Discussion of reasons why folks believe what they do and supported by factual evidence...

[gamolon]

Stundie,

Based on the the other thread I would like to genuinely discuss/debate both of our beliefs. I don't care personally if others join in, but I will ignore posts that do not further the discussion at hand. I'll leave it to you to start with what you believe if you so desire. No pressure to respond time-wise from my end.

We'll see where this goes...

 

[stundie]

Stundie,

Based on the the other thread I would like to genuinely discuss/debate both of our beliefs. I don't care personally if others join in, but I will ignore posts that do not further the discussion at hand. I'll leave it to you to start with what you believe if you so desire. No pressure to respond time-wise from my end.

We'll see where this goes...

No problems Gamolon, I hope this thread doesn't get hijacked but we'll see how it goes.

So where do I start......

Actually before I start, let me make this abundantly clear, that I am no expert in anything and I'll never claim to be. I simply avoid all of these mistakes that pantomime debunkers will often make .

1. Denying, when only doubt has been established
2. Double standards in the application of criticism
3. The tendency to discredit rather than investigate
4. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
5. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
6. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
7. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
8. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim

I also understand that my beliefs doesn't address all the questions surrounding 9/11 but they are all based on what the evidence could possibly suggest. I have followed a lot of the different areas of the conspiracy so I am not sure what where we should start? Is there a topic or a particular item you would prefer to discuss as to why I believe there was a cover up at the very least?

We could start off with the demolition theory if you are happy with that?

 

[Deuce]

No problems Gamolon, I hope this thread doesn't get hijacked but we'll see how it goes.

So where do I start......

Actually before I start, let me make this abundantly clear, that I am no expert in anything and I'll never claim to be. I simply avoid all of these mistakes that pantomime debunkers will often make .

1. Denying, when only doubt has been established
2. Double standards in the application of criticism
3. The tendency to discredit rather than investigate
4. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
5. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
6. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
7. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
8. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim

I also understand that my beliefs doesn't address all the questions surrounding 9/11 but they are all based on what the evidence could possibly suggest. I have followed a lot of the different areas of the conspiracy so I am not sure what where we should start? Is there a topic or a particular item you would prefer to discuss as to why I believe there was a cover up at the very least?

We could start off with the demolition theory if you are happy with that?

How about this addition:

Minor details about the preceding explanation being slightly wrong does not prove wildly different theories correct.

 

[gamolon]

No problems Gamolon, I hope this thread doesn't get hijacked but we'll see how it goes.

So where do I start......

Actually before I start, let me make this abundantly clear, that I am no expert in anything and I'll never claim to be. I simply avoid all of these mistakes that pantomime debunkers will often make .

1. Denying, when only doubt has been established
2. Double standards in the application of criticism
3. The tendency to discredit rather than investigate
4. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
5. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
6. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
7. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
8. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim

I also understand that my beliefs doesn't address all the questions surrounding 9/11 but they are all based on what the evidence could possibly suggest. I have followed a lot of the different areas of the conspiracy so I am not sure what where we should start? Is there a topic or a particular item you would prefer to discuss as to why I believe there was a cover up at the very least?

We could start off with the demolition theory if you are happy with that?

Sounds good to me.

Let's begin with the belief that WTC7 was intentionally demolished. I believe fire caused the structural integrity of the entire building to be compromised and thus causing the complete collapse. I do not believe that there was any malicious intent/planning involved in bringing down WTC7.

EDIT: I am approaching this debate/conversation with the idea that there is a most PROBABLE explanation/theory based on evidence we have.

 

[MaggieD]

Sounds good to me.

Let's begin with the belief that WTC7 was intentionally demolished. I believe fire caused the structural integrity of the entire building to be compromised and thus causing the complete collapse. I do not believe that there was any malicious intent/planning involved in bringing down WTC7.

I’d like to relate what a structural engineer explained to me this past Saturday at a wedding reception on the patio deck of The Rivers Restaurant in the heart of Downtown Chicago. She was a table partner. Owns a very successful engineering company located Downtown.

