http://cryptome.org/wtc/wtc-photos.htm
especially ...
wtc034.jpg WTC. Dark building facade beyond shows 10-story gash caused by tower collapse.
ie. the buildings did not "fall in their footprints"
TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum
Cryptome's WTC photos (11 posts)
-
Posted 14 years ago #
-
A 10 story gash does not equal simultaneous failure of all columns.
Posted 14 years ago # -
I generally avoid talking about tower 1 & 2, and anyone responsible doesn't talk about those towers "falling into their footprints" because that's very obviously not what happened. But WTC7 very obviously did, and the only explanation that makes any logical sense to me, regardless of technical expertise, is simultaneous failure of core columns that were stronger in that building than just about any building in Manhattan.
So, Mark, I think your logic here is flawed. But I'm certainly willing to discuss the matter further, to the extent that I understand it.
Posted 14 years ago # -
The gash has been known about and covered for a very, very long time, since 2005 at least. Cryptome's pictures are old old news. The point has always been the smooth, even cascading of the visible roofline from floor 47 to zero in about 6 seconds, in what at the least is a perfect mimicry of a well-done controlled demolition. How could assymmetrical damage of the upper floors or the failure of one column prompt that? And why is this a priority to you on this day of all days? (Hm, I'm a patsy too - signing out. The next two paras I'd already written.)
Who says Towers 1 and 2 fell into the footprint? The top part of 2 fell over and the 110th story capstone landed way over on Church & Liberty, about 400 feet away, as one would expect. Both obviously ejected large chunks in every direction, with at most 2/3 in the footprint.
WTC 7 certainly did fall into its footprint by any measure of past controlled demolitions. Have a look at CD tapes and see how many are really entirely "in the footprint." It's more an advertising term than a perfect reality. (The WTC 7 pile was a bit to the north, but 97 percent or more of the mass in the footprint for what would have been the highest skyscraper taken down by CD until that morning, if it was so.)
Posted 14 years ago # -
Her's what cryptome says of AE and architects and Engineers in general:
Part of this threat appears to be due to the fact that many other buildings have vulnerabilities like those of the WTC structures and owners will not make corrections unless reimbursed by the USG. Thus AES911Truth may be underwritten by the real estate and insurance industries to extort funds from the USG, as have others since 911 now a booming industry of terrroism-victims-interest groups. Professional engineers and architects are complicit in this, some involved with WTC investigations, not only those associated with this group. Security measures are a classified racket among designers and security officials who shrewdly hide behind secrecy.
Wow, bizarre. Security measures are a classified racket among designers? What designers is he talking about? The average skyscraper did not change at all after 9/11 outside of things like fireproofing and exit stairs, etc., things to save lives in real disasters, not events of "national security".
I'd love to hear what vulnerabilities in structures like those of the WTC he's talking about. One would be describing every skyscraper on the planet.
And what a bizarre thing, to point to victims as extorting funds. I guess he's never met one.
Posted 14 years ago # -
I doubt that real estate or insurance industries have contributed anything to AE911truthiness. How many engineers of tall buildings are in that group anyway?
Cryptome's also pointed to the fact that the towers were exempt from NYC building standards since they were built by a public agency with its own corruption problems. That is a reason the new supertall skyscrapers have lots of structural concrete, something the WTC lacked.
There's a clown running for Congress in Oregon who created a scientists petition that proves global warming is not happening. Lots of critics submitted fake names (which were accepted) that shows there wasn't any peer review screening of the submissions. Whether there are 100 names on the AE911T petition or 10,000 names is politics, not science, and I'm sure the media is well aware of this tactic.
About the only overlap between the early days of the 9/11 "truth" movement and today's efforts is they both reference the same historical event but there's virtually no overlap between "Truth and Lies of 9/11," "The Complete 9/11 Timeline" and similar efforts on the one hand, and AE911truth and related efforts that now get the limelight.
The media is delighted to keep the 9/11 discussion focused on building collapses and not suppressed warnings or overlapping wargames, since it shifts the burden of proof into convenient directions with obvious political consequences. It also sets up a fake debate between the controlled demolition advocates and the debunkers, but the bulk of the evidence sourced to mainstream media clues (ie. the numerous warnings that the Cheney White House got) gets conveniently ignored in the shouting matches. And it makes it much easier for the crazy people and those impersonating crazy people to dominate the discussion, as folks on this discussion list have painful experience with. Mission Accomplished!
9/11 research is a rabbit-hole of Byzantine complexity full of snares and delusions and peopled with false friends, lunatics, earnest lost souls and a few heroes. It's not necessary to understand all the nuances of science and bureaucracy that allowed the government to get away with mass murder, blame it on swarthy foreigners (of whom many are eager accomplices) and use the incident as (in the words of the Cheney, Jeb Bush et al cabal, the Project for a New American Century) "a new Pearl Harbor." At this critical juncture in human history, it's only necessary to understand why they did it. The motive was Peak Oil, a disaster which will affect everyone on the planet, about which all must enlighten themselves and for which all must prepare. -- Jenna Orkin, World Trade Center Environmental Organization
Posted 14 years ago # -
The "10 story gash" building wasn't set on fire and didn't collapse. The 20 story gash was on WTC 7.
