jvincent Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 Awesome! Finally someone who have the credentials and the opportunity to lay this to rest. I would really have loved it if everything that was proposed that day could have been explained with rationality, logic, evidence and math. Sadly I and many others have been unable to do so. [...] I have many questions, but lets narrow them down for now, would you mind telling me and everyone else the absolute details and mechanics on how the 2 highrise steel buildings collapsed after the floors of the plane impact led to "sudden, catastrophic, and cascading failures." like you said. When those floors had "sudden, catastrophic, and cascading failures", what happened after that? How did the 2 towers collapse? Could you please tell us details on this? I expect you know the full details on the structure of the 2 towers and how they were built, and of what materials. I would really appreciate it if you could explain in detail how both of these huge structures collapsed. Please. To be clear, I didn't say that I know everything. I said that I have training and background in engineering that gives me some ability to analyze technically the absurd claims that the OP made. To address your snide commentary, "many others" have failed to explain the collapsing buildings the same way Jenny McCarthy has established that vaccines cause autism. Which is to say, by lying about what's real and through the magic of confirmation bias. For instance, check out the post about the out of focus camera above. To answer your question, no. I could write out some of the mathematical relationships between these things, but for one thing, you and others like you can't understand anyway. For another, it's no help because you've already decided that the whole thing is an inside job... or whatever. That said, I will add this: structural members in buildings rely on the integrity of one another. A single failure can easily change the load conditions on other members such that they suddenly fail, and so on. Like falling dominoes. In a structure like the WTC, one such failure would obviously not bring down the whole building. The other members would pick up the slack. In this case, fire weakened a large enough section that a single failure (say, at the point where the fire was hottest) could start such a lightning-quick series of catastrophic failures and allow the uppermost floors begin to fall onto the lower ones. It shouldn't be hard to grasp that once this began, stopping it from continuing would require much more structural integrity from the undamaged lower floors than was required for them to simply hold the falling floors in place, like they had been for decades.They were not intended for that much load and they failed... one after another, again like dominoes, as the weight of the falling section steadily increased. Disagree? Take a few calculus classes and get a structures book. This is, maybe year 1 stuff. Shouldn't take long. In the meantime, there is not a single shred of credible forensic evidence in existence which calls into question the widely understood fact that airplanes which were intentionally crashed by men of ill intent into the WTC started fires that weakened the towers and caused their collapse. More importantly though, as we've all seen in the effects of millions of daytime-TV'ers inexplicably taking medical advice from an aging whore, take a moment and ask yourself if you're even qualified to have an opinion on the subject before you espouse one on the internet. I don't go around telling people how to groom their Irish Setter. I don't think I've even seen one in person. I don't have kids, so I don't talk about the best way to raise them. Roll that around for a while. Still think it's me that's gullible? Make your case. That's what we're about here, right? Reason and evidence. So put up or shut up, but be warned that if your case betrays a total inability or unwillingness to understand physical principles, someone like me will call you out for it. Not me, though. I'm done.
Snafui Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 Or how the entire air defense failed to respond.... I was in mobile tactical radar, the Air Force goal was interdiction in 5 minutes; our unit goal was 3 minutes or we failed the exercise. We never failed--never. When I first heard that those planes were flying around for 45 minutes without interdiction I knew it was a lie.
