The Great 9/11 Challenge.

davoxx

clever_name wrote: »

Maybe they would have liked too but waiting until later might have ment more people on the filights they would have to hijack, more people to subdue = increased risk of failure?

so are you suggesting that the flights used were not fully booked?

to be honest regarding subduing the passengers, i'm more surprised that they were not challenged given what weapons they had (and to me that would suggest that the people were <replaced> scared </replaced> or they had better weapons and we were lied to, also could suggest an inside job, but any discrepancy could).

Hookah

Di0genes wrote: »

For a small portion of the collapse.



It's spread across massive road....These aren't little two lane streets, and it spills into the buildings beside it.

It's not a tight area and it's not neat.

Round and round we go.

We're not we're trying to explain the flaws in your logic.

Unfortunately probabilistic logic isn't part of your repetoire.

clever_name

davoxx wrote: »

so are you suggesting that the flights used were not fully booked?

More than suggesting, I am saying it is a fact that the flights used were not fully booked.

Would later flights have had more or less people? no idea.

davoxx wrote: »

to be honest regarding subduing the passengers, i'm more surprised that they were not challenged given what weapons they had

I read a book a few years ago about armed robbers, one was interviewed and he said the best weapon was an axe or a knife, people would freak out and lose reason when a gun was pointed at them, an axe or a knife seems to be a more primal fear.

davoxx wrote: »

(and to me that would suggest that the people were cowards or they had better weapons and we were lied to, also could suggest an inside job, but any discrepancy could).

Ever had anyone pull a knife on you?, how did you react?

davoxx

clever_name wrote: »

More than suggesting, I am saying it is a fact that the flights used were not fully booked.
Would later flights have had more or less people? no idea.

fair enough.
would the hijackers have known that the flights were not fully booked?

clever_name wrote: »

I read a book a few years ago about armed robbers, one was interviewed and he said the best weapon was an axe or a knife, people would freak out and lose reason when a gun was pointed at them, an axe or a knife seems to be a more primal fear.

i'm not sure what you are saying here - that a knife is scarier?

clever_name wrote: »

Ever had anyone pull a knife on you?, how did you react?

we are not talking about me, and tbf it depends on the situation .. on a plane where there is no where to run, i'd tackle a knife before i'd tackle a gun.

to me something smells off - it is plausible, just not proven, that they were trying to minimise human loss at the towers.

Dave!

davoxx wrote: »

(and to me that would suggest that the people were cowards

Jayzus

Besides the obvious human aspect of everyone (except internet warriors) being afraid if a knife is pulled on them...... The passengers probably didn't know that it was a suicide mission. Passengers on Flight 93 found out what was happening, and attempted to overpower the terrorists.

Your argument about minimizing human life is weak. If the US government were callous enough to knowingly kill 3000 of their own people, then I don't think a few more thousand would have made much of a difference :rolleyes:

Monty Burnz

davoxx wrote: »

we are not talking about me, and tbf it depends on the situation .. on a plane where there is no where to run, i'd tackle a knife before i'd tackle a gun.

One factor to bear in mind is that, pre-9/11, nobody had deliberately crashed a hijacked plane before. So if the hijackers grabbed a couple of women, put the box-cutters to their throats and said 'everybody behave or we kill them', then probably everyone would have sat down and waited for the hijackers to land the plane somewhere and for the authorities to deal with the situation.

Of course - and it has already happened - if a hijacker now attempts to use a knife or whatever to take over the plane, every passenger is thinking of 9/11 and they will tackle the guy come hell or high water.

clever_name

davoxx wrote: »

fair enough.
would the hijackers have known that the flights were not fully booked?

Could have tried to book seats and see how many were left.

davoxx wrote: »

i'm not sure what you are saying here - that a knife is scarier?

Someting like a knife or a hammer is very effective at scaring people.

davoxx wrote: »

we are not talking about me, and tbf it depends on the situation .. on a plane where there is no where to run, i'd tackle a knife before i'd tackle a gun.

