You Can’t Handle the 9/11 Truth

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Shamatt

 

1700 Architects and Engineers in 11 years so how many HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS world wide have yet to sign up!!!!

OR is that FACT just ignored works both ways you know!!!!

So your point is what? Because only 1700 signed up and millions didn't then all of those 1700 are wrong? Or perhaps the other explanation is that the others have not bothered to look into it yet?

Your point is pointless because it is totally without logic.

On the morning of 9/11, President George W. Bush visited children at an elementary school. Certain vocabulary words were repeated by the class as Bush watched: “HIT, STEEL, PLANE, MUST.” If we change the order we get PLANE MUST HIT STEEL. In your face.

Really? Is that what they said?





The internet kinda scares me at times....

I think it's time to shut down posting on the 9/11 section of the forum.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


Again it works both ways

Why Do People Believe in Conspiracy Theories



Conspiracy theory logical fallacies?

warp.povusers.org...

Originally posted by FractalChaos13242017

On the morning of 9/11, President George W. Bush visited children at an elementary school. Certain vocabulary words were repeated by the class as Bush watched: “HIT, STEEL, PLANE, MUST.” If we change the order we get PLANE MUST HIT STEEL. In your face.

Really? Is that what they said?

The internet kinda scares me at times....

I think it's time to shut down posting on the 9/11 section of the forum.

Why - I don't understand. Just because you don't like it? Truth hurts brother. Shutting this down to hide from the truth helps no one.

You can watch the video if you like. If you want confirmation. Yeh, try that.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

Again it works both ways

No it doesn't, because you can post that 'conspiracy-fallacy' angle on absolutely every thread on ATS... i.e. a very simple way to show that it is off-topic and doesn't relate to what the OP is about at all.

Originally posted by Shamatt

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Shamatt

 

1700 Architects and Engineers in 11 years so how many HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS world wide have yet to sign up!!!!

OR is that FACT just ignored works both ways you know!!!!

So your point is what? Because only 1700 signed up and millions didn't then all of those 1700 are wrong? Or perhaps the other explanation is that the others have not bothered to look into it yet?

Your point is pointless because it is totally without logic.

Not to me with 30+ years in construction and talking to STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS on a regular basis.

Why did many structural engineering companies LOOK at what happened , why were building codes looked at and some change did the tooth fairy decide that?

Some example reports

Fire Engineering After 9/11

Arup Fire- After 9/11

From Arup report

This is an understandable emotion driven response but we would propose instead that designing a structure with fire as a design load provides a more robust design solution.Simply increasing fire proofing thickness without understanding the actual structural response to heat provides no guarantees of increased safety.

Look at this piece of text below again from the Arup report, this may be a shock to many with NO construction experience or even some with

The important part bold and underlined!!!!

Seismic design relies on modelling, risk analysis and changes to the structural stiffness. Wind design relies on additional structural members and wind tunnel tests. Current fire design relies on very simple, single element tests and adding insulating material to the frame. Thermal induced forces are not calculated or designed for.

It's not as simple as you would think!!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

Again it works both ways

Why Do People Believe in Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy theory logical fallacies?

warp.povusers.org...

I agree. But it is the official story which is the conspiracy. ;O)

Originally posted by Shamatt

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

Again it works both ways

Why Do People Believe in Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy theory logical fallacies?

warp.povusers.org...

I agree. But it is the official story which is the conspiracy. ;O)

Is that based on the fact that joe public cant understand how the towers collapsed so it must be an inside job?

Originally posted by adrift

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

Again it works both ways

No it doesn't, because you can post that 'conspiracy-fallacy' angle on absolutely every thread on ATS... i.e. a very simple way to show that it is off-topic and doesn't relate to what the OP is about at all.

NOT every thread some are based on FACT and the motto of the site is......

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Shamatt

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

Again it works both ways

Why Do People Believe in Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy theory logical fallacies?

warp.povusers.org...

I agree. But it is the official story which is the conspiracy. ;O)

Is that based on the fact that joe public cant understand how the towers collapsed so it must be an inside job?

No - it is because I CAN understand how they collapsed. The only possible way they could. And it is not by a few little fires caused by jet fuel. I can see exactly how they collapsed. It is obvious and easily explainable.

The irony! You infer I don't have the intelligence to understand the collapse. And you YOU believe the official explanation! Hilarious!!!

Only 1700 of us...still? Interesting that such a minute proportion of the industry subscribes to these theories. I'm part of an IStructE dominated organisation and none of whom agree fully with the AE911 movement. In fact I would hasten to add that of the handful of very articulate and astute Phd's within the office, not one is convinced that what they offer as ''evidence'' is disprovable. There's a huge grey area of course, as it applies largely in this instance, but the AE911 take the mantle of having a technical view point that other interested parties are simply not afforded, both academically and intellectually. It ulimately means that just because AE911 are qualified to analyse information and draw their conclusions in a certain capacity, it doesn't make them irrefutably correct, nor does it represent the views of the vast majority of the industry, thankfully.

Or, for those of you who are determined to be bullish in your quest for truth, are the rest of us Engineers somehow blind, ignorant or incompetent in our roles because we do not share the views of AE911? I was once asked to 'prove' that AE911's theories were incorrect. My answer was simple: I neither have the time or patience to spend it debating with someone who doesn't posess the ability to engage subjects that require an academic ability or aptitude (engineering or scientifically). Arrogance? You're spot on. Anyone can have access to information on the internet and anyone with an ounce of common sense can quote statistics, equations or methods to support a theory.

reply to post by BAZ752


Ok, so, yeah - I totally respect the fact that you are in the position to take a knowledgeable look at the events leading up to the collapses. But it seems you have written two very long paragraphs just to say 'I don't agree with them'. Seems heavy on words and light on fact. I don't ask you to prove or disprove anything. But would sharing your opinion be out of the question? Are you not suspicious about how 3 buildings could all fall at free fall speed into their own footprint? Or how the only 3 steel frame building to ever collapse from fire were the 3 that fell on 9-11? I don't even ask you to explain these facts. I am just interested in your opinion. Just these 3 facts alone arouse great suspicion in me, and make me hungry for further explanation. What about you?

Originally posted by Shamatt
Are you not suspicious about how 3 buildings could all fall at free fall speed into their own footprint?

The towers most certainly did not fall into their own footprint. Thus, the damage to other buildings.

Or how the only 3 steel frame building to ever collapse from fire were the 3 that fell on 9-11?

They didn't collapse from fire alone. They also had large amounts of structural damage.

As far as the whole "My Pet Goat" thing, the teacher supplied the book (do you think W brought it with him?).
I guess that means she's in on it, too.

Or maybe that's just my confirmation bias...

reply to post by subject x


Well, if you are just going to ignore the actual evidence you have no hope of discovering the truth. Seriously.

Building 7 fell totally into it's own footprint. It had almost no structural damage other than what could be caused by a few small fires.

The 2 towers fell as near as damn it into their footprints. Again, with very little structural damage. They were designed to take the impact of an aircraft strike. The designers agreed that only a small amount of localised damage could be caused by an aircraft impact.

I have no idea how the teacher got that book. Are you not intrigued? Doesn't it tweak your sense of curiosity?

Originally posted by Shamatt
reply to post by BAZ752

 

Ok, so, yeah - I totally respect the fact that you are in the position to take a knowledgeable look at the events leading up to the collapses. But it seems you have written two very long paragraphs just to say 'I don't agree with them'. Seems heavy on words and light on fact. I don't ask you to prove or disprove anything. But would sharing your opinion be out of the question? Are you not suspicious about how 3 buildings could all fall at free fall speed into their own footprint? Or how the only 3 steel frame building to ever collapse from fire were the 3 that fell on 9-11? I don't even ask you to explain these facts. I am just interested in your opinion. Just these 3 facts alone arouse great suspicion in me, and make me hungry for further explanation. What about you?

I'll answer your questions point by point, but firstly, those paragraphs were necessary to make msyelf very clear with enough expression to do so respectfully.

1. No, sharing my opinion wouldn't be out of the question.

2. Yes, to some degree, and no. Some explanations are rational and logical, others not so.

3. Couldn't give a toss about other buildings not collasping due to fire, we're talking about these buildings, with these materials, under these circumstances, with these conditions and another billion variables that applied that day that would differ from other buildings. To compare them is bollocks. Every single construct is unique, absolutely unique, and its effect can vary as a result of something as miniscule as the workmanship of mortar bedding all the way to identical steel fixing plates being drilled 0.5mm differently to another. It's really that open.

4. I used to take a feint, passing interest in CT's, more out of humour than anything, originally involving 9/11, but I came to a bold conclusion and firmly stuck my two fingers up to a ''quest for truth'' because it started to have a very negative effect on my nature and character, what I know and what I've experienced. I saw Loose Change and took pitty on the idiot. It fascinates me more now, the psychology of the believers and non-believers and frankly it entertains me that neither are anywhere closer to the truth. It's just the same over and over. My thoughts are that we'll probably never reach an absolute conclusion on it, and that's fine with me.

It's monumentally tragic that those thousands of souls aren't still around, but it's not my responsibililty to justify searching for truth in memory of them. I'll let others decide that for themselves and do as they see fit.

This discussion involved the AE911 truth movement, so I participated. You might think my paragraphs very long, heavy on words and light in facts (that don't appease you) but I couldn't give a stuff what it means to you. I said my piece and that's that.

reply to post by BAZ752


I starred that reply. Of all the responses on this topic, your is the most honest. I can't agree with you any more than you can agree with me. Fair enough.

One day we will all know the truth. Perhaps it will lie somewhere between us. But just for the moment, I can not swallow the official story any more than I could swallow a whale. I'm not an expert in much, but I can smell BS a mile off.

Originally posted by Shamatt
reply to post by BAZ752

 

I starred that reply. Of all the responses on this topic, your is the most honest. I can't agree with you any more than you can agree with me. Fair enough.

One day we will all know the truth. Perhaps it will lie somewhere between us. But just for the moment, I can not swallow the official story any more than I could swallow a whale. I'm not an expert in much, but I can smell BS a mile off.

