What do you all think of this way to get people thinking about 9/11?
TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum
[closed] $5000 - $25,000: WTC7 9/11 Challenge (21 posts)
-
Posted 14 years ago #
-
Counterproductive.
No mention of the fact that part of the collapsing towers hit WTC 7. These were not "normal office fires" it was an unprecedented situation for a skyscraper to fall onto another skyscraper and then for the firefighters to refuse to fight the fire since so many of their crews were killed in the tower collapses.
I guess it's become quaint to suggest suppressed warnings and overlapping wargames are the best evidence.
I'm not surprised that David Griffin and Loose Change are recommended at Vernon "truth" website instead of the Complete 9/11 Timeline, Nafeez Ahmed, John Judge, Crossing the Rubicon and other quality efforts. It's good that Press for Truth is listed but when surrounded by a bunch of incompetent (and worse) films it loses its impact.
I'm also not surprised that actual engineers would not waste their time responding to this challenge, not out of psychological denial but because they know there's no point in responding, especially when the sponsoring website promotes a bunch of films and cranks claiming Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, a hoax that has been debunked countless times, even by 9/11 truth movement people (some of them, anyway, at least those willing to admit it's a false claim). It's hard to trust someone claiming the collapses supposedly violated laws of physics when they cannot even admit the f-ing plane really did hit the Pentacle and stop promoting nonsense that pretends this easily verifiable fact did not happen.
The perpetrators and enablers must be greatly entertained by all of this.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz...
Firehouse Magazine Reports WTC: This Is Their Story From the April 2002 Firehouse Magazine
Deputy Chief Peter Hayden Division 1 - 33 years
"we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early
on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13,
and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going
to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran
up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon,
but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was
going to collapse."Captain Chris Boyle (Engine 94) with 18 years of service with the FDNY gave this interview:
Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?
Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site. … We went one block north over to Greenwich and then headed south. There was an engine company there, right at the corner. It was right underneath building 7 and it was still burning at the time. They had a hose in operation, but you could tell there was no pressure. It was barely making it across the street. Building 6 was fully involved and it was hitting the sidewalk across the street. I told the guys to wait up. A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I'm standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we'll go in, we’ll see. So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody's going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it. Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day. www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle....
Posted 14 years ago # -
Another problem is that the page makes it obvious that they've already decided nobody can answer them sufficiently. They state quite clearly that there is NO answer, therefore they will not accept ANY answer, therefore this challenge is a sham.
Posted 14 years ago # -
Gee for a minute there I thought this was the JREF forum. Then again maybe it is.
Mark: "Counterproductive" yet you don't explain why. "No mention of the fact that part of the collapsing towers hit WTC 7". Yes because its completely irrelevant. The challenge is about NIST's crackpot theory that clearly violates the laws of physics. NIST has even admitted that the damage did not contribute to the fall of WTC7 in any way. "suppressed warnings and overlapping wargames are the best evidence". What completely unsupported BS! The laws of physics are the best evidence. Any (macro-level) theory that violates the laws of physics means the theory is wrong. Then you conclude with attacks of the site and more completely irrelevant testimony from firefighters. Oh and do a search of the Resources page for "Complete 9/11 Timeline".
Arcterus: "the page makes it obvious that they've already decided nobody can answer them sufficiently. They state quite clearly that there is NO answer, therefore they will not accept ANY answer, therefore this challenge is a sham." More completely unsupported BS! Any literate fifth grader can read the page to know what you said is an absolute fabrication.
Just like JREFers you sidestep the main unassailable arguments and try to misdirect attention with amateurish attacks and irrelevant information. Absolutely pathetic.
Posted 14 years ago # -
More completely unsupported BS! Any literate fifth grader can read the page to know what you said is an absolute fabrication.
Back in reality...
Your page is condescending, calling NIST's theory "NIST's crackpot theory", and in "Answers" you have "Absolutely None", which clearly is a passive way of saying "Nobody's taken our challenge because it's too foolproof, and nobody will ever be able to figure it out." as opposed to "None yet" or something to that effect.
More distinctly, you say "However, believing in theories that violate the laws of physics is a telltale sign of a severely unhinged crackpot." Not only is this condescending again, saying anyone who disagrees with you is "severely unhinged" and a "crackpot", but you state in as conclusive a manner as possible that it violates the laws of physics. Therefore, you are stating conclusively that NIST is wrong. Therefore, you are full of shit if you mean to tell me that you've done so much as considered paying these rewards regardless of any answers you may get.
This is all not to mention the incomplete information you offer, things that Mark pointed out such as the debris damage to WTC7.
This challenge is so obviously biased it's embarrassing. I'm hardly surprised it took you a grand 2 posts to start swinging out the JREF similarities, a classic troll technique.
