Let's get this straight, shall we? My mum died in hospital. The official report is that she died of natural causes. Technically, she died of a combination of oxygen poisoning and morphine overdose. That's a net result of palliative care. Nevertheless, I understand how she died and why.
Now, if you turned up shortly afterwards and started talking about how the hospital was behind my mum's death, and that she was actually murdered.. and if you kept going on and on, despite having absolutely NO evidence to support your claim, and just finding inane "issues" with "official reports" etc, I'd give you about 2 months to live. After that time, I'd bloody well hunt you down and kick the shit out of you. And if you breathed one more word about it, I'd likely kill you. Especially 7 years on.
I lost a friend at the Pentagon. It's a bloody good thing, for you, that it wasn't my mum.
It burned for about 7 hours and collapsed all the way to the ground, as this video shows.
I work nearby, so I've seen it going up in flames, from the alarm bells to the collapse. The firecrew abandoned the building after about an hour, they didn't trust the structure of the building anymore. Nobody was injured.
It's far from the same scale as the WTC buildings, but at least it's a building (albeit a reinforced concrete one instead of a metal girder skeleton) and not a tin can or plastic tray. And it shows that concrete pulverizes when it collapses and generates a massive dust plume. And that a building actually can collapse due to fire damage.
Well that's another story all together and I could go on for a long time, but I wont. Some people didn't know they were part of it and some did. That's about as much as I'll say 'cos there's alot more on that too. Watch some Webster Tarpley presentations and see what you think of him. He's on youtube.
Why such anger? If you would feel better from killing me for something I say, then that's alright with me. I ain't afraid of dieing. Get angry all you want because you know exactly what I'll do sitting here and that's laugh. Which I feel you would too if you were in my shoes. Anger gets nothing solved, it only makes blood boil, and that's not good for you.
Of course not. Listen, you gave to me, examples of collapses having similarites to the towers collapse, yet, not one of them had EXTERIOR load bearing walls, not one of them collapsed like the towers and not one had anywhere near the same materials used, apart from kingfags' one which I'll get to. But none of the came close to being strcuturally similar. The only structure which had exterior load bearing walls was the in-trays. Also, it simulated the core being destroyed by the plane because there actually wasn't one, and it only had 2 exterior walls bearing the load. So, unless you show me a building with exterior load bearing walls, collapsing like the towers, then I will never understand why you laugh at this experiment.
I'm glad I got to see that video now because, although the towers were a lot heavier, they were also a lot more robust/strong/rigid to be able to withstand that weight. This block didn't totally crush the bottom floor, also, as he gets over you can see pieces of this block still intact on the ground, there was nothing left intact from the towers, apart from the metal(although some of that got melted ), not even the top section was recognizable, as it supposidly collapsed in the "second fase of collapse" after it crushed the entire building. Another thing, you say pulverised concrete. I don't see a lot of dust/debrit and he is only yards from the collapse. I was expecting there to be a greyish color layer of dust around the collapse but I see colors so not much pulverised concrete got eject that far.
Keep it coming lads, I'll look at anything you lads have to show. I'm open minded, I'll be happy when I see a good legitimet explination for the towers collapse. The laws of physics didn't change just for 9/11. Building codes were not quickly made up and missed this "progressive collapse", of course they knew about it, haven't structures been falling for years? Centuries? Decades? I know it wouldn't be called prograssive collapse but intelligent designers knew that if something falls on something, that second "thing" will move and hit the next "thing". How old are dominoes?
Come up with a physically similar, to the towers, experiment or actual building and have it collapse like the towers and I'll s t f u. Up until that point, I'm always gona be here.
And I don't see the point in getting angry, Sam, just brush it of or sit there and laugh at me, but don't get annoyed, discussions and anger just do not mix. It makes people retaliate/turn off rather than listen, don't ye think? It's also not my aim to piss people off or get them annoyed like you sound there Sam. I'm only here to discuss this.
