What the rest of the world thinks about who is behind 9/11

page: 4
36
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596

You post a brillant example of the type of misinformation (misdirection) out there that leads people to start believing in conspiracy theories.


Show me where exactly in the OP I posted misinformation, misdirection or conspiracy theory? As I said, I am only interested in raw data.

Some people. :shk:




posted on May, 25 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


You're right..."other" probably refers to Shadow-Government theories (and also hologram theories). The amount of people believing such is astonishing.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Of interest:

"World Trade Center Building 7 is the 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by any planes during the September 11th attacks, but still totally collapsed later the same day. This collapse was not investigated by the 9/11 Commission.


Quite remarkable and very suspicious is it not, because how could a legitimate investigation of 9/11 miss a whole World Trade Center skyscraper collapsing?
edit on 25/5/11 by spacevisitor because: made a correction



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Quite remarkable and very suspicious is it not


Using the neutral wording I set out to use for this thread I`ll say, yes, thats somewhat interesting.




posted on May, 25 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Of interest:

"World Trade Center Building 7 is the 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by any planes during the September 11th attacks, but still totally collapsed later the same day. This collapse was not investigated by the 9/11 Commission.


Quite remarkable and very suspicious is it not, because how could a legitimate investigation of 9/11 miss a whole World Trade Center skyscraper collapsing?
edit on 25/5/11 by spacevisitor because: made a correction

Because the 9/11 Commission was not set up to investigate the mechanical failures of the WTC buildings? They were set up to look at the failures of politics and the failure of security services. Which makes sense when you look at who was staffing the Commission: Politicians and bureaucrats.

The NIST were tasked with investigating the collapse of the WTC buildings.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by roboe
Because the 9/11 Commission was not set up to investigate the mechanical failures of the WTC buildings?


That didn't stop them from mentioning some basic "facts" (such as collapse times, which were still inaccurate) about what happened at the Twin Towers.

Why not WTC7 too?

WTC7 represented the more serious engineering catastrophe because it wasn't even hit by a plane, and collapsed allegedly due to fire alone, the first steel skyscraper in history to ever do this, despite hundreds of skyscraper fires. And it didn't even get mentioned a single time in the Kean Commission report. To this day, the most recent polls I've seen indicate that the majority of Americans don't even know what "WTC7" is.


Look, even the actual report NIST was assigned for WTC7 doesn't even make it clear why the building came down. They refused to release critical structural data that would allow independent review (just like for the WTC Towers), and their computer simulation of their own hypothesis looked nothing like the actual "collapse" and in fact was much more chaotic and showed much more distortion in the outer facade of the building than was ever visible in reality. I said this before but computer models are generally idealized versions of whatever they are representing. It's very unusual when they turn out looking sloppier than reality itself.


For reference, this is what WTC7 collapsing should have looked like according to NIST's hypothesis (which again can't be independently verified because they withheld their data):

edit on 25-5-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
To this day, the most recent polls I've seen indicate that the majority of Americans don't even know what "WTC7" is.


That the majority of Americans don't even know what "WTC7" was is indeed remarkable bsbray11, I think that the reason for that could be is that those people do not look at all the information there is about 911 on the internet, because otherwise they must have known about WTC7.


Originally posted by bsbray11
For reference, this is what WTC7 collapsing should have looked like according to NIST's hypothesis (which again can't be independently verified because they withheld their data):



Looking at the videos posted here, it looks to me as if it did not have collapsed that way.
You see the whole building clearly collapsing vertically as by freefall from out different viewpoints and not the way as it should have looked according to NIST's hypothesis in my opinion.

911research.wtc7.net...



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   


I am from the UK too. Can you give me any evidence that people 16-25, your circle of cronies apart, that believe 9/11 was an "inside job" ?

I socialize with a lot of people, barely any of them are in "my circle of croonies..."!
I guarantee 100% would say it was an inside job. What'cha want? their phone numbers or something? :S



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corrupted Data


I am from the UK too. Can you give me any evidence that people 16-25, your circle of cronies apart, that believe 9/11 was an "inside job" ?

