Final WTC7 Report Released

[8bitagent]

That 'kid' wasn't a '9/11 truther'. His question was about election fraud: demonstrable, well-documented election fraud. He was quoting Greg Palast, not Alex Jones.
And what's your point? That if if you get ask questions you'll get tasered? And if you get tasered, that proves you're a boring loudmouth?
Really what's your point? Give me one reason not to dismiss you as a reactionary windbag.

Actually he was a truther. He brought up Skull and Bones, and other Alex Jones talking points.

As I was saying, he never brought up 9/11. So how is he a 'truther', if that word is to have any meaning beyond whatever meaning seems to be convenient to your arguments at any specific time?
What does skull and bones have to do with the architects and engineers? More strawmen.

Truther, in popular jargon, means what the lay would call "conspiracy activist", but what I would call anti NWO, para-politicker. I consider myself a staunch truther, as well as a progressive. Hell Im a big fan of Alex Jones, aside from his sometimes anti Mexican tone.

FWIW, it almost seems like most of the "anti Bush" liberals hate folks like us almost as much as the "right wing".

[erosoplier]

Jack Riddler's unanswerable question was apparently posed to Sunder, who couldn't answer it:

The answer of course, is that there was considerably more damage to the building than mere fires, as has been shown here time and time again. Sorry to play devil's advocate.

Barracuda, my memory fails me, but I distinctly recall finding grounds to be suspicious of that first photo, and the third photo actually looks like a 2 photo floor by floor comparison showing that one of the photos must be wrong. Do you know where that last one came from?

[JackRiddler]

c2w: yeah. That in a nutshell is my problem with it, too.

Hugh -- The architects and engineers to whom you link as authorities don't themselves maintain anything close to that definitive a conclusion. They don't even assert that CD is proven. Their position is that the official story is contradicted by the publicly available evidence, and in the course of elaborating it they also enumerate the ways in which CD is a better fit.

But they don't claim, or even pretend to claim, that CD is proven by the laws of physics, or by any unbreakable natural law. There's not enough evidence to support that claim, or any other, because there is no way any branch of science -- or for that matter, reason -- can accommodate the unknown and unknowable unknowns. To get all Rumsfeld about it.

And even if it were possible to attain, what would make having certain knowledge on this one isolated point -- which implicates no one and forms the basis of no plan for action or accountability -- so crucial?

I'm not hostile to the proposition, or to its adherents (qua adherents -- ie, I'm not a fan of every single public figures who endorses CD, but in no case is it because they endorse CD).

Seriously. I just don't understand whence the need for a certainty that:

* avails those who fight for the cause of justice nothing;
* gains them no ground; and
* advances no cause of any kind toward any goal of any kind.

What is up with that? Please tell me. I'm asking in good faith.

[barracuda]

Barracuda, my memory fails me, but I distinctly recall finding grounds to be suspicious of that first photo, and the third photo actually looks like a 2 photo floor by floor comparison showing that one of the photos must be wrong. Do you know where that last one came from?

http://www.conspiracyscience.com/storag ... amage1.jpg

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_c ... g-5-17.jpg


Above are the urls for the first two images. My "original" source is for the last picture is

http://s10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Chang ... /t7418.htm

And the discussion there centers around the NIST report's use of images chosen deliberately to conform to their fire/debris damage theory. In the split screen photo, it seems that the right hand image was taken at 2:00 while the left hand photo, taken somewhat later, was used in the NIST report. I think this picture in someways both shows the backwards engineering used by the seriously flawed NIST conclusion, as well as highlighting the progressive nature of the damage itself on this side, which is somewhat supportive of a consideration of a true structural failure in progress before the onset of catastrophic failure.

Suspicion of the first photo is related to the fact that it has been featured in NIST and obviously the helicoptered angle was chosen to highlight their findings. The invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum discussion is all about whether these photos have been altered in some way, but the arguments which you can read there are unconvincing to me.



Of course these photos found on the webs are hardly evidenciary, but I find it difficult to look at them, especially as a lay-person, without wondering if this building was beyond salvage sometime before it collapsed. And I feel these pictures carry just as much weight as all the "PROVEN BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT ANY SCHOOLCHILD COULD SEE THAT MORANS" uppercase net-shouting that people are capable of. There is no doubt in my mind that debris from the falling tower significantly damaged WTC 7 long before any "obvious remote controlled thermate charges" theoretical conjecture came into play.

