Charlie Veitch - The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind

reply to post by winofiend

Interesting. The OP's post seems to be the only one on topic.

That's not true.

Glad to see 911 still being talked about here.

Building 7 is the key to this lie told.

It does not take a civil engineer to understand that a burning steel building will not fall in PERFECT symetry at FREEFALL speed due to fire, which according to video of it burning does not appear to be nearly as extensive as I've seen in other steel skyscrapers on fire over the years. And for the sake of simple argument, lets say one of those 3 buildings did have the perfect destruction to fall in perfect freefall, you think all 3 buildings would all follow the same type of perfect fall, even though each had different destruction?

Sorry, but we've all seen video of a building being purposely demolished, and that is what building 7 looked like, as well as 1 and 2 of course.

No need to tell us simple folk that NIST is the proof, we won't believe it. The eyes have it.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
Why Dont we Put this into some Perspective.

This Charlie fellow has changed his Views on 911, he now believes the Official Story. This ONE Guy.

Now. How many People Daily, are questioning the OS, and want the Truth to Come Out? Bet more than ONE.

It is as simple as that. People questioning, not that everyone likes people questioning, or to continue to question, for a number of reasons. One is, for instance the definitive NIST report on WTC7, which had to be revised to accommodate factors they did not even contemplate, and while their report on the twin towers was not seen as being definitive, but as the 'most likely scenario' while they ignored in that case what people on the ground had already reported, that of the molten metal on the ground, never mind what was seen before the collapse of WTC2.
That the 9/11 commission had members who have said that they were not told all they needed to understand better, or possibly just lied too. So you know nowt' about the science of building behaviour under stress, but you do know that the boffins did not get it quite right as being 'definitive', and that the 9/11 commission were told porkies or were being obfuscated in their enquiries. That alone makes any ignoramus entitled to ask questions, they do not need to be forced to come to the table with their own 'definitive' explanations. That is why you see different people on forums coming back time and time again with the same simple enquiries on the subject, and the same kind of vitriol is often directed at them too.

I will add what Charlie Veitch had to say in answer to a query on WTC7,

A radio interview with Charlie saying that building 7 collapsed because of falling debris from the twin towers, which had, "scooped out 25% from the bottom three floors of the building". Charlie was challenged as to why this had not caused the building to topple rather than collapse into its own footprint at free-fall speed. His answer was that, "he is not an architect or engineer".

Reading the article, this guy was talked into believing the OS by the documentary news crew that brought every expert on the OS to him and worked him hard. At least that's how it reads to me. No mention of any experts from the truth movement being brought to him to convince him of his truther convictions.

I bet I could be convinced otherwise if I was bombarded with OS'r with credentials. For a while at least, maybe a few days. I've learned to question all of it and weigh what I think is the most important info and trust my instincts.

I am not afraid to change my mind on 911, I just don't see any new information being presented to do that.

reply to post by bigyin


What part did you disagree with?

Originally posted by SirMike
I accept the NIST report because as an engineer I understand the NIST report.

Then you should be able to explain how sagging trusses can pull in columns?

Can you also explain how the 1" and 5/8" bolts didn't fail first?

As an engineer what has more resistance to force, stainless steel bolts or massive box columns?

How could the collapses have been complete when for every floor impact Ke would have been lost to, breaking the connections, breaking welds, bending massive box columns like pretzels with no sign of cracking (they were extremely hot when they were deformed). You should know, as an engineer, that one hour of an open room fire could not heat steel to the temperatures required to bend without cracking.

Or are you an engineer like PLB?

Originally posted by Sankari
WTC7 was hit by multiple pieces of burning debris from the other buildings, caught fire, and eventually collapsed after burning for many hours.

The thing is buildings do not mimic implosion demolition from fire and asymetrical damage.

WTC was a classic implosion demolition, the main evidence being the outer facade sitting on top of the rest of the collapsed building. That only happens with control implosions, because the outer facade would otherwise be underneath the rest of the collapsed building, as it would push the walls down and out, not wait and then fold inwards after the center has collapsed.

