) Isn't that the First Amendment?

2) Perhaps true, but being made up of fallible and imperfect human beings you expect perfection from it?

3) Your politics are not at all in question nor do I care for whom you or anyone voted. You've stated in the past that you come from a long line of cynics and mistrust almost everything. My question is that given this mindset, will any explanation of any CT ever satisfy you or will it just lead to the next CT.

1) You are correct it is the first amendment, Sorry . . .I didn't have my second cup of coffee yet . . .
2) Yes, I have a higher standard of behavior I expect from the Government . . . when I was a member of the Government it was definitely expected of me. . .
3) I used my past voting record to illustrate that I have not always distrusted the very people I now hold suspect . . . and to the second part of your inquiry. . . I didn't arrive at my present position instantaneously nor will the reversal be immediate; however, sufficient transparency, re-investigation by third party investigators and some investment into proper re-enactment would go a long way . . .

 

[George B]

Interesting thought, but I don't see that predisposition being demonstrated at all.

I see, so the Government has therefore no reason to try. . . You get what you pay for . . .

 

[F4Jock]

I see, so the Government has therefore no reason to try. . . You get what you pay for . . .

Wasn't talking about the government. Was talking about us.

 

[George B]

Wasn't talking about the government. Was talking about us.

You mean my predisposition to distrust and your predisposition to trust?

 

[Mick West]

You mean my predisposition to distrust and your predisposition to trust?

I think it's a little more nuanced than that

 

[F4Jock]

You mean my predisposition to distrust and your predisposition to trust?

George you may be surprised to know I distrust quite a bit. When my education and training tell me, however, something is true or probable I believe it. My education and training in this case is why I believe.

 

[George B]

George you may be surprised to know I distrust quite a bit. When my education and training tell me, however, something is true or probable I believe it. My education and training in this case is why I believe.

I am glad for you. . . must be nice. . . my education, training and experience give me no warm fuzzies . . . my serious doubts came from a historical investigation into admitted skulduggery on the part of the people I expected more from (like an iceberg 9/10ths are still underwater) . . . call me naive if you wish . . . I was too busy for 35 years to know of its existence . . . I do now and it makes me cringe . . .

 

[F4Jock]

I am glad for you. . . must be nice. . . my education, training and experience give me no warm fuzzies . . . my serious doubts came from a historical investigation into admitted skulduggery on the part of the people I expected more from . . . call me naive if you wish . . . I was too busy for 35 years to know of its existence . . . I do now and it makes me cringe . . .

Sometimes watching how the sausage is made isn't a good idea. I have my own issues with government and authority. 9/11 isn't one of them.

 

[George B]

Sometimes watching how the sausage is made isn't a good idea. I have my own issues with government and authority. 9/11 isn't one of them.

F4Jock . . . as an engineer you delight in numbers, facts, logic, the empirical nature of things in general . . . I have spent my life in medicine, behavioral sciences, law, investigation, and management/command . . . I am predisposed to picking apart the exceptions, looking under the covers and asking what went wrong and then fixing things . . . My intuition was used as much as my logic . . . I still rely on both but know the fallacies of relying too much on one to the exclusion of the other . . . trust me when I tell you the data and evidence supporting the 911 Official Story does not give me confidence it is totally accurate and I believe some of the criticism regarding it is reasonable and IMO rational . . . and requires further investigation. . . Why. . . because it changed the very direction of this country and the World!!

 

[George B]

Sometimes watching how the sausage is made isn't a good idea. I have my own issues with government and authority. 9/11 isn't one of them.

Just curious . . . what are some of your issues with government and authority?

 

[hiper]

Maybe I haven't had enough coffee but I don't think you answered my question? May I restate it? Did anybody test the dust and if so, were the results mixed?

Who do you mean by 'anybody'? people from NIST? people outside of NIST?
Please be more specific.

 

[F4Jock]

Who do you mean by 'anybody'? people from NIST? people outside of NIST?
Please be more specific.

OK. Was the dust EVER analyzed? If so by whom? What were the results.

 

[F4Jock]

F4Jock . . . as an engineer you delight in numbers, facts, logic, the empirical nature of things in general . . . I have spent my life in medicine, behavioral sciences, law, investigation, and management/command . . . I am predisposed to picking apart the exceptions, looking under the covers and asking what went wrong and then fixing things . . . My intuition was used as much as my logic . . . I still rely on both but know the fallacies of relying too much on one to the exclusion of the other . . . trust me when I tell you the data and evidence supporting the 911 Official Story does not give me confidence it is totally accurate and I believe some of the criticism regarding it is reasonable and IMO rational . . . and requires further investigation. . . Why. . . because it changed the very direction of this country and the World!!

