World trade centre collapse, 9/11 conspiracy

[exchemist]

Such a stupid irrelevancy betrays you.

You just don't want to get it. It's all laid out there. Point out ANYTHING there of relevance that is demonstrably untrue. Or you expect me to maybe cut and paste the entire article here?!

Still not up to us to prove you wrong.

Note, by the way, that not being demonstrably untrue does not mean 'therefore it happened the way we say it did'. That's what makes conspiracy theories conspiracy theories - they follow red herrings, employ half-truths and ignore mountains of evidence that point toward the more likely scenario. None of which is technically untrue.

Look, you've shot your wad. You linked to the argument. That's pretty your whole argument isn't it? 'Read the story'.

This is not an advertizing forum; it's a discussion forum. Discuss. You complain that we won't go do your bidding. In fact, it is you who FEARS to engage in discussion, here.

Ah yes, "Prove me wrong!", the cry of the crank throughout the ages.

 

[Q-reeus]

Ah yes, "Prove me wrong!", the cry of the crank throughout the ages.

Once good buddies here. No longer. Just out of curiosity - is there some key factor that so convinces you the Official 9-11 Conspiracy Theory is rock solid truth?
That any dissent from that position deserves the 'crank' label? Actually taken a good look through that Wikispooks article for instance, and found it all cooky nonsense?

 

[exchemist]

Once good buddies here. No longer. Just out of curiosity - is there some key factor that so convinces you the Official 9-11 Conspiracy Theory is rock solid truth?
That any dissent from that position deserves the 'crank' label? Actually taken a good look through that Wikispooks article for instance, and found it all cooky nonsense?

I would entertain a "dissenting" explanation if its proponents were to offer a convincing rationale that (a) the standard explanation did not account for the evidence and (b) the rival one did so better.

But before any of this, not being expert, or myself at all suspicious about the standard explanation, I would employ my own form of unofficial "peer review" in determining how much time to devote to understanding the pros and cons. In this case, how much traction in the public sphere does any rival explanation have, and what are the credentials of the proponents.

 

[Q-reeus]

I would entertain a "dissenting" explanation if its proponents were to offer a convincing rationale that (a) the standard explanation did not account for the evidence and (b) the rival one did so better.

But before any of this, not being expert, or myself at all suspicious about the standard explanation, I would employ my own form of unofficial "peer review" in determining how much time to devote to understanding the pros and cons. In this case, how much traction in the public sphere does any rival explanation have, and what are the credentials of the proponents.

One key contributor to that Wkispooks article is Dr Alan Sabrosky - having Jewish heritage btw. If you can at least briefly overcome that anti-YouTube phobia of yours, consider watching the first few minutes at least of this one (posted by me on earlier occasions in other thread(s), and met with silence as expected. Except by Alex who has exhibited some measure of independent-of-mainstream thought):

The interviewer lists at the start all his credentials. I would recommend watching all 13:10 minutes however. And to the right there are listed other vids featuring his scathing assessment of the true culprits.
Another major contributor to that Wikispooks article is Christopher Bollyn. He impresses me much, but I'll leave it to you to maybe look him up using a Google or preferably a StartPage web search.

No further suggestions or questions Your Honour.
[Apologies - the particular YouTube clip I posted earlier here is a truncated version. Better one going into further details:

Also this one is worth a watch:

PS: His comments then re WTC building 7 sustaining no major damage prior to collapse is not quite accurate. There was significant damage to one face. But it hardly matters as the damage was highly asymmetric and if it were a big factor in collapse, would not have resulted in the symmetric free-fall observed - that Alan Chandler so well documented in the vid Alex linked to earlier.]

 

[DaveC426913]

That any dissent from that position deserves the 'crank' label?

to be perfectly clear: the crank label does not come from the alternate conspiracies; it comes from the defendants acting like nutters, when you say things like:

...one's protagonists are thoroughly committed to a particular ideological position..
Let each try and live with their own conscience....

The likely powerful demotivater - FEAR.

Someone clearly committed to opposing anyone or anything other

Etc.

You are not interested in truth; you are interested in trolling.
If you were interested in truth, you would be doing more truthing and much less trolling.

No one has any reason to take you seriously.