To get the outer walls/facade to fold inwards takes implosion demolition, there is no other way to do that. You can see the center drop, the penthouse kink, just watch the collapse. The facade of a steel framed building like WTC 7 is not load bearing, it just sits against steel columns. It can be removed and changed, just like they did recently to a building where I live.

reply to post by SirMike



How do we know this hate spewed at him was legit and not part of a movement to discredit "truthers" that has been going on all along?

You can't take anything for granted anymore...

Originally posted by bigyin

Originally posted by SirMike

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
Yes, I am no expert, but that's the first building I've ever seen collapse due to fire. Maybe you can explain to a layman the reasons why it collapsed.

Unlike most every other skyscraper which has a frame, the structure of the building was (basically) two concentric tubes. This gave it large open floors with no internal columns in the way. The floors trusses were supported by the walls and center elevator core and the outer and inner core supported each other via the floor trusses.

Take a straw, put some compressive force on it, and it buckles. Support it laterally where it wants to buckle and it can support a much greater load.

With the WTC, the impact of the planes damaged the outer support column and ignited a fire. When an engineered truss is subjected to heat in a nonuniform manner (like an office fire) it will distort, breaking welds and connection points to the outer and inner core. Additionally, when steel meets 1000 degrees F, it loses about 50% of its tensile strength.

So with the WTC we have the following:
Impact, destroying a small but not insignificant portion of the structural columns.
Impact, destroying a larger portion of the engineered trusses designed to laterally support the center core and the outer core columns.
Fire, causing thermal distortion in the engineered trusses and breaking them free from their attachments to the columns.
Fire, causing thermal fatigue in all the columns and trusses.

Once this go to a certain point, we go back to the straw .. too many lateral supports became compromised and the column collapsed.

dear dear dear dear dear dear ....

so what engineering course did you study exactly ?

ArmChair University.

With a pinch of "Position of Authority" logical fallacies.

That guy is an engineer and so am I.

I said so, therefore, it's true. Matter of fact I'm the smartest engineer in the world.

I said that so it has to be true (no one would ever lie on the Internet).

EDIT: Hey OP, why don't you take the time to combat points being made rather than just blabbering on about how "I am an engineer and I know this and I know that."

Seriously these pathetic position of authority and strawman logical fallacies are getting out of hand.

Originally posted by RomeByFire
ArmChair University.

With a pinch of "Position of Authority" logical fallacies.

That guy is an engineer and so am I.

I said so, therefore, it's true. Matter of fact I'm the smartest engineer in the world.

I said that so it has to be true (no one would ever lie on the Internet).

You know that when you lie to try and promote a point, that it doesn't add to your credibility right? It's clear nobody can trust what you post because you're willing to post falsehoods in order to try and ruin someone elses credibility.

If this were done the other way around you'd call it criminal.

Originally posted by ANOK
The thing is buildings do not mimic implosion demolition from fire and asymetrical damage.

Watch this video.

Then this one.

Just because WTC 7 didn't fall the way some persons thought it should fall has no real bearing on the evidence, nor the plot, to attack America. If you will simply look to your left you can see Building 7, 14 minuets after the fall of the North Tower, as the diesel tanks-holding 160 gallons- (that supplied emergency generators) below the concourse ruptured and caught fire. This fire is burning out side the 14th floor of the building at a height of more than 50 feet. I just can't find a problem that this structure collapsed 5 1/2 hours later. If you can see, and argue a problem with this, go for it, however in the entire scheme of things it's irreverent. It changes nothing that the structure didn't fall the way you thought, or think, it should fall.

reply to post by Sankari


Do you really believe that the passports of the hijackers would survive the fireball that was hot enough to bring down the buildings and just so happen to be found hours later in the rubble to be broadcast to the world?

Please, I want an honest answer on this.

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by Sankari

 

Do you really believe that the passports of the hijackers would survive the fireball that was hot enough to bring down the buildings and just so happen to be found hours later in the rubble to be broadcast to the world?

Please, I want an honest answer on this.

Let's be absolutely clear about what was found, and where.

Beginning with passports. Four of the hijackers passports have survived in whole or in part.

Two were recovered from the crash site of United Airlines flight 93 in Pennsylvania. These are the passports of Ziad Jarrah and Saeed al Ghamdi.

One belonged to a hijacker on American Airlines flight 11. This is the passport of Satam al Suqami. A passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed.

A fourth passport was recovered from luggage that did not make it from a Portland flight to Boston on to the connecting flight which was American Airlines flight 11. This is the passport of Abdul Aziz al Omari.

(Source).

So, what do we have?

* Two passports from the crash site in Pennsylvania.
* One passport from the WTC crash site.
* One passport that didn't make it onto the plane and therefore escaped the crash.

So that leaves only one passport from the WTC crash site. Do I believe it was possible for one passport to survive the WTC crash? Yes I do, and yes it did.

Here's a list of other items recovered from the WTC crash site:

* A paper itinerary
* A passenger's wallet
* A plastic bank card
* A United Airlines Mileage Plus card
* A paper envelope with a paper letter inside and a fully intact stamp

(Source).

That's just some of the many personal effects discovered at Ground Zero. Do you really believe these items would survive the fireball that was hot enough to weaken the buildings and just so happen to be found hours later in the rubble to be broadcast to the world?

Well, it doesn't matter if you believe it or not. The fact remains: they were found.

reply to post by Sankari


Just wanted to make sure you believe that the flight which incinerated instantly on impact left the passport of one of the hijackers intact. Let us not forget the heat involved in the fireball incinerated the passengers and melted steel and the likelihood of anything in the vicinity not combusting is extremely low.

Personally I find that part extremely implausible but you can believe what you want.

But at the very least it means you can accept the odds of something unimaginably unlikely happening which is a fairly redeemable trait so you will get no flack from me other than I disagree based on information associated with individuals in contact with the hijackers long before that fateful day.

Here is a mainstream radio broadcast that will only take a few hours of your time but provides valuable insights outside of the official stream which are contrary to official reports. It is not like the government has ever lied or deceived the public in the past right?


Starts about 45 minutes into program.

Originally posted by TheKeyMaster
reply to post by SirMike

 

How do we know this hate spewed at him was legit and not part of a movement to discredit "truthers" that has been going on all along?

You haven't been on Youtube much, have you?

reply to post by SirMike

the whole premise of this thread is a logical fallacy. my opinions changed from believing that the official story was true to realizing that it wasn't.

this is a variant of the "argument from the majority" fallacy. the amount of people who believe something have no bearing on the truth of the matter, the previous beliefs of people relative to their current beliefs do not change what is true.

i would agree that the harassment he received is inexcusable, but what of people like myself who didn't harass him and hold nothing against him for his opinions? a few loud mouths hardly speak for everyone.

x is a "conspiracy theorist", x does action y, therefore all conspiracy theorists do action y. false. another flaw in the logic presented.

Originally posted by Sankari

Originally posted by ANOK
The thing is buildings do not mimic implosion demolition from fire and asymetrical damage.

Watch this video.

Then this one.

edit on 30/5/13 by Sankari because: added url...

That first video held absolutely no proof. 1. There was no clear pics of the supposed damage to the building, if there had been they would have focused the video on that piece of evidence alone, and they did not. One pic of a truss through a building is not extensive enough, in my opinion. Also pics of puffs of debris from building 2 flying does not correlate to directly being a large enough debris to take down a steel building. 2. the narrator, narrating for a child apparently, talks in assumptions instead of facts. He says "all the firemen on scene saw the builing leaning and bulging" Are we supposed to just take his word for that? No firemen spoke on the video. 3. If the building was bulging and LEANING, why did it implode and not tip over?


I didn't watch the second video yet, but judging by the first, not sure if it's gonna help your cause.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Ok I;ve watched your second video now. Weak. So according to the preschool teacher narrator, the northside penthouse collapsed 9 seconds prior to the entire building falling, and since the whole implosion took 16 seconds not 6.7, this is certainly not a controlled demolition!

If we are to judge this destruction by common sense alone, wouldn't the building have tipped due to one side imploding from the top and not the entire roof?

The perfect fall of that building looks surprisingly like a controlled demo. Can't get away from that, since I've yet to see a video of that from any other buildings in history that suffered assymetrical damage.