oioioi wrote:
Absolutely seriously.

Ok, here's the standard pitch - footage of main facade collapsing - ...and this building wasn't even hit by a plane...no other steel framed building has collapsed due to fire alone.... And fuck me - the collapse of the main facade does indeed look like a demolition.

Except when you see watch the penthouse going down first indicating the back of the building collapsed first - I was pissed off that that being tactically snipped from a lot of truther videos I saw back in the day. It took me a long time to even see that part.
So anyway - that does not look like a controlled demolition.
There were no characteristic loud explosions.
Contrary to popular belief, it didn't collapse 'neatly into its own footprint' but debris spilled over the road
The fire department on the ground expected it to collapse.
There is zero evidence of the mammoth task of rigging - zilch, nada, sweet FA.

If the collapse was unique, then so was the alleged demolition - yet we're supposed to believe the uniqueness of the collapse suggests it wasn't a collapse but not bother ourselves with the total outlandishness of the supposed demolition.

well this building burned for X hours and didn't collapse... So what? Different building, different circumstances. By that 'logic' nothing can ever happen for the first time. Not to mention - and you'd have to look for this yourself, it's just stuff I remember coming across - there have been some suggestions building 7 was a bit of a cowboy job. It's conceivable there may be a whole different angle about some of these skyscrapers not being quite as sturdy as is claimed.

The entire thing rests on it being an unusual collapse - it can't have collapsed - it mustn't have collapsed . Indeed, once you concede for a second that it it could have collapsed and was expected to collapse you're faced with the glaring fact it obviously was not demolished by explosives - apart from engaging in tortuous, convoluted theories that make it some kind of special unique demolition. Because if no steel framed building has collapsed from fire, neither has any building been demolished in the way building 7 is supposed to have been.

And which is more plausible - an unique collapse of a burning building or a unique super secret demolition of a 47 story skyscraper in front of the TV? Because why would you do that? What for? ~This would have been the largest demolition ever undertaken - you would not do such a fantastically risky thing without a spectacularly good reason. Let alone do so apparently by means never seen before in the history of demolition. And yet the why has nothing but totally baseless speculation.

Building 7 is simply not important regarding the events of the day. Whether it fell down or stayed standing is irrelevant. Nobody cared about it until people started saying it was demolished. And the only reason anyone cares about it being demolished is that if it was demolished 911 must have been an inside job. People want it to have been demolished because it supports their other beliefs about 911.
And then endless hours have been totally wasted concocting arguments as to why it cannot possibly have collapsed because the moment you concede it could you're fucked. Because what else is there? That 'pyull it' bollocks? Barry Jennings saying he heard explosions hours before it collapsed as if demolitions are supposed to involve such a thing? About 2 or 3 people who claim to have heard a countdown or whatever, one of which certainly embellished his story as time went on?

And finally you get all this NIST bashing - NIST may well be wrong on all kinds of points. That simply does not matter. Apparently there have been all kinds of criticisms in the journals (still saying it collapsed but arguing about the exact mechanism of collapse) - because it's always going to be a matter of debate exactly why it collapsed and it's always going to entail a margin or error. People waste more hours attacking NIST while conveniently forgetting they haven't got anything even remotely approaching their account to explain how it's supposed to have been demolished. They thing if they can slag off NIST enough demolition somehow wins by default and doesn't require any evidence explaining how the fuck and why the fuck.

What I don't get is why people who think it was an inside job cling to this dead end so ferociously. It's gone nowhere and it's going to continue going nowhere.

dogsmilk wrote: You can't be bothered to tell me what you believe, but you can be bothered to type the monologue above!

What do you believe occurred? Do you think Building 7 collapsed due to fire damage? Do you agree with the 'official story'? If not, which parts do you think are inaccurate?

One plane didn't reach it's intended destination that day, 2 towers were hit by planes, 3 collapsed.

oioioi wrote:
Where are they then?

I mean, there were some reports of some of then being alive in the MSM that were then retracted. Am I supposed to just believe they were true a decade later? Is this the part where anything the BBC or whoever says suddenly becomes an eternal truth?

If Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin et al can travel the globe giving speeches and stuff, why in God's name has it apparently occurred to nobody to find one of these guys and interview them...in over a decade????

dogsmilk wrote: I don't know. Do you believe that the nineteen people named hijacked the planes or not?

dogsmilk wrote:
'Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco.

He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports.

He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring.

But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco'

He WAS interviewed, lol

andyh wrote:
If memory serves, that was mistaken identity...and if it wasn't...where is he?

This is exactly what I mean about sloppiness in TM stuff. One second the MSM are not to be trusted, then next a report that appeared a decade ago is to be taken a immutable truth and nobody ever need look for this guy. again.

