Je suis Omar Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 This is in reference to the controlled demolitions that took place on September 11, 2001, where three buildings, WTC 1, 2 & 7 were demolished by as yet unknown individuals. I really have to wonder why so many individuals are completely reluctant to discuss these scientific issues. As one engineer from A&E for 911 Truth has stated, and I paraphrase, You don't need to be an architect or engineer to see that these buildings were brought down by explosives. The conspiracy of silence reminds one of a totalitarian society. Surely that's not what we have become, is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 This is in reference to the controlled demolitions that took place on September 11, 2001, where three buildings, WTC 1, 2 & 7 were demolished by as yet unknown individuals. I really have to wonder why so many individuals are completely reluctant to discuss these scientific issues. As one engineer from A&E for 911 Truth has stated, and I paraphrase, You don't need to be an architect or engineer to see that these buildings were brought down by explosives. The conspiracy of silence reminds one of a totalitarian society. Surely that's not what we have become, is it? No, I think if you were an architect or an engineer you would know that they weren't. Now, if you were a conspiracy nut you might. But I have to ask: Did Lee Harvey Oswald land on the Moon alone? Only the Mayor of Roswell knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 Omar - add a link to your post, please to get the topic started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 The conspiracy of silence reminds one of a totalitarian society. Surely that's not what we have become, is it? No silence here.....the topic has been explored numerous times. What is new....alien spacecraft ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 Here's one: The psychology of conspiracy belief. ... believing in them indicates you are more likely to be paranoid or mentally ill, a Victoria University study shows. Widely held conspiracy theories range from harmless ones, such as the belief that the Moon landings were faked, to more dangerous delusions such as the one in Nigeria that polio vaccines were a Western plot to sterilise people. That led to vaccination crews being murdered and thousands dying from disease. Clinical psychologist Darshani Kumareswaran is delving in to the psychology of conspiracy belief, and has found some believers are likely to endorse far-fetched plots in an effort to make sense of chaotic situations beyond their control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted March 31, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 No, I think if you were an architect or an engineer you would know that they weren't. Now, if you were a conspiracy nut you might. But I have to ask: Did Lee Harvey Oswald land on the Moon alone? Only the Mayor of Roswell knows. There are over 2000 architects and engineers that respectfully disagree with your, informed or uninformed? opinion, BC. The laws of physics disagree with you, and surprisingly also with NIST, the body that was charged with investigating the collapse of three buildings, the likes of which had never before or since done so. I regret to say that your comments are not very reflective of science. Do you feel that we should proceed by way of science or attempts at funny jokes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 31, 2015 Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 There are over 2000 architects and engineers that respectfully disagree with your, informed or uninformed? opinion, BC. The laws of physics disagree with you, and surprisingly also with NIST, the body that was charged with investigating the collapse of three buildings, the likes of which had never before or since done so. I regret to say that your comments are not very reflective of science. Do you feel that we should proceed by way of science or attempts at funny jokes? I thought you were Bob Macadoo, but now I'm thinking... Ghosthacked? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted March 31, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 The purpose of this thread, Michael, is to discuss the physical science surrounding the collapse of three buildings. It's not at all useful to mix these varied notions except to derail the science. Let's start with WTC7. I wonder how many know that a third building fell that day, neatly into its footprint. It fell at free fall speed. It fell in a completely uniform fashion, in a way that was the envy of controlled demolition experts. NIST said it was due to office fires. That's never happened before or since. Fire damages in an asymmetrical manner which, if a collapse were to occur, would occur asymmetrically. WTC7 came straight down, again, at free fall speed for the first 2.5 seconds. That is not possible! Fire cannot do that. Here's a short 30 section video that shows various angles of WTC7 coming down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted March 31, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2015 I thought you were Bob Macadoo, but now I'm thinking... Ghosthacked? Is this science? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) Doubly addressed, my apologies. Don't know if one can totally delete a post. Edited April 1, 2015 by Je suis Omar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 The purpose of this thread is to focus on the physical science surrounding the collapse of WTC1, 2 & 7. Plane hit building, building fall down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) Plane hit building, building fall down. No plane hit WTC7, Poochy. A plane hit the Empire State Building. It didn't fall down. Edited April 1, 2015 by Je suis Omar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) All of the claims of 9/11 truthers are addressed here: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_finalreports.cfm NIST NCSTAR 1-2: Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis of the World Trade Center Towers We live in a post Snowden world which proves that secrets don't stay secret even if the government wants them to be secret. The idea that such a massive conspiracy could have occurred without at least one participant coming forward is beyond belief. I don't need to look at the science to say that it could not have happened and if there are real scientific discrepancies it just means that we can't/don't know everything about what happens when buildings collapse. Edited April 1, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 All of the claims of 9/11 truthers are addressed here: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_finalreports.cfm NIST NCSTAR 1-2: Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis of the World Trade Center Towers We live in a post Snowden world which proves that secrets don't stay secret even if the government wants them to be secret. The idea that such a massive conspiracy could have occurred without at least one participant coming forward is beyond belief. I don't need to look at the science to say that it could not have happened and if there are real scientific discrepancies it just means that we can't/don't know everything about what happens when buildings collapse. This doesn't address the science, Tim. Can you tell me why NIST's computer model looks nothing at all like the real life collapse of WTC7? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 There are over 2000 architects and engineers that respectfully disagree with your, informed or uninformed? opinion, BC. The laws of physics disagree with you, and surprisingly also with NIST, the body that was charged with investigating the collapse of three buildings, the likes of which had never before or since done so. I regret to say that your comments are not very reflective of science. Do you feel that we should proceed by way of science or attempts at funny jokes? On this subject, funny jokes every time. Got any? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 On this subject, funny jokes every time. Got any? Have you watched the 30 second video, BC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 No plane hit WTC7, Poochy. A plane hit the Empire State Building. It didn't fall down. Well, that big damn monkey couldn't bring it down, so I expect a plane was no problem for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) This doesn't address the science, Tim. Can you tell me why NIST's computer model looks nothing at all like the real life collapse of WTC7?If there are inconsistencies between the model and the data then there are a least two possible explanations: 1) A building collapse is a chaotic process that cannot be entirely predicted by computer models. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory) 2) The building collapsed as a result of a carefully planned detonation. 14 years later we have no "participants" coming forward to provide evidence of the conspiracy despite the fact that numerous other significant government secrets have been leaked in the meantime. The makes the "planned denotation" explanation completely implausible. The lack of whistle blowers makes your so called "science" irrelevant because no matter what evidence you think you have it can be explained by 1). If you want to make your case then stop going on about the "science" and find some participants willing to spill the beans. Without them you have nothing to talk about. Edited April 1, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Yeah, you'd think Snowden or Chelsea would know something about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Have you watched the 30 second video, BC? Oh, probably. A long time ago, on a site far far away. It didn't make me think the thing plausible then, so I doubt it would now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Well, that big damn monkey couldn't bring it down, so I expect a plane was no problem for it. Is this science, BC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Zoology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) If there are inconsistencies between the model and the data then there are a least two possible explanations: 1) A building collapse is a chaotic process that cannot be entirely predicted by computer models. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory) 2) The building collapsed as a result of a carefully planned detonation. 14 years later we have no "participants" coming forward to provide evidence of the conspiracy despite the fact that numerous other significant government secrets have been leaked in the meantime. The makes the "planned denotation" explanation completely implausible. The lack of whistle blowers makes your so called "science" irrelevant because no matter what evidence you think you have it can be explained by 1). If you want to make your case then stop going on about the "science" and find some participants willing to spill the beans. Without them you have nothing to talk about. But it wasn't a chaotic collapse at all, Tim. You have to watch the video. NIST's visual was designed to back their theory that a single column, 79, fell off its support and led to a global collapse. Reality, always a real bugger for those involved in subterfuge, proved them wrong. The building didn't fall as they hypothesized. It was not anywhere close to what really happened. What does science do when a hypothesis fails, when the evidence doesn't support ones notions? Well, I don't have to tell you or anyone here what happens then. But what should have happened didn't happen. NIST's conclusion were advanced with no proof. NIST advanced those specious conclusion without any scientific support. Edited April 1, 2015 by Je suis Omar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted April 1, 2015 Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Building demolition involves high explosives being set in a precise manner throughout the structure. I takes weeks to set the charges. How many employees in the buildings (thousands survived) noticed strangers laying primacord and high explosives in their work spaces. If I came to work on that Tuesday morning and found my office wired up with detonators and charges, I think I would ask some questions. Funny, nobody did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted April 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2015 Oh, probably. A long time ago, on a site far far away. It didn't make me think the thing plausible then, so I doubt it would now. And with new information you feel 30 seconds is too great a time burden to engage in when you enter discussions in science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.