Conspiracy theories..?

storch · Apr 18, 2012

Carlid,

You are right. Technically, this is off-topic. So, we can continue our discussion here: http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=445506&page=2

Tyrsonswood · Apr 18, 2012

RetiredHippie said:

I knew you were one of "THEM".
Click to expand...

...

jaredfelix · Apr 18, 2012

storch said:

Carlid,

You are right. Technically, this is off-topic. So, we can continue our discussion here: http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=445506&page=2
Click to expand...

Orr not. Why must everything be consolidated? People want a personal experience here.

storch · Apr 18, 2012

Good point!

Carlid · Apr 18, 2012

storch said:

Carlid,

You were just shown how the conservation of momentum dictates that a near free-fall of all three towers is impossible, especially in light of the core structure upholding itself. Did you know that the core structures of those buildings were designed to support several times the weight they were designed to support?

But let's start with your belief that the fire in the towers caused the collapse, and that the core structures crumbled or melted, or what ever it is that you're believing. Speaking of magic, how is it that the fire from the jet fuel, which burned off in twenty minutes, melted steel? That's not consistent with science, and everyone who hasn't invested everything in the first thing they were told on television knows it. If you continue believing that that's science, well, you might as well wear a tinfoil hat. Since you've exposed yourself as the type who believes that, on 9/11, an extinguished fire can melt steel, let's look at that a little further.

If the inside of the tower was a raging inferno, how do you explain this:
This is a transcript of firefighters' conversations on that day, just minutes before the collapse of WTC# 2:

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."

Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Tower one. Battalion Seven to Ladder 15.

Fifteen."

Battalion Seven Chief: "I'm going to need two of your firefighters Adam stairway to knock down two fires. We have a house line stretched we could use some water on it, knock it down, kay."

Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're coming up the stairs. We're on 77 now in the B stair, I'll be right to you."

Battalion Seven Operations Tower One: "Battalion Seven Operations Tower One to Battalion Nine, need you on floor above 79. We have access stairs going up to 79, kay."

Battalion Nine: "Alright, I'm on my way up Orio."
________________________________________________

If the inside of the tower was a raging inferno, as you seem to believe it was, then you must also believe that injured people and firefighters alike can withstand an awful lot of heat. And that's just not consistent with science or reality.
________________________________________________

Now here's the story behind that taped exchange:

The Department of Justice has ordered secrecy measures to keep the contents of a “lost tape” of firefighters’ voices at the World Trade Center from being made public. The 78-minute audiotape evidently debunks the accepted explanation that intense jet fuel fires melted the towers’ steel beams and caused the collapses.

The New York Times recently revealed the existence of the tape of radio transmissions between firefighters of the New York Fire Department (NYFD), which proves that “at least two men” had reached the 78th floor Sky Lobby of the South Tower. The firefighters had reported about the fires and casualties they encountered and had begun evacuating the survivors.

The article said that firefighters “reached the crash zone on the 78th floor, where they went to the aid of grievously injured people trapped in a sprawl of destruction.”

While the article raises as many questions as it answers, it points to a reason for the secrecy: “Once they got there,” the article says, “they had a coherent plan for putting out the fires they could see and helping victims who survived.”

The report names two of the firefighters who were at the crash site: Battalion Chief Orio J. Palmer, who was organizing the evacuation of injured people, and Fire Marshal Ronald P. Bucca. Both were among the 343 firefighters who perished.

The voices of the firefighters “showed no panic, no sense that events were racing beyond their control,” the Times wrote. “At that point, the building would be standing for just a few more minutes, as the fire was weakening the structure on the floors above him. Even so, Chief Palmer could see only two pockets of fire, and called for a pair of engine companies to fight them.”

The fact that veteran firefighters had “a coherent plan for putting out” the “two pockets of fire” indicates they judged the blazes to be manageable. These reports from the scene of the crash provide crucial evidence debunking the government’s claim that a raging steel-melting inferno led to the tower’s collapse.

As the FEMA “Building Performance Assessment” report says, “Temperatures may have been as high as 900-1,100 degrees Celsius (1,700-2,000 Fahrenheit) in some areas.”

“If FEMA’s temperature estimates are correct, the interiors of the towers were furnaces capable of casting aluminum and glazing pottery,” Eric Hufschmid, author of the book Time for Painful Questions writes. Yet the voices on the tape prove that several firefighters were able to work “without fear” for an extended period at the point of the crash, and that the fires they encountered there were neither intense nor large.

The South Tower disintegrated in less than an hour after being hit by a plane, which impacted between its 78th and 84th floors. “Fire has never caused a steel building to collapse,” Hufschmid writes. “So how did a 56-minute fire bring down a steel building as strong as the South Tower?”
Hufschmid’s forthcoming book presents compelling evidence that explosives caused the towers to collapse.

