Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by soulwaxer
Why didn't you just post "people disagree with me, therefore I'm going to try and ridicule them, because they don't see things my way"?
Would have saved you an awful lot of time.
This is ATS. We discuss. People have differing viewpoints. Not everyone sees things the same way.
If you want to dictate, get a blog, disable comments and do it there maybe?
I'm a fully qualified Civil Engineer. I don't see things your way and I don't believe any Engineer worth their salt would see it that way because
of this simple logic.
9/11 is the rule, not the exception to the rule, because until 9/11 no one had deliberately flown two heavily laden 180tonne + airliners at speed into
the side of buildings constructed like WTC1 and 2. Any comparisons made are completely invalid, because they don't match the circumstances at all.
Its a unique event that hopefully we'll never see again.
Yes, planes have hit buildings before, and yes, most steel frame buildings don't collapse through fire. WTC 1 and 2 weren't most steel frame
buildings, they had a fairly unique construction and although there have been fires in others steel frames, none of them were constructed in the same
way, and none of them had been hit by a 180tonne + airliner doing in excess of 300mph
Does that line of reasoning make me mentall ill?
I agree that this line of reasoning does not make you mentally ill. I do think that many debunkers are unable to deal with a very horrible truth
consciously, and that that is a natural defense mechanism. It's normal. We aren't built to easily integrate such things. We have emotions that get
in the way, especially fear. Notice that in my OP, I mentioned having been in the same situation myself, but that I worked through it. Just as most
debunkers are in the process of working through it.
I think your line of reasoning is limited though, and not very effective. There are indeed several aspects to what happened that are unique, but there
are many aspects that are not. We can work with those. For example, an explosion is still an explosion, no matter what caused it. We all know what an
explosion looks and sounds like. Just because an event has never happened before, doesn't mean that the laws of physics don't apply to it.
Look at it this way. Hitler killed millions of jews in gas chambers. That never happened before. Does that mean you can say "Oh, how do we know it
was the gas that killed them? That never happened before on such a huge scale. We can't compare it to anything else." But when the camps were freed,
inspecting the 'shower rooms' made that pretty clear, no? In the same line of reasoning, we can inspect the video images of 9/11 and draw many
conclusions that point to explosions and cutter charges, even though the exact same scenario has never happened. By the way, every event is unique. No
two events are exactly alike. That has never stopped us from drawing legitimate conclusions before. That is what I mean by your line of reasoning
being ineffective. As far as it being limited, I need only point to your omission of WTC 7.
Some posters seem to have misunderstood my comments on the scientific community not being reliable (look at all the conflicting conclusions reached by
NIST). I did not say that science isn't reliable. In that sense, I have more trust in my own instincts and feel for physics than what Joe scientist
tells me. I have some experience in redesigning and rebuilding the structure of brick houses, including structural steel and foundations. I didn't
need a degree in architecture or engineering to do that. All I needed was a basic understanding of and feel for physics, materials and a little bit of
math. Several licensed architects have admired my work because I did things more efficiently than they were trained to do. They were not sufficiently
trained to think outside the box.
When a monkey swings from branch to branch in the trees, how does it know which branches are strong enough to support it? Does it need a scientific
degree for that, or does it rely on instinct and experience? They are pretty damn good at it by the way.
Thanks for your reply. I do appreciate a productive discussion. I didn't mean to dictate and I apologize if I came across that way. I do have a
tendency to be confronting and I believe that can be helpful in certain situations. I do not like to sugar coat things.