Posted 14 years ago # -
if any of you think this debate is fruitless - just imagine how fruitless it is when it occurs in the general public.
it is a total waste of time.
pretty much everyone on this message board believes that there are SERIOUS inconsistencies, omission and distortions associated with the official story of 9/11. yet - even among us - we cannot find a consensus on the issue of controlled demolition.
i say - let ae911truth continue to plug away at this issue - and maybe one magical mystical majestically grand day we will see a worldwide consensus among QUALIFIED experts on the issue.
but in the meantime - controlled demolition has become an albatross around our necks.
Mark - i agree with you to the extent that CD is too heavily highlighted by both our critics and - ironically - our own supporters.
so - do something about that!
But NOT by endlessly debating the merits of CD.
It just seems worthless at this point.
There are three camps:
1 - 9/11 Truth activists who are members of the Church of CD. You will NEVER convince them of anything anyway.
2 – 9/11 Truth activist who are agnostic or non-believers in CD. You certainly do not need to lecture us.
3 – The general public who think CD is outlandish – just on its face value and basic premise. They already agree with you – so why waste your time still pumping this subject out into the public domain?
I have come to the conclusion that the best strategy is to just leave it alone. Lead by example and engaging in an AGGRESSIVE campaign to bring the OTHER long- neglected non-CD issues into the forefront.
Every day you spend typing up rebuttals to CD is another day LOST educating the public on the very serious omissions and distortions associated with the OCT.
You are too smart and too talented to waste your time on this.
You could even go so far as to speculate that CD is all a big psyop… which you are playing right into by squandering your time.
Help reinvent the movement. Start writing and promoting and distributing and disseminating the facts – and the lies – and the open questions - associated with 911. Let CD just run a parallel track. Let people know what you believe – but do not waste time trying to confront/defeat it.
There is a beautiful new responsible website 911TruthNews.com. Write some commentary and submit it. Forget CD. Tell us why 9/11 Truth is important. Tell us what exactly is WRONG with the real story of 9/11 Truth. Explain it to me like I am 5 years old. I know you’ve done it before. Guess what? It is time to do it again…
You want to get out from under the rubble of CD? Stop digging
Posted 14 years ago # -
a worldwide consensus among QUALIFIED experts on the issue.
John, how are the engineers who are both signing up AND speaking out with AE not qualified experts? I've seen some of them speak. They aren't just signing their names and not looking, they are doing the research and reading both sides.
If I look at AE911 right now, at the bottom it says, "We have 1087 guests online" . . . to even look at their list of petition signers crashes my browser, too much there.
Posted 14 years ago # -
i didn't mean to imply that the signatories of ae911truth are not qualified. i meant to imply that i am not qualified - and MANY of the people who take on debating this subject are not qualified. nothing personal Mark - but as highly intelligent as you are - you simply are not qualified either - unless you have a degree in engineering or physics.
much of what is being discussed - at this point - ihas become highly advanced science. Dr Jones' paper - for example - is outside the range of comprehension of 99% of those who go around espousing its virtues!
but - honestly - i do not think we can say - in all honesty - that there is a worldwide consensus among experts on this subject. as big as a number as 1200 signatories may seem - we do not see this theory being embraced or discussed openly in the wider marketplace of ideas, science journals, periodicals, etc etc. It just is not. and i think it would be dishonest to claim that it is. and like the 'global warming is a hoax' discussion - it is just not reasonable to believe that scientists around the world are politically motivated into silence.
1200 signatories is certainly compelling - but until such time as i see a wider consensus among qualified experts that is not JUST limited to ae911Truth - but includes mainstream journals and science publications, etc etc - i intend to spare the world my amateur opinions - and steer clear of CD in my 9.11 activism.
Posted 14 years ago # -
Every day you spend typing up rebuttals to CD is another day LOST educating the public on the very serious omissions and distortions associated with the OCT.
Rebuttals to the no plane hoax(es) seemed to have zero impact on the proclivity of the leaders of the 9/11 truth movement to promote this BS.
Whether 1,200 or 12,000 people sign a petition is not an indicator of truthfulness. I haven't looked at the signatory list in a while but I noticed a number of hoax promoters as alleged technical experts including one who tried to persuade me of Holocaust Denial a few years ago.
It should go without saying that an investigation of a conspiracy like 9/11 will always a two-front war against disinformation. On one side are the gatekeepers pursuing a limited hangout. On the other side are crackpots and disinfo agents pushing bogus, discrediting evidence. Weeding out bogus claims is neither gatekeeping nor censorship but an absolutely critical activity. -- A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories, by Eric Salter 28 September 2005 www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html
Posted 14 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.