Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums
Rocky

Conspiracy Theories

Recommended Posts

OK DS, time for ya to do this little science project (and anyone else who wishes to see what happened). Go down to the Ace Hardware Store (or your local Wal-Mart and pick up a propane torch. Find the largest paper clip and open it up straight out. Notice how it takes a bit to bend it. Now light the torch and put the paper clip in the flame (use vise grips for this part) and hold it there for 15 minutes or so. Now while it will not melt, the metal will get soft. Try and bend it, notice it bends easier? Soft metal does that and as such, cannot hold any weight.

That guy is another nut case and while he can draw a building out, has no idea that weakened metal beams cannot hold its design weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK DS, time for ya to do this little science project
No need. I can imagine it would happen the way you described it.

What I see banded around though, are many mentions of jet fuel burning off quickly, and then leaving behind several fires in all of that horror and carnage. Of course, there were no blow torches on the structural steel, like in your example, but if there was, then that would have provided a constant burn. One that wouldn't have melted the steel, but would have more than likely softened it and compromised the integrity of a floor or two above. Would office fires have softened the steel? What I've also seen plenty of is video of a Madrid hotel fire and another in China [i think]. The Madrid one IIRC happened during its construction. It was a tall steel framed building. If you see that footage you'll see that the fire rages and rages. Obviously no airliner crashed into it, so aviation fuel didn't start it, and there was no hotel nor office furniture to fuel it either. I think that fire raged on through the night too. The fire was a lot more intense, less oxygen starved, yet it didn't collapse. You would think that the steel being subjected to such heat would have warped that much that chunks of the hotel fell off into the street, but they didn't.

There's plenty out there too that mentions freefall speed during the collapse of all three towers, including the large fourty seven storey tower of WTC 7, that wasn't hit by an aircraft and collapsed completely five or six hours later. Personally I don't like the term, but what they're getting at is that the masses of undamaged tower below each of the twin towers, towers designed to withstand an impact from a Boeing 707, did not stand fast. This is what the Architects For Truth question. They believe, as per the link above, that the structures above the two impacts should have broke off in pieces rather than force the collapse of the intact structures below, simply from gravity.

I've said it before, if it just happened the way we all saw it, then those buidlings were a ###### poor design and were lucky to have stood for as long as they did. Imagine a huge office fire engulfing two or three floors near the top and weakening the steel structure. The tower would have collapsed exactly the same way as if an aircraft had hit it first. The firemen would have still had great difficulty getting to the fire and their radios would probably have functioned as badly too.

I'm not sure if anyone's heard of police reporting vans with explosives in them during the confusion on that day. When stopped, two van occupants legged it, but were soon caught. The occupants of one van were detained by the FBI and that report made it to several mainstream news stations.

Van 3

DS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The towers were hit in such a way that not just one or 2 floors were impacted but 6 and 7 stories (72'-84') of one tower with at least one opening to the air with one having at least 2 openings.

This picture shows approximately the top 20 floors on fire. Vapors of fuel will burn off quickly, but liquid fuel will not and will burn for quite some time. Watching the Crispy Critters on base fighting AC fires (they light fake planes on fire and use jet fuel to do so) for training illustrates that very well. Add the thousands of pounds of fuel (a 757 can carry over 43,000 lbs or almost 11,500 gallons of fuel) to all the office furniture, paper, carpeting and other combustibles and you can reach the temperatures needed to soften metal.

WTC 7 had thousands of gallons of diesel fuel (a less refined counterpart of Jet A) in tanks within the building itself for it's emergency generators. Those fires caused it's collapse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys do know what confirmation bias is, right?

Its where you are so convinced of your hypothesis that the only evidence you're willing to listen to is that which confirms your hypothesis. When presented with evidence that does not support your hypothesis, you either find flaws in the evidence (typically methodological or suitability criticisms) or try to explain the evidence entirely in terms of your hypothesis. This is to be juxtaposed with examining all the evidence, and selecting the most likely hypothesis in light of all the evidence.

