I'll ask one thing of you.
That is to remain focused.
"Day Brown"
daybrown.org> wrote in message
news:48d0a881$0$17657$ec3e2dad@unlimited.usenetmonster.com...> Sean wrote:
> Episode I ends with:"Never before, and never since, has a steel framed
> tower been destroyed by fire.". One debunker said he'd seen such a result.
> I asked for the link. All I got in response was ad hominum. no such link
> was provided.
>
Irrelevant.
It's not evidence.
It means absolutely nothing about the reality, the physics and the
engineering principles involved of why the Towers and WTC7 actually
collasped.
Note: no ad hom involved.
> Episode II shows the Madrid tower burning, much hotter- with white heat,
> than the WTC fires. And how that tower still stood. So, here we have an
> example of a disastrous tower fire, with no example of such a fire that
> actually made the tower collapse.
>
OK, that sure "sounds" compelling. But what does it mean, in and of itself.
Is it really of any relevance to what actually happened in the WTC? IOW is
it comparable to the WTC event, just because the Madrid Tower was made of
Steel?
The answer is NO. It is irrelevant. It is an emotive distraction to anything
closely resembling real "evidence".
But why would i say that? Here's a short list of things that make the WTC
collapaspes totally different than the Madrid building:
1) The WTC was built in 1966. All parts of that building were 35 years old.
2) It was the "first" of it's kind to use the new type of design.
3) The Towers were 106 stories high, WTC7 was 46 stories, and Madrid was 29
above ground.
4) Maintenance Records show evidence deterioration in the Cores
fire-proofing material for several years before 9/11. No repairs were done.
5) The WTC towers were actually struck by Airliners, before the fire
started. This in itself caused some structural damage that never occured in
the Madrid situation.
6) The Madrid building was not even completed, and was therefore brand new
materials.
7) That means there is no comparison between the thousands of tons of weight
upon the load bearing structures of the WTC towers above the impact points
from the planes, and what occurred in the Madrid building.
8) The Madrid building design, whilst made of "steel" as well, was NOTHING
like the WTC buildings, and in fact included fully reinforced concrete,
unlike the WTC buildings
9) Structural collapse DID in fact occur in the madrid building aprox.
2.5hours after the fire began.
I could go on, but isn't that enough basic information to conclude that
there is NO relevance between Madrid and the WTC on 9/11?
Does this prove that the WTC was not brought down by controlled demolition,
or prove that the Govt has nothing to hide?
NO, of course not.
All I am saying is that the issue of the Madrid fire, and the issue of
making a statement that :"Never before, and never since, has a steel framed
tower been destroyed by fire." is entirely irrelvant, is a distraction, is
being used as an emotive tool to add weight and credence to other issues
raised about 9/11, but in fact it means nothing at all execpt that it is
another example of the endless list of claims by 9/11 truth theorists that
are not actually supported by real evidence.
IOW, it is simply spin, just like GW Bush and Cheney "spun" the so called
Intelligence of WMD for their own purposes, so the 9/11 Truth Conspiracy
Theorists are engaged in the same level of self-delusion about what is real
evidence, and what is just BS.
Therefore this issue about Madrid proves nothing in the slightest about
anything related to 9/11 and should be totally ignored by critically
thinking people who really do want the Whole Truth about what happened.
My point has always been for years now, that just about everything
"technical" claimed by 9/11 conspiracies is flawed. That much of it is just
fabrication and misrepresentation of "facts" that cannot withstand the most
basic of objective analysis.
That various Conspiracies and Claims totally contradict themselves, even in
the same Doco, doesn;t seem to bother too many who believe this stuff, and
yet they claim the high ground of "critical thinking". Sorry, it doesn't.
Yet, I still have an open mind, I still doubt most things emanating out of
the Bush Whitehouse, but if you want me to pay atention then simply show me
the evidence, and not irrational and irrelevant claims that mean nothing.
Really, it's not that hard to check these things out.
As to what happened behind the scenes in Govt. Military etc, it's almost
impossible.
I'm still waiting for the thousands of professionals in the Military , the
Intelligence services, the FAA, the Firefighters, the Police, the FBI , the
CIA, etc and so on, enmass to stand up and say with some consistency that
even ONE claim being made by 9/11 Truthers has any validity.
It's 7 years on, one would have thought their consciences would have pricked
them by now. But what do we have? Not very much, except that the Bush Admin
was derilict/incompetent in providing leadership to anti-terror activities.
I accept that, no problem. It's obvious, just listen to Richard Clarke.
But he doesn't say the Jews thru Mossad did it, or the CIA, he says that
Muslim Terrorists did it, and Bush & Condi were asleep at the wheel, and
ignored him and others.
