1,000 Architects & Engineers Call for New 9/11 Investigation

[Dezzie]

Technically, the Government isn't gong to say anything if it was "covered up". There is a reason for having secrets... if the 9/11 conspiracies were true, the whole world would revolt against the government. lol There'd be some serious issues if it was true. Oh course, they would want to just cover their own rear ends. Again... IF it was true... There is a possibility for everything. Maybe 9/11 wasn't planned by the Government... maybe it was... who would know really?

eh... oh well... I think I'm going to be out of this coversation too. This one is a bit difficult to talk about... plus I hate debating really... There's no point in it if the opposing parties feel strongly about their opinions. No one is going to get through to anybody. Pointless if you ask me...

 

[Ba'al]

My opinions on this comes not from looking at a certain set of data with preconceived bias and non-training to make spurious correlations, but instead on reports by actual experts across multiple fields in a collaborative effort with the backing of the United States government.

Can you give us these reports?

And the experts, government, and general public that 'buys' this official 'story' exceeds any fringe crowd of pseduo-scientists, sensationalist scientists, anarchists, and general f-the-government-crowd of people in numbers, credibility, and expertise.

But they don't as I've already pointed out. Since you refute that "loaded" poll, here's another:

I'll be a gentleman and let all of you have the last words. Knock yourselves out.
Exiting thread in 3, 2, 1.

You mean we don't get anymore of your informed expert opinion?

 

[blackout]

... also (Professional Commercial/Jet) Pilots... have MAJOR problems...
with the official story re. the Pentagon.

 

[darkendless]

WTC 4, 5, & 6 all partially collapsed due to damage. But none of them feel like WTC did, which was.. well.. free fall.

Were 4, 5 and 6 on fire as well?

It states that 7 was in fire meaning all load bearing columns would have been weakened.

Such a fact means it could, should and would have simply given way like a "pulled" building.

I don't like these whole conspiracy theories. I'm not going to bother from here on in, i really do not care, theres always perfectly good reasonable answers for things that are too easily made to look suspicious.

 

[Ba'al]

This link explores the roles of the fires and everything else.
9-11 Research: The Fires

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Seeing as conspiracy theories aren't rooted in reason, but rather emotion, it is difficult, or impossible, to change the mind of a conspiracy theorist using facts. People are generally very resistant to giving up psychological security blankets.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I encourage posters who are against this investigation to at least do a little research before posting. Larry Silverstein admits on camera they "pulled" building 7 but denied it afterwords. "Pulling" is a term that means the controlled demolition of a building, but it takes weeks of planning and would be impossible to do in a matter of hours.

"Pulling" also means evacuating the people inside... as in "pulling out".

Do you really think that anyone involved in a criminal conspiracy would admit to their actions in a TV interview?

 

[dust1n]

Seeing as conspiracy theories aren't rooted in reason, but rather emotion, it is difficult, or impossible, to change the mind of a conspiracy theorist using facts. People are generally very resistant to giving up psychological security blankets.

The same is applicable to non-conspiracy theorists....

 

[dust1n]

Were 4, 5 and 6 on fire as well?

It states that 7 was in fire meaning all load bearing columns would have been weakened.

Such a fact means it could, should and would have simply given way like a "pulled" building.

I don't like these whole conspiracy theories. I'm not going to bother from here on in, i really do not care, theres always perfectly good reasonable answers for things that are too easily made to look suspicious.

Well, I mean if you 'really do not care', then there isn't much I can say to you. I agree, Building 7 was obviously on fire on four floors, which weakened the entirety of the steel columns (which is the only way the entire building would have feel instantly), and it is the first steel building in human history to do so.

 

[dust1n]

"Pulling" also means evacuating the people inside... as in "pulling out".

Do you really think that anyone involved in a criminal conspiracy would admit to their actions in a TV interview?

I see what you are getting at, but the way of using the word 'pulling' wouldn't make any sense considering the context of his statement.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The same is applicable to non-conspiracy theorists....

Accept for the fact that non-conspiracy theorists aren't using conspiracy theories as a psychological security blanket, of course.

 

[dust1n]

Accept for the fact that non-conspiracy theorists aren't using conspiracy theories as a psychological security blanket, of course.

True, but non-conspiracy theorists use the general consensus as their psychological security blanket.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see what you are getting at, but the way of using the word 'pulling' wouldn't make any sense considering the context of his statement.

I can't watch the video right now - what's the context?

 

[dust1n]

I can't watch the video right now - what's the context?

He says:

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to tame the fire. I said you know, we've had such a terrible loss of life. We just wanted to see.. just pull it. And uh.. they made that decision to pull, then we watched the building collapse."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He says:

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to tame the fire. I said you know, we've had such a terrible loss of life. We just wanted to see.. just pull it. And uh.. they made that decision to pull, then we watched the building collapse."

Okay - that matches similar statements that I've heard.

How does that not make sense? They knew that the firefighting effort was probably in vain, so they told the firefighters to get out to safety. After this happened, the building collapsed as the firefighters watched. Makes perfect sense to me.

What I think absolutely wouldn't make sense in that context would be telling the fire department commander to trigger a planned demolition.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

True, but non-conspiracy theorists use the general consensus as their psychological security blanket.

Accepting reality is hardly a security blanket.

 

[dust1n]

Accepting reality is hardly a security blanket.

Accepting general consensus without self-investigation in hardly anything but...

 

[dust1n]

Okay - that matches similar statements that I've heard.

How does that not make sense? They knew that the firefighting effort was probably in vain, so they told the firefighters to get out to safety. After this happened, the building collapsed as the firefighters watched. Makes perfect sense to me.

What I think absolutely wouldn't make sense in that context would be telling the fire department commander to trigger a planned demolition.

Ah, I see, I see... Really, I could see it meaning either way and technically making sense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ah, I see, I see... Really, I could see it meaning either way and technically making sense.

Wait...

Here's the one way:

"Pull it" means something like either evacuate (i.e. "pull out") or stop the firefighters' activity (i.e. "pull the plug").

This would fit with this sequence of events:

- a terrorist attack occurs
- it seriously weakens the building, making collapse likely if not certain.
- after trying to fight the fires and look for survivors in the building for some time, the decision is made to get the firefighters out and leave the building to burn.
- the building collapses.

Here's the other:

"Pull it" means "demolish the building".

- the building owner, the fire department commander, and who knows who else conspire to destroy WTC 7.
- the building is rigged for demolition without anyone noticing beforehand.
- coincidentally, a terrorist attack on adjacent buildings occurs.
- coincidentally, fires start in WTC 7.
- under orders from the building owner, a commander in the Fire Department of New York triggers the demolition.
- later, the building owner lets the cat out of the bag about the demolition in a television interview.


Do you really think it makes sense either way?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Accepting general consensus without self-investigation in hardly anything but...

However, accepting reality based on facts and logic is not. If there was any compelling evidence that the attacks on 9/11 weren't carried out by terrorists, and that the world trade center buildings didn't collapse because of the catastropic damage caused by the impact and ensuing fires, then I would have no emotional problem accepting the evidence to change my view. However, no such compelling evidence exists, and although each piece of "evidence" addressed by the conspiracy theories has been addressed, this seems to have no effect on the views of conspiracy theorists. Of course, this is to be expected when one doesn't realize that their emotional attachment to the theory is too strong for mere facts to break.