PDA

View Full Version : Watch this and tell me something?


Logical
04-02-2008, 01:27 AM
Is it credible that only 3000 people died in those two enormous buildings? Or did our government underestimate the deaths on purpose?

Watch the video and also remember a 3rd building WTC 7 also collapsed.

<object height="355" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oj-GkDJpr2Y&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="355" width="425"></object>

I just have my doubts

ClevelandBronco
04-02-2008, 01:36 AM
Please excuse me from this discussion. I have a piano lesson or something.

Logical
04-02-2008, 01:43 AM
Please excuse me from this discussion. I have a piano lesson or something.I know this is going to sound harsh but for some reason I found that funny.

Guru
04-02-2008, 01:46 AM
Of course they are. The US did it you know. Right Taco?:shake:



Now, seriously....

The numbers do seem low. I don't know that there would be any realistic way to prove it though.

Taco John
04-02-2008, 02:01 AM
Of course they are. The US did it you know. Right Taco?:shake:

Now, seriously....

The numbers do seem low. I don't know that there would be any realistic way to prove it though.



I've never said "The US did it."

I do, however, believe that there is convincing evidence that there were explosives placed inside the buildings. Thus, the logical deduction is that if I believe that there were explosives placed inside the building, then I have to believe that there was an "inside" component to this job - thus "inside job." No doubt some of those people on the inside would have to be involved in government in some way. But that's not to say that any US government agency acting in official capacity was orchestrating this. I haven't seen any convincing evidence of that. How this inside component operated in order to place these explosives, I couldn't speculate, and don't find it productive to do so. This is why I call for futher congressional investigation into the matter to determine the facts around the evidence and determine accountability.


It matters not to me that I'm considered "out there" or "fringe" or whatever for holding this point of view. All I know with any certainty is that there's considerable evidence that shows that there were detonations placed in the buildings. I just want an official accounting of this evidence. I don't care about the implications at this point one way or the other. I just want an official accounting of the evidence.

It doesn't seem so much to ask considering we're talking about the largest, most horrific crime ever committed on US soil.

chagrin
04-02-2008, 02:55 AM
I do, however, believe that there is convincing evidence that there were explosives placed inside the buildings. Thus, the logical deduction is that if I believe that there were explosives placed inside the building, then I have to believe that there was an "inside" component to this job - thus "inside job." No doubt some of those people on the inside would have to be involved in government in some way. But that's not to say that any US government agency acting in official capacity was orchestrating this. I haven't seen any convincing evidence of that. How this inside component operated in order to place these explosives, I couldn't speculate, and don't find it productive to do so. This is why I call for further congressional investigation into the matter to determine the facts around the evidence and determine accountability.



Yeah, the Government really pays attention to your crazy ass, they'll get right on that.
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life son...

Saggysack
04-02-2008, 03:00 AM
3,000 not credible enough? Let's not forget the first real estimates in the first few days were closer to 6,000. Logical conclusion tells me the first plane struck as the majority of people have not arrived for the day. Large number of people below the affected floors were evacuated before each tower fell. People that were initially believed to be victims were found. Remember the walls with pictures of people that were missing plastered on them? Some of those people actually showed up. WTC 7 was a controlled demolition on the evening of the 11th after the site had been evacuated in the morning hours. Anything else?

Taco John
04-02-2008, 03:16 AM
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life son...


You'd be a good authority on that...

Otter
04-02-2008, 05:04 AM
If you can imagine for a moment the immense pressure those steel beams were under right before they burst would you still have a problem visualizing it appearing as an explosion?

Imagine snapping a really strong stick that's buried underneath a couple inches sand. When it broke would it look like an explosion if you couldn't see what was going on underneath?

patteeu
04-02-2008, 06:08 AM
I wonder if this thread is a cry for help.

Mr. Kotter
04-02-2008, 06:54 AM
:rolleyes:

Taco John
04-02-2008, 09:18 AM
If you can imagine for a moment the immense pressure those steel beams were under right before they burst would you still have a problem visualizing it appearing as an explosion?

Imagine snapping a really strong stick that's buried underneath a couple inches sand. When it broke would it look like an explosion if you couldn't see what was going on underneath?

How does that account for WTC 7 though? There are parts of the twin towers that it doesn't account for as well... but I'm willing to play along with that. None of the physics that supposedly took down the twin towers apply to WTC 7. There was no superheated jet fuel in WTC 7. It's just a building that caught fire and became the first steel structure in world history to completely and uniformly collapse due to it.

The uniform collapse of WTC 7 is unexplainable without the use of detonations.

Phobia
04-02-2008, 09:23 AM
I can't believe anybody who actually believed our government was involved wouldn't do one of two things:
1. Move out of the country immediately.
2. Devote their entire life to protests and rallies denouncing the Man and demanding change.

Taco John
04-02-2008, 09:31 AM
I can't believe anybody who actually believed our government was involved wouldn't do one of two things:
1. Move out of the country immediately.
2. Devote their entire life to protests and rallies denouncing the Man and demanding change.


As I've said before, I don't believe that our government was formally involved. A rogue faction isn't out of the question though.

And why should I move out of the country? They're the ass hats.

Devote a life to protests and rallies? What a waste of time. I'd rather devote my life to my family and God, and have faith that everything will work out according to His plan.

