Building demo theories are a huge embarrassment to the 9/11 truth movement

[greyl]

True, or False?

In order to get the best comparison with the previous poll, no "other" is offered.

Extra points to anyone who suggests that most competent structural engineers on this planet wouldn't be afraid to share evidence that terrorists planted explosives in one or all of the three WTC buildings.

A few more points for mentioning that most any competent structural engineer realizes she could prepare a paper/proof and publicize it anonymously.

Similar to Deep Throat.

¼ point for figuring out where I stand on the issue.

edit: clarity

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MervinFerd]

2. But if you remove 'No Planes' and "Controlled Demo", what's left????

Invisible elves piloting the planes?

[JackRiddler]

3. This

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

Nafeez Ahmed, The War on Truth

Paul Thompson 911 timeline at cooperativeresearch.org

Michael Ruppert, Crossing the Rubicon

justicefor911.org

Work by John Doe II, Andre, Hopsicker and Broeckers/Hauss among others on the alleged hijackers.

Chossudovsky and about 1,000 others.

Mindy Kleinberg and Lori Van Auken's presentation to the McKinney hearings.

The case for an inside job has never required explosives in the buildings, and no planes is an obvious hoax designed to prompt the likes of you to post mockingly about elves. What's transparent in that is not the "CGI planes," but the ideological pincer action of false dichotomies.

Furthermore, greyl will "win" this poll since no one who disagrees with his skew will bother to vote in it.

[Grateful for Hope]

4. Exactly n/t

[greyl]

5. There is no "winning" the poll.

I posed the question in order to gain a bit of knowledge.
Your statement about my "skew" is unfounded.

[JackRiddler]

6. The skew...

is in the commentary you provide, rather obviously, not to mention in the phrasing of the question (not about how one evaluates bomb theories but about whether these are an "embarrassment").

Your protestations to the contrary, the thread is clearly designed as a psychological game.

So go all the way: "How pathetically embarrassing is (given view) to the utterly ridiculous 9/11 truth movement?" Very? Very very? Or utterly very very?

[greyl]

7. Oh, you mean the acute skew of pointed questions/statements?

Why don't you attack the points in order to adjust the skew in your favor, whatever that means?

[Grateful for Hope]

8. You ignored the body of JR's post

and zeroed in on the most inconsequential sentence in the post. What about the points he is making?

I suggest your response is geared to divert readers away from the points that JR is making.

[greyl]

21. No, I don't have an argument with the entire body of his post.

I only have an argument with the ridiculous part. ;) It's clear to me that JR has no accurate concept of where I'm coming from. I could have chosen to argue with the ad hominem portion of his post, but that wasn't important to me. I realize some are very sensitive about the issue, but I can't be expected to sedate every emotion based over-reaction to my posts, can I?

This is in no way a push poll. The choices are distinctly opposed. I doubt that my commentary in the OP is contributing to the subversion of truth, as some may coyly imply.
I was curious about the results of this poll relative to the no planes poll.

Feel free to vote, rally the vote, and attack the points in my OP.

[Grateful for Hope]

24. Then I guess it safe to assume

that you agree with all points in his post.

[greyl]

31. What's the worst that could happen? nt

[MervinFerd]

35. If the "case for an inside job" never required explosives......

why all the effort to "prove" the presence of explosive with pseudotechnical bullshit?


Without explosives, what's left? Rocket Pods? Survivable Passports? Psychic Hotline?

What?

[readmoreoften]

36. Oh please NO ONE believes the no planes theory.

Disrupters, probably paid, made that up to discredit anyone who questions the OP. An argument completely made of straw offered by obnoxious disrupters.

[screembloodymurder]

9. As a contractor who has done a number of demolition jobs,

I don't think you need more than the video clips of building #7's collapse to conclude that at least one building was demolished. That said, absent physical evidence, it's nearly impossible to prove. So what's needed is an independent commission.

[seatnineb]

15. Agreed!

:toast:

[mirandapriestly]

20. all you need to do is watch 7 go straight down symmetrically

i agree

[greyl]

32. And you also saw one of the pilots after 9/11, right?

(this is according to you in a previous post)

[mhatrw]

10. Ummmm ...

Please explain what happened here if not controlled demolition.

[AZCat]

11. Uhh...

why don't you try reading any of the numerous threads here on this instead of trying to begin all over again?

[John Q. Citizen]

13. Are there any threads here that show a person where they can see

physical evidence that supports the pancake theory?

NIST has steel from WTC 1 and 2, but to the best of my knowledge none from #7

The steel they have from 1 and 2 doesn't support the pancake theory. In fact it suggests that the steel didn't fail and result in a collapse due to airplane impact and fire.

I like that slow mo of #7 coming down. It offers the chance to look and see.

People can believe their own lying eyes or they can believe in a "pancake theory" with no physical evidence to support it.

What's next from the OCTers? The boysenberry syrup theory? I'm hungrey now!
:-)

[AZCat]

14. No.

Now it's the strawberry pancakes theory.

[John Q. Citizen]

16. I like the music that goes with that strawberry pancake

theory.

[AZCat]

17. Bizarre, huh?

Some guy at work was playing it on his computer and we all flocked over like a bunch of lemmings, but it was worth it. No-one has yet had the patience to wait for the population to hit zero (fortunately).

[mhatrw]

22. You mean those threads where everyone grasping at straws to explain

why the WTC-7 imploded in its own footprint embarrassed themselves?

[AZCat]

25. Nice framing.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

[readmoreoften]

37. Oh and you officialstorybots never "frame" arguments. All you ever do is

whine and criticize and offer arguments more ridiculous than the skeptics. Funny, you call yourself "skeptics" but what you are is religious zealots married to a narrative that even the writers admit they can't stand by anymore.

