Pete Carroll is apparently a 9/11 truther

K5 wrote:

Math Mann wrote:

You're obviously not very good with probability.

How so? Each of these folks showed up for work every day. The odds of a single one not showing up would be what, @ 1 in 50? Conservatively. Hence the odds of all 3 not showing on the same work day would be 1 in 50^3.

Can you do the math?

There is zero doubt Silverstein knew what was coming on 911. Mathematically impossible

Linsanity wrote:

Building 7 was heavily damaged and fire suppression inside was insufficient. They got everyone the fu*k out of there and let it come down.

It was insured (OMG!) Cheaper to rebuild than to repair...that is all.

What's the conspiracy?

Heavily damaged from what? No plane hit it

K5 wrote:

Linsanity wrote:

Building 7 was heavily damaged and fire suppression inside was insufficient. They got everyone the fu*k out of there and let it come down.

It was insured (OMG!) Cheaper to rebuild than to repair...that is all.

What's the conspiracy?

Heavily damaged from what? No plane hit it

troofer, building 7 was next to the towers. building 7 was perforated by very heavy very fast moving steel objects. A corner was knocked out. It was on fire, big time. A key support beam collapsed. The penthouse fell in, knocking out more structural beams. the whole thing found its easiest path: straight down toward the center of the earth.

[quote]abandon hope wrote:

troofer, building 7 was next to the towers. building 7 was perforated by very heavy very fast moving steel objects. A corner was knocked out. It was on fire, big time. A key support beam collapsed. The penthouse fell in, knocking out more structural beams. the whole thing found its easiest path: straight down toward the center of the earth.

Now for the facts:

Building 7 was located a city block north of the WTC.

It is important to note that Building 7 was no closer to the towers than any of several other large buildings outside of the WTC complex; none of which fell

K5 wrote:

[quote]abandon hope wrote:

troofer, building 7 was next to the towers. building 7 was perforated by very heavy very fast moving steel objects. A corner was knocked out. It was on fire, big time. A key support beam collapsed. The penthouse fell in, knocking out more structural beams. the whole thing found its easiest path: straight down toward the center of the earth.

Now for the facts:

Building 7 was located a city block north of the WTC.

It is important to note that Building 7 was no closer to the towers than any of several other large buildings outside of the WTC complex; none of which fell

which proves nothing. building 7 was well wiithin the shadow of the towers. Just because it was hit and others weren't proves nothing. As I have pointed out, some buildings collapsed (towers, 7) others partially collapsed (#6 I believe) and some just burned.

This wasn't a nuclear blast - it was two buildings collapsing, spewing very heavy objects in random directions.

You would expect some buldings to be hurt worse than others.

abandon hope wrote:

K5 wrote:

[quote]abandon hope wrote:

Building 7 was located a city block north of the WTC.

It is important to note that Building 7 was no closer to the towers than any of several other large buildings outside of the WTC complex; none of which fell

which proves nothing. building 7 was well wiithin the shadow of the towers. Just because it was hit and others weren't proves nothing. As I have pointed out, some buildings collapsed (towers, 7) others partially collapsed (#6 I believe) and some just burned.

This wasn't a nuclear blast - it was two buildings collapsing, spewing very heavy objects in random directions.

You would expect some buldings to be hurt worse than others.

Wow. Ignore the facts and cling to the ridiculous official narrative.

Actually, MANY buildings were damaged or destroyed on 9/11:

1 WTC (110 stories), 2 WTC (110 stories) -- these are the familiar ones.

But also: 3 WTC (22 stories) and 4 WTC (9 stories).

WTC 5 (9 stories) had a perfectly cylindrical hole punched in it.

WTC 6 (9 stories) is hollowed out from the inside.

WTC 7 (47 stories), more than a football field away from the Twin Towers, collapsed around 5:20pm

This photo is from NOAA, the federal agency that specializes in the oceans and atmosphere:

http://s882.photobucket.com/user/benfranklinronzio/media/911/wtcafter911attacks.jpg.html

To all those slandering Truthers/troofers, you still have no addressed any of the physical evidence.

what he/she said wrote:

So, you're telling me that a plane can fly off course and loop over Washington DC, unnoticed? No surface to air defense? An hour after the 2nd plane strikes, the skies over DC are as open as ever? You're telling me that an hour later, there were military units in the THE most important city on the planet that were not on high alert?

I mean, really?

I'm not telling you anything. These are the facts and it's up to you whether or not to accept them.

All of this conspiracy sh*t has been debunked. All of it. You even have an eyewitness state that they saw a plane fly into the Pentagon. Oh, but that's not good enough.

You truthers can't even agree amongst yourselves about what happened.

Jesse the body ventura wrote:

To all those slandering Truthers/troofers, you still have no addressed any of the physical evidence.

What is the physical evidence?

Oh ok, Popular Mechanics is the end all, be all.

Again, a plane can fly off course and loop over Washington DC, unnoticed? No surface to air defense? An hour after the 2nd plane strikes, the skies over DC are as open as ever? You're telling me that an hour later, there were military units in the THE most important city on the planet that were not on high alert?

If you don't find this suspicious, that is your prerogative.

Well they do have more credibility then a couple of numbskulls making a youtube video where someone says, "I heard a second explosion..." and then take it as the Word of God that it was an explosion, therefore it's a conspiracy.

Meanwhile, transformers were blowing up, gas pipes were blowing up.......why? Oh I don't know, probably because some planes hit some buildings and sh*t was on fire everywhere.

A reporter, a pedestrian, a cop, some schlub weeks after looking at a videotape saying that they heard an explosion = conspiracy.

That is a GREAT question. At this point, the only evidence we have is photographic evidence. What it comes down to, then, is our interpretation of the photographic evidence. And I've posted a half dozen pictures on which no one has commented.

But this lack of evidence in itself raises a set of disturbing questions. Why wasn't the WTC site treated as a crime scene? As far as I can tell, folks went in, sealed things off, and starting shipping out debris to China and Staten Island almost immediately. Why did federal agents immediately confiscate all the security videos at Boston Logan and the Pentagon? Surely it would have been nice to see videos of the alleged hijackers getting on the planes. And why was information from the black boxes on the planes never released? Why all this secrecy, if there's nothing to hide?

To the gentleman who was an eyewitness to the Pentagon attack: I believe you. But I think a perfectly reasonable explanation is a combination of a real plane (for distraction and plausibility) and a missile. There was no plane crash in DC.

By the way, while you were there, did you happen to see the E-4B flying overhead? That, too, was observed by hundreds.

Dear Troofer:

oh look! a video of the hijackers at the airport:

No plane crash in Washington? really? Where is that dang plane? It's here somewhere. Hold on. Maybe it is over there. No? Oh heck we lost another airliner with 59 people aboard. it will turn up, don't worry.

I mean really. Where is that plane, troofer?

what he/she said wrote:

Oh ok, Popular Mechanics is the end all, be all.

Again, a plane can fly off course and loop over Washington DC, unnoticed? No surface to air defense? An hour after the 2nd plane strikes, the skies over DC are as open as ever? You're telling me that an hour later, there were military units in the THE most important city on the planet that were not on high alert?

If you don't find this suspicious, that is your prerogative.

Sure, but facts/evidence should either confirm or refute any suspicions.

Read:

and couple this with:

In any case, this is what you're hung up on? That an F-16 wasn't scrambled in time so the whole thing was a massive conspiracy involving hundreds to thousands of individuals sworn to secrecy (non of which have ever come forward), not to mention several countries and news outlets up to and including the BBC?

What that video is missing is a time stamp.

Also, what the Popular Mechanics article is conspicuously lacking a scientific approach. All it does is regurgitate the implausible claims made by NIST and the 9/11 report.

To wit: the Popular Mechanics article actually states that jet fuel fell more than 100 stories down an elevator shaft - while burning, presumably - which explains why there was such destruction in the lobbies. Now, that is SOME jet fuel -- and it is especially remarkable given that the elevator shafts at the top section of the twin towers were not connected to the ones at the bottom.

Here is the best analysis of the evidence I've seen:

http://www.consensus911.org/

Jesse the body ventura wrote:

What that video is missing is a time stamp.

JFC

how are those angels and goblins messing up your life today, troofer?

I think it is reasonable to be suspicious of that video, given that there are no indications at all of where or when the footage was taken.

But even so, supposing that the video is real, is it intellectually honest to commit to the idea that those guys took over an entire plane, and wrested control from pilots with combat experience, using BOX CUTTERS? I mean, it's hard to do damage to BOXES with boxes cutters, to say nothing of cowing an entire plane full of passengers into submission using them.

On this claim, like the others, I call bullshit.

Jesse the body ventura wrote:

I think it is reasonable to be suspicious of that video, given that there are no indications at all of where or when the footage was taken.

But even so, supposing that the video is real, is it intellectually honest to commit to the idea that those guys took over an entire plane, and wrested control from pilots with combat experience, using BOX CUTTERS? I mean, it's hard to do damage to BOXES with boxes cutters, to say nothing of cowing an entire plane full of passengers into submission using them.

On this claim, like the others, I call bullshit.

Wondering if you could possibly be serious. There may be reasons to doubt the official story but this is definitely not one of them.

Four or five guys on a plane with box cutters slit one person's throat and tell everyone else to sit down, shut up and everything will be fine. Now they walk into the cockpit with pilots focusing on flying a damned plane and immediately slit one guy's throat. The other pilot is terrified, (like any normal human being) and is struggling to continue to do his job - not exactly well prepared for physical combat with five men armed with box cutters.

Seriously dude, think for just a bit. This part of the story at least is very easy to believe.