New Member

[Hyperviolet]

Hey to all your JREF members. Been a reader of this board for the past few months and finally decided to join up.

My personal position in the topic is 9/11 is there is likely some government/military intelligence involvement (guess that makes me a Woo hehe) however, contrary to the believes of many conspiracists i believe there was real hijacked planes, real passenger victims, a plane hit the pentagon and 93 came down in Shanksville.

Ive come to realise this forum has some of the most intelligent posts on the topic (most notably "Gravy" and "Gumboot") and i'm interested in healthy discussion on such a vast topic with you all.

As a stauch atheist and general skeptic for the most part i feel almost dirty being "conspiracy theorist" haha.. though i have to be honest with myself and beliefs. I absolutely support the call for a truly independant investigation into the tragedy of September 11th 2001. If the family members feel that their questions have not been answered (and i dont think everything really has been fully investigated) then i feel there is no real grounds not to grant this request.

I have come here not as a preacher but as a student, and hope to earn the respect of the JREF community.

Cheers!

 

[WildCat]

If the family members feel that their questions have not been answered (and i dont think everything really has been fully investigated) then i feel there is no real grounds not to grant this request.

First of all, welcome!

Secondly, what questions do you think haven't been answered?

 

[Hyperviolet]

First of all, welcome!

Secondly, what questions do you think haven't been answered?

Thanks for the kind welcome WildCat!

Actually, its not so much my questions, but those of the family members ( as put forth in the film Press For Truth). I would definetely like to see a more conclusive narrative of the funding. Look at the claim of ISI involvement in more detail (find out if it really is just a biased claim by an Indian paper).

I feel the families effected by the event should really have priority in this national tragedy. If they feel some of their questions were watered down or simply ignored - we should seek to answer them comprehensively.

 

[Minadin]

I know it's early and that this is no way to treat a new member, so I apologize in advance if I am wrong, but I would like to take this opportunity to voice my "gut" feeling of , and dedicate it to P'Doh.

In the case that you're not the latest and greatest incarnation of that fool, however, welcome aboard, and would you mind telling us what you mean by "some government involvement" and what specifically makes you suspect this? We don't normally use "unanswered questions" to base any sort of belief upon; rather we strive to answer those questions with real evidence.

Do you have any evidence you would like to share, or is yours just a gut feeling, like mine, which you could admittedly be wrong about?

 

[juryjone]

Actually, its not so much my questions, but those of the family members ( as put forth in the film Press For Truth). I would definetely like to see a more conclusive narrative of the funding. Look at the claim of ISI involvement in more detail (find out if it really is just a biased claim by an Indian paper).

I would like to add my welcome also.

Funding, it seems to me, is a tough thing to follow all the way through conclusively (conclusively enough to prove malice aforethought on the part of the funder). To use an example, if I paid a guy to build a fence for me to separate my yard from my obnoxious neighbor's, and the guy uses the money to buy a car that he then uses to run over my dear sweet grandmother, am I at fault?

Funding , IMHO, is not enough to prove that the specifics were known about and condoned.

 

[Hyperviolet]

I know it's early and that this is no way to treat a new member, so I apologize in advance if I am wrong, but I would like to take this opportunity to voice my "gut" feeling of , and dedicate it to P'Doh.

In the case that you're not the latest and greatest incarnation of that fool, however, welcome aboard, and would you mind telling us what you mean by "some government involvement" and what specifically makes you suspect this? We don't normally use "unanswered questions" to base any sort of belief upon; rather we strive to answer those questions with real evidence.

Do you have any evidence you would like to share, or is yours just a gut feeling, like mine, which you could admittedly be wrong about?

Hi Minadin - no, i am not P'Doh. I have been a reader of these forums and know exactly who your are referring to and his past "revelation."

Quite frankly, i don't trust Military Intelligence. Iran Contra showed us that.

I am also intrigued as to the collapse of building 7 ( i have seen the comments of Chief Nigro and the burning south face) and the conclusion drawn by Danny Jowenko on the matter. The collapse interests me. There is good points on both sides.