Logical
04-02-2008, 09:52 AM
If you can imagine for a moment the immense pressure those steel beams were under right before they burst would you still have a problem visualizing it appearing as an explosion?

Imagine snapping a really strong stick that's buried underneath a couple inches sand. When it broke would it look like an explosion if you couldn't see what was going on underneath?Unless you are talking to TJ I did not make this thread about that. I am literally limiting mysef to the number deaths in those two towers.

Logical
04-02-2008, 09:54 AM
I wonder if this thread is a cry for help.No

Brock
04-02-2008, 09:54 AM
How does that account for WTC 7 though? There are parts of the twin towers that it doesn't account for as well... but I'm willing to play along with that. None of the physics that supposedly took down the twin towers apply to WTC 7. There was no superheated jet fuel in WTC 7. It's just a building that caught fire and became the first steel structure in world history to completely and uniformly collapse due to it.

The uniform collapse of WTC 7 is unexplainable without the use of detonations.

That's not correct, but I'm sure you already know this.

Adept Havelock
04-02-2008, 09:58 AM
As I've said before, I don't believe that our government was formally involved. A rogue faction isn't out of the question though.


I guess we're lucky that rogue faction didn't steal 23 nuclear devices from Russian disassembly plants, set them off in US cities, and set up a new government in Cheyenne. :p



Logical, after this much time I have a hunch the numbers are pretty close. If it was really low-balled I'd think many more families of poeple who worked there would be asking questions. IIRC, there's only a few names still unaccounted for.

Taco John
04-02-2008, 10:00 AM
That's not correct, but I'm sure you already know this.


The topic, at the very least, is nothing short of debatable. Which is really the crux of my whole argument here. I just want a legitimate accounting of all of the evidence - not a political whitewash that protects careers.

Iowanian
04-02-2008, 10:01 AM
Watch this and you'll know exactly what it sounds like to me when the Conspiracy bozos start bugeling.

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere's Taco!

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/V_d1uJkuG0c&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/V_d1uJkuG0c&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Rain Man
04-02-2008, 10:02 AM
How does that account for WTC 7 though? There are parts of the twin towers that it doesn't account for as well... but I'm willing to play along with that. None of the physics that supposedly took down the twin towers apply to WTC 7. There was no superheated jet fuel in WTC 7. It's just a building that caught fire and became the first steel structure in world history to completely and uniformly collapse due to it.

The uniform collapse of WTC 7 is unexplainable without the use of detonations.

Coincidentally, isn't it also the first steel structure in world history to be hit by the upper floors of a falling 110-story building?

Rain Man
04-02-2008, 10:05 AM
There were some people wandering around downtown Denver a couple of weeks ago handing out literature explaining the 9/11 government conspiracy. They also had a bullhorn so they could annoy even more people.

StcChief
04-02-2008, 10:07 AM
and Black Helicopters are circling...

Saggysack
04-02-2008, 10:37 AM
WTC 7 isn't a mystery. The falling debris and fires caused the building to be structurally beyond repair. The only option left was to bring the building down. Which was done later in the evening on the 11th, by controlled demolitions. IIRC I think I have even heard the owner of the building, at that time, on record saying as much.

You really want rescue workers working around a building that could further crumble on top of them? I don't.

Taco John
04-02-2008, 11:02 AM
WTC 7 isn't a mystery. The falling debris and fires caused the building to be structurally beyond repair. The only option left was to bring the building down. Which was done later in the evening on the 11th, by controlled demolitions. IIRC I think I have even heard the owner of the building, at that time, on record saying as much.

If this is true, then it is something that is completely omitted in the 9/11 report, which completely omits any discussion of WTC 7. In fact, your scenario is one that has been denied for obvious reasons. Explosives would have to have been placed beforehand in order for your scenario to be plausible. Symmetrical implosions like this take months worth of planning.

The intention of the 9/11 commission was “to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11.” I fail to understand why they don't even so much as *mention* the fact that WTC 7 collapsed.

If your explination is correct, then there are a lot of questions that need to be accounted for, the first of them being who pre-set the building with explosives, and when and *WHY* did they do it.

Radar Chief
04-02-2008, 11:29 AM
Coincidentally, isn't it also the first steel structure in world history to be hit by the upper floors of a falling 110-story building?

Indeed, and after a fire had raged unchecked for over 24 hours.

Radar Chief
04-02-2008, 11:38 AM
How does that account for WTC 7 though?


http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

But then weíve been through this before and you choose to reject the explanation for whatever reason, but the thing to remember is: you choose to do so in spite of the evidence, not because of it.

Duck Dog
04-02-2008, 11:38 AM
Is it credible that only 3000 people died in those two enormous buildings? Or did our government underestimate the deaths on purpose?

Watch the video and also remember a 3rd building WTC 7 also collapsed.


I just have my doubts

What exactly is your point? That our government is hiding a much larger number of deaths?

1. What good would underestimating the death toll do?
2. Wouldn't families be wondering and asking questions?

a1na2
04-02-2008, 01:28 PM
Is it credible that only 3000 people died in those two enormous buildings? Or did our government underestimate the deaths on purpose?

Watch the video and also remember a 3rd building WTC 7 also collapsed.

I just have my doubts

Would you have rather that the number be higher?

You don't seem to understand that a lower number of deaths is better. What is the number of people that would have or could have been in both buildings if the attacks had of come even an hour later?