Because of several active threads discussing 9/11 conspiracy theory, I asked her if people with her expertise were the kind of people who could constructively analyze what happened to the three World Trade buildings. “Yes,” she said. “One of the professions that could understand what happened.” So I mentioned the theories that said the buildings fell as if taken down intentionally with explosives. “Of Course they did,”she said. “ That’s just exactly how they were designed.”

She led me to the deck railing overlooking the stunning landscape of night-time Downtown. “See that building over there?” She pointed out a skyscraper. “That particular building has been carefully engineered to pancake in on itself in case of structural failure. She pointed to a second one... “That one there was designed to twist just slightly just before complete failure in order to make a final attempt to strengthen the structure before collapse. Then, if that fails, it will pancake to the ground.” Then to a third one, “That one there has been found to be mis-designed and will, right now, likely fall forward. It is being structurally modified right now so that it will pancake upon structural failure.”



“Of COURSE,” she said, “those three buildings looked like a professional demolition. They were specifically designed that way.”

That’s the best explanation I’ve ever heard that debunks this conspiracy. Though ai never bought it for a second and never entered those threads. It makes perfect sense to me. Hope others gain some perspective like I did.

 

[gamolon]

I’d like to relate what a structural engineer explained to me this past Saturday at a wedding reception on the patio deck of The Rivers Restaurant in the heart of Downtown Chicago. She was a table partner. Owns a very successful engineering company located Downtown.

Because of several active threads discussing 9/11 conspiracy theory, I asked her if people with her expertise were the kind of people who could constructively analyze what happened to the three World Trade buildings. “Yes,” she said. “One of the professions that could understand what happened.” So I mentioned the theories that said the buildings fell as if taken down intentionally with explosives. “Of Course they did,”she said. “ That’s just exactly how they were designed.”

She led me to the deck railing overlooking the stunning landscape of night-time Downtown. “See that building over there?” She pointed out a skyscraper. “That particular building has been carefully engineered to pancake in on itself in case of structural failure. She pointed to a second one... “That one there was designed to twist just slightly just before complete failure in order to make a final attempt to strengthen the structure before collapse. Then, if that fails, it will pancake to the ground.” Then to a third one, “That one there has been found to be mis-designed and will, right now, likely fall forward. It is being structurally modified right now so that it will pancake upon structural failure.”



“Of COURSE,” she said, “those three buildings looked like a professional demolition. They were specifically designed that way.”

That’s the best explanation I’ve ever heard that debunks this conspiracy. Though ai never bought it for a second and never entered those threads. It makes perfect sense to me. Hope others gain some perspective like I did.

I have to disagree.

There is no way an engineering firm would be given the time and money by a client to run all of the structural FEA analysis for every possible structural failure permutation in order to ensure a structure will collapse a certain way.

1. Fail column 1 on floor 1, run FEA analysis...
2. Fail column 2 on floor 1, run FEA analysis...
3. Fail column X on floor 1, run FEA analysis...
4. Fail columns 1 and 2 on floor 1, run FEA analysis...
5. Etc. for every possible permutation...

Why did WTC2 fall the way it did? It didn't pancake. It tilted at the top and the top descended causing the perimeter facades to peel away and fall outward. The debris stripped the floors from the building leaving about a third of the core, which then itself collapsed seconds after.

 

[MaggieD]

I have to disagree.

There is no way an engineering firm would be given the time and money by a client to run all of the structural FEA analysis for every possible structural failure permutation in order to ensure a structure will collapse a certain way.

1. Fail column 1 on floor 1, run FEA analysis...
2. Fail column 2 on floor 1, run FEA analysis...
3. Fail column X on floor 1, run FEA analysis...
4. Fail columns 1 and 2 on floor 1, run FEA analysis...
5. Etc. for every possible permutation...