If the BBC report is indeed true and it's not mistaken identity, surely ten years worth of truth movement research should have found this guy by now?

dogsmilk wrote:
Put it this way, are you going to go trawling through Saudi Arabia looking for the guy?
Do you think he's even going to turn up now? They probably tipped him off the boat along with osama bin laden lol

dogsmilk wrote: Do you believe the 19 people named by the US authorities hijacked the planes or not? Still waiting for a direct answer to a direct question!

wake_up_bomb wrote:
I haven't seen anything to convince me that they didn't. I also think that in the event anyone was wrongly named that would just mean they falsely accused someone.

Look WUB I need to be clear about one thing - I'm not going to be engaging in some kind of prolonged questioning from you about 911.
Any posts I choose to make will be in the context of general discussion and I am not going to be responsive to an interrogatory style. Please be clear on that.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Are passports made out of the same stuff as black boxes?
Anyone know what this magical material is?
Was it discovered in Nevada in 1949? ffs lol!!!!

Maybe Roswell NM, lol :p

Oh, and BTW everyone, don't forget this particular gem.dogsmilk wrote: I don't usually do this, but I think I can allow myself to...

dogsmilk wrote: If you can't answer simple, direct questions, about your views, I understand. Do you believe the 19 people named by the US government hijacked the planes or not? It's not a difficult one. You either do, or you don't.

andyh wrote:
I wouldn't. Why would I? But do you not think it would be worth the time for any of the people who have made a career out of writing and talking about 911 theories?

You can assume he's been bumped off or something - but that's not worth anything. I can say he's been abducted by aliens - it's no less valid. All you have is a decade year old report that (IIRC) has been retracted anyway. Basically, as 'evidence' it's worthless.

This is what I was trying to get at before - it's no good saying oooh the BBC said this ten years ago so it must be true and totally disproves he was on that plane because that does not cut it. Well you can believe it you want - I'm not arsed. I'm just saying I don't personally find it all convincing as proof he really is still alive.

dogsmilk wrote:
Well the BBC did report the collapse of building 7 half an hour or so before it happened with the presenter stood in front of the building in the background lol

So perhaps the BBC reported the whole thing wrong including the official report too



Still online too, bloody hilarious

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Well your emoticon says it all really. I did say from the outset I didn't want a huge 911 debate. And I already said I am not going to respond to an interrogation. You need to just accept that. I realise the whole subject is like a red rag to a bull because it is THE most widely believed conspiracy theory. What happens is I reply saying basically yes, then you say ah but what about blah blah blah, so then I'm off going over the exact same stuff people have been going on and on and on about on the net for a decade. And probably having to start looking at stuff again I haven't for ages. Then it gets sidetracked on some points and before you know it you've got 67 pages of a thread you could have copy'n'pasted from JREF or the DIF.. And I've wasted hours of my life in a big net debate I didn't want in the first place.

The point I tried to raise - which curiously nobody has commented on - is the sloppiness and lack of self critiique that pervades 911 truth theories. If people don't think that's important, that's fine. It doesn't bother me because I don't put any stock in that stuff anyway.

And that's why I stick to wtc7 and asking "why did that one collapse?", and in this instance, since it's you, I'll demand evidence too.

dogsmilk wrote:
Yes the official conspiracy theory is indeed the most widely believed conspiracy theory. LOL!!

You know...the conspiracy theory in the video in the OP which ofc doesn't even bother to mention passenger jet planes with wings and tails folding in along with engines and disappearing into 16ft wide holes and vapourizing.

And you'd best never get in a skyscraper again because they can fall down at any time through the path of greatest resistance at near free fall speed if someone leaves a fag in the wastepaper basket and the BBC will know about it half an hour before it happens.

andyh wrote:
...Or maybe the fact that it was expected to collapse was misreported as it actually had collapsed.

Honestly Andy - this came out while I was still into 911 theories myself and I thought this was bullshit even then. Seriously - what's it supposed to prove? Really? The conspirators who could pull off unique building demolitions all over the place phoned the BBC a few hours early by accident? Since when does an error in reporting become evidence of a conspiracy? - it's well known building 7 was by this point expected to collapse so it's in no way remarkable.

dogsmilk wrote: All I am asking is...you feel qualified to dismiss the video in the OP as 'cack'. Fine, you have every right to that opinion. Do you agree with the 'official story'? If not, which parts of it do you disagree with? You're apparently unwilling to do that because you haven't got the time or inclination, fair enough. But you have got the time to rubbish other people's views. But you don't want to answer any direct questions about your view.

Do you think the 19 people named by the US federal authorities hijacked the planes, or not? I'm just looking for an answer, it's quite straightforward. I'm not looking to critique your view. You're welcome to your opinion.