As for the second direction the thread is going, there have been many professional engineers that have discussed the theory TJ is so adamant about. Mini Nukes? Other explosive devices? The government was involved? Explosions verified by the video?

My only real question for those that have the conspiracy theories still would be: Do you have that much hate in you to continue with the lies even after the theory has been debunked time and time again?

I have serious reservations about anyone that thinks there could be a coverup that tight so as to keep anyone of the players silent for more than a few hours goes beyone any odds. In the event such as 9/11 there would have been a change of heart of a large percentage of those involved. There would have had to have been mass murders to kill off all of the people it would have taken to accomplish what is claimed.

Hell, Bill Clinton couldn't keep a blow job silent in the same light as Kennedy kept all of his trysts quiet.

irishjayhawk
04-02-2008, 02:04 PM
Let me point out two things:

1) Both the numerous alternative and the official story are THEORIES.
2) Any conspiracy always divides people. There are the questioners and there are the acceptors. The questioners don't have much downside. The acceptors have a giant downside: they won't allow the questioners to ask questions without ridicule. And thus, the suppression of crucial questions from mainstream allow for easy control by ANYONE. This goes for ANY conspiracy theory. Period.

irishjayhawk
04-02-2008, 02:05 PM
I guess we're lucky that rogue faction didn't steal 23 nuclear devices from Russian disassembly plants, set them off in US cities, and set up a new government in Cheyenne. :p



Logical, after this much time I have a hunch the numbers are pretty close. If it was really low-balled I'd think many more families of poeple who worked there would be asking questions. IIRC, there's only a few names still unaccounted for.

Gotta agree there. The victims would have noticed well before now.

Taco John
04-02-2008, 02:11 PM
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

But then weíve been through this before and you choose to reject the explanation for whatever reason, but the thing to remember is: you choose to do so in spite of the evidence, not because of it.


The reason I choose to reject the explanation is very simple: it's not an official explanation. I'm not interested in what Joe Blow has to say on either side of the matter. I'm interested in an official accounting of the evidence. With regards to WTC 7, the official account doesn't even acknowledge that WTC 7 even came down, so it certainly doesn't address the reasons behind it. The 9/11 Commission Report failed to even mention the existence of Building 7.

Radar Chief
04-02-2008, 02:13 PM
2) Any conspiracy always divides people. There are the questioners and there are the acceptors. The questioners don't have much downside. The acceptors have a giant downside: they won't allow the questioners to ask questions without ridicule. And thus, the suppression of crucial questions from mainstream allow for easy control by ANYONE. This goes for ANY conspiracy theory. Period.

Using this same type of cynical logic, the questioners can then come up with any half assed whimsical fantasy because they are not tethered by things like logic or evidence. "That also goes for ANY conspiracy theory. Period."

Radar Chief
04-02-2008, 02:15 PM
I'm not interested in what Joe Blow the architect or structural engineer has to say on either side of the matter.

FYP, and I already knew that.

Taco John
04-02-2008, 02:26 PM
FYP, and I already knew that.


You didn't fix my post at all. I'm fully aware that there are structural and architectural engineers on both sides of the matter. The difference is, you are only willing to consider one side, as where I'm not willing to consider either side. The only thing I want to consider is an official accounting of the evidence.

Radar Chief
04-02-2008, 02:39 PM
You didn't fix my post at all. I'm fully aware that there are structural and architectural engineers on both sides of the matter.

Not really, the structural engineers and architects are pretty uniformly on the governmentís side here.
In that respect, I guess I didnít FYP enough.

The difference is, you are paying attention to experts with logical opinions based on evidence and Iím listening to whackoís pulling shit out of their ass.

FYP again. Hopefully little better this time.
ROFL

Duck Dog
04-02-2008, 03:37 PM
Not really, the structural engineers and architects are pretty uniformly on the governmentís side here.
In that respect, I guess I didnít FYP enough.



FYP again. Hopefully little better this time.
ROFL


ROFL. Holy hell that was funny.

irishjayhawk
04-02-2008, 03:43 PM
Using this same type of cynical logic, the questioners can then come up with any half assed whimsical fantasy because they are not tethered by things like logic or evidence. "That also goes for ANY conspiracy theory. Period."

No, because those will get shot down. Just like many of the weirdo ones have.

The point is that the acceptors suppress any and all questioning.

Taco John
04-02-2008, 04:09 PM
Not really, the structural engineers and architects are pretty uniformly on the government’s side here.


That's ridiculous. No they're not. It's amazing to me that you would completely ignore the fact that there is a growing movement of architects and structural engineers who call the WTC 7 into dispute.


http://stoplying.ca/articles/07/sept/090307dvd.php

What you're doing is very dishonest. You're simply ignoring the fact that there is even a dispute here.

And you say "the government's side" here, but the government doesn't have a side. I repeat: the fact that WTC 7 was demolished (whatever the cause) isn't even so much as addressed by the 9/11 commission report.

I'm not even saying the structural engineers and architects who say that the thing was demolished by explosives are right (though I'd say they make a very compelling case for it). I'm saying that the government needs to, at the very least, examine the evidence and put it into the official record.

irishjayhawk
04-02-2008, 05:51 PM
That's ridiculous. No they're not. It's amazing to me that you would completely ignore the fact that there is a growing movement of architects and structural engineers who call the WTC 7 into dispute.


http://stoplying.ca/articles/07/sept/090307dvd.php

What you're doing is very dishonest. You're simply ignoring the fact that there is even a dispute here.

And you say "the government's side" here, but the government doesn't have a side. I repeat: the fact that WTC 7 was demolished (whatever the cause) isn't even so much as addressed by the 9/11 commission report.

I'm not even saying the structural engineers and architects who say that the thing was demolished by explosives are right (though I'd say they make a very compelling case for it). I'm saying that the government needs to, at the very least, examine the evidence and put it into the official record.

I would have also pointed out the fact that the 9/11 commission got way less funding than the investigation into Clinton's blowjob. I forget the actual numbers but they're pretty sad.

a1na2
04-02-2008, 06:01 PM
I would have also pointed out the fact that the 9/11 commission got way less funding than the investigation into Clinton's blowjob. I forget the actual numbers but they're pretty sad.

Bring up the link. You forget? Convenient.

mlyonsd
04-02-2008, 06:07 PM
I would have also pointed out the fact that the 9/11 commission got way less funding than the investigation into Clinton's blowjob. I forget the actual numbers but they're pretty sad.

Probably because of the fact a 5 year old living at the North Pole could come to the same conclusion as the commission.

irishjayhawk
04-02-2008, 06:15 PM
Probably because of the fact a 5 year old living at the North Pole could come to the same conclusion as the commission.

That's not the point. It received LESS funding than a President's blow job. Moreover, the debris was removed quickly and quietly without allowing for engineers to actually investigate the collapse. You'd think people would want that concrete information so they can protect future buildings, at the very least.

And I'm trying to find that stat that I read.

irishjayhawk
04-02-2008, 06:20 PM
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/01/starr.costs/

$40 million for Starr's investigations versus $3 million for an investigation on an attack that killed $3000 people....

Hmmmm..

a1na2
04-02-2008, 06:25 PM
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/01/starr.costs/

$40 million for Starr's investigations versus $3 million for an investigation on an attack that killed $3000 people....

Hmmmm..


So what you are saying is that by spending more you don't necessarily get more or better information?

What you seem to miss is that there was some pretty clear forensic studies done, not to mention that the attacks were video taped. There was no residue from the explosives that TJ claims was used. The engineers that worked the forensic study of the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 had some pretty well known effects to take a look through.

I'm not impressed.

I still have missed the part reporting the comparison to the attacks of 9/11. Which part of the 1999 report was talking about that?

irishjayhawk
04-02-2008, 06:31 PM
So what you are saying is that by spending more you don't necessarily get more or better information?

No. What I'm saying is that, at the VERY LEAST, we spent more on Starr investigations than investigating a NATIONAL TRAGEDY.

What you seem to miss is that there was some pretty clear forensic studies done, not to mention that the attacks were video taped. There was no residue from the explosives that TJ claims was used. The engineers that worked the forensic study of the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 had some pretty well known effects to take a look through.

No, the debris was quickly moved off. It wasn't quarantined like a crime scene at all. It wasn't even treated like a crime scene.


I'm not impressed.

You won't be impressed unless someone agrees with you.


I still have missed the part reporting the comparison to the attacks of 9/11. Which part of the 1999 report was talking about that?

Umm, it's called connecting that report with the official figure of $3 million for the 9/11 Commission. If you're too lazy, that's not my problem.

plbrdude
04-02-2008, 06:31 PM
WTC 7 isn't a mystery. The falling debris and fires caused the building to be structurally beyond repair. The only option left was to bring the building down. Which was done later in the evening on the 11th, by controlled demolitions. IIRC I think I have even heard the owner of the building, at that time, on record saying as much.

You really want rescue workers working around a building that could further crumble on top of them? I don't.

doesn't setting that up take more than an afternoon? or was wtc7 always ready to be dropped?? i'm sorry but that explanation doesn't make any sense at all. so we should believe in one afternoon engineers studied a building that had caught fire and determined it structurally deficient, went in and loaded the building with explosives, and then dropped it. :hmmm:

Taco John
04-02-2008, 06:38 PM
doesn't setting that up take more than an afternoon? or was wtc7 always ready to be dropped?? i'm sorry but that explanation doesn't make any sense at all. so we should believe in one afternoon engineers studied a building that had caught fire and determined it structurally deficient, went in and loaded the building with explosives, and then dropped it. :hmmm:

What do you think the 9/11 commission report has to say about this admission by the owner of the building?


<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7WYdAJQV100&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7WYdAJQV100&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

plbrdude
04-02-2008, 06:40 PM
i've not read the report. but my guess is little to nothing.

Rain Man
04-02-2008, 06:43 PM
doesn't setting that up take more than an afternoon? or was wtc7 always ready to be dropped?? i'm sorry but that explanation doesn't make any sense at all. so we should believe in one afternoon engineers studied a building that had caught fire and determined it structurally deficient, went in and loaded the building with explosives, and then dropped it. :hmmm:

If you've got rescue workers in the shadow of a 47-story building that has taken major damage, I suspect that you take it down quickly. Things work differently in emergency situations.

