Zach
-
Content Count
2,097 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Blog Comments posted by Zach
-
-
BTW, in case anyone is unsure, I'm not accusing the government. For all I know, it could have just as easily been the building owners.
-
Ever played Jenga? Yes, I know a skyscraper is different, but the point is I'd expect a little more chaos in a building merely damaged by fire and possibly seismic stress.
-
Your analogy suggests a situation where there are many plausible explanations. My point is that no one has come up with another explanation. AFAIK the 9/11 commission report does not have a word about the WTC 7 collapse.
Explosive residue? Well, I certainly wish someone had kept the steel around so we could test for that. At the very least I want to see a reprimand for cleaning up the evidence before engineers could take a look. Even if the collapse was accidental, we could have learned something to prevent it happening in future buildings.
-
Wow, I'm starting to feel outnumbered by you guys.
There is plenty of speculation about motive, but I don't get into it because none of it is conclusive. If you happened to find a body lying face down with a knife stuck in the back, do you need a motive to suspect a homicide? I submit that the similarities to a controlled demolition are nearly as strong evidence. I might continue the analogy by asking what you would think if the authorities removed the body before the homicide investigators showed up.
Or maybe as Bob has explained, some anomalous event occured that just makes it look like a stabbing.
-
If you think the indications are weak, we are not even on the same page. But I understand that you said you haven't had time to filter the information from the 'crap'. We can keep debating when you have studied the following topics:Ok, let's assume somebody intentionally demolished WTC 7.
But WHY???
Compared to the impact of 9/11 it is completely irrelevant. IMO for having a real case, you need not only a few (weak) indications but also a motive.
The history of fires in steel-frame buildings.
Freefall speed
Squibs (In the video I linked, they are called spools)
"Pulling" a building.
The cleanup of debris before the buidling's collapse could be investigated.
It's all covered in the video.
-
Zero percent? Surely you exagerate. Even the probability of winning every state lottery for a year is more than 0%.I don't think that a local plot to blow up a skyscraper has any chance whatsoever of remaining secret for this long.
It certainly is incredible that five years could pass without a leak. I know it's difficult to believe that WTC 7 was brought down by explosions, but I have not seen any other plausible explanations of why the collapse looks so similar to planned demolitions. If you have one, please let me know, and consider writing a magazine article so you can convince all the other skeptics out there.
-
Thanks, Thomas. I disagree that comparing WTC 7 videos to recognized demolitions is a conspiracy theory, but if you're not interested in the topic I can respect that. It sound like after exposure to a lot of absurd theories, it becomes difficult to approach the quality information with an open mind. I'm glad to have a better understanding why it's difficult to get my point across.What do you think of all this, Thomas? I figure that people outside the US would have an easier time considering the possibility of an inside job.
To be honest, I don't care for any conspiration theories. The internet is full of it. 99.9% are pure crap and I don't have the time to filter for the remaining 0.1%.
Actually there are some (successful) books circulating in Germany, which are build on wild conspiration theories regarding 9/11. IMO their real intentions are too obvious (blame the USA for each and everything). Usually they concentrate on minor details, neglecting the major facts and boost those details problems. IMO that's also true with the WTC 7 "conspiration".
-
Yeah, the detail about the B25 is a minor point, not really relevant to the explosives theory. That's why it was preceded by BTW.
What do you think of all this, Thomas? I figure that people outside the US would have an easier time considering the possibility of an inside job.
-
You're a smart man, John. If you can refute all the points brought up in the video, I'm ready to listen. BTW, the Empire State Building was once struck by a B-25 Mitchell Bomber, and WTC 7 was never struck by any kind of plane.How many structures over 400' tall do you think would survive a hit by a fully-loaded 767 without destroying a 250 square-foot area (the damaged area of the Pentagon was larger than the footprint of each of the original Towers).
-
Yes, I had read about her on your website. You've been through more than I can imagine.
