You Can’t Handle the 9/11 Truth

reply to post by wmd_2008 and Subject X Because I can't be bothered to type two responses this late at night.

It seems everyone knows better than everyone else. Fair enough. It was my intent to share what I believe in the hope it might wake some people up. Feel free to do as will with that evidence, feel free to think what you will about me.

Did it occur to you that we have all seen the same evidence? That I have spent as many hours going over video and photographs and eye witness statements as you have? Possibly more, I don't know - you don't ether. So we have all seen the same things. I have read - variously - that 16%..... no 36%..... no 84% of Americans believe that 9-11 was a false flag. And that is just Americans. Depends where you read it. One thing is for sure. There are many more around the world. We may be in the minority, but we are not an insignificant number. And our numbers are growing.

So while we all sit here pointing at the same evidence and arguing for a different story, perhaps the bigger picture should be glanced at once in a while? Because we can argue until the cows come home, we will never change each other in this thread huh?

So, what is the bigger picture? Someone is responsible for those towers coming down. Someone is responsible for the loss of not only the almost 3000 lives lost on that day, but for almost 2 million more lives lost in the wars which followed. And some people made Billions of profit from both of those things. Does that sound a little sick to you? Cos it does to me.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

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!

Hmm, well, true, but it's not strictly a case of Architect's avoiding it so much as Architects are not legally qualified to prepare structural calculations at an institutional level. Legitimate Structural Engineering Consultancies, especially those involve in designing habitable structures are bound by practices under the regulatory bodies of their respective institutions (IStructE as it is here in the UK). Architect's have a good understanding of the design principles and even from a structural analysis view point, but their remit 99/100 times is far removed from these elements. You'll never hear an architect getting involved with sub-structure or super-structure design unless the conceptual design cannot be achieved through feasible solutions, or such designs require the assumptions being made through the Architect's consult. Ultimately, if their design can be achieved structurally without alterations to their concept, they pretty much have zero involvement (unless you tell we need a deep slender section across that opening, it's going to ruin your light array!)

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

Precisely, no amount engineering can account for the millions of varying effects of the damage caused by either plane impact. It should be taken as almost impossible to summise and account for in the design process. The fact is, no designer or computer model in the world could factor in the forces of an aricraft impact with any degree of accuracy to replciate it's precise effect, only applied forces/conditions to each and every vertical (and horizontal member) in an X-Y direction and magnitude would have been accounted in a realistic design environment, and let's not forget, they were not simulated on a computer either like today, they were done by hand which is an exhausting process to say the least.

They will likely have factored in things such as failure of vertical/horizontal members due to buckling, torsion, shear and even fire etc but only to a certain reasonable extent - the contract only affords so much in the design stages, and not only that, did they conceive that all truss connections could fail at the same time on one entire floor? I just don't think it's plausible that they could have anticipated a fail-safe mechanism to mitigate a likely collapse scenario given what happened.

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.

Idiots will be idiots, even if it's to prove a point.

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!

They show what appears to be that, but we don't know that for sure, although, it's very plausible. Referring to my earlier paragraph, they may well have accounted for several floors stacking, but again, these scenarios are endless in possibles, probables and improbables, the design element affords so much in the way of anticipating scenarios and I would have assumed the WTC Structural Engineers were competitive enough to win the contract, and by doing so, everything is governed by time and money. I'm not implying that design is limited exclusively by it, but it's a case of how far do you want to go? You could spend literally a lifetime designing for all sorts of possiblities on a structure, but you'd never get another job because the thing would never get built.


I'll leave at that for now, at least I think it's relatively inoffensive for anyone reading that isn't acutely familiar with structural engineering design.

reply to post by Shamatt


No, it means that if you are willing to use facts to support your argument then you must also accept the fact that a miniscule proportion of the professionals mentioned have leant their name to this argument.

It's interesting and telling that your immediate explanation of this is that they simply "haven't bothered" looking into the matter, when there is no way of knowing if this is the case. You attack the other poster for making an assumption, then make one yourself. Neat.

reply to post by ComeFindMe


Have you forgotten that Jesse Ventura, an expert with explosives and incendiary devices, has also proclaimed that the U.S. had more to do with the attack than they admit.

Are you going to discredit Jesse Ventura as well?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by ComeFindMe

 

Have you forgotten that Jesse Ventura, an expert with explosives and incendiary devices, has also proclaimed that the U.S. had more to do with the attack than they admit.

