Thats why i didn't want to use that site, silly. I know it is over-the-top. the point is in the footage.

the only relevant text in there was



it looks like the video clip is from an actual news program.

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

Oyuki, this site should enable you to sleep at night, without concerns about the Bush Bogeyman! I'm joking, of course! I haven't read much of this and I'm sure it will be just as over the top as other siteson this topic but at least it is coming from my side of the fence, so naturally I think it all completely reasonable

It does provide some info on Building 7, and, importantly, some photos that show just how badly damaged the building was before it fell.

Looks really interesting, i will try to read it all later. Thanks for the find

Here's No1 son aged 1 day



This is No1 son a little older



Getting conspiracy theories is really important. Idle mind etc.

So what?

Anti-science and anti-Engineering. My baby would be dead without science and engineering. Women beware. The anti-technologists will have you die in childbirth, as happened to my father's first wife. He/She also lost two baby girls to preventable disease.

No1 son is a fine 15 year old lad. A much nicer person than his dad. Without science and technology he would have been a stillbirth.

Soubs, trust you to inject some sense of perspective into the whole shirtfight!

He looks like a real nice (if a little on the cheeky side) kid. Is this one of the ones that you have had to fight to get to see? If so, that would be worth the effort!

Soubs, please stay on topic, or at least refrain from insuating positions that have not even been remotely close to being stated. No one here is anti-science, or suggested as much. thank you.

None of the explanations were tested against the actual wreckage which was carted away at double quick speed. Theories and little drawings are nice, but they all need to be compared against the actual evidence for me to believe them. Its what happens in every other criminal case. Its also what proper scientists do too. No serious scientist proves anything on a piece of paper. All you can do is hypothesize.

Anyway, my major concern is not the towers collapsing, especially now the evidence has been destroyed. Its only one small part of the events, none of which have been adequately investigated. I'm sick of saying this, but that's what the people who did the investigating say. If the people who wrote the official story don't have faith in it, neither will I. The US government also lies about every other aspect of the so-called War on Terror, from yellow cake to torture to Jessica Lynch. I don't know what happened, but there is clearly more to it than what we have been told. What and how much more I do not know.

The Taliban government was willing to negotiate. Had they been allowed to, Osama bin Laden would have been caught. If you fight a war when the other side will negotiate, that makes the war and occupation illegal. Lots of people consider the attack on Afghanistan illegal. You won't encounter them very often in the mainstream media, that is all. Perhaps you should read more widely.

OK, for Blair, he used the Royal Perogative to send troops to Iraq. That made it lawful.

None of the explanations were tested against the actual wreckage which was carted away at double quick speed. Why bother testing for something that is patently irrelevant? It is like asking why, when investigating a crash landing of an airliner, the authorities don't test for damage from anti aircraft missiles? It's like, completely outside the realm of reason to think it necessary.

Theories and little drawings are nice, but they all need to be compared against the actual evidence for me to believe them. Exactly. It is just a pity the 911 Truth peeps don't do this. The two websites Oyuki and I posted yesterday show a dramatic contrast in approaches from the two side of the argument. The Gov-Did-It website selectively presents the Building 7 information in a way to create real doubt as to why it fell over and in the official explanation. The photos show an almost pristine building. Most importantly, that website omits photos from the damaged side of the building, it presents only selected information that supports its case. The other website shows just how much damage the building suffered and once the damage is established and a more fulsome explanation of the actions of the fire-fighters is provided, there is suddenly a lot less reason to question the official explanation, because it is infinitely more plausible than what the 911 truth people will have us believe.


Its what happens in every other criminal case. The standard is beyond reasonable doubt. If we applied even some of the rules of evidence to the spurious claims of the 911 truth nuts, their arguments would melt away. Innuendo, selective presentation of evidence, exclusion of conflicting evidence, hear say, circumstantial evidence, ambiguous evidence - it just doesn't stack up to close analysis. Another important thing about legal process, is the well accepted difficulty of correlating eye witness accounts. Amazingly, people will often have quite different recollections of the exact same event. Memory and perception are very slippery things. The 911 Chicken Littles make a lot out of apparent discrepancies between eye witnesses and descriptions of the events by different people. But these differences are to be expected, it would be far more concerning if we actually had a very high level of consistency in the narrative - that consistency would be far more suggestive of an official orchestrated event.

Its also what proper scientists do too. No serious scientist proves anything on a piece of paper. All you can do is hypothesize. I don't know what you point is. They can't rebuild the Towers to re-enact the event. They don't need to test for explosives because there is no need to. Likewise, they don't need to test for radiation from a mini nuke or Alien death ray.

