Seriously? I thought Hail Ants was being waaaay too nice.
To the OP: No, this won’t change anyone’s minds. The idiots screamed for an investigation and their worst nightmare came true: they got it. So their job now is to scream that it’s fake. They will continue to let Alex Jones, Dylan Avery, David Griffin, Steven Jones, etc, think for them in lieu of thinking for themselves and they will continue to waste their lives chasing a pot of shit at the end of a rainbow. This is really fuel on the fire, if anything. The evidence to prove all the CTs wrong was in before the CTs themselves were dreamt up (what do you think they based them on?), so no evidence will ever change their fantasy-damaged minds.
I watched the last part of the press conference on CSPAN TV. Wish I had seen it all, but I was amazed at how vociferous the attacks were in the Q & A period. And these were supposedly reporters, although I doubt if biased website-only reporters fall in the same class as NYT. One guy kept making statements – more than questions – and wouldn’t let the speaker answer. He was high on his soapbox, making accusations and didn’t seem to care about answers. The moderator finally had to just cut him off as there was no way to respond in a civil manner. I’m sure he will blog that he was ignored because of a conspiracy.
Very few questions were, IMHO, reasonable. Do these people think this kind of performance is conducive to truth and science?
The fires in WTC 1 and 2 raged for quite some time prior to the buildings collapsing. The steel was subjected to tremendous heat more than long enough to heat the steel to weakening.
If you have a background in steel fabrication you know steel weakens quite considerably at 700-900 Celsius, depending on the chemistry of the steel in question. It would not have taken the fire very long to get the steel up to that temperature; the core of the WTC was an inferno.
I’ve made some comments about buildings being engineered strong and a few other things. But they’re all tangential to my main argument. That any sort of collapse would take even half a second to spread and could not create a perfect symmetric, flat roof. The NIST proposes a model where the horizontal supports are being pulled. Carson can comment on whether the frame is susceptible to that. (Seems like a blunder in engineering if pulling on a horizontal support will unzip the whole building.)
But even the horizontal girders are besides the point, since there would still be a split-second delay. Even a fn artillery shell flying straight across the ground floor at muzzle velocity would take 0.1s to cross. 0.1s would give a pretty noticeable uneveness in the roof. Mark my words, no physical collapse in a large building can make the roof flat.
Correction: the roof can be prefectly flat if it remains structurally intact. However what happened is that the roof and the 30+ floors below it turned into wavy putty (as can be seen by small up and down motions), and after that remained perfectly flat.
I don’t think you really understand how heavy a building is. And seriously, you’re not an engineer, right? Why the hell do you think your opinion on this is of any value at all? Humans in general don’t live their lives propping up millions of tons on sagging steel beams. You have no idea how they should behave and are ignorantly coming to a silly conclusion. In this case your common sense is wrong.
Actually, at least a third of the roof has already collapsed into the building before the final collapse begins. From the videos you can see the eastern penthouse fall into the building, and daylight is visible through the windows in the upper eastern corner of the northern facade before the collapse. All you can say is that most of the northern facade fell as a single unit, possibly after the rest of the building had already begun collapsing.
If we’re seriously going to argue this AGAIN, I want to hear a tinhatter answer a question that I’ve asked hundreds of them, and have never heard anything but crickets in response . . . A HUGE FLAMING CHUNK of building 1 is what damanged WTC7 and set it on fire . . . this can be seen on video . . . if the NWO (or Dick Cheney, or David Hasselhoff, or whoever your preferred fantasy boogeyman is) planned on “pulling” building 7, how did they make sure this would happen, guaranteeing plausible deniability? What if they rigged the thing and then nothing hit it? Would they cough really loud when they pushed the destruct button?
EDIT: And why do truthers always insist “nothing hit wtc7”? They are clearly lying because there is plenty of video and photo evidence to the contrary. Why would you need to lie if you’re right?
It’s more convincing that WTC7’s fall was artifical. Beside other arguments (eg, a plane full of jet fuel didn’t hit it), there’s the more striking appearance of symmetrically. All the buildings fell symmetrically, but while the Twin Towers were tall and skinny the WTC7 is fairly wide. This makes the impressive symmetry stand out more.
I suspect that in many of them, there is an honest suspicion of wrongdoing which they feel morally obligated to uncover and reveal.
It’s harder to justify their rigid adherence to theories in the face of condradicting facts…but I don’t see any reason to believe that their basic motivations are necessarily tainted with an agenda.
I have to ask, Alex_Dubinsky: is there any new information that would make you doubt that WTC7 came down artificially, and that it really fell because of damage from the other towers’ collapse? Anything at all?
Thanks, but that doesn’t clear anything up for me.
I remember early on, a lot of the “governmint diddit” folks were utterly convinced that a tall skinny building like WTC 1 & 2 couldn’t possibly fall straight down unless it was a controlled demolition. (The claim seems to stem from the belief that the buildings should have “naturally” flopped over like a falling tree, if they actually fell on their own…)
Now you seem to be saying the opposite… that a wider, squat building should have fallen assymmetrically. Is that right?
You can see, don’t you, that once I learn that my “gut” intuition, if wrong about how I should have expected to see WTC 1 to fall, I might start to doubt how “wrong” WTC 7 looks by falling symetrically…
The people originating and perpetuating these lies have made millions of dollars off of them. Book sales, DVD sales, speaking tours, tshirt sales, advertising revenue from the millions of hits they get on their websites, etc etc etc. Thierry Meyssan is a millionaire many times over from the lies he has told about 9/11. Do you know how many “Investigate 9/11” tshirts, hoodies and posters, and DVDs of Loose Change Dylan Avery has sold? It’s not hard at all to see the motivation here.
(Also note that a lot of the people were very openly and publically pro-conspiracy/anti-government before 9/11)
The problem with this is that demolishing a building is an absolutely terrible way to cover up evidence. It’s too chaotic and unpredictable. The hypothetical conspirators had no way to guarantee that in the collapse some incriminating memo or thumb drive or something wouldn’t end up coming out intact, to be picked up by a journalist to expose the entire thing. There’s just no way to be sure that the evidence they want destroyed would actually be destroyed. When the government wants to destroy information, they have far more reliable (and less suspicious) ways of doing it: paper shredders, bulk erasers, and such.
Is that really true? How many books has he sold? I’d be surprised if it’s more than a couple hundred thousand, and I don’t think authors get most of a book’s sale price.
I think Dylan has made some walking-around money from this, but I don’t think he’s made a lot. I don’t think they sold very many Loose Change DVDs - almost everyone who saw it, saw it free on the Internet. Not sure, but I’d be surprised if he gets much money.