Physics Professor Reports WTC Destroyed by Controlled Demolition

I took some screenshots from some of the articles I've ran across on the NIST site of things I consider noteable.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/|Z|Ryuken/WTC%20reports/nistimg01.jpg
Above comment contradicts video footage. (Referring to WTC7)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/|Z|Ryuken/WTC%20reports/nistimg02.jpg
Above: grounds for conspiracy.

This link leads to an article I think is important. If I find one that contrasts it's conclusions I will post it and highlight important parts I find. I strongly recommend going over this article for yourself. If you can't explore this side of the equation, you shouldn't be in this conversation.
http://wtc.nist.gov/comments/Helsinki_Finland_SamiYli_Karjanmaa_08-08-05.pdf
Screen shots from preceeding article up to page 15 of 27:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/|Z|Ryuken/WTC%20reports/nistimg03.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/|Z|Ryuken/WTC%20reports/nistimg04.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/|Z|Ryuken/WTC%20reports/nistimg05.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/|Z|Ryuken/WTC%20reports/nistimg06.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/|Z|Ryuken/WTC%20reports/nistimg07.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/|Z|Ryuken/WTC%20reports/nistimg08.jpg
 
In response to
"Nice animation but can anyone veryify how hot deisel and jet fuel burn? I think it's odd they are saying it burned at exactly the same value concrete needs to melt."

Concerete does not melt, it vaporizes. The concrete used in buildings is used as a fireproofing method. The concrete that is placed on steel collums is no more than an inch thick, even less, since it is applied in a thick spray.

While concrete does not vaporise easily, the heat from this UNUSUAL AND UNCANNY source of a fire will not MELT steal beams, but WEAKEN THEM. Nor will it vaporize the concrete. The steel beams used in ALL of the WC buildings is not a modern alloy, and is of 70's forging. at 1000 degrees F, the steal looses 80% of its strength, and its ability to support wieght. The thin coating of concrete on such steal beams will not add to its ability to support wieght, but it will SLOW the heating of the beams.

Now, as the steel beams loose their ability to sustain weight, and buckle, the above floors will then "fall" the concussive force of one floor falling, will damage and add weight to the floor beneth it, which also is suffereing from weakened beams. As this floor now falls, the floor below that one now must support the load of 2 floors, with the same weakened beams, as more floors fall, each new level must bear even more wieght, thus crashing down.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
I said without massive quotes and links.
Rather, I simply had no desire to sift through ten pages of rambling on some conspiracy website just to find your point.
Any good point can be summarized neatly.
However, I did not say to absolutely exclude rational thought or to give up on listing sources. Just to present the information in a clear and documented manner.

That's not a proper thesis-like structure at all. You simply listed a series of random things you found curious.
Click to expand...

a "thesis-like structure"? are you serious? this is a videogame forum on the internet, not a homework assignment

Here, essentially, is what you said:

-The 757 plane that hit the pentagon was quiet.
-Actually, it was not even a 757 but actually a different plane, based on a fan.
-Actually, it wasn't even making sound so it must have been a missile.
-Actually, maybe it was a helicopter.
-Actually, I didn't see bodies so it must have been a missile after all.
-Actually, they smelt cordite so it must have been just a bomb.
-Actually etc.

That's not a coherent point. That's a large pile of contradictory statements.
Click to expand...

since i already said i wasn't offering a coherent alternative 'narrative' that crossed every t and dotted every i, this point is redundant

Unless you are trying to prove it was a shapeshifting semi-invisible mind-control cordite bomb with wings, this is not a compelling argument.
Instead, it shows exactly how little evidence (such as it is) challenges the reality of the events, and how poorly it does so.
Click to expand...

yeah, that's exactly what i'm trying to prove. it was a shapeshifting semi-invisible mind-control cordite bomb with wings, and dick cheney was riding it in wearing a leopard-print leotard and a tinfoil hat. ffs...

The men are unknown, so you immediately assume it's Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones zapping people with memory rays.
The video footage was only partly released, so you immediately assume the invisible footage is full of of the proof that you aren't crazy.
Yet, you also say that missing photos prove that bodies, plane parts and other damage don't exist.
Your list of contradictory eyewitness reports also constitute an absence of evidence. You were implying that, since some people were wrong, it must have been a missile?
Click to expand...