 

[exchemist]

One key contributor to that Wkispooks article is Dr Alan Sabrosky - having Jewish heritage btw. If you can at least briefly overcome that anti-YouTube phobia of yours, consider watching the first few minutes at least of this one (posted by me on earlier occasions in other thread(s), and met with silence as expected. Except by Alex who has exhibited some measure of independent-of-mainstream thought):

The interviewer lists at the start all his credentials. I would recommend watching all 13:10 minutes however. And to the right there are listed other vids featuring his scathing assessment of the true culprits.
Another major contributor to that Wikispooks article is Christopher Bollyn. He impresses me much, but I'll leave it to you to maybe look him up using a Google or preferably a StartPage web search.

No further suggestions or questions Your Honour.
[Apologies - the particular YouTube clip I posted earlier here is a truncated version. Better one going into further details:

Also this one is worth a watch:

PS: His comments then re WTC building 7 sustaining no major damage prior to collapse is not quite accurate. There was significant damage to one face. But it hardly matters as the damage was highly asymmetric and if it were a big factor in collapse, would not have resulted in the symmetric free-fall observed - that Alan Chandler so well documented in the vid Alex linked to earlier.]

I watched the first Sabrosky video. I am afraid I simply do not believe:
- that the buildings were brought down by demolition, rather than planes full of jet fuel,
- that Mossad, or any other organ of the Israeli state, would hatch a plot involving the deliberate killing of thousands of American civilians,
- that there were "white vans" full of Jews, sorry Israelis, who were arrested and mysteriously released with no media reporting,
- that the whole business was known to the US authorities and hushed up single handedly by Michael Chertoff, on the basis that he has dual US/Israeli nationality.

I notice the source of this video is presstv.ir, an Iranian propaganda channel.

As I've observed before, on this and other forums, in life we all have to discriminate between sources and ideas we take seriously and those we do not give the time of day to. Nobody is morally obliged to listen to the ravings of the nutter on the street corner. If we did, we'd get nothing done. This video amply fulfils my criteria for nutter-on-the-street-corner stuff.

It's funny, though. I, along with many at the time of the Iraq invasion, came to see the neocons and the Project for a New American Century (how long ago that idea now seems!) as a sinister Likudnik-inspired influence on the Bush administration. I still believe that they were instrumental in twisting the US reaction to 9/11 round into an attack on Saddam Hussein, who was in fact as much opposed to muslim terrorism as anyone, being himself a secular tyrant! I bought and read with interest Mearsheimer and Walt's book on the Israel Lobby in US politics, and I find their conclusions compelling.

But this? This is in a different league. I think it is preposterous and actually quite mad.

 

[sideshowbob]

That any dissent from that position deserves the 'crank' label?

A dissenter asks questions. A crank answers questions that nobody asked.

 

[Q-reeus]

to be perfectly clear: the crank label does not come from the alternate conspiracies; it comes from the defendants acting like nutters, when you say things like:



Etc.

You are not interested in truth; you are interested in trolling.
If you were interested in truth, you would be doing more truthing and much less trolling.

No one has any reason to take you seriously.

Response noted.

 

[Q-reeus]

I watched the first Sabrosky video. I am afraid I simply do not believe:
- that the buildings were brought down by demolition, rather than planes full of jet fuel,
- that Mossad, or any other organ of the Israeli state, would hatch a plot involving the deliberate killing of thousands of American civilians,
- that there were "white vans" full of Jews, sorry Israelis, who were arrested and mysteriously released with no media reporting,
- that the whole business was known to the US authorities and hushed up single handedly by Michael Chertoff, on the basis that he has dual US/Israeli nationality.

I notice the source of this video is presstv.ir, an Iranian propaganda channel.

As I've observed before, on this and other forums, in life we all have to discriminate between sources and ideas we take seriously and those we do not give the time of day to. Nobody is morally obliged to listen to the ravings of the nutter on the street corner. If we did, we'd get nothing done. This video amply fulfils my criteria for nutter-on-the-street-corner stuff.

It's funny, though. I, along with many at the time of the Iraq invasion, came to see the neocons and the Project for a New American Century (how long ago that idea now seems!) as a sinister Likudnik-inspired influence on the Bush administration. I still believe that they were instrumental in twisting the US reaction to 9/11 round into an attack on Saddam Hussein, who was in fact as much opposed to muslim terrorism as anyone, being himself a secular tyrant! I bought and read with interest Mearsheimer and Walt's book on the Israel Lobby in US politics, and I find their conclusions compelling.

But this? This is in a different league. I think it is preposterous and actually quite mad.

Final response noted. Doesn't seem to be very consistent with earlier remarks there, but noted.

 

[Q-reeus]

A dissenter asks questions. A crank answers questions that nobody asked.

