The Black Vault

fortwynt wrote:well this is the conspiracies area after all, no?

So I must accept the claims made?
No doubters allowed?
There is a term for such a gathering. The nice version is "love-in"
Do you wish this to be a "love-in"?

nevermind that.

Oops, Oh, okay.

So, your argument, then, is that the buildings were not designed with this general concept in mind?

What general concept is that? That office fires would begin on several floors at once through the action of thousands of gallons of accellerant which is deposited in the structure by the violent collision of a very large, fast aircraft? No, no building is designed against that concept.

That the result of the failure of the columns of the building at ten or more stories below the roof would result in the mass of that ten stories to impact the floorspace of the next level? No it was not designed to resist that either.

To specifically arrest a pancake collapse in a long span structure? No, only since 911 has any building been designed in such a way that, in theory, it can arrest a collapse such as was seen in the towers.

What the WTC tower structures were specifically desgned for was to provide very large, unobstructed interior spaces, an aspect they shared with WTC 7. This was partly their downfall. (ooh bad pun)

I could care less

an aside here. If you could care less then you do care some. The expression is supposed to be "I could not care less" but in recent times many have expressed it as you did, which makes little sense.

what math you (or anyone else) comes up with....yes, I can read it, and yes if I were one to believe the official version, it would seem to make perfect sense, but i think in this case the numbers do indeed lie....well, not so much the numbers I suppose, but those whose job it is to report those numbers....not sure really.

It is one thing to be able to follow the arithmetic, another to truly understand the application. No, numbers cannot be made to lie in such cases. You are thinking about statistics.

All im saying is, with or without the towers (though i do consider them a pretty clear example of in your face debauchery), their story falls to pieces at almost every angle....

They who? Just an amorphorus 'they'?

Crucify me because I don't believe the words of a bunch of liars, and an institution that derives its very existence from lying the people it claims to care so much about.

Which liars? Which institution? The 911 Commission? NIST? Who lied in those institutions? Specifically who, and specifically who lied about the engineering aspects? About what exactly?
You have admitted that even if one could absolutly illustrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that the towers were destroyed solely by the crash and fire, you would still not believe it because you simply refuse to.

That is indicative of a belief system akin to religion. It means that I have as much probability of convincing you about this as I do of convincing a Scientologist that Hubbard was a fraud and a huckster.

Well perhaps true that past ahem transgressions perpetrated by the United States government upon its own peoples, and peoples of other nations, isnt *cough* direct proof of 9/11 complicity...but it certain helps out the case either way...especially given the shaky nature of the official version of things.

Am I willing to entertain the notion that its "possible" that the buildings came down purely as they claim they did....I suppose so....I am not an engineer (surprise)....I just dont tend to believe it myself.

But even then, as i said before, the buildings could have come down precisely in the fashion they claim, and that still wouldnt make up for the obvious glaring ridiculousness of the rest of their story.

I suppose you need examples of this ridiculousness?

Why would a person trust a government who has proven time and time again that they dont particularly care for the lives of the citizens at large, and especially the lives of people in other nations (unless we can come out looking like some sort of humanitarian body), so long as they are making their money and etc....? COME ON! *laughs*

Examples though?

I can look over a few and get back to you, but im sure you'll have some "logical" explanation for them as well.

You can look over all the examples you wish to it may illustrate that its possible that it was done on a much larger scale on 911.

That's pretty shaky to build a case on.
You must have more than 'they've killed before'.

fair enough *shrugs*

The energy of the collapse should have been arrested at some point during the event, it was not, and all within was shredded into small bits and pieces. Pretty amazing for a top down collapse to eliminate all: Furniture, toilets, computers, phones, chairs, desks, file cabinets. Equally amazing for 5 story sections of the outer perimeter columns weighing several tons to be found 500-600 ft away from the Towers. No buckling or bent columns, just cast out like toothpicks.