Why did WTC2 fall the way it did? It didn't pancake. It tilted at the top and the top descended causing the perimeter facades to peel away and fall outward. The debris stripped the floors from the building leaving about a third of the core, which then itself collapsed seconds after.

View attachment 67223422

Then disagree with her. You know, another structural engineer.

 

[gamolon]

Then disagree with her. You know, another structural engineer.

So you agree that WTC2, shown above, was designed to collapse the way it did? That the engineers who designed that building analyzed the scenario of a plane hitting those specific floors causing fires and knew it would collapse he way it did?

 

[MaggieD]

So you agree that WTC2, shown above, was designed to collapse the way it did? That the engineers who designed that building analyzed the scenario of a plane hitting those specific floors causing fires and knew it would collapse he way it did?

Yes to your first question. No that they needed to analyze the scenario you describe in order to structurally design it that way.

I you ever going to change your mind?

Neither am I.

 

[mike2810]

I’d like to relate what a structural engineer explained to me this past Saturday at a wedding reception on the patio deck of The Rivers Restaurant in the heart of Downtown Chicago. She was a table partner. Owns a very successful engineering company located Downtown.

Because of several active threads discussing 9/11 conspiracy theory, I asked her if people with her expertise were the kind of people who could constructively analyze what happened to the three World Trade buildings. “Yes,” she said. “One of the professions that could understand what happened.” So I mentioned the theories that said the buildings fell as if taken down intentionally with explosives. “Of Course they did,”she said. “ That’s just exactly how they were designed.”

She led me to the deck railing overlooking the stunning landscape of night-time Downtown. “See that building over there?” She pointed out a skyscraper. “That particular building has been carefully engineered to pancake in on itself in case of structural failure. She pointed to a second one... “That one there was designed to twist just slightly just before complete failure in order to make a final attempt to strengthen the structure before collapse. Then, if that fails, it will pancake to the ground.” Then to a third one, “That one there has been found to be mis-designed and will, right now, likely fall forward. It is being structurally modified right now so that it will pancake upon structural failure.”



“Of COURSE,” she said, “those three buildings looked like a professional demolition. They were specifically designed that way.”

That’s the best explanation I’ve ever heard that debunks this conspiracy. Though ai never bought it for a second and never entered those threads. It makes perfect sense to me. Hope others gain some perspective like I did.

The operable words is "looked" "“those three buildings looked like a professional demolition. They were specifically designed that way.”

That is one of the works the controlled demolitions supporters keep bringing up. It "looked liked".

A friend of mine who is big on HAM radios had a tall tower put up in his property. The tower is designed to collapse in sections if the bottom ever failed.

 

[MaggieD]

The operable words is "looked" "“those three buildings looked like a professional demolition. They were specifically designed that way.”

That is one of the works the controlled demolitions supporters keep bringing up. It "looked liked".

A friend of mine who is big on HAM radios had a tall tower put up in his property. The tower is designed to collapse in sections if the bottom ever failed.

It looked like a professional demolition because it was designed that way according to someone who knows one hell of a lot more about structural engineering than anyone on this forum.

 

[mike2810]

It looked like a professional demolition because it was designed that way according to someone who knows one hell of a lot more about structural engineering than anyone on this forum.

I agree.

If it was a controlled demolition and not a fire induced collapse, there are so many unanswered questions regarding controlled demolition.
At this point I think I will leave this thread and let gamolon and stundie discuss away.

 

[camlok]

Then disagree with her. You know, another structural engineer.

Maggie, you are the one advancing this fiction, with zero proof, both for the notion and the existence of such an engineer.

A totally ludicrous fiction to boot. There is no one, anywhere, who has ever heard a "structural engineer" suggest such goofy things go into the design procedure. There is a very good reason such things don't enter into the design procedure, they are simply not possible!

Professor Leroy Hulsey, a long time forensic structural engineer [whose CV I can provide you, can you do the same for your "engineer"?] said of WTC7 [paraphrased]: There is no way that WTC7 could have collapsed as it did because it was built in an asymmetrical fashion, even a symmetrically built tower, for god's sakes, won't fall in such a manner.