Anyway, my major concern is not the towers collapsing, especially now the evidence has been destroyed. Its only one small part of the events, none of which have been adequately investigated. It has! Get past the first page of google where all the crack pot pages are and read the actual reports.

I'm sick of saying this, but that's what the people who did the investigating say. Really? Who exactly and what do they actually say? This is a big claim and I would be very interested to read about anybody who was intimately involved in the several investigations saying that what they did was not thorough and complete. You reckon you're sick of saying this, so put up the info. No second hand extracts, real and complete statements from people who were involved in the process and know what they're talking about.

If the people who wrote the official story don't have faith in it, neither will I. The US government also lies about every other aspect of the so-called War on Terror, from yellow cake to torture to Jessica Lynch. I don't know what happened, but there is clearly more to it than what we have been told. What and how much more I do not know. Of course governments spin and manipulate information. The US gov probably more than anyone. Don't you think it is odd that we have such a good understanding of those examples you've mentioned but nothing concrete from 911? Why is that do you reckon? There is a vast difference between political oppitunism and constructing an elaborate plan to kills thousands of civilians. Sure, when its soldiers are killed one can say that governments kill its own citizens for political purposes but even that is different from 911. It has always been the prerogative of governments to make use of its armed services for political reasons, so long as those reasons are dressed up as national interests - that has occurred for as long as there have been armies and governments.

The Taliban government was willing to negotiate. Had they been allowed to, Osama bin Laden would have been caught. If you fight a war when the other side will negotiate, that makes the war and occupation illegal. Lots of people consider the attack on Afghanistan illegal. You won't encounter them very often in the mainstream media, that is all. Perhaps you should read more widely. ..and you shouldn't believe everything that you read.

[quote=Rag-Doll
I'm sick of saying this, but that's what the people who did the investigating say. Really? Who exactly and what do they actually say? This is a big claim and I would be very interested to read about anybody who was intimately involved in the several investigations saying that what they did was not thorough and complete. You reckon you're sick of saying this, so put up the info. No second hand extracts, real and complete statements from people who were involved in the process and know what they're talking about. [/quote]

Mr. W,

I've spent the last couple of hours having at look at what the commissioners have said about their access to information. You're completely right about them expressing concerns about access to info and the level of help they got from different departments, but it seems to be more of a case of departments withholding info that would paint them or the Government in a bad light than any suggestion that the government was complicit in the 911 event over and above simple incompetence. I can't find any indication that the commissioners were concerned that there was an over arching conpiracy involved.

ok boys now explain the Pentagon. Can`t wait to hear this one. Or does FEMA have some credulous explanation?

Easy. Check out the eyewitnesses, heaps's of them. For some reason the 911ers don't mention them much.

I posted some links earlier in this thread to some sites that mention eyewitnesses.

BTW until a week ago I thought the Pentagon bit was dodgy as hell too. Then someone mentioned eyewitnesses. I changed my tune rapidly.

eyewitnesses that actually saw a plane fly into the Pentagon?
Funny when you go back to the original reports all those years ago we hear all of these eyewitnesses that say nothing resembling a plane came near. Then the gasstation security footage that shows nothing until we see flames and smoke but no plane debris.

Curious

Please check out the links I mention below:



If you think any of the sites have got it wrong please say why and provide evidence I can easily access, preferably websites. Otherwise we're just going to go around in circles. Again.

Funny that, Les Robertson the WTC structural engineer says in a TV interview that the towers were designed to withstand a crash of a FULLY laden 707. He then goes on to say they didn`t consider the fuel load. Seriously, a man who designs 2 modern towers overlooks this fact.

The core of the building in his words was a steel cage made up of 47 steel beams. A cage not a tube! A cage which load bearing capacity would be too strong to just collapse in under 10 seconds!

Next the construction of the building was in 3 tiers! so at 1/3 and 2/3 the floors were reinforced to take the load. The pancaking would have had a very hard time getting through the first one let alone the second one.

The jet would never have been full of fuel(not a long haul flight) and most of that would have burnt off in the initial impact. Then we see fire with dark smoke signifying a low temp fire with little oxygen.
The fire could never have been the cause to melt the steel core or warp it to the point it would fall in on itself neatly in under 10secs!

The melting point of steel is way above the maximum temperature that the fire could have reached. Pancaking of the floors would have had a slowing effect as resistance comes into play but yet you think it`s plausible scientifically that it would suddenly neatly collapse in it`s own footprint in under 10 seconds. Surely based on scientific models you must come to the conclusion that it would have taken well over a minute to fully collapse with your pancaking theory.