Powerful! Well as you seem to see it anyway. I must catch up with what's become of the 'real' sideshowbob on The Simpsons. Hope he's still around. We do need evil characters to make the rest of us feel good.

 

[sideshowbob]

Powerful!

It actually is (but I don't take credit for it; I probably heard it somewhere.)

The bottom line is, if a conspiracy theory (pick one) was true, what difference would it make? If JFK was killed by a consortium of Illuminati and High Elves, would our world be any different today? If the World Trade Center was destroyed by a cabal of rogue Haganah veterans and mall Santas, would our world be any different today? Would democracy have suffered from such conspiracies? Would knowing THE TRUTH really matter?

Or does it just make you feel special?

 

[billvon]

Let each try and live with their own conscience. Mine's clear - certainly on this 9-11 issue.

Sad that you can't post a single valid claim of all the claims you support.

 

[Q-reeus]

The bottom line is, if a conspiracy theory (pick one) was true, what difference would it make? If JFK was killed by a consortium of Illuminati and High Elves, would our world be any different today? If the World Trade Center was destroyed by a cabal of rogue Haganah veterans and mall Santas, would our world be any different today? Would democracy have suffered from such conspiracies? Would knowing THE TRUTH really matter?

Are you serious?! Evidently yes. Well, how about THE TRUTH being known - by enough in key areas of authority - enabling it to then be effectively actioned upon. You know - like bringing the perpetrators to real justice.
How about THE TRUTH being known and widely known, then allowing society as a whole to recognize how it got to such a level of corruption and on-going evil consequences. And to then take effective measures to stop it, roll it back, and ensure it doesn't repeat.

Or does it just make you feel special?

No. See my response to billvon in #145 to that kind of bating. But I get it that you and it seems most here would rather bury your heads in the sand like the proverbial ostrich.

 

[Q-reeus]

I watched the first Sabrosky video. I am afraid I simply do not believe:
- that the buildings were brought down by demolition, rather than planes full of jet fuel,
- that Mossad, or any other organ of the Israeli state, would hatch a plot involving the deliberate killing of thousands of American civilians,
- that there were "white vans" full of Jews, sorry Israelis, who were arrested and mysteriously released with no media reporting,
- that the whole business was known to the US authorities and hushed up single handedly by Michael Chertoff, on the basis that he has dual US/Israeli nationality.

I notice the source of this video is presstv.ir, an Iranian propaganda channel.

As I've observed before, on this and other forums, in life we all have to discriminate between sources and ideas we take seriously and those we do not give the time of day to. Nobody is morally obliged to listen to the ravings of the nutter on the street corner. If we did, we'd get nothing done. This video amply fulfils my criteria for nutter-on-the-street-corner stuff.

It's funny, though. I, along with many at the time of the Iraq invasion, came to see the neocons and the Project for a New American Century (how long ago that idea now seems!) as a sinister Likudnik-inspired influence on the Bush administration. I still believe that they were instrumental in twisting the US reaction to 9/11 round into an attack on Saddam Hussein, who was in fact as much opposed to muslim terrorism as anyone, being himself a secular tyrant! I bought and read with interest Mearsheimer and Walt's book on the Israel Lobby in US politics, and I find their conclusions compelling.

But this? This is in a different league. I think it is preposterous and actually quite mad.

I was going to let my reply in #209 be it. But re-reading your above, there are two absurd distortions (red highlighted) of what Sabrosky actually and correctly stated in that vid that I will not let pass. At best, your comprehension and/or retention is very poor. You can either go back and this time pay careful attention, or, simply do an online search using e.g. 'Urban Moving Systems white vans', or 'Dancing Israelis 9-11' etc.
Here's a p1 initial hit for the first (with plenty of excellent additional links further down p1 there):
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Urban_Moving_Systems
Take note of the additional links to source material supplied in that article. It's all in the main Wikispooks article I have tried and failed to get anyone here to sensibly comment on btw. Those particular events were and still are WELL KNOWN to the FBI and police. And reported on by the media ON THE DAY and maybe the next. Only subsequently was it excised from any further mention in the Zionist owned and controlled TV, newspaper etc, mainstream outlets. As Sabrosky clearly and correctly stated. Continue to ignore and/or distort and deny those facts if you choose. That I can't help.

Similarly, an online search using 'Dancing Israelis 9-11' brings up plenty of good evidence supporting Sabrosky's take on that, and Chertoff's hand in having it all dismissed. Try this one:

And honestly, so what if that interview was on Iranian owned PressTV? You prefer Zionist owned mainstream propaganda? That did and continues to do it's devious part in leading us into ongoing ruinous wars, largely for Israel's benefit?