Posted 14 years ago # -
Mark: "Counterproductive" yet you don't explain why.
this reads as intellectually dishonest since Mark gave very PRECISE reasons why he believes this effort is deeply flawed.
"No mention of the fact that part of the collapsing towers hit WTC 7". Yes because its completely irrelevant. The challenge is about NIST's crackpot theory that clearly violates the laws of physics.
This alone reads like it was written by an indignant teenager. Frankly it embarasses me. I shudder to think that something so poorly written would be put out there to represent the interests of all those who lost loved ones on 9/11.
are there legitimate questions associated with 9/11? yes. absolutely.
do you represent these interests in a mature and productive way?
no
in fact - it is crap like this that is putting the last nails in the coffin of 9/11 Truth as a movement.
Posted 14 years ago # -
Thanks for confirming that this challenge is precisely on the right track.
A serious note to any true activists here is that two very effective techniques of cointelpro operatives are misdirect and discredit. That is precisely what you see here. An attempt is made to discredit the challenge through sophomoric insults and highly irrational attacks. Completely irrelevant material is injected for misdirection in the hope that arguments will ensue, moving discussion away from the damaging truth. Outnumbered attackers appeals to a normal person's social conformist tendencies (if more people believe it, it must be true). Getting the last word in (no matter what it is) appeals to the unsophisticate's belief that the last hitter is the winner. That doesn't mean everyone (or anyone) here is cointelpro. They could just be suckers to the con.
Posted 14 years ago # -
and this is exactly the problem
for 9 long years now i have seen the same arrogant approach to promoting every theory under the sun attached to 9/11.
and it is always the same pattern.
if you do not line up and support every ill-conceived, or ill-advised strategy, under the umbrella of the big-tent of 9/11 Truth activism that includes every new snake-oil salesman and carny barker on the block, you are either accused of being cointelpro - or irrational - or dellusional - blah blah blah blah blah.
i've seen this same approach used to promote the INDISPUTABLE evidence of no-planes theories and CIT research and space beams and the JOOS-did-it horsehit.
Vernon911truth - one sure sign of childishness is the rightiously indignant insistence of the inexperienced to be immediately accepted and treated as an equal with the experienced.
unfortunately - when it comes to representing the interests of TRUTH - your efforts fall far short - and you would do well to listen with HUMILITY to the constructive criticism of those with experience who have spent YEARS studying and representing this movement.
the criticism of your work i see here is well-founded - and you do not serve your own interests well to accuse those who share their experience and expertize of being "cointelpro"
Posted 14 years ago # -
Vernon,
First of all, Mark doesn't support the promotion of CD and probably for more reasons than the reasons you can list supporting it. He's one of the most rational supporters of the movement and simply a LOT more educated than you.
Second, Arcterus offered specific concerns about your presentation that you should probably think about.
Third, John is right. It's obvious that you are less experienced that those here. That implies no condescension. But we won't let you walk on what we know.
Finally, you are not free to imply that we are cointelpro agents. Stop or get blocked.
Posted 14 years ago # -
There has been no constructive criticism here whatsoever. Only destructive criticism. An example of constructive criticism would be: This challenge is a bad idea because it is based on the notion that the official story of the WTC 7 collapse violates the laws of physics. In fact the NIST story of the WTC 7 collapse does not violate the laws of physics and here's why...
I find it very telling that Truth Movers can attack others with gay abandon. Yet simply rightly showing that some of them use cointelpro consistent behavior is subject to banishment. Gee that certainly proves me wrong.
Posted 14 years ago # -
is it my imagination - or do all the 9/11 Trolls come from Canada lately?
Posted 14 years ago # -
troll: someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response. So calling someone a troll and implying that a certain country has more trolls would qualify as trolling behavior. And I'm less experienced?
Posted 14 years ago # -
How many threads have played out exactly like this?
John, you've seen a number of them here. It's always the same. Someone with crap on their site comes here and posts some of it, knowing full well what the likely response will be. That response is then used to generalize about the project and to paint those involved as dishonest or untrustworthy. It doesn't imply a cointelpro operation, but it's certainly trolling.
Vernon, your ego being tied to information or strategy is a weakness. If you can't separate our point from our attitude, then this movement is probably too heavy a topic for you. You did get some input, whether you liked the tone of it or not. And our attitude is certainly no more destructive to the movement that promoting 911 Ripple Effect.
Posted 14 years ago # -
another form of trolling would be to post crappy science on a well known 9/11 Truth message board - asking for opinions - and then accuse those who respond in the negative of being cointelpro.
talk about OBVIOUS bait and switch
the fact of the matter is that the link you provided includes information and sources that have been largely discredited or proven to be hoaxes. No planes at the Pentagon? 9/11 Mysteries? Loose Change? Terror Storm?
(yawn)
furthermore, your claim that you are offering a $25,000 reward - with no information whatsoever regarding WHO is backing/offering the money - and WHO will be judging this little contest of yours - makes you APPEAR to be a fraud. who will judge submissions? someone well known? someone with a degree in physics?
you offer NO details - other than acting like a complete jackass here - throwing accusations of cointelpro around - and (yawn) frankly (yawn) we've all seen this so many times...zzzzzzzzz
Posted 14 years ago # -
furthermore, your claim that you are offering a $25,000 reward - with no information whatsoever regarding WHO is backing/offering the money - and WHO will be judging this little contest of yours - makes you APPEAR to be a fraud. who will judge submissions? someone well known? someone with a degree in physics?
Seriously, the idea that this guy actually intends to pay anything is ridiculous. He's just doing a parody of rewards. He's just another troll who's decided his way of doing things is the only way, regardless of what anyone else more experienced has to say about it.
Posted 14 years ago # -
A real challenge would have the money deposited in a bank with verifiable proof that the account is there. It would also be useful to know who is allegedly posting this sum of money, whether in Canadian or American or Zimbabwe dollars or any other form of currency. And a real challenge would have a relatively neutral moderator or collection of experts attempting to judge the veracity of the challengers. If the representative of the challenge is this obnoxious toward those who are in agreement that the official story of 9/11 is fishy (even if we disagree on the details of the supporting evidence) I can only imagine the tone used toward those being baited by this challenge.
This so-called challenge is just more fodder for Screw Loose Change to have their fun with.
As for Canada, one of the best 9/11 blogs was Rigorous Intuition, but there hasn't been anything new there in about a year, and the bulk of the material was a few years ago. It's worth going through the archives or buying a copy of the book version. The author was one of the very few "truth" advocates who talked about the middle ground between the limited hang outs and the disinformation. It's the only Canadian 9/11 truth effort I recommend, with the exception of Barrie Zwicker's initial "The Great Deception" from 2002 (before his material got polluted with "no planes" and worse stuff).
Posted 14 years ago # -
The ridiculous garbage here just doesn't stop. There is absolutely no need for the challenge money to be in a special bank account. Such a challenge represents a binding legal contract. If a valid submission is rejected or the money is found not to be there on acceptance, this would constitute fraud which is legally actionable. Anyone who can read can tell who is offering the money. Anyone who can think should realize that if a Canadian is offering the money, the money would be in Canadian funds unless stated otherwise.
I also want to clarify my cointelpro statements. Note that all I said was the behavior of most of the others in this thread is consistent with cointelpro behavior. This is a cold hard fact not speculation. I don't have any hard proof anyone here is cointelpro but that is immaterial. They are acting like cointelpro and will have the same effect as cointelpro, moving people away from the truth. If TruthMove is serious about what they claim to be all about this fact should be extremely disturbing to them and they should do something about it. They should do what I did: expose the behavior without accusation and stop it. If those acting like cointelpro are disturbed by their own behavior they should likewise do something about it.
Posted 14 years ago # -
I don't have any hard proof anyone here is cointelpro but that is immaterial. They are acting like cointelpro and will have the same effect as cointelpro, moving people away from the truth.
what truth? that no plane hit the Pentagon - as your website promotes?
what truth? the work of Alex Jones who supports the birther movement and 'global warming is a hoax' nonsense - as your website promotes his work too?
which truth?
is it TRUTH you are selling here? or are you selling your OPINIONS?
do you have a monopoly on the truth?
are you CLAIMING you possess the truth?
i have bad news for you:
you hardly represent the Truth. none of us here would ever pretend to know the truth - and the regular contributors to this forum are not about to just hand you a free pass to pollute the 9/11 Truth movement with the GARBAGE research that your blog promotes.
and that is not cointelpro behavior. that is responsible stewardship and activism.
but i suspect you have used the word 'cointelpro' one too many times... and i suspect you will be going bye bye relatively soon.
please don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out... it is indisputable physics afterall.
Posted 14 years ago # -
"none of us here would ever pretend to know the truth". Yet you know that a plane hit the Pentagon. You know the birther movement is rubbish. You know the 'global warming is a hoax' argument is nonsense (personally I suspect it is but don't' claim to know it is). You know I am polluting the 9/11 Truth movement. You know vernon911 website contains garbage research. You know the truth but would never pretend to know it. There's a word for this: doublespeak.
Posted 14 years ago # -
you need to learn the difference between expressing opinions - and claiming something as a fact
you came here asking our opinions of your work - and then labeled us as cointelpro for simply expressing them.
if you have opinions you would like to share here - about building 7 or the Pentagon - share them.
but the minute you start labeling us government operatives for not agreeing with your opinions - you cross the line.
Posted 14 years ago # -
That's just about enough of all that.
Posted 14 years ago #