|
Post by Wes Gear on Jul 20, 2010 18:59:45 GMT 10
I'm sure you are excellent at your job concrete but would you not agree the experts brought in by popular mechanics we just as good? They have debunked every argument you've made.
So unless the conspiracy encompassed all these experts and PM magazine then I have to go with their combined knowledge over yours. I by no means am insulting you.
I'll throw you a bone though. PM magazine is known for always being the first to have data on military hardware. They have a working relationship with the pentagon. One could argue that they(popular mechanics) would have been wise to publish the debunking material for future considerations.
Problem is they would have had to find experts willing to lie and keep quiet. That is just unrealistic.
|
|
|
Post by concrete on Jul 20, 2010 20:34:13 GMT 10
You bastards and your facts!!!
Downloaded the NIST report which the PM article is based on. Gave it a quick skim I'll read it proper later.
But, I must admit. WTC 7 set alot of Firsts. Based on probabilities, as stated in the report. 'It's probable...' 'It's possible...' 'in our estimation...' etc.
I don't wanna discredit people with more letters behind their name than I do. But, it will assist in my onion of what happened that day. Personaly. I still wanna see a reason as to why the BBC reported it collapsed before it happened. That reporter could make a mint picking the lottery numbers.
Anyway. Drex. 'I'm sure you are excellent at your job concrete but would you not agree the experts brought in by popular mechanics we just as good? They have debunked every argument you've made'
Thanks. But, my design days are over. I'm in management now, and I'm VERY good at delegating. But, If I had to. I would argue any one of them. Debate is always good. The minute debate is dead, is the minute we might as well all shoot ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by concrete on Jul 21, 2010 3:05:16 GMT 10
OK., A quote from the NIST report.
In the executive summary. pg xxiv. 'However, the reader should keep in mind that the building and all records kept within it were destroyed, and the remains of all the WTC buildings were disposed of before congressional action and funding was available for this investigation to begin. As a result, there are some facts that could not be discerned, and thus there are uncertainties in this accounting'.
I'll bet Popular Mechanics didn't mention this.
|
|
|
Post by shatnerswig on Jul 21, 2010 4:49:29 GMT 10
ok i remember watching this live on tv after i got home .. heres what happened... 7 was on fire for a long time and emergency managenment officials and news crews were speculating if 7 would collapse like the towers did .... with most of the nyc fire and rescue killed or put out of commision they had no hope of saving the building 7wtc they didn t want to lose any more men so , someone made the decision to pull the remaining fire and rescue out of the area . and later the building collapsed this was live tv .. from the scene local nyc stations .... which btw to my knowlege never been rebroadcast but thats another story ... it may be possible that there was confusion on the part of the bbc they may have misinterpeted the speculation as fact but then the speculation turned to reality as 7 did infact collapse at a later time .
|
|
|
Post by Wes Gear on Jul 21, 2010 6:27:16 GMT 10
OK., A quote from the NIST report. In the executive summary. pg xxiv. 'However, the reader should keep in mind that the building and all records kept within it were destroyed, and the remains of all the WTC buildings were disposed of before congressional action and funding was available for this investigation to begin. As a result, there are some facts that could not be discerned, and thus there are uncertainties in this accounting'. I'll bet Popular Mechanics didn't mention this. that is a very good point and one that must be taken into consideration. honestly my thing is i think we are getting too hung up on how and why the buildings fell. if the government went through the trouble to plant explosives then their goal was to destroy the buildings only. you would not have had to bring them tumbling down to embark on a war against terrorism. so why the overkill? that would mean the wars are the "false flag" -god i hate that fucking term- to cover up the fact they just wanted to destroy the buildings. i believe they all fell from damage. don't forget that two of the largest buildings on earth collapsed around wtc7. the seismic tremors alone would have compromised wtc7's foundation. i say forget the buildings. question the terrorists funding and training. that is where the truth is.
|
|
|
Post by concrete on Jul 23, 2010 19:58:27 GMT 10
Drex, Wiggy
You're gunna love this. Over at dtv. Someone posted the same video. I went about starting the debate the wrong way (serves me right for being pissed at the time. I should have also realised that debate is a dying thing at dtv). Plus I over exaggerated my creds, and my bluff was called. So I now look like a fool, oh well. I apologised and gave full credit to the person who outed my fib. Still not aknowledged my apology (pure rudeness if you ask me! ;D )
Anyway to the crux. I was trying to look at it from the opposite point of veiw from my normal stance. In doing so, I had a read of the section of the FEMA report this vid is based on. This is what I said over there.
To me now. You can find any result you want if you weigh the outcome of an experiment whichever way you want. If you omit certain controls, or facts.
So, I am officially on the fence still.
And I learned two valuable lessons.
1. Don't lie. Because someone may out that lie.
2. Check all the availiable facts before constructing an opinion. Try to see both sides before you let personal judgment dictate what the 'truth' is.
|
|
|
Post by Wes Gear on Jul 23, 2010 20:36:17 GMT 10
you are a brave brave man. i would have acted like it never happened.
seriously though i have been on the other side myself. it was only after i couldn't stretch the facts or my imagination and still be comfortable with the towers being brought down that i found myself on this side.
by the way............i'm disappointed in you. you must have been drunk. no way the crete i know would lie to gain an advantage. you would just say fuck you and move on. i know who will be cleaning brill's litter box for a month mister.
|
|
|
Post by concrete on Jul 23, 2010 21:09:39 GMT 10
Correct. But being slightly tipsy (blind drunk) my ego got the best of me and I just dug myself deeper.
So, To show the gentleman I actually am. I decided to man up and admit my fib. I'd rather do that, than be classed in the same credibility rating as MEP. Besides water off a ducks back. If anyone brings it up in the future. Then, it will be ignored. I know the truth and have told the truth. Up to them to believe it now.
I don't mind cleaning brills litter box. As long as he stays away from the curries for the next month.
It's the runny ones that make me gag.
|
|
|
Post by brillbilly on Jul 23, 2010 21:36:09 GMT 10
thumbs up to ya concrete,i have no fight left with the 911 towers its too complexed to ever really get to the bottom as so much evidence was removed im still 50/50 on what really happened on that world changing day and im proud that all of ya are just looking for answers we will never know for sure the truth but dam have we tryd hard to get the full picture
|
|
|
Post by Wes Gear on Jul 23, 2010 22:09:30 GMT 10
the only hang up i have left from my perspective is the traces of thermite. granted i have not seen or read everything to do with 9/11 but from what i have seen those who claim its thermite and those who claim it isn't have not shown me conclusive evidence to take a side on the thermite theory.
everything else i feel has passed my internal bullshit shit monitor.
|
|