Maggie's engineer: "See this little pin. If you ever want to demolish your building, don't waster your money on those crooks in the CD business. Just pull this little pin and the building will collapse into a neat little pile, with all steel columns and girders chopped to length for easy trucking and shipping. I designed it this way; way cool, isn't it? It'll drop just like WTC7 did, at free fall speed."

 

[mike2810]

Maggie:

The website has a short but interesting discussion regarding Dr. Hulsey.

"Dr. Hulsey is an experienced and active professor of Civil Engineering who has co-authored numerous papers in the last decade alone - mostly on bridges and the effects of cold weather on structures like bridges. He has a Ph.D in Structural Engineering, and is currently the department chair of Civil and Environmental Engineering at University of Alaska, Fairbanks."

"He is not described as "forensic" on his university web page, where the word "forensic" does not appear.
http://cem.uaf.edu/cee/people/leroy-hulsey.aspx"


https://www.metabunk.org/what-is-hulseys-forensic-structural-engineering-experience.t9063/

 

[camlok]

The operable words is "looked" "“those three buildings looked like a professional demolition. They were specifically designed that way.”

That is one of the works the controlled demolitions supporters keep bringing up. It "looked liked".

A friend of mine who is big on HAM radios had a tall tower put up in his property. The tower is designed to collapse in sections if the bottom ever failed.

mike, this is thee best example ever of your always planned deception/diversion! Bar none!!!

Why are you massaging and stroking Maggie when she obviously has no clue whatsoever about this. [No offense, Maggie, this just isn't your thing.]

As I have posted, Professor Leroy Hulsey, a professional forensic engineer says you and Maggie [and Maggie's "engineer"] don't have the foggiest notion of these things. You all are totally out to lunch.

Gamolon, in essence, has said the same thing I just said.

 

[mike2810]

mike, this is thee best example ever of your always planned deception/diversion! Bar none!!!

Why are you massaging and stroking Maggie when she obviously has no clue whatsoever about this. [No offense, Maggie, this just isn't your thing.]

As I have posted, Professor Leroy Hulsey, a professional forensic engineer says you and Maggie [and Maggie's "engineer"] don't have the foggiest notion of these things. You all are totally out to lunch.

Gamolon, in essence, has said the same thing I just said.

Once again you are wrong.
I have looked at Dr. Husley work that has been released. Interesting how he dances around by not saying WTC7 was a controlled demolition. His work only shows based on his assumptions the building did not fail. I have pointed out in other threads some questions that his work does not address. You also failed to respond with answers and dodge like you always do.

Where did I say specifically I agreed with the engineer quoted? I showed that the use of the work "looked" is what demolition supporters use. What did some of the witnesses say? it looks like a ???

So when are you going to post your explanation in detail with sources to back it up?

 

[camlok]

Maggie:

The website has a short but interesting discussion regarding Dr. Hulsey.

"Dr. Hulsey is an experienced and active professor of Civil Engineering who has co-authored numerous papers in the last decade alone - mostly on bridges and the effects of cold weather on structures like bridges. He has a Ph.D in Structural Engineering, and is currently the department chair of Civil and Environmental Engineering at University of Alaska, Fairbanks."

"He is not described as "forensic" on his university web page, where the word "forensic" does not appear.
http://cem.uaf.edu/cee/people/leroy-hulsey.aspx"


https://www.metabunk.org/what-is-hulseys-forensic-structural-engineering-experience.t9063/

You are incorrigible, mike. After advancing the totally ludicrous notion, from a totally anonymous, possibly fictitious "engineer", that steel framed towers are designed to collapse into neat little piles, at free fall speed/accelerating speed, you quote Mick West.

What are Mick's credentials, mike? Except as another diversion/distraction operative. Something which is your sum total.

