bofors Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 FKN Facts 9/11 The Emperors Clothes http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pqKBnKlDYdw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socal swimmer Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 two words: "reliable sources". i.e. not youtube, or truther, or ae911. funny jokes do nothing to advance the scientific merits of your case. that race vs IQ debate was very good. A lot of good information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bofors Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 This is an Orange: This is WTC 7: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5844423248014429193 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socal swimmer Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 This is an Orange: Buildings are designed to fall straight down. Maybe not ones in the Russian countryside, but in an Urban environment, it is critical. If a 47 story building were to fall sideways, the casualties would be catastrophic. Why do you think building architects (and engineers) get payed millions of dollars to design buildings? Is it for the eye candy? Do you believe what you are told by your parents, and your teachers, and your logic, and the mainstream media, and your own credible research, or do you believe google videos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apowerr Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 Buildings are designed to fall straight down. No, buildings are not designed to fall. They are designed to stand and be stable. Why do you think building architects (and engineers) get payed millions of dollars to design buildings? Again, they get paid millions of dollars to design buildings that stand up. No one gets paid to design buildings that fall straight down, that makes no sense at all. In fact, as far as I know (hope I'm not wrong) architects don't really take 'how the building will collapse' to mind do they? Don't they focus on preventing the building from falling in the first place? Do you believe what you are told by your parents, and your teachers, and your logic, and the mainstream media, and your own credible research, or do you believe google videos? I think you missed the point of the video. The point was that if you take things for how they seem, an orange is an orange and the collapse of 7 WTC is (or appears to be at least) a controlled demolition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awwadofgum Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 @erei33 I don't think you understood his post. There is more to it than your knowledge can conceive. By saying buildings are built to fall he means eventually the buildings are going to fall, mankind eventually will fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
39thRonin Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 No sense of humour?I never suggested not to oppose the government. So go ahead and group me in with Nazi sympathizers, even thought that wasn't real either. Headrush - As a general rue of thumb, the person who is compared to the Nazis first automatically wins the argument - what ever it is. So congrats! As to this topic, I feel sorry for people who are so devoid of life that they have nothing better to do than spread hate & discontent. Does the fact that MILLIONS of people watched and experienced the horrific acts of 9/11 and came to the conclusion that Terrorists did it mean anything? Does the fact that Bin Laden & Al Zawhiri are caught on tape taking credit for these acts not mean anything? The US government is not conspiracy central... Bofros. et. al. should really get some help - and some happy drugs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socal swimmer Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 No, buildings are not designed to fall. They are designed to stand and be stable. Again, they get paid millions of dollars to design buildings that stand up. No one gets paid to design buildings that fall straight down, that makes no sense at all. In fact, as far as I know (hope I'm not wrong) architects don't really take 'how the building will collapse' to mind do they? Don't they focus on preventing the building from falling in the first place? I think you missed the point of the video. The point was that if you take things for how they seem, an orange is an orange and the collapse of 7 WTC is (or appears to be at least) a controlled demolition. of course they are meant to stand. They are meant to stand for as long as possible, and through as much damage as possible. But, the building designers know that it is possible that something will damage it to the point where it can't possible stand any more. At that point, they are designed to fall straight down, instead of to the side. And WTC 7 fell slightly towards the south (away from the cameras). Also, it damaged 3 other buildings quite badly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bofors Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 Buildings are designed to fall straight down. Please, go take a class in physics before posting anymore nonsense here. This is too serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranoid Marvin Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 No, buildings are not designed to fall. They are designed to stand and be stable. Again, they get paid millions of dollars to design buildings that stand up. No one gets paid to design buildings that fall straight down, that makes no sense at all. In fact, as far as I know (hope I'm not wrong) architects don't really take 'how the building will collapse' to mind do they? Don't they focus on preventing the building from falling in the first place? I think you missed the point of the video. The point was that if you take things for how they seem, an orange is an orange and the collapse of 7 WTC is (or appears to be at least) a controlled demolition. Well, strictly speaking, that's true for most buildings, but for skyscrapers, it's both Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSPHax0r9 Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 Please, go take a class in physics before posting anymore nonsense here. This is too serious.Oh, yeah, you've been taking the situation sooo seriously Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bxsci(macuser) Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 No, buildings are not designed to fall. They are designed to stand and be stable. Again, they get paid millions of dollars to design buildings that stand up. No one gets paid to design buildings that fall straight down, that makes no sense at all. In fact, as far as I know (hope I'm not wrong) architects don't really take 'how the building will collapse' to mind do they? Don't they focus on preventing the building from falling in the first place? An architect will try to make the building as stable as possible, however, architects realize that there are some points where a building will collapse and they cannot stop it. To prepare for situations like these, architects of skyscrapers design their buildings so that when they collapse they collapse straight down as to avoid destroying the surrounding city. For instance, had one of the twin towers toppled over instead of collapsing in on itself it would have destroyed a stretch of land greater than its own hight and width due to shock waves. This is not an ideal situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awwadofgum Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Well, strictly speaking, that's true for most buildings, but for skyscrapers, it's both I don't quite understand what you mean. Skyscrapers are buildings, they are just built vertically upward because of what is urban sprawl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SA22C Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Putting aside the mountains of evidence that support the official account of the 9/11 attacks for a moment, it is literally impossible that a conspiracy of this scale could be kept secret. Thousands of people, working together and keeping silent for the past six years in order to pull off the con of the millenium. I'm sorry, but that's not even remotely possible. Hell, even the 19 attackers nearly screwed up on multiple occasions and it was only the lax investigative procedures of the FBI and a lack of cooperation between the various security agencies in the US that allowed them to complete their mission. There are times when Occam's Razor is particularly appropriate. This is one of them. 19 guys vs 1000's. I'll take 19 any day. It's the only option that even begins to make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aduffbrew Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Putting aside the mountains of evidence that support the official account of the 9/11 attacks for a moment, it is literally impossible that a conspiracy of this scale could be kept secret. Thousands of people, working together and keeping silent for the past six years in order to pull off the con of the millenium. I'm sorry, but that's not even remotely possible. Hell, even the 19 attackers nearly screwed up on multiple occasions and it was only the lax investigative procedures of the FBI and a lack of cooperation between the various security agencies in the US that allowed them to complete their mission. There are times when Occam's Razor is particularly appropriate. This is one of them. 19 guys vs 1000's. I'll take 19 any day. It's the only option that even begins to make sense. THANK YOU! In support of his 9/11 position on 08/16/07 "bofors" reports to "have a doctoral level education in materials engineering from the University of Michigan." I am no engineer and chose instead to rely on my father's wisdom gleaned from 42 years as a globally respected, highly accomplished civil engineer. Dad took up the challenge of researching and addressing the conspiracy theorists' view point by point. Why did he do it? He was intrigued by the arguments raised and wanted to know for himself. Was he able to account for everything? No, not exactly... but close enough. His final professional assessment was the official account was "very plausible" and given the logistics involved "highly probable." The evidence is out there. Funny someone would trust a youtube video over corroborated metallurgical data and the like but that's the beauty of a free society. Diversity is the spice of life. In his arguments regarding IQ, in which I do have professional expertise, "bofors" reported on 10/29/07 that he has "a graduate level education in cellular & molecular biology, and biochemistry." Never mind there are decades of scholarly research on the matter, he still managed to come up with some rather "creative" opinions. Unfortunately, that debate quickly became an exercise in frustration for which I lack the patience to repeat. While it is possible for someone to achieve these advanced levels of education spanning such broad subject matter , given his rather undisciplined expressed rational, the guy either smoked one too many in younger years and fried the required logic circuits to pull off such an academic accomplishment or he's highly exaggerating his scholastic credentials. This apparent inconsistency certainly undermines his credibility as a reliable resource in my estimation. I support his right to anonymous and unsubstantiated free speech we all enjoy here and take his comments with a grain of salt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bofors Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Putting aside the mountains of evidence