I can't believe that anyone seriously thinks there was a government conspiracy. News flash: presidents don't like to go to war halfway around the world, and presidents don't like recessions. If you're going to have a conspiracy theory, at least come up with some kind of theory that has the conspirators behaving rationally.

a1na2
04-02-2008, 06:45 PM
No. What I'm saying is that, at the VERY LEAST, we spent more on Starr investigations than investigating a NATIONAL TRAGEDY.



No, the debris was quickly moved off. It wasn't quarantined like a crime scene at all. It wasn't even treated like a crime scene.



You won't be impressed unless someone agrees with you.



Umm, it's called connecting that report with the official figure of $3 million for the 9/11 Commission. If you're too lazy, that's not my problem.

What I'm saying is that only conspiracy nuts feel the need to take the attack to a level that you and TJ seem to think it should go. There were forensic samples taken in large enough quantities to find the residue to prove or disprove explosives being used to bring the building down.

Make of the price tag what you will. If we had of spent $1 Billion on the investigation they would have come up with the exact same conclusions.

As for your unfounded comment about me being impressed. I think you have too much time on your hands and need to get a life.

Keep up your rants, just because you throw out more insults and do your best to belittle anything I say or have said does nothing to prove your point. All it does is shows the rest of the board that you just like to argue.

What I find most amusing is the fact that you spend so much time defending a position that is indefensible.

Taco John
04-02-2008, 06:50 PM
What I'm saying is that only conspiracy nuts feel the need to take the attack to a level that you and TJ seem to think it should go.



Attack? I'm not attacking anyone. I haven't so much as pointed a finger. I just want the facts to be examined, not lost in a political white wash. It's really not that much to ask to have the facts surrounding WTC 7 to be included as part of the official investigation into this matter. I get called plenty of names over this, but what nobody bothers to do is address facts like this.

mcan
04-02-2008, 06:53 PM
No, the debris was quickly moved off. It wasn't quarantined like a crime scene at all. It wasn't even treated like a crime scene.





The reason it wasn't treated like a crime scene was because volunteers were there around the clock for a week. Thousands of them in shifts. We were pulling bodies out of the rubble and looking for survivors. They FOUND a few people still alive in that mess. I think if they tried to rope the place off and sift through the debris and catalogue everything, those people would have died for sure.

irishjayhawk
04-02-2008, 06:53 PM
Attack? I'm not attacking anyone. I haven't so much as pointed a finger. I just want the facts to be examined, not lost in a political white wash. It's really not that much to ask to have the facts surrounding WTC 7 to be included as part of the official investigation into this matter. I get called plenty of names over this, but what nobody bothers to do is address facts like this.

You need to get a life. :)

irishjayhawk
04-02-2008, 06:54 PM
The reason it wasn't treated like a crime scene was because volunteers were there around the clock for a week. Thousands of them in shifts. We were pulling bodies out of the rubble and looking for survivors. They FOUND a few people still alive in that mess. I think if they tried to rope the place off and sift through the debris and catalogue everything, those people would have died for sure.

You know just as well as I do that getting the bodies out has nothing to do with investigation.

After the RESCUE effort they removed all debris. They didn't analyze it, measure it, record it, mark it, etc etc. They cleared it out and that was that.

mcan
04-02-2008, 06:58 PM
What do you think the 9/11 commission report has to say about this admission by the owner of the building?


<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7WYdAJQV100&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7WYdAJQV100&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>



I remember them talking about this on the day of. Before it even happened. One of the networks was talking to the fire chief and they said they were going to bring it down. Then it fell. Right here is the owner saying that they did it intentionally. Why would there be an investigation into this? Seems to me that you'ld focus on the planes, how they got hijacked... Etc... What happened once they hit the buildings is pretty plain.

Logical
04-02-2008, 07:14 PM
...



Logical, after this much time I have a hunch the numbers are pretty close. If it was really low-balled I'd think many more families of poeple who worked there would be asking questions. IIRC, there's only a few names still unaccounted for.

I guess, I wonder if there is a group who assembled that data to assess the numbers (frankly I don't trust the Bush administration to have done it or told the truth if they did).

Logical
04-02-2008, 07:18 PM
What exactly is your point? That our government is hiding a much larger number of deaths?

1. What good would underestimating the death toll do?
2. Wouldn't families be wondering and asking questions?

Yes
1. Protect the government from greater panic
2. No they would unlikely ever add up the total number of deaths

Logical
04-02-2008, 07:21 PM
Would you have rather that the number be higher?

You don't seem to understand that a lower number of deaths is better. What is the number of people that would have or could have been in both buildings if the attacks had of come even an hour later?
...

No

I also realize a lower number is better for the government and they are the only ones who might have collected the data. I also remember the initial estimates were well over 6000, what happened did 3000 people really escape?

a1na2
04-02-2008, 07:26 PM
Attack? I'm not attacking anyone. I haven't so much as pointed a finger. I just want the facts to be examined, not lost in a political white wash. It's really not that much to ask to have the facts surrounding WTC 7 to be included as part of the official investigation into this matter. I get called plenty of names over this, but what nobody bothers to do is address facts like this.

Did you even read the post? The attack. 9/11

It galls me to agree with ijh but you really do need to get a life. Everything posted is not about you.

Hydrae
04-02-2008, 07:29 PM
I know that on 9/11/01 the estimates were close to 10K dead. I was really surprised when the final tally was only 3000. Just curious, is there an actual final count? Or will we always say that it was 3000, not 3128 or something?

Tom, you mentioned the death toll would have been greater an hour later. Didn't this happen at like 9 AM EDT? How many workers in a building like that show up for work after 9:00? I would expect the buildings to be pretty near normal occupancy levels at that time of the day.

One last point, I have no real opinion one way or the other with how the towers came down and the questions around WTC7. However, I would like to know why, 6+ years later the tapes from the various security cameras around the Pentagon have never been released. If they had released those in a timely manner it would have shut up a fair number of the conspiracy theorists provided it showed what is said to have happened there. If they gave in and released them now it wouldn't be believed by the theorists because they would be dismissed as having been faked. But I will never understand why they did not feel that this small amount of disclosure would be beneficial to a country trying to understand what had happened.

a1na2
04-02-2008, 07:33 PM
No

I also realize a lower number is better for the government and they are the only ones who might have collected the data. I also remember the initial estimates were well over 6000, what happened did 3000 people really escape?

I suggest you contact all of those that claim to have been in the building and ask if they escaped or if they died in the building. ;)

Seriously, I'm sure that people on the floors below the impact zones were probable interested in getting out. There were stories of supervisors telling everyone to sit tight. Makes you wonder how many would have died if those that did not evacuate would have evacuated in spite of instructions.



I also realize a lower number is better for the government and they are the only ones who might have collected the data. I also remember the initial estimates were well over 6000, what happened did 3000 people really escape?

In the scope of things that happened that day the number could have been upwards of 50,000 should the attack have occurred mid-afternoon. I think most Americans would have realized that there was potential, even at the hour of the attack, that there could have been a substantial number of people in the buildings when they collapsed. The fact that the estimates were off shouldn't have been surprising and when we all found out that the numbers were lower I don't know if anyone felt any relief due to the lower number. What we saw was that a large number of Americans and others, were murdered by what we all found later to be terrorists hell bent on destroying the American financial machine and Americans in general.

SBK
04-02-2008, 07:40 PM
Our schools have obviously been very bad for a very, very long time.

a1na2
04-02-2008, 07:40 PM
I know that on 9/11/01 the estimates were close to 10K dead. I was really surprised when the final tally was only 3000. Just curious, is there an actual final count? Or will we always say that it was 3000, not 3128 or something?

Tom, you mentioned the death toll would have been greater an hour later. Didn't this happen at like 9 AM EDT? How many workers in a building like that show up for work after 9:00? I would expect the buildings to be pretty near normal occupancy levels at that time of the day.

One last point, I have no real opinion one way or the other with how the towers came down and the questions around WTC7. However, I would like to know why, 6+ years later the tapes from the various security cameras around the Pentagon have never been released. If they had released those in a timely manner it would have shut up a fair number of the conspiracy theorists provided it showed what is said to have happened there. If they gave in and released them now it wouldn't be believed by the theorists because they would be dismissed as having been faked. But I will never understand why they did not feel that this small amount of disclosure would be beneficial to a country trying to understand what had happened.

I don't know what the schedules of the offices were in those buildings on that day. For whatever reason the buildings were not as populated as they could have been. I understand that many offices work a flex schedule. I work four 9's every week and one 8 every other Friday. I would assume that in NYC there is also a great chance that each employee had the opportunity to work differing 8 hour shifts. 8-4, 9-5, or 10-6, or whatever other variations there might be.

As for the video's. I don't think they were thinking of the people that would try to conjure up a conspiracy theory when they collected all of the video and classified it. In the video's released subsequently there is some pretty well defined evidence that a 757 crashed into the pentagon. There were plenty of stills that were not classified that showed some of the wreckage that was easily identified as part of a Boeing 757.

Logical
04-02-2008, 08:29 PM
Our schools have obviously been very bad for a very, very long time.

Dammit now this post is funny, you British? This is just like their sense of humor.ROFL

Phobia
04-02-2008, 08:49 PM
You know just as well as I do that getting the bodies out has nothing to do with investigation.

After the RESCUE effort they removed all debris. They didn't analyze it, measure it, record it, mark it, etc etc. They cleared it out and that was that.

I realize that Catherine Willows could probably analyze, measure, record, and catalog half a million tons of debris in a 60 minute episode but it would probably take real life technicians centuries to analyze all that, not to mention the facilities for storing the debris. Who is gonna pay for all that?

Adept Havelock
04-02-2008, 08:55 PM
I realize that Catherine Willows could probably analyze, measure, record, and catalog half a million tons of debris in a 60 minute episode but it would probably take real life technicians centuries to analyze all that, not to mention the facilities for storing the debris. Who is gonna pay for all that?

Heh. I saw it on TV, so it must be true! Yes, CSI is to Forensic Science as Contact was to Radio Astronomy.

IIRC, they went through the debris carefully at Fresh Kills. That's how they identified many of the bodies from small remnants.

irishjayhawk
04-02-2008, 08:57 PM
I realize that Catherine Willows could probably analyze, measure, record, and catalog half a million tons of debris in a 60 minute episode but it would probably take real life technicians centuries to analyze all that, not to mention the facilities for storing the debris. Who is gonna pay for all that?