Have you ever loved and lost? You're basically laughing in the face of something which is pretty serious. I know that Sam has from his post, and makes a valid point about a situation which can be compared to this, and you basically mock that... and laugh at him...
Can you see anyone elses point of view apart from your own?
just something i thought of just now..... As far at i know of, 9/11 was the first time a building that tall had a plane fly into it/them. So, what exactly is there to compare it to, i mean, where is the point of reference?? The only sure fire way to test these theories for sure would be to build something of identical (or as near as humanly possible) size, shape, layout, detail, and foundations and then fly an identical model of plane with the same amount of fuel into it (GPS guided obviously) at the exact same place that one of the towers was hit and then see what happens.
People shouldn't take this personally.. No one means anything disrespectfull when talking about this, offcourse we feel sorry for all the lost lives, that's why me, at least, won't accept the official version that easily, cause it's full of holes, i think the victims family and the whole world would benefit the real thruth, don't you think? You think they forgot about it, so all this is "reminding them to that day"? They will never forget that and every day they live with the evenst happened that day, i think they would live more peacfully knowing the real thruth... You honestly don't see anything fishy with official reports and don't have any curiosity to what really happened?
Well Boris, firstly, I don't really like to delve into other peoples buisness on something like this....
(He did mean it disrespectfully, read what and how he wrote it, and the tone of it....)
The victims family just want thier dead ones to be allowed to rest in peace.....
I've never read the official reports because I don't have adenoid problems, and what curiosity I have, I have the damn good grace to know when and how to express them. Plus when I would, I wouldn't be so blindly ignorant AND arrogant to ignore everyone else.. =/
good point, but im thinking on exact similarities, location of stairwells/lifts, size and shape of the whole building, exact height of the building, size and shape of steel reinforcing, thickness of concrete floors and the grade of concrete used (as there are many) exact footprint and depth of footings, stuff like that, as it has to be a factor i would say.
As a matter of fact, yes. It doesn't matter much if there was a conspiracy or not: the fact remains that your loved one died because some other folks wanted a mass killing. If you keep on hunting for "the truth", you won't be able to grieve. The pain of losing a loved one will go on at maximum intensity, so you can't get on with your life. You'll be ready for the shrink if you do this.
And I can very well imagine that, if it was someone else who kept bugging me with his theories, disturbing me in my mourning, I'd get very angry. SamH explained it very well. If you can't understand it, you must be totally blinded by your beliefs.
No, YOU are being disrespectful by dragging the dead into this discussion.
Excuse me for being cynical, but the burden is not such a problem. You only need to believe it's all for a just cause. When the US was planning wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it was obvious that there were going to be 1000s of innocent victims. The American voters could have stopped the war, but they didn't. The burden seems to be fairly light, if you ask me.
And that's actually all that you got from what I wrote? You think I'm angry? What about the content of what I said? What about the human impact on the families of the victims, of something so cruel as to regurgitate all this conspiracy nonsense for 7 years?
Seeking the truth is what you CLAIM, but I don't see you and the other conspiracy theorists seeking the truth at all. Far more feasible and reasonable explanations have been posted here, by people who clearly have a grounding in knowledge of things, but you dismiss them because what they see is inconvenient to you. I'll use Tristan as an example.. you dismiss his opinion because he's a mechanical engineer and not a structural/civil engineer.. because his explanation doesn't suit you. Not because he's wrong, but because it doesn't suit what you decided happened. He says he's SLIGHTLY more qualified. He was being sardonic, and you knew it, but you latched on to him saying that, and you twisted it to suit yourself.. slightly more knowledgeable, so his opinion (despite the content of his opinion being the same content that a structural engineer would give, since the mechanics of what Tristan referred to are the same mechanics in all aspects of engineering - as you bloody well know) was without any more merit than your conspiracy theory about.. what? Controlled demolition? Something for which there IS no evidence. None. All that phorensic work carried out, finding DNA matches for lost family members, and not a single explosive residue to be found... but you peddle that worthless crap regardless, and brush aside the inconvenient facts.
You're not looking for the truth at all. You're looking for a conspiracy, and where you can't find one you'll make it up. You wouldn't acknowledge the truth if it hit you in the face, and I know this because I've seen it happen in this thread. You just find your own angle to deliberately side-step reason. You offer nothing but nothing. I think your 9/11 conspiracy pastime sucks.
Ok, I'm not going through every repsonse again, since not one person has any meat in their comments.
Not one person here has shown me a reasonable, even half descent, explination for how the towers fell. If you feel I'm wrong, fair enough. Believe what the "experts" who were appointed by the government to investigate it, say to you.
Now see, nobody here seems to be picking up on my counter arguements. SamH sits back for a while and only picks what he wants to respondd to. I try respond to everything people put forward. I say that all them examples Juls showed me don't fit into this scenario and nobody says anything about that. He talks about how many jules of energy was involved, yet he fails to mention that 1 gallon of fuel produces close to one hundred million joules, so I found out. So, the explosion of the fuel could of had more energy than the actual collapse. I have also pointed out things in the video kingfag showed, nobody responds to that.
Listen, you can talk shit all you want. Show me a reasonable example of a tall building, with exterior load bearing walls, a core and that collapses to the ground, crushing everything in its path, including it's basement and I'll come back and say "ok, you've showed me a good enough example, so what I've been saying is total bullshit. I don't know what I was thinking." I am waiting for this to happen, you think I enjoy typing out responses, the same thing over and over? Of course I'll stick to my guns if I believe I'm right.
And just a quick note to Sam - Of course that's not all I got from what you wrote, but I wasn't going to respond to that with the tone I got from your post. I'm not getting involved in a slaggin match, or turning around and saying "well I'd kill you too, if you said some of that shit to my face" but that's pathectic really. Sam, you show me some evidence, that you feel, makes the case for the towers unquestionable. Come on, I'll be waiting.
And Mookie, I just noticed your comment there so I'll respond to that.
That has to be the funniest comment so far. It shows you have NO clue and no understanding. Why and How could I change the laws of physics to suit this event? They are what they are, nobody can change them. You should look them up. You are just argueing a side of an arguement to suit you. You say that you did at one stage believe 9/11 was an inside job, but I doubt you ever did because you don't seem to be able to understand aspects of this event. You will now be another person I refuse to converse with because of the shit you talk, now please go wipe your mouth becasue the shit is dripping off your face, you are talking so much of it.
From now on I'm only going to respond to posts with aspects of 9/11 in them, not conspiracy theory bashing comments. Once again, everyone seems to think the official story is unquestionable, when, in fact, it is also a theory. Not all the facts are in the final report. What about William Rodrigez(sp?)? What about his comments? He was praised by Bush & Co. until he started talking about what he heard/felt during the attacks. Don't you think the testimony from the janiter of the towers is most important? Do you think it should be in the final report? Well the "experts" didn't think so, which is another thing which amazes me.
EDIT: Ok, if you think I'm nuts, fair enough. Listen to this MIT Prof. and see do you think what he is also nuts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBPuu9o89dk (he begins at about 1min10secs)@SamH - notice how much steel NIST actually had to analyse. You laughed at me when I said not all the steel was analysed. Show me where you get your information on that from.
EDIT3: Instead of posting again I'll add this here. I just came across this video for the first time. Now, watch as the top section of the tower collapses, it is, in some of your eyes, crushing the tower but watch as it falls, where does all that debrit come from once the top of the tower disapears? The top section should be crushing the rest of it, those pieces of debrit seem to come from that top section. Pieces first go up/out and then fall. It doesn't make it any easier for me to believe after seeing this. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqzgs__q-GY&feature=user
Nope. I don't think the official story is unquestionable. I do wonder about your inability to see the fallacy in your thinking. If it was proved that the NIST report contains hundreds of errors and omissions, then that is still not one shred of support for the conspiracy theory. You need to prove YOUR theory, while all you do is try to disprove the other theory. This is the same epistemological mistake that creationists make. It's simply bad science, and you are blind to it.
Another thing you have in common with creationists is that you claim that you are looking for the truth, while you cling to a theory that fulfillsa psychological need.
U4IK ST8 - what is it exactly that you are trying to achieve here? I'm not bashing you or anything, I'm just curious to know what it is you would like to accomplish. If you're trying to make other people believe what you believe I suggest you stop it. You've posted arguments, countless videos and quotes from all kinds of persons. I'm sure there's plenty of people who agree with you, though they may not want to voice their opinions about it here. The people who don't agree with you, will probably never agree with you, no matter what you post. Everything anyone says is nothing but speculation. You can support it with theories, comparisons, quotes from professors and whatnot, but that doesn't make it fact or proof. It will always be only a theory.
Personally I don't believe the official story. At all. I have my own beliefs (I wouldn't call it a theory) but I never post them on any forum I'm on. This is still a pretty sore topic, and people will make up their own mind as to what they think happened. You just have to accept that you can't make everyone agree with you. Let people believe what they will, I say.
Maybe some day something will come up, or someone will step forward with actual proof of what really happened. Though it's not very likely.
Hahaha. You can't use the actual footage of an event as an example of that event. And a bad video of the event at that. Why not use this one? Posted by ae911truth (Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c You should actually look through their other videos.
You believe, without reasonable doubt, that 9/11 was planned and finally followed through by bin Laden and his mates?
Of course it would be difficult for me alone to change peoples minds here, that is quite obvious. But it's not my intention to change their minds solely on the videos or words I show them. They will have to look for themselves, I only show them some pieces. I understand that the quotes and other info I have put here is speculation, but this is speculation from highly educated people. The people who were actually authorised to investigate this didn't do a thorough job and didn't use all of their educated abilities to find out exactly what happened. How many people in the Commission report are actually structural engineers? I know NIST may have a few but why didn't they show us, even simulated, what happened to each floor as the tower collapsed? "Global collapse ensued" isn't good enough for many people, as an explination for the towers crushing themselves.
Hopefully one day someone will get the balls to come out and give us some damning evidence. Then what happens? Everyone here who believes the towers fell by themselves will go back on what they have been saying in this discussion? I'd like to see that.
What do you mean I can't use an actual video of an event as an illustration of that event? What the hell planet are you on?
I doubt that you have any idea how whacked out of any sense of reason your determination makes you seem, in your frantic desperation to make a conspiracy out of a tragedy.
You asked for a video of "a reasonable example of a tall building, with exterior load bearing walls, a core and that collapses to the ground, crushing everything in its path". I kept my part of the bargain, now you keep yours.
Well you can use it, but that is not proven to have crushed the whole building, has it? So it's actually not an example of a building being crushed. It's more speculation. We wouldn't be here having this conversation if that was proven.
That's a serious break of logic. An epic fail. Not believing one thing does not automatically make you a believer in something else.. though I know it's a favourite vehicle for 911 conspiracy theorology, jehovas witnesses and various small cults, the KKK etc. not to mention a favourite by many politicians. It's the stuff of rhetoric, at the end of the day, and it's shite. You shouldn't insult peoples' intelligence by trying to use it here.
but there isn't any evidence now, let alone PROOF, and it's been 7 years so far. Just a bunch of half-baked and debunked theories with absolutely nothing to support them. I hope we're not going to have to wait 2000 years like we've been waiting so far, for the 2nd coming. Not sure I can be arsed waiting that long.
Thousands of us watched that day. I watched the collapses from our conference room in Chicago. I remember the events as if they were in slow motion. I've never seen anything convincing from you lot yet, that makes me believe that the collapse of the towers was anything different from exactly what I saw on the day. 2 planes hit, fires, structural failure and collapse. Do you have ONE OUNCE of proof to show that that was not what happened?