[greyl]

38. There used to be a DU group called "Framing the Debate".

Framing is fine, but not if it's done dishonestly and with lousy logic.
AZCat's statement was sarcastically illustrating the poor logic of mhatrw's post.

[AZCat]

39. I didn't realize that the group had expired.

Too bad - it's important to study and inform others of the presence of faulty framing, especially in the "legitimate" media.

[greyl]

40. I suspect it virtually merged with the Propaganda Debunking Group

which I've been meaning to check out more often.

[AZCat]

41. I didn't even know that existed.

And apparently I was not alone - the "Marked for Deletion" thread certainly introduced a lot of people to the group.

It's so easy to get stuck in a rut here at DU making the rounds of familiar turf that I forget to check out the areas of DU where I don't normally go. It's easy to miss some good discussions that way.

[John Q. Citizen]

12. Nice slow-Mo! n/t

[hack89]

18. You mean the 3 phase, asymmetrical collapse of WTC7? nt

[petgoat]

19. Assymetrical, Aschmimmetrical

I suppose you'd call these asymmetrical too:





Given that the structure of WTC7 was asymmetrical, the symmetricality of the
collapse is quite astounding, really.

[DoYouEverWonder]

23. I think the NIST report is a huge embarrassment

to the 9/11 OCTers.

[AZCat]

26. Why?

Or is an explanation not forthcoming?

[DoYouEverWonder]

27. Is it possible to ask a question

without making rude follow-up remarks? They really aren't necessary.



Why? Please allow me to quote one of the lead investigators, Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, in his testimony to Congress:

March 6, 2002 Hearing on “Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”

The main impediments to my work were and still are:

1. Not having a copy of the engineering drawings and design and construction documents.

2. Not having copies of the photographs and videotapes that various agencies might have taken during and immediately after the collapse.

http://www.house.gov/science/full02/mar06/astaneh.htm

Because the government agencies refused to cooperate with the investigators and give them access to most of the information they needed to conduct a their investigations, it was not possible to do a proper investigation. The result was that the modeling they used to explain what happened to the buildings has some serious flaws.

[AZCat]

28. Sorry.

I'm just tired of single sentence comments like yours that offer no explanation.

Your post here still does not explain why the NIST report would be an embarrassment to those here who have been given the label "OCT" (although the point has been made time and time again that they are not). You argue that the NIST didn't have proper access and that the modeling used had serious flaws, but if both of these are true then why is this an embarrassment?



On Edit: Perhaps if you were willing to reduce the frequency of snark, I would be a little less inclined to be short.

[DoYouEverWonder]

29. Because many OCTers

take the NIST report to be their Holy Grail. Yet if the modeling is flawed, then the results will also be flawed.

One of the big problems are the assumptions the investigators had to make because of lack of information. For example, for WTC 2 they were only given the floor plan for the 78th Floor. For the other floors in the impact zone they used the plan for the 78th Floor and made some adjustment to the layouts based on info they could get from people who worked on those floors. One problem with anecdotal evidence is that just because I worked on a floor doesn't mean I know much about the layout of the entire floor. That might not be much of a problem if all the floors are pretty much the same, but they weren't. That is where they made some significant mistakes.

[AZCat]

30. I agree about flawed modeling...

but I disagree that the floor layouts present that much of a problem respective to the other issues plaguing the model. I have pointed out here before that I have grave concerns about the ability of anyone - even those with unlimited resources and access - to produce an accurate model of something like the WTC towers during the events of that day. I believe that the nature of the problem belies simulation - that you cannot accurately recreate events this nonlinear. I think the NIST investigation blew a lot of money trying to tackle this problem without any tangible results.

[JackRiddler]

33. Well in that case...

It would have been useful to have the actual steel.

Thanks to the rapid disposal thereof, NIST had one core column piece from the impact zone from WTC 1. And nothing from WTC 7 (though the FEMA "BPAT" team did have a couple of columns showing unexplained corrosion and sulfidation - I don't know why these weren't passed over to NIST but that's suspicious too)

So in the absence of the steel they were stuck with a simulation ... of a conclusion already assumed in advance. And when it didn't work out, they kept adjusting the parameters until it did. Oh, wonder!

And using the scant available physical evidence, they never established that any piece of actually available steel was exposed to temperatures above 250 degrees C, or about 400 degrees below what is required to cause failures.

Maybe NIST would have found higher temperatures if they had had all the steel to examine. But they didn't since New York's Dept. of Design and Construction (DDC) got it all scrapped ASAP.

Why? During the disposal of the steel, honest scientists who do not doubt in progressive collapse, like Astaneh-Asl and Glenn Corbett (who was later on the NIST advisory committee) and the editors at Fire Engineering mag all protested - for naught.

The disposal of the evidence was destruction of evidence from a crime scene. If DDC and NYC didn't want these conspiracy theories sprouting, then they should have listened to the honest scientists, who demanded the steel be spread out on empty lots for systematic examination.

Too bad. It's too late now... If the OCT is true, tough shit, because NIST had its physical evidence destroyed two years before it was assigned to the case. The results deserve to be doubted.

Bloomberg and DDC and FEMA and the feds and all the mafia-connected firms they hired to do the scrapping created this situation by destroying or allowing the destruction of the evidence.

And I laugh, since the preponderance of all other evidence beyond the buildings says "inside job," so what's a demolition on top anyway?

[DoYouEverWonder]

34. All of the steel columns and beams were individually marked

If they had done a real investigation, then at the least, they should have isolated the steel from the impacts zones for examination.

Even if they just focused on the columns, they should have found the ones that actually 'failed'. Instead we are stuck with flawed models for the OCTers take has unquestionable truth.