WTC 7 Serious Proof of Controlled Demoltions

NORAD and U.S. Northern Command "have released a copy of their audio files, telephone conversations and situation room discussions, from the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001." Apparantly .

All linked within a pdf from here :

www.governmentattic.org...

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
As before, are there inconsistencies, things not witnessed or seen before, things outside of everyday norms? Absolutely! In any horrible event like 9-11 there are going to be voids, inconsistencies, things that “don’t add up”, mistakes, incorrect analysis, etc. There is no doubt of this.

And the only reason there are voids, inconsistencies, things that don't add up, etc. is because most of the evidence was either shipped off or placed under security.

Yes, of course. Another straw man. Until this question is answered, all the amassed evidence is bunk. This is yet another attempt to dismiss the massive amount of data that does not support 9-11 being an inside job. You can continue to make your stand on the 1% we don't know. I choose to look at the 99% we do know.

A lot of these theories would be put to rest if the information was actually available to more than just the select few who get to tell the rest of the world what happened.

IMO, absolutely incorrect. The so-called truth movement is one based on faith, not science. 9-11 has become a religon and anything that does not support some fringe, unhinged theory is dismissed. As you are doing right here, in this thread. Consider the post above. In that thread the dismissals pop up before anyone in the thread listened to a single word.

The problem for me, and remains, is the ay the so-called truth movement completely dismisses the massive, overwhelming and nearly complete evidence that does exist and instead focuses on inconsistencies and then portrays those inconsistencies as the average or the norm. It’s patently dishonest to do so. To engage in that, in my opinion, is to engage in propaganda.

And where would you have the "truth movement" look? The rock-solid evidence? Or to the inconsistencies that DO exist?

Exactly where you suggest. With the inconsistancies that take into account the entirety of the evidence. Again, all of the evidence.

You mention the existing evidence is rock-solid. BINGO! And what does that evidence indicate?

Some examples of the “serious” research that you (might) consider ‘evidence’

Most of your list IMO are straw men perpetuated by people to muddy the waters and make people think that the real questions are just as asinine. But, I'll touch on one.

Cop-out. Nice try but, these claims aren't made by people to "muddy" the water. These are claims by people who demand to be taken seriously. This is an accurate representation of the so-called truth movement.

You might want to act like those claims haven't (and continue to this very day) been made but, sorry you guys are gonna have to own it. The list is absurd and you, rightly so, are trying to distance yourself from it.

What's sad is that list isn't a figment of my immagination. Those are real claims, made by real people who really want to be taken seriously.

Claims of free-fall speed collapses that still circulate even though if the claimants had done a simple wrist-watch timing of You Tube videos this would prove to be false

You might want to look into who is actually claiming free-fall speeds.

Oh, I have. Your own link says nearly and essentially and that they reached those speeds towards the end of the collapse.

The devil is in the details. The so-called truth movement likes to make this claim as proof-positive of demolitions being used. As in the "thermite" charges cut the structural beams at the base of the structure.

Of course, you know this but that's not the point. The point is to continue to play semantic games while ignoring the main point:

the buildings did not fall at free-fall speed. Close to it, but not at it and that's important to everyone but the people typically making the claims.

Stop trying to pass off conjecture and speculation as fact. Be willing to admit your theory is just that, a theory. Admit the weaknesses in your arguments.

Again. "Pot, you do know you are also black, correct?"

P.S. I don’t know that the building came apart at the seams. I don't know of any information that makes that assertion.

The debris pile would be a good place to start. If it didn't fall apart at the seams, then there'd be a bigger debris pile IMO.

Pot you know you are also black, correct? Sorry, you "thinking" it looks that way, based off a picture isn't going to cut it.

No, but there is plenty of data of how steel reacts. It's called "materials science". Maybe a class would help?

I agree, when you pass your final, lets talk.

[edit on 17-4-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
You can continue to make your stand on the 1% we don't know. I choose to look at the 99% we do know.

You missed the point completely. The reason we don't know this 1%, as you say, is because "they" got rid of it.

Consider the post above. In that thread the dismissals pop up before anyone in the thread listened to a single word.

I think you have me confused with someone else? I have listened to those tapes. If they are the ones I'm thinking of, they are on my flash drive.

Exactly where you suggest. With the inconsistancies that take into account the entirety of the evidence. Again, all of the evidence.