* the guys who visited the DoD casualties didn't reveal their identities to the casualties, not to me
* i didn't assume anything about the unreleased portions of the video footage. those 5 frames were released to counter meyssan's truck bomb theory, so why not release the whole thing and put the missile theory to bed? that's a question, btw. you can tell by the little squirly thing at the end

None of those things is evidence. All of those things are you filling in the blanks with guesswork that supports your imagination and contradict the facts.
Then you call that contradiction evidence of how wrong the rest of the world is.
You're basically writing fiction here.
Click to expand...

as i've probably said about eight times now, i'm just pointing out the evidence that doesn't seem to fit the official story. if you can explain how it does, please be my guest, but since your reading comprehension skills aren't up to scratch i won't be holding my breath waiting

You very, very obviously did not get your ideas from the scientific community or from your own research.
Click to expand...

show me this scientific community standing at your back confirming your every word, and this research you've done into the matter

I therefore find it safe to assume that you are simply repeating things you heard in those "loose change" videos and similar amateur websites.
I can confirm this when you list your sources with a link and small relevant quotes.
(The reason I say "with a link" and not "with a bibliography" is that we all know you haven't read a book on the subject.)

As for your second point, I think you have quite ably proven that you don't need to act intelligent to be able to argue. And argue and argue. And argue.
Hint: it's the pejorative sense)
Click to expand...

lol, the pot meets the kettle. present your own case, captain logic, then we'll talk. so far i've heard nothing substantial from you

This is a pseudoscientific fallacy. You do not dismiss something purely because it is questioned.
THE QUESTIONS NEED TO BE VALID, then they need to be answered and then they are incorporated into the bulk of the proven data.
People don't just reject gravity because the universe is expanding.
People don't just reject evolution because intelligent design popped up.
If you reject 9/11, you will need to reject both evolution and gravity unless you are a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

thanks for the heads-up, professor. here's a question for you to answer: if the plane/missile/magic tinfoil UFO was smashed to tiny bits by the impact and explosion (hence the lack of intact wings, tail etc) how did it manage to punch through 9 feet of reinforced concrete and leaving a charred hole about 9 feet in diameter inside the C-ring? is that question VALID enough for you?

This is called a belief, and it serves as a nice thesis statement for your quasi-point.
"I don't know anything, therefore everyone who knows something is wrong."

You need to learn the difference between 'dismissing' and 'disproving'.

You dismissscience. Science disproves you.
Click to expand...

why don't you try presenting something of substance instead of this pseudo-intellectual bollocks (which misreads my intention anyway)? if you've got some aces to play, let's see them
 
There is not a single person I know, and I include myself, who as ever read the NIST or FEMA reports on 9/11. I doubt that anybody on this forum as ever read these reports, they are so compressive and mind blowing technical that it is well beyond the understanding and compensation of the common man.

This does not mean the common man can not have an opinion on them nor does it mean that they are cast in stone and absolute. The very purpose of them is to put to the entire world a scientist’s analysis of the events that lead to the catastrophic collapse of the two towers. These independent reports have stated, quite openly what the investigators truly believe happened. They have drawn in every shred of evidence that was available, looked at very single piece of video footage, interviewed countless people and carried out tests and analyze that is totally beyond me.

I can only state my opinion but the reason I side with these reports and findings is not because I am closed minded, not because I belief every single word that comes from the US, not because I refuse point blank to accept that the US would involve itself in something like this. Nor is it because it is beyond compensation that this report is simply there to stone wall, deceive and con the general populist in to this false sense of well being that would come crumbling down if it was proved the US really did carry out mass murder of it’s own citizens.

The reason I take this report at face value is simple. It is because I have never seen or heard anybody challenge it in the main stream media, nobody has ever stepped forward and made headline news with some undeniable prove it is incorrect..

The UK prides itself on our free and open society, we expect our press and the journalists who work for them to expose the truth, yet not one has ever stepped forward to expose this. Not a single journalist has taken the time to probe this massive shortfall or failing that according to some are clear within these reports...

Plucking segments from this massive report and firing them on to the net to promote your book, or career or even your own believes is simple.

If and when somebody comes along , who as genuinely studied, genuinely understands all the technical information and has a genuine point to make, maybe it will make main stream media, until then it will simply be where it belongs. On obscure and irrevlentat websites suckering in the gullible and naïve.

PS...... I Vote Mecha for President
 
Eg. said:
In response to
"Nice animation but can anyone veryify how hot deisel and jet fuel burn? I think it's odd they are saying it burned at exactly the same value concrete needs to melt."

Concerete does not melt, it vaporizes. The concrete used in buildings is used as a fireproofing method. The concrete that is placed on steel collums is no more than an inch thick, even less, since it is applied in a thick spray.

While concrete does not vaporise easily, the heat from this UNUSUAL AND UNCANNY source of a fire will not MELT steal beams, but WEAKEN THEM. Nor will it vaporize the concrete. The steel beams used in ALL of the WC buildings is not a modern alloy, and is of 70's forging. at 1000 degrees F, the steal looses 80% of its strength, and its ability to support wieght. The thin coating of concrete on such steal beams will not add to its ability to support wieght, but it will SLOW the heating of the beams.

Now, as the steel beams loose their ability to sustain weight, and buckle, the above floors will then "fall" the concussive force of one floor falling, will damage and add weight to the floor beneth it, which also is suffereing from weakened beams. As this floor now falls, the floor below that one now must support the load of 2 floors, with the same weakened beams, as more floors fall, each new level must bear even more wieght, thus crashing down.
Click to expand...
Yes I agree with that. I ran across another article that explained the concrete vaporizing due to the heat and releasing it's chemical bonds with the moisture, explaining the massive amounts of concrete dust.

However, I also found that in this open air, yet somewhat suffocating scenario, jet fuel, or any other hydro carbon based fuel for that matter, generally does not burn hotter than 825 degrees Celcius.

Either way these are reasons I am still completely split on the issue.

One perpetuant of the media story admits the steel structure actually did remain perfectly intact, but the weak point was in the bolts holding them together. This would explain so much more than the simple fire ripping through everything, but again is completely unverifiable in it's plausability.
 
baxter said:
I doubt that anybody on this forum as ever read these reports, they are so compressive and mind blowing technical that it is well beyond the understanding and compensation of the common man.
Click to expand...
I am giving myself today and the weekend to go over these reports. It is not complicated at all, but there are a lot of dead ends and useless information clouded with pointless rambling. It's no surprise a common man would have trouble finding thr information one needs.

baxter said:
It is because I have never seen or heard anybody challenge it in the main stream media, nobody has ever stepped forward and made headline news with some undeniable prove it is incorrect..
The UK prides itself on our free and open society, we expect our press and the journalists who work for them to expose the truth, yet not one has ever stepped forward to expose this. Not a single journalist has taken the time to probe this massive shortfall or failing that according to some are clear within these reports...
Click to expand...

You give the free media too much credit. These people that would come forward probably value their names and their lives.

In the US, the Patriot Act has been recently renewed. I expect that any person to come forward with this spotty, somewhat haphazard collection of contradicting information challenging the government itself, would quickly find themselves under the scrutiny of federal agents in a very hot room, with next to zero rights intact.

The very same people who can conduct these investigations have a lot to lose. I don't expect anyone at a level in society whom would be believable to risk their reputation for what might be a lost cause.

The US citizens needed someone to blame, and they got him. I can't imagine the way our people would react if they were to simultaneously believe their own government would kill them for it's own political (possibly territorial) gain.

---
All in all, there is not enough hard evidence to bring to the masses, which is why the incident is still under investigation. You can bet when everything is resolved, the final showdown with the media will happen at that time. Until then we shouldn't rush headstrong into things without a solid foundation for argument.
 
UltraProAnti,

Since you have chosen to ignore my questions and simply pick a fight with Mecha, could I ask you one simple question?

What exactly is your point ?


EDIT..._Z_Ryuken, I apologies, On the face of it seems I ignored your post, I didn’t, we must have posted at the same time.

I can only say I wish you well in your quest to expose what you believe to be the shortfalls and anomalies in these reports, if and when you find the prove you are after, for goodness sake, make it simple with lots of big pictures.:)
 
antiantowhatever said:
i wasn't offering a coherent alternative
Click to expand...
Mecha said:
this is not a compelling argument.
Click to expand...
yeah, that's exactly what i'm trying to prove.
Click to expand...
I agree wholeheartedly. :p


You don't need to write a freaking thesis paper. I am only asking that you try very hard to make sense.
You can do it in under a paragraph.
Try this template:

I think [Idea] is backed up by [Actual Evidence]. This might not make mush sense, but I found some research that said [Short Quote from a Respectable Source] [Link].
If you look at this, along with [Supporting Evidence], the two back eachother up [Summary of Methodology].
[Description of Possible Flaws]. [Addressing the Flaws].
Therefore, [Solid Conclusion].

Big letters hopefully understood better:

WHY IS THIS SO DIFFICULT FOR EVERYONE? :O

Remember, you are trying to contradict the ENTIRE NIST REPORT, the ENTIRE FEMA REPORT and the logical conclusions drawn by MOST OF THE WORLD.

YOU NEED SOLID EVIDENCE. I DO NOT NEED EVIDENCE BECAUSE MY POSITION IS ALREADY PROVEN.