 

[DaveC426913]

Well, how about THE TRUTH being known
...
it seems most here would rather bury your heads in the sand like the proverbial ostrich.

Ugh. Q doesn't even do us the courtesy of being original. This trolling style is so last century.

 

[iceaura]

But it hardly matters as the damage was highly asymmetric and if it were a big factor in collapse, would not have resulted in the symmetric free-fall observed

That's not true. The building shared construction details with the towers, was subjected like them to heat and significant mechanical damage, and fell much the same way on much the same timeline.
Many of the assertions you make here, and your sources make, are similarly dubious.

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it
You can read? Well go to it - pick it apart!

It appears to be largely a list of Jewish men with ownership or related interests in New York real estate, jobs as judges and lawyers and government officials, and so forth.
I find the discovery of wealthy Jewish men connected with high end New York City real estate and Washington politics less than startling. I find the targeting of highly visible Jewish-associated and US government associated buildings by Muslim terrorists less than startling, as well.

And frequently it makes odd claims in suggestive language that fail to persuade by lack of clear argument - such as that the espoused Lutheran James Schlesinger's ancestry of "Russian/Austrian Jews" made him a Zionist Jew, or that there were 4000 Israeli nationals connected somehow with the WTC of whom only 5 were killed, this news delivered in language suggesting they were (all?) supposed to be at work there but had advance information and avoided the scene - without any of them warning their American Jewish coworkers and friends (who were killed, in proportion), and without any of them breaking silence then or to this day. That's a hell of a lot of conspirators - and we haven't even got to the Zionist media control, by American Jews who did have family, friends, and fellow Jews, crushed and burned alive in those towers.
- - -

Here is the vid I mentioned earlier

Video just opens you up to con jobs and flake analysis.
You mentioned the color of the melted metal? Here: https://www.metabunk.org/molten-and-glowing-metal.t2029/page-11

"Find me one metallurgist who thinks this is aluminium"

At your service, sir. (Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, Hants, UK).
Actually, I don't think it's aluminum. I think it's a high-strength copper/aluminum alloy...

farther down (419) another actual expert, after discussing emissivity complications and posting a couple of graphs:

But this isn't a huge issue for the question at hand. Molten aluminum at the same temperature as solid orange-hot steel will glow with roughly the same orange color. In the dark they will look pretty much the same. In the daytime reflectivity will come into play, but that would only make it brighter, compared to iron.

and a photo, of melted aluminum glowing orange/red (with camera exposure effects, which also come into play in those Youtube videos one should never trust): https://www.metabunk.org/sk/Molten_...attle.mp4_20140223_082711_20140223_082713.jpg
And if you need another nail in this boarded up matter, the official report (NIST):

the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace.

 

[DaveC426913]

It appears to be largely a list of Jewish men with ownership or related interests in New York real estate, jobs as judges and lawyers and government officials, and so forth.

This is all I saw too. I thought maybe I was missing something important. Is this what Q is ranting about being proof?

The page reads like the very last line should be:
"Sooooo, there ya go. : wink : Need we say more????"

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

And if you need another nail in this boarded up matter, the official report (NIST):

I dont want to be difficult but "stuff" does not mix in molten metal at all it floats on the surface and I find such a conclusion not in keeping with any observation that I have ever made.
Melt some alluminium and try to mix in some "material" and you will find what I say is the truth.
Such a statement could not be attributed to anyone who knows what they are talking about in my view as it is just nonsence to say such a thing.
Molten alluminium looks silver molten steel I have not seen in person so I cant say how it looks other yhan to say in photos it looks white to red.
I have already said I dont care but when folk say things that are just wrong I feel I must point it out.
Melt some alluminoum and throw in whatever and that stuff will float on top.

Video just opens you up to con jobs and flake analysis

Sure I realise that and I am aware how folk can be conned.
I accept the real possibility that we ordinary folk can be conned...do you?

You mentioned the color of the melted metal?

Thanks for the link.
I have never seen alluminium glow red or orange so forgive me if I go with my experience ...what else should I do as I can only tell you of my personal experience...
But thanks for you input but you must realise I know that I dont know and although I can entertain possibility I really dont become dogmatic...
I did think the chap in the vid was reasonably credible but I also know that I can be conned just like anyone else I expect.
If the truthers are right then you have been conned...finally you believe some one and how can you tell if you have been conned.
Each time I look at no 7 I try to be imparial but it just looks like so many demo jobs..I look at a lot of them on utube...and I bet you could show it to 100 people who did not know in a group of similar building (clear demos) and they would say demo for sure...now does that make it a demo..no but the fact remains it looks a better demo than most out there...you at least have to recognise that it looks like a demo ..if not I would be surprised.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Have a look at these demos

Alex

 

[Q-reeus]

That's not true. The building shared construction details with the towers, was subjected like them to heat and significant mechanical damage, and fell much the same way on much the same timeline.
Many of the assertions you make here, and your sources make, are similarly dubious.

He he. 'Shared construction details'. 'Fell much the same way'. Who else do you expect to swallow that obviously false nonsense?

It appears to be largely a list of Jewish men with ownership or related interests in New York real estate, jobs as judges and lawyers and government officials, and so forth.
I find the discovery of wealthy Jewish men connected with high end New York City real estate and Washington politics less than startling.

And by deliberately ignoring the all-important details listed there, sure you can declare it all to be ho hum less than startling. Pathetic.
Try rationalizing 'lucky' Larry Silverstein's amazing decision to take out a 99 year lease of the WTC complex, immediately insure for a massive amount specifically against terrorist attacks, and 'miraculously' being absent at the top of north tower 1 - just on the morning of attack - as were his two children:
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it#Four_key_Zionist_Network_assets
Actually, don't try. You'd only further embarrass yourself.

I find the targeting of highly visible Jewish-associated and US government associated buildings by Muslim terrorists less than startling, as well.

The real connection to and actual role played by 'Muslim terrorists' is all detailed there. But you have no interest in discussing all-important details. Start here:
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Is..._Us_Directly_To_Jewish_Crime_Network_Doorstep
That could be embarrassing and require an admission the Official Story is crap.

And frequently it makes odd claims in suggestive language that fail to persuade by lack of clear argument - such as that the espoused Lutheran James Schlesinger's ancestry of "Russian/Austrian Jews" made him a Zionist Jew,...

The reference to Schlesinger, as detailed briefly under heading
MITRE corporation (computer software)
is there for anyone to read and judge as to appropriateness and accuracy. Do better.

...or that there were 4000 Israeli nationals connected somehow with the WTC of whom only 5 were killed, this news delivered in language suggesting they were (all?) supposed to be at work there but had advance information and avoided the scene - without any of them warning their American Jewish coworkers and friends (who were killed, in proportion), and without any of them breaking silence then or to this day.

The actual passage being referred to above: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it#Israeli_Citizens_Get_Tipped_Off
Deal with the specifics there, not with some suggestive fantasy of your own making.

That's a hell of a lot of conspirators - and we haven't even got to the Zionist media control, by American Jews who did have family, friends, and fellow Jews, crushed and burned alive in those towers.

Oh? Actual family members of Zionist media moguls were confirmed fatalities in the twin towers on 9-11? Not that even if true in a single instance, it could in any way overturn the overwhelming evidence of a Zionist conceived and led operation, it's news to me. So, instead of asserting it as fact, furnish not only at least one reputable link establishing the case, but point therein to specific passages. Otherwise, retract the assertion as baseless.

Video just opens you up to con jobs and flake analysis.
You mentioned the color of the melted metal? Here: https://www.metabunk.org/molten-and-glowing-metal.t2029/page-11

I was initially minded to post material on that in answer to Alex's vid, but decided not to keep it all going. But your link needs a response in kind:
https://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/02/debunking-molten-aluminium-flow-from.html
Which article does a proper job in taking all relevant factors into account. Your article above is irrelevant as it ignores the realistic conditions prevailing at the sites of falling metal from tower 2, just prior to collapse. And further has no hope of dealing with the post collapse rubble 'surprises' dealt with back in posts 125, 140, 161

and a photo, of melted aluminum glowing orange/red (with camera exposure effects, which also come into play in those Youtube videos one should never trust): https://www.metabunk.org/sk/Molten_...attle.mp4_20140223_082711_20140223_082713.jpg
And if you need another nail in this boarded up matter, the official report (NIST):

the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace.

See above. Yet another scholarly analysis refuting 'it was molten aluminum' BS:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf
Unfortunately many 'live' links within no longer work - largely thanks to the anti-Twoofer zealots efforts at shutting down the sites and/or specific webpages linked to. But plenty enough evidence just contained entirely within that article.

As an extra here, one former, well qualified NIST employee finally took a principled stand re the official NIST report lies: