Horrorshow

If Horrowshow was a building and I was a metal ball.

Who's that? My Japanese counterpart?

Christmas Number One imo.

WTC 7 wasn't "ravaged by severe fires" though, hence people thinking something dodgy went on with it. The news crew announcing it had collapsed rather prematurely didn't help.

According to the official FEMA report, WTC 7 sustained relatively light damage prior to it's collapse. So why did in go down and again how many examples can you find of steel-frame high-rise buildings that have been ravaged by severe fires collapsing as a result of said fires?

Done.

With respect RotM, my post (#1145) related to corroded steel, not melted steel.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, even the official 9/11 reports have been unable to explain some of the aspects of the building's collapses, describing such things as the corrosion of steel beams as unexplained events. The FEMA report stated that the severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of multiple steel samples from the collapsed buildings was very unusual and that no clear explanation for the source of the sulphur they discovered could be identified.

But why would they not accept it?

It's not about assuming that everything you hear is a lie. Far from it, Kris. But when you encounter evidence that you feel brings something that you've been told into question, it's natural that you might want to dig a little deeper - even if only to solidify the original story you were told. As much as some people feel that those who believe 9/11 to be an inside job are doing so just to feel big, clever and important, I don't romantise such things. If anything the terror of 9/11 reminded me of my mortality and insignificance. How did the events of 9/11 make everyone else feel?

I like to think someone is being honest unless I have a reason to disbelieve what they are telling me. Many people won't question the 9/11 official story because they have no reason to do some. Why question something that makes so much more sense than any other theory?

What have our democratic governments done to earn our undying trust though? In theory, those who we elect are our servants and servants should always be monitored closely. That's not just our right. It's our duty. Each of us has made a decision to accept whichever theory makes the most sense to us personally based on the evidence we've encountered. The work of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth compels me to believe that there are discrepancies in the official 9/11 story.

How can you pretend to crash a plane into the Pentagon when surely there would be so many people about to say it didn't happen?

Does any clear footage actually exist of American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon? I don't mean that flippantly. I'm just interested to know. I don't know masses about the Pentagon situation. Much of Richard Gage's research is centered around the other atrocities of 9/11.

But how do you think it would be easier?

Easier in that I don't see how al-Qaeda would have had the acumen to pull off such an extraordinary feat. Why haven't we seen more extreme acts of al-Qaeda violence and destruction in the U.S. during the last decade if they have the power to pull of 9/11?

Forgive my exit, gentlemen. It's getting a bit late for me and a long day at work tomorrow beckons. I'll hopefully be back in a couple of days.

FAO: DJ Kris. I will endeavour to repond to post #1132. I ran out of time this evening.

Cheers,

Horrorshow

Both really, the man power, time and covert logistics of doing it and doing it without detection before & after the fact seems impossible.

If we're just looking purely at the man power / time / covert logistics side of things and not a subsequent cover up, I personally would have thought that the U.S. would be just as capable as Al-Qaeda as performing such things, no? After all the planes, air space, buildings etc did belong to the Americans.

Examples please bud. So I can answer the specific points as the steel beams stuff that I have read in the past has never mentioned corrosion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_t...rformance_study

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

I had 2 of my texts shown on it.

Care to elaborate?

I think something on the scale of 9/11 was far too big to pull off.

Just to clarify, are you saying that you believe the actual physical events of 9/11 would be too big as an inside job to pull off, or just a subsequent cover up of said events?

Anyone watch the 3 hour live special on controversial tv last night?

IIRC, Duane said a couple of days ago that he intended to watch it.

The main thing of the JFK assassination is that as far as conspiracy theories go it's doable.

1 guy, 1 gun, 1 victim. When you look at the scale of something of 9/11 something like that is far far more complex it's almost unthinkable.

So you're saying that the problem with 9/11 being an inside job is purely logistical in nature and that you're potentially prepared to believe that if someone had enough to gain from killing thousands of innocent people they'd be content to do it as a calculated gamble if they were absolutely convinced that they could get away with it?

There's yet to be shown any evidence that not every truther is a loon or that any people at all credibly believe the inside job/evil global elite stories.

In your opinion! By your definition anyone who questions the official 9/11 story instantly loses any credibility they may have had, regardless of their maturity, sincerity, background or education. You aren't willing to listen to, tolerate or consider for even a single moment a shred of the evidence that exists that contradicts or questions aspects of the offical 9/11 story because anyone who asks such questions must by your definition be a nut.

In all of this "independent research" by supposedly credible scientists pointing to internal conspiracy, is any of it actually verified by the scientific method and peer review?

The best way I can answer that is by saying that experienced, credible professionals that number in their thousands; who are experts and specialists in such fields as engineering and architecture have conducted research and concluded that several aspects of the offical 9/11 story are spurious and that the manner in which the buildings collapsed can't have been caused by the factors reported in the offical 9/11 story. It should also be noted that even the official reports have been unable to explain some of the aspects of the building's collapses, describing such things as the corrosion of steel beams as very unusual events with no clear explanation for the source of the corrosion.

Or is it just a load of Bad Science shite they're peddling because it gets them money and/or attention from nutters?

I think it's fair to argue that any professional who adheres to the belief that the offical 9/11 story isn't all it's cracked up to be is actually risking the loss of far more than they might potentially gain. People have put their careers and reputations on the line to pursue what they believe in, despite ridicule and derision from many who won't even spend five minutes listening to what they have to say.

Nobody's arguing this, though, are they?

I'm glad that we can agree that governments on occasion lie to those who have elected them, those who they are meant to serve and deliberately obfuscate important facts. That's a good enough reason imo to question the events of 9/11, particularly as we've seen how the U.S. government and her allies have used 9/11 to their significant advantage over the last decade.

If they were that powerful, why couldn't they fly a plane into building 7 or fake the WMDs in Iraq as well?

They didn't need WTC 7 to be hit by a plane. Until now they've got away with it going down as a result of fire as per the offical FEMA and NIST reports. How many examples can you find of steel-frame high-rise buildings that have been ravaged by severe fires collapsing as a result of said fires? As for faking WMD's in Iraq, they've to date got away with not having had to plant any evidence to justify the invasion. Most people don't care and many of those who do are labelled loons by a majority of people. That's where a lot of their power lies. In our apathy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gcaq4ElAJrE

I've got Ray Rice in my fantasy team.

It could be fair to say Kennedy was a possible inside job, but the whole grassy knowl stuff is codswallop, he was most definatly shot from the book depository.

 

Now wether Oswald was the shooter is another matter, he most probably was but I for one wouldn't be shocked if it was an internal assassination.

So you'd concede that the possibility exists that JFK was assassinated by an internal U.S. agency and that said murder was covered up the authorities to protect themselves from their crime?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1...78329757426695#

Are you a proponent of the Single Bullet Theory, big mickey?

Yeah, but so what? She's still wrong, and 9/11 was still not an inside job. Her intelligence and sincerity is entirely irrelevant.

 

I don't really know what you expect here. The onus is on the conspiracy theorists prove something was amiss. The onus is not on everyone else to disprove them. TripleGay is well within his rights to accept the majority view of the scientific community. He doesn't have to spend weeks researching it.

 

I agree that both the US and the UK governments have subsequently used 9/11 as a political tool to further their own agendas, but I do NOT see any reason to suspect that is anything other than opportunism.

 

I'd pose two questions to you - and bear in mind you've been perfectly reasonable so far, to your credit.

 

Can you see the difference between believing that some elements of the events of that day have been obscured or rewritten by the authorities, and believing that the whole thing was somehow pulled off by the authorities?

 

Do you accept that until some definitive, incontrovertible proof is establish that undermines the official story of how the towers fell, there is no real reason to doubt the truth as generally acknowledged?

To answer your first question, yes absolutely I can. Definitely. But I also believe it would be easier for an internal U.S. agency to perpetrate the atrocities of 9/11 than an external enemy of the Americans. I accept that that isn't a popular belief around these parts.

To answer your second question, again yes. Although it can be debated that such definitive, incontrovertible proof exists.

I'm not on a crusade to convert anyone's thinking or capture their hearts and minds. I've seen evidence presented from both sides of the 9/11 fence. I've taken a small amount of time to process said data in the limited way that I can to come to my own conclusions. Said conclusions have put me in the minority, particularly here in the vitriolic world of UKFF. I can live with that.

My reasons for contributing to this thread was to suggest two things. Firstly, that not every "truther" is a loon and that some very credible people suspect that there is something wrong with the official 9/11 story. Secondly, that it's fairly important for those of us who live in a democracy to not necessarily accept every last word our governments tell us. Look at Watergate for example. It's not unprecedented for governments to lie and deliberately obfuscate important facts. My personal opinion is that it's not a reach to think that powerful men wouldn't murder their own citizens if there were enough chips on the table to warrant it.

To echo a previous statement of your own, I don't really know what you expect here either. We have different beliefs on a controversial topic. You perceive my belief to be wrong. I respect your belief because unlike many you've made an effort to cultivate it. None of us are privy to The Big Picture. All sorts of shady things happen behind closed doors. Money makes the world go round. Powerful men will do a lot to maintain and further their positions. History has unquestionably shown us that.

At the moment they don't even have 1 fb on the roster.

Isn't JG going to use John Phillips as a fullback despite him being listed as a TE?

probably 0-3 with a lot of runs and loads of great defensive plays. aka the exact opposite.

I actually prefer hard hitting defensive battles to video game style passing shoot outs.

They brought in Vonta Leaach to really open the gates for him.

Leach was a big part of Arian Foster's success in Houston last season. In terms of a pure run blocking FB he's an upgrade on LeRon McClain imo.

I've got Ray Rice in my fantasy team. Not exactly expecting him to pull up trees today, but I'm not dropping my first round pick. It's the principle.

Despite a tough matchup this week against the Steelers, Rice is going to have a big year for you now that goal line vulture Willis McGahee is a Bronco - particularly if you're playing with PPR scoring. But you already know that.

Which is still less stupid than the 'holograms' or 'space ray' stuff.

Not every person who rejects the official 9/11 story adheres to the holograms and free energy technology theories.

I hope they don't exspect that kind of games from here on out. cause that was a crazy-good game.

Just what the NFL needed to expel the lock out hangover. Pittsburgh at Baltimore might show new fans of the game a different brand of NFL football later today.

They accept 'facts' from others of their ilk without checking the validity of those facts.

I think that people on both sides of the 9/11 fence are guilty of that. Look at how many people openly admit that they accept the official story of events without considering any form of independent research.

I'm not a "truther" and I don't entertain ideas about lizard men. I do believe though that some powerful politicians/industrialists/bankers/corporations etc don't have the best interests of the people at heart and for that reason we ought to look carefully at political events that have a major impact.

Look into most events and you'll find something you could call suspicious, the way I see it is it doesnt mean that theres anything dodgy happening.

Absolutely. But equally that doesn't mean that certain events - particularly ones of global importance - shouldn't be scrutinised beyond what the media or government tells us.