Having no where to run actually makes you easier to subdue, in general terms it reduces your choices to fight or submit and most times all it takes is one or two people to submit and the crowd dynamic kicks in and everyone elses follows.

Nothing to do with being cowards, the right thing to do in a hostage situation is to not piss off the hostage takers.

Also have you ever been on a bus or train when someone kicks off? what did you do? My guess is turned up the volume on the MP3 and found something very interesting to look at on the floor.

davoxx

Dave! wrote: »

Jayzus

Besides the obvious human aspect of everyone (except internet warriors) being afraid if a knife is pulled on them...... The passengers probably didn't know that it was a suicide mission. Passengers on Flight 93 found out what was happening, and attempted to overpower the terrorists.

not really. to be fair being afraid and doing nothing vs being afraid and doing something are two different things.

besides seems to me that because they did not know it was a suicide mission is a poor excuse.

but this is besides the point.

re Flight 93 - was not a part of this point regarding flying into the building when full.

thinking back to the point of this thread - if we can clearly prove that this was something other than some crazy people flying into buildings, would we have not done so? i would have thought the point was that not all points can be wrapped up nicely.

separate point: "Suspected insider trading"- how much of that was refuted?

Di0genes

Hookah wrote: »

Round and round we go.


Unfortunately probabilistic logic isn't part of your repetoire.

Fortunately I can spell repertoire.

And unless you can explain how "probabilistic logic" makes your case, you're falling into some kind of smug self-congratulatory defence which basically can be summarised as;

"I'm too smart to explain how right I am".

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

to be honest regarding subduing the passengers, i'm more surprised that they were not challenged given what weapons they had (and to me that would suggest that the people were cowards or they had better weapons and we were lied to, also could suggest an inside job, but any discrepancy could).

Truly charming.

And forgetting of course that pre 9/11 flight crews were told to acquiesce to hijackers, and to ask passengers to do the same.

And of course forgetting that the hijackers on all flights made a point of killing crew and passengers, demonstrating their intent and capability.

And of course forgetting that at least on one flight the terrorist claimed to have in their possession a bomb.

And of course COMPLETELY FORGETTING that the passengers on the last flight to be hijacked, became aware that their fate was not to be hijacked and used as hostages but instead the plane was being used for suicide mission, and these COWARDS fought back, died in the fight, and sacrificed themselves to ensure their plane never reached it's target.

Rarely has a post annoyed me so much.

davoxx

clever_name wrote: »

Nothing to do with being cowards, the right thing to do in a hostage situation is to not piss off the hostage takers.

and that is why the american government always negotiates with terrorists, oh wait they don't ...

but fair enough - hostages was something that i did not add to the equation.

clever_name wrote: »

Also have you ever been on a bus or train when someone kicks off? what did you do? My guess is turned up the volume on the MP3 and found something very interesting to look at on the floor.

thanks for your guess which is wrong, thanks for playing insult the poster.
i have had to restrain someone with a knife when he lunged at at cashier. but to be fair i was behind him and had a friend with me.

but back to point - i still find it hard to believe that they did not pick a later time, if killing people was the plan, unless they knew about the military exercises (but how would they?) but this does not prove anything one way or another.

so i'll close this point: as plausible - there are reasons why that flight was chosen, and there are reason why a later one was not. similarly there are reasons why a later one could have been if they wanted to maximise the death toll.

Penn

Keep it civil folks.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

Truly charming.

And forgetting of course that pre 9/11 flight crews were told to acquiesce to hijackers, and to ask passengers to do the same.

And of course forgetting that the hijackers on all flights made a point of killing crew and passengers, demonstrating their intent and capability.

And of course forgetting that at least on one flight the terrorist claimed to have in their possession a bomb.

And of course COMPLETELY FORGETTING that the passengers on the last flight to be hijacked, became aware that their fate was not to be hijacked and used as hostages but instead the plane was being used for suicide mission, and these COWARDS fought back, died in the fight, and sacrificed themselves to ensure their plane never reached it's target.