I guess my question to you is: How can you hold on so tightly to your idea about the heat being so hot that it melted or otherwise caused steel to crumble so quickly?

Pointing to the Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia in 1991, Hufschmid writes, “The Meridian Plaza fire was extreme, but it did not cause the building to collapse. The fire in the South Tower seems insignificant by comparison to both the Meridian Plaza fire and the fire in the North Tower. How could the tiny fire in the South Tower cause the entire structure to shatter into dust after 56 minutes while much more extreme fires did not cause the Meridian Plaza building to even crack into two pieces?”

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PA), the bi-state authority and owner of the World Trade Center, retrieved the “lost tape.” A spokesman for the authority, Greg Trevor, told AFP that the tape was found in PA police offices at 5 WTC, “two or three weeks” after 9-11. The PA police monitored radio transmissions from the WTC.

Because of an unexplained delay in producing the tape, it was believed “for months” that firefighters had gone no higher than about the 50th floor in each tower. The delay, Trevor said, was due to the time required to transfer the voice data to “encrypted CDs.”

In January or February, the PA offered a copy of the tape to NYFD officials, who reportedly declined the offer because they did not want to sign the confidentiality agreement as demanded by the PA. The Independent of Britain added that the PA “held back from sharing it with police and only relinquished it on condition that a confidentiality agreement was signed.”

“That’s not correct,” Trevor told AFP regarding the allegation that the PA had withheld the tape from the police. The PA had only handled the tape “under the instruction of the U.S. attorney’s office,” he said.
Spokesman Bernard Gifford said NYPD had not pursued a criminal investigation of 9-11, having “turned it over” to the FBI.

Gifford wouldn’t say when this occurred, although Joe Valiquette of the New York office of the FBI told AFP that the federal bureau had run the investigation “from the moment it happened.”

On Aug. 2 the relatives of the 16 firefighters whose voices were identified on the tape were allowed to hear their last words in a New York City hotel. The families were first required to sign a statement prepared by lawyers that they would not disclose what was said on the tape.

Despite the fact that the contents of the tape are being kept secret, the Times article says, “Only now, nearly a year after the attacks, are the efforts of Chief Palmer, Mr. Bucca and others becoming public. City fire officials simply delayed listening to a 78-minute tape that is the only known recording of firefighters inside the towers.”

While Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta said he had not known the tape existed until “very recently,” both the Times and CNN err in claiming that the NYFD is the agency behind the extreme secrecy.
“The Fire Department has forbidden anyone to discuss the contents publicly on the ground that the tape might be evidence in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the man accused of plotting with the hijackers,” the Times said.

When AFP asked the NYFD why the only conversations between firefighters engaged at the scene of the crash had to be kept secret because of Moussaoui, who was in prison in Minnesota at the time, the spokesman replied, “Take it up with the Department of Justice.”

Asked about the numerous reports by eyewitnesses, including firefighters, of explosions inside the towers before they collapsed, Mike Logrin, spokesman for the NYFD, said, “We’re pretty sure there weren’t bombs in the building.”

On Sept. 11 the British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC) interviewed one of its New York-based reporters, Steve Evans, who was in the second tower when it was hit.

“I was at the base of the second tower, the second tower that was hit,” Evans said. “There was an explosion—I didn’t think it was an explosion—but the base of the building shook. I felt it shake . . . then when we were outside, the second explosion happened and then there was a series of explosions. . . . We can only wonder at the kind of damage—the kind of human damage—which was caused by those explosions—those series of explosions,” he said.

Evans is a professional journalist and although his observations of explosions in the second tower should be taken into account, they are not. Numerous eyewitnesses reported also seeing or hearing explosions.

Valiquette of the FBI told AFP that he had not “heard anything” about reports of explosions in the building and that he had “never heard any discussion of it” in the FBI’s New York office.
____________________________________________________________________________

"The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes"
Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).
_____________________________________________________________________________
In fact, let's listen to what a few eyewitnesses have to say:

Here are statements from three eye-witnesses that provide evidence that the heating due to the jet fuel was indeed minimal.
Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one of the impact floors of the South Tower) when the aircraft hit. He has been quoted as saying: "We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped."

Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower: "The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway."

Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: "Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned."
Neither Stanley Praimnath nor Donovan Cowan nor Ling Young were cooked by the jet fuel fire. All three survived.
_________________________________________________________________________

Did you know that a couple of firefighters who were a distance from thebuilding said that they saw heard and saw flaring explosions that went around the building like a belt?