The only thing I might suggest is that you give more creedence to those of us who have no dog in the hunt other than the numbers and logic you spoke of.

 

[hiper]

OK. Was the dust EVER analyzed? If so by whom? What were the results.

Yes dust has been tested independently... some finding incriminating residue (Harrit & Jones, Marseille) and some finding nothing incriminating. (Millette)

But you see this is not of primary concern...
The fact that NIST as the official investigator didn't test the dust is.

 

[F4Jock]

Just curious . . . what are some of your issues with government and authority?

In VERY broad terms I consider them overly intrusive and far too controlling. Essentially I feel they are trying to create a nation of compliant sheep the easier to govern them as the more accepting they will be of said government.

 

[George B]

The only thing I might suggest is that you give more creedence to those of us who have no dog in the hunt other than the numbers and logic you spoke of.

Without significant knowledge of your position, history, etc. I cannot tell if you have "no dog in the hunt" . . .

 

[George B]

In VERY broad terms I consider them overly intrusive and far too controlling. Essentially I feel they are trying to create a nation of compliant sheep the easier to govern them as the more accepting they will be of said government.

Hmmm. . . how do you separate policy from action . . . ?

 

[F4Jock]

Hmmm. . . how do you separate policy from action . . . ?

Can you be a bit more specific?

 

[F4Jock]

Yes dust has been tested independently... some finding incriminating residue (Harrit & Jones, Marseille) and some finding nothing incriminating. (Millette)

But you see this is not of primary concern...
The fact that NIST as the official investigator didn't test the dust is.

So if it has been tested what does it matter if it was done ex post facto so long as the testing entities are competent? Seems that since NIST didn't test and the other tests were inconclusive you are basing your criticisms on something that was later corrected.

 

[George B]

Can you be a bit more specific?

In VERY broad terms I consider them overly intrusive and far too controlling. Essentially I feel they are trying to create a nation of compliant sheep the easier to govern them as the more accepting they will be of said government.

How does one keep a population compliant (policy) without taking actions which are not totally obvious to the population . . . and disagreeable as well . . . what are these actions . . . and what prevents them to limit their actions . . . ?

 

[Mick West]

Veering into new thread territory here

 

[George B]

I don't disagree but let's see how F4Jock resoponds to see if there is enough issues to warrant such a Thread. . . .

 

[Cairenn]

I will ask again, do you have a credible alternative explanation? Do I really need to test the droppings after the Stock show parade to make sure they are horse and not zebra or unicorn?

 

[hiper]

So if it has been tested what does it matter if it was done ex post facto so long
as the testing entities are competent? Seems that since NIST didn't test and the other tests were inconclusive
you are basing your criticisms on something that was later corrected.

I think the collapse of WTC 7 specifically.. in 50 years time will be looked upon like we now look at Lee Harvey Oswald... something that was obviously setup.

The incriminating total lack of due diligence displayed by NIST regarding the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse, the destruction of evidence...

 

[Mick West]

I think the collapse of WTC 7 specifically.. in 50 years time will be looked upon like we now look at Lee Harvey Oswald... something that was obviously setup.

The incriminating total lack of due diligence displayed by NIST regarding the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse, the destruction of evidence...

I don't think so, the LHO stuff propagates because of the scarcity of evidence. WTC7 has just become more and more clear as time goes on, and more and more studies are done, and the bunk is more systematically explained.

Of course it's not going away. It will remain a fringe believe for many decades. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion was shown to be fake about 90 years ago, but is still in circulation.

 

[George B]

I don't think so, the LHO stuff propagates because of the scarcity of evidence. WTC7 has just become more and more clear as time goes on, and more and more studies are done, and the bunk is more systematically explained.

Of course it's not going away. It will remain a fringe believe for many decades. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion was shown to be fake about 90 years ago, but is still in circulation.

Conspiracies remain because it resonates with people, their doubts, fears, hopes, bias and prejudices . . . some may never have had evidence to support them while others may have had more substantial origins . . . I place my bet on WTC 7 being in the latter category . . .

 

[hiper]

I don't think so, the LHO stuff propagates because of the scarcity of evidence. WTC7 has just become more and more clear as time goes on, and more and more studies are done, and the bunk is more systematically explained.

