Final WTC7 Report Released

[a11235813]

Thought I'd share the Slashdot threaddiscussing the report. Quite a lot of digs at "conspiracy nuts" there.

[isachar]

8bit, It's manifestly self-evident from everything I've ever posted that I'm not a member of what you view as a church, and was not speaking as one when I objected to your comment.

To once again be as clear as I can be: I was not objecting to your opinion. I was objecting to the foolish, shallow self-regard implied by your apparent belief that reporting your small, uncreative, and unilluminating symbolic gesture to the forum was a meaningful, effective or intelligent contribution to a discussion of how and why a brutal and horrifying massacre took place.

Because it really wasn't.

c2w, my condolences. We must always remember the human cost which cannot and should never be rationalized or trivialized.

My bro-in-law worked in the DeutscheBank building. Fortunately, he would have escaped with his life since he was off site that day. Fortunate in at least two respects, since most who did escape were still exposed to a thick toxic soup of poisons in the air.

It's always easy to rationalize away, dismiss or ignore that which one does not wish to face. It's taken several years, but even the most recidivist on this board (which, on average, represents a far greater level of perception than the public at large) no longer rush to support the governments three patently phony whitewashes - the 911 Commisssion Report, the NIST WTC1/2 report and the NIST WTC7 reports.

No one knows how it was done with absolute certainty, but virtually all here (and according to some polls a substantial percentage of the US public) agree the government's investigations are phony. Indeed, they are no more valid than those engineered WRT - say, Richard Jewell, Stephen Hatfill, the JFK, RFK, or MLK investigations.

The obvious supposition, dare I say conclusion, is that the guilty parties are hiding their involvement. In this case, I think we can dismiss the incompetence defense - which is of course one of the fall back positions the perps and/or their apologists will muster in their defense.

The documented evidence of structural steel of the three buildings that did collapse that day having undergone a eutectic reaction (i.e., the steel was literally dissolved turning it into thin swiss cheese) and that this was casually dismissed or ignored by the 'official' investiations, and the FACT that the government has regularly engaged in false flag ops, state murder, and coverups of similarly odious high matters of state, creates reasonable suspicion of criminal/treasonous intent/conduct to commit mass murder and war crimes.

Not to mention that only elements of the US government could have shut down its air defenses. After all, we know (thanks to Norm Mineta) that Cheney was tracking Flight 11 in the WH Sit Room as it approached the Pentagon long after the two WTC's were hit. Rummy, in an attempt to absolve himself, has stated he didn't even know the two WTC's had been hit and that Flight 11 was approaching DC/Pentagon where he was happily ensconsced at his office (on the opposite side where the plane did hit) in the heart of the nerve center of the nation's armed forces!

Yeah, right. I guess no one wanted to disturb him and Cheney was just tooo busy watching the news in the Sit Room to call him.

Since Cheney and the Sit Room were tracking it they knew precisely where that plane was and had all the time required to act to mobilize the air defenses. Yet, not so much as a BB gun was fired in defense of the HQ of the DoD as it was being approached by a hostile force with known murderous and destructive intent.

And, I might add no one (oh, except Cheney, Rummy, and a handful of other key individuals) knew until the last couple seconds that its target wasn't the White House.

Does anyone think for one second that Cheney would have hesitated to order the White House' air defenses (shoulder launched stingers and heat-seeking missles among them) or hold off firing if he thought there was any chance it was gonna hit directly above his head?

Personally, I don't have much hope that any of this is going to result in a non-compromised investigation much less that there will be any prosecutions. I think this will go the way of the JFK, RFK, MLK, state assassinations, Tonkin Gulf. At the most, and for the time being, I think one can only attempt to keep the alternative (credible) narrative alive as a counterweight, and to maintain one's connectedness with sanity and reality - as difficult as that may be in these times.

regards.

[thegovernmentflu]

Excuse me. Everyone believe the government. Sorry to waste your time!

It's quite alright, Hugh. We forgive you.

[orz]

Excuse me. Everyone believe the government. Sorry to waste your time!

But Hugh, you believe the government. You stand 100% behind the
real 'official story' about 9/11.

[ninakat]

Psychology and WTC7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tXPIfBkzhs

[8bitagent]

8bit, It's manifestly self-evident from everything I've ever posted that I'm not a member of what you view as a church, and was not speaking as one when I objected to your comment.

To once again be as clear as I can be: I was not objecting to your opinion. I was objecting to the foolish, shallow self-regard implied by your apparent belief that reporting your small, uncreative, and unilluminating symbolic gesture to the forum was a meaningful, effective or intelligent contribution to a discussion of how and why a brutal and horrifying massacre took place.

Because it really wasn't.

First off, I was making a joking point in a not so joking theme as a reponse to Hugh, thank you very much.

He keeps showing WTC tower images exploding, so I was making a reference how maybe were all part of a church, we could all wear plane necklaces. I was making a point, sorry you took it the wrong way.

Maybe it'd be more respectful if I yammered on how its PROVEN that no plane hit the pentagon, controlled demolition is the only causation of the collapses, and Bush and Cheney "did it"?

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Excuse me. Everyone believe the government. Sorry to waste your time!

And there it is. Hugh, just because we believe that CD is not PROVEN doesn't mean we accept the .gov story;
.....
We're on the same side, I think.

Sorry, barracuda and y'all. Of course I don't think y'all believe the government.
My intended lengthy post got eaten by my computer aaaaarggghhh and I gave up for the night in a huff.

So just a peevish eyerolling figure of speech on the way to powering down that should've instead been a more benign emoticon.

But the evidence forming proof - oops, I mean - PROOF! is there. More soon.

[8bitagent]

I traveled with friends and family from the bay area down to the California State Fair today. After riding a bunch of rides, I was walking around for something to eat and I came across this pretty sizeable September 11th Memorial. They had several massive twisted rust colored husks of the steel beams, it was too surreal. I just stood there in awe, and I placed my hand on one of the warped beams....just to feel.
They had this fountain, with this big sphere with all the names of everyone who died, that continually rotated with water. The photo gallery was pretty intense. If you were a visitor to earth, you'd swear these were photos from a disaster film.

I don't really have a point here. It's just we as deep politic researchers and thinkers can almost be separated from that which we speak endlessly of.

I hear endless talk about tedious scientific data back and forth, but to see several massive twisted husks of WTC steel, to stand before them and touch them. It's quite something. The plaque near it ends by saying
"It's hard to believe one senseless act could have brought these two towers down". I agree, very hard to believe.
I stood at Ground Zero in 1986, looking up at the Twin Towers. I woulda swore they were a mile high.

[nathan28]

I don't really have a point here. It's just we as deep politic researchers and thinkers can almost be separated from that which we speak endlessly of.

The thing that piqued my interest was the Nick Berg stuff, and that BBC report about many of the listed guys still being alive, but then I lost interest and I wasn't interested in this crap until after having worked on a contract directly related to the a shit-ton of terrorist funding, government corruption, corporate malfeasance and drug money all at the same time. Wow, who'd have thought, they come as a package? After that for two years I used to take the WTC subway stop every morning. I know somebody who was injured working on rescue that day.

[isachar]

...a shit-ton of terrorist funding, government corruption, corporate malfeasance and drug money all at the same time. Wow, who'd have thought, they come as a package?

Who? How about Sibel Edmonds and Daniel Hopsicker - just to name two who have been loudly blowing that whistle for about 7 years now.

Ya' gotta pay attention and have a very big notebook to follow the various crimes of the NWO.

[nathan28]

...a shit-ton of terrorist funding, government corruption, corporate malfeasance and drug money all at the same time. Wow, who'd have thought, they come as a package?

Who? How about Sibel Edmonds and Daniel Hopsicker - just to name two who have been loudly blowing that whistle for about 7 years now.

Ya' gotta pay attention and have a very big notebook to follow the various crimes of the NWO.

that's what i mean, i forgot to add my [/irony] brackets

[§ê¢rꆧ]

I've been wanting to post to this thread for a while, but my Firefox has been acting strange on RI. Also, I wanted to wait until I had a chance to digest more of the garbage from NIST, which I am sorry to say has been slow going.

I just want to reply to c2w, many pages ago, where she spends some time splitting hairs about the Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth site not really offering conclusive proof of CD. I appreciate her thoughtful analysis and breakdown, but it occurs to me that the purpose of the A&E site is not really to offer the final proof, so much as it is to get more architects and engineers on board to look at the evidence and come to their own conclusions, which, it is pretty clear, the A&E folks believe will be support for CD or at the very least doubt of the Official Conspiracy Theory. I think it is all about audience, and that is why 'conclusive proof' is not front and center on their site.

You can't tell me Richard Gage and the other volunteers there are not entirely convinced of the reality of CD or at least the strong possibility of such. Now I know that's just appeal to authority, but the proof is there, even if it is couched in careful, qualifying (even conservative) language which befits the audience. It's just not in-your-face style - that's a role for another site and another group, I would say.

I would also add that they've cleaned up the site nicely with the new design and that helps a lot. It does not help many of the 911 truth sites to look like they were made by someone's highschool nephew. It's a stupid, stupid thing, like judging a book by its cover, but the reality is, I think, conveying information is all about packaging. They say content is king, but design is the crown, without which nobody takes the king seriously.

[Brentos]

I've been wanting to post to this thread for a while, but my Firefox has been acting strange on RI. Also, I wanted to wait until I had a chance to digest more of the garbage from NIST, which I am sorry to say has been slow going.

I just want to reply to c2w, many pages ago, where she spends some time splitting hairs about the Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth site not really offering conclusive proof of CD. I appreciate her thoughtful analysis and breakdown, but it occurs to me that the purpose of the A&E site is not really to offer the final proof, so much as it is to get more architects and engineers on board to look at the evidence and come to their own conclusions, which, it is pretty clear, the A&E folks believe will be support for CD or at the very least doubt of the Official Conspiracy Theory. I think it is all about audience, and that is why 'conclusive proof' is not front and center on their site.

You can't tell me Richard Gage and the other volunteers there are not entirely convinced of the reality of CD or at least the strong possibility of such. Now I know that's just appeal to authority, but the proof is there, even if it is couched in careful, qualifying (even conservative) language which befits the audience. It's just not in-your-face style - that's a role for another site and another group, I would say.

I would also add that they've cleaned up the site nicely with the new design and that helps a lot. It does not help many of the 911 truth sites to look like they were made by someone's highschool nephew. It's a stupid, stupid thing, like judging a book by its cover, but the reality is, I think, conveying information is all about packaging. They say content is king, but design is the crown, without which nobody takes the king seriously.

Common Sense: Consider potential energy due to structural failure. Does it cause explosive dustification?
If so, does potential energy have the energy to create dustification?
Its common sense.

[compared2what?]

I've been wanting to post to this thread for a while, but my Firefox has been acting strange on RI. Also, I wanted to wait until I had a chance to digest more of the garbage from NIST, which I am sorry to say has been slow going.

I just want to reply to c2w, many pages ago, where she spends some time splitting hairs about the Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth site not really offering conclusive proof of CD. I appreciate her thoughtful analysis and breakdown, but it occurs to me that the purpose of the A&E site is not really to offer the final proof, so much as it is to get more architects and engineers on board to look at the evidence and come to their own conclusions, which, it is pretty clear, the A&E folks believe will be support for CD or at the very least doubt of the Official Conspiracy Theory. I think it is all about audience, and that is why 'conclusive proof' is not front and center on their site.

You can't tell me Richard Gage and the other volunteers there are not entirely convinced of the reality of CD or at least the strong possibility of such. Now I know that's just appeal to authority, but the proof is there, even if it is couched in careful, qualifying (even conservative) language which befits the audience. It's just not in-your-face style - that's a role for another site and another group, I would say.

I would also add that they've cleaned up the site nicely with the new design and that helps a lot. It does not help many of the 911 truth sites to look like they were made by someone's highschool nephew. It's a stupid, stupid thing, like judging a book by its cover, but the reality is, I think, conveying information is all about packaging. They say content is king, but design is the crown, without which nobody takes the king seriously.

I appreciate the considered response. As I said, I am totally down with a call for further investigation. Had the contention not been made that the site offered proof, it wouldn't have been an issue to me.

But....That said, I would also add that seven years is a long time not to have come up with a more goal-oriented plan of action than getting more architects and engineers to look at the evidence. That's, like, half of step one. Where are the other steps and where do they lead?