I concur with compared2what? in as much as the obvious and admitted crimes of the Bush administration, in particular lying to start a ( 1 million + dead) war of agression in violation of US law constitute the area in which legal retribution seems most likely. Well, I guess that's not really what she said, but I do agree with what she did say. The CD cul-de-sac is a fascinating hobby which will eventually take its place next to Ripperology and Zapruder analysis-puttering without ever progressing further, or resulting in any significant criminal charges, so coo-wee boner?

[thegovernmentflu]

That 'kid' wasn't a '9/11 truther'. His question was about election fraud: demonstrable, well-documented election fraud. He was quoting Greg Palast, not Alex Jones.
And what's your point? That if if you get ask questions you'll get tasered? And if you get tasered, that proves you're a boring loudmouth?
Really what's your point? Give me one reason not to dismiss you as a reactionary windbag.

Actually he was a truther. He brought up Skull and Bones, and other Alex Jones talking points.

As I was saying, he never brought up 9/11. So how is he a 'truther', if that word is to have any meaning beyond whatever meaning seems to be convenient to your arguments at any specific time?
What does skull and bones have to do with the architects and engineers? More strawmen.

He never brought up 911, but he was clearly influenced by the current 911 Truth version of deep politics. Do you really think that some kid who put on a forceful loudmouth schtick while talking about Skull and Bones wasn't somehow influenced by extremely popular Alex Jones videos?

Also, I can't help but notice that you never answered my question: Can you just admit that you didn't find the collapse of the WTC buildings even remotely suspicious until leaders within the conspiracy movement started telling you that they were?

Like I said before, I do find the collapse of the buildings suspicious, but I can't help but wonder if I was manipulated to think so. Aspects of the collapses do seem implausible to me. The problem is, I didn't feel that way until I started reading 911 Truth literature and watching videos.

Can we at least agree that controlled demolition has gotten an inordinate amount of attention, at the expense of the important circumstantial evidence? Probably not.

In any case, I was just trying to assess the situation from a different perspective: if the controlled demolition theories are a diversion(and I think it's obvious that they are, when mainstream news focuses EXCLUSIVELY on demolition 911 theories), then it's also possible that they're 100% untrue, as most mainstream physicists and architects claim they are. I'm not sure whether or not this is the case, but I think it's an avenue worth exploring.

[compared2what?]

Truther, in popular jargon, means what the lay would call "conspiracy activist", but what I would call anti NWO, para-politicker. I consider myself a staunch truther, as well as a progressive. Hell I m a big fan of Alex Jones, aside from his sometimes anti Mexican tone.

"Truther" has no meaning of any kind outside of popular jargon, because it is popular jargon. It also has no "lay" meaning, because there is no laity. Plus, Alex Jones is a professional bamboozler and thought-stopper, imo. But never mind that for right now. We can talk about it later. In the meantime, if you're going to branch out into etymology, could you provide some citations in support of the definition you're proposing for "truther"? Because I understand it to mean, and have only ever seen it used to mean: "A person who agitates for 9/11 truth."

To me, on a purely subjective basis, it also connotes "a supporter of some version of the Loose Change thesis," unless specified otherwise. But that could just be me. It's not like I've done a systematic word-usage review. So it might just happen often to have been the connotation of the word in the contexts in which I happen to have encountered it. Which might not be at all representative from an empirical perspective, needless to say.[/i]

[compared2what?]

I concur with compared2what? in as much as the obvious and admitted crimes of the Bush administration, in particular lying to start a ( 1 million + dead) war of agression in violation of US law constitute the area in which legal retribution seems most likely. Well, I guess that's not really what she said, but I do agree with what she did say. The CD cul-de-sac is a fascinating hobby which will eventually take its place next to Ripperology and Zapruder analysis-puttering without ever progressing further, or resulting in any significant criminal charges, so coo-wee boner?

I beg to differ. That is what I really said. It's just not what I literally said.

--------------------



Not strictly on-point, I know. But that's the point.

It's from the "Subtext? What Subtext?" postings of this random blog. Which may offer a mild divertissement for those in need of one and a taste for such things.

[nathan28]

I concur with compared2what? in as much as the obvious and admitted crimes of the Bush administration, in particular lying to start a ( 1 million + dead) war of agression in violation of US law constitute the area in which legal retribution seems most likely. Well, I guess that's not really what she said, but I do agree with what she did say. The CD cul-de-sac is a fascinating hobby which will eventually take its place next to Ripperology and Zapruder analysis-puttering without ever progressing further, or resulting in any significant criminal charges, so coo-wee boner?

I was feeling the same way myself, but there is just something about letting someone lie on such a grand scale. It's part of a larger pattern. A lack of "personal responsibility" destroyed the inner cities, not white flight and Iran-Contra cocaine; the Electoral College, not stolen votes, tipped the 2000 and 2004 election; etc., etc. It feels like history is so goddamn stage managed; not that it ever wasn't, but there's this degree of literally spectacular control that I find deeply disturbing.

And again, the reference I have is the Martin Luther King, Jr. civil case, which did find the existence of a conspiracy, in a court of law, and nothing much changed.

[8bitagent]

I was feeling the same way myself, but there is just something about letting someone lie on such a grand scale. It's part of a larger pattern. A lack of "personal responsibility" destroyed the inner cities, not white flight and Iran-Contra cocaine; the Electoral College, not stolen votes, tipped the 2000 and 2004 election; etc., etc. It feels like history is so goddamn stage managed; not that it ever wasn't, but there's this degree of literally spectacular control that I find deeply disturbing.

And again, the reference I have is the Martin Luther King, Jr. civil case, which did find the existence of a conspiracy, in a court of law, and nothing much changed.

I believe everything from JFK, MLK, RFK to Iran Contra, BCCI, WW1, WW2, 9/11, ect has all been scripted, staged and orchestrated by the global deep state.

So perhaps I am in no position to criticize the CD hypothesis folks.

To be fair, I LOVE this image:



And to be fair...

I'll side with the CD/Loose Change folks over the "blowback/incompetence" liberals any day of the week...almost as a matter of spite or principal. Nothing makes me sadder than people
who militantly hold onto the official Bush version of 9/11...

especially when its people I respect like John Pilger and Naomi Klein.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Controlled demolition is EASILY PROVEN.
Example:
WTC7 can't come down at perfectly symmetrical free-fall speed without being blown up. It is impossible for all the support columns to fail at the same instant without being blown up. PERIOD. You don't have to be an expert to understand that.
A child can understand that.

The Twin Towers can't be atomized and tons of debris hurled hundreds of feet horizontally in a symmetrical radial pattern without being blown up. PERIOD.
A child can understand that.

Hugh -- The architects and engineers to whom you link as authorities don't themselves maintain anything close to that definitive a conclusion. They don't even assert that CD is proven.

False. They do assert that CD is proven.
Just not as front-and-center on the website as is warranted, a case of a presentation not sufficiently cogent for activism. And I'm encouraging them to be clearer about what is proven and what is impossible so this misunderstanding will not continue.

http://www.ae911truth.org/twintowers.php

Which 20 story building will fall to the ground first? Until 9/11/01 most physicists would have agreed that the one that didn't have to crush though 100,000 tons of steel would fall first — at free-fall speed. On 9/11, the example on the left "collapsed" at virtually free-fall speed! But this could only have been accomplished by removing the columns ahead of the fall — with explosives.

And even if it were possible to attain, what would make having certain knowledge on this one isolated point -- which implicates no one and forms the basis of no plan for action or accountability -- so crucial?

1) The crime of blowing up the three buildings and killing a few thousand people is a crime people need to know actually happened and which wasn't the result of a couple of plane crashes. This crime is still killing many more due to the toxic clouds.

2) This crime is highly technical and, like the anthrax crimes, points at elite members of government agencies and military contractors, not al-Queda.

3) This crime, pointing at an inside job, completely reframes the OTHER known crime, the US invasions of countries alleged to be responsible for 9/11.

4) This crime also PROVES that such a cover-up is possible and PROVES how the US government controls mainstream media to reinforce deadly but profitable lies.

#4, the government control of media, is perhaps the most important revelation which can bring about culture shift, a watchful and informed and skeptical public which spends more time on history and less time on piffle.

Seriously. I just don't understand whence the need for a certainty that:

* avails those who fight for the cause of justice nothing;
* gains them no ground; and
* advances no cause of any kind toward any goal of any kind.

What is up with that? Please tell me. I'm asking in good faith.

CERTAINTY that there are FACTS to go on and not just subjectivity...is a critical fuel for action. Vagueness and 'maybe' won't cause behavioral and perceptual change.

Despite conventional wisdom about the lure of denial, people prefer to know the truth and the world to make sense. Even when they don't prefer it, it must be asserted to prevent fascism from getting away with writing any damn script it can with impunity.

[thegovernmentflu]

On another WTC7-related topic, is everyone here familiar with the claim that there was an audible "10... 9..." countdown prior to the collapse?

Maybe I'm missing something, but that claim strikes me as unbelievably ridiculous. I listen to Alex Jones fairly regularly for entertainment, and he finds this "fact" important enough to edit into the radio trailer for Truth Rising.

