World Trade Center Building 7 - controlled demolition

I forgot one very important point.

Noam Chomsky is NOT a mainstream media figure.

"Chomsky continues to be well known as a political activist, and a leading critic of US foreign policy, state capitalism, and the mainstream news media." This is quoted directly from the following link...

Noam Chomsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a 2005 poll, he was voted the "world's top public intellectual". That makes him just a wee bit more intelligent than Adam Meredith.

I still recommend his book "Manufacturing Consent, The Political Economy of the Mass Media". And yes, you ARE being hoodwinked, even by your beloved BBC. They're no different, you just don't want to believe it... 

BBM

Still waiting for a consistent, coherent, complete, alternative narrative beyond the scatterring of doubts and murky innuendo. I'm not hearing a theory, just criticisms of the accepted version. Give me the alternate story so I can run the same degree of scrutiny over the facts within.

I have no problem with the official version not being entirely correct but in conspiracy vs cock-up I know where my money goes.

George. Thanks for quoting Occam's Razor. Often a friendly hand in my profession.

Bruce

Seconded.

It's a pity a meaningful dialogue wasn't really intended or possible with the OP here.

Must put on some Einstuerzende Neubauten today, yesterday's thread content inspired some SPK.

So - you have a clueless suspicion?

It might clear the air if you would name who you suspect.

For me, your reticent hinting seems to be wanting to eat your cake but not have it.

I hope I am being unfair and mistaken.

"So well-bred Spaniels civilly delight
In mumbling of the Game they dare not bite."

Very serious what?

G

Well that's blown your credibility right out of the water. There are none more intelligent than Adam. Surely you knew this?

you can't be serious. This is the same bable that Sniper recommended last year. I watched it.

Seriously, if you believe this stuff, you'll believe anything, well, anything except the "official" record of events.

Don

do you not think sometimes what if all this was true and it was orchestrated by the U.S goverment for an agenda on US - Islamic  relations.

If you blindly except the official explanation you are just the sort of person that goverments want if they are manipulating society with an evil agenda.

Personally I would keep a more open mind.

Don,

I am very serious. What are your professional credentials, Don? Are you qualified to debate this issue with professionals from a variety of engineering disciplines?

If you are qualified, then that's one thing, and you are entitled to a professional opinion. If not, then... 

BBM

The possibility of being hoodwinked and indeed manipulated by the authors of a particular version of events should of course apply to those who believe a less accepted story too. Curiously these believers rarely own up to uncertainty or indeed that wider agendas apply to those that promote conspiracies as well.

Not that I have heard that story mind you. Just criticism of the accepted version, and criticism of those who support it. 

 How can I have an open mind with only view version presented to me? Show me the alternate story, start, middle and end, show me the names, places and the methods. Show me the facts that support it to compare wIth the conventional story and the evidence it draws upon. How, who, why. Then I can examine both.

Bruce

He is still entitled to an opinion.

ATB from George

There are 9/11 conspiracy theorists and there are 9/11 skeptics - two different types of animal. 

Numerous people point to the little sequential puffs coming out of the twin towers a fraction of a second before each floor collapses. The conspiracy theorists say this proof that George Bush ordered the towers to be destroyed so the US could go to war in Iraq to secure the oil fields and prop up the falling dollar etc. etc. The 9/11 skeptics examine the NIST report and they find little or no mention of these little puffs but many trained demolition experts attest that these are tell-tale evidence of a planned demolition but they don't make any silly conclusions about the fact - they just say the report ignores this and they think this is a serious omission.

The fact that towers were designed to withstand an airliner smashing into them is not in debate and the fact that no other steel framed building has ever melted and collapsed in free fall before is not debated either. Conspiracy theorists say the building was rigged with explosives before the planes hit the tower so Bush could blame Iraq and carry a war against moslems to justify the spending of billions so Bush and his cronies could get even richer. The 9/11 skeptics interview many hundreds of engineers and architects many of which have 30 and even 40 years experience of building high rise buildings to confirm these facts which the NIST report merely glosses over and they think this is another serious omission. 

Of course there are many many other pieces of evidence which all produce similar responses from the conspiracy theorists (the fact the building rubble was not treated as a crime scene and the remains shipped within days to China being proof that Bush and his cronies wanted to hide the evidence of military grade thermite found in the rubble whereas the 9/11 skeptics merely line up a professor of chemistry and other experts to attest to having found thermite in the rubble but not jumping to conclusions as to who put it there) but the people who blindly accept the NIST report (despite never having read it - everyone on this thread for example) just group the many hundreds of intelligent, highly qualified and highly experienced professionals who have examined the mountain of evidence (unlike anyone of this thread for example) with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists which in turn they group together with people who believe in faked moon landings and the possibility that Elvis still lives and a bunch of aliens are alive in a special secret building in area 51 etc etc. It is these people (the people who ignore the evidence of real experts) who are the real fools. 

And what if there is any chance, any chance at all that the many hundreds of experts (architects, engineers, explosives and demolition experts, chemists and physicists, airline pilots, military officers and security experts) are right - people who have studied the NIST report and the evidence and find huge discrepancies - then don't you think this is a matter of the gravest concern of everyone and not just Americans? 

And don't you think that all those people who have not studied the NIST report and have not studied all the evidence (it would take many weeks or even months of full time study) and who are not experts in any field other than sitting in an arm chairs on their respective fat arses (who are undeniably entitled to their view) are, nonetheless, ignorant at best and a bunch of arrogant witless ****s at worse? 

OK Bruce.

Since you seem keen to learn, I'll give you some hints. You can do your own homework, though, just like I've done mine.

Read up on Peak Oil, the TAPI pipeline, and the Bush Oil Law for Iraq.

Then study up on the PNAC, AIPAC, the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderburg Group.

When you are done with that, you can then spend some time on Larry A. Silverstein (hint: he's a good friend of Benjamin Netanyahu), and John O'Neil.

Then it would be a good idea to read Noam Chomsky's book "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass media".

That should keep you out of my hair for a few months.

Good Luck,

BBM

Yes George, you are correct. He's still entitled to an opinion just like everyone else. The thing is, though, he needs to qualify his opinion by constructively criticizing the opinions of the professionals. Otherwise, his opinion is just that: an opinion that doesn't count for much. I thought  you would have understood the implication in my initial post.

You know what they say about opinions and arseholes...

BBM 

In situations like this one can only explore different explanations of the same incident.

It really does not matter if you have no expertise in the various disciplines because even the experts don't agree.

So you choose what theory you prefer based either on which theory seems fit the "facts" or based on whatever anti-establishment agenda you have.

Personally, I believe the collapse of the 3 towers was due primarily to fire damage. To accept that controlled demolition was the cause of any of the towers destruction, is in my view, perverse.

This is an example of a common trend on this forum which IMHO has seen a steep deterioration in the quality of inter-personal discourse.

Increasingly, those who involve themselves in lost-cause debates seem to be eschewing critical thought, persuasive argument and evidence-based decision-making in advancing their positions. Instead they resort to fear, ideology, intentional misrepresentation and pejorative language to mobilize a pre-existing support base against its perceived opponents. In other words, childish name-calling. Which is what the attached post is.

That I don't necessarily appreciate having either insistently thrust in my face?

Another example of a common trend on this forum which IMHO has seen a steep deterioration in the quality of inter-personal discourse. 

In other words, childish name-calling. Which is what the attached post has also descended into.

Your hypocrisy is astonishing. You have no argument, None. if I remember correctly, you said you knew all about demolition because you had blown up your garden shed and that therefore you knew more about demolition than explosives experts in the uS military, and civilian demolition experts with 30 plus years of experience of successfully bringing down high rise buildings. There are thousands of experts (all on record) all of whom are qualified and experienced who have deeply studied the issue and you know more than all of them put together because you have cast a quick eye over one video? Pathetic. Really. Grow up man. 

Unless I missed it, the crashing of two airliners into skyscrapers on the scale of the Twin Towers is an unprecedented event which no one has any experience of.

There are lots of experts in this world, many of whom enjoy nothing more than pushing themselves forward with their opinions and theories so they can be noticed.

Having a professional qualification does not preclude one from having fairly cranky beliefs and using the qualification to prop them up.  I know one professional in my field who genuinely believes in leylines and the healing power of crystals. He's part of a global 'foundation', extending mainly across the USA, who have suckered him (imo) out of thousands and thousands of pounds.

To meet him you would never know.

People are strange indeed.

G

This theory has much more credibility - as any good Scotsman has known for many, many years..

http://newsthump.com/2010/06/2...-1996-world-cup-win/

Jim

Adam

I just splurted my tea all over the keyboard. Thanks for that, it has made my week.

Bruce

Respect, Don!