-
I learned of the wind loading issue well before 2001. The WTC was indeed designed to handle high winds - but only in one of four directions. The whole point of the issue was that oblique wind directions could exceed the design. By "brisk windstorm" I was referring to a windstorm with an expected return frequency of 16 years (I remember that's what the estimate was.)I understand that it may be difficult to track down a source, but faulty construction should indeed be considered in an investigation.
I think the conspiracy theories are very shaky. Bush went into an obvious state of shock at the school he was in when he was told about the attack. If it was a conspiracy, it must not have gone all the way up to Bush, which, despite Cheney sometimes seeming to overpower Bush, I find really unlikely.Yes, there are lot of shaky theories out there. If anyone has read absurd explanations in the past and rightly dismissed them, I encourage you to look again. Some quality websites have emerged in the last year. Again, the term conspiracy is useless here. If more than one person planned 9/11, that is by definition a conspiracy. I find it is the official conspiracy theory that needs more explanation.
I'm not so interested in explaining Bush's behavior at the school at this point. I just want to find out why the building collapses look so similar to planned demolitions.
I did not arrive at my skepticism easily, but I did take time to study the information. One problem is that the idea that 9/11 was an inside job is frightening and difficult to contemplate. That is the reason I am not delving into some of the more compelling evidence here. I'm not going to force it on you. You'll need to choose whether to study it yourself.
You've seen the Matrix, right? Below are red and blue links. The red is the best documentary on the WTC collapses I've found. The blue is a photo of a kitten. Be brave, and set aside a few hours. You'll need one hour to watch the video, and a few more to grapple with the implications.
EDIT: Oops, I originally linked to an older version of the documentary. I've changed the link to the latest version which has about 20 minutes of extra footage.
-
If you still think WMD's were the reason Bush decided to invade Iraq, take a look at this NY Times article:
Bush Was Set on Path to War, British Memo Says
Here's a highlight:
The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein. -
I have moved the WMD conversation to a new thread.
-
...oil shortage...
Short of money? Invade a bank!
-
Sorry I was unclear. Let me rephrase things. Returning to the bank-robber analogy:
If someone argues that shooting the robber was unfair to the robber, such a person is acting in support of the robber.
IMO your analogy is wrong again.
You assume that the person is defending the robber as an individual, but the person could also just defending the clear-cut law which forbids shooting other people unless they are an immident threat to somebody.
So, its not about blaming the robber for other people being killed while he is shot, but about blaming the policeman, who is commiting a crime when shooting a person who is no imminent threat. Therefore solely the policeman is also responsible for any "collateral damage" which is resulting from his criminal act.
-
2. There are international accepted laws, which forbid interfering into internal affairs, unless there are very valid reasons (e.g. genocide, war etc.)....oil shortage...
-
Perhaps I should ask what you think the U.S. should have done. Although the sanctions seem to have been reasonably effective at stalling Saddam's efforts to produce new WMDs, it seems unlikely to me that they would have remained so forever. To my mind, the thought process would be:
Your thought process is irrelevant, because the attack was not based and justified on Saddam being in power, but Saddam owning WMDs.
While everybody here agrees, that Saddam was a ruthless dictator, this doesn't mean automatically we are allowed to remove him.
1. Not everybody worldwide will agree he was a bad dictator (especially now, based on the disastrous consequences of his removal. Well done!
).2. There are international accepted laws, which forbid interfering into internal affairs, unless there are very valid reasons (e.g. genocide, war etc.). Saddam being a ruthless dictator is not a valid reason. Else you would have to invade more than half of the countries worldwide, depending on who you ask. How about North Korea? Syria? How about Central-Africa, where you can find ruthless people in power almost everywhere?
What about China? There you could liberate more than a billion people!
BTW: Wether you like it or not, the only legal and approved (by the USA too!) institution to decide are the UN. While being far from being perfect, I rather rely on their vote than allowing any single nation to unilateraly decide about my future.
