"100 Critical Points About 9/11 "

Status
Not open for further replies.

mynym

Banned
Banned
You know, the chances of the Titanic hitting an iceburg and sinking in that way is just too remote.

The sinking of the Titanic and the establishment of the Federal Reserve... maybe that's just the tip of the iceberg.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Everyone knows that WTC7 would have been perfectly all right had not WTC1 struck it...

I suspect that everyone would know whatever the bankster's currency trended them toward knowing. Because that's the way that lemmings are, at least until it's time to migrate and they can't all make it through currents in their currencies.

...and the ensuing damage and fire and the fire service's inability to be fight that fire, sprang directly from that impact.



Random note:
Mystery stories are called whodunits, not howdunits, and with good reason. A principal failing of much 9/11 research is that it relentlessly ignores the overarching political questions that might yield knowledge of permanent value suitable for future application, especially when it comes to the fundamental task of blocking new and more dangerous false-flag terror provocations, or new 9/11’s. While the political side is neglected, purely technical questions dominate. This is a kind of scholasticism or hobby pursuit. Often, there is an attempt to transform intrinsically political questions into technical ones. The result is a kind of hyper-technical antiquarianism which is getting farther and farther from current concerns. Without the political dimension, it is not feasible to accost an unemployed and starving man or woman on a bread line after they have been evicted from their home by fraudclosure and announce to them, “Let me tell you about building seven.” (9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in the USA by Webster Griffin Tarpley)
I'm all for hobbies and so forth. But it's important to remember that ultimately someone looked the families in the eyes and misinformed them based on B$ because they were generally more interested in their careers and doughnut breaks with their peer group than investigating the truth and so on.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Successfully, with something better than lies and distractions.

That's ironic. All I would say of this is that if you can't see or even have a glimmer of an understanding about what one of the 911 commissioners called a "30 year conspiracy"* or at least have some way of merely imagining that the official conspiracy theory might be false... well.

I'm all for having a hobby... but to borrow a phrase from SouthPark: "You're gonna have a bad time."

Anyway, at least someone is writing an app to warn us about any drills going on in the area... given how often they go live and so forth. (The number that go live should keep coincidence theorists busy with their hobbies for a while, I'd imagine. It's all a big coincidence. Imagine that!)

*Or as a pet goat put it: "...con... uh, highly organized plot...":
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I suspect that everyone would know whatever the bankster's currency trended them toward knowing. Because that's the way that lemmings are, at least until it's time to migrate and they can't all make it through currents in their currencies.
You are not answering the point. "Banksters" and "lemmings" do not address the logic of the building being struck, burning and then collapsing.

is unremarkable witness account that fits with the evidence.

Which cannot possibly apply when there is an unbreakable chain of logic to the official report indicating a natural course of events.

LOL. Logic and science are such games.

Present company excepted, I'm sure.

These pesky old snappers keep banging on about science, as if it meant something.

Cool Title. Says it all, really.

I'm all for hobbies
I'm all for "hyper-technical antiquarianism", myself. But that's just logic and science when you get down to it.
 

hiper

Active Member
^
@ Jazzy... good job flooding the thread space with meaningless answers.

You know, the chances of the Titanic hitting an iceburg and sinking in that way is just too remote. This happening on it's maiden voyage makes this chance substancially remote. See? Empty assertion based upon no examination of any kind.

This is what you are believing :

Column 79 weakened by fire gave way which initiated local structural failure which progressed to induce building wide structural failure which brought down the building in a controlled demolition like fashion.
This is what I call a remote possibility.

A passenger liner steaming at dark at full speed through an area with reported icebergs strikes one of those icebergs and sinks.
This is what I call a distinct possibility.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
One would have to produce some evidence. Evidence better than primer paint and steel grindings...

NIST was tasked with providing evidence to support the official story and they apparently fulfilled their patriotic duty to the bankster's paper ponzi as best they could given the circumstances.