Of course it's not going away. It will remain a fringe believe for many decades. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion was shown to be fake about 90 years ago, but is still in circulation.

That WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition is not something I can prove...
but the great amount of circumstantial bits and pieces regarding WTC 7 and 9/11 in it's entirety paints a persuasive picture I neither like nor am able to ignore.

 

[Cairenn]

Then show some evidence that I COULD have been. Like how the explosives could have been placed, how they could have endured the fire. How someone KNEW that debris from the WTC would fall and damage it and start fires in it.

Then explain the bulge, and lack of explosions.

Something other than "I don't like the official story'.

Earlier I mentioned that the military are not in building implosions. We all know that the military have demolition teams, but WHY would then need one to implode a skyscraper. To take out a bridge, yep that makes sense, to damage a road or a runway, yep. Maybe even to take out a dam. However many of these can be done with bombs or missiles now.

 

[F4Jock]

How does one keep a population compliant (policy) without taking actions which are not totally obvious to the population . . . and disagreeable as well . . . what are these actions . . . and what prevents them to limit their actions . . . ?

I could go into detail but I'll be brief. Look at the number of people who derive direct benefits from the government in terms of cash stipends or payment in kind. Look at the intrusions made into individual rights in the name of one form of public safety or another. The actions are "obvious" yet acceptable. Now I pose you this question: How many people, once given something for relatively nothing, will advocate it be withdrawn? It's like your income tax refund. People celebrate the return of money they have loaned the government at zero interest over the year!

In any event, people have shown almost zero interest in voting against politicians and policies that will expand and maintain these stipends. They also panic like sheep when even the possibility of a slowing of the growth of such programs is proposed. Someone once said something like democracy ends when people realize that they can vote themselves money. They forgot to include a phrase. Democracy ends when people realize they can vote themselves money AND the government encourages it!

 

[George B]

I could go into detail but I'll be brief. Look at the number of people who derive direct benefits from the government in terms of cash stipends or payment in kind. Look at the intrusions made into individual rights in the name of one form of public safety or another. The actions are "obvious" yet acceptable. Now I pose you this question: How many people, once given something for relatively nothing, will advocate it be withdrawn? It's like your income tax refund. People celebrate the return of money they have loaned the government at zero interest over the year!

In any event, people have shown almost zero interest in voting against politicians and policies that will expand and maintain these stipends. They also panic like sheep when even the possibility of a slowing of the growth of such programs is proposed. Someone once said something like democracy ends when people realize that they can vote themselves money. They forgot to include a phrase. Democracy ends when people realize they can vote themselves money AND the government encourages it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville

Alexis de Tocqueville

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money”

Content from External Source

http://thinkexist.com/quotes/alexis_de_tocqueville/

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.
​

Who penned the above words? If one were to put one's faith in the reliability of the internet, the obvious answer would be Alexander Tytler. Or Alexander Tyler. Or Arnold Toynbee. Or Lord Thomas Macaulay. Or...
http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html

Content from External Source

 

[F4Jock]

Yes dust has been tested independently... some finding incriminating residue (Harrit & Jones, Marseille) and some finding nothing incriminating. (Millette)

But you see this is not of primary concern...
The fact that NIST as the official investigator didn't test the dust is.

I see no real problem here. People have stated that if certain things were done they'd be satisfied with the explanation. So NIST didn't test the dust, but it WAS tested later. Unless you can show that the tests were invalid the when makes no difference. What counts are the results, results that point to nothing definite or conclusive.

 

[F4Jock]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville

Alexis de Tocqueville

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money”

Content from External Source

http://thinkexist.com/quotes/alexis_de_tocqueville/

“When the taste for physical gratifications among them has grown more rapidly than their education . . . the time will come when men are carried away and lose all self-restraint . . . . It is not necessary to do violence to such a people in order to strip them of the rights they enjoy; they themselves willingly loosen their hold. . . . they neglect their chief business which is to remain their own masters.”

Good old Al!

 

[George B]

“When the taste for physical gratifications among them has grown more rapidly than their education . . . the time will come when men are carried away and lose all self-restraint . . . . It is not necessary to do violence to such a people in order to strip them of the rights they enjoy; they themselves willingly loosen their hold. . . . they neglect their chief business which is to remain their own masters.”

Good old Al!

So is it intentional policy by way of a conspiracy or just the way it is??