911. Do People Actually Believe This S**t?
Discussion
scherzkeks said:
What we do know is that the NIST report is incomplete, with parts being outright fantasy according to many experts, and that is where we have to start.
You start from where you like. I saw 2 planes take down 2 buildings in a way that as an engineer I would expect them to come down. Simple as...I have no engineering knowledge at all, but it seems to me that a design requirement for a very tall building being built in such proximity to a lot of other buildings, such as in the density of a city like NY, would be that it should be designed to collapse in much the way that it seemed to, so as to cause as little damage to anything else.
As for it being a big conspiracy, I tend to take the view of the NASA guy that was on TV a while back being asked about the moon landings. His comment was that getting thousands of people to all agree to maintain the cover-up until they die, and to keep a watch on them to make sure they did so, was far less challenging than just building a rocket and going to the moon.
As for it being a big conspiracy, I tend to take the view of the NASA guy that was on TV a while back being asked about the moon landings. His comment was that getting thousands of people to all agree to maintain the cover-up until they die, and to keep a watch on them to make sure they did so, was far less challenging than just building a rocket and going to the moon.
droopsnoot said:
I have no engineering knowledge at all, but it seems to me that a design requirement for a very tall building being built in such proximity to a lot of other buildings, such as in the density of a city like NY, would be that it should be designed to collapse in much the way that it seemed to, so as to cause as little damage to anything else.
As for it being a big conspiracy, I tend to take the view of the NASA guy that was on TV a while back being asked about the moon landings. His comment was that getting thousands of people to all agree to maintain the cover-up until they die, and to keep a watch on them to make sure they did so, was far less challenging than just building a rocket and going to the moon.
That does seem to be the one thing that the 9/11 "truthers" consistently fail to address.As for it being a big conspiracy, I tend to take the view of the NASA guy that was on TV a while back being asked about the moon landings. His comment was that getting thousands of people to all agree to maintain the cover-up until they die, and to keep a watch on them to make sure they did so, was far less challenging than just building a rocket and going to the moon.
scherzkeks said:
longshot said:
Or... http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/ea...
Read the 2 paragraphs about the design and the collapse.
There is plenty to read regarding Eager's opinions on the AE911 site. Read the 2 paragraphs about the design and the collapse.
Unfortunately, one look at their 'who we are' section told me everything I need to know.
Dan Barnum, FAIA, Secretary
Dan Barnum, FAIA, of Houston, Texas, holds a Bachelor of Architecture degree from Rice University. He has been practicing architecture for the past 40 years and has designed a variety of buildings, from houses to high-rise office buildings. Among his major projects are One Shell Plaza and Two Shell Plaza in downtown Houston, and Houston Lighting and Power, which is now the Houston Public Works office building. Barnum is a Fellow of the American Institute of Architects, the highest honor bestowed on its members by the AIA.
Dan “knew” at the outset that something was fishy about 9/11, because both of the buildings collapsed suddenly, and in the same manner.
Why is it that most of these sites are run by someone who looks a little 'unusual', usually around the eyes, or someone who is retired and feels they have lost their influence and feels they are no longer listened to or asked for their knowledge.
Edited by longshot on Tuesday 23 August 12:37
jshell said:
MG CHRIS said:
There are a few things that don't make sense wt7 for example and the supposed aircraft crash into the pentagon without not one video showing it and the only video shows an explotion no plane, while the hole doesn't look like it has been caused by a plane. Was the towers brought down by the government no it was 2 planes did the government know it was coming yes did they do anything to stop it no.
I do like a conspiracy theories the interesting ones not the omg histeriocal mentalist ones they one with the de bears company is interesting take in market and people manipulation also some of the experiments used by the American government on certain communites with illness etc back in 60/70 does open your mind and makes you look outside of what the government and media want you to believe though.
Except the web is littered with pictures of the inside of the Pentagon littered with bits of engine and undercarriage... Movie props, you suppose?I do like a conspiracy theories the interesting ones not the omg histeriocal mentalist ones they one with the de bears company is interesting take in market and people manipulation also some of the experiments used by the American government on certain communites with illness etc back in 60/70 does open your mind and makes you look outside of what the government and media want you to believe though.
http://www.sott.net/signs/Pentagon_Parody.htm
The conspiracy theorists just blindly believe it if they are told there are no pictures of aircraft debris, they don't even take a few seconds on google to research stuff themselves.