The FEMA report contains many facts that have had science bent in it`s favour. You can say the conspiracist use antiscience, and they do. That report is so full of holes and pushed as scientific fact. It`s disgraceful and the people who propagate it are the conspiracists who try to pull the wool over the sheeples eyes by assuming they can use antiscience that will never be questioned.


And Oyuki please watch the following video that uses scientific facts that can be verified by the science community to disprove the official story.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=9%2F11&hl=en&sitesearch=#q=911%20mysteries&hl=en&sitesearch=

911 peeps bang on about the fires not being hot enough to bring the towers down and bang on about the impact of the planes not being enough to bring the towers down. The FEMA report Soubs posted even says that neither of these two event separately would have caused the collapse BUT combined they were. Why do we not hear from the 911 nutters about the likely effects of the two events combined?

The melting point of steel is way above the maximum temperature that the fire could have reached. No one is saying they were melted. What do your models say about the strength of the structure when massively damaged and then heated so that the remaining steel loses a large amount of its strengtth?

Pancaking of the floors would have had a slowing effect as resistance comes into play but yet you think it`s plausible scientifically that it would suddenly neatly collapse in it`s own footprint in under 10 seconds. Two separate points confusingly presented together. What resistance? The collapse would speed up as larger and larger forces are applied to each suscessive floor, until towards the end the building would be in near free fall. This isn't an object falling through the floors - which would slow as each floor acted to take away some of the energy, it is the floors themselves landing on the floor below with the combined weight of the rest of the building above. Has anyone claimed that floor 10, for example, of the North Tower was designed and built to withstand the entire weight of the building aboove it crashing on to it? I think not.

Surely based on scientific models you must come to the conclusion that it would have taken well over a minute to fully collapse with your pancaking theory. What models are you using? The funny things about models is that they are built around certain assumptions. Any chance those asumptions are wrong? I'd say probably more chance than of someone lacing the towers with explosives! Reading the FEMA reports, it too contains assumptions because it is simply impossible to know exactly what the conditions were like inside the impact zone and how the parts of the plane and the building behaved during the impact. To say that we do is simply wrong. So that leaves us with deciding which on the balance of probabilities is more likely - 911 mystery people have got their science/facts wrong or there was a massive, unprecedented level of government complicity in the murder of thousands of its citizens. Now honestly, which do you reckon is more likley?

He didn't, he considered a fully laden 707 at the end of it's flight flying slowly. So light on fuel. Actually the videos I just watched didn't mention fuel at all.



Please provide your sources sources showing that the building was too strong.

BTW, even the youTube conspiracy video says it was a tube! Check out http://youtube.com/watch?v=CNskClIyGfY and go to 1m30s.



Please provide your sources saying that the pancaking isn't a viable theory.


The fuel thing is discussed in the FEMA report including how much fuel was on the plane, how much initially burnt, how much remained and where it went. Please supply your sources showing how much fuel the plane had and why most if it would have burnt off in the initial impact.

The FEMA report doesn't mention melting, just loss of strength. Loss of strength occurs at a much lower temperature than melting of steel - ie melting being when it turns to liquid.


Again sources please showing that pancaking should slow down and also for the mentioned scientific models.

Again talk of melting. Melting isn't an issue, loss of strength is.

I've read and heard many people saying that the buildings fell into their own footprint. This is false as both towers badly damaged surrounding buildings when they fell. Very sloppy if it was controlled demolition. This link defines footprint as "the total area at the base of the building".


Please provide sources showing bent science.

I don't quite understand the 2nd sentence, but I think you just said that the conspiracy theorists use anti science - errr, isn't this something you would not want to admit to?

Actually, what is anti-science? I can't find a good definition.


I'm not Oyuki, but I watched this video anyway. It was a clip that reviewed aspects of that day with many sound bites in it from prominent figures. No interesting facts at all - for or against.


Spacefrog, I understand that you are totally convinced that 911 was a conspiracy. I get that. I also understand that you would like to show others who do not believe it was a conspiracy where they went wrong. I understand this too. I cannot speak for anyone else, but to get me to change my mind, and I am prepared to do so, you will have to show me opinions and theories backed up with solid evidence. So far you have shown me opinions and theories but none of the evidence. Until you show me the evidence you have very little chance of changing my views.

JM,

I understend that you are a reasonable person, prepared to listen to argument and make up t]your mind based on the evidence presented. Mee too!

Unfortunately, all the conspiracy theorists are convinced by their wacky logic, and there ain't a damned thing you can do to change their mind.

I've decided that their responses are only good as comic relief from the hassles of the world.

Hehehe, the response to my post will be very telling then!