that support the official account of the 9/11 attacks for a moment, it is literally impossible that a conspiracy of this scale could be kept secret. This is a common myth, there is no reason why 9/11 could not have been perpetrated with small team of people.Prof. David Ray Griffin addresses this myth here: Myth Number 3: Such a big operation, involving so many people, could not have been kept a secret, because someone involved in it would have talked by now.This claim is based on a more general myth, which is that is impossible for secret government operations to be kept secret very long, because someone always talks. But how could we know this? If some big operations have remained secret until now, we by definition do not know about them. Moreover, we do know of big some operations that were kept secret as long as necessary, such as the Manhattan Project to create the atomic bomb, and the war in Indonesia in 1957, which the United States government provoked, participated in, and was able to keep secret from its own people until a book about it appeared in 1995.18 Many more examples could be given.We can understand, moreover, why those with inside knowledge of 9/11 would not talk. At least most of them would have been people with the proven ability to keep secrets. Those who were directly complicit would also be highly motivated to avoid public disgrace and the gas chamber. Those people who had knowledge without being complicit could be induced to keep quiet by means of more or less subtle threats---such as: "Joe, if you go forward with your plans to talk to the press about this, I don't know who is going to protect your wife and kids from some nutcase angered by your statement." Still another fact is that neither the government nor the mainstream press has, to say the least, shown any signs of wanting anyone to come forward. http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060405112622982 Video here: http://video.google.com/url?docid=-275577066688213413 In support of his 9/11 position on 08/16/07 "bofors" reports to "have a doctoral level education in materials engineering from the University of Michigan." ...In his arguments regarding IQ, in which I do have professional expertise, "bofors" reported on 10/29/07 that he has "a graduate level education in cellular & molecular biology, and biochemistry." Never mind there are decades of scholarly research on the matter, he still managed to come up with some rather "creative" opinions. Unfortunately, that debate quickly became an exercise in frustration for which I lack the patience to repeat.While it is possible for someone to achieve these advanced levels of education spanning such broad subject matter , given his rather undisciplined expressed rational, the guy either smoked one too many in younger years and fried the required logic circuits to pull off such an academic accomplishment or he's highly exaggerating his scholastic credentials. This apparent inconsistency certainly undermines his credibility as a reliable resource in my estimation. I support his right to anonymous and unsubstantiated free speech we all enjoy here and take his comments with a grain of salt. My name is John Philip Anderson, I am one of now 213 architects & engineers questioning the official story of 9/11 here: http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php I have laid out my credentials to the OSx86 communtiy before and certainly am perpared to do it again. For the record, my dissertation research was with biomedical engineering materials. But this thread is about the Truth of 9/11, if you want to personally insult me please go do it some place else. The IQ thread that way -> http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?showtopic=67689 I am no engineer and chose instead to rely on my father's wisdom gleaned from 42 years as a globally respected, highly accomplished civil engineer. Dad took up the challenge of researching and addressing the conspiracy theorists' view point by point. Why did he do it? He was intrigued by the arguments raised and wanted to know for himself. Was he able to account for everything? No, not exactly... but close enough. His final professional assessment was the official account was "very plausible" and given the logistics involved "highly probable." The evidence is out there. Funny someone would trust a youtube video over corroborated metallurgical data and the like but that's the beauty of a free society. Diversity is the spice of life. It seems odd to me that your father can explain the inexplicable "collapse" of the World Trade Center buildings but the National Institutes of Standands & Technology (NIST) still can not after a five year, 20 million dollar study: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html Can you explain that? Close enough? What was your father unable to account for? Have you read Prof. Steven Jones paper which includes metallurgical data here?: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2006...rade_Center.pdf What is this "corroborated metallurgical data" you refer to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socal swimmer Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 bofors, if the official version was that rediculous, and it was that obvious that it is an inside job, then why haven't people come forward? I am not talking about people involved in the plot, but others, with knowledge of materials engineering etc. I am also not talking about 213 crackpots (less than .1%, probably less than .01% of all materials engineers and architects in the United States), but people that are credible, that you have heard of. For example, professors of materials sciences and architecture at Stanford, UC Berkley, Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Cornell, UCLA, USC, etc etc etc. If the official version is such {censored}, why didn't they speak up a long time ago? Is someone keeping every single one of them quiet with threats? Yea, right. bofors you have crappy sources (actually they are complete {censored}). Youtube videos don't mean anything. Just give up. I am done here (in this thread). If I continue much longer, I am going to start a flame war and I don't want to get banned. I guess we must agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bofors Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 bofors, if the official version was that rediculous, and it was that obvious that it is an inside job, then why haven't people come forward? I am not talking about people involved in the plot, but others, with knowledge of materials engineering etc. I am also not talking about 213 crackpots (less than .1%, probably less than .01% of all materials engineers and architects in the United States), but people that are credible, that you have heard of. For example, professors of materials sciences and architecture at Stanford, UC Berkley, Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Cornell, UCLA, USC, etc etc etc. If the official version is such {censored}, why didn't they speak up a long time ago? Is someone keeping every single one of them quiet with threats? Yea, right. Start with the fact that people who do come forward get slandered as "crackpots" and do the math. Next, add the facts that both Kevin Ryan: http://www.wanttoknow.info/911kevinrryanfired and Steven Jones both lost their jobs for coming forward: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones Then add the fact that most people don't even bother to look at 9/11 seriously because they have bought the official story without question. Finally, try to understand that university professors careers are political and tied to federal grant money, if they speak out they risk their livelihoods. bofors you have crappy sources (actually they are complete {censored}). Youtube videos don't mean anything. Just give up.I am done here (in this thread). If I continue much longer, I am going to start a flame war and I don't want to get banned. I guess we must agree to disagree. Cya... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aduffbrew Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 But this thread about the Truth of 9/11, if you want to personally insult me please go do it some place else. The IQ thread that way -> http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?showtopic=67689 Please. I've been reading your posts like everyone else. You're not exactly the King of Nice either. Maybe we should BOTH take our insults somewhere else. Given my profession, I can safely say with full confidence you really overreached your experience regarding the whole IQ issue. Why would this topic be any different? I can't help but be a bit skeptical about your opinions. It is true that I am being hyper critical of you here without any personal expertise to back it up. But telling someone to take a class in physics when they don't agree with you all the while there are professors of physics who disagree with you too is a bit much to take quietly. It seems odd to me that your father can explain the inexplicable "collapse" of the World Trade Center buildings but the National Institutes of Standands & Technology (NIST) still can not after a five year, 20 million dollar study: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html Can you explain that? No I can't. I honestly don't know the first thing about 9/11 beyond what I saw on the news and the few conspiracy theory presentations I ran across. That's why I went to him. In the early days of the controversy, he certainly expressed his reservations about the "authorized" account. At the time, he wasn't familiar with the unique specifics to the design of the twin towers and was amazed by nature of their failure. He also had reservations about the Pentagon account. I even remember sitting down with him to view a conspiracy DVD one of his grad-students had sent him for his opinion. He didn't have the expertise in all the required fields. But using what he did know, he pieced together a list of questions the needed answering. Writing letters to colleagues and practicing professionals around the country, he formulated an informed opinion on the matter. In his mind, only Building 7 still raises significant questions but he pointed out two things. 1. There ARE a number of logical causes for such a collapse that can sanely be entertained in the realm of possibility. A controlled collapse is not the only explanation. 2. Reverse engineering a disaster of this magnitude to erase all doubt and speculation is utterly impossible. No one anticipated, designed or tested for such a scenario. The information gained from this has been incalculable. It boils down to percent of plausibility. While questions remain, he is reasonably satisfied. I have full confidence in his opinion. In the end, I should have not have responded here. I have done little to clarify this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bofors Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 In his mind, only Building 7 still raises significant questions ... Good, now we are getting somewhere... Once you understand that Building 7 was destroyed by controlled demoltion, then you can look at the WTC twin towers with open eyes and see that they were too. This simple exercise is done by architect Richard Gage here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3118021782753292874 Slides here: http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/index.php Perhaps you should show this presentations to your father, maybe he will connect the dots this time. ... Once you apply basic physics to the World Trade Center "collapses", then using simple logic you