While it certainly could be the case that a gigantic conspiracy destroyed the WTC, you must ask yourself, short of the WTC not being destroyed, what would be sufficient evidence to believe otherwise? Once you have an idea of that, you go looking for it. If you find it, either you rework your hypothesis to accept that new evidence and look for a new counter-factual, or you formulate a new hypothesis. That's the very essence of testability within the scientific method. I don't think the contrary voices to the "inside job" contingent are agents of the conspiracy, they've just followed the steps I've outlined above and found your conspiracy theory wanting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You guys do know what confirmation bias is, right?
I consider myself to be just putting out there, rather than state "this is how it is". I've said before that I find it all thought provoking, just like people do when they read thrillers.

Your post reminds me of the CIA during their cold war remote viewing days. Their belief that just because a weapon hadn't been invented yet by the West, didn't mean that it didn't exist and that the Soviets didn't have such a weapon.

DS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys do know what confirmation bias is, right?
I consider myself to be just putting out there, rather than state "this is how it is". I've said before that I find it all thought provoking, just like people do when they read thrillers.

Your post reminds me of the CIA during their cold war remote viewing days. Their belief that just because a weapon hadn't been invented yet by the West, didn't mean that it didn't exist and that the Soviets didn't have such a weapon.

DS

There is a considerable difference between simply uninvented and impossible even in principle. I know better than to systematically rule out remote viewing simply because I don't believe it is possible, but it should be telling that the confirmation of remote viewing predictions typically came in the form of intel that was solid enough to stand on its own anyway.

What's funny about project Stargate is that the "seers" that were right more often did so by producing more vague predictions. If you look at the precision and accuracy of horoscopes, they work the same way. If your error bars are large enough, you can count errors as real data. The trick though is making sure that your hypothesis still stands with a better signal/noise ratio. Conspiracy theories survive either when s/n is low, or there is a concerted effort to ignore high s/n data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys do know what confirmation bias is, right?

Its where you are so convinced of your hypothesis that the only evidence you're willing to listen to is that which confirms your hypothesis. When presented with evidence that does not support your hypothesis, you either find flaws in the evidence (typically methodological or suitability criticisms) or try to explain the evidence entirely in terms of your hypothesis. This is to be juxtaposed with examining all the evidence, and selecting the most likely hypothesis in light of all the evidence.

Surly that's a reality regardless of whatever side of the fence you stand on...

Edited by Metal_Jacket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isnt this locked yet :rocky::P

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=...615667754851772

The above covers this site:

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/

As regards the age old "burning buildings" thing have a peep at this which adds another slant to that "area":

It wont go away ... becuase it wasn't how its been sold, it never will go away becuase it will never add up no matter how much you debate it with small examples, but, one day maybe 100 years from now children's children's children will know the score. Right now we are in a 10 year brainwash cycle :):wacko: More to come too.

At some point it will come down too making a hard choice between who is really pulling things off these days and what TV and media want to you think it is. Right now we are in the biggest mind game in history.

@ WK ... your points are good .. but I would seriously consider the above links and have a good read through, the rest is a decision of choice rather than physics. I get the whole fuel "thing" ... but it doesn't cut it when 2 buildings acted in the exact same way ... total destruction to the ground floor ... again see the Dr Judy Wood site for aerial images.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some pics I took while working on the I-464/I-264/VA-44 interchange at the Downtown Tunnel in Norfolk, VA called the Berkley Approach.

blast1.jpg

blast2.jpg

blast3.jpg

blast4.jpg

Notice, behind the wall being demolished, the building that is within 50' has a blanket over it. That is to keep it from being damaged by flying debris. Is any of that around the expensive buildings around WTC? Also, to blast those walls, the demo crews spent days drilling 4 inch holes in it before loading dynamite into the holes (not all the holes were loaded, they do not need to be as drilling the wall helps with the demolition of it). Now this dynamite is as big around as your forearms (unless you have sticks for arms). Once the walls were demolished, the crews went on to drilling the roadbed so the tunnel anchor slabs could be replaced and they drilled a 12"x12" grid of holes to do that.