The difference between the Starr investigation and the 9/11 commissions? :shrug:

Taco John
04-02-2008, 09:13 PM
I realize that Catherine Willows could probably analyze, measure, record, and catalog half a million tons of debris in a 60 minute episode but it would probably take real life technicians centuries to analyze all that, not to mention the facilities for storing the debris. Who is gonna pay for all that?


Pretty hard to have a conversation about this when the discourse gets dropped to such a small-minded level. Suddenly we can't pay for it? When did this happen? We can pay for billion dollar bridges to nowhere, trillion dollar wars in places nobody cares about, but when it comes to the investigation of the most horrific crime against the United States, we simply don't have the money?

Just ****ing print the money. That's our answer to everything else.

a1na2
04-02-2008, 09:19 PM
Pretty hard to have a conversation about this when the discourse gets dropped to such a small-minded level. Suddenly we can't pay for it? When did this happen? We can pay for billion dollar bridges to nowhere, trillion dollar wars in places nobody cares about, but when it comes to the investigation of the most horrific crime against the United States, we simply don't have the money?

Just ****ing print the money. That's our answer to everything else.

Why go further? The facts are in and the professional engineers, chemists and others have given the final answer. It's those that can't see the facts for what they are that feel the need to spend where it isn't warranted.

Every piece of the conspiracy puzzle has been answered and or debunked. Those that can't let it go need to let it go!

SBK
04-02-2008, 11:26 PM
Dammit now this post is funny, you British?

No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Taco John
04-02-2008, 11:29 PM
Why go further? The facts are in and the professional engineers, chemists and others have given the final answer.

No they're not, and no they haven't. There is no official accounting at all. That's the point. That's why go further: to get an official accounting of it.

Every piece of the conspiracy puzzle has been answered and or debunked. Those that can't let it go need to let it go!

Never. I will never let it go until there is an official accounting of the facts and evidence. I find the attitutde to "just let it go" to be un-American. I question everything.

Guru
04-03-2008, 12:18 AM
I realize that Catherine Willows could probably analyze, measure, record, and catalog half a million tons of debris in a 60 minute episode but it would probably take real life technicians centuries to analyze all that, not to mention the facilities for storing the debris. Who is gonna pay for all that?

YOu would like to watch her do it though.:D

Radar Chief
04-03-2008, 06:41 AM
No, because those will get shot down. Just like many of the weirdo ones have.

Thereíll all ways be some dip shit(s) to carry the baton. See you, Teej and the ďTruthersĒ.

The point is that the acceptors suppress any and all questioning.

You havenít even been around long enough to see that so youíre pretty FOS here. Weíve discussed this into the ground and Teej, and apparently you, choose to ignore reasoned opinions from acknowledged experts using logic and evidence.

Radar Chief
04-03-2008, 06:50 AM
That's ridiculous. No they're not. It's amazing to me that you would completely ignore the fact that there is a growing movement of architects and structural engineers who call the WTC 7 into dispute.


http://stoplying.ca/articles/07/sept/090307dvd.php

What you're doing is very dishonest. You're simply ignoring the fact that there is even a dispute here.

And you say "the government's side" here, but the government doesn't have a side. I repeat: the fact that WTC 7 was demolished (whatever the cause) isn't even so much as addressed by the 9/11 commission report.

I'm not even saying the structural engineers and architects who say that the thing was demolished by explosives are right (though I'd say they make a very compelling case for it). I'm saying that the government needs to, at the very least, examine the evidence and put it into the official record.

Any more ďdishonestĒ than say, pushing opinions based on hearsay when evidence and experts have already debunked those false assertions?
The evidence and expert opinions have been presented to you and you choose to ignore it in favor of your conspiracy theory and the snake oil salesmen that are pushing it on you.
Thatís pretty much the long and short of it.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Iowanian
04-03-2008, 07:58 AM
Taco, you should probably just hop another fence north and enjoy the freedoms of Canada's utopia.

Their Milkshake brings all the boys to the yard, their life, is better than yours...

banyon
04-03-2008, 08:17 AM
Heh. I saw it on TV, so it must be true! Yes, CSI is to Forensic Science as Contact was to Radio Astronomy.

IIRC, they went through the debris carefully at Fresh Kills. That's how they identified many of the bodies from small remnants.

I actually have to have a little speech to give to jurors that CSI isn't real and law enforcement may not have DNA or fingerprints for every drug possession case and may not drive their Humvees to the scene and manage not to muss up their designer suits while sifting through dead bodies.

Radar Chief
04-03-2008, 08:31 AM
I actually have to have a little speech to give to jurors that CSI isn't real and law enforcement may not have DNA or fingerprints for every drug possession case and may not drive their Humvees to the scene and manage not to muss up their designer suits while sifting through dead bodies.

:LOL: But itís an entertaining show. :thumb:

irishjayhawk
04-03-2008, 09:25 AM
Thereíll all ways be some dip shit(s) to carry the baton. See you, Teej and the ďTruthersĒ.



You havenít even been around long enough to see that so youíre pretty FOS here. Weíve discussed this into the ground and Teej, and apparently you, choose to ignore reasoned opinions from acknowledged experts using logic and evidence.

Thank you for proving my point. "Experts and logic" are always on the acceptors side regardless of whether they actually are. Moreover, "crack pots, tin foil hats etc" are on the other. THERE CAN BE NO QUESTIONING OTHERWISE YOU ARE A CRACK POT!

Thank you.

Radar Chief
04-03-2008, 09:30 AM
Thank you for proving my point. "Experts and logic" are always on the acceptors side regardless of whether they actually are. Moreover, "crack pots, tin foil hats etc" are on the other. THERE CAN BE NO QUESTIONING OTHERWISE YOU ARE A CRACK POT!

Thank you.

Well, unless your point was to cry crocodile tears over what I didn’t post, I don’t think your “point” was proven.
What I posted was that you believe what you want to inspite of the evidence, not because of it and that's what makes you a "dipshit". Clear enough for even you to understand now?

irishjayhawk
04-03-2008, 09:57 AM
Well, unless your point was to cry crocodile tears over what I didnít post, I donít think your ďpointĒ was proven.
What I posted was that you believe what you want to inspite of the evidence, not because of it and that's what makes you a "dipshit". Clear enough for even you to understand now?

Again, you prove both my points. The one I made in this thread and the cross thread. You can't be held to a meaning of your words unless it's YOUR meaning. And, once again, you are proving my point here by acting as the "acceptor" who decides what experts are credible and what aren't, what evidence there is and what there is not.

YOU CANNOT QUESTION OTHERWISE YOU ARE DEVOID OF LOGIC AND ARE A DIPSHIT!

Radar Chief
04-03-2008, 10:10 AM
Again, you prove both my points. The one I made in this thread and the cross thread. You can't be held to a meaning of your words unless it's YOUR meaning. And, once again, you are proving my point here by acting as the "acceptor" who decides what experts are credible and what aren't, what evidence there is and what there is not.

YOU CANNOT QUESTION OTHERWISE YOU ARE DEVOID OF LOGIC AND ARE A DIPSHIT!

Please quote exactly where I posted that you canít question?
Oh, thatís right, you canít because you won't find that. Youíre just going to cry about what you want to think my meaning was.

stevieray
04-03-2008, 10:13 AM
You can't be held to a meaning of your words unless it's YOUR meaning.

irony...

irishjayhawk
04-03-2008, 10:13 AM
Please quote exactly where I posted that you canít question?
Oh, thatís right, you canít because you won't find that. Youíre just going to cry about what you want to think my meaning was.

ROFL

irishjayhawk
04-03-2008, 10:14 AM
irony...

Please do tell.

Radar Chief
04-03-2008, 10:15 AM
ROFL

Iíll take that as your admission you canít quote what you want to believe I posted. :thumb:

irishjayhawk
04-03-2008, 10:15 AM
Iíll take that as your admission you canít quote what you want to believe I posted. :thumb:

Thank you for proving another cross-thread point. :thumb:

stevieray
04-03-2008, 10:15 AM
Please do tell.

please. don't feign ignorance with me.

Radar Chief
04-03-2008, 10:16 AM
Thank you for proving another cross-thread point. :thumb:

Speaking with specifics and quotes is doing you well. Please continue. :thumb:

go bowe
04-03-2008, 11:28 AM
Coincidentally, isn't it also the first steel structure in world history to be hit by the upper floors of a falling 110-story building?it's the little alien fella, i tells ya...

he wanted to see more buildings collapse, so he he went into the damaged wtc7 and breathed fire and kicked out the major support structures like chuck norris in a marshmallow factory...

wait, that explains everything doesn't it?

after the demolitions experts placed their explosives in wtc7 but were unable to bring it down, the little alien and chuck norris knocked the building down with their bare hands er, and bare feet...

it's a conspiracy, i tells ya...

if only rich scanlon could have been there, he would have prevented all the buildings from falling...

where are you when we really need you, rich?

mlyonsd
04-03-2008, 12:16 PM
it's the little alien fella, i tells ya...

he wanted to see more buildings collapse, so he he went into the damaged wtc7 and breathed fire and kicked out the major support structures like chuck norris in a marshmallow factory...

wait, that explains everything doesn't it?

after the demolitions experts placed their explosives in wtc7 but were unable to bring it down, the little alien and chuck norris knocked the building down with their bare hands er, and bare feet...

it's a conspiracy, i tells ya...

if only rich scanlon could have been there, he would have prevented all the buildings from falling...

where are you when we really need you, rich?

That might explain it but still wouldn't satisfy those that would rather see it proven it was our own government that did it.

redbrian
04-03-2008, 04:09 PM
I've never said "The US did it."

I do, however, believe that there is convincing evidence that there were explosives placed inside the buildings. Thus, the logical deduction is that if I believe that there were explosives placed inside the building, then I have to believe that there was an "inside" component to this job - thus "inside job." No doubt some of those people on the inside would have to be involved in government in some way. But that's not to say that any US government agency acting in official capacity was orchestrating this. I haven't seen any convincing evidence of that. How this inside component operated in order to place these explosives, I couldn't speculate, and don't find it productive to do so. This is why I call for futher congressional investigation into the matter to determine the facts around the evidence and determine accountability.


It matters not to me that I'm considered "out there" or "fringe" or whatever for holding this point of view. All I know with any certainty is that there's considerable evidence that shows that there were detonations placed in the buildings. I just want an official accounting of this evidence. I don't care about the implications at this point one way or the other. I just want an official accounting of the evidence.

It doesn't seem so much to ask considering we're talking about the largest, most horrific crime ever committed on US soil.


God that joke never gets old.........