They also think that that no one has taken pictures of the moon landing sites....
and yet they think the rest of us are the ones who blindly believe.
motorizer said:
jshell said:
MG CHRIS said:
There are a few things that don't make sense wt7 for example and the supposed aircraft crash into the pentagon without not one video showing it and the only video shows an explotion no plane, while the hole doesn't look like it has been caused by a plane. Was the towers brought down by the government no it was 2 planes did the government know it was coming yes did they do anything to stop it no.
I do like a conspiracy theories the interesting ones not the omg histeriocal mentalist ones they one with the de bears company is interesting take in market and people manipulation also some of the experiments used by the American government on certain communites with illness etc back in 60/70 does open your mind and makes you look outside of what the government and media want you to believe though.
Except the web is littered with pictures of the inside of the Pentagon littered with bits of engine and undercarriage... Movie props, you suppose?I do like a conspiracy theories the interesting ones not the omg histeriocal mentalist ones they one with the de bears company is interesting take in market and people manipulation also some of the experiments used by the American government on certain communites with illness etc back in 60/70 does open your mind and makes you look outside of what the government and media want you to believe though.
http://www.sott.net/signs/Pentagon_Parody.htm
The conspiracy theorists just blindly believe it if they are told there are no pictures of aircraft debris, they don't even take a few seconds on google to research stuff themselves.
They also think that that no one has taken pictures of the moon landing sites....
and yet they think the rest of us are the ones who blindly believe.
MG CHRIS said:
There are a few things that don't make sense wt7 for example and the supposed aircraft crash into the pentagon without not one video showing it and the only video shows an explotion no plane, while the hole doesn't look like it has been caused by a plane. Was the towers brought down by the government no it was 2 planes did the government know it was coming yes did they do anything to stop it no.
I do like a conspiracy theories the interesting ones not the omg histeriocal mentalist ones they one with the de bears company is interesting take in market and people manipulation also some of the experiments used by the American government on certain communites with illness etc back in 60/70 does open your mind and makes you look outside of what the government and media want you to believe though.
One of the bloody engines was on the floor for everyone to see.I do like a conspiracy theories the interesting ones not the omg histeriocal mentalist ones they one with the de bears company is interesting take in market and people manipulation also some of the experiments used by the American government on certain communites with illness etc back in 60/70 does open your mind and makes you look outside of what the government and media want you to believe though.
I find the mentality, the pathological 'make up' of people who get involved in conspiracy theories quite interesting…
No matter how much evidence you give them that (as an example) we went to the moon, no matter how many facts you lay in front of them, they will still stick their fingers in their ears and shout "la la la not listening to anything that doesn't support my view".
I wonder if any studies have been carried out to examine the similarities between 'truthers' etc. and fundamental religious belief (with the emphasis very much on the 'mental')? The obstinate refusal to consider evidence contrary to what they have decided to believe in does seem to be remarkably similar in the two groups.
Isn't it strange that with the decline in organised religion (in the western world, anyway) that people still need to believe in something? It's almost as is a certain type of person has to believe in something, be it myths such as the Greek Gods partying on top of Mount Olympus, Theseus in the labyrinth, Vulcan sodding around in his Volcano, Diana, riding the moon across the night sky, Jesus and his merry men arsing about on the sea of Galilee, the US government blowing up the World Trade Centre, Aliens chilling out in Roswell or whatever.
We went to the moon.
Some d
heads flew some planes into some buildings.
The government ("man") may well not tell us the entire truth from time to time, but so what?
Consider: if the truth really is out there and tomorrow it was revealed in all its dodgy glory, how much would it really matter? How much would it really change your life? Is there anything you can do about it? Would you really care as long as you still had (delete as applicable) a job, your missus, a house, your car, your kids, enough to eat and drink, your dog and you're not struggling to pay the bills?
Nope.
You're a spectator. You're a bystander. You're a bit player in life. You perhaps don't want to be reminded of your insignificance, and that's understandable as human arrogance/hubris tells us that we're all special… but we ain't. Coming out with outlandish conspiracy theories to make yourself feel important will not change this fact. You don't need to believe in anything. Get on with your life and stop looking for meaning where there is none.
No matter how much evidence you give them that (as an example) we went to the moon, no matter how many facts you lay in front of them, they will still stick their fingers in their ears and shout "la la la not listening to anything that doesn't support my view".