All the prep work took several weeks to complete. What does this mean? Any prep work for demolition at WTC would have been noticed. Steel beams get cut by shape charges and to do that, they need to be against the beam itself and tearing out and cutting holes in steel beams would have been noticed as cutting torch equipment would have had to be everywhere. This also leads to the last point that I have made time and again.

It is right difficult to get thousands of people to keep their mouth shut. We humans cannot keep a secret (some can better than others mind you) and someone would have said something to somebody which would eventually reached the TV and news programs. With the way the press castigated President Bush over the years, you would think that the minute they got word of something as large as an attack on the WTC and Pentagon by airplanes, they would have pounced on it and reported it right away. Human nature will not let the number of people involved directly or indirectly with the destruction of the Twin Towers and the damage to the Pentagon to go unreported.

A prime example of people not being able to keep their mouth shut is at a movie theater. People pay to watch entertainment, yet talk all the way through it. Go figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At some point it will come down too making a hard choice between who is really pulling things off these days and what TV and media want to you think it is. Right now we are in the biggest mind game in history.
Classic. :rofl:

You never dissapoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being an engineer with a background in structural engineering no less...Watching tin foil hat you tube videos is funny, sad and depressing all at the same time. People don't realize the unique design that the twin towers had compared to ALL other skyscrapers and why you can't compare it to any other building collapse. Remember kids just because you see it on the interwebz doesn't make it true. Don't replace ignorance with half truths and at times full blown lies.

No BS facts:

The towers were design to withstand the impact of a 707, so they say. Did the planes hit the towers like they thought they would in design? Doubtful, too many variables involved. A 747 hit each tower. An empty 747 weighs 3 times that of a empty 707. A 747 in use (full) weighs almost 4 times that of a 707 in use. Just adding that amount of weight concentrated to such a relatively small area alone to any building will cause it to collapse eventually regardless of any fires. Steel is an elastic material. It's why we use steel in almost all buildings that are more than one story. With steel being elastic (as opposed to plastic) material, it does not fail instantaneously. It deforms which is inherently a safety feature as it gives people time to GTFO our find a solution to fix the problem. Hence why the towers didn't fall immediately. Individual beams/columns will deform and eventually fail. After enough of those individual pieces fail, the remaining pieces of the support system can no longer "hold up" and the entire building collapses. Again this is not instantaneous and takes time. As you can see in videos the directly hit floors collapsed first and then the force of the remaining structure above it FALLING collapsed the rest of it. From PHYSICS (F=mass x acceleration), the mass above the directly effected floors is substantial. The additional forces that were applied to the remaining floors (as the upper part fell) below it would be HUGE. Huge to the point that the airplane hitting it would be like getting sideswiped by a fly.

Individual floors on a building are not individual pieces of a building. They are part of an ever connected building support SYSTEM and thus what happens on any one floor effects every other floor in some way. Skyscrapers are designed in the event of total failure to essentially collapse into themselves or straight down. This is all the stuff above ground. Below ground sits the foundation SYSTEM. It is not limited to what's directly below the building. The foundations of each of the affected buildings were "connected". And the foundation of the towers is one of the things that failed, thus effecting buildings around it.

Stairwells and elevator shafts are the most fortified parts of a building. This is an intended safety feature is they are usually the last thing to "fail" giving people the opportunity and means to GTFO in the event of some emergency. On building that tall there is never one continuous elevator shaft from the bottom to the top of the building for reasons I won't go into here. They are built in lifts. Meaning in any one elevator you only have access to certain floors. To get to other floors you must go up and and at some point change elevators and do this multiple times.

I could go on for days, but I must do some work today.

but it doesn't cut it when 2 buildings acted in the same way

Why not? They were designed, built the same way. Hence the name Twin Towers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the enlightening, and reality-grounded response Bota. What you've said seems like it should be rather intuitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bota ... nice reply and a great read.