If they peeled like bananas one would expect to see crumpled, twisted, buckled columns as they would have Some like to claim been pulled inward by the weight of the above floors. However, all the video evidence, and photographic evidence clearly shows that the above was already ( Rubble ) before it impacted the floor below.

There's a fairly new board that is kind of sticky, they are bashing new things about over there. As well as the old sh*t. I'm not a member, but I've noticed some of my finds have appeared on their site pics and the like. I've spoken via e-mail with the owner a few times in passing. I've not spent, much less had the time, to dig very deep into their material. But I do know that the site is quite unique, and all but impossible to find under the regular queries.

They have exposed some of those within the "TRUTH MOVEMENT " as Fakes, namely Dr Steven Jones and his Thermite BS. He was planted from the very first and to this day refuses to speak to ANYONE who can pin him down on certain issues in regard to thermite being all but IMPOSSIBLE to pull off undetected. The same with the New kid on the Block~~Rich Gage~ CD is a tool of the official theory, they push it, want people to push it and have people to believe it simply because CD would have been impossible to rig without being found out. That's exactly why the words "Controlled Demo" are used by some in the truth movement~~~It's blatant disinfo.

One should ask themselves why the original blue prints have been kept from the public and all FOIA requests have been denied. No one~~outside of Rudy and his thugs have a real grasp of how those Towers were actually built. Sure you've got leaked plans of one of the Towers that people kick around on the internet, only nobody knows the who's, what's and why's of the person who leaked them. Besides I've an original first draft drawing of one of the Towers and the ELEVATOR SYSTEM, hand drawing. It shows something entirely different than the design concept of the blue print in question.

No one would touch it or comment on it, just dismissed as an Idea. Only they still wanted to know where it came from

Good luck on finding stuff in regard to these Towers, ( in this country anyway) pre 9-11~~most all info has been eliminated from the public domain. Maybe CodeBlack will one day share his/her knowledge of exactly what it is I'm talking about in that regard.

Cole

Are you seriously saying there were no "No buckling or bent columns"?

jaydeehess wrote:

fortwynt wrote:well this is the conspiracies area after all, no?

So I must accept the claims made?
No doubters allowed?

Oh by all means, this is a debate, I am fine with you holding your own opinions...i would have it no other way. I'm merely saying that the burden of (what is referred to as) "proof" can go many ways in situations such as these....obviously if there were "overwhelming" evidence (for a court system) then there wouldnt need to be a debate in the first place really...but given the nature of some of these things, they will, by their very definition, be things that one must search and compare and contrast and theorize, fill in gaps, without much "direct" evidence. It would be foolish to suggest on the one hand, a massive govt conspiracy, and then on the other hand expect there to be just all this "proof" laying around for the taking.

Black holes were not "proven" because one can point a telescope into the sky and see them, they were "proven" because of the effect they have on the things around them...in other words, elaboration.

I would be foolish to suggest that I "Know" specific details of (what i consider) this grand delusion/illusion....just that as a highly interested observer many things dont quite add up to equal the version of things they have put out there....to me this "official" version smells more like a dreamed up hollywood script than any of the "conspiracy" theories i have yet heard.

I know that I might be a little behind, but I also came to the US 6 years after it happened, but explosives being planted in the World Trade Center as shown on Loose Change is incorrect right?

some say that.


personally i find the close ups of the "squibbs" or what is referred to as possible "squibbs" compelling, i dont think it is merely from the downward force of the collapse...

jwebb wrote:I know that I might be a little behind, but I also came to the US 6 years after it happened, but explosives being planted in the World Trade Center as shown on Loose Change is incorrect right?

It is incorrect. Loose change used any example of someone saying "like an explosion" as evidence of explosives. Explosion does not automatically mean explosives and none were found in the rubble. Most of the claims were metaphors. Bodies hitting the street, car gas tanks cooking off, jet fuel exploding out of elevators and many other noises expected in a huge conflagration.