Questions for 9/11 Debunkers Re: Twin Towers' Destruction.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


The excessive temperatures, the actual phenomenon of destruction, and the fire hand accounts and eye witness testimony, are hardly subjective.

They are events, phenomenon, and they must be addressed in a manner wholly consistent with an argument, either for, or against a "natural progressive collapse", or, shifting to the other side, for or against the evidence for explosives in the buidlings being the cause of their destruction.

There is a reality here, since both cannot be right, and if one side is to win the argument, then they MUST show how the other side is wrong, and how their evidence is faulty.

I contend that the argument the so-called sceptics and "debunkers" are making or trying to make, is based on nothing more than an assumption, a pre-determined conclusion drawn BEFORE the examination of any and all evidence, and is not based on observation, evidence or reality, or science.

reply to post by OmegaPoint


Eye witness testimony is highly subjective. It's a proven fact that eye witness testimony is inherently faulty. As for the rest, there are counter-arguments as well. Because your not listening does not mean there is not.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Sure, but the entire record, and ALL the witnesses? And I am presenting this within a multi-faceted contextual frame of reference along with, the physical proof that explosives must have been present.

And can a group of people in the basement who feel an explosion beneath their feet be misinterpreting, or people and video which shows the lobby blown out? Can a fireman getting blown OFF HIS FEET be misinterpreting? Can seismic evidence, or ground shaking before the collapse of the south tower?

I do wish that questions one and two were addressed first, but in the absence of any valid or susbtantive response to those questions, might as well move on to this one, which is really supplementary and anecdotal to the others as supportive, within the overall context of all information and observable phenomenon.

Occam's razor must take all information and phenomenon into consideration, and in examining evidence for explosives, one would be remiss not to raise the issue of the very LARGE volume of first hand accounts which report explosions.

I'll return later with those reports or a sampling, and I hope others will contribute more, and then I would like to see them ALL in total, be refuted on the premise that they, the whole record of them, were all nothing but highly subjective misinterpretations of other phenomenon, like things exploding in the fires at the levels of impact - like fire extinguishers and what have you. Let's see if that COULD be entirely consistent with the record and the many many first hand accounts, of explosions, huge, massive explosions.

And then there's the late Barry Jennings testimony about his experiences in WTC7, those need to be included also.

Let's argue this, based on all information available then.

You say it's all subjective, and that the entire record of accounts can be explained by something other than explosives.

Could you please present an argument for that, which supports that contention, based on something more than an assumption?

I am prepared to go there, and I do believe that the evidence and the record supports the claim I am making and rather emphatically refutes yours - that the whole record can be dismissed as purely subjective interpretations.

In fact I am rather dismayed by the lengths to which some will go to try to uphold and support and obvious falsehood, lie, myth, whatever you want to call it, ignoring everything and anything which does not fit the conclusion that they've arrived at - that the OS must be true, because the altnernative cannot be, and is "unthinkable" and "unimaginable".

In my opinion, from all the evidence that I've seen and evaluated as objectively as possible, it would appear that the so-called sceptics are like a wife who's in denial that her husband is raping their daughter, when all around is strewn the evidence, it's like that. I'm sorry if that's a crude analogy, but given what we're dealing with and looking at here and discussing and arguing that could be an apt analogy, if the evidence I'm presenting is correct, and you and the whole lot of the "debunkers" are living in a fantasy world, completely divorced from both science, and reality itself, because they've already drawn only one possible conclusion ASSUMING that the alternative viewpoint MUST be in the realm of wild and wacky conspiracy theories that cannot be true not matter what evidence is presented to the contrary.

Sorry if I'm getting a little carried away here, but this is DAMN SERIOUS BUSINESS!!!

This is mass murder we're talking about here! Yes a very very serious accusation to make, when directed toward elements of the Executive Branch of the US Gov't, the Military Industrial Complex and Covert Intelligence Apparatus. VERY SERIOUS!

So if you're going to say something like "oh, those are and must be just subjective interpretations of things like fire extinguishers going off in the fires where the planes imapcted, and, therefore, you are wrong" then you'd better be prepared to back that claim up with something more than a blanket statement based in an assumption.

Time to roll out the first hand accounts and eyewitness testimony.

And and all research in this regard is welcome.. thanks.