You see, the thing for me is the following:

Being an engineer with a background in structural engineering no less...

This then has authority over every one else with another view to things? Did you build them? Were you in them that day, were you with the firefighters on those high floors not reporting steel melting temperatures? Why did they pummel to fine dust? Why did they both pummel to fine dust to the ground floors? Are you suggesting they were faulty buildings? Becuase they sure were poorly built if that was the case, and If so why isn't that being addresses alone?

Watching tin foil hat you tube videos is funny, sad and depressing all at the same time.

I agree it can be tiresome, until you actually realise that "amongst" the dross there are details that do link and also add up. I mainly refer to "no planes theory" etc.

People don't realize the unique design that the twin towers had compared to ALL other skyscrapers and why you can't compare it to any other building collapse.

So that explains building 7 too then? IE .. the bigger picture. Also this isnt enough to explain it away, I mean not once have you confirmed looking at the links I posted just before, blindly you say "tin foil hat" and becuase of your engineering background we must be kids ... and so ...

Remember kids just because you see it on the interwebz doesn't make it true. Don't replace ignorance with half truths and at times full blown lies.

This is patronising beyond whats needed my friend. Quite an elitist and smug view wouldn't you think? I mean basically you sound like you work for popular mechanics :) Ignorants is questioning and being informed the best way you can ... or ... we are just thick as ###### ignorant children becuase we aren't an engineer so we have no brian?

What you have done is text book reply (amongst some nice well put detail I might add). I have never once shouted down or called anyone a kid, but the cliche names come rolling out when it doesn't quite fit the fixed idea of what happened that day, bear that in mind .. I respect your view and post, you on the other hand are quite offensive with your attitude to a lot of other people that don't quite see things as you do.

Engineer or not, what you have very well detailed still doesn't answer many oddities, much like the firefighters that should have melted near those core areas, that don't report any major fires .. I mean .. how ignorant can it be to ignore that and call it a "tin foil hat" video, it works both ways.

I would seriously go back and check those links and videos I posted, regardless of you position on the collapse side of it. To blanket it with cliche phrases and call people kids, well, lets just say its the first time in any time of posting about these things its got me a little ###### off my friend.

Tell you what bota .. PM me everything you didn't have time to post, im interested. I think a few people know my stance, but I dont talk down to people .. that kind of thing just isnt what im about (ref my annoyance at the "kids" thing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My post was not directed to any one person except for the quoted text at the end. The phrase "Remember kids just because you see it on the interwebz doesn't make it true." is just a general statement that many people believe everything they see on the internet. Just like when TV was the sole source of media information people would always tell their kids to not believe everything they see on TV. I'm not calling anybody a kid as I don't know anybody here other than the name in which they post by.

My post was not intended to be a definitive or end all answer, as I am not qualified to answer the BIG question of whodunit. In fact it was not an answer at all. Hence the phrase "No BS Facts:" with special emphasis on FACTS. It was an attempt to fill in the ignorance gap with facts, not half truths or flat out lies.

Many attempts that people take to explain 9/11 will take one piece of the puzzle, for instance the fire melting the steel, and explain and show proof that fire didn't cause the Twin Towers to collapse. Guess what I agree with them. But what they don't/can't talk about is that if fire was a CONTRIBUTING factor, but not solely responsible for the twin towers collapsing. It is impossible to know all of the contributing factors, this gives people the opportunity to fill in the blanks themselves. Most of the time it is based on opinions/theories and not facts.

firefighters that should have melted near those core areas, that don't report any major fires

Do you know exactly where the staircase was in relation to the point of impact? Or even where exactly the fire fighters were when they reported no raging infernos?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A fully gassed 747 would have the explosive force of approximately 1 mega ton --no building can absorb that much explosive effect as well as the incredible temps created. The fire softened the metal, the buildings weight brought them down. Bota is on the money--remember, it took time before the towers collapsed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bota ... ok I did rant a touch, but lets face it your comment does tend to be a blanket comment doesn't it ref videos online and such, so maybe not directed at "me" but its nothing out of the ordinary of peoples views to actually think that way about most who question.

I must stress that I don't dispel what you posted at all, in fact reading what you have put across does actually have the facts within it ref explaining the collapse pankcake/steel aspect .. I don't even have issue on that at all & it was very well put.

Its just that when you step back from the entire thing and look at all aspects of it, it does not explain the end result of the collapse ref 70-80 percent (or so) mass of both towers pulverized to dust particles (and all contents) from what should be a a failure and collapse situation IE if it pancaked wheres the pancake(s) relative to the mass of the size of the things. That site I linked too (please check it out and try to ignore its "one of them sites" as this woman has made calculations based on the mass, plus a lot of "theorists" are shouting her down too ) has a section showing Ariel shots of the site not long after and its pretty clear that unless it evaporated there's no justification for the missing mass and not furniture and just paper flying around after wards. And again (I hate to stress this).. for BOTH of them doing the same pattern in the same manner. I think people get stuck on the way it collapsed but don't look at how that can explain the rest following that and whats left, the molten base/heat etc etc ... if you see what I mean, to ignore all that then its just explaining how steel fails, but that doesn't fit to the larger picture of this event.

Or even where exactly the fire fighters were when they reported no raging infernos?

They are at the 80th floors, south tower, all over the area of that point .. 10 mins before collapse .. again its clear in the video ... did you watch it? Or did you skip over and post as its "tin foil hat"? << Thats a touch of sarcasm for fun, nothing more :) Not saying its proof, but those guys are very high up and don't report anything too unusual as firefighters, they all seem like they can sort things out.

Anyways, I wanted to post those 2 things as they have a little more than "that's the way it is as an alternative" to them, if you care to properly check them out, I too funny enough don't buy into everything I see either, it just seems that if you don't believe the official line then in some way you have no balanced view.

Bota, sorry to go that way in my last post, wasn't trying to pull you in, and what you posted was a good one .. anyway wouldn't want to go all "counter your counter" like the old thread.

@WK ... " :wall: " ... is the use of that particular emoticon Ironic to the subject? :)

All the prep work took several weeks to complete. What does this mean? Any prep work for demolition at WTC would have been noticed.

If it was actually done that way then yes I completely agree. Check that site out I linked, again it doesn't explain the vanishing mass, it doesn't justify pancake as it didn't have the end result for the tower size etc etc. If it wasn't demo and just a collapse again, to stress those buildings were ######ing massive, both of them ended up the equivalent of a ground floor or little more, can science explain that under just a steel failure condition? Can those buildings really destroy 70-80 percent or more of their own mass when free falling, can they honestly fall at free fall speed given the mass anyway? .. and both of them? Can they send a delay shockwave and building 7 felt like falling? Can floors and steel that thick smash themselves until they spread out leaving hardly any stacked floors smashed together at the base in-line with the amount that's coming down in that free fall time? And hardly a sniff of any cabinets, equipment, phones, desks, seats, or anything ... just an un justified stack at the base with molten temps for weeks, fine dust and loads of paper (and again the paper must have come from the desks and cabinets) .. and .. again ... same way on BOTH.

^^ the above is an example of that site I linked BTW :)

Nothing ever really answers those points, its just based on our basic understanding of collapse that makes it black and white and simple to explain. Theres a difference to explain it, and "explain it away" in my book. This just isn't black and white, and never will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So...just like in the X Files, is there really a secret war going on with the aliens, and was 9/11 a test of their powers, using aircraft as a distraction? :wacko:

DS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the video:

1.) Firemen were working throughout the building Very vague statement, from the audio it sounds like they are concentrated in stairwells and elevators, not throughout. Could of said firefighters were in the building and it would mean the same thing.

2.) Battalion 7 reached the 79th floor Meaning? Stairwells are very fortified compared to the rest of the building. So as long as the building is standing there is access to get in/out. This is supposed to be how it works.

3.) Battalion 15 reached the 78th floor Same as above. Also buildings of that size have multiple staircases located at different sides of the building. It would make sense that firefights saw what side of the impact occured and chose to use the farthest staircase from it. They even mention switching to another set of stairs to reach other floors.

4.) Battalion 7 - Alpha reached the 55th floor How does knowing this contribute to anything?

5.) Rescue teams encountered only small isolated fires When does it say small? Again from the audio the firefighters were isolated in the staircases, which makes sense they only saw isolated fires, not everything is easily combustible in a building.

6.) Rescue operations were finding numerous wounded survivors A 747 Jet slammed into it, that's expected.

7.) The structure of the tower was not melted or deformed How does the audio tape prove this? Wouldn't have to be and firefighters did not inspect the entire building, much less ground zero of the impact.

8.) Rescue teams were climbing on uncompromised staircases Read from before about staircases.

9.) Elevators were operational and in-use up the 40th floor Read from before about elevators.

BTW I did watch the video before and this is a good example of taking ONE piece of the puzzle and showing "proof" that it's not exactly how people thought and it's somehow is supposed to prove something. I'm not saying I have all of the answers nor am I trying to turn a blind eye to alternate scenarios. But in my experience of listening/reading/watching people's opinions/theories of how it all happened, most of them (if not all) are based on half truths that make a good "story" but rarely have the facts to back up anything or they just completely misinterpret the facts out of ignorance.

And just for the record, ignorance does not equal stupid/unintelligent. In case anybody is ignorant on the differences between ignorance and stupidity. ;)

As far as the building turning to dust: Well when concrete falls and hits the ground it tends to do this. And then when the concrete above it falls on top of it it tends to ensure it does this. Concrete is a brittle material. Brittle materials turn to dust when they are pulverized. Elastic materials tend to flake/flatten/bend when pulverized.

Size of the rubble pile: There were 6 stories of void space below ground. A typical story is 12', that is at roughly 72 feet below ground. A 72 foot tall rubble pile in itself is very large then add on what was above ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody's gotta stand up to the experts, right? I mean, they've only spent 4-8 years of their life becoming experts, what could they possibly know?

This is confirmation bias, man. Your criticisms are without merit because you don't have the background necessary to evaluate your own criticisms. If you put forward an idea that is obviously wrong, the experts will brush it aside without an explanation. Not because they don't have the means to defend against it, but because the defense would be so trivial as to be a waste of their time.

As a physics student and part time researcher, I've learned that if you're gonna call BS, you'd better be right, because you won't get a second chance. I worked for six months straight trying to test another researcher's theory, since my boss was convinced they were wrong. When we finally published, it was with confirming evidence.

Where's that missing mass? You do realize that a building is mostly empty space right? There's actually not that much mass to move, considering the scale of the building. We all saw the dust clouds from the collapse, that covers a lot of it. I don't know if you've worked much with concrete, but it doesn't tend to fail along discrete fractures. It tends to fail homogeneously and therefore catastrophically. That means dust and gravel, not chunks. That's why rebar is added in places where the building needs to be stronger (like the foundation). And the rebar is why WTC 7 ultimately failed, as it provided the foundational connection between 1 and 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Being an engineer with a background in structural engineering no less...

This then has authority over every one else with another view to things? Did you build them? Were you in them that day, were you with the firefighters on those high floors not reporting steel melting temperatures?

Calius, you can't make a comment like that with any credibility if you then go on to say something like this;

That site I linked too (please check it out and try to ignore its "one of them sites" as this woman has made calculations based on the mass, plus a lot of "theorists" are shouting her down too

Many, many experts agree with NIST. They've all made their calculations too. Why is this one woman right and every other expert is wrong? Are all of the other experts simply incompetent? In your words, why does her opinion have authority over everyone else?

And it's hard to ignore the fact that her site is "one of those" if what you say is true, i.e. she's being discredited by other truthers.

Furthermore, unless most of the people looking at her calculations have a background in physics or engineering, then there's very little chance they will be able to fully understand her conclusions. This is a problem endemic in the presentation of these theories; scientific-sounding contentions, presented as fact, that sound good to anyone willing to listen.

Also, you no longer seem to believe that the towers were brought down with explosives, as you appeared to agree with whoever it was you quoted up there when they posited that there is no way the planting of the explosives could have gone unnoticed. Do you agree with Judy Wood's hypothesis that the towers were brought down with energy weapons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bota ... nice reply I get you on what your say.

Thing is you say that floors collapsing does this (go to dust)... I agree you see collapses and they do ... but oddly enough ones that are controlled demo's to make sure they do and also on structures smaller than the towers. Plus both of them acting in that same manner and the molten burning under both for all that length of time ... again can a simple failure explain this "FULLY".

I love the fact everyone assumes i think its all right and everyone else is wrong, I never assume both or either or any. I simply don't like the fact that an expert can say it happened a way it did (speaking in general), but no matter what it STILL doesn't explain the ending result of the day. But as they are an expert they can explain that "away" ... not "explain it".

As a physics student and part time researcher, I've learned that if you're gonna call BS, you'd better be right

Not me mate, other use that phrase. How about "if your going to question, those who appose it better explain it all fully".

You can pick apart my contradictions as much as you like, but I notice no one really looks at anything other than official line and NIST and anything else must be picked apart when ignoring the collapse the after effect and all the other realy strange things around this (that site details such things) I want NIST and experts to explain that too seeing as it all came from a structure failing twice causing all the rest.

Personally the enigma roles on, so far the end results of collapse/building 7 never come to fixed conclusions as there are far too many things that don't add up to match the NIST explanations .. otherwise we would be dealing with 2 building collapsing in a totally separate manner for each of them (and only 2 as they were the only ones hit). Going by them simply giving way and floors falling onto themselves to the ground, lets face it the failure and pancake "fact" would not end up 2 neat piles of mass of a building vanished to dust, I want engineers to look at those "facts" .. its no theory the mass of both just obliterated themselves no matter what way you spin it, ignore it, shrug at it or laugh at it.

I don't assume im completely right and everyone else is wrong or B.Sing ... I ask for those experts to explain the WHOLE THING not smugly throw expert calculations around to just focus on a "failure scenario" .. you don't need to be an expert to work out this simply is a square peg being pummeled into a round hole. But then if we are all brainwashed into that hierarchy system of "little me know nothing, experts know best" ... we are screwed.

So to your question on what I think ... I think its anything other than NIST/official explanation, out of bombs/explosives/energy weapons .. take your pick but, I find the DR site far more detailed in oddities and very good aerial shots if nothing else even if you want to skip the rest if you don't accept it. But one thing is certain, if you look at the whole picture in detail of all witnesses, all videos, all clips, all info .. then go back to NIST ... you will notice that the official explanation is so childlike simple it makes the actual event(s) and all the knock on effect that day seem unreal.

Anyway im not sure why people are picking me apart this is a conspiracy theory thread after all ... get out you trolls! :P:D Its not my fault I can see all explanations at the same time, I don't funnel down one route .. becuase thats the reason this kind of crap gets pulled off, I have said this time and again, never get comfortable with the position you are fixed on, not in this day and age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a physics student and part time researcher, I've learned that if you're gonna call BS, you'd better be right

Not me mate, other use that phrase. How about "if your going to question, those who appose it better explain it all fully".

Let me get this straight, I can get out of all the hard work of investigation by saying "BS" when I encounter something that doesn't fit my world view and then its the job of everybody else to figure out what I mean, how to test it, and whether or not its correct? I've been doing it wrong all these years! My point was that if you don't ensure that you are right when you call "BS", somebody else will figure out how you are wrong, and it will discredit your ideas in the future, no matter how relevant or correct they are.

Like I said, the experts aren't ignoring the conspiracy theorists because they're too scared of being incorrect, its because the theorists' suppositions are trivially defeated, and its not worth the experts' time to argue with armchair theorists.

I love the less than subtle implication that experts are just voiceboxes for the establishment.

Do you know how long its been since anyone could be described as a true expert in all realms of physics? About 50 years. Since QED and particle theory were developed, it takes more than 10 years (the average length of study from freshman to PhD) to develop a true mastery of any one subfield of physics, such that all other subfields remain at an undergrad level. The sundering of engineering goes back nearly two centuries. Even biology lacks true renaissance men, those who are experts on every branch of it.

The mathematics to model any one collapse scenario are so complex as to require hours on a supercomputer to run. Everything else is a boundary condition, a first order approximation, of what really happened and (no surprise here) the boundary conditions often overlap in external appearance to a much more complex scenario. By all means, run your own simulations. I think in the effort, you'll realize just how much background knowledge goes into the process. And by the time your simulations can hold water, two things will have occurred: you will have become an expert, and you will have discarded the no-plane, or demolition, or energy weapon explanation and accepted the party line. Not because its the party line, but because it is the simplest and most correct explanation.

Edited by petsfed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Controlled demos are designed first and foremost to drop a building straight down to minimize the impact on neighboring buildings/property. If you can ever watch a building that is demoed by explosives, you will almost always see the middle section of the building "fall" first. This makes the outer areas of the building fall towards the middle. This is the purpose of a controlled demo. The building turning to "dust" is a byproduct of a building collapsing on itself and actually one of a controlled demo's secondary goals is to minimize dust which in itself can be a huge environmental concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me get this straight, I can get out of all the hard work of investigation by saying "BS" when I encounter something that doesn't fit my world view and then its the job of everybody else to figure out what I mean, how to test it, and whether or not its correct? I've been doing it wrong all these years! My point was that if you don't ensure that you are right when you call "BS", somebody else will figure out how you are wrong, and it will discredit your ideas in the future, no matter how relevant or correct they are.

This is very true (see I do agree to a point) .. but .. it still does not explain all the very odd things "around" the whole event nor the steel molten burning under the towers nor building 7 .. and allot of other things around the collapse. Again they are "explained away" more than anything.

somebody else will figure out how you are wrong, and it will discredit your ideas in the future, no matter how relevant or correct they are.

Yes, and that's the game isn't it ... to discredit and not solve nor to explain fully .. you will see a major discrediting jump on anyone with questions, to question and not have answers apart from discrediting is the usual "debunk" crew, and again coming from a fixed position that this all happened so simply by the official report, which again is far to simple and matter of fact than actually what really happened.

Controlled demos are designed first and foremost to drop a building straight down to minimize the impact on neighboring buildings/property.

Did this happen on 9/11 .. yes or no and definately with building 7.

The building turning to "dust" is a byproduct of a building collapsing on itself and actually one of a controlled demo's ...

Yes its inescapable for that to happen I agree, and especially the size we are talking. If this is the case in other demolitions I guess the place is empty/emptied. But what about the towers who were chock full of equipment should there really be literally no evidence of anything in the buildings as regards this for both of them?

So to put it another way as this is a conspiracy theory thread ... can these experts explain away the anomalies of the cars / fire / melting around the radius away from the buildings (that site does detail a lot of these from observations ignoring the energy weapon angle), why building 7 did what it did when it did and how it did, and why was "pull it" mentioned by the owner and then retracted, why the BBC and other news networks report 7 already fallen BEFORE it had "fact". Why we had such a small amount left of BOTH buildings, and why the base areas were molten streams for weeks after-wards. Until those are answered in full the experts can debunk all they like ref the collapse "theory" .. hence the square peg & round hole situation rather than one size fits all, nothing to see here.

If a simple failure collapse is the direct result then that needs to then explain all the rest, if not .. it hasn't, and if its hasn't and doesn't then it IS something else whether you like that idea or not to be honest.

If you think I sit around assuming this and didn't see things the same back at the time you would be wrong, the amount of mind games a ###### off the back of that day is immense that I couldn't ignore the strangeness of it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×