Is it just me, or is this the 911 equivalent of the guy who supposedly shot a poison dart out of his umbrella at JFK?

[Nordic]

On another WTC7-related topic, is everyone here familiar with the claim that there was an audible "10... 9..." countdown prior to the collapse?

I hadn't heard anything about that, but REMEMBER:

The BBC went live, saying that the building had collapsed BEFORE it collapsed.

Now that's just fucking weird.

Somebody sent out a press release a LITTLE bit early.

[thegovernmentflu]

I just thought of how to explain my thought process behind my earlier theory.

I would be curious to find out how most people found out about WTC 7. Personally, I didn't know about it until I started to check out 911 Truth stuff a few years ago. Even if I had seen it before, I probably wouldn't have given its collapse any thought. But for me, the clincher was in some of the specious reasoning provided by the authorities and the constant mention of "unlikely scenarios" that must have occurred in the collapse. This kind of carefully chosen and stilted language set off alarm bells in my head, so I figured that there must be something to the controlled demolition theories. Would it be all that hard for the establishment to deliberately include shady language like this to bait the critical thinkers?

Think about it; the average sheep will a) never read the NIST report or b) read it and never spot the inconsistencies that are glaring to the average critical thinker. So clearly the inconsistencies mean literally nothing to the average person. Keeping this in mind, what's to stop the establishment from baiting conspiracy theorists with predetermined fishy statements that lead to an investigative dead-end?

I think another example of this sort of possible manipulation is Fox News and their post-911 piece about Israeli involvement in 911 that was "pulled at the last minute" from the network. A certain segment of the alternative media lends huge credence to that pulled report, because some of the less educated(but well meaning) Alex Jones followers automatically think "Fox News didn't want me to see this, therefore it must be true!"

Again, I'm not saying that any of this is necessarily true. But would it be all that impractical to pull off if the powers that be decided to implement it? Maybe I'm a bit naive, but I really don't think that it would be all that difficult to do this. It's just elementary reverse psychology. Surely these think tanks comprised of top psychiatrists and psychologists could devise something far more convoluted than this hypothetical propaganda technique.

You can already see reverse psychology being used as a means of psychological manipulation and control all throughout the school system. It's considered a given to many teachers that they have to sort of mess with the kids' heads in order to control their behavior.

[erosoplier]

In the split screen photo, it seems that the right hand image was taken at 2:00 while the left hand photo, taken somewhat later, was used in the NIST report. I think this picture in someways both shows the backwards engineering used by the seriously flawed NIST conclusion, as well as highlighting the progressive nature of the damage itself on this side, which is somewhat supportive of a consideration of a true structural failure in progress before the onset of catastrophic failure.

I find it very hard to believe that gravity alone could gnaw away at the corner of wtc7 so as to produce the difference between those two photos.

I concur with compared2what? in as much as the obvious and admitted crimes of the Bush administration, in particular lying to start a ( 1 million + dead) war of agression in violation of US law constitute the area in which legal retribution seems most likely. Well, I guess that's not really what she said, but I do agree with what she did say. The CD cul-de-sac is a fascinating hobby which will eventually take its place next to Ripperology and Zapruder analysis-puttering without ever progressing further, or resulting in any significant criminal charges, so coo-wee boner?

c2w? was pointing out that CD claims would appear to be being overstated by some, and that it is unhelpful to overstate claims in a situation such as this. This is sound advice, and a person should be grateful to recieve such advice - criticism/advice like this helps hone an argument. c2w? didn't at any point dismiss the entire effort to investigate how the buildings fell, even though she herself doesn't favour investigating 9/11 from the CD angle.

Who benefits? Of course it's the perps who benefit, but the people doing the acts which benefit the perps are, I would argue, the ones who think CD is a waste of time, yet spend energy actually knobbling efforts to discuss CD wherever and whenever it is being discussed.

[erosoplier]

On another WTC7-related topic, is everyone here familiar with the claim that there was an audible "10... 9..." countdown prior to the collapse?

Maybe I'm missing something, but that claim strikes me as unbelievably ridiculous. I listen to Alex Jones fairly regularly for entertainment, and he finds this "fact" important enough to edit into the radio trailer for Truth Rising.

Is it just me, or is this the 911 equivalent of the guy who supposedly shot a poison dart out of his umbrella at JFK?

There really was a guy, a rescue worker, who claims to have heard a countdown, and spoke publicly about it.

Someone must have a link somewhere. Prison Planet would surely have covered it.


Edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jlxw9TZ_0Cc

Edit: prisonplanet