I socialize with a lot of people, barely any of them are in "my circle of croonies..."!
I guarantee 100% would say it was an inside job. What'cha want? their phone numbers or something? :S

Thank you for confirming that you didn't have any evidence for your statement but were relying on a handful of people you "socialize" with.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
That the majority of Americans don't even know what "WTC7" was is indeed remarkable bsbray11, I think that the reason for that could be is that those people do not look at all the information there is about 911 on the internet, because otherwise they must have known about WTC7.


A good example of this is my own dad. When I first told him that I thought 9/11 was an inside job, he got angry and we got into a pretty heated argument that ended with him saying something like "everything has to be a damned conspiracy." Fast forward a couple years later when we went to the beach together and he was asking me if I had ever seen WTC7 come down. Of course I said "yes" and immediately realized what he was trying to tell me.


He's a mechanic by trade, the most senior and highest paid at the dealership he works at, and rightly prides himself on how quick he can figure out mechanical problems. Up until just recently he's always had a lot of pride in his country too, which I think is why he got so angry when I mentioned it at first. But after seeing WTC7 come down for himself he apparently couldn't deny the obviousness of what he was staring at. The same thing is what originally convinced me a few years earlier.


Looking at the videos posted here, it looks to me as if it did not have collapsed that way.
You see the whole building clearly collapsing vertically as by freefall from out different viewpoints and not the way as it should have looked according to NIST's hypothesis in my opinion.


Exactly. Aside from the free-fall acceleration, when the "global collapse" initiates, all 4 corners of the roof line drop virtually simultaneously, within a fraction of a second of each other such as what demolition engineers must very carefully coordinate. These things do not readily happen in any "natural" (ie not controlled by humans) scenario. In fact, if WTC7 were commercially (legally) demolished out in the open, I doubt it could have been any neater. If it had tilted from the base, the leverage from the weight of the upper floors could have easily caused the whole building to fall over and reach where WTC1 once stood. Instead, the debris hardly made it across the street on any side, even though this building was 47 stories tall.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by spacevisitor
That the majority of Americans don't even know what "WTC7" was is indeed remarkable bsbray11, I think that the reason for that could be is that those people do not look at all the information there is about 911 on the internet, because otherwise they must have known about WTC7.


A good example of this is my own dad. When I first told him that I thought 9/11 was an inside job, he got angry and we got into a pretty heated argument that ended with him saying something like "everything has to be a damned conspiracy." Fast forward a couple years later when we went to the beach together and he was asking me if I had ever seen WTC7 come down. Of course I said "yes" and immediately realized what he was trying to tell me.


Thanks for your reply and sharing this great story about your dad bsbray11, it’s a very good example of what I meant to say.



Originally posted by bsbray11
He's a mechanic by trade, the most senior and highest paid at the dealership he works at, and rightly prides himself on how quick he can figure out mechanical problems. Up until just recently he's always had a lot of pride in his country too, which I think is why he got so angry when I mentioned it at first. But after seeing WTC7 come down for himself he apparently couldn't deny the obviousness of what he was staring at. The same thing is what originally convinced me a few years earlier.


As a man your dad obviously is, a good mechanic, did he ever say something to you about the collapsing of the Twin Towers?
I mean, did he find the way those Towers did collapsed also not very suspicious?



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


1. Freefall from the height of a WTC Tower is 9.2 seconds.

2. The towers fell in about 15 seconds. Everyone has seen the videos.

3. For the moment, let's assume that the structural strength of the Towers is ZERO - all the tiny particles of steel, glass, concrete, etc. are just magically hanging in place ...but let's also assume that they do possess normal MASS, and that no material begins to fall until it is impacted from above, just as in the actual Tower collapses.

4. It takes energy to push stationary mass out of the way or to set mass into motion. If a moving mass collides with a stationary mass, the moving object is slowed down while the stationary object is sped up and total momentum is conserved. This is simple physics and is known as The Law of Conservation of Momentum. It works in all directions, even in the direction of Earth's gravitational pull.