Help me out here 9/11 researchers...please?! There's a lot of work to do here, now that we're to the first hand accounts and eyewitness testimony part of the debate - thank you in advance for your help. OP

[edit on 1-10-2009 by OmegaPoint]

reply to post by OmegaPoint


Don't forget to account for when statement was taken. It's also a noted fact that there is a subconscious "syncing" of memories in which memories will be changed to better line up with other stories. And the possibility for this increases over time.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Fair enough. Looks like we've got a bit of research to do.. funny how we do all the work while you just sit back and try to shoot it down with little more than the assumption that it simply can't be true.

I hope you understand the size and magnitude of the record you are contending with here, and how these debates tend to bring all the evidence out and to the forefront for the readers' consideration. In fact, without the detractors, the presentation wouldn't work, so thank you for the opportunity by offering your rebuttal. Seriously, it's important that it be viewed with a sceptical eye, but preferably, a relatively objective one, which is capable of taking all the information adn phenomenon into consideration before arriving at a final conclusion..

reply to post by OmegaPoint


Stop trying to "load the dice" if you please. And just in case you wonder I am refering to this drivel:

while you just sit back and try to shoot it down with little more than the assumption that it simply can't be true.

Just because I may disagree, who knows I might not though you obviously have already decided what my actions will be before I ever have, it does not mean that I am simply dismissing it as you put it because "it just can't be". I have done you no disservice except to disagree if you're the type to take it as such, so kindly extend me the same courtesy. You do not know me. You do not know my thoughts. Stop pretending you do please.

But I do naturally wonder if you will be able to find date of origin for the statements.

[edit on 1-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

And to understand, here is an example why I say eye witness testimony is inherently faulty:

Stress and Memory

Chronic over-secretion of stress hormones adversely affects brain function, especially memory. Too much cortisol can prevent the brain from laying down a new memory, or from accessing already existing memories.

The renowned brain researcher, Robert M. Sapolsky, has shown that sustained stress can damage the hippocampus , the part of the limbic brain which is central to learning and memory. The culprits are "glucocorticoids," a class of steroid hormones secreted from the adrenal glands during stress. They are more commonly know as corticosteroids or cortisol .

During a perceived threat, the adrenal glands immediately release adrenalin. If the threat is severe or still persists after a couple of minutes, the adrenals then release cortisol. Once in the brain cortisol remains much longer than adrenalin, where it continues to affect brain cells.

Cortisol Affects Memory Formation and Retrieval

Have you ever forgotten something during a stressful situation that you should have remembered? Cortisol also interferes with the function of neurotransmitters, the chemicals that brain cells use to communicate with each other.
Excessive cortisol can make it difficult to think or retrieve long-term memories. That's why people get befuddled and confused in a severe crisis. Their mind goes blank because "the lines are down." They can't remember where the fire exit is, for example.

SOURCE:www.fi.edu...

BRAIN connections that encourage the formation of false memories have been identified. Such memories appear to be more likely in people with high-quality links between neurons in a particular brain area.

Individuals often recall the same events differently or report memories of things they should have been too young to recall. To find out if a tendency to manufacture false memories is reflected in brain structure, Lluis Fuentemilla at the University of Barcelona in Spain and colleagues induced them in 48 students in the lab.

SOURCE:www.newscientist.com...
Unfortunately you'll need a subscription to see it all.

Stress makes people much more likely to create false memories, say American researchers. It also appears to make them more certain that these false memories are correct.

The results could help explain why crime witnesses give conflicting evidence or pick the wrong man in a line up, the researchers say. But they do not account for "reconstructed memories" of childhood abuse.

Psychology student Jessica Payne of the University of Arizona, Tucson and colleagues read to 66 college students a list of 20 words. All related to sleep, such as "bed", "rest", "tired" and so on.

When asked a few minutes later if they heard the word "hat", they nearly always say no. But when asked if "sleep" was on the list, 60 per cent say yes, even though it wasn't.

Such false memories have been demonstrated before. "We wanted to know if stress would increase the rate of false memories," says Payne.

So the researchers then repeated the experiment. But before taking the test, half the students had to give an impromptu presentation under glaring light with a video camera rolling. "It was very stressful," says Payne.

The stressed group thought "sleep" was on the list nearly 80 per cent of the time. They did not pick unrelated words like "chair" as being on the list any more often then the relaxed controls.

Even more surprising was how fast the stressed students clicked the "yes" button, says Payne. Unstressed subjects usually took a tenth of a second longer before saying yes to "sleep". "It's as if they weren't quite sure," she says.

But stressed students clicked yes equally fast for all their answers, as if they were just as sure of the false memory as of the real ones.

Stress hormone
The hippocampus, a brain structure needed to form new memories, is riddled with receptors for the stress hormone cortisol. Payne believes cortisol may cause the effect by suppressing the hippocampus.

The thematic nature of the false memories suggests people might tend to let stored associations influence their recall of a stressful event. It might be possible for memories of a crime scene to be influenced by beliefs about the sorts of people who commit crimes, Payne says. But a more direct experiment is necessary to be sure.

However, the results do not deal with recovered memory syndrome, in which adults become convinced they were abused as children, Payne says. This type of false memory only involves adding related details to real events.

SOURCE:www.newscientist.com...
Again. Subscription unfortunately.







[edit on 1-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Well, it's noteworthy that so far you've completely ignored the physical evidence presented, some of which you can actually see with your own eyes, and that now you are preparing to try to refute all of the first hand accounts on the basis that they were either subjective misinterpretations, or false memories due to stress.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


There have been proven cases of bad memories, but police and lawyers still use witness testimony on a daily basis, everywhere from on the street to court rooms. If it were all automatically thrown out, most or all cases would not be able to proceed, including cases involving "terrorists." It wasn't just one or two people that reported a series of explosions, or powerful explosions at odd times or in odd places, but a lot of people. And I have heard every excuse from electrical generators blowing up to bodies falling, but none of that explains even one case of a series of consecutive explosions, or noises that sound like gunshots, etc., as it was variously described. The easiest and quickest way to reach an agreement here is to realize we just don't know what was causing all of those explosions, and then the next step is trying to decide how an independent but thorough investigation could be launched into this and similar unanswered issues.

reply to post by OmegaPoint


And we have been through that one as well, the observational evidence I mean. This is another case of just because you didn't like my answer doesn't mean I didn't offer one. Also you are reducing my argument. Remember were I mentioned there is also a observed phenom of subconscious for lack of a better term "syncing of stories"? So shall I take it you couldn't find the information requested?

[edit on 1-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Watcher, would this not work both ways? The official story is pounded into people's heads and has been for years. Would it not, then, be a question of which "group" you are synching with?

reply to post by A Fortiori


It does cut both ways, you are correct. But, like I said, eye witness testimony is unreliable.

Perhaps we'll just start with William Rodrigues' testimony, who was a Janitor or Janitorial Manager in charge of starways I believe, who, because he had certain keys was able to allow firefighters to gain access and save many people who would not have been able to get out otherwise. He kept helping and helping, and going back, and doing whatever he could, barly making it out in time, to dive under a vehicle when the building material came down.

His testimony is to sub-basement explosions, the first of which occured prior to the impact up above.






The other parts are available at Youtube

I'll come back later at some point and post a TON of first hand accounts and eyewitness testimony of massive explosions.

But the physical reality of destruction and the eveidence of high temperatures alone prove in no uncertain terms that explosives were must have been present and were the actual cause of the destruction.

When all is said and done, for those with access to all this information, who persist in defending the OS, and ridiculing all this evidence I think ought to do some real soul searching regarding what they are guarding and how they could possibly maintain their position in the face of all the evidence.

reply to post by OmegaPoint


And you try to completely side step my points again..... Typical.

[edit on 1-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by OmegaPoint


Let me see if I get this straight. You and he expects me to believe that he survived tons of falling steel by hiding under a car? Are you serious? Really? And even beyond that, you accept someone who's changed his story at least a few times word as fact?

[edit on 1-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


It was a fire truck, that he got under. And I think there's a reason he got out alive.

As a recognized hero of 9/11, what's interesting is how the Republicans were initially courting him to run for public office.. and of course the Zelikow Commission excluded his testimony and any testimony which did not jive with the official story and the myth they were forming.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Maybe we'll just do this one by one, and you can call out each of them, as either deluded, confused, lying, or suffering from false memory, each and every one, but there are just so many of them - I guess it'll be a longgg thread..

Uh, what kind of person are you "Watcher in the Shadows"? WHO are you?

reply to post by OmegaPoint


Doesn't matter. The weight and the fact it was falling is still going to slam that puppy to the ground despite shocks. And would in all probability blow the shocks out, thus no rebounding. Which would have made him a pancake.

reply to post by OmegaPoint


There you go assuming again........... And remember that quote I quoted to you last time? It applies here once again.