 

[camlok]

Once again you are wrong.
I have looked at Dr. Husley work that has been released. Interesting how he dances around by not saying WTC7 was a controlled demolition. His work only shows based on his assumptions the building did not fail. I have pointed out in other threads some questions that his work does not address. You also failed to respond with answers and dodge like you always do.

Your song and dance routines are getting really lame, mike. You have the gall to intimate that you know better than Professor Leroy Hulsey, a PhD, a forensic structural engineer, and then you do what you always do, what I described you doing, which you studiously and dishonestly avoided - you, making claims that you, mike are the honest one, when you describe nothing but your silly fantasies.

As always, no proof no evidence, just silly innuendo [look it up].

Who cares if you, mike, have looked at anything. Even if you had some actual academic background that might allow you to look at these things with a trained eye, your incredible totally partisan approach disqualifies you [and your hangers on] from being trusted as far as a child could throw you.

Read your first paragraph again! Nothing even remotely approaching evidence/proof.

Then you attempt to box me into your "scientific" discussion on Mr Hulsey, "see folks, camlok is just like Professor Hulsey and I have shown with my grand eloquence and impeccable science skills that these two are frauds".

Where did I say specifically I agreed with the engineer quoted? I showed that the use of the work "looked" is what demolition supporters use. What did some of the witnesses say? it looks like a ???

More dishonesty, more diversions and distractions. That is right, many eyewitnesses said they looked like controlled demolitions. That is completely normal for these eyewitnesses were not professional engineers/architects. But you harp on about this little inanity just like you think you are saying something of importance. That's how much you also know of the English language - nothing.

9/11: DAN RATHER SAYS WTC COLLAPSES LOOK LIKE DEMOLITIONS

So when are you going to post your explanation in detail with sources to back it up?

Another of the famous go to attacks when you up the creek without a paddle; you don't even have the knowledge of how to use a paddle.

 

[mike2810]

Your song and dance routines are getting really lame, mike. You have the gall to intimate that you know better than Professor Leroy Hulsey, a PhD, a forensic structural engineer, and then you do what you always do, what I described you doing, which you studiously and dishonestly avoided - you, making claims that you, mike are the honest one, when you describe nothing but your silly fantasies.

As always, no proof no evidence, just silly innuendo [look it up].

Who cares if you, mike, have looked at anything. Even if you had some actual academic background that might allow you to look at these things with a trained eye, your incredible totally partisan approach disqualifies you [and your hangers on] from being trusted as far as a child could throw you.

Read your first paragraph again! Nothing even remotely approaching evidence/proof.

Then you attempt to box me into your "scientific" discussion on Mr Hulsey, "see folks, camlok is just like Professor Hulsey and I have shown with my grand eloquence and impeccable science skills that these two are frauds".



More dishonesty, more diversions and distractions. That is right, many eyewitnesses said they looked like controlled demolitions. That is completely normal for these eyewitnesses were not professional engineers/architects. But you harp on about this little inanity just like you think you are saying something of importance. That's how much you also know of the English language - nothing.

9/11: DAN RATHER SAYS WTC COLLAPSES LOOK LIKE DEMOLITIONS





Another of the famous go to attacks when you up the creek without a paddle; you don't even have the knowledge of how to use a paddle.

Again the word "looks like" No proof that it was CD

if you have the proof, then please post it.

 

[zyzygy]

Again the word "looks like" No proof that it was CD

if you have the proof, then please post it.

These threads are moribund. I suggest calling it a day until a truther comes up with a theory and evidence.

 

[mike2810]

These threads are moribund. I suggest calling it a day until a truther comes up with a theory and evidence.

I agree.

It is the same old mantra being posted. At least one will engage. The others tend to not answer questions.

Time to put it to bed till something new comes along.

 

[zyzygy]

I agree.

It is the same old mantra being posted. At least one will engage. The others tend to not answer questions.

Time to put it to bed till something new comes along.

That will be when the Devil ice skates to work.

 

[stundie]

Sounds good to me.