I feel like I should be writing with crayons here, or using an animal mascot to illustrate my points with his whackey antics.

For god's sake, you're actually using "I'm not trying to be coherent" as a justifictation for pseudoscience.
It's the exact same thing Clarky did. No conclusions. Just copy-pasting conspiracy websites and acting as though that feat somehow absolved him from having to make sense.

NIST is doing metal testing as we speak, according to the report (metalurgy, down at the bottom).
Are you going to keep copy/pasting conspiracy websites until they finally prove you wrong, or are you going to think for yourself long enough to see this argument is no differnent from the same arguments used to 'prove' alien abduction, bigfoot, reptilians, the loch ness monster, ogopogo, the thunderbird, psychic powers, ghosts, vampires, atlantis, the bermuda triangle and more?

Why can't you aspire to be better than the www.timecube.com guy?
At least he has a conclusion.

You didn't even address any of the logical points I made in the last posts.
You refuse to acknowledge that your lack of information can't be used as proof of a coverup.
You refuse to use proper evidence.
You're refusing to use any of the most basic principles of logical argumentation at all.

So I am VERY SORRY that I have to keep asking you to CONCENTRATE and TRY HARDER to MAKE SENSE.



________________




How about this, let's look at your one least faulty point.
Ignore everything else for the time being. I concede that you almost have a valid point here:

how did it manage to punch through 9 feet of reinforced concrete and leaving a charred hole about 9 feet in diameter inside the C-ring? is that question VALID enough for you?
Click to expand...

Now, you consider that to be a conclusive point.
In reality, it is only the beginning.
All you need now are the following points (with valid sources presented for each*):

-Descriptions of the wall, the hole, and as much of the surrounding context as possible.
-A description of exactly how much stress such a wall is capable of withstanding.
-A list of the stresses that would be applied by the crashing plane and from other sources (heat damage, explosive damage, crash damage from kinetic energy, the stress of simply holding up a ceiling, etc.)
-Proof that those stresses combined are not adequate to explain a hole.

Now, if you want to take it the extra mile towards credibility, you can add:

-A list of things that are capable of producing the hole, repeating the above method for each until you find a match and then evidence that those things were used.

Since your points are so blindingly obvious, this should be easy to do.
If you can do it, I will actually start to believe you.

Just show us the body of evidence you used to draw your personal conclusions. We'll work from there.

*A valid source is one which contains actual science to prove points using this same method.
Peer-reviewed science is best, but if you can't find that, at least try to avoid the conspiracy websites.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
NIST is doing metal testing as we speak, according to the report (metalurgy, down at the bottom).
Click to expand...
Yeah I wonder how that's going. Must have been pretty hard since Guiliani carted off almost every scrap of metal from the WTC site for a profit.
 
Hey man, he lost millions by that collapse he's just trying to earn some money back :)
:p
 
Mechagodzilla said:
I agree wholeheartedly. :p


You don't need to write a freaking thesis paper. I am only asking that you try very hard to make sense.
You can do it in under a paragraph.
Try this template:

I think [Idea] is backed up by [Actual Evidence]. This might not make mush sense, but I found some research that said [Short Quote from a Respectable Source] [Link].
If you look at this, along with [Supporting Evidence], the two back eachother up [Summary of Methodology].
[Description of Possible Flaws]. [Addressing the Flaws].
Therefore, [Solid Conclusion].

Big letters hopefully understood better:

WHY IS THIS SO DIFFICULT FOR EVERYONE? :O
Click to expand...

it would be REALLY helpful if YOU said something SUBstantial for a change instead of WAFFLING

Remember, you are trying to contradict the ENTIRE NIST REPORT, the ENTIRE FEMA REPORT and the logical conclusions drawn by MOST OF THE WORLD.

YOU NEED SOLID EVIDENCE. I DO NOT NEED EVIDENCE BECAUSE MY POSITION IS ALREADY PROVEN.

I feel like I should be writing with crayons here, or using an animal mascot to illustrate my points with his whackey antics.
Click to expand...

frankly an animal mascot would make more sense. "I don't need to answer questions or provide evidence 'cos it's been proven" - wtf is that shit? bring something to the table other than witless condescension for a change. a link or two, perhaps?

For god's sake, you're actually using "I'm not trying to be coherent" as a justifictation for pseudoscience.
It's the exact same thing Clarky did. No conclusions. Just copy-pasting conspiracy websites and acting as though that feat somehow absolved him from having to make sense.
Click to expand...

moron alert! questions aren't conclusions. consult your nearest dictionary

NIST is doing metal testing as we speak, according to the report (metalurgy, down at the bottom).
Are you going to keep copy/pasting conspiracy websites until they finally prove you wrong, or are you going to think for yourself long enough to see this argument is no differnent from the same arguments used to 'prove' alien abduction, bigfoot, reptilians, the loch ness monster, ogopogo, the thunderbird, psychic powers, ghosts, vampires, atlantis, the bermuda triangle and more?

Why can't you aspire to be better than the www.timecube.com guy?
At least he has a conclusion.
Click to expand...

Zzzzzzz.....

You didn't even address any of the logical points I made in the last posts.
You refuse to acknowledge that your lack of information can't be used as proof of a coverup.
You refuse to use proper evidence.
You're refusing to use any of the most basic principles of logical argumentation at all.

So I am VERY SORRY that I have to keep asking you to CONCENTRATE and TRY HARDER to MAKE SENSE.
Click to expand...

when it comes to missing the point i'm clearly dealing with a professional here, so i won't bother repeating myself

Now, you consider that to be a conclusive point.
In reality, it is only the beginning.
All you need now are the following points (with valid sources presented for each*):

-Descriptions of the wall, the hole, and as much of the surrounding context as possible.
-A description of exactly how much stress such a wall is capable of withstanding.
-A list of the stresses that would be applied by the crashing plane and from other sources (heat damage, explosive damage, crash damage from kinetic energy, the stress of simply holding up a ceiling, etc.)
-Proof that those stresses combined are not adequate to explain a hole.

Now, if you want to take it the extra mile towards credibility, you can add:

-A list of things that are capable of producing the hole, repeating the above method for each until you find a match and then evidence that those things were used.

Since your points are so blindingly obvious, this should be easy to do.
If you can do it, I will actually start to believe you.

Just show us the body of evidence you used to draw your personal conclusions. We'll work from there.
Click to expand...

BZZT! thanks for playing. i asked YOU this question. you didn't answer. i haven't offered an explanation because i don't have one and that's why i'm asking the question

A valid source is one which contains actual science to prove points using this same method.
Peer-reviewed science is best, but if you can't find that, at least try to avoid the conspiracy websites.
Click to expand...

ok, i've just figured out the problem with arguing with you: you're an idiot. lol, if you'd followed the link i gave you to the site about the pentagon hit, you'd find the evidence the guy collected actually fleshes out the official story pretty well, with a few caveats - one of which was the hole, which i also questioned

anyway, arguing with someone who can't tell the difference between statements and questions is less worthwhile than talking to bread, so unless you have something interesting to bring, i'm gonna leave this for now
 
I think everyone can agree that I can't tell where your questions stop and your statement begin because you are blurring the line between the two.

Your question was not a valid question because it contained the assumptive statement that the wall hole is "impossible".
I cannot answer that question without first asking why you have concluded that the wall hole is impossible.

Otherwise, your question remains an unintentional variant of the schoolyard "do your parents know you're gay?" joke.

I don't see what aspect of this is unreasonable or incomprehensible. So if you'd rather keep talking to wheat products, be my guest.
Just don't pretend that I'm somehow too stupid to understand your brilliance.
 
You've made a complete fool of yourself, by being so defensive.

Your coming to the table with something shocking, and highly contradictive of the status quo, to combat it you need a properlly formed arugment if you have any chance at persuausion.
 
This is going personal, and becoming a very, very, stupid argument.

Here's what REALLY happened. George Bush got abducted by the Lich King who inserted thousands of leechs which coincidentally were Yeerks and terrorists into Bush's ear. They also converted Bush into a commie, and a rumour-monger.

I've got first hand proof. Go to this link, this and this one too. If you see, all three sources back my my theory perfectly, so you better believe it.
 
Please, take the time to read this comic strip:

http://www.jacobsm.com/grassy.gif

It provides all the answers to the conspiracy theory in question.

I've also bought the latest issue of the Viz, and they've got a great one about the New World order under the Reptilian Overlords.

"Are you coming home to watch Chucklevision?"

"Home? HOME? I can never go home! I know too much!"
 
I loved that comic, Kirov. So much. :p

Arguing on the internet only makes baby Jesus (the alien from Pluto) cry.
 
I liked it how they used Scalar Waves (in the form of a Tesla Howitzer) to bring down the Space Shuttle Columbia.

And this is a suprise Farrow.
 
You most likely cant hard proof it, but you can draw on occurances and indiscrepancies with the government's official story and how its been documented, there's still no denying that FEMA, NIST, and the commission report have ignored and neglected to answer so many important question's, and have not given reason for that absence.

The comission report didnt even bother to say a single thing about WTC 7, and most obviously the large amount of contradicting eyewitness evidence thats included in the 2nd edition of loose change, it goes on and on and constantly provides debate, even within the scientific community as to why there is large quantities of molten steel coming out of hydrocarbon based fires which even at their most intense cannot get hot enough to actually melt steel let alone large quantities.

The official explaination for this is that fire barrelled down the elevator shaft's to basement levels from the crash zone melting steel along the way (wild!), but the building is hermetically sealed in three section's, purposefully preventing that kind of event from occuring. So havnt they done their research properly? why didnt they mention the building was hermetically sealed, perfectly good question's and there are plenty of them.

Also people who unquestionably support the official reports seem to constantly keep failing to keep within the official context they are supporting.. saying things like "of course it will collapse a ****ing plane hit it" when the NIST and FEMA explaination's you supposedly support put the cause down to fire, not the collision damage (in my mind showing half the people who believe the official events are conclusive dont even understand what they are going on about). But ultimately all of these questions are why these conspiracey's exist.

The vaste amount of unanswered and undisclosed information gives people the perfect reasons to suspect conspiracey weither other people like or not. So anyone who says its all stupid is possibly even more stupid for the fact that your ignoring or failing to aknowledge the reason why this debate still goes on.
 
clarky003 said:
The vaste amount of unanswered and undisclosed information gives people the perfect reasons to suspect conspiracey weither other people like or not. So anyone who says its all stupid is possibly even more stupid for the fact that your ignoring or failing to aknowledge the reason why this debate still goes on.
Click to expand...
No matter what the issue is, there is always at least one person who will disagree.

People don't agree on evolution. People don't agree on religion. People don't agree on all sorts of science.

Some people are convinced that the moon is made of cheese. Some people think that tin foil hats protect them from brain-scanning devices. These people are crazy and/or are morons.


What you are suggesting is that anyone who agrees with one side of any debate without even listening to the other is "stupid." Seriously, dude, that's hilarious. I think I can agree that the moon isn't a giant chunk of cheese, and dismiss anyone who says otherwise as a moron. Which does not make me stupid.

So. Shut the f*ck up.
 
What you are suggesting is that anyone who agrees with one side of any debate without even listening to the other is "stupid." Seriously, dude, that's hilarious. I think I can agree that the moon isn't a giant chunk of cheese, and dismiss anyone who says otherwise as a moron. Which does not make me stupid.

So. Shut the f*ck up.
Click to expand...
It does if you've never considered it.
 
Well, that's a good point, but not exactly what I meant.

What I meant to say is that you think about it, but you don't need hard proof which disproves that the moon is made out of cheese. Since you already know that the moon is made out of lots of things that aren't cheese, since someone already proved that.

You dismiss things after you think about them. So its pretty much a given that you consider it, otherwise you couldn't dismiss it because you didn't even think about it.
 
Thing is, most people consider it, dismiss it as implausable, and move on.

That doesn't make them stupid.
 
What Solaris said^ is my point exactley Erestheux misunderstood me.

The reason the debate still goes on is because of the sheer amount of unanswered question's, im saying its dumb if you ignore those.

I agree with Badger no it doesnt make them stupid, but if they dismiss it as implausible purely because of the political conclusion that it may indicate, then it is partly stupid because your then assuming you know how people behave and what their motive's are etc, if you morally denie any wrong doing by government's for instance on this scale and flatly assume that it is impossible for any such occurance to happen despite the large amount of missing physical explaination and contradictory evidence around the event's, then that will affect your judgement pre analysis. whatever bias it doesnt change the question's that still have to be answered.
 
But should the fact that some questions exist lead you to believe in a highly unlikely conspiracy plot, or should you accept that there are certain things that we may possibly never know or understand?

No one on earth has ever seen an attack carried out in such a manner as that which was seen on 9/11. We have no previous examples to base analysis on. You absolutely know for certain the behavior of jet fuel when it disperses upon impact with a large skyscraper? Because I dont. You know that its suspicious enough to warrant a conspiracy and not further scientific analysis? Many events in this world have been beyond human comprehension and will remain so. As intelligent rational people our response should not be to instantly jump to irrational and implausible conclusions. Instead, perhaps we can all admit that there are certain things which are beyond our current comprehension and hope that in the future we can obtain the true natural cause.
 
Well for starter's im certain all people can comprehend wanting some fairly simple question's answered, forget speculating about conclusion's before the important question's are answered, I believe there is enough footage to beable to get people to address previously ignored and unsimulated issue's. Most of that is based around the collapse event's of all three building's.

The one thing I truely dont get is some people's response to Larry Silverstein saying they had WTC 7 pulled, some people just seem to watch it... goes through one ear.. goes out the other.

Then FEMA's speculation is totally contradictory to that statement and doesnt even seem to dare tread on the issue of explosive's, if you look there are alot of indescrepancies like that, its why Im not afraid to question it pure and simple, The whole truth has clearly not been disclosed weither its known or not and I think the people who died in those buildings deserve a better investigation atleast.
 
clarky003 said:
The one thing I truely dont get is some people's response to Larry Silverstein saying they had WTC 7 pulled, some people just seem to watch it... goes through one ear.. goes out the other.

Then FEMA's speculation is totally contradictory to that statement, if you look there are alot of indescrepancies, its why Im not afraid to question it pure and simple.
Click to expand...
I understood his comment as in pulling the firefighters from the building, because it was beyond the point of saving. He didn't want to risk their lives fighting a fire which had already caused irreparable damage. (If he was connected to this conspiracy do you honestly think a central conspirator would be dumb enough to admit the use of controlled demolition during a video interview?) Obviously explosives would have to have been planted long before these fires started. Please explain to me the motives for demolishing a unnecessary building in this already circuitous plot and how you would silence the hundreds, if not thousands, of people required to pull off this grand scheme.
 
So you have to be convinced of a person/s motive's that we dont know to draw the conclusion that Larry was right when he said he had the building pulled.

First of all why hundreds? why thousands? If Larry is right and he did have it pulled, and they where set ages ago it truely depends, there where evacuation's and test drills for weeks and weeks before the event's, you would only need a handful of trained people over a longer period of time to set it up, not hundreds. just a well trained handful that would of had a possibility to goto work in total evacuation's.


http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/sept11/people_benfountain.html

As for the motive, there is one very good one, insurance specifically covering act's of terrorisim.

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/background/fox23news_billions.html

Alot of sensitive material was in the building, important tenant's etc.

Salomon Smith Barney 1,202,900 GRND,1-6,13,18-46 Financial Institutions
Internal Revenue Service Regional Council 90,430 24,25 Government
U.S. Secret Service 85,343 9,10 Government
American Express Bank International 106,117 7,8,13 Financial Institutions
Standard Chartered Bank 111,398 10,13,26,27 Financial Institutions
Provident Financial Management 9,000 7,13 Financial Institutions
ITT Hartford Insurance Group 122,590 19-21
First State Management Group, Inc 4,000 21 Insurance
Federal Home Loan Bank 47,490 22 Financial Institutions
NAIC Securities 22,500 19 Insurance
Securities & Exchange Commission 106,117 11,12,13 Financial Institutions
Mayor's Office of Emergency Mgmt 45,815 23 Government
Click to expand...
 
Its so funny how you talk down about mass media and how it warps and forms the public's opinions, yet you worship the less-extensive media that conspiracy theorists release. Its still media, you know. Its the same thing. Hell, it may be even worse. You tell people that they simply have to watch this stuff and how it goes "in one ear and out the other," yet at the same time other forms of media are going through your ears in the same manner.
 
clarky003 said:
So you have to be convinced of a person/s motive's that we dont know to draw the conclusion that Larry was right when he said he had the building pulled.
Click to expand...
Establishing motive is one of the very first steps an investigator takes when conducting an investigation. I'm sorry but some guy named Larry collecting insurance money by orchestrating the largest conspiracy in the history of the world is the kind of jumping to irrational beliefs I just warned against. Is it at all possible that there is a simple and natural explanation to the collapse that you simply do not know?
 
Well he's not 'some guy' named Larry, he owned the whole complex. If collecting billion's of dollar's of insurance from the old building's and getting new city endorsed planning for new building's is say irrational to you or me, how can we be sure its irrational to someone else? you have to beable to put yourself in their shoes before you can determine weither it's irrational or not, and it still doesnt answer why he said it was pulled.
 
But this media is by an alledged Professor of Nuclear Chemistry! How can we question his judgement?
 
clarky003 said:
Well he's not 'some guy' named Larry, he owned the whole complex. If collecting billion's of dollar's of insurance from the old building's and getting new city endorsed planning for new building's is say irrational to you or me, how can we be sure its irrational to someone else? you have to beable to put yourself in their shoes before you can determine weither it's irrational or not, and it still doesnt answer why he said it was pulled.
Click to expand...
Causing the deaths of thousands of innocent people using your small tightknit group of crack demolitions experts to blow up your own property in order to collect insurance money is irrational. Just think about it. If he was the owner of the complex he was obviously already wealthy. Why would he kill so many innocent people simply to put new buildings up?
 
I wouldnt know, but why would I assume that he had no other motives if thats the case. Its not irrational that is truely a mindset for some awful investigating, do people truely know how far people will go for more money? these are the question's you have to ask when people say they had a building pulled, you cant just flatly assume its irrational because its something that 'you' wouldnt consider doing, yours and others similar moral standing is your only template but that means nothing when your investigating another mans claim's of illegal demolition, how can you identify his morality to accurately judge the rationality of the situation. He said they pulled it, to conclude weither thats true or not is more important right now than his possible motives, that part of the investigation is secondary to establishing physical evidence for that statement.
 
The NIST report states specificially that they are testing actual WTC steel for how it reacts to heat and impact.
They are not providing quick-fix theories or just taking a guess and turning it into a two hour amateur music video.
They are using actual science, which takes time and thought.
Questions aren't enough.

Questions aren't enough because there is a point when you stop asking questions and start actively exploiting the limits of scientific knowledge.
In the desperate search for answers, you're just plugging the void with whatever is handy.
In this case, it's the conspiracy websites.

The entire assumption of the conspiracy website is that the simple act of "questioning" is enough to make one worthy of respect.
The sad fact is that the real world doesn't work that way.

Asking questions is easy. Too easy. Any idiot can ask a question about any topic.
The important thing is asking a smart question and finding a smart answer.

And yes, I am calling your questions stupid.
They are stupid because they rely on pseudoscience.
Here is a simple list of ways folks exploit pseudoscience:

* by asserting claims or theories unconnected to previous experimental results
You are basically rejecting the entire NIST report in favor of your handful of conspiracy-based questions about bombs.
* by asserting claims which cannot be verified or falsified (claims that violate falsifiability);
Just for one, your oft-repeated Larry Silverstien quote: "'Pulled' means 'exploded'"? You don't know that.
Other unfalsifiable claims include the mystery magic bombs (of which no physical or photographic evidence exists).
* by asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results;
Again, you reject the entire NIST and the conclusions of the scientific community at large.
* by habitually changing the nature of its claims to deflect criticism;
You're always saying things like "that looks like a thermite charge went off!" or "look at that explosive squib!" but then when people ask you how you came to those conclusions, you say you are "only asking questions."
* by failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible results;
That's a big one right there. Because you are "only asking questions", you haven't provided even a theoretical situation in which you would accept that you are wrong.
It's another case of proving a negative. "Prove that unicorns don't live inside the sun."
* by failing to submit results to peer review prior to publicizing them (called "science by press conference")
This is what all of your sources do, including the titular nuclear physicist of this thread.
* by claiming a theory predicts something that it does not or by claiming a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict;
You are continuously claiming that your theory predicts that NIST and common sense are incorrect without any evidence of such.
* by violating Occam's Razor, the heuristic principle of choosing the explanation that requires the fewest additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible
Your questions require about a million assumptions to accept including international conspiracy, invisible mystery bombs, remote-controlled airplanes and about a billion other guessed things.
*or by a lack of progress toward additional evidence of its claims.
By "only asking questions," you are making absolutely no progress in providing any evidence.

So really, we know you have questions. But they are stupid questions based in pseudoscience so please desist until you have anything tangible to present.
 
Thank you for your 10 pence worth Mech

Okay read through all that waffle, and down to the point.

They are stupid questions to you because you have already made your mind up simple as that.

To me question like, why is there molten metal dripping out of a damaged area in one of the tower's? why so many contradictory eyewitness report's? why all that molten steel down to basement level? why the owner mention's demoltion slang saying the word's 'pull it' in context with the building being unrecoverable when it didnt appear so and then launch an investigation into the building's collapse? all are perfectly sensible question's and im sure even most critique's bar you perhaps would say the same.

But they are stupid questions based in pseudoscience
Click to expand...

thats a dreadful conclusion, why are they?
 
I just dont understand how you can fill in all this information and set this guy up for being involved with planning 9/11 based on a disputed comment he made during a tv interview. Myself and others believe him to be discussing the withdrawl of firefighters, not the destruction of the building. It is much more plausible that we simply dont have all of the necessary information to answer all of the questions you have which are not satisfied by the official reports.
 
It is much more plausible that we simply dont have all of the necessary information to answer all of the questions you have which are not satisfied by the official reports.
Click to expand...

Thats it, my point exactley
 
I think what most of you skeptics are neglecting is the hard evidence that George Bush used a Tesla Howitzer to bring down the Space Shuttle Columbia over the state of Texas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top