Are you going to discredit Jesse Ventura as well?

...and this response embodies every reason why I avoid contributing to this forum. Bollocks, that's what you brought to the table here, nothing but bollocks.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I'm not attempting to discredit anyone, i'm just emphasising the fact that was put forward from another perspective.

If you are willing to build a view around one expert, or 1700....from a potential group of hundreds of thousands (if not millions, if you phase in the likelihood of part-specialist knowledge) then good luck to you with that. You will need it.

Originally posted by BAZ752

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by ComeFindMe

 

Have you forgotten that Jesse Ventura, an expert with explosives and incendiary devices, has also proclaimed that the U.S. had more to do with the attack than they admit.

Are you going to discredit Jesse Ventura as well?

...and this response embodies every reason why I avoid contributing to this forum. Bollocks, that's what you brought to the table here, nothing but bollocks.

My thoughts too! That great bastion of explosives and incendiary knowledge. Also a former pro-wrestler, actor and conspiracy talk show host.

reply to post by ComeFindMe


All of whom have more reasons to lie than to tell the truth. I.e. "We'll kill your family if you say this" or "you can join the unemployment line if you feel this way" or "oops, there want your 401k...better keep your mouth shut next time."

So who are we asking, the few who have integrity or the many who have their own interests to protect?

I admit there is much I don't understand about that day but three steel structures falling straight down in their footprints really baffles me.
Before that day how many times has that happened?

reply to post by ComeFindMe


So what you're telling me here...what half of you in this thread are telling me...is that you trust your government to be honest with you? If your government has more reason to lie than to tell the truth, you believe it will choose honesty over protecting its assets?

Originally posted by Shamatt

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.

I'm NOT going to Iran. Sorry. Your heart is not like mine.
NEVER AGAIN

reply to post by yeahright


That's a good point. But when you're a kid, you connect a lot more in your subconscious than a lot of people would realize. So at the same time you're hearing those words, you're subconsciously registering a phrase constructed from those sounds. And even at that age, those sounds already have some sort of concept attached to them. Whether they realize it or not, that idea has been planted in their subconscious.

Because that's where it was aimed, right? The subconscious? Anything more obvious and this is exactly where it would end up...a conspiracy board, being picked over by people who don't trust the government and will not hesitate to blow their whistles.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by ComeFindMe

 

So what you're telling me here...what half of you in this thread are telling me...is that you trust your government to be honest with you? If your government has more reason to lie than to tell the truth, you believe it will choose honesty over protecting its assets?

I trust my government and the media to tell me exactly what will work for THEIR best interests, and in the best interests of the corporations and institutions that profit from WAR and CONTROL. I never expect to receive the truth from the government in matters that work in the best interests of the common man. Thus, I rarely expect the truth, and I am rarely dissapointed. It really sucks to be cynical, but being lied to by those in power for my entire life has taught me to trust nothing they sayto be truthfull or in my best interests.


Seriously..who trusts their government to EVER tell them the truth..on just about anything in 2012?
Who is that naive?

9/11 ?, Of course I dont believe the official story.

reply to post by crawdad1914


Haha. The impression I'm getting from half the members participating in this thread, is that they don't trust the official story OR the people screaming about conspiracies.

Who, then, do you guys believe? If you don't trust the government, and you don't trust the whistleblowers, who do you trust? Because other than those two groups, no one has enough credibility to make a statement on the topic AND defend it satisfactorily.

Whose testimony, whose expertise, whose experience and background and motivations do you trust then?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Quick question:

What percentage is "over 1,700 certified architects and engineers" to the total number of certified architects and engineers? Is it 10 percent? Less?

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!!!

If you understand how they collapsed and it was the only possible way and is obvious and easily explainable why is there still debate about what occurred that day.

Why dont you clear up this matter for all to see if you understand and is easy to explain.

So please explain.

reply to post by TheGreatDivider

I admit there is much I don't understand about that day but three steel structures falling straight down in their footprints really baffles me.

Why?

Before that day how many times has that happened?

Well, pretty much any time anything falls on the planet Earth, it falls down in a straight line. That's the way gravity works, in fact to get something to fall in a way other than a straight line requires that there be something acting on the object other than gravity.

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?

"Seems heavy on words and light on fact."

is this a description of your own post, it sure seems so because the buildings didnt fall at freefall speed, did not fall into there footprint and the buildings didnt collapse due to fires.

Stop repeating these wild speculations that get spread to distort the facts.