Let's begin with the belief that WTC7 was intentionally demolished. I believe fire caused the structural integrity of the entire building to be compromised and thus causing the complete collapse. I do not believe that there was any malicious intent/planning involved in bringing down WTC7.

EDIT: I am approaching this debate/conversation with the idea that there is a most PROBABLE explanation/theory based on evidence we have.

All good here Gamolon, lets examine my reasoning and logic as to why I think there was a demoltion of some description. Before I come to that though, I want to briefly explain why I don't believe in the OCT theories.

It doesn't make any logical sense to me that there was a key column within the buildings, that lost its support laterally, buckles and brings down the entire building as per the NIST theory. I don't think there is a single column within the WTC 7 which would have that load capacity being transferred through it.

Although there were fires on about 10 floors, the fires don't never appear to be significant enough at any point to overcome the undamaged and unheated floors. Even if we assumed that all these floors were consumed by raging fires, I've never seen any kind of calculation which would show that this could happen.

I can provide evidence of larger fires in other buildings which didn't collapse including WTC 5 & 6 but fires aren't very good at bringing buildings down hence the reason that demolition companies don't use it. The only example of a building collapsing from fires are the Windsor Tower and even that collapse progresses over a period of minutes, as I would expect due to the uneven way fires and temperatures would vary over an area.

I could go into more details as to why I don't believe the OCT but those are a few of the many problems I have with it.

Now lets move on to why I believe in the OCT. There were reports of explosions coming from WTC 7 and it collapsing long before it actually collapsed.

Goto 6:35 and you'll hear the commentator Jane Standley say "and another building collapsed next to the world trade centre." This was footage broadcast on the BBC between 10:39 am - 11:21 am on that day.
https://archive.org/details/bbc200109111039-1121
Then there is the famous video of Jane Standley reporting the collapse of the WTC7 20 minutes before it collapsed andreporting it while it still stands.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=ltP2t9nq9fI
Then there is a 3rd video much later on where the anchor asks Jane Standley about WTC7, a strange technical problem occurs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=gsqAHhTWEH0

There was lots of news reports of explosions at WTC7.
10:50am Rose Arce whose about 2 blocks north away from where WTC stood, reports debris hitting another building causing an explosion <---39:00 in on the video
11:07am Allan Frank said that after the collapse of both the WTC around 10:45 there was another explosion or collapse. <---14:00
12:21am Rose Arce reports that the building 2 blocks away is on the verge of collapsing. <---5:35
15:21pm Rose Arce reports that firefighters suspend their rescue operation, the building face has sheared off, they are about 4 or 5 blocks from where the WTC stood. Every so often they hear a rumble and explosions sound followed by falling debris and they can't get close to the building because of falling debris for about the last hour. <---18:20

And there is of course this video, goto 6 seconds in and you'll hear what sounds like an explosion. You can see the people walking towards the camera turn around and someone saying keep an eye on that building.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=5C2VwVWhYl8

So to summarise......I have posted.....

• News reports of the WTC 7 collapsing long before it actually collapses and a subsequent technical fault when the reporter is asked about it.
• News reports of explosions from reporters at GZ around the WTC7 before it collapses.
• Video footage capturing the sound of what appears to be an explosion before it collapses.

I can't see any valid reason or counter evidence which suggests that all of these reports are wrong. Of course, this isn't solid proof or evidence that it was explosives or a CD but it is evidence which suggests the possibility. I know these explosions could possibly be something else but until there is counter evidence to show they are something else, then I have to stick with the fact that they could be anything.....including an explosives.


I will start off with this lot and get your thoughts?

 

[stundie]

I forgot to add these videos too.....

I believe this was taken sometime after WTC 1 & 2 collapsed.


Goto 45 seconds in this video and you can hear an explosion before the building starts to collapse.

 

[camlok]

These threads are moribund. I suggest calling it a day until a truther comes up with a theory and evidence.

The evidence is making Mr No Evidence Ever mighty nervous so he pulls out another science denying, anti-truther meme, which mike scrambles to embrace.