[Edited on May 10, 2011 at 12:40 AM. Reason : no trolling allowed son]

5/10/2011 12:39:50 AM

this reads like textual tourettes.

5/10/2011 10:03:57 AM

Quote :

"Oh shut up."

Quote :

"C'mon."

Quote :

"No one wants to hear your conspiracy theories manta."

[Edited on May 10, 2011 at 11:49 AM. Reason : -]

5/10/2011 11:48:17 AM

^
qntmfred already suspended one person for shit-posting in this thread.


Going to recap where we were at before rbrthwrd went crazy

NIST's Nov. 2008 report: http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

Criticism of NIST's report: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V0WQFztLyg

Unanswered questions I have regarding the report:

Quote :

"-NIST Fire Investigations Manual says any investigation with a total collapse should look for evidence of accelerants. NIST did not do this. -Report was not peer-reviewed correctly (they hired contractors to review it--the data they used is not public). -NIST assumed no thermo-conductivity of steel. -The model only shows part of the collapse. -NIST heated the girders in their model, but not the concrete. Concrete is designed to expand and contract with steel due to temperature changes. -Finally, and most importantly, neither the model nor the data has been released to allow for public peer review."

Barry Jennings, who was one of the last two people in WTC 7, claims to have heard explosions in the building before either of the main towers went down.

Quote :

"Jennings and Hess reach stairwell, explosion goes off, landing gives way on the 6th floor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DuSeuxjiJQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=117s They walk back up to the 8th floor. Hess tests the phones. Jennings breaks a window with a fire extinguisher, almost tries to climb out with a firehouse (one of the glass-encased ones, I'm guessing). Firefighters show up, tells them not to do it, because the hose won't hold. Firefighters run off. At this point, Tower 1 comes down: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DuSeuxjiJQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=171s Firefighters come back, then run off again. One of firefighters says "Don't worry, we'll be back for you". Tower 2 falls: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DuSeuxjiJQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=186s I suggest you watch the rest as well."

Jennings died in 2008, a few days before the release of the NIST report. All anyone knows is that he spent a couple of days in the hospital and then died.

If you're interested, you can hear Dylan Avery's account of the whole thing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1dl0mC8Omo. He talks about hiring a PI to investigate the death. The PI ended up referring the case to law enforcement and refunding the money.

[Edited on May 10, 2011 at 12:12 PM. Reason : .]

5/10/2011 12:08:48 PM

So did the NIST assassinate Barry Jennings to silence him?

5/10/2011 12:28:58 PM

^
I wasn't aware of the Kader Toy Factory. So the claim that it's the first time a steel-framed high-rised building has collapsed due to fire is false. Thank you.

Quote :

"So did the NIST assassinate Barry Jennings to silence him?"

Really? I said earlier that it's highly unlikely that NIST was complicit. I'll even say it's impossible.

If anyone killed Jennings, it was the CIA or a hired man. It's also completely possible that he died of natural causes.

5/10/2011 1:10:23 PM

[Edited on May 10, 2011 at 1:36 PM. Reason : - never mind ]

5/10/2011 1:31:48 PM

Dylan Avery speaking about the private investigator that was hired to investigate Jennings' death:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1dl0mC8Omo&feature=player_detailpage#t=1779s

What the PI said:

Quote :

""Due to some of the information I have uncovered, I have determined that this is a job for the police. I have refunded your credit card. Please do not contact me ever again about this individual.""

I've listened to almost the whole interview now, and judging from the amount of detail Avery is going into, and the sentiment he's expressing toward Jennings, I find it extremely unlikely that he's just making this all up.

In case anyone wants proof that he's dead: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/downloads/pdf/emp_bulletin_oct_2008.pdf

[Edited on May 10, 2011 at 2:15 PM. Reason : .]

5/10/2011 2:05:38 PM

Hopefully you're aware that Dylan Avery is laughing all the way to the bank over this 9/11 thing.

So is the private investigator part of the conspiracy as well?

5/10/2011 2:46:08 PM

Quote :

"So is the private investigator part of the conspiracy as well?"

Do I really have to explain to you why he might have backed off? If you can't figure that out yourself, your deductive reasoning is fucked.

5/10/2011 3:04:28 PM

Yes, explain it. You're the one trying to build a case here.

5/10/2011 3:11:17 PM

^
Okay. Three scenarios:

a) Some government or law enforcement entity asked him to stand down.

b) Someone threatened him with physical harm.

c) He determined in some other manner that following through with the investigation would mean risking his PI license.

[Edited on May 10, 2011 at 3:24 PM. Reason : v beat you!]

5/10/2011 3:23:55 PM

Quote :

"Do I really have to explain to you why he might have backed off?"

Why would anyone want to hear you conjecture on why someone "might have backed off." If you don't know the actual reason, or cannot present a convincing case for the actual reason, then don't bother.

^You missed: Figured out who Dylan Avery was and didn't want to be associated with his scumbaggery.

[Edited on May 10, 2011 at 3:24 PM. Reason : .]

5/10/2011 3:24:15 PM

^
Maybe. You'd think he would mention that in the phone call, though.

So I've given theories for every question you guys have asked me. Can someone give me a theory as to why NIST has refused to release their WTC 7 raw data?

5/10/2011 3:30:07 PM

Considering that the phone call was being described by someone with a financial interest in promoting 9/11 conspiracies, it's also very likely that the PI said "I couldn't figure anything out. I'll refund your card. Maybe the police can tell you something" and Dylan Avery just tacked on the rest to make it interesting.

5/10/2011 3:36:14 PM

this shit again? just read the damn Salisburybot thread regarding 9/11 and you will get all your answers. anyone for some cheese?

5/10/2011 3:40:50 PM

^
Oh my bad! Brb while I go read through 58 pages of salisburyboy rambling about Jews and the NWO. Nevermind the fact that a lot of the information we're discussing wasn't even available before 2008.

Quote :

"Considering that the phone call was being described by someone with a financial interest in promoting 9/11 conspiracies, it's also very likely that the PI said "I couldn't figure anything out. I'll refund your card. Maybe the police can tell you something" and Dylan Avery just tacked on the rest to make it interesting."

Also possible.

[Edited on May 10, 2011 at 3:53 PM. Reason : .]

5/10/2011 3:51:30 PM

Question..if it wasn't the impact of the collapsing main WTC + fire that brought down WTC7, what was it?

Controlled Demolition? Exactly how much work would it take to bring down WTC7 with explosives? How many thousands of pounds of explosives would need to be hauled in? How many thousands of fuse lines and ignition devices would need to be rigged? How many walls would need to be cut open?

And how would any of this happen without any of the tens of thousands of people working in the WTC noticing? What kind of timeframe would such an operation take?

Question the NIST report all you'd like. Until you can reconcile this I'm going with structural damage + fire caused by collapsing towers nearby from the impact of two jetliners hijacked by terrorists.

[Edited on May 10, 2011 at 4:16 PM. Reason : .]

5/10/2011 4:14:10 PM

Quote :

"Question..if it wasn't the impact of the collapsing main WTC + fire that brought down WTC7, what was it? Controlled Demolition? Exactly how much work would it take to bring down WTC7 with explosives? How many thousands of pounds of explosives would need to be hauled in? How many thousands of fuse lines and ignition devices would need to be rigged? How many walls would need to be cut open? What kind of timeframe would such an operation take?"

I don't know. I'm not a demolitions expert, and I don't know how the building was constructed.

Thermite was probably involved, considering active thermitic material was found in debris samples.

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

Quote :

"And how would any of this happen without any of the tens of thousands of people working in the WTC noticing? "

Honestly, I don't think it would be very hard. No one questions the handyman.

5/10/2011 4:35:40 PM

How many god damned handymen would it take? How long? Give me some actual numbers here, otherwise I'm unconvinced.

The project to demolish a building of that mass would take weeks and TEAMS of handymen, at least! Thousands of pounds of thermite would need to be placed and rigged.

Also, you don't get to complain about peer review and cite something published in the "Bentham Open Journal".

[Edited on May 10, 2011 at 4:41 PM. Reason : .]

5/10/2011 4:40:59 PM

Quote :

"considering active thermitic material was found in debris samples."

You know what thermite is often made of? Aluminum and iron oxide (also called rust). Yes, I'm sure both were present in debris.

5/10/2011 4:49:24 PM

Quote :

"Honestly, I don't think it would be very hard. No one questions the handyman. "

It's impossible to hide. There would be tens of thousands of feet of cable routed to thousands of shaped charges attached to every load bearing pillar on every floor. Those pillars would first need to be manually cut. The preparation takes weeks.

Also, there would be literally tons of evidence left behind.

5/10/2011 4:51:18 PM

In addition to all of the above, go on to you tube and find any video with audio of a demolition. Notice how loud the explosion is? One would think more people would remember such a loud explosion immediately before the collapse of the building.

5/10/2011 9:08:00 PM

LOL at any idiot (assuming you are not some alias troll) who thinks it was some kind of secret controlled demolition

5/11/2011 12:20:18 AM

Quote :

"How many god damned handymen would it take? How long? Give me some actual numbers here, otherwise I'm unconvinced. The project to demolish a building of that mass would take weeks and TEAMS of handymen, at least! Thousands of pounds of thermite would need to be placed and rigged. Also, you don't get to complain about peer review and cite something published in the "Bentham Open Journal"."

TBH I wasn't aware of the controversy surrounding Bentham before you posted this.

Quote :

"You know what thermite is often made of? Aluminum and iron oxide (also called rust). Yes, I'm sure both were present in debris."

I did not know that

Quote :

"It's impossible to hide. There would be tens of thousands of feet of cable routed to thousands of shaped charges attached to every load bearing pillar on every floor. Those pillars would first need to be manually cut. The preparation takes weeks. Also, there would be literally tons of evidence left behind."

NIST claimed that the structure began to fail due to the buckling of one load bearing beam (along with the fires).

Quote :

"In addition to all of the above, go on to you tube and find any video with audio of a demolition. Notice how loud the explosion is? One would think more people would remember such a loud explosion immediately before the collapse of the building."

Well, yeah, but none of those demolitions were going for secrecy.

Regardless, I'm dropping the demolition theory because there doesn't seem to be enough evidence. I'm still concerned about Barry Jennings's testimony and death, and the controversy surrounding the NIST report.

5/11/2011 8:15:33 AM

Well, if it wasn't a controlled demolition, what controversy is there? Did the government purposefully collapse WTC 1 and 2 in a way that would make WTC 7 fall hours later?

5/11/2011 9:07:04 AM

Quote :

"Well, if it wasn't a controlled demolition, what controversy is there?"

I didn't say it wasn't possible. I just said there's not enough evidence to make that claim.

5/11/2011 9:08:54 AM

I'm done debunking every crackpot theory you come across on google.

5/11/2011 11:13:41 AM

The "crackpot" accusations are pathetic and dismissive. While I'm not claiming it to be true, the WTC 7 demolition theory has not been debunked and can not be debunked without a proper investigation.

I tried to be nice, but since you're continuing to call me a crackpot, I'm going to come out and say that the shit you are posting is pretty fucking dumb. Namely:

Quote :

"It's impossible to hide. There would be tens of thousands of feet of cable routed to thousands of shaped charges attached to every load bearing pillar on every floor. Those pillars would first need to be manually cut. The preparation takes weeks. Also, there would be literally tons of evidence left behind."

The only people that have given solid arguments in this thread are disco_stu and Mr. Joshua

[Edited on May 11, 2011 at 11:38 AM. Reason : .]

5/11/2011 11:17:09 AM

Quote :

"The only people that have given solid arguments in this thread are disco_stu and Mr. Joshua"

True, glad you realized you haven't given any solid arguments in this thread. Now you can leave.

5/11/2011 12:08:39 PM

^^ My biggest problem is that to pull of a hoax of that magnitude think of how many people would have to be involved and complicit. At some point I would think one of the people would whistle blow.

5/11/2011 12:19:38 PM

^^
Please note that one person has already been suspended for non-contribution. If you have no arguments, ignore the thread.

[Edited on May 11, 2011 at 12:22 PM. Reason : .]

5/11/2011 12:21:18 PM

Quote :

"the WTC 7 demolition theory has not been debunked and can not be debunked without a proper investigation."

Quote :

"I just said there's not enough evidence to make that claim."

5/11/2011 12:42:18 PM

5/11/2011 12:48:01 PM

As I said, I'm dropping the controlled demolition theory, because I don't think there's enough evidence. There are still serious questions about the WTC 7 collapse, but I'm not interested in trying to form complex theories based on conjecture.

I have other topics I'd like to discuss, but I'm at work right now and need to research more this evening.

5/11/2011 1:04:57 PM

Quote :

" My biggest problem is that to pull of a hoax of that magnitude think of how many people would have to be involved and complicit. At some point I would think one of the people would whistle blow."

If the government couldn't even cover up a simple burglary of an office building, how can anyone believe they could pull of something of this magnitude. Also, doesn't the existence of Wikileaks pretty much eliminate the major conspiracy theories?

Unless...<gasp>....they're in on it too! dunh dunh DUNHHHHHHHH!

5/11/2011 1:16:32 PM

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

5/11/2011 1:16:40 PM

I've already linked that specific web page in this thread. If he didn't read/trust it before he's not going to read/trust it now.

5/11/2011 1:18:18 PM

^
I did read it and it does make sense. Why do you continue to assume I'm ignoring evidence?

As I said, at this point, the only confusion I have regarding WTC 7 is the NIST report and Barry Jennings's testimony that the stairwell he was in exploded before WTC 1's collapse. I realize this is not conclusive evidence, but it is not unreasonable to remain skeptical because of it.

5/11/2011 1:29:05 PM

A whole lot of people worked in that building. Why is Barry Jennings the only one to report an explosion before the collapse? Explosions are loud, violent actions that everyone in the building would be aware of.

5/11/2011 1:30:59 PM

^
He and Michael Hess were the only two people left in the building at that point, and they both claimed to hear explosions.

5/11/2011 1:33:01 PM

So there were only two people in the entire building? Can you prove this?

Barry heard an explosion and then several hours later the building collapsed? That's not how demolition works.

5/11/2011 1:44:11 PM

Quote :

"So there were only two people in the entire building? Can you prove this?"

No one else has claimed to have been in the building at this time, other than the firefighters who came up to get Jennings and Hess out. Do you think they were both lying about the explosions? They both made statements that day.

Jennings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XOK-r80nr8

Hess: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfiLbXMa64

Quote :

"Barry heard an explosion and then several hours later the building collapsed? That's not how demolition works."

Yep, that's not how it usually works.

[Edited on May 11, 2011 at 1:58 PM. Reason : .]

5/11/2011 1:55:33 PM

Two guys mistook the collapse of WTC2 for an explosion.

5/11/2011 3:43:02 PM

^
Jennings makes it clear in his interview that the explosion and stairwell collapse happened before either tower went down.

From earlier in the thread:

Quote :

"Jennings and Hess reach stairwell, explosion goes off,landing gives way on the 6th floor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DuSeuxjiJQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=117s They walk back up to the 8th floor. Hess tests the phones. Jennings breaks a window with a fire extinguisher, almost tries to climb out with a firehouse (one of the glass-encased ones, I'm guessing). Firefighters show up, tells them not to do it, because the hose won't hold. Firefighters run off. At this point, Tower 1 comes down: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DuSeuxjiJQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=171s Firefighters come back, then run off again. One of firefighters says "Don't worry, we'll be back for you". Tower 2 falls: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DuSeuxjiJQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=186s"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI

5/11/2011 3:56:23 PM

Upwards of 50,000 people were in the WTC complex on 9/11. If there were a massive explosion in a building I would expect more than one person to notice it.

Quote :

"Jennings and Hess reach stairwell, explosion goes off,landing gives way on the 6th floor"

That is the exact area that was damaged when the towers collapsed. It sounds like Barry Jennings was confused.

5/11/2011 4:04:58 PM

^
Actually, after watching the video again, I think you're right. After he says "That's when the first tower was coming down", he says "I had no way of knowing that." It had to have been the first tower collapsing that caused the explosion.

There's no evidence that it was a controlled demo.

[Edited on May 11, 2011 at 4:32 PM. Reason : .]

5/11/2011 4:28:45 PM

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/05/12/osama-bin-laden-rejected-plans-for-truck-designed-to-mow-down-hu/

Report: Osama bin Laden rejected plans for truck designed to mow down humans

Quote :

"Teams of analysts are combing through a mountain of data recovered from bin Laden's compound, and one nugget of information they've found is a bit surprising; bin Laden was against a proposed plan for U.S.-based Al Qaeda operatives to weld blades to the grilles of pickup trucks and run down pedestrians. This plan was laid out by Inspire, an English-language magazine by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The magazine stated that drivers of the customized trucks could look for crowded areas, then motor onto the sidewalk and cause major carnage. It's a sick plan, and apparently bin Laden felt the same way. He called it "indiscriminate slaughter," and felt it wasn't in line with what Al Qaeda does. Yes, seriously. And no, we're not making this up."

i wonder what's the difference between that and flying planes into huge public buildings? aren't they both "indiscriminate slaughter"? so maybe he didn't orchestrate 9/11?



Good read:

http://www.propublica.org/article/bin-laden-documents-portrait-of-a-fugitive-micro-manager

New Details in the bin Laden Docs: Portrait of a Fugitive Micro-Manager

6/21/2011 9:04:06 AM

*indiscriminate*

Not the target of a symbol of American Imperialism. Mowing down random people on the street would not have anywhere near the impact of taking out the Trade Center.

6/21/2011 9:09:20 AM

^^ both of those are a month old

6/21/2011 9:34:26 AM