Shamatt, noted. I respect that. I also respect the fact that you acknowledge it. The Official Story was designated for a purpose, I haven't taken the time to understand that purpose but my thoughts will always be go out towards the friends, family and loved ones of those lost.

Sure, there are aching questions bourne of the curious mind, but aching questions apply to our daily lives all the time when we experience a time of trauma, devastation or loss. In my very, very general opinion, I simply don't believe (irrespective of ''supposed'' interviews on the net) the buildings were ever designed to cope with an impact of that nature under those circumstances, nor do I believe it was ever comprehendable or conceivable to designers what millions of knock-on effects it would have on these particular structures. Until they build an adequately scaled model using identical materials and applying the exact same conditions to dispell any theory, they'll not get anywhere remotely close to understanding the dynamics of either collapse. That's the way of it.

Originally posted by Shamatt
Well, if you are just going to ignore the actual evidence you have no hope of discovering the truth. Seriously.

Seriously? I'll have to work on that...

Building 7 fell totally into it's own footprint. It had almost no structural damage other than what could be caused by a few small fires.

Here, I choose not to ignore the actual evidence of a 20-story hole in the side of the building. Not what I would call "almost no structural damage", in any scenario.

The 2 towers fell as near as damn it into their footprints. Again, with very little structural damage.

Here I choose not to ignore the actual evidence of the damage/desruction of other buildings caused by the towers not falling into their footprint.

They were designed to take the impact of an aircraft strike. The designers agreed that only a small amount of localised damage could be caused by an aircraft impact.

I don't know what to tell you there. It appears the designers were wrong.

I have no idea how the teacher got that book. Are you not intrigued? Doesn't it tweak your sense of curiosity?

Not in the least. It's a totally irrelevant detail that has no bearing on the events of the day.

Unless, of course, you buy into the whole "ritual killing" thing, which I don't.

Originally posted by Shamatt
reply to post by BAZ752

 

Ok, so, yeah - I totally respect the fact that you are in the position to take a knowledgeable look at the events leading up to the collapses. But it seems you have written two very long paragraphs just to say 'I don't agree with them'. Seems heavy on words and light on fact. I don't ask you to prove or disprove anything. But would sharing your opinion be out of the question? Are you not suspicious about how 3 buildings could all fall at free fall speed into their own footprint? Or how the only 3 steel frame building to ever collapse from fire were the 3 that fell on 9-11? I don't even ask you to explain these facts. I am just interested in your opinion. Just these 3 facts alone arouse great suspicion in me, and make me hungry for further explanation. What about you?

Here are some other facts for you, who do you think some of the best clients/customers of structural engineers are? the answer Architects !!!!

Architects will do anything to avoid structural calculations (even for things as trivial as house extensions) because they don't know as much as YOU think they should know about the subject!

The buildings didn't fall at free fall watch the tower collapse videos debris is falling faster than the collapse!

NO ONE on either side KNOWS how much damage was done by the plane impacts YES EITHER side!

The Cardington fire tests show that an office fire can reach temperatures that will effect the integrity of the steelwork I have posted links on here many times to that!

In fact one inside job fan on here told me the steel had been tested to 2500f for several hours I posted back to him a graph to show at that temperature its molten he didn't reply I wonder why.

The dynamic load of the floors above imapct points falling produced loads way in excess of the dead load of the structure before the impact, videos have been posted here to show that!

The other large fires posted on here as supposed evidence that the tower should not have collapsed are wrong because.

None were 110 stories high!
They were not tube in tube design!
Not impacted by large passenger aircraft at high speed!

In fact quite a lot posted on here are actually reinforced concrete or a combination of reinforced concrete and steel.

WTC was damage their was a gash in one elevation that was on 20 floors reported by the NYFD or do you want to say they were lying ?

So have a think about those!

Originally posted by Shamatt

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Shamatt

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

Again it works both ways

Why Do People Believe in Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy theory logical fallacies?

warp.povusers.org...

I agree. But it is the official story which is the conspiracy. ;O)

Is that based on the fact that joe public cant understand how the towers collapsed so it must be an inside job?

No - it is because I CAN understand how they collapsed. The only possible way they could. And it is not by a few little fires caused by jet fuel. I can see exactly how they collapsed. It is obvious and easily explainable.

The irony! You infer I don't have the intelligence to understand the collapse. And you YOU believe the official explanation! Hilarious!!!

Well here is an image of one of your little fires



I hope your NEVER in a little fire and I would hate to see a big one!

I am not inferring you are not intelligent enough just mistaken in your conclusion, how much do you know about construction. Have you ever been in a building 20,30,40,50 etc stories high or on the outside of it while it's being built I have. Have YOU seen or actually made structural components fail to see what happens I have.

Why do you think TALL building design has change so much since 9/11.

You do know what held the floor trusses in the twin towers to the walls and core, it was an angle iron cleat with a couple of bolts and that the floor slabs could drop internally in the brackets / bolts failed.

Do you think those reports I linked to were done by those people for a laugh?

Its not a straight forward as you think!