3. Those laws, and the current situation in Iraq unfortunately proves this too well, have very good reasons. Because usually inept interfering into internal affairs results into an even more negative consequences. Well, Osama may think different here...
4. Constantly switching arguments and reasons even makes a valid argument or reason look weak and arbitrary. IMO the real reasons are a mixture between a personal vendetta and securing valuable resources. Human rights where just icing on the cake for the public and bringing the "gift of democracy" is just a sign of unlimited overestimation of your own capabilities and ignorance about the political and cultural situation in the middle east.
For the record:
You may think different, but IMO obviously the vast majority of the world (me too, just read the threads in the AA political forum) never ever believed that there where valid reasons or that the war would become a success (though most, incl. me probably didn't expect the massive amount of incompetence that "ruled" Iraq after the main fighting was over). This has nothing to do with hindsight, it was IMO very obvious for everybody interested in facts back then. So using the "hindsight argument" now is completely moot for me and only valid for people who changed their mind after the attack.
-
1. Somebody who is against the war, is not a Saddam supporter. That's a vicious allegation! Sorry I was unclear. Let me rephrase things. Returning to the bank-robber analogy:
If someone argues that shooting the robber was unfair to the robber, such a person is acting in support of the robber.
If someone argues that shooting the robber unfairly put others at risk (an argument I left out last time--sorry), I would respond that the law generally blames the robber for harm to bystanders that occurs while stopping a robbery, even if the harm results from e.g. a guard's bullet that missed the robber.
And the "waste of ammunition" argument I addressed already.
I suspect your argument against our actions in Iraq would probably be predicated largely on the point #2 I'd forgotten to address earlier. It would, in some cases, be fair to suggest that a security guard acted recklessly in discharging his weapon without clear sight of the robber, and thus if his actions injured someone, some of the blame should fall on him. Applying such an argument to the Iraq situation would be at least facially reasonable.
Certainly the U.S. made some strategic and tactical decisions which hindsight reveals to have been mistakes. It's not fair, however, to judge actions only with the benefit of hindsight. If actions were reasonable at the time they were undertaken, they were reasonable whether or not they prove correct. I believe the U.S. made reasonable efforts to minimize collateral damage when taking out Saddam; it wasn't perfect, but nothing in war ever is.
Perhaps I should ask what you think the U.S. should have done. Although the sanctions seem to have been reasonably effective at stalling Saddam's efforts to produce new WMDs, it seems unlikely to me that they would have remained so forever. To my mind, the thought process would be:
-1- Will something have to be done to remove Saddam from power sometime? I think Bush decided it would, and I agree with his judgement.
-2- Is there any reason to believe that if we don't remove him now, his removal will be easier in the future? I think Bush decided there was not, and while I don't have access to the intelligence he has, I'm certainly not aware of anything to contradict his decision.
-3- Is any method of removing Saddam other than a direct military attack likely to work? I would guess that GHWB burned too many bridges with anti-Saddam forces within Iraq for such options to be viable.
IMHO, if the answer to #1 is yes, and the answers to #2 and #3 are "no", that would imply that a military attack was appropriate. If you think such an attack was inappropriate, I would expect you to answer "no" to #1 or "yes" to #2 or #3. So I'd be curious where your thought process differs from mine.
-
Proliferation is at a tipping point and Iran is the catalyst. The US military is overextended and could not defeat Iran without using nukes themselves or reinstating the draft. Iran knows this and is forcing the issue, where the US is, at least for now, deciding to sit on its hands and grimace, probably hoping that Israel will throw the first punch. Otherwise Iran might just get a free pass.
If that happens, just wait until nukes arrive in North America again. They would probably be brought from Iran to Venezuela and then back to Cuba again. JFK will roll in his grave.
http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?Stor...13-084446-4483r
-
Whether or not Saddam actually had WMDs at the time of our attack, he acted deliberately to make people believe that he did. Saddam and his supporters have no right to complain that we believed him.
1. Somebody who is against the war, is not a Saddam supporter. That's a vicious allegation! icon_mad.gif
2. At the the time of the attack, Saddam had changed his tactics for months. He then had long given up pretending to still have WMDs. The vast majority of the UN where "not convinced" by the so-called "evidences" of Powell, which looked weak (and partially obviously faked!) to everybody evaluating them unbiased. There where ongoing, (finally!) successful inspections in Iraq who where about to prove that Saddam was now telling the truth regarding his WMDs. Those obvious facts where (IMO deliberately ) ignored by some people.
On the other hand, failure to act against Saddam would have constituted an open invite for other countries to follow his lead.
North Korea and Iran seem not very impressed.
-
What I do find puzzling is the whole WMD issue in Iraq. There have been credible reports that Saddam smuggled WMDs to syria on commercial airliners but the Bush administration isn't even pursuing that, maybe for fear of playing into some kind of shell game with the "axis of evil" passing these materials around to avoid detection. If Bush had uncovered those WMDs, even within the context of a Syrian invasion, it would go to great lengths to retroactively justify the Iraq war. But with that unresolved, you are left with no other conclusion than they didn't exist or were destroyed.
If someone disguises a water pistol as a firearm, and gets shot while using it to rob a bank, the security guard should not be blamed for shooting at someone armed only with a water pistol; rather, the crook bears the responsibility for trying to make the guard think he had a gun.
Whether or not Saddam actually had WMDs at the time of our attack, he acted deliberately to make people believe that he did. Saddam and his supporters have no right to complain that we believed him.
One could argue, I suppose, that the U.S. should have known better than to let Saddam trick them into wasting their military assets deposing him (this would be analagous to chiding the bank security guard for wasting ammunition on the water-pistol-bearing robber). On the other hand, failure to act against Saddam would have constituted an open invite for other countries to follow his lead.
-
That's cool. Not everyone makes their own avatar. I had been meaning to ask you about the last one. Did you make it?
-
I've seen the footage, but not being a structural engineer, I can't say it looks right or wrong for a building damaged one way or the other. I've seen as many controlled demolitions (on various TV specials) where they collapsed buildings asymmetrically to use the weight of the building to pull it away from other nearby structures, as ones that went straight down. So I don't see why sufficiently damaged buildings couldn't collapse either way. Besides, in none of the WTC 7 videos do I see any explosions going off prior to the building collapsing. In controlled demos, you always see flashes of high-powered explosives going off. Lots of them, too. Like
, for instance.I'm not a structural engineer either, but remember my claim was that it looks just like a controlled demolition. That's good enough to me to warrent more investigation.
Your link is the first video I've seen with bright flashes. Others don't show them, such as
, which I believe is your example from another angle.This video is an example that was spread around the net a few months ago. No flashes here either. What you do see though are particles, maybe dust or smoke, ejected horizontally at a high speed, presumably from explosions. Though not as clear, I can see something similar coming out of the sides of WTC 7 from this angle.
Maybe when I have time, I'll get into the issue of freefall speed too, which doesn't require training in structural engineering to understand.
-
You can see video footage of the collapse yourself at youtube.com. Just search for "wtc 7" or try this link. You'll see what I mean by the symmetry. If you are interested in arguing this topic, please take a look at this.
I encourage skepticism regarding all conspiracy theories, including the official story.
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
WTC 7
in Zach's Projects
A blog by Zach
Posted
If I'd known y'all were going to focus on the word Jenga rather than chaos, I would have phrased that post differently.
John, how about a scenario that doesn't start with a floor vanishing?
Fred, in your analogy, what is the weight pressing down on a skyscraper that corresponds to a person standing on a can?
Thomas, sorry I'm not ready to close the case.
It's getting frustrating debating with people who haven't studied the evidence. I'm a little surprised that I am alone here at AA*, but I suspect I won't be alone forever.
* Except for a couple people who have questions about the Pentagon. Thanks!
EDIT: I forgot to give ~llama credit for believing that wtc7.net has a good argument. Sorry, ~llama.