For fun, let's look at the kinda crap I get constantly,
I would love to have a discussion with you about your video 'Rise', as it contains too many flaws and falacies to mention in the comments section on YouTube.
By all means, fire away...
" First, the quotes are hard to read...but that's just semantics."
Hopefully that is all the semantic objections you bring up.
" I'm going to focus on your points that are either misleading or just wrong. You also have a lot of statements that are conjecture, but everyone has the right to their opinions and theories."
Thank you for your brevity.
"2:09 – you state that the 9/11 commission officially declared that the WTC was a collapse. They did not officially declare that. Experts in the field of structural engineering, fire engineering, metallurgy, ect. have said that it is likely that the WTC was brought down by the plane crash and fire. The Commission used that explanation in their report. A lot of people do not understand that the Commissions goal was not to determine what caused the collapse of the WTC, or what hit the pentagon. Rather, the Commission’s job was to find out how the US intelligence failed to see the impending terror strike. They went into their duty with the assumption that the events of 9/11 were the cause of a terrorist attack. It was not their goal to prove an alternative theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission (I don’t like using wikipedia as a source, but it serves the purpose here)"
From the Commission Homepage-
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.
...to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks,
As to why they failed to include any relevant "circumstances" such as Able Danger, WTC 7, or the actual design of either tower, I can only speculate. But they did state that the destruction of the towers was due to internal collapse and nothing else.
As to the experts... Please name them and show relevant experience in related fields. Eager of MIT, the first and most outspoken proponent of the White House Theory, has a great deal of experience in the field of welding and its usage in the pre-fabrication processes for manufactured homes. If the Towers were trailers, he'd be the man to ask. As is, no relevant expertise.
Why do you not like Wiki? Corrollary- Then why would you referrence it?
" 2:19 –again the 9/11 commission didn’t ‘blame’ anything for the collapse. That wasn’t their role."
2:37 – I assume you are stating that the explosions are evidence of bombs. It’s not. www.stupidcollege.com/items/electric-transformer-explosion There were several in the world trade center. My point is that presence of explosions is not evidence of the presence of bombs.
I am stating that there is nothing other than explosives that can create the effect seen on the videos. The upper floors tilt begin to topple forward, then disintergrate without any visible external force. No internal force other than explosives can explain the midair destruction. Seen here The destruction waves running down the sides of the Towers, Seen here and here similiarly can not be explained by any known force other than explosives.
"2:57 – Larry Silverstein did not use a demolition term to describe WTC 7. ‘Pull’ is firefighter term. Furthermore, how does the Silverstein statement make sense if we broke it down “We couldn’t control the fire in the building so instead we decided to blow the building up” If WTC was an insurance scam, or some sort of conspiracy, why did Silverstein money to rebuild"
Pull is also a term used in clay pidgeon shooting, but that is not how he used it. Your slanted paraphrasing also does not convey the subtext of his words. Here is what he said. Watch the whole minute and you get what he meant.
Here again you are arguing semantics, badly.
Also, the firemen had already been evacuated from the building long before its destruction. They were evacuated for this reason As show here
"3:20 – Mentions of explosions…see above."
Yep, See above. No wait. What you are saying is that explosions can only be the effect of what? Electrical transformers? Were there a number of them running down each tower, floor by floor? And could they be detonated in a rapid and descending sequence? Hmmm... interesting.
4:23 – Controlled demolition did not remove the remains of the WTC quickly. The effort took months. *notice the date> NewsdayandNewsday"
No, but Controlled Demolition Incorporated did. Noted here
4:56 – Again, it was not the role of the 9/11 commission to come up with a theory to why the buildings fell."
"5:08 – The ‘official explanation’ as you call it (fire and structural damage to WTC) did not break any laws of physics. PM How Stuff Works PBS"
You are correct. The Official Explanation does not break any rules of Physics. It does as paper and ink usually do. It sits and waits to be read. As for the event explained by the official explanation... Here You go
You have the right to your opinions…but you need to support them with evidence if you are going to present them to a public audience as if they are fact.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to do such. Of course, you did just ask for a fully referrenced and evidence supported rock and roll video. I would be interested in your take on any Tom Petty videos. I think it would be interesting.
I would suggest that you start with WTC 7 and go on to Here before you make up your mind about what happened.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
For fun, let's look at the kinda crap I get constantly,