[...] imagine if it was a controlled demolition though. How would NIST have gone about coming to that conclusion, publishing their information and pushing for that theory? It seems unlikely that they would have been able to keep producing the best simulations that the banker's debt/money could buy. But I'm open to imagining whatever you're imagining about their "investigation." (Why even have an investigation if what happened was already "obvious" (Mick) and you all already knew what happened as a matter of basic knowledge (Jazzy)? That's right, the families had to be told something and shown some simulations... I'd imagine.)
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
Because that would have "obvious" precedent, while imagining or simulating things about fires and working to create the best explanations and simulations that money can buy with that "obvious" conclusion in mind might generate a lot of B$.



You seem to be confusing pseudo-science with science.



In the "perceptions are reality" world of modern magicians who trace their "top secret" roots back to the alchemists and astrologers of old, it doesn't matter when. If they can build numerous buildings throughout the ages that encrypt their beliefs, I'd imagine that they could manage to bring the "Two Towers" down also. Metaphorically speaking, you seem to be feeling that birds of prey are thinking like the lemmings below think. Anyway, as the 911 Commissioner Bob Kerry said the whole event was a "30 year conspiracy":

So that would mean that the conspirators would have had plenty of time. I find it amusing that the first thing people seem to imagine is low level and compartmentalized Israeli patsies running into the building on the day of 9/11 to set bombs. It's more likely that the reason that they were driving around with trucks with murals of the towers being hit painted on the side of them and so forth is to #1: hopefully to trade on their low level inside knowledge of the event to frame Palestinians and promote Zionism or #2: act as the patsies and Jewish scapegoats they could have ultimately been used as.

Imagine this, a collateralize debt obligation in a pyramidal flow chart. At the bottom there's the junk which is high risk (patsies), middle is less risky (handlers)... and at the very top, you'll find those that are too big to fail (the type of people that create money from nothing, etc.)... and they bear almost zero risk and are surrounded by layers of plausible deniability in a joint operation like 911. That's how you know that a guy left to read about pet goats wasn't close to the top. And here he thought he was in the skull and bones (pirates = privateers and mercenaries... duh), etc.


Who decided to build a bank at 33rd Liberty Street, encrypted 33 into the symbol for the U.N., built D.C. in order to reflect their beliefs and so forth?



I'd imagine that if people could manage to build buildings and so forth to reflect their "top secret" beliefs and so forth without many people noticing, that the same type of conspirators could also bring them down.



The evidence of conspiracy lies all around you.

Can you stay on topic?
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
Column 79 weakened by fire gave way which initiated local structural failure which progressed to induce building wide structural failure which brought down the building in a controlled demolition like fashion.
This is what I call a remote possibility.

Could you show your working please, because without it, its just uniformed speculation.
 

hiper

Active Member
Could you show your working please, because without it, its just uniformed speculation.

Maybe you should do some more studying. This is NIST's official explanation of what happened to WTC7.
And maybe stop re-quoting enormous posts for a few words of reply.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
I realize that you're probably incapable of doing this... but imagine if it was a controlled demolition though. How would NIST have gone about coming to that conclusion, publishing their information and pushing for that theory?

Do you imagine there to be an International conspiracy of silence, the world over, including in countries hostile to the US, among demolition experts to secretly keep their beliefs of controlled demolition silent?

The only demolition guy in the world to my knowledge that has endorsed the demolition theory is a guy in Holland, whos 'investigation' consisted of a Youtube video and a single diagram, from his office in the Netherlands. If your theory is sound, why are there not more demolition experts and explosive engineers all falling over themselves with their calculations and models of what they think really happened?
 

hiper

Active Member
If your theory is sound, why are there not more demolition experts and explosive engineers all falling over themselves with their calculations and models of what they think really happened?

You have much to learn about the behavior of people. Humans are group animals or herd animals if you like.
People don't like to be in a minority spot. People don't like to be ridiculed for not belonging to the majority consensus.
Look at the Germans in the 1930's they all except for a few hero's played along only after the war admitting "we didn't know".
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
Maybe you should do some more studying. This is NIST's official explanation of what happened to WTC7.
And maybe stop re-quoting enormous posts for a few words of reply.

I was referring to your calculations of probability. All you have said is that you do not believe it and offered a theory in its place, of controlled demolition. You have done nothing other thatn say 'its obvious' to prove the NIST version untenable. Explain, in technical terms, how it could not have fallen by fire wekening the structure to the point it loses it's integrity.

The chance that fire could bring down a building in this way is remote.
This also happening on 9/11 makes this chance substantially remote.

Demonstrate how this is remote, with actual calculations and not reason-free assertions, please.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
meaningless answers
Fraught with meaning, actually. The basic logic remains unaddressed by both Mynym and yourself. The video verifies NIST. The only political aspects to a natural collapse are revisions to safety standards. Politics, like religion, has no business with science. Mynym then downplayed science to a hobby. He then blatantly accused his "opposition" of the very actions he was carrying out. I then pointed out how aptly his external reference had named itself.

I defy you to classify such answers as "meaningless". Talk about doublespeak!

This is what you are believing: Column 79 weakened by fire gave way which initiated local structural failure which progressed to induce building wide structural failure which brought down the building in a controlled demolition like fashion. This is what I call a remote possibility.
I'd agree with that as remote possibility. But it isn't what I believe at all. Nor does that follow the NIST Report.

The fire in the WTC progressed through 16 floors for 7 hours. This progression depended on the moment-by-moment availability of FUEL and AIR. This meant that the steel work was slowly soaked with heat, even when the fire progressed away from it. Insulation to keep heat out works just as well keeping the heat in. With 2 hr protection it would have been progressively less safe thereafter. The process of plastic deformation of steel begins at a temperature of 475 deg C and speeds up as the temperature rises above that. The hottest and most heavily-loaded elements begin to unload their stresses and deform. Their loads were slowly transferred to all the surrounding steelwork over time, accounting for all the reported creaking, sagging, and bulging.

Long span beams above any long-standing fire area had the ability to expand beyond their constraints, putting in this case column 79 into an unstable condition. With two floor connections removed, and possibly suffering some lateral displacement, Column 79's column stabilty would have fallen to a ninth of its previous value, while soaking at a temperature (in excess of 600 deg C) which had halved its strength. That is so far outside building safety factors as to make its failure inevitable.

It was piling wreckage which drove the bridge beam off its foundations, which caused the remaining columns standing on it to topple, and thus collapse the whole remaining interior.

A passenger liner steaming at dark at full speed through an area with reported icebergs strikes one of those icebergs and sinks.
This is what I call a distinct possibility.
But not an inevitability.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
You are not answering the point. "Banksters" and "lemmings" do not address the logic of the building being struck, burning and then collapsing.

Title of the thread: (100 Critical Points About 911)

is unremarkable witness account that fits with the evidence.

If that were the case then it's unlikely that Hess would have changed his account and so forth.

In addition to the foregoing statements from people who witnessed explosions from outside of WTC 7 as it started to collapse, we have testimonies from two men who reported experiencing explosions while they were in the building early in the morning. These two testimonies are of special importance, not only because they referred to explosions early in the day, but also because they were given by two city officials. The Testimony of Michael Hess One of these officials was Michael Hess, who at the time was New York City’s corporation counsel. As such, he was the chief lawyer for the city, supervising its law department, which had over 600 attorneys. [...]
Jennings expressed no doubt about his statement that what they experienced was an explosion in WTC 7. Besides calling it “an explosion,” he specified that it happened “beneath” him and that it was powerful enough to cause landing on which he was standing to give way. Jennings was also certain that what he considered an explosion beneath him could not have been simply effects from the collapse of one of the towers. During the interview, Dylan Avery pointed out that, according to defenders of the official story, “the whole reason that Building 7 collapsed… is because the North Tower fell onto it and caused damage. And what people are going to say is… that Barry was hit by debris from the North Tower.” Jennings replied: “No. What happened was, when we made it back to the 8th floor, as I told you earlier, both buildings were still standing.”53 Jennings clearly rejected Giuliani’s claim, therefore, that it was debris from the North Tower collapse... [...]
whereas Giuliani had claimed that the two men were trapped because of damage caused by the collapse of the North Tower, Jennings stated that the North Tower and even the South Tower collapsed only after an explosion had caused them to become trapped. What Jennings called “an explosion” beneath him could not, therefore, have simply been some effects created in WTC 7 by the collapse of the North Tower. He and Hess clearly describing an explosion that occurred in WTC 7 approximately an hour before the 10:28 collapse of the North Tower. Moreover, besides reporting the big explosion that knocked the landing out from under them, Jennings spoke of further explosions. Referring to the time the two men were trapped, waiting for firefighters to rescue them, Jennings said: “All this time, I’m hearing all type of explosions. All this time, I’m hearing explosions.”57 Jennings also reported that, when he was taken down to the lobby of WTC 7, he was amazed by what he saw: When they finally got to us and they took us down to what they called the lobby—’cause I asked them when we got down there, “Where are we?” he said, “This was the lobby,” and I said, “You got to be kidding me.” It was total ruins, total ruins. Now keep in mind, when I came in there, the lobby had nice escalators, it was a huge lobby, and for me to see what I saw, it was unbelievable.58 He later added: “[T]he lobby was totally destroyed. It looked like King Kong* had came through and stepped on it. And it was so destroyed I didn’t know where I was. (The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7: Why the Final Report About 9/11 is Unscientific and False by David Ray Griffin)
*That's for the bomb guy.


