9/11

[Mittsu]

I will read this further as i am interested.
But do you not agree that IF (theoretically) it wants, a group of experts can tell pretty much any theory to the public, and since the public has very little knowledge about construction and the physics involved, then the main thing that convinces them of that theory is rather the fact of the groups expertise, rather than the common people's own understanding or analysis of the theory. That basically they agree with the experts rather than the agree with the theory.

replace 'experts' with 'delusional teens hungry for thrills' and you get where most of conspiracy theory groups come from

[ValiS]

@ Boblekonvolutt
Why do you all have to call others morons all the time??
You could have made your point without namecalling.

Because I mostly agree with you.
I did not want to bring up the agencies and military or even the economic sense of demolishing the aging towers.. because is SOUNDS even more like a "conspiracy theory" and I wanted to stick to physical and observable (with your very own eyes) things, because otherwise the discussion will get COMPLETELY out of hand. But mostly I agree with you.

@ Mittsu
You did not dispute my argument. So your post was really totally pointless namecalling. You can as well replace "experts" with "nazis" or "aliens" or whatever, that only makes for a nice HENCHMAN argument and only serves to prove your inability to argue like an educated person. Also calling middle aged men (not me lol) teenagers makes me question your sanity.

[Mittsu]

you didn't understand my point. You're saying we can be manipulated by the officials, but you don't see how the same way you can be manipulated by those lunatics who make up theories. And those lunatics are manipulated by their own greed for thrill, money or fame. But looking at both sides, the officials and those people who believe in chemtrails and lizard people, it's more likely the official version is the real one

and what do you want to discuss? if it's possible that something else happend than what we officially know? yes, it is possible. is it actually true? we can't know. what are the chances? we have shitloads of scientists on the world and if there was a real controversy about the way the towers fell, they would have done something about it. so its possible the scientists manipulate the public? yeah. is it true? we can't know. what are the chances? do you actually think that when you become a scientist you automatically get controlled by the government?

it's also really hard to believe all media are manipulating the public in favor for keeping the government's secret, if there was something fishy based on a solid ground, media would talk about it, otherwise we're talking about speculations, and getting so hyped up over thousands of speculations which most of them, if not all, are most likely untrue, is retarded. Delusional teens believe in all of them because they're hungry for the thrill.

and i don't really understand how the existance of hypothetical explovies set up under the buildings automatically make it the governments inside job

[ValiS]

you don't see how the same way you can be manipulated by those lunatics who make up theories.

Please show me where I said we cant be manipulated by lunatics who make up theories. Stop lying please. I was merely pointing out your henchman argument.

But looking at both sides, the officials and those people who believe in chemtrails and lizard people, it's more likely the official version is the real one

What the fuck do "lizard people" have to do with 9/11 AGAIN a henchman tactic... means you are exaggerating and generalizing others arguments to make them look ridiculous.

and what do you want to discuss?

Actually I don't want to duscuss anything with you.

we have s**tloads of scientists on the world and if there was a real controversy about the way the towers fell, they would have done something about it. so its possible the scientists manipulate the public? yeah. is it true? we can't know. what are the chances? do you actually think that when you become a scientist you automatically get controlled by the government?

Why would I believe such a thing? You are exaggerating again. Most scientists, in this case civil engineers have their own work to do, they don't have time to study the WTC thing. The ones that don't live in USA just don't care about your towers. And the ones in USA.. well it's a delicate subject for them, and they would be called crazy and unpatriotic by fanatics like you. I would think twice too to ruin my career for that.
Besides most people think like you, that people in power are not capable of things like this. That they became people in power by being nice to everyone.

it's also really hard to believe all media are manipulating the public in favor for keeping the government's secret, if there was something fishy based on a solid ground, media would talk about it, otherwise we're talking about speculations, and getting so hyped up over thousands of speculations which most of them, if not all, are most likely untrue, is retarded. Delusional teens believe in all of them because they're hungry for the thrill.

But it IS being talked about, but again most don't want to touch this subject. Maybe YOU are the delusional teen. Looking at the amount of religious people in the world, such grand delusions are nothing new sadly...

As I understand ground zero was closed off and scientists or whoever were not allowed there, all the debris was moved away quickly. The investigation groups had a few steel columns or beams to look at in a yunkyard.

