TruthMove Forum

Register or log in:

Username:

Password:

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Could the "spire" have collapsed gravity-only? (35 posts)

26. truthmover
    Administrator

    Madashell,

    In your first post to our forum you suggest that you are new to this. Based on the post above, that doesn't seem to be the case.

    I'm also not thrilled about your tone above, which seems based on mischaracterizing the debate here and the position of this organization. You can't characterize an organization or discussion forum based on the opinions of a couple participants.

    And the conversation happening here is not about debunking CD either. We were responding to the ridiculous premise of the original post which goes way beyond CD hypothesis into the realm of unproductive speculation.

    In case you hadn't noticed, TruthMove has a page on Controlled Demolition. As we don't think that it's the most important focus for people promoting 9/11 truth we approach the topic with a healthy degree of skepticism.

    Now personally, I think your summary above of things that everyone here knows all too well is somewhat compelling. I am certainly curious about what happened and support further research. I also agree that if we believe that 9/11 was an inside job, that the perps would have wanted to ensure that the centerpiece of the psyop went according to plan.

    But I certainly don't think that "9/11 = Controlled Demolition", a sign used by WACLA. I actually don't think that any of the physical evidence is of central importance and view nearly all of it as a distraction. That's not debunking, that's strategy. And one of the things I find most lacking in the movement is clear, historically based, strategy. Many in the movement fall right into the same traps people in the JFK movement fell into previously.

    Finally, the standards of English law don't appeal to me just because they make it easier to claim that something is relevant. Balance of probabilities might work if you are trying to decide is someone's alibi holds up. But we have to have a higher standard when dealing with a concern of this magnitude.

    Posted 15 years ago #
27. Arcterus
    Member

    Madashell, I like many of your points and agree that controlled demolition is a worthwhile prospect to analyze, if not necessarily the most important, but I think most of us here weren't trying to "debunk" controlled demolition. Simply criticizing a claim made in supposed support of the controlled demolition theory.

    Posted 15 years ago #
28. mark
    Member

    9/11 complicity has nothing to do with the collapse of the towers.

    Warnings that were deliberately ignored - see the Complete 9/11 Timeline for details. Wargames at the same time that provided confusion. Means, motive, opportunity - see Crossing the Rubicon for details.

    comment: The core columns of the towers were huge and I'm certian they could have withstood the impact, in fact didn't the architects who designed the towers state that they were engineered to withstand such an impact.

    reply: The Titanic was also engineered to withstand icebergs. The WTC was designed to withstand a plane on approach to a NYC airport at slower speeds, not at the full speed that actually happened. It is amazing that they remained upright long enough for most people below the impacts to escape.

    comment: It is also highly unlikelly that fire brought about structural failure either. Firstly the temperatures experienced, even form burning jet fuel cannot possibly cause the steel to collapse given that the fires burned for a relatively short time and that the vast majority of the jet fuel would been expended during the explosion which visibly occurred upon impact and could therfore not have caused lower level fires of such intensity to weaken structural steel further down.

    reply: the contents of the building burned very hot. Plastic is essentially oil. The broken structure acted as a quasi-blast furnace. The temperatures were definitely hot enough to weaken the steel, that is why the supports had been covered in asbestos. The claim that jet fuel was the only thing that burned is really simplistic (and easily debunked).

    comment: Pancaking could not have happened,

    reply: But it did. No building is designed to withstand the top quarter of the structure falling onto the lower floors.

    comment:

    Building 7 was not subject to impact from anything other than debris from towers 1 & 2,

    reply:

    It did get hit by part of the towers falling onto it. There are videos available of this impact, but they're not on the "truth" websites. This also debunks the "towers only fell in their footprint" claim - parts did, parts did not.

    Posted 15 years ago #
29. scott
    Member

    Hi everyone-

    New here. I find a lot of this very interesting, and until recently thought most of you were crazy. That being said- I discovered the pilots site, and have to say their evidence and case for whatever happened (I don't claim to know, or offer an opinion) at the Pentagon is compelling. My dad worked at Fairchild his whole life after the Korean War; I've always been into aviation. I probably have more than a basic understanding of the subject. What interests me is how the hijacker was able to maneuver that plane in the time and method described; if the logs and radar readings are accurate, to me that sounds virtually impossible.

    Oh- with regard to the "spire"- I'm not a structural engineer. All computer models aside though, when was the last recorded instance of a large commercial jetliner, fully loaded with fuel and at high velocity, crashing into a skyscraper? I'm 41, and don't recall it happening in my lifetime. All the "experts" that seem to be able to predict what would happen in this scenario are merely, in my opinion, offering theirs.

    Posted 15 years ago #
30. truthmover
    Administrator

    Hi Scott,

    It's really awesome for us when someone who used to think we are crazy starts wondering if maybe we aren't. Now that doesn't mean that a lot of the people in the movement aren't just as crazy as you thought they were. The 9/11 truth movement seems to attract people from all sorts of fringe concerns that aren't nearly so important or founded in documentary evidence. And it's important to keep in mind that logical people in this movement have different levels of tolerance for speculation.

    As you can see here, there is difference of opinion on the relevance of the Controlled Demolition hypothesis. Personally, whether or not we saw a demolition, I think that the physical evidence is a lot less convincing than the documentary evidence. We don't know exactly how the towers fell. We do know, for instance, that Hani Hajoor wasn't a good enough pilot to pull off the maneuver we saw before Flight 77 hit the pentagon. And even more curious is the fact that Dick Cheney had simultaneous command over the military response to the attack and the training exercises taking place that mirrored the attack.

