War on terrorism , 9-11, Iluminati etc

weisses

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't know much about it, I can see why they wouldn't want to release data on the weaknesses of American buildings.

That is an easy way out ... It has nothing to do with safety ... The model was fabricated so it could explain a theory ... nothing more .... that is not a very scientific/evidence based approach in investigating one of the biggest murder scenes ever. also remember such information should be available to engineers/architects make future and existing buildings safer. AFAIK no major change in building regulations did occur after 9/11

ScumLord wrote: »

America doesn't do itself any favors when it comes to these conspiracy theories. Despite being the most powerful country in the world they seem to live in a constant state of fear.

I think they want people to live in a certain state of fear (people are more manageable then)
And by it they created a way to push on with the patriot act

ScumLord wrote: »

They withhold information possibly because it reflects badly on the US government but also out of fear the information could possibly used against America and it's interests. It will probably be 50 years before we can get have a sensible discussion and investigation into 9/11, it wouldn't surprise me if they had to wait until everyone involved is dead.

And what does the above say in relation to Conspiracy theory's ? .. The way i read it is that they can be true but just ridicule them for 50 years

Amount of money allocated for the 1986 Challenger disaster investigation: $75 million
Amount of money allocated for the 2004 Columbia disaster investigation: $50 million
Amount of money allocated for Clinton-Lewinsky investigation: $40 million
Amount of money allocated for the 9/11 Commission: $14 million

To me the above means that they don't want it to be investigated properly

ScumLord wrote: »

No I never mentioned Colin Powell, all I did was discredit the people who claim they know what happened for a fact despite having the least amount of information.

Colin Powell had an obligation to tell the truth ... He didn't

ScumLord wrote: »

And now you've ran off with your own incorrect interpretation of what I've said and expanded it. This is how conspiracies start.

You tried to paint the CT er as someone who are not reliable sources and it's scary how others start regurgitating their fantasies as fact. Once it get's past the original loon and is being spread by ordinary people to their friends and family it seems to take on an air of credibility.
That's hilarious.

Colin Powell should be a reliable source but he was regurgitating government fantasies as fact Once it get's past the original loon (UN) and is being spread by ordinary people to their friends and family (UN Council mainsteam media) it seems to take on an air of credibility.

See what i did there ?

ScumLord wrote: »

That has no bearing on the credibility of the people spouting conspiracy theories.

Nor has it on people who treats all conspiracy theorists the same without actually checking what was said.

RecordStraight

DamagedTrax wrote: »

you come across as an uneducated, ignorant dick who resorts to sidestepping and ranting, not because they're angry but because they havent got the intelligence to accept anything that hasnt been shoved down their throat by whatever shiny packaged tv station they watch (ill guess sky news but it could be anything).

Can I refer you once again to the Duning-Kruger effect article on Wikipedia?

I won't bother laying out my educational credentials for you. I assure you, they are a lot better than yours.

weisses

RecordStraight wrote: »

Gravity?

I get it my question was to difficult for you ?

Let me know when your ready to talk facts and science ... I will be here

DamagedTrax

RecordStraight wrote: »

I won't bother laying out my educational credentials for you. I assure you, they are a lot better than yours.

my point proven.

weisses

ScumLord wrote: »

Yes, that's how it wors on the internet, forget the training and experimentation just work off assumptions.

What am I assuming ? I thought it was a known fact those buildings collapsed due to kerosene heating the beams w ( building 7 office fires alone)

ScumLord wrote: »

Yes, it is absurd to think that setting a building on fire is the same as a controlled demolition. It should be obvious what the differences and benefits are.

Not regarding to those 3 buildings ... somehow people believe its perfectly normal that a few office fires and some jet fuel can make buildings almost collapse in their own footprint .... ( now that is absurd)

weisses

caustic 1 wrote: »

Do windmills count?

Bit tough to hit the blades

caustic 1

Cianmcliam wrote: »

There was 30% off chemtrails concentrate in Woodies yesterday.

We don't have Woodies silly.

caustic 1

Wurzelbert wrote: »

was it a russian bomber?

How would I know ..but I wasn't the only one to see them it's on local radio.

RecordStraight

DamagedTrax wrote: »

my point proven.

You probably shouldn't claim someone is uneducated if you aren't better educated than they are.

I think my Duning-Kruger point is thereby proven.

On an unrelated point, isn't it amazing how aggressive and frustrated Conspiracy Theorists become once their pet beliefs are exposed to the real world, outside the protected reserve of the CT forum where people are obliged to pretend to take them seriously? :pac:

RecordStraight

weisses wrote: »

I get it my question was to difficult for you ?

Let me know when your ready to talk facts and science ... I will be here

You asked for a scientific fact to explain the collapse of tower 7. I gave you one, or is the Theory of Gravity also under suspicion as a Jewish conspiracy?

DamagedTrax

RecordStraight wrote: »

You probably shouldn't claim someone is uneducated if you aren't better educated than they are.

I think my Duning-Kruger point is thereby proven.

well i hate to beat a worn path here but unfortunately for you, i claimed you come across as uneducated, not that i was better educated.

infact i do believe you started going on about education credentials without having the first clue about who i am.

so yes you have proven dunning-kruger.. just not in the way you think you did.

i observed. you made a claim.

RecordStraight

DamagedTrax wrote: »

well i hate to beat a worn path here but unfortunately for you, i claimed you come across as uneducated, not that i was better educated.

infact i do believe you started going on about education credentials without having the first clue about who i am.

so yes you have proven dunning-kruger.. just not in the way you think you did.

i observed. you made a claim.

I see you are of the Jesuitical school of debate. Fair play.

weisses

RecordStraight wrote: »

You asked for a scientific fact to explain the collapse of tower 7. I gave you one, or is the Theory of Gravity also under suspicion as a Jewish conspiracy?

I asked How ... Gravity was doing its work for over 20 years already without incidents

Wurzelbert

RecordStraight wrote: »

Which conspiracy theorist 'researcher' was it that exposed Powell's fiction? Was it Alex Jones? David Icke?

Who was it?

i think colin powell did believe what he was talking about...remember that large quantities of iraqi wmd were unaccounted for at that time...and i think still are...

RecordStraight

weisses wrote: »

I asked How ... Gravity was doing its work for over 20 years already without incidents

Well clearly there were other factors at work other than gravity. I was only asked for one.

Can you explain the collapse in a way that doesn't require is to swallow some vast conspiracy that involves thousands of unproven, unsubstantiated and illogical assumptions? So many of them that a little confusion over the exact mechanism of the WTC7 collapse looks like a mere drop in the ocean?

weisses

Cianmcliam wrote: »

In the videos you can see the penthouse on the roof collapsing into the hollow part of the building where fire and structural damage has caused the columns and floors to cave in below it. This happens several seconds before the outer shell of the building starts to fall without any signs or sounds of explosions necessary for a demolition.

Bolded part is assumed ... never proven

Somehow the whole interior collapsed without showing any visible effects on the outside ?

How do you explain 58 outer columns giving away almost simultaneously resulting in free fall acceleration

Wurzelbert

weisses wrote: »

I asked How ... Gravity was doing its work for over 20 years already without incidents

could structural damage by falling debris and an unchecked blaze have changed things maybe

whatstherush

weisses wrote: »

What am I assuming ? I thought it was a known fact those buildings collapsed due to kerosene heating the beams w ( building 7 office fires alone)

Your missing the planes that flew into them also. Does the kinetic energy of a 767 flying at a couple of 100 miles an hour not come into your equation at all?

DamagedTrax

whatstherush wrote: »

Does the kinetic energy of a 767 flying at a couple of 100 miles an hour not come into your equation at all?

on any other building it would definitely matter but the twin towers were designed specifically for withstanding that scenario.

maybe the werent built as well as was claimed. again another thing that can never be investigated because the evidence was destroyed.

whatstherush

DamagedTrax wrote: »

on any other building it would definitely matter but the twin towers were designed specifically for withstanding that scenario.
.

Linky please?

weisses

RecordStraight wrote: »

Well clearly there were other factors at work other than gravity. I was only asked for one.

Can you explain the collapse in a way that doesn't require is to swallow some vast conspiracy that involves thousands of unproven, unsubstantiated and illogical assumptions? So many of them that a little confusion over the exact mechanism of the WTC7 collapse looks like a mere drop in the ocean?

No ... the answer a question with a question forum is located elsewhere

What scientifically used/proven FACT regarding as to how building 7 collapsed can you come up with ?

I mean it was investigated it shouldn't be hard for you to find ... Just one tip .. try to give a broadly scientifically accepted answer (preferably peer reviewed)... Good luck

DamagedTrax

whatstherush wrote: »

Linky please?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html#engineers

includes quotes from engineers that were involved in the design.

weisses

whatstherush wrote: »

Linky please?

Not really rocket science to search

https://www.google.ie/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=wtc%20designed%20to%20withstand%20plane%20hit

ScumLord

weisses wrote: »

Not regarding to those 3 buildings ... somehow people believe its perfectly normal that a few office fires and some jet fuel can make buildings almost collapse in their own footprint .... ( now that is absurd)

It's not just jet fuel and fire though, a few thousand tons of builds smashed into the ground and sent debris flying. There could have been all sorts of foundation damage from the force of those two buildings hitting the ground.


I'm not arguing that the Americans handled this anything other than horribly, although I haven't actually followed or looked into it in great detail so I'm assuming your correct on your facts and it's not going to be that the actual report has been ignored in favour of hysterics.

Maybe some shady things happened, maybe the Americans had real security reasons for withholding the information, but most of the conspiracies are just too wild and based on little more than biased guesses by people that have problems trusting anything that isn't part of a global conspiracy theory.

whatstherush

weisses wrote: »

Not really rocket science to search

https://www.google.ie/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=wtc%20designed%20to%20withstand%20plane%20hit

So back to original point when you quoted someone in your demolition expert post
"If fire from kerosene (jet fuel) and office debris were sufficient equipment to bring a steel-frame building neatly down into its footprint, then why the need for the intensely sophisticated demolition industry? "

Does the the kinetic energy of a 767 flying into the building not come in to play? The quote you posted above doesn't mention so are agreeing with quote?

DeanAustin

DamagedTrax wrote: »

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html#engineers

includes quotes from engineers that were involved in the design.

Do you really believe that something other than the planes brought down the towers?

DamagedTrax

DeanAustin wrote: »

Do you really believe that something other than the planes brought down the towers?

who knows. but when the engineers who built it claim it could withstand planes, then questions should have been asked. but when you ship the evidence off quickly, the questions just go unanswered.

RecordStraight

weisses wrote: »

No ... the answer a question with a question forum is located elsewhere

What scientifically used/proven FACT regarding as to how building 7 collapsed can you come up with ?

I mean it was investigated it shouldn't be hard for you to find ... Just one tip .. try to give a broadly scientifically accepted answer (preferably peer reviewed)... Good luck

I did. Gravity. It is a pretty well accepted theory these days.

I await your answer - unless this is the 'ask questions and refuse to answer any' forum...

DeanAustin

DamagedTrax wrote: »

who knows. but when the engineers who built it claim it could withstand planes, then questions should have been asked. but when you ship the evidence off quickly, the questions just go unanswered.

What would Bush or his people have to gain by doing it?

How would they have planned it and carried it out without someone opening their mouth?

It's fine to say something was designed to withstand the impact of a plane but surely that couldn't have been and wasn't actually tested?

ScumLord

DeanAustin wrote: »

What would Bush or his people have to gain by doing it?

I assume it was a master plan to steal all the oil, even though America has now managed to secure its oil requirements through indigenous fracking and they could well be considered world leaders in electric car technology thanks to Tesla.