Look at the other side of it, you are saying how all the theories are unlikely and unproved etc, but so far the official version is just as unproved. It is only the authorities WORDS that you believe.

How much did the media talk about the economic bubble BEFORE it burst? Very little, so according to you there was absolutely nothing fishy going on there.
Luckily I live in a country that was not built on debt and loans alone...

[Mittsu]

i recommend you calm down a little, read what i wrote again and you will see my point. I really can't be arsed to reply to each of your misinterpretations because that only multiplies the text amount and, furthermore, the effort, and ive head too many conversations, like this one, to be bothered to do it all over again

oh and they aren't 'my' towers

[Veritas]

And this does not explain why tower 7 fell!

Then click on the link to the left that says "World Trade Center 7"

But do you not agree that IF (theoretically) it wants, a group of experts can tell pretty much any theory to the public, and since the public has very little knowledge about construction and the physics involved, then the main thing that convinces them of that theory is rather the fact of the groups expertise, rather than the common people's own understanding or analysis of the theory. That basically they agree with the experts rather than the agree with the theory.

No, I completely disagree. Legitimate scientists and engineers publish technical reports to their peers, not the public, for the express purpose of peer review. You can't just publish any theory as it will be ripped apart by someone else in the field.

Most scientists, in this case civil engineers have their own work to do, they don't have time to study the WTC thing.

Searching ScienceDirect gave me 200 engineering articles and 3000 total articles on the WTC, so no, that's not correct at all.

but so far the official version is just as unproved.

Have 10,000 pages of engineering analysis supporting the official version: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

[Mittsu]

come on veritas, that's boring, inside job sounds cooler

[pavliko]

You all have been invited to a 9/11 party!
Don't forget to bring some beer with you!

[ValiS]

/... group of experts can tell pretty much any theory to the public, and since the public has very little knowledge about construction and the physics involved, then the main thing that convinces them of that theory is rather the fact of the groups expertise.../

No, I completely disagree. Legitimate scientists and engineers publish technical reports to their peers, not the public, for the express purpose of peer review. You can't just publish any theory as it will be ripped apart by someone else in the field.

And how many scientists and engineers had/have access to the evidence? That is like saying "you are completely free to draw me a picture, after i take your pencils and paper away".
Also, legitimate scientists and engineers ARE doubting the official version and finding thermite traces etc, but the public just screams "CONSPIRACY THEORY!!" So what's the use. No one listens. But I guess the only LEGITIMATE ones are those that support your prejudices.. right?

Searching ScienceDirect gave me 200 engineering articles and 3000 total articles on the WTC, so no, that's not correct at all.

You mean there are around 399 engineers total? (if 200 is MOST of them, making the simplification that each wrote ONE article; note that this simplification supports your claims more than mine)

Have 10,000 pages of engineering analysis supporting the official version: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

If you have NOT read it yourself then this link is worthless concerning THIS discussion, because if you have not read it, you are just trusting it blindly and speculating.

BUT.. if you HAVE read it, then can you say what exactly melted the steel and what is the bright orange liquid pouring from the towers, and what created the pools of molten metal? And why did part of the core stand about 15 seconds after the rest of the tower fell, and THEN the remaining core telescoped into itself?

Quoted from the page you linked to:
___________________________________
NOTE: The NIST investigation of the WTC 7 building collapse is not yet complete. The report on the WTC 7 collapse investigation will be released in draft form for public comment and posted on this web site as soon as it is available.

Draft report on project 6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers
___________________________________

Not to mention the NIST changing their results etc..


Do you always judge a book by the number of pages?

[Veritas]

Not to mention the NIST changing their results etc..

Yeah, shame on them for changing their conclusions as new data and analysis comes to light. I totally would rather they just stuck to a single conclusion and looked for data to support it instead.

If you have NOT read it yourself then this link is worthless concerning THIS discussion, because if you have not read it, you are just trusting it blindly and speculating.

Your claim: "so far the official version is just as unproved."
Me: Here's a bunch of published material that supports it
You: If you haven't read it, it doesn't count.

This sort of thing is exemplary of how you're approaching the discussion, and I'm done treating you seriously when I don't get the same in return.

[ValiS]

If you have NOT read it yourself then this link is worthless concerning THIS discussion, because if you have not read it, you are just trusting it blindly and speculating.

Your claim: "so far the official version is just as unproved."
Me: Here's a bunch of published material that supports it
You: If you haven't read it, it doesn't count.

This sort of thing is exemplary of how you're approaching the discussion, and I'm done treating you seriously when I don't get the same in return.

My point was that it is obvious that the NIST report supports the official version. That in itself is NOT proof that they are correct. It is kind of like saying that the Chernobyl catastrophe didn't happen because the official version said it didn't happen, and the official version must be right because there were experts supporting it. And the experts are right because they are supported by the government. Circular logic.

What I find "wrong" is your absolute certainty that the official version is right just because there is a 10 000 page report supporting it. But you yourself have not even read it. So your certainty is based ONLY on the official nature of the report, not on your own thinking.

What exactly IS the new evidence that came to light?

NIST have not come up with an explanation in a decade, but still you are certain they are right, so they are right a priori in your mind. So I don't understand why you keep arguing with me, if you don't have a standpoint of your own. If you are NOT INTERESTED in what happened, and are satisfied that someone somewhere knows, then please, stop posting.

[Centurion]

http://www.cam.net.uk/home/aaa315/peace/explosions.htm

[croat1gamer]

Draft report on project 6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers
___________________________________

Not to mention the NIST changing their results etc..

I doubt that youve ever heard the meaning of scientific research on something.

Also, if you doubt that the 10k pages report is wrong, find some of the "wrong" statements, find evidence which is a proof that the statements are really wrong.
Dont even think to avoid responding with an "NO U" pattern post.

_{I like to call it an trolling pattern}

I would likely read the parts which have inconsistencies and compare them to your 'true/fixed' versions of those parts.

[Centurion]

I doubt that youve ever heard the meaning of scientific research on something.

Also, if you doubt that the 10k pages report is wrong, find some of the "wrong" statements, find evidence which is a proof that the statements are really wrong.
Dont even think to avoid responding with an "NO U" pattern post.

_{I like to call it an trolling pattern}

I would likely read the parts which have inconsistencies and compare them to your 'true/fixed' versions of those parts.

If I write 10 k pages on topic: I am the VERY best soldat player and I created soldat. Then it makes me the owner?

[croat1gamer]

If you make arguments backed up with proof evidence, yes.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

My point was that it is obvious that the NIST report supports the official version. That in itself is NOT proof that they are correct. It is kind of like saying that the Chernobyl catastrophe didn't happen because the official version said it didn't happen, and the official version must be right because there were experts supporting it. And the experts are right because they are supported by the government. Circular logic.

It's only circular logic because of how you (incorrectly) worded the dependencies.

It actually goes like this:
Government's official explanation is based on testimony by experts.
Experts' testimony is based on scientific evidence.
Scientific evidence exists.

Your error was saying that experts are right because they're supported by the government.  That's not what makes them right.  What makes them right is the vast amount of peer-reviewed, scientific studies carried out.

If I write 10 k pages on topic: I am the VERY best soldat player and I created soldat. Then it makes me the owner?

If those 10,000 pages each contain factual information that supports such a conclusion, then yes.

[ValiS]

2) Watch a controlled demolition sometime.  Do it.  Note how the building in question is destroyed from the bottom up, so that it looks as though it's sinking into the ground.  Now watch the towers fall.  See how they fall from the top down, completely opposite of a controlled demolition?

This is pretty much the ONLY ARGUMENT from you so far, and I PROVED IT WRONG and proved you ignorant on the topic.
Yet you ignored that and went on with your broken record "i dont care, this is conspiracy theory, you are a delusional teen, I have not studied the topic but I know who is right"

In fact I discovered a video that you must have watched repeatedly and by now know by heart, because you are a 1 on 1 embodiment of the tactics described in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXWoXfyi9y8&feature=related

Also, if you doubt that the 10k pages report is wrong, find some of the "wrong" statements, find evidence which is a proof that the statements are really wrong.