GregMerwe Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 For those in the 9/11 truth camp: If you successfully convince someone that 9/11 was in fact an inside job, what conclusions do you hope for them to reach? Am I correct in assuming that convincing someone that 9/11 is an inside job is not an end in itself but a means to an end; that is, to have them reach a conclusion regarding the morality of the state? Putting it another way, at the end of a conversation about 9/11 truth, how do you hope the following sentence ends? "You make a very convincing argument, and I now believe 9/11 is an inside job; therefore..." To me it is a matter of scientific credibility. If anyone who claims to be a professional thinks that steel framed and steel reinforced concrete buildings can turn in to dust at free fall speed then they have no professional credibility. It is important for the scientific and professional community to know basic physics. Planes can not vanish in to buildings without any deformation of structure of the plane itself. Steel frame buildings can not self destruct through the path of most resistance without explosives. Listen to the professionals in the Experts Speak out I posted. One mathematician did the calculation and claims that it would have taken 50 million pounds of force per second to destroy the WTC 1 and 2 at the rate that they were destroyed. There has never been a shortage of people who refuse to accept no planes. Even when listening to other experts and professionals on the subject they still can;t accept it. I think they don't want to accept it because psychologically they can not handle that truth. It is a lie too big. This in my opinion is one of the ways that helps them get away with it, a lie so big that no one will ever believe it. Use missiles and fake planes, no way, the amount of people that would have to be involved and so on, same old arguments. Refuted a million times, doesn't stop people from arguing against it. Some even admit no plane at the pentagon but won't accept the other 3. Some accept controlled demolition but not no planes. What matters to me is that we live in a society where if 1000s of people are murdered we have an investigation and we don't have a media that helps to cover up the mass murder and a government and security industry that exploits the mass murder for their own gain. I don't have that attitude of let it all burn, that is some people attitude, i don't have that attitude, that is why it is important for me to convince people of the truth because I want a better world. Check out these videos on this channel, https://www.youtube.com/user/entropification It includes all the full media footage from the day as well as snippets of video that shows mistakes in the media where the editors didn't cut up the audio and let a missile slip here or there and witnesses on air who thought they say a missile and ones that heard a sonic boom. It is all right in front of you in the media, people are just hood winked. This thread saddens me. My Grandfather who was still alive at the time knew they would fall. He was a structural engineer for most of his life. I watched the second plane hit with my wife on the Today Show in my bedroom. I'm certain they didn't manipulate everybody at NBC who had randomly switched to a live feed right beforehand. I remember distinctly, My wife said "Is that plane" Me "looks like it" *boom* it hit. My friend from college was driving to the pentagon when the plane flew nearly overhead. He helped pull people out of the rubble. Seriously, the whole point of Anarcho Capitalism/Libertarianism etc. is that government isn't capable of pulling of complex things. The coordination required to pull of what is detailed in this thread is not possible. If you believe it is you better become a statist ASAP. Sure, a bunch of contractors put in explosives. The planes were hijacked and taken somewhere nobody knows about. Aircraft Controllers were paid off. 10s of civilian videos were doctored and those owners and those in the videos were paid off. The SEC/CIA/etc.etc. all acted in unison to doctor records, etc. etc. w/only a few people talking Engineers from all over the globe back what happened. Sure, that happened. If this thread doesn't sadden you then you might be a socio-path. Making appeals to evidence that you don't have is not a good argument. I could say my mother friend who invented steel buildings saw a missile. Means nothing in this context. Everyone watched the same fake planes on TV. That does not prove that it was a real plane or that it was not a controlled demolition. Again another appeal to witness that you can not reproduce. Who said it was the government? The first documentary i posted shows a lot of evidence that points to this being done by a covert black ops group of criminals. The likes of bush most likely was convinced by the official story just as much as you. It is my opinion although I can not directly prove this but I will speculate for the sake of this context. FFA and norad was hacked. AS well as the FBI and other agencies being on training or retreats out of state. When the attack occurred there was massive confusion about what was going on. They didn't need everyone to be involved because they were all convinced by the official story. If anyone questioned it then they were most likely threatened or eventually murdered. There is also many examples of massive top secret operations that involved 10000s of people over several decades that remain a secret until it was later declassified. Add on to that compartmentalization and classification levels or "need to know" as they say in the films. It starts to come to light that it would actually be quite easy to pull off. I also think that the media was taken over by black ops like organisations. There is evidence that post 9/11 they have written these powers in to law.; There is also reports that CIA has had people permanently placed at news organisations steering the news for some time. You would have to actually be a gullible school boy to think that the world was so rosy that it was not possible to pull it off, because in fact they did. If the media was not hacked or taken over then they were complicit and it would not take that many people in the studio to do. The anchor would have to have known something weird was going on but be forced to go along with it. Outside of that, the studio manager and the audio/video professionals would use a multi-track sequencer to chop up the audio and the video. For live video like that it would have been quite cutting edge accomplishment in 2001. Although not unlikely. Explosives were placed in WTC 1 and 2 most likely a roll on gel or paint of military grade nano thermate, probably rolled on during the fireproofing upgrade maintenance over a long period of time. With 7 most likely being rigged up during construction as a fail safe. Aircraft controllers reported seeing fake transponders, further evidence that it was hacked at least to some extent. The biggest part of the cover up was making sure that no amateur footage ever got out. They did a tremendous job of it in my opinion. They would not have been able to get away with it these days where everyone has a mobile phone camera and even professional cameras. Back then in 2001 only photographers had digital cameras and expensive tape cameras. Most people still had film cameras and they had to get those developed. There is evidence, a video of a nypd officer saying that they were assigned to go to all the camera shops and confiscate all the developing film in the months after 9/11, in search of evidence. Of course what would be the first thing a good patriot would do if they recorded a missile going in the wtc 1? They would phone the authorities, hello i have this amazing 9/11 footage showing a missile hit the wtc 1, well they would come around and take the footage and even kill the person if they knew too much. They also setup an organisation called camera planet that was used as way to explain where all the footage went that was confiscated because there was many people who wanted their footage back and it took a long time to get it up and running. Most of the camera planet footage has been edited in one way or another. Fake zooms, new audio. One thing is for sure, outside of the 52 (about 10 hq ones) known impact videos none of the amateur video shows any impact, often the impact is cut out or starts just after or finishes just before the impact have been. This you would only ever know if you watched and analysed a ton of amateur 911 footage and next to no one is ever going to do that. Even when people have done that and showed it to be true people still don't believe it. Engineer all over the world have been hood winked. Not the first time and won't be the last. People appear to be more stupid than I personally thought they were.
Romulox Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 What I am trying to understand is why you believe that 9/11 truth is the most effective way communicate that people like Dick Cheney and George Bush use lies as justification to start wars and kill millions of civilians. I don't feel that I need 9/11 truth to accomplish this; I can show any number of clips with George Bush talking about WMD threats and about how God is telling him that he should go to war with Iraq. If someone's psychological defenses prevent them from accepting that the Iraq war was started on false pretenses from a lie that is 100% provable based on George Bush's own words, what chance do you think there is of penetrating those defenses (which will be inflated 100x over when discussing 9/11) with theories about how 9/11 was carried out. Even if you are right, people will listen to the answer they are looking for; a rebuttal to every one of your arguments (no matter how inconsistent or detached from reality those rebuttals may be), is out there in order to calm peoples anxieties over the possibility of their government being evil. If someone is shown the horrors imposed upon the Iraqi civilian population alongside the lies straight from the mouth of George Bush, and can't accept that the government is evil, then I see no point continuing to waste your time with that person. The truth of 9/11 did bother me for a time, though I did not take the time to actively research it. That changed after accepting the truth of anarchism though; after that, the truth of 9/11 doesn't really have any impact on my opinion of the state. If 9/11 was an inside job, then the state is an immoral institution that lies and murders civilians for its own gain. If 9/11 was carried out by muslim terrorists, then the state is still an immoral institution that lies and murders civilians for its own gain. Given this perspective, I feel far more free from the state if I don't feel compelled to spend my valuable time disproving their lies while trying to convince people who don't want to be convinced. In this way, I hope to be an example of how to minimize the impact of the state on my personal freedom, and lead a more peaceful, productive, prosperous, open minded, and enlightened life.
GregMerwe Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 I don't think speaking about 9/11 is every effective way to do anything. People hate the subject. I actually don't like talking about the subject, online or in person. People just don't want to know that sort of information and they usually don't like the messenger of that sort of information. 9/11 was and still is used as the main justification for the modern police/security state. The west is still in a terrorist psychosis as a result of this event and 7/7 and bali and madrid. These events are used to manipulate the populationm in to being fearful and to accept increased security. The cost of this increased security is larger government and larger security and police state and less liberty. Plus like i said it is more about intellectual credability and basic physics. I can't stand to live in society where people think buildings can turn in to dust like that. Where people believe any official narrative without question. I have learned long a go when to start and stop talking about 9/11 and other subjects like it. I once did not have my work contract renewed because i aried my views on 9/11, when i was younger. It is not like i go around at parties and social gatherings and always talk about 9/11. Usually i will see if there is a 9/11 thread on a forum i join and then post my research. I don't create 9/11 threads on forums that i have been on for a long time. I have no big need to convince everyone i meet of the truth. On different forums it is received in different ways. A lot of people still can't handle some subjects and will instantly ban discussion of them. I was quite happy when i thought i had figured out 9/11 at least to some extent because i thought it gave me some what closure on it. I have not researched the event for many years now and i think many people involved in 9/11 movement has also stopped looking in to it. If nothing else i would be happy with the controlled demolition side coming to light in the mainstream because i think is the most outrageous thing to occur in our life times, that they controlled demo a building at 9am without any notifications and so on. If they can do that and get away with it, what is stopping even worse, obviously not the trillion dollar security and military industry or the magical government.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 Who cares? In the virtually impossible event that your particular version is proven true what's going to happen? I'll tell you what; Fucking nothing. It doesn't matter because this version of events is not worse than the official version. It's just a waste of time.
A4E Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 What I am trying to understand is why you believe that 9/11 truth is the most effective way communicate that people like Dick Cheney and George Bush use lies as justification to start wars and kill millions of civilians. I am pretty sure that even though most people know that the wmd claim was a lie, they are generally willing to excuse them both, because "Everyone makes mistakes." or "The faulty intelligence gathering was to blame" or "They can't know everything". (I have heard those several times I think) Another thing is that I have debated a guy who completely agrees that GWB and DC lied on purpose to start the wars, but was insanely and completely unwilling to open up to the idea that 911 was staged. He could say (I am not making the following up) -"Yeah they lied about all that wmd and the Saddam link to terrorists, but 9/11 you see was completely unexpected and took everyone by surprise, and there was nothing anyone could have done, and those terrorists had been training for it with flight simulators and all 19 of them had been successfully brainwashed to think they would get x amount of virgins at completion. GWB and DC only took advantage of the situation afterwards, but ofcourse they had nothing to do with it. You are just a paranoid and mentally sick person who wants to find like-minded to be friends with." If I had known then how ad hominem attacks is a sure sign of desperation and weakness, I would probably not spend so much time talking with him. When both GWB and DC played significant parts around and after 9/11 alongside Donald Rumsfeld to prop up the narrative and avoid any call for investigation, I think it is beneficial to link them to the fakery, so that its harder for people to make excuses for them. I'm not actually saying its the best way to prove that they lie and justify wars. But im pretty sure it helps. However, 9/11 can be a big gateway for other information. Realizing that 9/11 was faked, was a big turning point in my life, and I owe alot of later information to it, that I might never have looked into if it had not been for other people exposing 9/11. Also it is unlikely I would have found Stefan. All in all it means that my health and knowledge and self awareness and my relationships are now all good, thanks to the same kind of devoted people that I am now. Which can give you an explanation as to why I want to do this and feel (or more accurately know) that it will have an effect on other people. I don't feel that I need 9/11 truth to accomplish this; I can show any number of clips with George Bush talking about WMD threats and about how God is telling him that he should go to war with Iraq. If someone's psychological defenses prevent