More proof that America's government continues to lie about 9/11

1. 72

   lone77starposted 10 years ago

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbFldtLnmc8
   
   One expert after another goes on record, laying their career on the line, to state, categorically that WTC7 could not have come down except for controlled demolition. Since it takes months to prepare a building of that size, someone would've known long before 9/11, since the building came down on the afternoon of 9/11.
   
   NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) lied about WTC7 and then wouldn't show how they arrived at their computer model so that structural engineers could learn from their supposed "wisdom." Just like Mayor Giuliani cleaning up the crime scene before an investigation could be done, someone there is hiding something -- something big.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sarra Garrettposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      you can see the controlled detonations on the tapes.  Also the 2nd plane was a military plane with no windows and no tail markings.  I don't trust our government anyway, not anymore.  It's sad that they had to 'execute' all of those innocent people for absolutely nothing.  Without the detonations those towers never would have collapsed!

      replyreport
   2. 74

      Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Greetings Lone Star.  I have not run into one of your 9/11 conspiracy threads since last September. Perhaps I missed some of them in the interim.  
      
      The critical issue in my mind is not how the WTC7 collapsed. My critical issue is why you continue to drag out the same old tattered theories over and over again. The Ed Asner video linked in the OP offers no new evidence, no new perspectives, no new theories, and most importantly, no new reasons to care. While I never imagine 9/11 truthers would ever change their minds about this subject, I did hope that they would stop bringing up all the old, previously debunked and inconclusive theories. There have been no new theories in years. You make me wonder why you continue to push old news when you really have no new data or facts to add to the discussion.
      
      “One expert after another” the OP declares, “ goes on record, laying their career on the line, to state, categorically that WTC7 could not have come down except for controlled demolition.” This opening sentence is a marvelous example of a half-truth, i.e. “A statement, intended to deceive, that omits some of the facts necessary for a full description or account.” {1} Obviously, you ignore that there are a substantial number of experts on the record stating categorically that WTC7 did not collapse due to controlled demolition. I would speculate that your saying “laying their career on the line” is suppose to add some physiological measure of imaginary credibility to their unconvincing conclusions.
      
      As I parse the first paragraph, follow the illogical progression of the OP statement if you can. It begins by assuming in the first sentence there was a controlled demolition (“WTC7 could not have come down except for controlled demolition.”); in the second sentence, it sweetens the first assumption with a pinch of truth (“Since it takes months to prepare a building of that size [for demolition]”). The paragraph then mixes in another dash of invented assumption (“someone would've known long before 9/11.”); and it finally makes a giant leap to an obvious fact (“since the building came down on the afternoon of 9/11”). I suppose, Lone Star, that final shred of truth is suppose to imply all the prior assumptions must therefore be true. I question the critical thinking used by any person who believes “since the building came down on the afternoon of 9/11” actually proves “that WTC7 could not have come down except for controlled demolition.”
      
      Here is your claim that the NIST lied. How do we know they lied? They lied because they “wouldn't show how they arrived at their computer model so that structural engineers could learn from their supposed ‘wisdom.’” This is almost comical. You complain, Lone Star, about a computer model when the NIST report published November 20, 2008 contains 797 pages of data used to construct the model. I certainly did not read this report but the abstract says, “This report provides technical documentation of how NIST reconstructed the effects of the events on September 11, 2001 on WTC 7. This includes how the fires that followed the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 (the north tower) led to the collapse of WTC 7...what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the building...[and] describes how NIST reached its conclusions. NIST complemented in-house expertise with private sector technical experts...accumulated copious documents, photographs, and videos of the disaster...conducted first-person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders...analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7...performed computer simulations of the behavior of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001...and combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence.” {2}
      
      
      I underlined “probable collapse sequence” in the last sentence to emphasize that “There is no fact-based technical account of the World Trade Center collapses. This is verifiably true beyond doubt. The true collapse modes of the Twin Towers are not accurately determined within any academic, professional or government literature. {3} This means, Lone Star, you and I must admit all attempts to explain how and why they collapsed are purely hypothetical. It explains why all of the 9/11 literature (including the NIST report) contain an extensive array of opinions but no broad consensus and certainly no definitive evidence to explain the destruction at the WTC. Hence, each of us must decide if we want to believe vague and unproven theories, as you suggest, Lonestar, or if we will take a more rational and logical stance that acknowledges one indisputable truth. After 12 years there is still no reliable evidence of a conspiracy that survives scientific scrutiny.
      
      Keep up the fine work, Lonestar, but please bring us something new. As you already know, there is nothing like a factually bankrupt conspiracy theory to attract attention. I just hope you are not planning to prove this to us again.
      
      {1} http://www.thefreedictionary.com/half-truth
      {2} http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861611
      {3} http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/ind … on=548:548 Preface.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Silverspeederposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Those who believe their government wouldn't take every measure to protect themselves is very foolish indeed.

         replyreport
      2. 0

         Sooner28posted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Since you didn't bring this up at all, I'm guessing you haven't seen it, so it will be "new" to you.
         
         http://www.journalof911studies.com/
         
         http://www.journalof911studies.com/reso … nSmith.pdf
         
         Sorry.  These are academics writing in these journals.  You can't dismiss them as quacks or conspiracy theorists quite as easily (even though academics can be wrong too).
         
         As are these: http://www.ae911truth.org/
         
         And we have the physicist Steven Jones from BYU, who spoke out immediately against the official story.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayYXNo0i_Cs
         
         His paper- http://www.journalof911studies.com/volu … llapse.pdf
         
         A government investigation of the collapse?  Why would you so readily trust the government when it lies so often about foreign policy?

         replyreport
2. 88

   Zelkiiroposted 10 years ago

   Yes. You're absolutely right. The government can stage a cover-up so incredibly detailed and secretive that only a few YouTubers with Windows Movie Maker could uncover it, yet the same government can't hide the fact that Billy J. got a blowjob in the Oval Office. Right.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      They simply did not have the technology in the 1990s that they have in the 2000s.
      

      replyreport
3. 60

   sannyasinmanposted 10 years ago

   People laugh at so called "conspiracy theories" but accept and swallow whole the ludicrous, and scientifically impossible, official story about 911.
   Problem is, it is such a big lie, which such immense ramifications, that it is impossible for most people to accept. They would rather look the other way and keep on pretending that everything is OK.

   replyreport
4. 60

   tirelesstravelerposted 10 years ago

   My neighbor worked on the WTC to help put himself through college.  Anyone who knew anything about the construction of the center would have known if damaged it would collapse in the fashion it collapsed.  Neighbor later become a PhD in environmental toxicology.  He paid close attention to the destruction of this building.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      ..  and what does your neighbor say?!!!

      replyreport
      1. 60

         tirelesstravelerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         The way the elevator shafts were designed damage of the sort sustained by the airliners would cause the entire building to telescope in on itself. Each floor was a bit smaller than the floor below. The designers never anticipated a direct hit into the building.

         replyreport
         1. 58

            A Troubled Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Really? How did they manage to get 40,000 square feet of office space on every floor?

            replyreport
         2. 89

            GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I recall seeing multiple mentions/statements that the world Trade centers were indeed designed to withstand the impact of an airplane.
            
            I also recall explanations that the interior elevator shaft beams were sheathed in extra layers of drywall, (sheets of gypsum building material) to act as a "firewall" and protect those beams from the anticipated heat generated by jet fuel fires.
            
            - but apparently that design was flawed, in that either it did not anticipate penetration to a degree that would rupture the protective drywall sheathing, (which is one proposed explanation), or that it did not adequately anticipate the strength and extreme temperatures of the jet fuel fires and explosions.
            
            Regardless, there are several sources that verify an airplane impact was one of the possible hazards considered in their design.
            
            Of course you can assign your own merit to the sources, but here are a few:
            
            Pbs.org - World Trade Center
            "Although they were in fact designed to withstand being struck by an airplane, the resultant fires weakened the infrastructure of the building, collapsing the upper floors and creating too much load for the lower floors to bear"
            
            Science-writing.org
            The attack and following collapse of the World Trade Center Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 shocked the world. The enormous travesty occurred so fast and so surprisingly. But what may also shock you is that architect Minoru Yamasaki designed the World Trade Center towers to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707 airplane (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2002)"
            
            This one is a 9/11 truth site - I am not vouching for it, just presenting it because it too mentions the reference to WTC structural designs modeled to withstand a Boeing 707 impact.
            
            Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth
            "Both technical calculations and testimony from WTC structural engineers confirm that the Twin Towers were built to withstand the impact from the passenger jets that hit them on 9/11.
            
            Airplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers used the Boeing 707"
            
            There are more sources available if you are interested, but it apparently documented that your statement is incorrect.
            
            And that each floor was smaller than the one below also seems suspect.
            
            GA

            replyreport