Rarely has a post annoyed me so much.

fair enough if they were told to go along with it. all i said was that it seemed strange to me.
for all we know they could have had guns, and the security had failed and let them through with guns.
how many planes were hijacked with knives previously?

also http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/nether_fictoid9.htm would suggest (why i am sceptical) that the weapons were never found, true huge area of debris, but they were meant to go through all evidence very carefully.

by the way, those that fought back are not cowards. i never said they were.

and take a breath and do not get worked up of this.

clever_name

davoxx wrote: »

thanks for your guess which is wrong, thanks for playing insult the poster.

I was not trying to insult you, it was a presumption based on what most people would do. My apologies for any offence caused.

davoxx wrote: »

but back to point - i still find it hard to believe that they did not pick a later time, if killing people was the plan, unless they knew about the military exercises (but how would they?) but this does not prove anything one way or another.

so i'll close this point: as plausible - there are reasons why that flight was chosen, and there are reason why a later one was not. similarly there are reasons why a later one could have been if they wanted to maximise the death toll.

Again to finish off, these are two very big ifs, I d'ont think killing the highest number of people was the goal, I think the goal was to show the world that what they could do and to instill fear.

If they had had the choice of 50,000 dead and no footage of it or 3000 dead and it all shown on live TV which do you think they would have went for?

davoxx

clever_name wrote: »

I was not trying to insult you, it was a presumption based on what most people would do. My apologies for any offence caused.

fair enough apologies accepted

clever_name wrote: »

Again to finish off, these are two very big ifs, I d'ont think killing the highest number of people was the goal, I think the goal was to show the world that what they could do and to instill fear.

If they had had the choice of 50,000 dead and no footage of it or 3000 dead and it all shown on live TV which do you think they would have went for?

true maybe the whole point was fear so, if that was the point, then morning or night would make the best impact for reporting (people would be forced to watch it for the day, or the sight of flames in the night would light up the sky).

but for fear (and only from my perspective) during busy office hours would have the greatest impact, as the way i see it, people would be afraid to go to work. similarly with the london tube bombings, they were during busy times?

clever_name

davoxx wrote: »

also http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/nether_fictoid9.htm would suggest (why i am sceptical) that the weapons were never found, true huge area of debris, but they were meant to go through all evidence very carefully.

Looking for boxcutters in the rubble of the WTC is beyond needle in a haystack, how many knives would have been in the buildings to begin with?

davoxx wrote: »

those that fought back are not cowards. i never said they were.

Neither were people who did not fight back

Hookah

Di0genes wrote: »

Fortunately I can spell repertoire.

Unfortunately, you forgot to put the comma after fortunately, and fell victim to Muphry's Law.

And unless you can explain how "probabilistic logic" makes your case,

It's logic that includes probabilities and possibilities. It doesn't make the case, but it does tend to leave things more open to investigation.

Not the pseudo-scepticism of some.

you're falling into some kind of smug self-congratulatory defence which basically can be summarised as;

"I'm too smart to explain how right I am".

I was trying to point out that perhaps you are seeing 'flaws in my logic', only according to your perspective, the perspective of the official theory being entirely correct.

That if you switched, occasionally, from yes/no logic to probability logic, you might see the need for a proper investigation in to some of the events of that day.

Not much to ask for, in the case of 3000 or so deaths, an investigation, is it?




I'm starting to get the impression that people who accept the NIST findings with regard to building 7, are suffering from some form of insanity.

King Mob

Oh my poor thread....
All those rules for nothing...

clever_name

davoxx wrote: »

true maybe the whole point was fear so, if that was the point, then morning or night would make the best impact for reporting (people would be forced to watch it for the day, or the sight of flames in the night would light up the sky).

but for fear (and only from my perspective) during busy office hours would have the greatest impact, as the way i see it, people would be afraid to go to work. similarly with the london tube bombings, they were during busy times?

Morning or night where? I was in Ireland and I watched it. As for lighting up the sky to give it more impact, they are terrorists not Michael Bay (some people may see no difference between these two;))

I'm sure you have seen the footage of people not just in NYC but areound the world, plenty of fear going on.

davoxx

clever_name wrote: »

Morning or night where? I was in Ireland and I watched it. As for lighting up the sky to give it more impact, they are terrorists not Michael Bay (some people may see no difference between these two;))

I'm sure you have seen the footage of people not just in NYC but areound the world, plenty of fear going on.

Morning or night in new york, but true me and my action film scenes ... maybe there is something wrong with me

i always thought that the reason the twin towers were hit was to make either a huge scene of destruction or kill as many people as possible.

Dave!

davoxx wrote: »

Morning or night in new york, but true me and my action film scenes ... maybe there is something wrong with me

i always thought that the reason the twin towers were hit was to make either a huge scene of destruction or kill as many people as possible.

I'm sure they'd have been happy if they could have killed everyone in America with one attack, but 3000 people is a pretty big number so I'd say they considered it a job well done...

Hookah

Barrington wrote: »

j

When the plane hit the towers, some structural members were knocked out or bent. Even without the fire, these members will have lost strength, possibly even past their safety factor of the additional loading calculated. This means other steel members have to try and carry the loading, possibly being pulled in another direction having lost stability.

With the fire then weakening more steel members, it would have only taken some of them to fail to bring the building down. If structural members are being pulled in another direction, coupled with having to carry additional loading, they will fail.

So with the planes and fire weakening some of the steel members, the other ones were not designed to carry those loads in those directions, so they failed also. The supporting columns didnt simultaneously fail, they couldn't carry those loads in the first place.

Is this what's known as the 'pancake theory'?

clever_name

davoxx wrote: »

i always thought that the reason the twin towers were hit was to make either a huge scene of destruction or kill as many people as possible.

I think you are right, I also think it was done for practical reasons, they were huge building, easier to find visually from a plane and also easier for people on the ground to see from a distance.

I have no evidence and I d'ont know if it was researched but I always thought they would have killed more people if they had crashed the planes along somewhere like fifth avenue, Guess that would have been harder to do too.

Another maybe is that it was the world trade centre, so it could be seen as not just attacking the US but letting the world know what they could do.

Penn

Hookah wrote: »

Is this what's known as the 'pancake theory'?

Not really. Pancake theory, to my knowledge, would be each floor falling onto the next, then those two falling onto the next etc. What I'm describing is more like about 20 floors (forget the actual numbers of floors) collapsing and breaking through the next floor, then through the next floor etc.

The top parts of each tower tilted towards the point of impact, as thats where the steel members had failed. So when you have 20+ floors which suddenly fall unevenly onto the next floor, it's not really a pancake effect, because that to me would indicate that the floor constructions didn't fail, only their supports. Whereas with the 20+ floors collapsing onto them, judging by the speed of collapse and unevenness of the collapse, it doesn't really seem like a pancake effect. Though I haven't done enough research in that area to give any true answer. Just my opinion

Suceed

Di0genes wrote: »

They've changed the substance over time.

The point is thermate isn't a explosive, and isn't used in demolition.

This video proves it can be, and easily debunks some of the debunking about thermate...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

francois

Suceed wrote: »

This video proves it can be, and easily debunks some of the debunking about thermate...

Not really to be honest, he doesn't for a start cite any sources for the "plenty" of scientists who "agree", besides who put all that explosive there during the building in the first place? Some greedy builder would have sold this "explosive" inside news long ago
Full marks to the guy for trying though

davoxx

francois wrote: »

Not really to be honest, he doesn't for a start cite any sources for the "plenty" of scientists who "agree",

you should have read his thesis then ... :rolleyes:

francois wrote: »

besides who put all that explosive there during the building in the first place?

saddam, remember after 911 it was all iraq's fault with there oil wmd ...

francois wrote: »