But back to the point, if there were a raging inferno in the tower, that means that no one could have survived in an environment that was melting steel--or even half that temperature. So, now that you understand that steel core structures don't crumble, allowing for a near free-fall to occur, and that they weren't even near melting, how will this change your opinion?
Click to expand...

That video shows it in real time and you resort to anecdotal evidence ok but that's all you got.

Let's face it anecdote is well anecdotal and subjective, but real time footage is objective, which would you believe. It's well known that even eye witnesses to a particular event differ on details sometime so wildly that it is very odd (sometimes people claim a suspect did something they never even did or heard a noise or a piece of evidence that never even happened), has anyone asked all these people bow what they think, no that would be far too easy. Why would you think that people who had an opinion at the time were better than objective fact, actual footage, again because you are biased. You just want to believe, hence any little anecdote no matter how slight it is just must be more true than the facts. I already said you would resort to this, the fact is when asked later, they agreed that they were probably mistaken because it was a high charged situation and they could not be sure. O course they were bought of by Bush et al. They never came to that conclusion after evaluating the situation in retrospect, they are in fact stooges.

Reality bites everyone now knows it took 13-15 seconds to fall the evidence is there clear as is the summer sun.

Now you can say the videos were tampered with, the evidence of them is thus suspect but real time videos that show the towers falling in 13-15 seconds seem to me to be compelling.

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm

Experiments conducted by Barbara Tversky and Elizabeth Marsh corroborate the vulnerability of human memory to bias.7 In one group of studies, participants were given the "Roommate Story," a description of incidents involving his or her two fictitious roommates. The incidents were categorized as annoying, neutral, or socially "cool." Later, participants were asked to neutrally recount the incidents with one roommate, to write a letter of recommendation for one roommate’s application to a fraternity or sorority, or to write a letter to the office of student housing requesting the removal of one of the roommates. When later asked to recount the original story, participants who had written biased letters recalled more of the annoying or "cool" incidents associated with their letters. They also included more elaborations consistent with their bias. These participants made judgements based upon the annoying or social events they discussed in their letters. Neutral participants made few elaborations, and they also made fewer errors in their retelling, such as attributing events to the wrong roommate. The study also showed that participants writing biased letters recalled more biased information for the character they wrote about, whereas the other roommate was viewed neutrally.

Memory is affected by retelling, and we rarely tell a story in a neutral fashion. By tailoring our stories to our listeners, our bias distorts the very formation of memory—even without the introduction of misinformation by a third party. The protections of the judicial system against prosecutors and police "assisting" a witness’ memory may not sufficiently ensure the accuracy of those memories. Even though prosecutors refrain from "refreshing" witness A’s memory by showing her witness B’s testimony, the mere act of telling prosecutors what happened may bias and distort the witness’s memory. Eyewitness testimony, then, is innately suspect.

Lawyers place great import on testimony by the other side’s witness that favors their own side’s case. For example, defense attorneys make much of prosecution witnesses’ recollection of exonerating details. In light of psychological studies demonstrating the effect of bias on memory, the reliance and weight placed on such "admissions" may be appropriate, since witnesses are more apt to tailor their stories—and thus their memories—to the interests of the first listeners. An eyewitness to a crime is more inclined to recount, and thus remember incriminating details, when speaking to a police officer intent on solving the crime. If later the eyewitness still remembers details that throw doubt on the culpability of the suspect, such doubts should hold greater weight than the remembrance of incriminating details.

In another part of the Tversky-Marsh study, participants were asked to play prosecutors presenting a summation to the jury.8 Participants first read a murder story, where two men were suspects. Participants were then asked either to prepare a neutral recounting of all they remembered about one suspect, or to prepare a summation to the jury about one suspect. Later, participants were asked to recall the original story. Participants who wrote summations recalled more incriminating details and wrongly attributed details among suspects more often than participants who originally wrote a neutral recounting.

Bias creeps into memory without our knowledge, without our awareness. While confidence and accuracy are generally correlated, when misleading information is given, witness confidence is often higher for the incorrect information than for the correct information. This leads many to question the competence of the average person to determine credibility issues. Juries are the fact-finders, and credibility issues are to be determined by juries. The issue then arises whether juries are equipped to make these determinations. Expert testimony may not be helpful. Indeed, since the very act of forming a memory creates distortion, how can anyone uncover the "truth" behind a person’s statements? Perhaps it is the terrible truth that in many cases we are simply not capable of determining what happened, yet are duty-bound to so determine. Maybe this is why we cling to the sanctity of the jury and the secrecy of jury findings:
We can put such questions before the jury entirely without fear of embarrassment, because the way the jury resolves the questions and, in all likelihood, the soundness of its answers will remain forever hidden. Perhaps the allure of the black box as a means toward apparent certainty in an uncertain world has tempted us to entrust the jury with more and harder questions than it has the power to answer.9

The courts’ reliance on witnesses is built into the common-law judicial system, a reliance that is placed in check by the opposing counsel’s right to cross-examination—an important component of the adversarial legal process—and the law’s trust of the jury’s common sense. The fixation on witnesses reflects the weight given to personal testimony. As shown by recent studies, this weight must be balanced by an awareness that it is not necessary for a witness to lie or be coaxed by prosecutorial error to inaccurately state the facts—the mere fault of being human results in distorted memory and inaccurate testimony.

Click to expand...

Carlid · Apr 18, 2012

storch said:

Carlid,

You are right. Technically, this is off-topic. So, we can continue our discussion here: http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=445506&page=2
Click to expand...

I'll ask a moderator to move this seems more efficient.

autophobe2e · Apr 18, 2012

my attitude towards most conspiracy theories

(and by conspiracy theories, i tend to mean the big, overarching narratives rather than specific examples)

is more or less the same as my attitude towards religion:

very little evidence
lack of logical consistency
a strong desire to believe, either for personal/intellectual or politcial/financial reasons
facts and figures picked and chosen in order to fit into a pre-concieved narrative, with other information not relevant to the narrative disregarded.

but i agree with certain specific examples; waco was probably murder, for instance, but most attempts to tie examples like that into a larger conspiracy theory, for me, come up short.

jaredfelix · Apr 18, 2012

Check this out... http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread831098/pg1

:sunny:

storch · Apr 19, 2012

Carlid,

Let me get this straight. Your answer to everything I posted is that, because it took a few more seconds for the towers to fall than the NIST Report claims, the eyewitness testimonies of the people who survived inside that "raging, steel-melting inferno" doesn't say anything about the real temperature in that tower. Hmmmm . . .

And I assume this deductive reasoning of yours also applies to the firemen who ascended the building without being melted or worried about being melted. Is that right?

And I also must assume that your answer to the taped conversation between firefighters in the tower minutes before collapse can be explained away by bringing in a paper on the unreliability of people's memories when it comes to recollecting events. I was unaware that this phenomena also applies to the reliability of audio-tapes! I think you need to check the science behind this idea of yours. I don't think it's very sound.

And I must also assume that you think the testimonies of firefighters and first responders were omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report because the wise members of the Commission are just as aware of this unreliability of eyewitness testimonies thing as you are.

And do you really believe the core structure of those buildings offered virtually no resistance? I don't think you've really looked at those core structures. I will find a video.

Dude111 · Apr 23, 2012

Yes because I have an OPEN MIND and thankfully have not been REPROGRAMMED to listen to MSM crap.... I use my own research and mind to discover the true so called reality.... (Not the REALITY they want us living in)

jmt · Jun 4, 2012

jaredfelix said:

Check this out... http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread831098/pg1

:sunny:
Click to expand...

Wat am I supposed to get out of this?

Thalya · Aug 9, 2012

I've always thought that there is something not right going on in this world, what is it? I have not come to a clear conclusion on that. I keep an open mind. I take on as many theories as possible so I can maybe come to a conclusion for myself one day. Who knows, maybe one day we will know for certain, maybe not. But in the meantime I get to learn all these different theories about the world from so many people. Regarding conspiracies on deaths etc, I suppose it is a morbid curiosity, like what if they where murdered for such and such a reason.

MisterMudz · Aug 23, 2012

Well first a theory is an ideal that can't be backed up by facts. So most "conspiracy theories" that would be labelled as such aren't theories at all. For instance 9/11, that was never a theory to begin with. Why? Because no plane ever hit the pentagon. So now we see a conspiracy possibility, or rather something that should be investigated. The Colorado movie shooting. There is enough evidence to show that there are cover ups there, including paid actors as "witnesses" and no surveillance footage released. So do I believe in any "conspiracy theories," typically no, but do I believe in possibilities backed up by facts, absolutely. Especially when those facts point to a cover up.

Log in or Sign up

Conspiracy theories..?

storch banned

Tyrsonswood Senior Moment Lifetime Supporter

jaredfelix Namaste ॐ

storch banned

Carlid Banned

Carlid Banned

autophobe2e Senior Member

jaredfelix Namaste ॐ

storch banned

Dude111 An Awesome Dude

jmt Ezekiel 25:17

Thalya Guest

MisterMudz Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Conspiracy theories..?

storch banned

Tyrsonswood Senior Moment Lifetime Supporter

jaredfelix Namaste ॐ

storch banned

Carlid Banned

Carlid Banned

autophobe2e Senior Member

jaredfelix Namaste ॐ

storch banned

Dude111 An Awesome Dude

jmt Ezekiel 25:17

Thalya Guest

MisterMudz Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches