911. Do People Actually Believe This S**t?

[longshot]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uBnwCfxufc

[longshot]

TwistingMyMelon said:

Lost a few friends on Facebook who endlessly post 9/11 conspiracy theories

Thing is some nutter produces a really dumbed down simplistic video, such as "look at this, in this paused video frame you cant see the plane: IT MUST BE FAKED"
and people believe this, some people really believe that they are superior to everyone else and that they are enlightened and the public are just being lied to and manipulated by the Rothschilds

There are detailed scientific engineering studies and papers that carefully detail why the World Trade collapsed like it did, peer review studies written and reviewed by experts in their field on construction, fires and physics, but oh no some people choose to believe Rodney in Alhamba in his stty 5 minute youtube video who has no previous experience

Its pretty disgusting to endlessly go on about it with no real evidence considering the thousands that died .

Lots of the people who believe in conspiracy theories often have not held down much of a job, or at least one that involves organising others, having run various projects through the years even getting one man to turn up on time to install a toilet can be impossible without them fking it up, let alone a whole team of experts to fit explosives to one of the most iconic busiest buildings in the world with no one noticing...


I do agree there are conspiracy theories that have merit or similar, such as (already mentioned) operation paperclip

The trouble is, Rodney in Alabama knows the melting point of steel and the temperature of burning paraffin and because of the difference, knows for a fact that the building couldn't fall down.

That's a more seductive argument than the steel was weakened by the heat so every numpty latches onto it.

Repeat this puddle deep, accept everything for what it seems depth of analysis and you have a World full of conspiracy theories.

[longshot]

scherzkeks said:

Skyrat said:

The supposed free fall of the twin towers has been explained. Heat weakening the steel causing floors to collapse and pancake down on top of each other. I'm no engineer but it seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation

You might want to research the challenges to that explanation. You might also want to consider that those challenging it forced NIST to both abandon the pancake theory and admit that free-fall speeds occurred.

edit: http://www.ae911truth.org/news/faqs.html

Edited by scherzkeks on Monday 22 August 19:37

Or... http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/ea...

Read the 2 paragraphs about the design and the collapse.

[longshot]

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.

I bet there is.

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

[longshot]

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.

Edited by longshot on Tuesday 23 August 12:37

You can do better. Or maybe you can't.

I don't need to do better.

You on the other hand......do

ETA. You seem to have edited out a large portion of my post.

[longshot]

XslaneyX said:

I remember when the whole event happened whilst i was still at school. Came home and put the news on to see the twin towers smoking and thought it was a new film being made and couldn't quite take it in.

Myself and the girlfriend were in the US when 911 happened although we were in California.

We woke up in that day's motel and g/f went to the motel reception for brekkie.

She came back saying that the girl behind the desk had told her that 2 planes had collided with a building.

I assumed she was mistaken and meant 2 places had hit each other.
The odds of 2 planes hitting a building on the same day were astronomical.

We put on the TV and watched the events live with replays of the planes crashing.

It felt like watching a movie. A totally surreal situation but the TV presenters were talking of how the fire crews were on the scene and everything was going to be ok.

The idea that they may collapse was never mentioned.

Then, the first one went and it seemed obvious that the second was not far behind.

I have 2 strong memories of that day.

It may seem odd but the releif when hearing the death toll. earlier news had mentioned it being 10,000 + and the other being the people we drank with in Long Beach that night.

The complete shock and utter disbelief of what had happened, the thought that they were suddenly very vulnerable and they were scared.

They had stopped access to downtown Los Angeles which is why we ended up in Long Beach.

They even had an armed guard around the Queen Mary. They wouldn't let us anywhere near it.

There we are, a few ramblings.

[longshot]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

XslaneyX said:

- Insurance being taken out a day before the event

OK, let's deal with this. The policy was up for renewal, and negotiations had been ongoing and were concluded the day before.

But....the policy was renewed on a stop loss basis. Which means, if you have 2 houses worth a million each, you are a higher risk that someone with 1 house worth a million (you have 2 places where something could go wrong), but a lower risk than someone with one house worth £2 million (as with 2 houses at a million each the most you can lose in any one event is £1M)

So you insurer both houses on a stop loss basis, both covered for £1m but with a condition that you can only claim up to £1m. If a house burns down, you then have to buy back the further cover to cover your 2nd house.