can start connecting all the other problematic 9/11 dots and the big picture will be revealed. You will then clearly see that 9/11 was a US state-sponsored "false flag" terrorist operation designed not only to wage the current wars in the Middle East but also to impower the miltary-industrial-complex to crack down on civil liberities in the West while initiating a never ending bogus war against "terrorism". This is high treason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranoid Marvin Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Post Removed by moderator subsequent to it being reported. The jist of this post was that the poster disagrees with bofors' position, considers it invalid and would like him to cease promoting it. Please stick to discussing & commenting on the issues, not each other. I hope this edit will satisfy all parties, both those who desire complete freedom of expression, and those interested in civil debate. - Hagar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SA22C Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 This is a common myth, there is no reason why 9/11 could not have been perpetrated with small team of people.Prof. David Ray Griffin addresses this myth here: Myth Number 3: Such a big operation, involving so many people, could not have been kept a secret, because someone involved in it would have talked by now.This claim is based on a more general myth, which is that is impossible for secret government operations to be kept secret very long, because someone always talks. But how could we know this? If some big operations have remained secret until now, we by definition do not know about them. Moreover, we do know of big some operations that were kept secret as long as necessary, such as the Manhattan Project to create the atomic bomb, and the war in Indonesia in 1957, which the United States government provoked, participated in, and was able to keep secret from its own people until a book about it appeared in 1995.18 Many more examples could be given.We can understand, moreover, why those with inside knowledge of 9/11 would not talk. At least most of them would have been people with the proven ability to keep secrets. Those who were directly complicit would also be highly motivated to avoid public disgrace and the gas chamber. Those people who had knowledge without being complicit could be induced to keep quiet by means of more or less subtle threats---such as: "Joe, if you go forward with your plans to talk to the press about this, I don't know who is going to protect your wife and kids from some nutcase angered by your statement." Still another fact is that neither the government nor the mainstream press has, to say the least, shown any signs of wanting anyone to come forward. All of this is well and good, but the good Professor does nothing to refute the numbers required to pull off such a massive conspiracy other than waving his hands and making unfounded claims. As for people coming forward, all it takes is one. Thus far, no one, not one person actually involved with a conspiracy to 'take down' the towers has come forward. The people you mention are third parties who have destroyed their careers tilting at windmills that they have no first-hand experience with. It is patently absurd to claim that the 'mainstream press' would not welcome someone with evidence to come forward. The fact is that no one has, because there's no one to come forward. Conspiracy theories are our modern myths. Think of them as a way to make sense of a nonsensical world. Apparently for some, it's easier to indulge in distrust and paranoia rather than believe that 19 men would decide to commit a monstrous act of terrorism against their sworn enemy. Once again: 19 guys with fanatical dedication acting against an enemy vs 1000's of government employees or military personnel who were asked to kill their own countrymen. Consider that the US government can't even keep secrets like the NSA wiretap program or their practice of 'extraordinary rendition.' Both are egregious violations of civil rights in the US but they pale in comparison to the shocking implications of US government complicity in the murders of 3000 citizens. It is not possible that such a massive crime against humanity could be kept secret. Even the most monstrous of men have crises of conscience. Someone with access would talk, particularly in this age of instant communication and information access. The operations mentioned by the good professor were all undertaken 50 years ago, when the general population had but a fraction of the tools we have today. If such an operation were to have taken place, Evidence would out. It hasn't. It won't. It's not true. The US was attacked by terrorists bent on sewing fear and confusion amongst the populace. It seems they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. You would honestly have more credibility claiming that humans walked with Dinosaurs and that the Earth is 6000 years old. That's saying something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranoid Marvin Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Ok Bofors, how's this for evidence. The twin towers did collapse, and they were caused by terrorists. However, every time someone finds evidence to support this, FSM changes the figures with his noodly appendage, making you think it was a cover up... You can't disprove it, can you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X-tra Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Money, Power and Corruption is what caused this tragic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSPHax0r9 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Money, Power and Corruption is what caused this tragic. Once again, [citations needed] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts