yup ... indeed ..

S&F to the OP from the get go.

I read through this whole thread and absorbed it all......
Here is my take on this.

Have any of you noticed the Police/Government are doing all they can to ban or make it a crime to take a photograph of anything happening.

Well I have and the reason should be obvious to everyone here.

Photographs/ Videos do not warp the known facts.

Here is is good site for historic photographs that today would make the government have a heart atttack.

www.shorpy.com...

The Powers that be fear actual documentation which they cannot deny nor debunk.

My personal thought only.
Regards, Iwinder

Photographs are our only permanent record of facts.

Originally posted by Iwinder
Have any of you noticed the Police/Government are doing all they can to ban or make it a crime to take a photograph of anything happening.

No, care to show us this police/government law?

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by Iwinder
Have any of you noticed the Police/Government are doing all they can to ban or make it a crime to take a photograph of anything happening.

No, care to show us this police/government law?

Care to deny this?
Well I have and the reason should be obvious to everyone here.

Photographs/ Videos do not warp the known facts.

Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by Iwinder
Have any of you noticed the Police/Government are doing all they can to ban or make it a crime to take a photograph of anything happening.

No, care to show us this police/government law?

There is no known law for this action they are partaking in and you know it.

At least not yet.....Nice that you avoid the issue at hand and that is photographs do not lie nor can be debunked in this day and age.

Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by hellobruce

Here you go Bruce and I hope to hell you actually read this article......
www.omaha.com...

let me know after reading it how you feel about photographic/ video footage now and what lengths the people in power will go to.

Makes me want to puke.
Regards, Iwinder

Now back to the OP I would love for any parents to show those photographs to their kids and ask them which building do you think would fall down?

It would be interesting to see what they say.
Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by Iwinder
let me know after reading it how you feel about photographic/ video footage now and what lengths the people in power will go to.

Actually you are the one who should read it, just what are they being charged with? It actually points out how silly the claim:

Have any of you noticed the Police/Government are doing all they can to ban or make it a crime to take a photograph of anything happening.

Is, as they are being charged with destroying video evidence....

reply to post by SpearMint


Actually not long before 9/11 there was some sort of "maintenance" done to those buildings. Which would have provided a perfect oppurtunity for black ops to plant nano thermite. I'm at work and don't really have time to find the references but I'm sure you can find more details about this info if you look.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by Iwinder
let me know after reading it how you feel about photographic/ video footage now and what lengths the people in power will go to.

Actually you are the one who should read it, just what are they being charged with? It actually points out how silly the claim:

Have any of you noticed the Police/Government are doing all they can to ban or make it a crime to take a photograph of anything happening.

Is, as they are being charged with destroying video evidence....

The main reason these police officers were fired was because they destroyed "thought they did" the video evidence of them actually breaking the law they are entrusted to enforce.....

Back to the OP.......Photographs/ videos cannot be denied hence they are feared by anyone that has done or is thinking of doing an illegal act.

Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by Iwinder
Back to the OP.......Photographs/ videos cannot be denied hence they are feared by anyone that has done or is thinking of doing an illegal act.

Ironically, a lot of photographs, videos and audio evidence is often ignored by people who claim to search the truth. Things like photos of inward bowing of perimeter columns, videos of the penthouse collapse, the complete lack of explosives going off on any video prior to the collapses, damage caused by the plane to the surroundings, are ignored. Its most often the case when the evidence shown on the photos or videos contradicts their believes. Regularry people go as far as to call the photos or videos fake or staged.

On the other hand we see people who have no training in video or audio analysis come to the weirdest conclusion after their own "analysis". It turns out that videos contain more than just known facts, and people make up their own, based on what they want to believe.

Originally posted by Iwinder
Now back to the OP I would love for any parents to show those photographs to their kids and ask them which building do you think would fall down?

It would be interesting to see what they say.
Regards, Iwinder

Why? Because kids are especially good at fire damage analysis and structural engineering? Or because they are a lot more vulnerable to propoganda?

Originally posted by Iwinder

Care to deny this?
Well I have and the reason should be obvious to everyone here.

Photographs/ Videos do not warp the known facts.

Regards, Iwinder

WELL they did on this thread as NONE of the buildings were the same construction as WTC Towers or WTC 7 , none of them were 110 floors high, none were struck by aircraft or falling debris most of them had concrete cores unlike the buildings in 9/11. They ALL suffered damage/collapsed steelwork the concrete cores stopped total collapse and if you read the reports on these building steelwork had to be replaced and others demolished.

That's the real problem on here members with absolutely NO understanding of construction techniques think a building is a building is a building the OP is a stunning example of that total ignorance!!!

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Iwinder

Care to deny this?
Well I have and the reason should be obvious to everyone here.

Photographs/ Videos do not warp the known facts.

Regards, Iwinder

WELL they did on this thread as NONE of the buildings were the same construction as WTC Towers or WTC 7 , none of them were 110 floors high, none were struck by aircraft or falling debris most of them had concrete cores unlike the buildings in 9/11. They ALL suffered damage/collapsed steelwork the concrete cores stopped total collapse and if you read the reports on these building steelwork had to be replaced and others demolished.

That's the real problem on here members with absolutely NO understanding of construction techniques think a building is a building is a building the OP is a stunning example of that total ignorance!!!

Thinking that there was no concrete in the cores is a silly statement.

Without concrete if you pushed someone throught the drywall they could fall throught it into an elevator shaft

I suggest you look into the steel and concrtet cores of the towers

reply to post by Another_Nut


So what you are saying that there are two options:

a) reinforced concrete that enhances structural integrity

b) drywall

And you logically deduce that drywall could not be it because people would fall through it into the elevator shaft when they trip.

Couldn't it also have been Gypsum block? Brick? Wood? Or some other material? Just asking questions.

Originally posted by Another_Nut

I suggest you look into the steel and concrtet cores of the towers

I would suggest you look in to it.




No concrete, just drywall, with a metal mesh in the center, to prevent accidental entry into the elevator shafts.

reply to post by Another_Nut


NO concrete core in bold below.

Brian Clark was one of the only four survivors from both towers to escape from above where the planes hit. He describess clambering over the shattered walls to break through a smoke-filled stairwell to get out. "Drywall had been blown off and was lying up against the stair railing." he says, "We had to shovel it aside." Another survivor, window cleaner Jan Demczur, found the drywall so soft that he was able to dig through it with a squeegee to break out of a lift he was trapped in.

The Tower blueprints are on line to look at !!!

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

So what you are saying that there are two options:

a) reinforced concrete that enhances structural integrity

b) drywall

And you logically deduce that drywall could not be it because people would fall through it into the elevator shaft when they trip.

Couldn't it also have been Gypsum block? Brick? Wood? Or some other material? Just asking questions.

Lets check the photos of debis shall we?

Nope no wood . No bricks. Nope no blocks in sight.

If you find any please don't hesitate to post some .

If you know my back story you will know why I cant always post pics and such.

p.s.

If you look at photos of the core post collapse of facade its clear.

Or wonder why this thread has no flags and isn't I. The hoax bin

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It talks about this page

algoxy.com...

The problem is once he puts all the pieces together the only explanation he can give is paint on explosives(if I remember correct)

Now thats crazy. But what does it tell us?

Especially when we take into account the 9/11 surfer who fell 200 feet and saw nothing but sky when he came to.

How can all this be true?

Once we eliminate the impossible whatever is left (howere inprobable ) must be true

Natural collapse ? Impossible to explain all characteristics of collapse.

Explosives? Not unless you painted them on in the 70's (otherwise the surfer would have been shredded.)

What's left? ( *cough* Tesla *cough*)

reply to post by Another_Nut


It is one of the most basic fallacies. Just because you are not able to understand something doesn't mean it is impossible. Admitting you do not understand something is not a stupid thing to do. We can only understand so much in our lifetime. When you do not have the right qualifications (for instance master degree structural engineering) we should listen to the people who do have the qualifications. We do that with every other subject too. Why make up your own theories in this case? Of course you are free to do so, but to literally make up Tesla weapons that don't even have any evidence at all they even exist, is not just a bit far fetched. We do for certain know that fire exists and weakens steal. That plane impacts are not very good for structural integrity. That gravitational collapses without explosive are possible. Just to name a few that don't require a wild imagination.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Another_Nut

 

It is one of the most basic fallacies. Just because you are not able to understand something doesn't mean it is impossible. Admitting you do not understand something is not a stupid thing to do. We can only understand so much in our lifetime. When you do not have the right qualifications (for instance master degree structural engineering) we should listen to the people who do have the qualifications. We do that with every other subject too. Why make up your own theories in this case? Of course you are free to do so, but to literally make up Tesla weapons that don't even have any evidence at all they even exist, is not just a bit far fetched. We do for certain know that fire exists and weakens steal. That plane impacts are not very good for structural integrity. That gravitational collapses without explosive are possible. Just to name a few that don't require a wild imagination.

edit on 9-5-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

Plb I like you so please dont attack me.

You didn't address anything in my post

Nothing.

And ,no offense, but I cannot trust a man to be unbiased when he wont use his own (rather good) logic. In your words
"You will see explanations like "its common sense" or "its basic physics" but you will never see actual models or calculations. To a laymen that may seem insignificant, but to someone who is versed in the sciences its one huge red flag"

Well what u said above is exactly why I dont believe nist.

why do you?

Eta I don't have to prove the existence of a gun if I get shot.

The evidence proves the existence of the gun with no need for a smoking barrel

eeta please show a natural symetrical gravitational global collapse of a building

eeeta THE MOST BASIC FALLICY IS BEING TOLD YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND "IT". AND THAT YOU MUST RELY ON "EXPERTS" FOR YOUR ANSWERS.

really I will do my own realsearch before I believe another "expert". You (plb) might not be able to understand..

But that's your deal.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by Iwinder
Back to the OP.......Photographs/ videos cannot be denied hence they are feared by anyone that has done or is thinking of doing an illegal act.

Ironically, a lot of photographs, videos and audio evidence is often ignored by people who claim to search the truth. Things like photos of inward bowing of perimeter columns, videos of the penthouse collapse, the complete lack of explosives going off on any video prior to the collapses, damage caused by the plane to the surroundings, are ignored. Its most often the case when the evidence shown on the photos or videos contradicts their believes. Regularry people go as far as to call the photos or videos fake or staged.

On the other hand we see people who have no training in video or audio analysis come to the weirdest conclusion after their own "analysis". It turns out that videos contain more than just known facts, and people make up their own, based on what they want to believe.

edit on 9-5-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

Good points, I must ask though who mentioned explosives? I thought the topic was fires? I do recall the thread found here.....www.abovetopsecret.com...

Where two posters were very quick and were very shot down saying the photograph was shopped.

All I am saying is you cannot call photographic/ video evidence bunk any more.....it is not possible.

I am not being combative and appreciate your response to my post.

Regards, Iwinder