The Twin Towers were covered on a stop loss basis. Both covered but claims capped at the value of 1. No one foresaw what actually happened.

So, to all you conspiracy theorists, why was the policy renewed on a stop loss basis. Why not renew on a full value basis covering both buildings?

Interesting.
Who owned the towers at the time and is there any indication of how much they lost?

[longshot]

scherzkeks said:

dazwalsh said:

Thats what I mean about basic physics, it had like 80 supports, and every single one of them would have had to give way at exactly the same time,


[

Hence why NIST's forced admission of freefall is so critical. There is no way freefall could have occured unless all supports gave out at once.



"Office fires"

You do understand that a building is designed to support a stationary weight and not to resist the kinetic forces of the above floor(s) collapsing?

Fire/heat has this annoying habit of 'weakening' steel.

You have an enormous amount of forces bearing down on supports that are barely doing their job. The building is effectively being supported by half of the structure and you are surprised when it appears to free fall.

I'll go back to something I quoted the other day.

One of the big 4 on your 9/11 truth site was surprised when 2 identical buildings, built in identical ways and attacked in identical ways collapsed in identical ways.

These are the people you rely on for your 'facts'.



You have one huge problem.
You are not an architect or structural engineer I would hazard, so you have to completely rely on what people on these sites tell you.
You are not able to make these decisions for yourself.

Edited by longshot on Thursday 25th August 12:59

[longshot]

scherzkeks said:

longshot said:

You do understand that a building is designed to support a stationary weight and not to resist the kinetic forces of the above floor(s) collapsing?

Fire/heat has this annoying habit of 'weakening' steel.

You have an enormous amount of forces bearing down on supports that are barely doing their job. The building is effectively being supported by half of the structure and you are surprised when it appears to free fall.

I'll go back to something I quoted the other day.

One of the big 4 on your 9/11 truth site was surprised when 2 identical buildings, built in identical ways and attacked in identical ways collapsed in identical ways.

These are the people you rely on for your 'facts'.



You have one huge problem.
You are not an architect or structural engineer I would hazard, so you have to completely rely on what people on these sites tell you.
You are not able to make these decisions for yourself.

Edited by longshot on Thursday 25th August 12:59

This research and information here is provided by a non-profit organization consisting of over 2,600 professional architects and engineers.

They are very easy to find. Assuming you are qualified and have first-hand experience investigating the matter, I'd be interested in reading a transcript of any dicussions you might have with them in the future.

Just because they have letters after their name doesn't automatically mean that what they have to say is credible.

These are the sort of people who could find a conspiracy in the colour being changed of a milk bottle top.

You go and speak to them and ask them for any evidence that actually stands up to any degree of scrutiny because I haven't seen any yet.

Let me ask you the question.

What would you expect 2 identically design and built buildings to do when they are attacked in an identical way?
Would you expect them to act in identical ways and collapse in identical ways?

[longshot]

I've found another cracker of a vid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEuJimaumW4

[longshot]

kji7 said:

Explain why the freefall meme is in anyway relevant?

Also provide you own insights rather than what AEtruthers tell you.

And while you're at it, I noted quite a few points on my previous post. Try to address any, any at all.

He doesn't do that.
It is beneath him.

[longshot]

There's a winky in the corner of his post.

I think he's planning a tactical withdrawal any time soon.

[longshot]

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.

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.

Ah but no-one ever noticed that the Twin Towers' longest serving employee, Randy Schmit, in his 28 years of service as janitor, never ever took his sandwich box and thermos flask home with him.

[longshot]

Adam B said:

Was he a mild-mannered janitor, and a master of Kung fu?

Could be!

[longshot]

Hugo a Gogo said:

scherzkeks said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

simples

Sums up the majority of "debunker" posts ITT, honestly.

give us your plausible theory then

We've had the aborted tactical withdrawal,

He's going for option 2 now.

Kill the thread with tedium.

There all basic ploys of people out of their depth trying to escape with a modicum of dignity and integrity intact.

[longshot]

scherzkeks said:

Tonsko said:

Besides, I think scherzkeks is trolling you all.

Not at all. Pointing out fact is actually more amusing than
trolling around here.

Why not try it then, for the lols.