Some greedy builder would have sold this "explosive" inside news long ago

ha, ha, ha ... great attempt at wit ... read up first about the 'renovation' works that were carried out on the building, which company was in charge of security and were the explosive sniffing dogs on duty on the week prior to 911 ... then come back and make silly comments like this ...

francois wrote: »

Full marks to the guy for trying though

indeed ...

seannash

davoxx wrote: »

you should have read his thesis then ... :rolleyes:


saddam, remember after 911 it was all iraq's fault with there oil wmd ...


ha, ha, ha ... great attempt at wit ... read up first about the 'renovation' works that were carried out on the building, which company was in charge of security and were the explosive sniffing dogs on duty on the week prior to 911 ... then come back and make silly comments like this ...


indeed ...

Can I ask,do you genuinely believe the building were taken down with explosives?
The company I worked for was doing ongoing renovation work in the building at the time it happened and had been for years.They were actually doing alot of work in the lift shafts amongst other areas
Didn't know the illuminati signed my paycheck,Kinda funny how they looked like a small balding irish man.

Jonny7

seannash wrote: »

Can I ask,do you genuinely believe the building were taken down with explosives?
The company I worked for was doing ongoing renovation work in the building at the time it happened and had been for years.They were actually doing alot of work in the lift shafts amongst other areas
Didn't know the illuminati signed my paycheck,Kinda funny how they looked like a small balding irish man.

You do realise this is practically proof that your "company" was in fact planting explosives in two buildings that were definitely going to be hit by two fuel laden airliners

seannash

Jonny7 wrote: »

You do realise this is practically proof that your "company" was in fact planting explosives in two buildings that were definitely going to be hit by two fuel laden airliners

Perhaps your right.
hmmm maybe I should rethink this beard I'm growing,might make me look suspicious

Brown Bomber

seannash wrote: »

Can I ask,do you genuinely believe the building were taken down with explosives?
The company I worked for was doing ongoing renovation work in the building at the time it happened and had been for years.They were actually doing alot of work in the lift shafts amongst other areas
Didn't know the illuminati signed my paycheck,Kinda funny how they looked like a small balding irish man.

With that in mind I'd appeciate your thoughts on this (forged WTC passes, lift broken for at least the month prior to attacks, Israeli companies that don't seem to exist working in the towers from Sept 5th and witnesses being murdered the day before their trials.

From 8:15

seannash

Brown Bomber wrote: »

With that in mind I'd appeciate your thoughts on this (forged WTC passes, lift broken for at least the month prior to attacks, Israeli companies that don't seem to exist working in the towers from Sept 5th and witnesses being murdered the day before their trials.

From 8:15

I actually didn't ask you but if I had any answer for the murders I'm sure I'd notify the NYPD.
In work now so cant look at the video but I'm fairly sure that all the lifts werent down for a month before the event,They could be down for maintainance individually.

Can I just ask before I look at the video does it give evidence for the claims or just make claims that they have found it out.

And seeing as how you asked me,can I get your stance.Do you believe explosives brought them down?
(post comes across a bit aggressive,not meant to be)

Brown Bomber

seannash wrote: »

I actually didn't ask you but if I had any answer for the murders I'm sure I'd notify the NYPD.

???

seannash wrote: »

In work now so cant look at the video but I'm fairly sure that all the lifts werent down for a month before the event,They could be down for maintainance individually.

I didn't say "all the lifts"

seannash wrote: »

Can I just ask before I look at the video does it give evidence for the claims

Yes.

seannash wrote: »

or just make claims that they have found it out.

No.
I take it you will now watch the few minutes of film and give a response?

seannash wrote: »

And seeing as how you asked me,can I get your stance.Do you believe explosives brought them down?

I genuinely don't know. I don't exclude the possibility of explosives.

seannash

???

If I had thoughts or any idea why the murders happened Id tell the police

I didn't say "all the lifts"

True so is routine maintainance out of the question.They could be "rocking" the lift shaft and needed to shut it down.

Yes.

Cool

No.
I take it you will now watch the few minutes of film and give a response?

Yep I'll give it a watch

I genuinely don't know. I don't exclude the possibility of explosives.

But you put this forward as evidence that it could happen,so you support this theory?
I think your a very smart guy BB but you wont give a direct answer,not because your unsure,but because you know if you commit to the explosives theory then you will have to deal with all the other debunked evidence that comes with the theory.

Lets say all the reasons you gave above are unexplainable.it doesnt give the whole theory any more or any less credibility because this theory has been disproven time and time again by other factors that would be involved in rigging the building for explosives.
I'm not going to bring up those factors because we'll just end up going in a circle

Iv'e asked my co worker who was there on the day in the building if there was anything out of the ordinary on the floors he worked on and he said no.
He would have been accessing the building in service elevators,using stairwells,trademens entrances and not the common areas for people who work in the offices.

davoxx

seannash wrote: »

Didn't know the illuminati signed my paycheck,Kinda funny how they looked like a small balding irish man.

that's is just plain racist ... illuminati can look like a small balding irishman too.

i guess it is lucky that you had the day off so ... along with your boss

seannash

davoxx wrote: »

that's is just plain racist ... illuminati can look like a small balding irishman too.

i guess it is lucky that you had the day off so ... along with your boss

Nope just on another site with about 10 other alibi's....eh I mean coworkers

davoxx

seannash wrote: »

Nope just on another site with about 10 other alibi's....eh I mean coworkers

ok, that makes it totally not suspicious so ...

davoxx

seannash wrote: »

Perhaps your right.
hmmm maybe I should rethink this beard I'm growing,might make me look suspicious

bearded kiddy fiddlers do stand out at the school gates ...

but come on now, why would you think that there is a conspiracy involving bearded med taking down the twin towers ... are you privy to some information about the explosives?
are you feeling anxiety that when the cops interviewed you (i imagine they would since you had access to a crime scene before the crime) they let you off without giving you credit for you role in the event?

seannash

davoxx wrote: »

bearded kiddy fiddlers do stand out at the school gates ...

Jesus typical CT'er,there was no mention of kiddy fiddling but you shoehorned it in anyway to make me look evil :D

Jonny7

seannash wrote: »

Jesus typical CT'er,there was no mention of kiddy fiddling but you shoehorned it in anyway to make me look evil :D

Well they wouldn't rig the two buildings with explosives and let some company do work on the building in the days before the incident.. so you must be a part of the conspiracy..

This is great fun

seannash

seannash wrote: »

I actually didn't ask you but if I had any answer for the murders I'm sure I'd notify the NYPD.
In work now so cant look at the video but I'm fairly sure that all the lifts werent down for a month before the event,They could be down for maintainance individually.

Can I just ask before I look at the video does it give evidence for the claims or just make claims that they have found it out.

And seeing as how you asked me,can I get your stance.Do you believe explosives brought them down?
(post comes across a bit aggressive,not meant to be)

Okay Just watching this video now.
Firstly the fake documents were to gain access.I have had them myself.It can just be a fake student ID that could be bought from a travel agent(Ironically I got mine at a travel agents in Downing street in manhattan).
Mine was indeed fake but did have my correct name and dat of birth.It was necessary to have several forms of ID on you when you worked in any of the buildings that had goverment sections in it.

Very very very common for illegal immigrants who worked for cash for construction company's in New York.When you know what ther talking about its not that sinister but I an see how it would look highly suspect in this situation.My co worker who was in the towers that day was also Illegal and would have to have these when he entered for the first few weeks.
Not a big deal really

Okay in the video it says that the "company turned out to be an apartment building on an israeli"
I dont fully understand what "on an israeli" means but I gather that its an addressed registered as an office in the city to be written off for tax purposes.Again this is Illegal but common.I should know as I lived in just such an apartment.Alot of companys do it for there kids when they go to NYU so they an write it of to tax.

also shutting down the fire prevention system is a common practice when theres work being carried out,no big deal.