Really America having loads of oil does their oil barons no good, they want oil to be rare and expensive.

It's fine to say something was designed to withstand the impact of a plane but surely that couldn't have been and wasn't actually tested?

It's all theory until someone actually crashes a plane into it. The designers probably thought it was a test the building would never go through.

RecordStraight

DamagedTrax wrote: »

who knows. but when the engineers who built it claim it could withstand planes, then questions should have been asked. but when you ship the evidence off quickly, the questions just go unanswered.

They tried to design it to sustain the accidental impact of a 707, at a speed consistent with taking off or landing at a New York airport. They did not design it for a bigger plane crashing into it at 510 knots. The 767 weighs about 80% more (empty). As you are aware, the formula for kinetic energy is K = 1/2(mv^2). If you double the velocity, you get four times the energy.

So you have a stronger, much heavier plane travelling far faster than might have been expected. It's probably not an exaggeration to say that the total energy hitting the twin towers could have been 8-10 times more than what the designers originally designed it to survive.

(Of course, this assumes that they actually designed it right in the first place - they couldn't exactly test it)

HTH.

DamagedTrax

DeanAustin wrote: »

What would Bush or his people have to gain by doing it?

i dont believe they 'did' it. i believe they let it happen to gain entry into a war and to push the patriot act thru.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger

How would they have planned it and carried it out without someone opening their mouth?

see above. the CIA were following the 'hijackers' for a year before hand and knew it was happening... but nobody opened their mouth.

It's fine to say something was designed to withstand the impact of a plane but surely that couldn't have been and wasn't actually tested?

well a b52 hit the empire state on the 18th floor and didnt bring it down but thats a different building.

i agree that they could easily have been badly designed/built and didnt stand up to the designers promises. investigating the evidence would have probably shown this.. and we're back to why did they ship the evidence off and recycle it before it was examined properly?

DeanAustin

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i dont believe they 'did' it. i believe they let it happen to gain entry into a war and to push the patriot act thru.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger

So what is the "it" they let happen?

RecordStraight

DamagedTrax wrote: »

well a b52 hit the empire state on the 18th floor and didnt bring it down but thats a different building.

It was a B25. They weigh about 9 tons, and they are slow (cruising at 200 knots), propeller driven WW2 aircraft. Not 120 ton jets travelling at 600mph. You can work out the difference in kinetic energy involved from the formula.

DamagedTrax

DeanAustin wrote: »

So what is the "it" they let happen?

the event.

able danger proved the CIA had the hijackers clearly in their sights. they would have known that they were at the airport about to carry out the hijackings.. this is the CIA we're talking about, not the hardy boys. they knew.

weisses

Wurzelbert wrote: »

could structural damage by falling debris and an unchecked blaze have changed things maybe

Nope as I said earlier Debris falling from the tower did not contributed to the collapse of WTC 7 (NIST)

DeanAustin

DamagedTrax wrote: »

the event.

able danger proved the CIA had the hijackers clearly in their sights. they would have known that they were at the airport about to carry out the hijackings.. this is the CIA we're talking about, not the hardy boys. they knew.

But what do you believe that "the event" was. What do you believe brought down the towers? The planes or something else?

weisses

whatstherush wrote: »

Your missing the planes that flew into them also. Does the kinetic energy of a 767 flying at a couple of 100 miles an hour not come into your equation at all?

Not in relation to Building 7

DamagedTrax

RecordStraight wrote: »

It was a B25. They weigh about 9 tons, and they are slow (cruising at 200 knots), propeller driven WW2 aircraft. Not 120 ton jets travelling at 600mph. You can work out the difference in kinetic energy involved from the formula.

and i said

but thats a different building

.

seriously m8, just block me. ive no interest in talking to you. you cant hold an adult discussion.

RecordStraight

DamagedTrax wrote: »

and i said .

seriously m8, just block me. ive no interest in talking to you. you cant hold an adult discussion.

Nah, it's grand. I'll just continue to point out your mistakes and the massive holes in your arguments.

Carry on.

DamagedTrax

DeanAustin wrote: »

But what do you believe that "the event" was. What do you believe brought down the towers? The planes or something else?

ive no idea. i know the planes wouldnt have helped at all. after that i dont have any expertise, i can only look at the two sides and decide which to believe based on who puts across the most logical case.

i dont think that the towers were a controlled explosion. but there is a possibility that they were helped on the way down by some sort of explosive or highly incendiary material.

there are experts on both sides with valid arguments. the 911 commision report is not a valid investigation in my eyes.

RecordStraight

DamagedTrax wrote: »

ive no idea. i know the planes wouldnt have helped at all.

200 tons of plane flying into buildings is indeed rarely helpful to their structural integrity.

Agreement at last.

weisses

whatstherush wrote: »

Does the the kinetic energy of a 767 flying into the building not come in to play? The quote you posted above doesn't mention so are agreeing with quote?

Only problem is building 7 fell the same way .... Other problem is the supposed heat generated by these fires was not enough to buckle the beams ....

I agree with your point regarding the planes hitting the towers and the collapse

DeanAustin

DamagedTrax wrote: »

ive no idea. i know the planes wouldnt have helped at all. after that i dont have any expertise, i can only look at the two sides and decide which to believe based on who puts across the most logical case.

i dont think that the towers were a controlled explosion. but there is a possibility that they were helped on the way down by some sort of explosive or highly incendiary material.

there are experts on both sides with valid arguments. the 911 commision report is not a valid investigation in my eyes.

So who do you think could have planted the 'explosive or highly incendiary material' and what was their motivation?

ScumLord

weisses wrote: »

Nope as I said earlier Debris falling from the tower did not contributed to the collapse of WTC 7 (NIST)

How do you know that? Were you part of some investigation committee?

RecordStraight

weisses wrote: »

Only problem is building 7 fell the same way .... Other problem is the supposed heat generated by these fires was not enough to buckle the beams ....

I agree with your point regarding the planes hitting the towers and the collapse

Seems very odd that they would arrange for huge effing planes to bring down two buildings, and then wire ONE other building for a controlled demolition. I think I asked this earlier but it was ignored: why bother to do that? Why not just wire up all three?

Or why bother to bring down WTC7 at all when - due to the collapse of WTC1+2, the whole area was going to need to be torn down anyway?

The conspiracy theory has far more holes that the official story.

Edit: The conspiracy theorIES have far more holes that the official story.

whatstherush

weisses wrote: »

Not in relation to Building 7

Your quote specifically mentions kerosene, which would be one of the twin towers?
"If fire from kerosene (jet fuel) and office debris were sufficient equipment to bring a steel-frame building neatly down into its footprint, then why the need for the intensely sophisticated demolition industry?"

So do you agree with the quote you posted in your demolition expert post?

weisses

ScumLord wrote: »

but most of the conspiracies are just too wild and based on little more than biased guesses by people that have problems trusting anything that isn't part of a global conspiracy theory.

I get your point

I do not think you talk about the people listed in the link below

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

I think its important to differentiate the different conspiracy theorists

DamagedTrax

DeanAustin wrote: »

So who do you think could have planted the 'explosive or highly incendiary material' and what was their motivation?

the world trade centre had thousands of workers and was undergoing elevator work just before the attack (source NSIT report). it would have been easy for a small covert team to be working within the structure in the months leading up to it.

motivation is as i stated above - re-entry into middle east wars and getting the patriot act thru.

RecordStraight

weisses wrote: »

I get your point

I do not think you talk about the people listed in the link below

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

I think its important to differentiate the different conspiracy theorists

On a side note, I detest people who wrap themselves in flags and declare themselves 'patriots', as if that somehow makes them better people than those who don't. Whip the flag off a patriot, and there's usually an arsehole under there somewhere.