An Interview with Valentin Vatsev

[Pali]

*sigh* Are we seriously turning this into a 9/11 thread?

 

You gave one link, not links, to a Youtube video.  It's only mention of the NIST report was to brush it aside because they didn't release their computer models - a valid criticism, but it isn't actually pointing out any flaws in the information they DID release.  NIST is not a committee - the 9/11 Commission WAS a committee, so you'll have to excuse me for thinking they were what you were referring to.

 

Figure 2-1 is showing external damage only, and about a third of the building is obscured.  It is also only meant to show the state of observed damage shortly after WTC1 fell.  Drawing any conclusions from this one diagram about the state of the whole building, or about how damage progressed as fires spread during the next several hours, would be absurd.

 

First: if you are correct, then please show me the consensus of engineers, scientists, and others informed on the subject that agree with your conclusions.  I don't want random names with letters behind them, I want actual recognized, respected organizations.

Second: Same as above.

Third: How is this relevant to WTC7 or the NIST report?

 

A skeptical mind recognizes where it lacks expertise and defers to the consensus of experts.  As far as I know, that consensus accepts at least the broad outlines of the NIST report.  Provide that consensus supporting your claim - I've looked and failed to find it - and my mind may well be changed.  You seem to think I'm biased here, but my only bias in this thread has been in favor of properly making a case, through argument and providing sources rather than simple assertion.  Want to change my mind on a topic?  It's very simple: if the topic is a factual claim regarding a subject I'm not an expert in, I need to be shown that the consensus of experts is not what I thought it was.

[Gaunticles]

all I know is jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams

[Pali]

No one claims it does.

[Gaunticles]

1 minute ago, Pali said:

No one claims it does.

I was just being silly and saying a meme. 

[Pali]

Wink next time.  

[Lloth]

[f0xx]

 

2 hours ago, Pali said:

Wink next time.  

 

[Pali]

Because that's how you convince people of things - you post a badly-edited Youtube video with absolutely no sourcing or attribution.

 

I think we're done here.  Celerity, thanks for the article.

[f0xx]

I think you missed the wink in the end.

[Pali]

Lloth's was better.

[Magick]

4 hours ago, Gaunticles said:

all I know is jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams

7/11 was a part time job.

2 hours ago, Lloth said:

 

[Trick]

Posting a youtube video is dumb. Its about as credible as wikipedia. If you want to post crap about 9/11, then follow the same suit as every other internet conspiracy theorist and say how jet fuel burns at maximum of 1500degrees, but steel will melt at 2750degrees. Then I will counter by saying the steel doesn't HAVE to melt, it just has to lose structural integrity. Something that could occur when.. I dunno.. an airplane hits the building..?

WTC 7 was allowed to burn. Emergency responders(firefighters) focused entirely on rescue and evacuation. Not on controlling the flame. WTC 7 burned for SEVEN hours. Seven hours, guys. Combined with various fuel types and load on the building's weakening support, it was only a matter of time.

As a firefighter the last thing I want to say is that mistakes were made on the fire service side of things, but we were simply not prepared for that magnitude of a call. 

9/11 is studied and taught consistently in the fire service as one of the greatest tragedies, loss, and learning points. Firefighters had NEVER faced something like that and more than likely won't for a long time, but the initial response was awful. Firefighting operations were awful. Rescue operations were awful. Communication was awful. It was a NIGHTMARE. Because of 9/11 things were created and implemented like NIMS(National Incident Management Systems).

My favorite part about people screaming conspiracy is the simple lack of knowledge associated with every single claim. You know how fast a regular fire can go to a horrible fire? Seconds. WTC 7 had seven hours to burn..

9/11 happened. We lost a lot of innocent lives and it is something mourned every year as a firefighter. Did the government do it? Probably not, but maybe? Way I see it, you're saying our government is capable of creating something of this magnitude without drawing ANY kind of public attention, but it takes me a year to get my DD-214? I just can't buy that. 

Whether they did or didn't, it doesn't really matter. If you prove 9/11 was an inside job, then what? What's going to happen? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. So, my advice and my personal request? Stop inadvertently slandering the brave men and women, both emergency responders and not, that died that day and years to follow from cancers and fatal injuries by claiming their own government disregarded their lives so extremely that they were willing to kill them without so much as a care for whatever reason your theory of the week can create. Oil, money, war, whatever. 

 

[Zavero]

@Trick Took me three years to get my disability rating after service... I had DD-214 out the door though. 

[Vaerick]

You can despise the government and support the soldiers, just like you can question the government without slandering anyone who suffered in the situation. Questioning the official story doesn't attack the first responders. No one is saying firefighters were complicit in the attacks, infact, if the government was the perpetrator what happened and all the fallout makes them even more shitheels. It doesn't change the bravery of the responders, it just alters the perspective that they were brave and betrayed. Not that they did anything wrong. There are some suspicious things abut 9/11. Did the government do it? I doubt it but who knows. Always thought it was weird a corner got taken out of a building and yet it collapsed straight down without a tilt, but that's besides the point. Playing devils advocate is not a bad thing and shouldn't be attacked.

[Kyzarius]

The buildings were designed to collapse thus should their structural integrity be conpromised.

It's almost like you are saying reality didn't behave like all the movies I've seen.  So it must be fake. 

[Pali]

6 hours ago, Vaerick said:

You can despise the government and support the soldiers

To be honest, I've always thought this to be rather contradictory - those soldiers work for the government.  The military is an arm of the government that acts under government directives.  I get being frustrated with Congressional deadlock or with a current presidential administration, but the government exists on plenty of other levels and does a ton of worthwhile things that largely go unnoticed because they don't make catchy headlines.

 

It'd be like Luke saying he hates the Empire but supports the stormtroopers.

[Vaerick]

4 hours ago, Kyzarius said:

The buildings were designed to collapse thus should their structural integrity be conpromised.

It's almost like you are saying reality didn't behave like all the movies I've seen.  So it must be fake. 

It's almost like someone made a post and a highly disagreeable fellow got summoned to make an irritating comment... of look there we go @Kyzarius....   For the record, I said I thought it was odd, lot's of things seem odd, even if you know the true nature of it. Hell, if you look at a word long enough the spelling seems "odd".

As for the military/government. There is a duality until said government uses the military to attack/harm the American Population. For example, you can hate the jackasses in congress for all the shenanigans they pull and have great respect and support for soldiers who have volunteered to potentially go to war to protect us (that is to say, if we are attacked, not referencing current conflicts) if needs be. So in other words, those soldiers are different from the congressman as their job has not been activated. Once it has been, their use could go either way. The military in general sometimes reminds me of shrodingers cat.

[Vaerick]

Also in regards to 9/11. One should always question the official narrative of the government. For the same reason that you have other safeguards in place, because sometimes bad people do bad things and try and hide it after the fact. That is human nature- from the kid stealing a candy bar to the murderer all the way to the highest echelons of society and power. To mock someone for questioning anything or being suspicious of the government is foolhardy at best. Governments are made up of people most often notably ungoverned.


Especially when that narrative has led to numerous subsequent wars fighting a concept rather than an enemy. So yeah.

[Pali]

My suggestion then would be to say you hate congress, rather than the government as a whole.  Specifics are helpful, both for communicating with others and maintaining clarity internally.

 

Also, our soldiers don't join up to fight if we're attacked - they join up and follow orders to fight wherever they are sent.  That is what they volunteered for, and protecting us if we're attacked has never been the only way our military has been used - right from the start we were an expansionist power.

[Vaerick]

The fact that people are indoctrinated to believe those are the same, isn't necessarily those people's fault. Ask most soldiers why they joined and it's either to serve their country, go to school, or see the world- some combination of the three. You are right in the sense of what the job is, but not the motivations to those who join. That disconnect is due to indoctrination and economic factors.

When push comes to shove, the military is a tool and that's what I mean when I say it is possible to support the troops and hate the government- that tool has not been used against us as a population. The soldiers in question have not been given the choice of attack Americans or lose your job/worse, so, regardless of what is going on elsewhere in the world, as far as the American citizen is concerned, they have no direct cause to have problems with the military whereas they might have legitimate problems with the government as a whole, and infact IF we were attacked, said military would be the only thing to protect said citizens. So when push comes to shove, in general to the average citizen, the military only really factors in when a foreign or our own government attacks, and the choice they make after that gauntlet is thrown down.

As for the government, It's hard to tell just how rotten it is, but it's pretty thorough. The non-elected political entities that act as gatekeepers for who can be involved in said government has seen to that. And what that didn't kill, the moneyed elite finished it off.
Specifically to congress, I think the question begs to be asked: How can it be taxation with representation if the majority of congress are millionaires but the vast majority of the population is not?

The government, as a whole, really needs to be reworked for the modern age.

[Celerity]

I think it is very reasonable to say you hate the leadership, but not hate the rank and file. I can hate Stalin, Hitler, or FDR, but that doesn't mean I hate the people/soldiers/police officers/agents of their governments.

I may dislike Trump and Clinton, but that certainly doesn't extend to their followers, not matter how fervent they may be.

Yes, the stormtroopers (of both Star Wars and the Nazis) were agents of a bad cause. Certainly, many of them were bad people. However, I think is a grevious mistake to put the blame (i.g. collective fault) on the agent of enforcement, morally and practically. Practically, aggressive action against agents of the government only fuels the need for more agents, more power, more action in response. Morally, being stupid is not a crime. We are all agents of 'evil' in some way or another, it is only a matter of how much. The rank and file are typically not at any great amount of individual fault for the poor decisions of their leadership.

[Celerity]

37 minutes ago, Vaerick said:

*edited inappropriate comment towards@Kyzarius

-1 for the douchebag comment. Really hurts your case, and I typically agree with you. Just need to hold back those thoughts and remember that for you to have free thoughts, they need to be able to have them as well. Focus on thoughts, not the speaker, if you have the better case.

Plus I really am enjoying this crazy thread, minus the meme degeneration ( @Gaunticles, @Lloth, @Magick) and the occasional personal attack. It is totally in my self-interest to not have it locked and to be able to have more of them in the future.

[Vaerick]

2 minutes ago, Celerity said:

-1 for the douchebag comment. Really hurts your case, and I typically agree with you. Just need to hold back those thoughts and remember that for you to have free thoughts, they need to be able them as well. Focus on thoughts, not the speaker, if you have the better case.

You're probably right. #Edited. My first instinct is to strike back and then argue the point.

[Pali]

35 minutes ago, Vaerick said:

The fact that people are indoctrinated to believe those are the same, isn't necessarily those people's fault. Ask most soldiers why they joined and it's either to serve their country, go to school, or see the world- some combination of the three. You are right in the sense of what the job is, but not the motivations to those who join. That disconnect is due to indoctrination and economic factors.

Granted, but I think the "support the troops" attitude many have is part of that indoctrination.  There's a degree of nationalist militarism to it I've never been comfortable with.  Still, I'm not looking to create a new debate on the issue; I saw a contradiction, asked how you reconciled it, and have been answered.  Thanks!

[Zavero]

I can tell you from personal experience the reasons that folks go into military service is vast and never really so cut and dry. It is usually a combination of things.

With that being said, I can also tell you from my personal experience that being in the military and dealing with certain situations it is never about the government or its policies but rather it is about the brothers and sisters beside you in the trench, so to speak.