Okay so its going back to the driving licence thing in the video
Okay so before 9/11 people on there 90 day holiday visa could get a legitimate New York driving licence id they had an Irish driving licence(or any other country I imagine)
You can look this up,its true.Practically every Illegal Irish person in New York before 9/11 did this and some went out of state
.
Yes its shocking how simple it was but most americans wouldn't know this was possible.You could also pay for a licence,This is New york were talking about.You can buy anything!!

I dont think you guys realise how contractors work

Some work needs doing,its sent out to tender to the big constrution contractors who bid the whole job.
They then tender every single aspect of the job to sub contractors.
Sub contractors can be a guy who is running his own business out of his house(How do you guys think people build big constuction company's,they hardly wake up one day and decide to be a big company)

The people who own and run the building wont know who the sub contractors are,they will deal directly with the main contractor.

This guy doesn't give links to his claims either,just states claims as facts.

I dont have all the answers to the video but its not conclusive proof of anything

seannash

Also not saying that my explainations explain all of the above but from my experience it doesn't sound very sinister.
But again when you look at the whole argument for explosives it doesn't stack up

davoxx

seannash wrote: »

Jesus typical CT'er,there was no mention of kiddy fiddling but you shoehorned it in anyway to make me look evil :D

you mentioned about the beard ... :D

davoxx

seannash wrote: »

Also not saying that my explainations explain all of the above but from my experience it doesn't sound very sinister.
But again when you look at the whole argument for explosives it doesn't stack up

the main point of contention is how the build that was not hit by planes collapsed despite no other building of similar construct every failing that way.

what is sinister is what was in that building that was destroyed, how the immediately knew who did it, iraq, which changed to bin laden, and they killed him without trial.

but regarding the explosives, scientifically, and if you've read the nist report, have a high scientific background or understand building design, explosives is a very probably explanation. if you didn't read the nist report, nor have any of the scientific background ... then you can't made an informed opinion and will base it on others who have no idea of the facts.

seannash

davoxx wrote: »

but regarding the explosives, scientifically, and if you've read the nist report, have a high scientific background or understand building design, explosives is a very probably explanation. if you didn't read the nist report, nor have any of the scientific background ... then you can't made an informed opinion and will base it on others who have no idea of the facts.

But isn't that what the CT'ers are doing.There believing people on YouTube videos.

Brown Bomber

seannash wrote: »

But you put this forward as evidence that it could happen,so you support this theory?

No. I am reserving judgement on all the conspiracy theories, including the official one until convincing evidence is presented.

seannash wrote: »

I think your a very smart guy BB but you wont give a direct answer,not because your unsure,but because you know if you commit to the explosives theory then you will have to deal with all the other debunked evidence that comes with the theory.

You are mistaken. I can assure you I always attempt to speak what I consider to be truth regardless of consequences.

I don't believe that a explosives hypothesis can be excluded based on the available evidence, I am open to this however. If you believe it can be excluded the please offer the the best three reasons for this.

seannash wrote: »

Iv'e asked my co worker who was there on the day in the building if there was anything out of the ordinary on the floors he worked on and he said no.
He would have been accessing the building in service elevators,using stairwells,trademens entrances and not the common areas for people who work in the offices.

And assuming that there was explosives in the building they surely would have been placed in areas out of the reach of those not involved.

seannash

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And assuming that there was explosives in the building they surely would have been placed in areas out of the reach of those not involved.

Well thats my point.the most obvious place to hide the massive amounts of explosives would be in the areas not populated by the general office workstaff which would have been where my mate was all the time.

seannash

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't believe that a explosives hypothesis can be excluded based on the available evidence, I am open to this however. If you believe it can be excluded the please offer the the best three reasons for this.

Its very hard to put down the top 3 reasons it cant be something.I'd be more inclined to look at the evidence for disputing all the theories of how it can be explosives,such as nanothermite,cabling,time required,manpower required,the amount of people who would have to swear to secrecy about this etc etc.

After looking at the evidence put forward from people claiming it was explosives and hearing the actual evidence its very clear to me it wasn't explosives.

Nobody really puts forward the best evidence for explosives so perhaps you'd d the honours on that

Brown Bomber

seannash wrote: »

Its very hard to put down the top 3 reasons it cant be something.

Not really, take the nuclear weapon hypothesis, A very obvious reason it can't be a nuke that took down the towers is the lack of any nuclear fallout.

Therefore I conclude that it wasn't a nuclear weapon and exclude this theory. If there is such a reason to exclude a controlled demolition of the towers I am not aware of it, and this is why I've asked you.

seannash wrote: »

I'd be more inclined to look at the evidence for disputing all the theories of how it can be explosives,such as nanothermite,

???

seannash wrote: »

cabling,time required,manpower required,

Which I haven't seen evidence on that confirms that it would be impossible to carry out.

In 2009, Raw Story noted:

A Government Accountability Office investigator smuggled live bomb components into a federal building in just 27 seconds, then assembled a bomb in a restroom and ventured throughout the building without being detected, a leaked tape revealed Wednesday.
In addition, congressional investigators were able to penetrate every single federal building they probed without any difficulty — 10 in all.

And see this.

In fact, there is additional evidence that bombs could have been planted in the World Trade Center without anyone knowing:

• Bomb-sniffing dogs were inexplicably removed from the Twin Towers five days before 9-11

• The Twin Towers had been evacuated a number of times in the weeks preceding 9/11

• There was a power down in the Twin Towers on the weekend before 9/11, security cameras were shut down, and many workers ran around busily doing things unobserved (confirmed here)

• A tenant of the World Trade Center hired a "sprinkler repairman" shortly before 9/11, and gave him access to 6 underground levels at World Trade Center building 1

• And -- as an interesting coincidence -- a Bush-linked company ran security at the trade centers, thus giving it free reign to the buildings

seannash wrote: »

the amount of people who would have to swear to secrecy about this etc etc.

Again is not a reason for me:

It is a commonplace that "you can't keep secrets in Washington" or "in a democracy," that "no matter how sensitive the secret, you're likely to read it the next day in the New York Times." These truisms are flatly false. They are in fact cover stories, ways of flattering and misleading journalists and their readers, part of the process of keeping secrets well. Of course eventually many secrets do get out that wouldn't in a fully totalitarian society. Bureaucratic rivalries, especially over budget shares, lead to leaks. Moreover, to a certain extent the ability to keep a secret for a given amount of time diminishes with the number of people who know it. As secret keepers like to say, "Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead." But the fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public. This is true even when the information withheld is well known to an enemy and when it is clearly essential to the functioning of the congressional war power and to any democratic control of foreign policy. The reality unknown to the public and to most members of Congress and the press is that secrets that would be of the greatest import to many of them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the executive branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders.

--Daniel Ellsberg
Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers

seannash

And the circle begins once again.
BB you know only too well all these points have been raised before and answers given.so I'm not going to waste my time bringing up links because theres already a massive thread about this

Again whilst you dont say outright that you believe explosives took it down your evidence that you put forward without accepting the explaination from the other side suggests you believe it.

Get off the fence

But lets look at the bombsniffing dogs issue which I'm sure you've had explained to you before.

Heres the explaination

Bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the building

The basic quote you see most often is:

"Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed. "Today was the first day there was not the extra security," Coard said. "We were protecting below. We had the ground covered. We didn't figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that."" —Newsday, September 12, 2001

Note that it is extra security in response to the phone threats that was removed. The standard level of bomb-sniffing dogs was still present, and in one case, crushed when the tower collapsed.[18] Even if all bomb dogs were still present, their presence would either be ineffective (i.e. not able to already detect explosives being planted in the pillar), or weren't able to stop a rushed-job where sufficient explosives were somehow added overnight without being detected.

I believe if you google "Sirius" you will pull up results for a bomb sniffing dog that died in the towers.