Wait ... wasn't YOU the one who doubted that the 10k page report is wrong??
I doubted if it was right.
But I understand, that's an easy mistake to make when you don't know what you are saying...

Dont even think to avoid responding with an "NO U" pattern post.

So now all of a sudden you control what I may and may not think??
Your mentality shines through clearly from that statement.
And to what do you want me to respond? You have NOT said anything that resembles an ARGUMENT.
You were the one who started saying I am wrong, so is it not expected that you justify your statements? I guess your idea of a debate is when only your opponents have the obligation to justify their statements, but not you.. because obviously A PRIORI you are right.

I would likely read the parts which have inconsistencies and compare them to your 'true/fixed' versions of those parts.

Just because you told me not to: why dont YOU read the parts that explain (for example) how the pools of molten metal got there.
I would argue YOU are the one who is avoiding: I ask you ONE simple question, you write half a page but completely ignore it.

This is seriously getting boring and frustrating, arrogant ignorance always frustrates me for some reason..

PS:
You might want to rethink your whole attitude towards conspiracys:

http://www.newworldorderreport.com/Articles/tabid/266/ID/980/33-Conspiracy-Theories-That-Turned-Out-To-Be-True-What-Every-Person-Should-Know.aspx

[DarkCrusade]

It actually goes like this:
Government's official explanation is based on testimony by experts.
Experts' testimony is based on scientific evidence.
Scientific evidence exists.

Your error was saying that experts are right because they're supported by the government.  That's not what makes them right.  What makes them right is the vast amount of peer-reviewed, scientific studies carried out.

So what about swine flu

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

2) Watch a controlled demolition sometime.  Do it.  Note how the building in question is destroyed from the bottom up, so that it looks as though it's sinking into the ground.  Now watch the towers fall.  See how they fall from the top down, completely opposite of a controlled demolition?

This is pretty much the ONLY ARGUMENT from you so far, and I PROVED IT WRONG and proved you ignorant on the topic.

Um, the other argument of mine was the utter idiocy of thinking people could set up enough explosives to take down both towers and remain undetected.  But yeah, we can ignore that.

Getting back to your "point," the video you showed still looked nothing like the collapsing towers.  I'll do a more in-depth comparison when I get home and can watch videos of both again, but suffice to say that there's a significant difference.


BTW, am I the only one who sees the irony in the troll getting worked up, instead of the other way around?

EDIT:

arrogant ignorance always frustrates me for some reason..

woo more irony

EDIT 2:
Okay, just for fun, I have a question.  What do you think of creationists, ValiS?

[ValiS]

Um, the other argument of mine was the utter idiocy of thinking people could set up enough explosives to take down both towers and remain undetected.  But yeah, we can ignore that.

Let me guess, this "utter idiocy" is also supported by 10 000 pages?
Do you even know what an argument is? What you are doing is just CLAIMING something, not arguing something. Learn the difference.

Getting back to your "point," the video you showed still looked nothing like the collapsing towers.  I'll do a more in-depth comparison when I get home and can watch videos of both again, but suffice to say that there's a significant difference.

That was not the point, the point was that you said that controlled demolition can only be accomplished from bottom to up. I showed you were completely mislead, therefore proving you are full of s**t and making random claims.

Now that I brought it up, you change the subject and start talking that the demolitions are not IDENTICAL, which no-one claimed them to be, you just MADE IT UP. You were exposed, deal with it.

BTW, care to elaborate on how they look "nothing" like the collapsing towers?

BTW, am I the only one who sees the irony in the troll getting worked up, instead of the other way around?

I only find it SAD how you (the troll) got worked up and started calling others (including me) delusional teenagers and retards... oh and the last one - utter idiots. Look in the mirror please. You show worrying signs if unjustified confidence... I truly feel sad for you, but relieved I don't have to deal with you IRL.

Okay, just for fun, I have a question.  What do you think of creationists, ValiS?

Why do you even want to go there ?   And what does this have to do with anything?

But just for "fun": I think you are a creationist, since you fit the typical model - they too refer to a certain "10k book" which has all the (a priori) right answers, even though most of them have not read it. Creationism is a fairy tale, there are millions of fairy tales, want to discuss all of them? 9/11 on the other hand is not a fairy tale and therefore deserves discussion.