LOL. Logic and science are such games.

You seem to be confusing your pseudo-science with science.

These pesky old snappers keep banging on about science, as if it meant something.

You seem to be confusing scientific consensus and so forth with science:
The scholars whom we shall quote in such impressive numbers, like those others who were instrumental in any other part of the German pre-war and war efforts, were to a large extent people of long and high standing, university professors and academy members, some of them world famous, authors with familiar names and guest lecturers abroad. If the products of their research work... strike us as unconvincing and hollow, this weakness is due not to inferior training but to the mendacity inherent in any scholarship that... by standing order, knows exactly its ultimate conclusions well in advance. (Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in
Germany’s Crimes Against the Jewish People
by Max Weinreich
(New York:The Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946) :7)
Ironically... if the conclusion was always "obvious" or already known by standing order then why bother having an "investigation" in the first place?

But that's just logic and science when you get down to it.

It would seem that you're too busy with saying that you're being scientific to actually engage the evidence and so forth.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Just take a good sober look at this picture from NIST and try not to laugh...
It's no wonder they refuse to release the input data of this monstrosity.


So Mick, are you suggesting this is a 'perfectly reasonable' simulation of what a collapse of 7 would have looked like if it had simply caught fire and did not have the impact damage on the corner?

Is there a rendered version of this?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mynym

Banned
Banned
he basic logic remains unaddressed by both Mynym and yourself. The video verifies NIST.

NIST designed their simulations to explain the videos and evidence in a way that would be consistent with the official story, just as they were paid to do. The video can't be used to verify their claims when they're structuring their simulations in order to explain it. The only thing that would allow for falsification of their "obvious" claims is allowing for different hypotheses and theories. You generally seem to want verification without allowing for falsification, a hallmark of pseudo-science.

Politics, like religion, has no business with science.

I'd like to see you try to separate the bankster's paper ponzi from science. $afety first!

Mynym then downplayed science to a hobby.

Not really, I'm downplaying some elements of both 911 truth and the "debunking" community to a hobby. And with respect to debunking, that's what Mick has already stated. So there's no use getting offended about it now.

He then blatantly accused his "opposition" of the very actions he was carrying out.

Politicizing the science/hobby aspect of it and trying to build models with toothpicks with flags on them for Team America, World Police?

Not at all.

I'd much rather the official story be true so it took me a number of years to change my mind and so forth. Also, I'm generally more interested in history and the truth than the art of politics at this point. I'm all for believing that you can change the world or that what we do is important before we go the way of the Dodo. But... seriously... if you were to change your mind or I were to change my mind back again, that would be pretty meaningless overall. Plus it might be boring because then we wouldn't disagree.
 

hiper

Active Member
I was referring to your calculations of probability. All you have said is that you do not believe it and offered a theory in its place, of controlled demolition. You have done nothing other thatn say 'its obvious' to prove the NIST version untenable. Explain, in technical terms, how it could not have fallen by fire wekening the structure to the point it loses it's integrity.