I wonder if any studies have been carried out to examine the similarities between 'truthers' etc. and fundamental religious belief (with the emphasis very much on the 'mental')? The obstinate refusal to consider evidence contrary to what they have decided to believe in does seem to be remarkably similar in the two groups.
Isn't it strange that with the decline in organised religion (in the western world, anyway) that people still need to believe in something? It's almost as is a certain type of person has to believe in something, be it myths such as the Greek Gods partying on top of Mount Olympus, Theseus in the labyrinth, Vulcan sodding around in his Volcano, Diana, riding the moon across the night sky, Jesus and his merry men arsing about on the sea of Galilee, the US government blowing up the World Trade Centre, Aliens chilling out in Roswell or whatever.
We went to the moon.
Some d
heads flew some planes into some buildings.The government ("man") may well not tell us the entire truth from time to time, but so what?
Consider: if the truth really is out there and tomorrow it was revealed in all its dodgy glory, how much would it really matter? How much would it really change your life? Is there anything you can do about it? Would you really care as long as you still had (delete as applicable) a job, your missus, a house, your car, your kids, enough to eat and drink, your dog and you're not struggling to pay the bills?
Nope.
You're a spectator. You're a bystander. You're a bit player in life. You perhaps don't want to be reminded of your insignificance, and that's understandable as human arrogance/hubris tells us that we're all special… but we ain't. Coming out with outlandish conspiracy theories to make yourself feel important will not change this fact. You don't need to believe in anything. Get on with your life and stop looking for meaning where there is none.
longshot said:
I bet there is.
Unfortunately, one look at their 'who we are' section told me everything I need to know.
Why is it that most of these sites are run by someone who looks a little 'unusual', usually around the eyes, or someone who is retired and feels they have lost their influence and feels they are no longer listened to or asked for their knowledge.
You can do better. Or maybe you can't. Unfortunately, one look at their 'who we are' section told me everything I need to know.
Why is it that most of these sites are run by someone who looks a little 'unusual', usually around the eyes, or someone who is retired and feels they have lost their influence and feels they are no longer listened to or asked for their knowledge.
Edited by longshot on Tuesday 23 August 12:37
RE the whole jet fuel cannot melt steel argument, where the fuel burns at 1500C and steel wont melt till 2700C
There is a good video here: https://youtu.be/FzF1KySHmUA
There is a good video here: https://youtu.be/FzF1KySHmUA
scherzkeks said:
longshot said:
I bet there is.
Unfortunately, one look at their 'who we are' section told me everything I need to know.
Why is it that most of these sites are run by someone who looks a little 'unusual', usually around the eyes, or someone who is retired and feels they have lost their influence and feels they are no longer listened to or asked for their knowledge.
You can do better. Or maybe you can't. Unfortunately, one look at their 'who we are' section told me everything I need to know.
Why is it that most of these sites are run by someone who looks a little 'unusual', usually around the eyes, or someone who is retired and feels they have lost their influence and feels they are no longer listened to or asked for their knowledge.
Edited by longshot on Tuesday 23 August 12:37
You on the other hand......do
ETA. You seem to have edited out a large portion of my post.
Faust66 said:
You're a spectator. You're a bystander. You're a bit player in life. You perhaps don't want to be reminded of your insignificance, and that's understandable as human arrogance/hubris tells us that we're all special… but we ain't. Coming out with outlandish conspiracy theories to make yourself feel important will not change this fact. You don't need to believe in anything. Get on with your life and stop looking for meaning where there is none.
If read out the above paragraph and record yourself, and play it backwards, it says "we never went to the moon and the US government blew up the WTC."scherzkeks said:
The twin towers both experienced free-fall accelleration, just like B7.
I've seen this claim made on many occasions. The question is, how do you know it was free fall, other than the blindingly obvious that anything that is being accelerated by gravity is experiencing free fall. More to the point, what do you think it means?
In my view it's a largely meaningless statement, perpetuated by people who have absolutely no knowledge of engineering, aerodynamics or have any scientific background whatsoever.
Super Slo Mo said:
've seen this claim made on many occasions.
The question is, how do you know it was free fall, other than the blindingly obvious that anything that is being accelerated by gravity is experiencing free fall. More to the point, what do you think it means?
In my view it's a largely meaningless statement, perpetuated by people who have absolutely no knowledge of engineering, aerodynamics or have any scientific background whatsoever.