    One of the things that people who think we are crazy don't get is that many of us haven't come to a firm conclusion. I say that I have probable cause to suspect that people within our government were in some way complicit in the attacks. That's a far cry from saying "Bush did 9/11" or "9/11 = Controlled Demolition", both banner signs I've seen people using.

    So I may not know for certain and still be pretty sure that something shady happened and that the American public deserve to know more about what happened.

    If you have questions, this is a good place to ask as this forum has few but very informed posters.

    Posted 15 years ago #
31. scott
    Member

    Definitely my pleasure to be here. I've always kept an open mind about everything (and with this topic it's tough- I personally knew Chief Ray Downey from Deer Park, where I grew up), and like to think after reading about the Pentagon flight that it's ok to ask questions. I don't think anyone that questions what happened is necessarily a bad person. One of the aspects of 9/11 that always baffled me was how there was no air defense in and around DC when the Pentagon was hit. I can buy their explanation for no discernable wreckage (I think at that velocity, quite a bit of the plane would have been pulverized), and in a stretch- yes, conceivable that the terrorist pilot got lucky with his maneuvers (I personally don't think so). As I mentioned- my dad worked for Fairchild, on a lot of planes (one of which was the A-10). I majored in history in college, with a focus on the military aspects. It would seem to reason that if NYC was attacked, the skies above DC and the surrounding areas would be filled with fighter planes. How they weren't is anyones guess. I didn't know that about Cheney- that's interesting. One last thing that came to mind- I seem to remember the company, "Controlled Demolition Inc."(I could be wrong about the name) being involved in the clean-up at the WTC site.

    Posted 15 years ago #
32. madashell
    Member

    Paul: It's obvious here that nobody has the answers, that's why they "dont want to weigh in" and "haven't got the energy". You raise very interesting, important and very sensible points here. You dont have to be a physics major to look at the footage/evidence and make a judgement, use your common sense; as Dr. S Jones said "what can move mass out of the way like that"? Also for others to ask you to provide calculations, that's not your job, and besides would any of us understand them anyway? Remember also that JohnA, by his own admission is "non qualified", so I wonder what makes him think that his opinion refutes yours? The most annoying comment is form truthmover, who describes this deabte as "silliness"; why is this entire debate silly? To claim that the CD theory in some way is a distraction and is extremely naive. Of course it's pertinent to discuss CD when trying to establish gov complicity, as if the theory that explosives were used is correct then there is no way that an Islamic fundamentalist group could call upon the necessary level of logistical support, secrecy and nerve for an undertaking of such magnitude. I was thinking (and already stated) that I would join another forum, but on reflection this is interesting, I think I'll stick around at least long enough for truthmover and JohnA to provide a reasonable answer to our questions. However, I suspect this may take some time.

    Posted 15 years ago #
33. JohnA
    Member

    You dont have to be a physics major to look at the footage/evidence and make a judgement, use your common sense.

    actually - yes - you do. just 'looking' at the footage is not enough when deciding to take a public position on the mass murder of thousands of people - and making accusations as serious as those implicit in the CD theory. This movement does not need more people like you who "look at the footage' and decide to become loose-cannon vigilantes for "TRUTH" of their own making.

    Also for others to ask you to provide calculations, that's not your job, and besides would any of us understand them anyway?

    Yes - Victrionix - one of our most valuable contributors here would understand them. Jim Hoffman would understand them.

    Remember also that JohnA, by his own admission is "non qualified", so I wonder what makes him think that his opinion refutes yours?

    I don't. Learn to read. i said i was agnostic on the issue. are you intentionally trying to create a rift here?

    i understand my own limitations in understanding the complex physics being debated here. unlike YOU i will not just "look at the footage" and run around making declarative statements that 3,000 people, whose family and friends are still alive, were intentionally mass murdered by CD. i will leave that to smarter people than me.

    Posted 15 years ago #
34. truthmover
    Administrator

    Madashell,

    You are not free to come here and start talking trash about moderators or regular posters. I'm not too concerned because I know your stay here will be short. But it's entirely obvious to me that you come here with a chip on your shoulder. The "I'm new to this" line was a dead giveaway, as we've seen exactly that entrance followed by very nearly the same attitude in the past.

    So, why don't you just come out and tell us what's on your mind? Why don't you just skip the very short and pointless process of you getting yourself blocked with the intent to go back to some other forum and talk trash about us. Why don't you just get off your chest whatever it is that's bugging you. Maybe you are Flyer82 coming back with a new handle. That seems likely. Who else have I pissed off this week?

    We might actually take you seriously if you just came out and levelled with us. But this grudgy sniping and complaining is going nowhere. Change your approach or leave.

    Now, to entertain your concerns for just a moment.

    As I think I clarified above, some topic related to 9/11 truth are merely a distraction or waste of time as they offer the movement no progress or benefit. This question of what happened to the spire is just such a subject. There is nothing to be gained by this speculation as we very likely can't answer the question and even if we could it would not reveal anything important about the crime or it's perpetrators.

    So, why you think there is any benefit to discussing this. Perhaps I've missed some finer point of logic. I make mistakes. But at present I still think this is silly and don't feel the need to make people feel good about their interest in useless speculation.

    Posted 15 years ago #
35. giveback
    

    Answers about the spire can only be derived with seriously inconclusive evidence. Which makes provocatively inconclusive answers, which inevitably creates yet more impermeable cultural resistance. Thus, the answers are fanciful and farcical, and only function to substantiate an undisciplined, entertainment-minded approach to the subject.

    Posted 15 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.