them from accepting that the Iraq war was started on false pretenses from a lie that is 100% provable based on George Bush's own words, what chance do you think there is of penetrating those defenses (which will be inflated 100x over when discussing 9/11) with theories about how 9/11 was carried out. I know what you mean, and I have seen the errors in my past. I thought that it was possible to make any person understand how the official conspiracy theory falls apart. But from my experience to this point I think it is a general rule that if a person resists and oppose/attack you for more than maybe 30 seconds, then that person will do so until he dies. Another thing that Stefan helped me figure out. For those of you rolling your eyes, yes I could be wrong. I am able to admit that I can be wrong. Maybe 9/11 was a real event, but then please find someone who can explain how everything happened like they said, and I will listen. I have even read papers from different people trying to explain the collapse. Try to find any adequate explanation from the start of the collapse yourself. Even if you are right, people will listen to the answer they are looking for; a rebuttal to every one of your arguments (no matter how inconsistent or detached from reality those rebuttals may be), is out there in order to calm peoples anxieties over the possibility of their government being evil. If someone is shown the horrors imposed upon the Iraqi civilian population alongside the lies straight from the mouth of George Bush, and can't accept that the government is evil, then I see no point continuing to waste your time with that person. Agreed. Today when replying to posts, I do so to affect all people reading, not specifically the poster. The truth of 9/11 did bother me for a time, though I did not take the time to actively research it. That changed after accepting the truth of anarchism though; after that, the truth of 9/11 doesn't really have any impact on my opinion of the state. If 9/11 was an inside job, then the state is an immoral institution that lies and murders civilians for its own gain. If 9/11 was carried out by muslim terrorists, then the state is still an immoral institution that lies and murders civilians for its own gain. I know that you want, and others on this forum want to trivialize hoaxes and staged events. Because you feel that there are much bigger issues at hand. That might seem like a rational approach, But I am fairly certain that it is important for atleast peace and individual rights on this planet. How much harder do you think it would have been to start a war with Iraq if 9/11 never happened? How much harder do you think it would have been for gun grabbers to take everyones guns if they had not staged Sandy hook? I guess people in USA were lucky that they still could muster so much pro gun activism. But how about the next time a staged event is used to try to take their guns or other freedoms? Less freedom means more of everything anti freedom. Case in point, patriot act right after 9/11. Given this perspective, I feel far more free from the state if I don't feel compelled to spend my valuable time disproving their lies while trying to convince people who don't want to be convinced. In this way, I hope to be an example of how to minimize the impact of the state on my personal freedom, and lead a more peaceful, productive, prosperous, open minded, and enlightened life. It is true that I and many other truthers have wasted alot of time on specific people, but on the plus side most of those conversations are public, so they are not totally useless.
pretzelogik Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 ... For instance, check out the post about the out of focus camera above. To answer your question, no. I could write out some of the mathematical relationships between these things, but for one thing, you and others like you can't understand anyway. For another, it's no help because you've already decided that the whole thing is an inside job... or whatever. The camera was not out of focus, it was IN focus, both the foreground and background. The helicopter hardware should be blurry and indistinguishable. Anyone with a camera can verify for themselves that this is a physical impossibility. Mathematics is fine, empirical evidence is better. Just provide a single example of a long lens camera producing an image with the foreground and background in focus (especially while the camera zooms in/out as it does in the clip referenced, the image is merely a still from that segment). As the phenomenon can only be produced with two cameras layered into a single image with editing, we recognized that this clip aired as live was actually compiled in advance of the event. As was mentioned in the above post, the 9/11 imagery is chock full of such anomalies (or errors better yet). The video quality was satisfactory for convincing the world what they saw was real at that time (I was convinced initially and for some years afterward, so no I didn't just decide it was an inside job, I came to that conclusion once the evidence was undeniable) but does not stand up to scrutiny.
GregMerwe Posted September 15, 2015 Posted September 15, 2015 New no planes documentary released. It is essentially a compilation of all the no planes theory related material. It still fails to point out the elephant in the room, missiles.
Recommended Posts