5. Using mathematics or computer programs, it is fairly simple to calculate how many extra seconds, over and above freefall time, can be attributed to overcoming the static inertia of a WTC Tower's mass. That extra fall time is about 5 seconds (see notes below).

6. So absolute freefall is 9.2 seconds; adding 5 seconds to this number gives us a collapse time of about 14 seconds due to mass alone and Newton's Laws, while ignoring any effects of structural strength whatsoever.

7. Ok, now let's add back in structural strength. How many MORE seconds of collapse time will be required to overcome the immense strength of the towers' undamaged infrastructure below the impact zone? Remember, you have to not only overcome supporting strength but you also have to shred it to bits as well and pulverize all the concrete and other materials to fine powder. All of this work takes energy that is only available from gravitational potential energy if the official story is correct.

8. However, we are already certain that the total collapse time can be no less than around 14 seconds due to Newton's Laws alone. Yet, overcoming the steel infrastructure's strength can only INCREASE the total collapse time still further - by many more seconds, if collapse even takes place at all. Yet the towers fell through themselves as if they had hardly any structural strength.

9. Do you believe that the steel infrastructure's strength was no stronger than the surrounding air. No? Well, there you go: a gravitationally-driven collapse is absurd.

10. Even if you assume a collapse time of 20 seconds, this is like saying that the Towers' strength fell apart easily, like wet toilet paper; hardly any resistance at all. The Towers' structural strength was designed to support its mass by a safety factor of several multiples.

Imagine trying to crush and shred the monstrous strength of a WTC Tower's steel infrastructure in 1 second! -- all those immensely strong core columns and peripheral columns tied together in an integral steel framework. How much energy does it take to do that? Humongous amounts of energy! But, as you have seen, you have only a second or two delay time at the very most that you can attribute to the effects of structural strength because the Towers actually DID fall in about 15 seconds.

It seems that structural strength really WAS virtually zero on 911. Where is the flaw in this logic?



NOTES:
(1) A mathematics formula by Dr. Kenneth Kuttler, Pg. 6 (last one on the page)
www.journalof911studies.com...

(2) Dr. Kuttler's straight-forward calculation was written about WTC7 but the formula can be applied to the Towers simply by changing the variables (such as number of floors).

(3) It turns out that the greater masses found at the bottom versus the lighter masses at the top of the buildings have little effect on the overall delay time due to Newton's Laws and overcoming static inertia (assuming ZERO structural strength).

(4) This puzzle also assumes that ALL of the building's mass was concentrated in the downward vertical direction, ie. none of it was blown outwards as occurred in reality. Obviously, if less mass were concentrated downwards because it was blown outwards, it could NOT have participated in the forces acting on the undamaged infrastructure below, and theu the total collapse time due to overcoming static inertia would have to be even greater. So this assumption favors the official story.

(5) There have been computer programs written to calculate the effects of overcoming mass static inertia also, but I could not locate them quickly.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Carlhole
reply to post by Alfie1
 

7. Ok, now let's add back in structural strength. How many MORE seconds of collapse time will be required to overcome the immense strength of the towers' undamaged infrastructure below the impact zone? Remember, you have to not only overcome supporting strength but you also have to shred it to bits as well and pulverize all the concrete and other materials to fine powder. All of this work takes energy that is only available from gravitational potential energy if the official story is correct.


EXACTLY!!!

So how have people with degrees in physics let this crap go on for TEN YEARS?

Here's a computer program:

the911forum.freeforums.org...

Here is a model:

www.youtube.com...

psik



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Carlhole
 


Good post!


To put it simply for the OS model, Bazant, to work Ke would have to increase, which is impossible, as you explained Ke was (there is no if) lost to other work that we know happened. There is nothing to speculate on that, all the OSers can do is ignore that fact, or pretend we're wrong in our interpretation of the law. Which BTW OSers is covered by the 'laws of motion', yeah the 'mantra' that you hate so much.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   
After you guys managed to convince Goodolddave PLB and his friends that there might have been a cover up, you all could hop over to the middle east and convince the Jews Christians and Muslims that quarelling over religion is silly because it is loosely founded in facts at best. Because if you guys pull off the former you are up for that task.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Carlhole
 



Imagine trying to crush and shred the monstrous strength of a WTC Tower's steel infrastructure in 1 second! -- all those immensely strong core columns and peripheral columns tied together in an integral steel framework.


Once a piece of steel has been overloaded, how long does it take for the break or fracture to occur? 1 second? 2 seconds? Or maybe 1/1000 of a second. Once something has been stressed to overload the failure is not measured in seconds. For all the talk of physics in these discussions this is what I consider the most hilarious notion. Even a child snapping a twig in half knows it doesn't take seconds for that twig to break.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Yeah, you're going to educate me on myself by linking me to a Judy Woods interview. Do you know how much sense that makes? And you're still the king of straw-men.


You denied that there are people who support the "lasers from outer space" claims and I showed you that people do subscribe to them, which is as relevent to "what the rest of the world thinks about who is behind 9/11" as it gets. Your not liking the fact there are such characters turning your 9/11 truth movement into a three ring circus doesn't make the fact any less credible.


What is that even supposed to mean? Are you just saying anyone who posts information critical of 9/11 on the internet is dumber than you? Even all the people at Zogby reporting in on these surveys?


You are referencing the Zogby poll dishonestly here. I am quoting the Zogby poll directly when it asked:

"Some people believe that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up. Others say that the 9/11 Commission was a bi-partisan group of honest and well-respected people and that there is no reason they would want to cover-up anything. Who are you more likely to agree with?"

...which had a response distribution of 48% No Cover-up / 42% Cover-up / 10% Not sure. Under no circumstances does it say whether or not people believe in these hologram planes, cruise missiles at the Pentagon, or whatever. It asked whether there was a coverup, and I am among the 42% who believes there was a coverup. It's just that I believe the coverup is the intentional concealment of gross gov't incompetence, which you don't want to accept because it isn't sinister sounding enough for you.

You "secret hushaboom controlled demolitions" "lasers from outer space" etc etc etc conspiracy people do NOT represent the mainstream populace who wants to know where the system broke down so that it can't happen again, and I would appreciate it if you would stop pretending that you do, thank you very much.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
I dont see any of you, from either two sides, even remotely interested in questioning your own cognitive bias.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Interesting too see, most of the world, thinks al quida did it. us government being 2nd,w itht he exception of jordon, thinking israel( they must not like them..it was a bias polical census) to me, and mexico being 50/50 .
i think the US government was involved. they love to keep secrets form us all, run secret operations at our expense..i mean cmon! thiers some kinda connection. it jsut seems, after the twin towers fell, wallstreet and corporate businessses were drastically de reegualted, and layed off workers here, to favor sweatshop labor overseas. WTC#7 was knonw to have CIA and secret service files,a nd papers with known CEO's under federal investigation for money laundering, things like that. ..could be coincidnce..but dosnt make sense* the planes didnt even hit WTC7..and thiers no video of huge chunks of debris knocking it down....makes one wonder indeed.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by bsbray11
Yeah, you're going to educate me on myself by linking me to a Judy Woods interview. Do you know how much sense that makes? And you're still the king of straw-men.


You denied that there are people who support the "lasers from outer space" claims and I showed you that people do subscribe to them


No "Dave".... I denied subscribing to any such thing myself.

I don't see anyone else here bringing up that crap either, except you.

What is so damned hard to understand about that?


Let me guess... your response will be just more garbage about what other people believe.






Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You "secret hushaboom controlled demolitions" "lasers from outer space" etc etc etc conspiracy people


Really? Those are "my people"?

Alright, then "your people" are Zionists, Nazis, and everyone on death row.


Do you enjoy posting childish arguments like this that make no sense?
edit on 1-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
36
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join