Senate Dunk It Or Debunk It! Now disc: The Oak Island Money Pit

An excellent question.

First, I can't even imagine the repercussions amongst the general American public if this is ever proven like you say, the family of survivors would be screaming for justice, and there are thousands of them.
There would be some sort of witch hunt to place blame, somebody like Cheney would go to jail, but the bigger change could immediately take place, a 180 degree on American foreign policy.
Which has been shaped for the worse by 9/11, this video by former General Wesley Clark is very telling, this part is not a conspiracy, but factual as he states.



The war on terror would be instantly over, and maybe just maybe as America turned inward to heal itself it from this further tragedy it could advocate peace instead of war.

 

Yes. We all remember the recent American occupations of Lebanon and Sudan. Oh, wait.

 

I have no reason to believe that this would be the case. America would be as beholden to Israel and as in need of cheap oil as it ever was. Again, Obama would likely blame his predecessors and keep on truckin' as is. I think you're dreaming.

 

First, a general note that the discussion should take place here, but citations to sources are more than welcome. Everyone should be expected to be making their case, not just sending people elsewhere by saying "there are good arguments, go look over here". If your post doesn't make statements when you remove your links, then you're not including enough here. This is supposed to be a discussion between posters, not who has the fancier link.

I would say that understanding what happened is important, and it doesn't matter if it wouldn't change anything now or not, just as it's worth knowing if FDR knew about Pearl Harbor, or how the sinking of the Maine or Gulf of Tonkin incident really unfolded. That said, I've not seen presented here any evidence that suggests anything happened on 9/11, in particular relating to WTC7, that was outside of the 'official' timeline as it has been laid out.

 

I'm not going to bother with 9-11 conspiracy nuttiness, but FDR did not "know" about Pearl Harbor. It was obvious that the Japanese would attack at some point because of rising tensions, economic sanctions, etc.-- which is why the Pacific Fleet was moved to Pearl Harbor from San Diego. The U.S. generally thought that Japan would target only the Philippines and other American Far East possessions/interests. No one-- or very few people-- among those in charge of war planning thought that Japan would have the audacity to launch a large-scale attack on Hawai'i and the Pacific Fleet so far from friendly ports. Remember, naval doctrine still vastly underestimated aircraft carriers.

 

Darth Guy, I would agree that he didn't know, I'm just using it as an example of clearly past history that some have speculated about, and using it as an example of if there was a difference from the official version, it's still something we should know. I don't think there's any evidence in that case, either, that he knew. The if is in there intentionally, and isn't meant to apply to the other two events that did NOT unfold (based on later evidence) the way that they were initially presented.

 

So if it turned out that Obama's predecessor was responsible for 9/11, you're saying Obama would blame his predecessor? Has the very concept of blame become so unpopular in certain circles that it's not considered appropriate in any situation ever?

 

it fell down

 

Blue_Jedi33: do you think WTC7 was blown up? And if so, why do you think so?

 

I don't really know what happened, but I know fire alone do not bring down buildings like that, thus WTC7 is collapse is questionable.
I just know, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like duck, and flies like duck there is a very strong possibility it is a duck, if you get my meaning.

The following video is for informational purposes, sound kicks in later, it compares many controlled demolition buildings, with different videos of WTC7 collapsing



Make your own judgement, it is something each person must come to terms with on a individual basis.

 

Yes, fire alone does not bring down a building. Damage from the massive skyscrapers just across the street collapsing on top of it helps a bit. And what the hell would be the point of a "controlled demolition" of a WTC building most people had never even heard of and was completely unoccupied when it collapsed? That is some government waste, man.

 

"I don't understand physics, architectural engineering, Occam's Razor, or why structural collapse would look like a controlled demolition, so clearly the government did it."

 

Uncontrolled fire could definitely take down a structure like that. Buildings like the WTC7 are designed with fire systems which are obviously intended to control the effects of a fire. If those systems do not operate as intended then an uncontrolled fire can do structural damage which is simply not contemplated at the design phase and so the structure fails.

That last video fails because it does not compare controlled and uncontrolled collapses because luckily there hasn't been a plethora of building collapses caused by 9/11 type events.

 

I note I've yet to see anyone bring forward an argument in here for why it wasn't exactly what the official stories say happened.

 

I am not sure any of us have the ability to separate WTC7 from the totality of what happened on 9/11, this is a problem for everybody on both sides of this discussion.

More Relevant videos each less than a minute from CNN and CBS

Here is his 5 minute interview

http://prisonplanet.com/audio/100207bartmer.mp3

So if first responders on 9/11 who were there that day, as an eyewitness's, to the whole tragedy, questions the collapse of WTC7, shouldn't we ?

I would say the most troubling aspect is the 20 second countdown to the collapse, you just can't do that with an fire only based collapse, can you ?

Or as I said early, is this perhaps too painful a question to even contemplate, because we all know where it leads ?

 

That's because you can't separate it.

Let me put it this way: a controlled demolition takes days/weeks (and months) of planning. WTC7 collapsed at 5:21pm on 9/11/01. If it were a controlled demolition separate from the collapse of the twin towers, then either it was an incredible coincidence, or those who destroyed it had foreknowledge of the attacks that day. That's it.

On the other hand, if it wasn't a controlled demolition, then no foreknowledge or coincidence is required.

 

Just because the WTC7 building has the appearance of controlled demolition doesn't necessarily make it so. If this was always the case then intelligent design would be a legitimate science worthy of study in the science classrooms of the world.

 

And if first responders DON'T question it, then who are we to question it? There are plenty of first responders who do not agree with these ideas, and eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, and it's very easy to mishear things, misinterpret things, and misremember things. The point should not be if eyewitnesses question it, but if a large portion of experts in related fields question it or if there's substantial unaddressed evidence.


As to the collapse... firstly, could you explain what you mean by a 20 second countdown to the collapse? As the fire had been going for hours at that time. Additionally, it wasn't just fire, there was also significant damage to the building from the collapse. There are some video that somewhat indicates that, as well as first responders who observed that there was significant damage to the building far ahead of the collapse.

From Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, "We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also 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."

From Captain Chris Boyle, "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."

This seems to match up with the few images that were actually taken during this AND show stuff even with all the smoke from the fires burning, like this one. WTC7 had suffered major damage even before the fires burning in it are factored into it, or the transformers in the building that have the ability to explode.

 

I was doing some extra research to respond to Lowbacca_1977 when I found this PBS documentary which I personally hadn't seen before.
It was broadcasted in September 2012.
9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out

PBS Link http://video.cpt12.org/video/2270078138

It is one hour so you will need some time to view it.The first 20 minutes focus on WTC7 then it moves on. I found this video difficult to watch, as it only further confirms what I know to be a fact, we don't know the whole truth of 9/11 and these poor families will never rest until they get some justice. Be warned if you have not watched these types of documentaries before, they are difficult to watch, and if you are an American it will be even harder.



Cognitive dissonance

This is mentioned in the video, and I think if a person watches this all the way through, they must ask themselves are they experiencing this phenomenon ?

And finally I leave you with words of Benjamen Franklin
“It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.”

 

And then decided not to respond to any of Lowbacca's valid points.

 

I believe Benjamin Franklin would be the first person to call your lack of scientific evidence and inability to properly address direct criticism out for the farce it is. And then probably sleep with some French women. Because Ben Franklin.

 

I'm repeating this warning, and leaving it in quotes to highlight that I already have mentioned this before but will do so more explicitly. Outside sources are fine, providing that first and foremost, you are having the discussion here and making your own arguments. The expectation is that anyone involved in the discussion is actively taking part in constructing and discussing arguments, and not just trying to link to other people's arguments better. This includes embedded videos and websites. The main thrust of your post should come from an argument of your own construction. If you remove links, videos, and quotes and your post does not stand at all, then you're lacking substance in your posts.

 

Lowbacca_1977

I appreciate the parameters you have set out, but it's just more my style to post links with brief comments, and it is the style I like to read as well.
And if "a picture is worth a thousand words", a video has to be worth exponentially more.
As I find this allows for the maximum ability to take in knowledge on any subject at a faster rate, compared to big blocks of texts.
So I will respectfully bow out of further discussion on this topic, based on your requirements to continue.

I really do appreciate the topic being allowed this time around.
And we cannot deny that many that have lost loved ones that day, are still looking for answers, because of what the government says happened to WTC7 does not seem to give them resolution, there are many links I could post, but I shall refrain.

Each person can do their own research, if they choose to do it.

 

Can we please add a "most comically portentous post" category to the JCC year-end awards?

 

I usually can't even watch videos frequently (or rather, have no audio), and again, while links are welcome and encouraged, the discussion here should make those points themselves so that someone reading just this thread can see the argument being put forward.