Now hold on a second. Scherzkeks has given no impression other than he's in possession of a blindingly effective scientific mind. His response to your above will do nothing more than reinforce this, and all without recourse to another batsThe question is, how do you know it was free fall, other than the blindingly obvious that anything that is being accelerated by gravity is experiencing free fall. More to the point, what do you think it means?
In my view it's a largely meaningless statement, perpetuated by people who have absolutely no knowledge of engineering, aerodynamics or have any scientific background whatsoever.
t link or paraphrase thereof.Super Slo Mo said:
scherzkeks said:
The twin towers both experienced free-fall accelleration, just like B7.
I've seen this claim made on many occasions. The question is, how do you know it was free fall, other than the blindingly obvious that anything that is being accelerated by gravity is experiencing free fall. More to the point, what do you think it means?
In my view it's a largely meaningless statement, perpetuated by people who have absolutely no knowledge of engineering, aerodynamics or have any scientific background whatsoever.
Until you scrutinise one of the videos that clearly shows one of the buildings NOT falling at free-fall speed (whatever the hell that is or means) as there is structure still apparent through the smoke and debris.
Actually, f
k it. I'm devoting no more time to this pish. You fkers would be better off going to church, practicing extreme masturbation or just something else.iphonedyou said:
Now hold on a second. Scherzkeks has given no impression other than he's in possession of a blindingly effective scientific mind. His response to your above will do nothing more than reinforce this, and all without recourse to another batst link or paraphrase thereof.
t link or paraphrase thereof.. To be fair, I was generalising, as I've seen it from many other sources too. As has been said above by others, it's mostly down to people blindly believing what other unqualified sources on the internet tell them. I think though that this is what humanity is like on the whole, folks take more notice of their mate down the pub or the chap next door than they do of some scientist that they don't personally know.
I think it's to do with some perception of trust and credibility, your mate seen as being less likely to lie to you or push an agenda than some chap on the telly.
scherzkeks said:
Yes, many.
A few off the top of my head:
Operation Paperclip
Tuskegee Experiments
Operation Northwoods
Deliberate alcohol poisoning during prohibition
The Reichstag Fire
Fascist takeover of US govt (Smedly Butler's testimony uncovered this)
The Gulf of Tonkin
NSA surveillance
Are any of those conspiracy theories, or just things that were happening in secret that were revealed later?A few off the top of my head:
Operation Paperclip
Tuskegee Experiments
Operation Northwoods
Deliberate alcohol poisoning during prohibition
The Reichstag Fire
Fascist takeover of US govt (Smedly Butler's testimony uncovered this)
The Gulf of Tonkin
NSA surveillance
Surely to be a conspiracy theory there needs to be some kind of official rejection of public enquiry.
And besides, how many of them were discovered by people making YouTube videos...?
I'm not fully convinced by the events which happened on the day but I have no expertise or background on the subjects surrounding it. It's the same as the JFK thing to me. I get proper hammered down by friends or people in conversation if it ever comes up as "i can't believe you don't believe the official story" etc and become a little aggressive. Find it easier to just not bother talking about the subject any more whenever it comes up.
The snippets i see from various theories are;
- Pristine passports found in the rubble of the hijackers
- explosions from the buildings visually and audibly when they came down
- Building 7 being deliberately brought down(as it had top secret files on various things)
- Insurance being taken out a day before the event
- Missile liveried up as a plane hitting the pentagon and not a real one due to the un-trained Hijacker not being able to complete such a manouver
- CGI type software editing of the planes hitting the towers as the plane clips through the other side of the building
- Passengers being offloaded to a remote airport and given new identities so that the planes could then be flown into the buildings remotely
- staff being told not to go into work that morning as something was going to happen
oh and Bush did harambe
The snippets i see from various theories are;
- Pristine passports found in the rubble of the hijackers
- explosions from the buildings visually and audibly when they came down
- Building 7 being deliberately brought down(as it had top secret files on various things)
- Insurance being taken out a day before the event
- Missile liveried up as a plane hitting the pentagon and not a real one due to the un-trained Hijacker not being able to complete such a manouver
- CGI type software editing of the planes hitting the towers as the plane clips through the other side of the building
- Passengers being offloaded to a remote airport and given new identities so that the planes could then be flown into the buildings remotely
- staff being told not to go into work that morning as something was going to happen
oh and Bush did harambe
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff