911. Do People Actually Believe This S**t?
Discussion
scherzkeks said:
Europa1 said:
I have been dipping in and out of this thread over the last couple of days.
Having read the various posts and counter posts, it seems to distil down to one key unanswered question:
Let us move away from your fantasy scenarios and back to science.Having read the various posts and counter posts, it seems to distil down to one key unanswered question:
The science is what it is. Steel-framed high-rises do not fall at or anywhere near freefall speeds when there is no mechanism for removing or pulverising supporting structures.
A symmetrical freefall collapse requires total destruction of supporting structures -- simultaneously. If this simultaneous destruction does not take place, and the building falls, it falls at a rate slower than gravity as it encounters resistance. In addition to the article I linked, you may also find the videos of the NIST admission rather interesting.
scherzkeks said:
Let us move away from your fantasy scenarios and back to science.
The science is what it is. Steel-framed high-rises do not fall at or anywhere near freefall speeds when there is no mechanism for removing or pulverising supporting structures.
A symmetrical freefall collapse requires total destruction of supporting structures -- simultaneously. If this simultaneous destruction does not take place, and the building falls, it falls at a rate slower than gravity as it encounters resistance. In addition to the article I linked, you may also find the videos of the NIST admission rather interesting.
So what? Assuming that your statement that "Steel-framed high-rises do not fall at or anywhere near freefall speeds when there is no mechanism for removing or pulverising supporting structures" is correct, what are you asserting?The science is what it is. Steel-framed high-rises do not fall at or anywhere near freefall speeds when there is no mechanism for removing or pulverising supporting structures.
A symmetrical freefall collapse requires total destruction of supporting structures -- simultaneously. If this simultaneous destruction does not take place, and the building falls, it falls at a rate slower than gravity as it encounters resistance. In addition to the article I linked, you may also find the videos of the NIST admission rather interesting.
What makes you believe that the supporting structures weren't so significantly weakened that they were effectively removed?
Why are you focused on this one building, and how it collapsed?
scherzkeks - you keep talking about fantasy scenarios, then relating your claims to a single case study.
There is a clear implication that a building could not have fallen down that way through the claimed routes. Then you keep trying to say any other questions are speculation and fantasy.
You cannot divorce what you are saying and calling science from the case study you are using. Because every time you are challenged on it you retreat into essentially claiming it is a theoretical issue, before re-emerging to talk about the building.
The science and the real world case go hand in hand.
You need to get your head round the fact that you can either talk about this in purely architectural theory terms and drop all references to any building, or realise that you can't parrot off something you read about a SPECIFIC building and then refuse to elaborate.
You know full well it isn't possible to discuss the case without a). making an implication about how it fell (no matter how often you claim you aren't) and b). you cannot view the science you refer to in isolation without wider context when referring to a specific case and then treat the hypothesis as complete - which you are.
You are saying that 'the building fell in a manner consistent with controlled demolition' - am I right?
But you continue to say 'you aren't implying anything about anything' - well you are I am afraid - and that you don't need to elaborate. Regardless of the fact all you are doing is asking more questions(regurgitated - its not even your theory, you're just parroting it back) than you are answering.
Your presentation of the situation is incomplete, and you address that by insisting very cognant questions are not relevant and contstantly referring back to (someone elses) thought process. Or by (absurdly) trying to claim you aren't insinuating anything.
Hiding behind 'the building fell in a manner consistent with controlled demolition' is not satisfactory in this instance - and if you will not (or more likely cannot) elaborate further, why pick up the baton of the argument in the first place?
There is a clear implication that a building could not have fallen down that way through the claimed routes. Then you keep trying to say any other questions are speculation and fantasy.
You cannot divorce what you are saying and calling science from the case study you are using. Because every time you are challenged on it you retreat into essentially claiming it is a theoretical issue, before re-emerging to talk about the building.
The science and the real world case go hand in hand.
You need to get your head round the fact that you can either talk about this in purely architectural theory terms and drop all references to any building, or realise that you can't parrot off something you read about a SPECIFIC building and then refuse to elaborate.
You know full well it isn't possible to discuss the case without a). making an implication about how it fell (no matter how often you claim you aren't) and b). you cannot view the science you refer to in isolation without wider context when referring to a specific case and then treat the hypothesis as complete - which you are.
You are saying that 'the building fell in a manner consistent with controlled demolition' - am I right?
But you continue to say 'you aren't implying anything about anything' - well you are I am afraid - and that you don't need to elaborate. Regardless of the fact all you are doing is asking more questions(regurgitated - its not even your theory, you're just parroting it back) than you are answering.
Your presentation of the situation is incomplete, and you address that by insisting very cognant questions are not relevant and contstantly referring back to (someone elses) thought process. Or by (absurdly) trying to claim you aren't insinuating anything.
Hiding behind 'the building fell in a manner consistent with controlled demolition' is not satisfactory in this instance - and if you will not (or more likely cannot) elaborate further, why pick up the baton of the argument in the first place?
I heard a new conspiracy the other day - couldnt believe what I was hearing....
Basically, it goes along the line that Facebook, Snapchat and Instagram are all funded by the CIA and NSA in an effort to capture information and data about everyone in the world. Facebook is the big one though, seems that the conspiracy is such that there was some shadowy group in Washington decided that Zuckerberg would be the figure head and he would claim he invented it all - but in reality it was all some mass surveillance system....
Hahahaha - the person who told me really believed it!
http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2014/05/government-i...
Basically, it goes along the line that Facebook, Snapchat and Instagram are all funded by the CIA and NSA in an effort to capture information and data about everyone in the world. Facebook is the big one though, seems that the conspiracy is such that there was some shadowy group in Washington decided that Zuckerberg would be the figure head and he would claim he invented it all - but in reality it was all some mass surveillance system....
Hahahaha - the person who told me really believed it!
http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2014/05/government-i...
longshot said:
There's a winky in the corner of his post.
I think he's planning a tactical withdrawal any time soon.
That would be a shame; I do want to hear the details of how, given that apparently ONLY explosives could have caused the buildings to collapse in the way that they did, did the CIA/FBI/NSA/Men in Black/Lords of the Sith get the necessary volume of explosives and miles of detonating cord into the buildings.I think he's planning a tactical withdrawal any time soon.
Once we have an answer to that, we can then move onto:
1) How come noone noticed all the prep work going on; and
2) How the many hundreds (at least) of people who would have to have been "in on it" were persuaded stick to the party line about what happened.
Europa1 said:
That would be a shame; I do want to hear the details of how, given that apparently ONLY explosives could have caused the buildings to collapse in the way that they did, did the CIA/FBI/NSA/Men in Black/Lords of the Sith get the necessary volume of explosives and miles of detonating cord into the buildings.
No, no. He's not saying that apparently. You need to understand that you can say 'the building looks like it was deliberately blown up and that's the only plausible explanation' without at any point claiming 'someone deliberately blew up the building' - because the former is science and the latter is a lunatic conspiracy theory.
Apparently.
scherzkeks said:
Let us move away from your fantasy scenarios and back to science.
The science is what it is. Steel-framed high-rises do not fall at or anywhere near freefall speeds when there is no mechanism for removing or pulverising supporting structures.
A symmetrical freefall collapse requires total destruction of supporting structures -- simultaneously. If this simultaneous destruction does not take place, and the building falls, it falls at a rate slower than gravity as it encounters resistance. In addition to the article I linked, you may also find the videos of the NIST admission rather interesting.
NIST hasn't admitted the building collapsed at free fall speed. The science is what it is. Steel-framed high-rises do not fall at or anywhere near freefall speeds when there is no mechanism for removing or pulverising supporting structures.
A symmetrical freefall collapse requires total destruction of supporting structures -- simultaneously. If this simultaneous destruction does not take place, and the building falls, it falls at a rate slower than gravity as it encounters resistance. In addition to the article I linked, you may also find the videos of the NIST admission rather interesting.
off_again said:
I heard a new conspiracy the other day - couldnt believe what I was hearing....
Basically, it goes along the line that Facebook, Snapchat and Instagram are all funded by the CIA and NSA in an effort to capture information and data about everyone in the world. Facebook is the big one though, seems that the conspiracy is such that there was some shadowy group in Washington decided that Zuckerberg would be the figure head and he would claim he invented it all - but in reality it was all some mass surveillance system....
Hahahaha - the person who told me really believed it!
http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2014/05/government-i...
I think it's universally accepted that they are a mine of info for the security services, but I'm not sure anyone really thinks they were set up by them.Basically, it goes along the line that Facebook, Snapchat and Instagram are all funded by the CIA and NSA in an effort to capture information and data about everyone in the world. Facebook is the big one though, seems that the conspiracy is such that there was some shadowy group in Washington decided that Zuckerberg would be the figure head and he would claim he invented it all - but in reality it was all some mass surveillance system....
Hahahaha - the person who told me really believed it!
http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2014/05/government-i...
There's no way the NSA, etc would ignore that much info on people and their contacts where it was helpful.
Europa1 said:
longshot said:
There's a winky in the corner of his post.
I think he's planning a tactical withdrawal any time soon.
That would be a shame; I do want to hear the details of how, given that apparently ONLY explosives could have caused the buildings to collapse in the way that they did, did the CIA/FBI/NSA/Men in Black/Lords of the Sith get the necessary volume of explosives and miles of detonating cord into the buildings.I think he's planning a tactical withdrawal any time soon.
Once we have an answer to that, we can then move onto:
1) How come noone noticed all the prep work going on; and
2) How the many hundreds (at least) of people who would have to have been "in on it" were persuaded stick to the party line about what happened.
king stupid question.Vocal Minority said:
scherzkeks - you keep talking about fantasy scenarios, then relating your claims to a single case study.
There is a clear implication that a building could not have fallen down that way through the claimed routes. Then you keep trying to say any other questions are speculation and fantasy.
You cannot divorce what you are saying and calling science from the case study you are using. Because every time you are challenged on it you retreat into essentially claiming it is a theoretical issue, before re-emerging to talk about the building.
The science and the real world case go hand in hand.
You need to get your head round the fact that you can either talk about this in purely architectural theory terms and drop all references to any building, or realise that you can't parrot off something you read about a SPECIFIC building and then refuse to elaborate.
You know full well it isn't possible to discuss the case without a). making an implication about how it fell (no matter how often you claim you aren't) and b). you cannot view the science you refer to in isolation without wider context when referring to a specific case and then treat the hypothesis as complete - which you are.
You are saying that 'the building fell in a manner consistent with controlled demolition' - am I right?
But you continue to say 'you aren't implying anything about anything' - well you are I am afraid - and that you don't need to elaborate. Regardless of the fact all you are doing is asking more questions(regurgitated - its not even your theory, you're just parroting it back) than you are answering.
Your presentation of the situation is incomplete, and you address that by insisting very cognant questions are not relevant and contstantly referring back to (someone elses) thought process. Or by (absurdly) trying to claim you aren't insinuating anything.
Hiding behind 'the building fell in a manner consistent with controlled demolition' is not satisfactory in this instance - and if you will not (or more likely cannot) elaborate further, why pick up the baton of the argument in the first place?
You are free to draw your own conclusions based on the science. The science indicates freefall speeds, which even NIST could not deny, and the implications of freefall are what they are. There is a clear implication that a building could not have fallen down that way through the claimed routes. Then you keep trying to say any other questions are speculation and fantasy.
You cannot divorce what you are saying and calling science from the case study you are using. Because every time you are challenged on it you retreat into essentially claiming it is a theoretical issue, before re-emerging to talk about the building.
The science and the real world case go hand in hand.
You need to get your head round the fact that you can either talk about this in purely architectural theory terms and drop all references to any building, or realise that you can't parrot off something you read about a SPECIFIC building and then refuse to elaborate.
You know full well it isn't possible to discuss the case without a). making an implication about how it fell (no matter how often you claim you aren't) and b). you cannot view the science you refer to in isolation without wider context when referring to a specific case and then treat the hypothesis as complete - which you are.
You are saying that 'the building fell in a manner consistent with controlled demolition' - am I right?
But you continue to say 'you aren't implying anything about anything' - well you are I am afraid - and that you don't need to elaborate. Regardless of the fact all you are doing is asking more questions(regurgitated - its not even your theory, you're just parroting it back) than you are answering.
Your presentation of the situation is incomplete, and you address that by insisting very cognant questions are not relevant and contstantly referring back to (someone elses) thought process. Or by (absurdly) trying to claim you aren't insinuating anything.
Hiding behind 'the building fell in a manner consistent with controlled demolition' is not satisfactory in this instance - and if you will not (or more likely cannot) elaborate further, why pick up the baton of the argument in the first place?
scherzkeks said:
Europa1 said:
I have been dipping in and out of this thread over the last couple of days.
Having read the various posts and counter posts, it seems to distil down to one key unanswered question:
Let us move away from your fantasy scenarios and back to science.Having read the various posts and counter posts, it seems to distil down to one key unanswered question:
The science is what it is. Steel-framed high-rises do not fall at or anywhere near freefall speeds when there is no mechanism for removing or pulverising supporting structures.
A symmetrical freefall collapse requires total destruction of supporting structures -- simultaneously. If this simultaneous destruction does not take place, and the building falls, it falls at a rate slower than gravity as it encounters resistance. In addition to the article I linked, you may also find the videos of the NIST admission rather interesting.
Any proof at all of them being rigged for demolition?
The Moose said:
What I'd be really interested to know is how many people used that event as a catalyst to disappear from view, go off the grid so to speak and start life again dropping all debts etc.
An interesting idea.John Smith died in one of the towers, say. How many people vanished without any remains being found? The supposition being that they died in the 9/11 scenario.
We now have Fred Green who is an alive and well 30 year old, without a single piece of paper or a penny to his name.
What would you do about documentation etc?
Edited by The Mad Monk on Saturday 27th August 13:40
GOG440 said:
scherzkeks said:
Europa1 said:
I have been dipping in and out of this thread over the last couple of days.
Having read the various posts and counter posts, it seems to distil down to one key unanswered question:
Let us move away from your fantasy scenarios and back to science.Having read the various posts and counter posts, it seems to distil down to one key unanswered question:
The science is what it is. Steel-framed high-rises do not fall at or anywhere near freefall speeds when there is no mechanism for removing or pulverising supporting structures.
A symmetrical freefall collapse requires total destruction of supporting structures -- simultaneously. If this simultaneous destruction does not take place, and the building falls, it falls at a rate slower than gravity as it encounters resistance. In addition to the article I linked, you may also find the videos of the NIST admission rather interesting.
Any proof at all of them being rigged for demolition?
How are the supports symmetrically removed? How?
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff