TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 [72] 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »

quote:

you know what? i did check the poll results today, and i feel relieved..... only 61.2% of TA members are legally retarded..... i should submit that to NIDA to prove their case that E really does make you stupid......

And you are supposed to be a civil engineer?

For some odd reason those who have a piece of paper/ring think they are above everyone else but this is far from reality.

Let me let you in on a secret, you are no smarter then anyone else on this planet. In fact your lousy attitude towards others makes you much less important then anyone else on this same planet.

I recall you mentioned a while back in this thread that when you pull up to to order food the clerks run because they see the ring on your finger, I am betting $100 they actually spit in your food for being an ass and thinking you where better then them. Enjoy your hot and served fresh burgers Mr. Engineer.

Get off the high horse and prove the towers where destroyed the way the official story says they where.

If you have the education and smarts for it this should not be a problem but so far you have not done so after pages and pages in this thread. This is the very same reason every poll shows a vast majority ruling that the official story is BS.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Let me let you in on a secret, you are no smarter then anyone else on this planet.

well, except for you. colonel isn't saying he's smarter than everyone, just better equipped to analyse a question involving structural engineering than the rest of us. any reason why you disagree with this?

quote:

Get off the high horse and prove the towers where destroyed the way the official story says they where.

why do that when it's already been done in at least two peer-reviewed papers? you wouldn't pay attention to these though because they don't agree with your pre-conceived theories.

quote:

An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks. The study by a Cambridge University, UK, engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total. One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition". The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell. Resistance to collapse Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localized failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures. In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts. "The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse," Dr Seffen told the BBC News website. Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse. His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down. This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground. He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behavior of the buildings. The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronized rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center. This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers. Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive "squibs" can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble. Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm Dr. Keith A. Seffen

or this one

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

quote:

This is the very same reason every poll shows a vast majority ruling that the official story is BS.

hahaha. talking about the polls again

please explain to me why you believe that the supposed "vast majority" of opinion is more important than the (so far) 100% agreement amoungst structural engineers? why is the layman in the street's opinion so so so important to you, whilst you ignore those that actually build those buildings?

asymmetrical scepticism, that's why. and its pathetic.

quote:

This is the very same reason every poll shows a vast majority ruling that the official story is BS.

ill ignore the first part of your personal attach tirade, as i find it irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

lets assume for a second that the general public is considered a learned and informed body on structural mechanics, and as such we can assume that any results derrived from the polling of such a body would hold reasonably true and accurate to reality.

- who conducted these polls?
- what was their sample size / demographic make up / ethnic background?
- were the persons included in the sample randomly selected, batch selected or voluntarily polled?
- What is the systematic error in the study?

Since you cannot answer any of these questions with any real degree of confidence, statistically speaking, your data is useless, and most undoubtably biased.

now lets jump forward to reality, and look at the above analysis without the first two assuptions, those being that the general public know fuck all about structural mechanics and that the results of any polls on this topic would be garbage.

well at this point there is no point asking any questions about the origin or make up of their population subset, as the entire poll is a farce.


if i wanted to poll a random sampling of persons to find the average drug use among the citizens of a country, i would not choose all my persons from crack houses, this would bias the results, nor would i purposefully not poll people from crack houses as they still represent a small portion of the population. Internet polling is inherantly flawed in that the sites on which polls are posted are usually frequented by like minded people, for instance 911truth.org would be visited mainly by CT'ers.

Such is the Pavlovian device: repeat mechanically your assumptions and suggestions, diminish the opportunity of communicating dissent and opposition. This is the simple formula for political conditioning of the masses. This is also the actual ideal of some of our public relation machines, who thus hope to manipulate the public into buying a special soap or voting for a special party.
----
During the Second World War the Nazis showed that they too were very much aware of this conditioning power of the word. I saw their strategy at work in Holland. The radio constantly spread political suggestions and propaganda, and people were obliged to listen because the simple act of turning off one's radio was in itself suspicious. I remember one day during the occupation when I was taking a bicycle trip with some friends. We stopped off to rest at a cafe that, we later realized, was a true Nazi nest. When the radio, which had been on ever since we arrived, announced a speech by Hitler, everyone stood up in awe, and it was a must to take in the verbal conditioning by the Fuhrer. My friends and I had to stand up too, and were forced to listen to that raucous voice crackling in our ears and to summon all our resistance against that long, boring, repetitive attack on our eardrums and minds.
Joost A. M. Meerloo, M.D
The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, and Brainwashing

FBI Again To Confirm Identity Of 9/11 Planes

In an effort to end speculation surrounding the events at the Pentagon building on September 11, 2001, a Freedom of Information Act request was made of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, seeking confirmation of the process by which recovered debris belonging to the 4 aircraft used in the 9/11 terrorist attacks was identified. This request was denied. An appeal of that decision has also been denied. Court action is pending.




According to the FBI, "the material requested is located in an investigative file which is exempt from disclosure pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 552, subsection (b) (7) (A)."

This subsection reads: "could be reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings."

The FBI has publicly declared that certain civil aircraft were involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It apparently was not believed by the FBI, that disclosure of that information would jeopardize any September 11th "enforcement proceedings".

I can't believe there is still people out there who believe it was caused by the US government. Wow. Just wow.

Conspiracy nuts never seem to change their minds.

I couldn't really care fuck all if the WTC towers really came down from crashed planes or controlled demolitions. What I want to know is why did the Bush Administration see it fit to fly the entire Bin Laden family out of the US when they should have been held for questioning? Yes I am using Michael Moore's Farenheit 911 as reference to this. But I agree with Moore on this subject. The entire family should have been held for interrogation, not flown out to safety.

Wow, 61%!!!

quote:

Originally posted by fayraree Wow, 61%!!!

thats alot of idiots

quote:

Originally posted by fayraree Wow, 61%!!!

It shocks me to see that people still believe that bullshit. Wait, maybe it doesn't

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp thats alot of idiots

More like a lot of dickheads getting their asses handed to them with facts.

quote:

Originally posted by Zharen I couldn't really care fuck all if the WTC towers really came down from crashed planes or controlled demolitions. What I want to know is why did the Bush Administration see it fit to fly the entire Bin Laden family out of the US when they should have been held for questioning? Yes I am using Michael Moore's Farenheit 911 as reference to this. But I agree with Moore on this subject. The entire family should have been held for interrogation, not flown out to safety.

Another absolutely correct fact, no wonder the poll is at 61%. Cannot deny the truth.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut More like a lot of dickheads getting their asses handed to them with facts.

what facts?

if by facts you mean pointless youtube videos that offer nothing but nut bar testimony and blatantly false analysis by unqualified morons, then sure you have been handing them out like a jehova's witness recruitment drive.

but if you mean actual scientific evidence from credible sources that dont include former cold fusion physicists.... then sir i believe there is more water in the sahara than there is facts in your arguments.

quote:

what facts?

The facts that are driving this poll and every other one in existence against the official accounts of 9/11 by a huge landslide.

Maybe you should re-read the facts and stop writing before you think like in your last post.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut The facts that are driving this poll and every other one in existence against the official accounts of 9/11 by a huge landslide. Maybe you should re-read the facts and stop writing before you think like in your last post.

hahahahahahaah.

funny how all those "facts" have yet to be joined together in a scientifically-validated paper.

6 years, not one peer reviewed analysis. what are you guys doing- biding your time? talk about a movement of losers.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut The facts that are driving this poll and every other one in existence against the official accounts of 9/11 by a huge landslide. Maybe you should re-read the facts and stop writing before you think like in your last post.

the internet opinion polls seem to be your proof that your arguments and facts are valid.


the only thing the internet poll results tell me is that more people in the world are mentally retarded than i had originally thought.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN hahahahahahaah. funny how all those "facts" have yet to be joined together in a scientifically-validated paper. 6 years, not one peer reviewed analysis. what are you guys doing- biding your time? talk about a movement of losers.

Bingo.

Doh! Ouch! I go away for a year and a half...exactly because of this thread and the cyber-conspirators that made it happen...and then, under the ill-guided impulse that maybe things had changed around here, I come back to see what's up, and what do I find?? The same thread at the top of the first page again!!

It's proof-positive that insanity never sleeps!

Well, be happy in the fact that at least some of you have made the news as "9-11 conspiracy theorists who post on the internet". You've had your 15 minutes of fame, I suppose.

Now it's time to rub the lotion on your skin, or else you get the hose! (quoting "Silence of the Lambs" here, in a minor conspiracy-related kind of way; A conspiracy to expose cerebral latency throughout the internet).



In all seriousness, I know that I've listed my million and one reasons why these "theories" do NOT warrant even debating in this and other threads on the matter. But frankly, I think these threads should be deleted, as it's obvious debating something that has no basis in reality is tantamount to the forum's policy of forbidden "insults", as in; "This garbage would insult ANYONE with a normal brain who reads it!"

Maybe you left because you simply cannot handle the truth.

Loose Change Final Cut

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Maybe you left because you simply cannot handle the truth.

mmmm...brilliant. You got me! I've been exposed! I wanted the truth, but just like Jack Nicholson said in "A Few Good Men"; I "can't handle the truth!"

So let me ask you then, if this is all a big conspiracy, what is it going to take to set the world right and what are you going to do about seeing that it gets the way you want it to be? I'm really curious to know your plan for the future of the world.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco mmmm...brilliant. You got me! I've been exposed! I wanted the truth, but just like Jack Nicholson said in "A Few Good Men"; I "can't handle the truth!" So let me ask you then, if this is all a big conspiracy, what is it going to take to set the world right and what are you going to do about seeing that it gets the way you want it to be? I'm really curious to know your plan for the future of the world.

My plan for the future of the world? You official story mofos are more fuking crazy than I thought. Not any one person can pull that off.

I will continue how ever to call out bullshit like that of 9/11 for as long as I live.

The polarization of the tr00fers and realists is very dangerous..

Interesting article I just found concerning NORAD's "Stand-down" on 9/11. Government conspiracy or highly incompetent air defense staff? Who knows. Even if it is the latter, it is still very much humiliating and unacceptable.

Source: http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/

quote:

NORAD Stand-Down The Prevention of Interceptions of the Commandeered Planes It is standard operating procedure (SOP) to scramble jet fighters whenever a jetliner goes off course or radio contact with it is lost. Between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times. 1 In the year 2000 jets were scrambled 129 times. 2 There are several elements involved in domestic air defense. The air traffic control system continuously monitors air traffic and notifies NORAD of any deviations of any aircraft from their flight-paths or loss of radio contact. NORAD monitors air and space traffic continuously and is prepared to react immediately to threats and emergencies. It has the authority to order units from the Air National Guard, the Air Force, or other armed services to scramble fighters in pursuit of jetliners in trouble. Routine interception procedures were not followed on September 11th, 2001. Layered Failures The air defense network had, on September 11th, predictable and effective procedures for dealing with just such an attack. Yet it failed to respond in a timely manner until after the attack was over, more than an hour and a half after it had started. The official timeline describes a series of events and mode of response in which the delays are spread out into a number of areas. There are failures upon failures, in what might be described as a strategy of layered failures, or failure in depth. The failures can be divided into four types. * Failures to report: Based on the official timeline, the FAA response times for reporting the deviating aircraft were many times longer than the prescribed times. * Failures to scramble: NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases. * Failures to intercept: Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds. * Failures to redeploy: Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them. Had not there been multiple failures of each type, one or more parts of the attack could have been thwarted. NORAD had time to protect the World Trade Center even given the unbelievably late time, 8:40, when it claims to have first been notified. It had time to protect the South Tower and Washington even given its bizarre choice of bases to scramble. And it still had ample opportunity to protect both New York City and Washington even if it insisted that all interceptors fly subsonic, simply by redeploying airborne fighters. Failures to Report Comparing NORAD's timeline to reports from air traffic control reveals inexplicable delays in the times the FAA took to report deviating aircraft. The delays include an 18-minute delay in reporting Flight 11 and a 39-minute delay in reporting Flight 77. The delays are made all the more suspicious given that, in each case, the plane failed to respond to communications, was off-course, and had stopped emitting its IFF signal. Failures to Scramble No plausible explanation has been provided for failing to scramble interceptors in a timely fashion from bases within easy range to protect the September 11th targets. Fighters that were dispatched were scrambled from distant bases. Early in the attack, when Flight 11 had turned directly south toward New York City, it was obvious that New York City and the World Trade Center, and Washington D.C. would be likely targets. Yet fighters were not scrambled from the bases near the targets. They were only scrambled from distant bases. Moreover there were no redundant or backup scrambles. New York City Flight 11 had been flying south toward New York City from about 8:30 AM. Yet no interceptors were scrambled from nearby Atlantic City, or La Guardia, or from Langley, Virginia. Numerous other bases were not ordered to scramble fighters. Washington D.C. No interceptors were scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base to protect the capital, at least not before the Pentagon was hit. Andrews Air Force Base had two squadrons of fighters on alert, and is only 10 miles from the Pentagon. Failures to Intercept Even though the interceptors were not dispatched from the most logical bases, the ones that were scrambled still had adequate time to reach their assigned planes. Why didn't they? Because they were only flying at a small fraction of their top speed. That is the conclusion implicit in NORAD's timeline. Otis to the WTC The first base to finally scramble interceptors was Otis in Falmouth, Massachusetts, at 8:52, about a half-hour after Flight 11 was taken over. This was already eight minutes after Flight 11 hit the North Tower, and just 9 minutes before Flight 175 hit the South Tower. According to NORAD, at the time of the South Tower Impact the two F-15s from Otis were still 71 miles away. Otis is 153 miles east-northeast of the WTC. That means the F-15s were flying at: (153 miles - 71 miles)/(9:03 - 8:52) = 447 mph That is around 23.8% of their top speed of 1875 mph. At 9:11 the F-15s finally reached the World Trade Center. Their average speed for the trip was: 153/(9:11 - 8:52) = 483 mph That is around 25.8% of their top speed. Langley to the Pentagon The F-16s from Langley reached the Pentagon at 9:49. It took them 19 minutes to reach Washington D.C. from Langley AFB, which is about 130 miles to the south. That means the F-16s were flying at: 130 miles/(9:49 - 9:30) = 410.5 mph That is around 27.4% of their top speed of 1500 mph. Andrews to the Pentagon Andrews Air Force Base, located on the outskirts of the capital, is just over 10 miles from the Pentagon. One would have expected interceptors to be scrambled to protect the capital within a few minutes of the 8:15 loss of contact with Flight 11. Instead, no fighters from Andrews reached the Pentagon until 9:49, several minutes after the assault. Failures to Redeploy Fighters that were in the air when the attack started were not redeployed to intercept the deviating planes. When fighters scrambled to protect Manhattan arrived there too late, they were not redeployed to protect the capital even though they had plenty of time to reach it before the Pentagon was hit. Long Island to Manhattan Two F-15s flying off the coast of Long Island were not redeployed to Manhattan until after the second tower was hit. 3 WTC to the Pentagon By the time the two F-15s from Otis reached Manhattan, the only jetliner still flying with its IFF transponder off had just made a 180-degree turn over southern Ohio and had been headed for Washington D.C. for 12 minutes. It was still 34 minutes before the Pentagon was hit. Had the fighters been sent to protect the capital, they could have traveled the approximately 300 miles in: 300 miles/1875 mph = 9.6 minutes They even could have made it to the capital in time to protect the Pentagon if they had continued to fly at only 500 mph.

Now what I really don't get, is why would they choose to scramble F-16's from Langley Air Force Base, which is about 120 miles away from the Pentagon, to intercept an airplane which obviously should not be flying in restricted air-space, when they should have used Andrews Air Force Base that is only 10 miles away from the Pentagon?

And I hope no one on here truly believes that our government couldn't imagine airplanes being used as bombs.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washin...-18-norad_x.htm

quote:

Originally posted by Zharen Interesting article I just found concerning NORAD's "Stand-down" on 9/11. Government conspiracy or highly incompetent air defense staff? Who knows. Even if it is the latter, it is still very much humiliating and unacceptable. Now what I really don't get, is why would they choose to scramble F-16's from Langley Air Force Base, which is about 120 miles away from the Pentagon, to intercept an airplane which obviously should not be flying in restricted air-space, when they should have used Andrews Air Force Base that is only 10 miles away from the Pentagon? And I hope no one on here truly believes that our government couldn't imagine airplanes being used as bombs.

i suggest you do research outside the incredibly biased and dishonest work you will find at those shitty 911 troofer sites. have you actually listened to the NORAD tapes? there certainly wasn't any "stand down" orders. they are the best evidence to show how chaotic and confusing that day actually was.

the problem with people like you is that you take too much "research" from these sites too seriously, without doing any work on the other side of the argument, which isnt intellectually honest.

in reference to your last question, from memory, there were only 16 jets in the whole country that could be scrambled on that day. do you know there were available jets at the much closer airbase ready for this kind of duty?

in other words, how about approaching the questions from both sides rather than swallowing the nonsense conspiracy theorists make up as they go along? listen to the tapes, they're available on the vanity fair or rolling stone sites (cant remember which one, sorry).

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.