So now there's 5 years since 9/11. So I think it's time to clear up some issues around that. I think there have been a lot of 9/11 conspiracy threads here lately that isn't going anywhere. So therefore, I want this thread to be a serious one with only objective arguments and no usuall discussions or phsycological replies, only so we can all can clarifie out the issues together. I do this because I've noticed the problem of the same thing that allready been exposed for lacking relieable evidence are up for discussion again and again and again. So, if member A believes WTC7 was a controlled demolition, that person should not only state that it was fake, but point to reliable sources that shows evidence of such activity. If member B reads and want to debunk, it should prove that member A doesn't have any relieable evidence for his claim. Etc.. Member A: Silverstein ordered to pull WTC7 (then A quotes a source, add links to proof that he actually said that). Member B: Larry Silverstein is not a demolition contractor, neither was the fire department chief (Then B proves that he isn't a demolition contractor and that he actually spoke to the firement department contractor). Now if A can respond if he has an evidence that contradicts B:s response. And so on. No new issues should come up on topic until both sides agrees on the current, or if the one side havn't made a valid answer within 15 hours after others last evidence post. And after one issue is finnished, it should never been taken up in this thread again. Hope we all can get a long and follow these simple rule for a sensefull debate.
I've been hearing alot about this on the Internet and several local radio talk shows, and I'm not sure what to believe. I've heard that the US government purposely destroyed the Towers as an excuse to invade the Middle East for oil and whatnot. I think that sounds kind of absurd, but there's one that sounds pretty reasonable. It's about the Pentagon attack..The Pentagon has several anti-aircraft defense systems, that would bring down any aircraft that comes too close. Why didn't those take effect while the airliner was approaching? I know that corruption exists in alot of politicians, but could it possibly be this bad? I'm not sure.
It's not war between faith or country. Don't be fooled! As we know that Bush has personal problem with Middle East. So, when he's still have a forcepower then he use it and obbeying the rest! No war please ! Peace!
You mean like this? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329&q=trade+center+7&pl=true
The conspiracy theory on the plane that Hanjour flew into the Pentagon was not feasible because of the forces involved with such a manouvre has been totally debunked by the Dutch Air and Space Aviation Laboratorium in a documentary i have seen yesterday. They used a flight similator that matches the characteristics and behaviour of the plane in question and the person that was in the flight similator had similar training as Hanjour. He flew the plane into the Pentagon three times without any difficulties. That is proof that it is possible to fly a plane of that magnitude with the manouvre and trajectory into the Pentagon. The socalled explosions of the Twin Towers that has been shown in the Loose change video has been identified by a top demolition expert as structural snaps of the beams and connections because of the forces coming down. These where not recognized as explosions from explosives being used. The work that had to go in it to rig the towers for explosions in such a manor wich is firstly unlogical since you don't blow anything from the top to below and secondly the time involved would have been a year with enormous ammounts of cabeling. This is of course unthinkable since it would get noticed either way, there is no way hiding such enormous activities. Regarding WTC 7 he was actually shocked and could not believe that building came down to on the same day and even hours after the Twin Towers dropping. Since he was unaware of this building also being part of the tragedy on 11 september. He was convinced without a doubt that the building WTC 7 was being taken down in a controlled demolition and that a team of experts is behind this. You can clearly see the building coming down from below in a controlled and evenly manor just like you can see on countless building demolitions of same proportions. Regarding the Twin Towers you can clearly see the building crumbling from the top to bottom in contrast to WTC 7 where the building just dropped because of the structure base being destroyed and therefor the building collapsing on it's own weight. Two different type of destruction and motion. That is disturbing in my opinion, that a demolition expert with 27 years of experience is convinced this was a controlled demolition. Expert in question, Danny Jowenko.
It would help if you could prove that Pentagon actually have such system. This is however what I found on a quick googlesearch.
Conventionally, "pull a building" can mean to pre-burn holes in steel beams near the top floor and affix long cables to heavy machinery, which then backs up and causes the structure to lean off its center of gravity and eventually collapse. But this is only possible with buildings about 6-7 stories or smaller. This activity was performed to bring down WTC 6 (Customs) after 9/11 because of the danger in demolishing conventionally." http://web.archive.org/web/20050327052408/http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/911_my_own_review.htm#222
I actually think it's a bit tasteless to be discussing this today of all days. It should be about rememberance and not finger pointing.
Interesting, can you give me a link to the documentery and links to sources that proves the point of the documentary. Source? Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse? When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007. The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows: An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet; Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure. This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm Do you if you have any evidence that supports your theory of a controlled demolition? Not unusual since it wasn't hit by a plane, but by scrap from the WTC1&WTC2 towers. I google searched for Jowenko and related keywords such as demolition and theory. I didn't find much interesting information about his theory, but I found this from most sources: Cheers
http://omroep.vara.nl/tvradiointernet_detail.jsp?maintopic=424&subtopic=4177 The page holds a link to a media file of 10 september which is the documentary in question. It's in Dutch but you being German (You where German right?) you could perhaps understand a large portion of it. Not my theory Latehorn, the assesment and reaction of Danny Jowenko Could be very well true, but the building dropped evenly on al sides as you can see when viewing the collapse on video. Looks very much like a controlled demolition to me as well. As you can see from my post he was confronted with the WTC 7 collapse video for the first time and his reaction was that to him as an expert with 27 years of experience in demolition it looked like a controlled demolition. So of course you would not find anything about Jowenko and Theory
Edz, are you now saying you are 9/11 conspiracy nutjob too? Just want to make sure you've sunk to that level.
Like i said GTech it appears as a controlled demolition. And the footage i have seen gives a strong impression it was. Was it? I don't know. If you can provide undeniable proof it wasn't i would greatly appreciate it. The plain not being able to make such a manouvre is already debunked for me so let's take it a step at a time OK?
All of these "theories" have been debunked, time and again. The problem is, those that pretend they are asking questions do not think it's important to question the questioners of 9/11. So, for example, you see one issue after another after another debunked, but the typical young angry white male doesn't see the pattern of the lie/deception. So convinced is he, that he simply goes down the list of fabrications others have made, hoping that something will stick. That says a lot about these people. Does it say a lot about you too?
It's a valid question i posed. Is this your attempt to discourage people from asking questions? The building falling looks very much like a controlled demolition don't you agree? If it's not, what is what convinced you it's not controlled? I want to hear both sides, the conspiracy theorists and the non-conspiracists to come to an conclusion. Ball is in your court GTech.
Nope, do you have any translation to english? Look at Jowenkos theory again and see if you can form an argument against my response. If you look at it closer, you can see that it tilts a bit southwards. You can also see that the collapse start upwards which indicates that it's simply not a controlled demolishon. Also, if there was, many key-witnesses would notice the preparetions.
One has to wrestle with the cognitive dissonance that suggests on one hand, Bush is stupid/dumb and can do nothing right, compared to the nutjob that thinks Bush is so smart, that he pulled off the biggest conspiracy known to man, and the literally thousands of people it would take to do such and never raised any eyebrow before 9/11 and have all voluntarily kept quiet. You just have to love the rationale Doobie doobie doo
Let them come with their questions. I see no problem in discussing them since I'm not afraid for the truth. The problem for me is only when people reffer to movies instead of directly taking up the points from it that they want to discuss or when they reffer to an old debunked theory.
Sorry man , maybe a English translation is soon to be released. What i have said about Jowenko is all what he had put forward at this time. Perhaps he may decide to write something up, maybe not. Actually what i saw whas the building just coming down in a free fall, nothing that started from the top. Like i said it's not my theory and i do not fully stand behind it. It just looks like a controlled demolition and it may not be. The southward thing you just mentioned is not conclusive enough, this happens all the time with controlled demolitions. Regarding the preparations, Jowenko mentioned since he was asked about this if it was possible he said it is possible with a expert team of about 40 people working in good team effort to rig the building in about 7 hours. Nothing conclusive and other factors may rule this entirely out *shrug*