A local fire causing a controlled demolition like collapse of a building is a very unique event. Everyone understands this...no need for calculations here.
This very unique event happening on 9/11 of all days is not a coincidence.

Demonstrate how this is remote, with actual calculations and not reason-free assertions, please.

So now you are saying it's not a remote possibility? Are you saying it's quite common for fires to have such effects on buildings?
You are the one inverting reason not me.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
You have much to learn about the behavior of people. Humans are group animals or herd animals if you like.
People don't like to be in a minority spot. People don't like to be ridiculed for not belonging to the majority consensus.
Look at the Germans in the 1930's they all except for a few hero's played along only after the war admitting "we didn't know".

So your explaination is that they all know but no-one wants to speak out? Even French demolition experts? How about South African? What would stop an Iranian demolition expert speaking out?

Thanks for the psychology lesson, but you did not answer the question. Do you belive there is a code of silence amongst explosive engineers?
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
If your theory is sound, why are there not more demolition experts and explosive engineers all falling over themselves with their calculations and models of what they think really happened?

Why in the world would you imagine that they would do that? Can you cite historical evidence which shows that's generally how people would behave if/when an official story is false?

It seems to me that there's more evidence that most would electrocute other people to death if that's what "officials" told them to do. (It must be the uniforms, the printed word, etc. Authority and the chain of command/obedience and all that, I'd imagine.) Yet one can't imagine that they'd generally trend toward going along with an official story given a scientific gloss?
 

hiper

Active Member
So your explaination is that they all know but no-one wants to speak out? Even French demolition experts? How about South African? What would stop an Iranian demolition expert speaking out?
Thanks for the psychology lesson, but you did not answer the question. Do you belive there is a code of silence amongst explosive engineers?

There is a difference between knowing it was an controlled demolition and putting your job & income on the line by speaking out in public about this. I am sure you understand what I am talking about.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The chance that fire could bring down a building in this way is remote.
This also happening on 9/11 makes this chance substantially remote.

That does not really make any sense, from a probability perspective. The fire happened on 9/11, so the chance of it happening on that day are infinitely higher than on any other day.

Fires do not randomly bring down buildings on days that the buildings are not on fire.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
There is a difference between knowing it was an controlled demolition and putting your job & income on the line by speaking out in public about this. I am sure you understand what I am talking about.


Mate, if I thought it was a controlled demolition, and I could prove it, or even put together a coherant theory of how it was done, Id scream my lungs out.

Once again, your argument seems to suggest that an entire community of professionals the world-over, including retirees, are too cowardly to support your theory, rather than your theory in unworthy of support.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Why in the world would you imagine that they would do that? Can you cite historical evidence which shows that's generally how people would behave if/when an official story is false?

It seems to me that there's more evidence that most would electrocute other people to death if that's what "officials" told them to do. (It must be the uniforms, the printed word, etc. Authority and the chain of command/obedience and all that, I'd imagine.) Yet one can't imagine that they'd generally trend toward going along with an official story given a scientific gloss?

Good example but 2nd and 3rd part is even more revealing.

 

hiper

Active Member
That does not really make any sense, from a probability perspective. The fire happened on 9/11, so the chance of it happening on that day are infinitely higher than on any other day.

Fires do not randomly bring down buildings on days that the buildings are not on fire.

The unique event of fire causing a building to collapse in a controlled demolition like fashion could probably only have happened on 9/11.
Don't you see the connection.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Just stumbled across this, it's fairly compelling as far as falsifying the controlled demolition theory:
Seismographs at Columbia University’s Lam

ont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades,
New York, recorded the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7. This data was later released to
the public and currently appears on their website. Additionally, on 9/11 Protec field
technicians were utilizing portable field seismographs to continuously record ground
vibrations on several construction sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn for liability purposes.