How do you sugest we look at "all" of the evidence when it is a "national security matter" and most FOIA requests have been denied?

You mention the existing evidence is rock-solid. BINGO! And what does that evidence indicate?

It's too inconclusive to tell just yet. As there are many different accounts and versions of events. Even from our leaders.

I agree, when you pass your final, lets talk.

Oh, I love the sarcasm.

Can I ask what type of degree you hold? Thanks.

The last part of your post was'nt even worth mentioning so I won't. Yeah, I know. "Cop out".

reply to post by Gun Totin Gerbil


Very interesting indeed.

So who's volunteering? Come on. It's only over 100 hours" of audio.

I'm still listening to the first unzipped file. There is 100 of hours of it all hehe. Thats why I posted it, get you all to listen instead and summarize for me )

Any telling info would have been snipped long ago is the only trouble.

Griff .. make a new thread ? , maybe I didn't put it in the right one ?. You can do it





[edit on 17-4-2008 by Gun Totin Gerbil]

Great find with the audio, thanks for posting. Personally I would like to get my hands on more of the unedited recordings from the firefighters and other first responders at wtc site and pentagon. Thing is any media that's considered too hot is simply restricted from public domain and unless someone leaks it we're going to be kept in the dark for reasons such as of national security.


[edit on 17-4-2008 by Insolubrious]

[edit on 17-4-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Dble post


[edit on 18-4-2008 by IvanZana]

Originally posted by Gun Totin Gerbil
I'm still listening to the first unzipped file. There is 100 of hours of it all hehe. Thats why I posted it, get you all to listen instead and summarize for me )

Any telling info would have been snipped long ago is the only trouble.

Griff .. make a new thread ? , maybe I didn't put it in the right one ?. You can do it

[edit on 17-4-2008 by Gun Totin Gerbil]

Yes this is worthy of a new thread, surprised it's not up yet. This audio is relatively new data, it was posted on the 15th.

By the way, i could be wrong but it seems there are a few audios missing.

Originally posted by IvanZana

Obvious Controlled Demoltions and a professional one at that.

Look how close wtc7's rubble pile is to the other building, mostly, look how 50 stories turns to 2.

Do those massive core beams look explosively severed?

[edit on 18-4-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 18-4-2008 by IvanZana]

As far as who is accpeting what percentage of evidence, one might do well to keep in mind that even a good old murder case can be made or broken on one single obscure piece of evidence.

reply to post by jackinthebox


One opposing obvious logic might do well to remember that only happens in the movies. In reality, we look at the preponderance of evidence.

Sorry, eliquent straw man, but a straw man nevertheless.

There is a reason truthers don’t want to admit the huge, smelly, gigantic elephant in the room: it makes these kinds of claims even more ludicrous than they are at face value.

Bottom line: no, you still can't dismiss the entirety of the evidence, no matter how much you want to, and be taken seriously.

reply to post by IvanZana

Do those massive core beams look explosively severed?

Actually, not at all.

Care to link any pictures of structural beams from buildings that no only look like the were brought down by CD (to an utter lawmen) but, actually were?

In the absence of any comparative pictures, please explain what we are looking for. In the 'explosively severed' beams. In your picture. In your post.

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar

One opposing obvious logic might do well to remember that only happens in the movies. In reality, we look at the preponderance of evidence.

One of obvious logic would insist that anomalies be explained before passing judgement. It is true indeed that jury is expected to reach a finding based on the preponderance of evidence, but here we see that there is more than signifigant reasonable doubt to the case as presented by officials.

As far as what "only happens in the movies," we all know that truth can be stranger than fiction, and that popular television often use real cases for their plot lines.

Perhaps the truth about 9/11 will turn out to be what the government has said all along, but I for one am not willing to accept their version of events at face value. You have to go through the motions and do a thorough investigation, even if in the end you are left confirming what was initially suspected.

Take this case for example. Murder or suicide?

At the 1994 annual awards dinner given for Forensic Science, AAFS, President Dr. Don Harper Mills astounded his audience with the legal complications of a bizarre death. Here is the story:

On March 23,1994 the medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a shotgun wound to the head. Mr. Opus had jumped from the top of a ten story building intending to commit suicide. He left a note to that effect, indicating his despondency. As he fell past the ninth floor his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast passing through a window which killed him instantly.