You are right, many of my beliefs are based on "gut." As an atheist i have criticized creationists on this many a time. However, i do not claim my beliefs are solid evidence. But they are my beliefs, forcing myself to accept something i really don't believe won't make what i accept true.
Should i learn more on the topic that sways me. I will accept it and leave my current persuasion.

 

[Augustine]

Quite frankly, i don't trust Military Intelligence. Iran Contra showed us that.

How exactly was Military Intelligence involved in Iran Contra? How did Iran Contra "show" you that you cannot trust "Military Intelligence"?

 

[chipmunk stew]

Hi Minadin - no, i am not P'Doh. I have been a reader of these forums and know exactly who your are referring to and his past "revelation."

Quite frankly, i don't trust Military Intelligence. Iran Contra showed us that.

I am also intrigued as to the collapse of building 7 ( i have seen the comments of Chief Nigro and the burning south face) and the conclusion drawn by Danny Jowenko on the matter. The collapse interests me. There is good points on both sides.

Are you familiar with NIST's current hypothesis on the collapse mechanism? If not, I suggest you read it through. Their final report on building 7 is due this Spring. I also suggest that you ponder if anyone plausibly had the means and opportunity to rig the building for demolition, and what possible, real-world motive anyone would have had to demolish it.

You are right, many of my beliefs are based on "gut." As an atheist i have criticized creationists on this many a time. However, i do not claim my beliefs are solid evidence. But they are my beliefs, forcing myself to accept something i really don't believe won't make what i accept true.
Should i learn more on the topic that sways me. I will accept it and leave my current persuasion.

Welcome to the forum.

 

[JAStewart]

conclusion drawn by Danny Jowenko on the matter. The collapse interests me. There is good points on both sides.

Well, he is the only one thats really said anything about it with any credibility, and he doesn't even think that WTC1+2 were CD's, so he's useless for a woowoo

 

[DavidJames]

There is good points on both sides.

I would be interested in what "points" you feel are "good" on the CD side. Points that are supported by facts, evidence, analysis along with (if possible), any peer reviewed discussion. By "peer" I'm referring to structural engineers, demolitions experts, etc.

Thanks and welcome.

 

[Garrette]

I would be interested in the lack of faith in "Military Intelligence."

I suspect you are using the term improperly. In discussions at the bar with your friends, that is fine, but in seriously exploring a hypothesis it isn't.

Iran/Contra did nothing to impugn Military Intelligence.

 

[T.A.M.]

Welcome Hyperviolet. For all the info you could ever want on WTC7, See Gravy's paper on the same. After you have read that, if you have questions unanswere, I am sure Gravy, or someone here, could help answer.

TAM

 

[Pardalis]

Welcome Hyperviolet. It's always appreciated when a new poster introduces himself. Usually twoofers start right away with insults, so your politeness is refreshing.

Be sure to read these links for your questions about 9/11.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/local_links.php?catid=18

and the stickies.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

 

[Hyperviolet]

I would be interested in what "points" you feel are "good" on the CD side. Points that are supported by facts, evidence, analysis along with (if possible), any peer reviewed discussion. By "peer" I'm referring to structural engineers, demolitions experts, etc.

Thanks and welcome.

Well building 7 looks very similar to a controlled demolition (the speed, the symmetry). My understanding that when steel weakens it starts to yield and gradually bend. Look at how the steel at the windsor reacted to intense heat.

Have a look at this : youtube.com/watch?v=6_czyNCNhDI
Now, clearly the similarities are striking. Moreover, the conclusion drawn by Jowenko seems to hold significant weight. He is an expert, after all.

I guess those are the "points" which i feel are "good". However, i will wait for the NIST report before making any real judgement on the issue.

Thanks for the welcome!

 

[fuelair]

Welcome in - enjoy - harrass not that ye be not harrassed!

 

[Hyperviolet]

Welcome Hyperviolet. For all the info you could ever want on WTC7, See Gravy's paper on the same. After you have read that, if you have questions unanswere, I am sure Gravy, or someone here, could help answer.

TAM

Hello T.A.M, thanks for your welcome

I have read Gravy's paper on WTC 7. It makes many good points and is supported throughly with firefighter eye witness accounts. Should he have any additional information on the topic, i will be glad to listen.
For now, i will like to "sit on the fence" (hehe) until the NIST final report on WTC 7 is released.

Thanks again!

 

[Arus808]

Well building 7 looks very similar to a controlled demolition (the speed, the symmetry).

Key word is "looks". Why does it look like a CD? (it wasn't symmetrical btw). Because in all demolitions, it all has to do with GRAVITY. Gravity brings things down.

That's where the similiarity ends. There is no "sameness" in the speed either.

My understanding that when steel weakens it starts to yield and gradually bend. Look at how the steel at the windsor reacted to intense heat.

the steel portions collapsed. Like how they failed in the WTC towers

Have a look at this :

fixed

Now, clearly the similarities are striking. Moreover, the conclusion drawn by Jowenko seems to hold significant weight. He is an expert, after all.

Jowenko was given a video taken from several angles and he didn't even realize that hte building fell down on 9/11. He was then told that the building contained offices for the CIA / or Fbi and contained secrete documents. So his conclusion is based on
1) looking at a video
2) and the hearsay from the people who interviewed him

His opinion that it was cd is as worthless as anyone else watching just Video alone. To prvoe CD, you need to prove that explosives wree planted. His investigations didn't take him to new york to inspect hte rubble for this evidence

Again, all CD "looks similar" because in all CD's, they rely on GRAVITY.

I guess those are the "points" which i feel are "good". However, i will wait for the NIST report before making any real judgement on the issue.

The preliminary report is pretty much good enough to address the points you just raised.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Well building 7 looks very similar to a controlled demolition (the speed, the symmetry). My understanding that when steel weakens it starts to yield and gradually bend. Look at how the steel at the windsor reacted to intense heat.

Have a look at this : youtube.com/watch?v=6_czyNCNhDI
Now, clearly the similarities are striking. Moreover, the conclusion drawn by Jowenko seems to hold significant weight. He is an expert, after all.

I guess those are the "points" which i feel are "good". However, i will wait for the NIST report before making any real judgement on the issue.

Thanks for the welcome!

relink:

Why do you feel the "the speed [and] the symmetry" of the WTC 7 collpase represents collapses only seen when controlled demolition is the cause?

 

[T.A.M.]

Well building 7 looks very similar to a controlled demolition (the speed, the symmetry). My understanding that when steel weakens it starts to yield and gradually bend. Look at how the steel at the windsor reacted to intense heat.

Have a look at this : youtube.com/watch?v=6_czyNCNhDI
Now, clearly the similarities are striking. Moreover, the conclusion drawn by Jowenko seems to hold significant weight. He is an expert, after all.

I guess those are the "points" which i feel are "good". However, i will wait for the NIST report before making any real judgement on the issue.

Thanks for the welcome!

Jowenko is an interesting point. He was initially given no details of the collapse what so ever, simply shown the video and asked what he thought caused the collapse.

After he was told teh circumstances around it, he became very withdrawn on the matter. After some time, and I assume he did some reading, likely some CT reading, he has openly admitted that he believe is was a CD because of the important info that he has been told was held in WTC7.

Now there were many Demolition companies involved in the clean-up of Ground Zero, and Implosionworld created an excellent report on some of the CT allegations. One thing they did was ask a number of the Demolition Teams if there was any evidence of CD, or if the words "pull it" mean to demolish the building with explosives, and they uniformly agreed there was no evidence of a CD, and that the term "pull it" does not refer to explosive demolition of a building, but rather to "pull" the building in a certain direction with steel cables.

Like I said, the Implosionworld paper is a good start, and Gravy's paper on WTC7.

TAM