My view, is if that was the case, then what good is the rest of America
because no one has ever had the guts to Impeach them, and undertake a
serious investigation. Maybe after Jan 2009, something along these lines may
occur. I don't know, I wish it did occur, but I doubt it will.
-------------------------------------------------------------
As to "eye witnesses" reports .... well, it is a known fact to day, that eye
witnesses are fundamentally unreliable without verifiable corroborating
physical evidence of some kind.
For the above reasons, all I can say, is that the same approach needs to be
taken with your other issues below. I really have had enough of pointing out
the obvious flaws.
I don;t see that I am responsible to have to point out the flaws in the
claims being made about the madrid building fire. Can't anyone else work
this out for themselves?
The onus is on you, or on other 9/11 Truthers, to actually provide the
compelling evidence required, or just let it go. Show me the evidence, I'm
sick of "marketing" spin. We get that everyday from the media and the govt
and the business world. Isn't that enough already?
If there is some major conspiracy, then there are hundreds of people in key
positions who DO have the first hand evidence. And untill they come forward,
just jumping to vapid conclusions with nothing to back it up, bar silly
things like this madrid building thing, is really wasting everyones,
including your, time.
OK, hope that helps. THX
> Brian Clark talks of walking down the tower, past the section that was on
> fire, all the way down, and out. Thus he survived to report... what he,
> who actually been in the tower had witnessed. Is he a loonie? That episode
> also shows a photo of a woman, "at the precise point where a plane had
> impacted" looking out from the hole in the curtain wall. You can see her
> hands on the remains of the sheet metal skin. Which she would not have
> done if the metal was hot.
>
> NiST commisioned UL to do testing. Kevin Ryan, at UL, was fired because he
> did not go along with the official report. I have often posted how group
> think in organizations, like UL, will go along, and even engage in self
> deceit to avoid confrontation with perceived higher powers. But as people
> retire, they move out of group think, and at their leisure have time to
> think clearly about what they knew since they no longer have a career on
> the line. We see Kevin Ryan say the temps were not hot enuf to even soften
> steel.
>
> NIST misrepresented the UL lab results in its official report. We can
> expect to see, after Bush leaves office, and especially if McCain does not
> follow him, some effort on the part of those still in the system to take
> CYA steps to try to hide any data that mite relate to 9/11/01. We can also
> expect, given the example of Katrina and other failures of the system to
> function properly, that these attempts will themselves not be done
> effectively.
>
> Moreover, as people become aware of the risk of exposure, they will try to
> make copies of critical data that they expect could be traded with a new
> investigation team for a "cooperative witness" pass on prosecution.
>
> Given that Obama has much more money to spend on media than McCain, we can
> also expect system members already taking steps to protect themselves from
> charges, and we can expect the media itself, aware that it is also
> vulnerable, to desperately seek some skeleton in Obama's closet, and
> lacking any, try to shift support to the winner just as they did in the
> Goldwater/LBJ election.
>
> Regarding the 757 at the Pentagon, it cant fly that fast that close to the
> ground that far. There's a hovercraft effect that will lift it. The list
> of inconsistencies in this video and many others is extensive; not that
> any of them will matter to the debunkers here or elsewhere. This is not a
> matter of facts and analysis, but analysis of the sociology and psychology
> of the public, the media, and the intelligence community, all of which, to
> one degree or another, are either in denial, or deliberately being
> deceptive.
>
> These're challenging times; the effect of the unraveling of the 911 plot
> has not been given any consideration in what I've seen so far. Financial
> institutions all over the world are stressed now, and I can see how they
> would like to keep a lid on 911 while they try to work things out. There
> is little doubt that if 911 were to bust open now that this would affect
> the credibility of the American government and media, and that in turn
> would affect the value of the dollar. Which the power elites would like to
> remain stable while they try to adjust stock and bond market values to
> reflect some more accurate assessment of real value.
>
> Then too, at any time someone in Congress or the Media could see a shot at
> fame by breaking with the party line, and open up a setting, such as the
> hearings on the Vietnam war or Watergate has the TV cameras there, and
> witnesses who think they have something will emerge to show it to the
> world. this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3kBn1usddI presentation
> is not going to be the last.
>
> In some respects, 911 makes the CIA look like the Praetorian guard, who,
> in time, everyone realized murdered emperors to replace them with someone
> they thot more useful. Over time, they became ever more blatent, and
> eventually, a leader took power who saw he could scapegoat them to improve
> his popularity, demonstrate his power to the military, and make his rule
> that much more secure.