Neither the shooter nor the descender was aware that a safety net had been installed just below at the eighth floor level to protect some building workers and that Ronald Opus would not have been able to complete his suicide the way he had planned.

"Ordinarily," Dr. Mills continued, "a person who sets out to commit suicide and ultimately succeeds, even though the mechanism might not be what he intended, is still defined as committing suicide."

That Mr. Opus was shot on the way to certain death, but probably would not have been successful because of the safety net, caused the medical examiner to feel that he had a homicide on his hands. The room on the ninth floor, whence the shotgun blast emanated, was occupied by an elderly man and his wife. They were arguing vigorously and he was threatening her with a shotgun. The man was so upset that when he pulled the trigger he completely missed his wife and the pellets went through the window, striking Mr. Opus.

When one intends to kill subject A but kills subject B in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject B. When confronted with the murder charge the old man and his wife were both adamant. They both said they thought the shotgun was unloaded. Thed old man said it was his long-standing habit to threaten his wife with the unloaded shotgun. He had no intention to murder her. Therefore the killing of Mr. Opus appeared to be an accident; that is, the gun had been accidentally loaded.

The continuing investigation turned up a witness who saw the old couple's son loading the shotgun about six weeks prior to the fatal accident. It transpired that the old lady had cut off her son's financial support and the son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that his father would shoot his mother. The case now becomes one of murder on the part of the son for the death of Ronald Opus.

Now comes the exquisite twist. Further investigation revealed that the son was, in fact, Ronald Opus. He had become increasingly despondent over the failure of his attempt to engineer his mother's murder. This led him to jump off the ten story building on March 23rd, only to be killed by a shotgun blast passing through the ninth story window. The son had actually murdered himself so the medical examiner closed the case as a suicide.

Bottom line: no, you still can't dismiss the entirety of the evidence, no matter how much you want to, and be taken seriously.

Nor can you dismiss evidence simply because it does not fit with the version of events being presented. If it doesn't fit, there must be another explanation. These aren't obscure anomalies here either. This is basic stuff. Like not even properly identifying the murder weapon. Or showing the video of the crime, when several videos do indeed exist. Etc.

Never before in the history of the world has man been able to see anything like 9/11. The whole thing was live, to the entire world. The reason that your movement is discredited most, is because your trying to find tiny inconsistencies to make everything look like a secret plot for oil. Your going up a giant amount of skeptic people because a majority saw it live.

9/11 has become a religion of sorts. Somehow the saints of 9/11 are people that think its a giant coverup. The disbelievers, or blasphemers, somehow deserve constant berating, fantasy, and double-speak until they submit. I really think the whole 9/11 sub-forum has become a joke of the internet. The truly amazing part is that people still try to argue their points(myself included) thinking that the other party will somehow become enlightened. Its not going to happen.

And to accuse members of being liars and scum because they dont agree with your idea is rude and disrespectful, and that goes for both sides. Debate is suppose to be about presentation of facts, or reason and logic in the absence of facts, not back and forth bickering. Debate here is just a game of tripping each other up with words and repeating junk that isnt helpful or useful to anyone.

reply to post by DisInfo


Personally, I would still think it was an "inside job" even if the evidence of the official story was a slam dunk.

Which then leads one to ask, If 9/11 was a domestically complicit conspiracy, how did “they” mess it up so bad?

I think the truth is far more insidious than even most "truthers" are aware of.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by DisInfo

 

Personally, I would still think it was an "inside job" even if the evidence of the official story was a slam dunk.

George Bush is an evil bastard, isnt he?

reply to post by DisInfo

George Bush is an evil bastard, isnt he?

One of many I fear. If "they" couldn't get him to do it, Kerry probably would have.

Obvious Controlled Demoltions and a professional one at that.

Look how close wtc7's rubble pile is to the other building, mostly, look how 50 stories turns to 2.



Do those massive core beams look explosively severed?



[edit on 18-4-2008 by IvanZana]

Originally posted by IvanZana

Obvious Controlled Demoltions and a professional one at that.

Look how close wtc7's rubble pile is to the other building, mostly, look how 50 stories turns to 2.

Do those massive core beams look explosively severed?



No one wants to asnwer...lol.... figures........




[edit on 18-4-2008 by IvanZana]