In all cases where seismographs detected the collapses, waveform readings indicate a
single, gradually ascending and descending level of ground vibration during the event.
At no point during 9/11 were sudden or independent vibration “spikes” documented by
any seismograph, and we are unaware of any entity possessing such data.

This evidence makes a compelling argument agai
nst explosive demolition. The laws of
physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have
transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would
certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough
to record the structural collapses. However, a detailed analysis of all available data
reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration events.
Implosion World
 

Rroval

Member
You have much to learn about the behavior of people. Humans are group animals or herd animals if you like.
People don't like to be in a minority spot. People don't like to be ridiculed for not belonging to the majority consensus.
Look at the Germans in the 1930's they all except for a few hero's played along only after the war admitting "we didn't know".

Godwin's Law once again....

I think conspiracy theorist psychology that they want to believe in this so much because they don't like random events and they think everything in politics or large events have a purpose behind them towards one big plot or very most likely conspiracy theorists have a reactionary agenda behind them since what I notice that conspiracy theorists seem to idolize a "American Golden Age" that never existed that they seem to want to "take us back to".
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
Why in the world would you imagine that they would do that? Can you cite historical evidence which shows that's generally how people would behave if/when an official story is false?

It seems to me that there's more evidence that most would electrocute other people to death if that's what "officials" told them to do. (It must be the uniforms, the printed word, etc. Authority and the chain of command/obedience and all that, I'd imagine.) Yet one can't imagine that they'd generally trend toward going along with an official story given a scientific gloss?

Nice diversion, but the Milgram experiment was an appeal to authority. So CTers around the world can scream foul at every single event that occurs, to absurd proportions, but not a single explosive Engineer is amongst them? Just please confirm I am understanding your logic - the reason no explosive engineers susbscribe to A&E or infowars, is because they are ALL brainwashed cowards?

Even the foreign and retired ones?
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Mate, if I thought it was a controlled demolition, and I could prove it, or even put together a coherant theory of how it was done, Id scream my lungs out.

Yup. It might have been a type of weapon we don't even know about. There was an element of hopelessness in the 911 commissioner's voice when he talked about a "30 year conspiracy." Lemmings can't even get a budget passed for the next few months, let alone bring together enough resources and so forth to have a Pentagon built on 9/11 and then strike it with a plane later and so forth. Although, I can only imagine what people could do with the 2.3 trillion dollars that Rumsfeld reported unaccounted for the day before 911.

Reading about it more, it would seem to me that the controlled demolition theory has been falsified. At least, that's the way I would imagine it.

In any event, the curious thing about it... if a big enough bird of prey appears in the sky and a shadow falls on the land below then all the lemmings will finally look up toward the top of things instead of squabbling over seeds on the ground while trying to "get to the bottom of it."
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So Mick, are you suggesting this is a 'perfectly reasonable' simulation of what a collapse of 7 would have looked like if it had simply caught fire and did not have the impact damage on the corner?

Is there a rendered version of this?

It's a simulation of what it MIGHT have looked like, because it's a complex system with a very large number of unknowns you can't say what it WOULD have looked like. The simulation also omitted minor elements like partition walls which would have some effect on the appearance of the end result.



Have you ever played pool? If you set up the balls, then break, the balls will end up in a particular position. If you then set them up again, in what seems to be exactly the same position, and break in what seems like exactly the same way, then the balls will end up in a different position. This is because small variations in the initial conditions are rapidly magnified in a dynamic system, especially one that involved collisions.

The collapse of the building involved a lot of collisions, but it also involved a vast amount of unknown variables. It' hard to predict what will happen, but you can give a fairly accurate broad forecast. A bit like predicting the weather. You can tell if it's going to rain tomorrow, but you can't tell what the clouds will look like.
 

hiper

Active Member
This is what NIST wants people to believe happened to WTC7...
You guys are very lucky to have such a competent institution backing you up.


wtc7.jpg
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Doesn't apply to thermite though.

However thermite can be discounted by observing where the WTC1&2 collapses initiated - on the floors that were on fire. And then by physics showing us there's no need for anything on the lower floors.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This is what NIST wants people to believe happened to WTC7...
You guys are very lucky to have such a competent institution backing you up.


View attachment 3129

You mock, yet don't explain what the problem is.

Of course it does not look exactly like what happened. I explain above why it would not. NIST explain in more detail:

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

I'm curious, hiper, Oxy, mynym, have you read this FAQ?
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
I think conspiracy theorist psychology that they want to believe in this so much because they don't like random events and they think everything in politics or large events have a purpose behind them towards one big plot or very most likely conspiracy theorists have a reactionary agenda behind them since what I notice that conspiracy theorists seem to idolize a "American Golden Age" that never existed that they seem to want to "take us back to".

Interesting conspiracy theory... about conspiracy theorists and so forth, couldn't see that coming due to the pattern of your thought.

In any event, it seems to me that America has been trading on hopium and change ever since Washington fought under the flag of the British East India company. Notice how the peasants apparently got out of line and thought that the rebellion was their own, thus their Whiskey Rebellion and so forth. But I still give the Founders a lot of credit, for various reasons.
 

hiper

Active Member
You mock, yet don't explain what the problem is.

Of course I mock. Look at what NIST did.

They set fire as the main cause of collapse, ignore the physical evidence and than produce a 3D model they manipulate and tweak to support their theory and afterwards ask us to take everything on good faith. :D
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
I'm curious, hiper, Oxy, mynym, have you read this FAQ?

Yup... I think that your main problem with me comes from the fact that you apparently began with it's "obvious" that debris and fires brought the building down.

That seems like a failure of imagination to me. Important, because the only way to falsify your "obvious" hypothesis is with a different hypothesis. Therefore, the only way to verify or build up your hypothesis is investigating all possibilities that allow for its falsification. That's why the first thing I tried to do was to get you to imagine things, etc.

I would be careful with what seems obvious. After all, the greatest barrier to progress in knowledge is not ignorance but an illusion of knowledge... and I wouldn't be surprised if the 911 truth movement itself had some lessons with respect to that eventually.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Interesting conspiracy theory... about conspiracy theorists and so forth, couldn't see that coming due to the pattern of your thought.

In any event, it seems to me that America has been trading on hopium and change ever since Washington fought under the flag of the British East India company. Notice how the peasants apparently got out of line and thought that the rebellion was their own, thus their Whiskey Rebellion and so forth. But I still give the Founders a lot of credit.

Anyway, do you believe the Masonic/Darwinian creation myths in which the brain events that cause you to imagine that conspiracy theorists are conspiring to bring about a reactionary agenda themselves reduce to the mating habits of ancient ape-like creatures and so forth? Those willing to imagine Darwinian creation myths* must have an odd view of the world overall. The ultimate coincidence theorists, to a man... I'd imagine. In any event, notice how the Masonic networks of the ruling class and the eugenicists didn't even change their "order out of chaos" memes that much in the modern creation myths that they gave others. Because apparently there's a sucker born every minute, mainly because we're mammals. (At least according to Linnaeus's way of classifying things, mainly because he wanted to promote breast feeding to mammas.)

*Because the old believers said that God came out of the sky, thereby connecting the Earth with events outside it, the new believers were obliged to say the opposite... (Hoyle?)

...and modern priests of knowledge have been getting to the bottom of things ever since... too bad that doing so seems to leave them imagining that the brains events that cause them to imagine things have to do with the mating habits of ancient worm-like creatures, leaving them with excrement for brains when it comes to certain events and patterns. Who says that all the old magicians are dead* or that alchemists and astrologers are all merely entertainers? Science, it's the epistemic gold standard. (Too bad about the tungsten, these days.)

*Or that they became purely scientific chemists and astronomers.

This is a ramble. If you'd like to ramble, then go elsewhere.
 

hiper

Active Member
I would be careful with what seems obvious. After all, the greatest barrier to progress in knowledge is not ignorance but an illusion of knowledge... and I wouldn't be surprised if the 911 truth movement itself had some lessons with respect to that eventually.

The official government explanation of what happened on 9/11 is what they want people to believe... you can be sure of that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top