|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 51)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
@ PKC: What were the main sources for your argument here (the entire thread)? I'm just asking so I can see it all for myself and evaluate it. |
my main sources of argument are debunking911.com and the corresponding links to other sites dedicated to criticising the half-truths and lies circulating 9/11. link
no, im not a structural engineer but i really dont think you need to be if youre going to understand principles. and theres plenty of evidence there (such as the quotes from firemen at ground zero regarding WTC7). i dont need to be a fireman to understand their concerns do i? yet, magnatosium will just ignore all of that because it doesn't fit into his world view.
i came to the 9/11 movement with a skeptical yet open mind. ogv was nice enough to send me vids and links and i must say, i was pretty concerned there for a while. because i was ignorant and i didn't have any competing information. but now i do. and i am satisfied with the large body of work compiled by subject matter experts.
i like occrider's comment in one of the many 9/11 threads, where he argued the "official" story has stood up under 5 years of intense criticism far far better than any of the alternative theories.
i dont pretend to have all of the answers, i merely chose some of the more obvious problems with the CTs, the explosives & collapse of the towers being one. because without a convincing argument for demolition, the CTs dont have much to stand on. and i still havent heard a definitive and scientifically validated argument regarding controlled demolition. it is merely assumed, rather than really examined. im sorry, until we know more my opinion isnt going to change. and you've had 5 years, and we still dont have anything even remotely credible. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
Post transferred from Opus's thread to preserve it in the more relevant one before he deletes his original thread, and in case PKC doesn't get a chance to read it. Here it is:
Ok, time to go in circles again :p.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
well, i find it interesting that you think its ok for magnetonium (and yourself if my memory serves correctly) to compare completely different structures yet im not allowed to? that madrid building fire has been raised by several CTs in this and other threads.
he asked me to show which steel-framed buildings had collapsed due to fire, and i provided some. i didnt say they were the same type of building, merely showing that yes, fire has been known to collapse steel structures.
|
It's not exactly a comparison per se, the fact is that fires or plane collisions (pre-911) have never cause a modern steel-frame high rise to collapse. WTC 1 & 2 were designed to be able to with stand multiple 707 hits so why how would a single 767 impact cause it to collapse? Please don't say jet fuel, because it's not like 707s run on air and the designers/architects of the WTC didn't know that. The FEMA reports admit to the pancake theory only haveng a very low probability of occurance.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i disagree. i have 2 pieces of paper on my wall that say im qualified to debate political theory. but this doesnt mean that i think im more qualified than renegade or tathi! im not sure how you think physics is especially relevant, and steve jones certainly isnt qualified, nor are the loose change children, but they still get a run by yourself and others. thats a bit hypocritical if you ask me. |
There's a world of a difference between discussing politics (a non-science) versus how the WTC collapses (science & engineering). So that's a poor analogy.
Phyics is relevant to all physical phenomenon, what the heck are you talking about? Steven Jones didn't conduct his research alone, he consulted many architects, engineers, and demolition experts. So he has tons of credibility in my eyes. He's independent of the establishment, and several hit peices on him which were completely discredited as being malicious lies and propaganda have already been exposed for what they are. And after he seriously started conducting a scientific study into the cause of collapse of the WTC (which he discussed at times in his class), the University put him paid leave and didn't allow him to teach. So spare me the regurgitation of character and credibility attacks on Mr. Jones.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yes, this is to some extent accurate. however, as ive stated before, if you readily admit to not being a subject matter expert, i dont see how you can just easily dismiss the world's structural engineers who have examined the collapses more so than any building in history. they agree with the pancaking theory. and to be fair, you were happy enough to talk demolitions & madrid fires before i presented credible evidence to the contrary. you've also mentioned on more than one occasion that you think its ridiculous that fires caused the collapse. again, how are you allowed to make such assumptions when im not allowed to cut n paste arguments i half understand and see as credible? no, i dont understand the complex science, but i understand the principles enough to find them credible. |
Becuase, unlike some people, I considered both possibilities, of an inside job, and no government complicity. And it's not hard for the Goverment to twist arms and keep people quiet/circulate propaganda through respected sources. It's been done through out modern history. I don't ignore history when trying to understand the present. I also take into consideration the question and reality of who's benefiting from something. It's called critical thinking.
Plus, the fact of the matter is that now we know the Goverment had foreknowledge and failed to act. Plus, the Bush Administration's oppurtunistic behaviour, wars of agression, and lies are also obvious by this point. Keeping that in mind and the fact that they had foreknowledge and allowed the attack to take place is complicity in and of itself. Infact, the attacks would never had occured if standard NORAD protocols and procedures went uninterupted.
EDIT: One more thing, the pancake theory is nothing more than a theory since the evidence was [illegaly] destroyed before an actual investigation could occur. And it's a theory which is scientifically only remotely possible (according to the official FEMA studies!). Just becuase it's possible doesn't mean that's the only possible explanation, which is the only possible theory FEMA considered. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
well, its been at least a few days
| quote: |
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
It's not exactly a comparison per se, the fact is that fires or plane collisions (pre-911) have never cause a modern steel-frame high rise to collapse. WTC 1 & 2 were designed to be able to with stand multiple 707 hits so why how would a single 767 impact cause it to collapse? Please don't say jet fuel, because it's not like 707s run on air and the designers/architects of the WTC didn't know that. The
FEMA reports admit to the pancake theory only haveng a very low probability of occurance. |
i cant find the bit of evidence (ive read hundreds of 9/11 sites over the last few years) but from memory fuel wasnt actually calculated in the design of the WTCs at all. it was built to withstand the hits from
planes, but not to withstand fires.
| quote: |
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
There's a world of a difference between discussing politics (a non-science) versus how the WTC collapses (science & engineering). So that's a poor analogy. |
of course its different. but im merely saying having (or not) an official qualification isnt everything when discussing certain topics.
| quote: |
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Phyics is relevant to all physical phenomenon, what the heck are you talking about? Steven Jones didn't conduct his research alone, he consulted many architects, engineers, and demolition experts. So he has tons of credibility in my eyes. He's independent of the establishment, and several hit peices on him which were completely discredited as being malicious lies and propaganda have already been exposed for what they are. And after he seriously started conducting a scientific study into the cause of collapse of the WTC (which he discussed at times in his class), the University put him paid leave and didn't allow him to teach. So spare me the regurgitation of character and credibility attacks on Mr. Jones. |
oh please. he hasn't been peer reviewed for his essay. this is standard procedure in science when producing scientific work. it hasnt been validated by any engineering fraternity on the planet. the fact that he has tonnes of credibility in your eyes says a lot about how you've approached the 9/11 question imo. every structural engineering faculty on the planet (that i have seen) disagrees with jones' assumptions re the collapse. yet again you're ignoring them in favour of 1 person. who is a physacist, not an engineer. his expertise and research lies in cold fusion ffs.
the university has put him on paid leave because people weren't happy with him teaching fantastical science he wasnt qualified to be teaching.
again, jones has not had his article peer reviewed, and every review ive read from actual structural engineers completely destroy his hypotheses.
| quote: |
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Becuase, unlike some people, I considered both possibilities, of an inside job, and no government complicity. And it's not hard for the Goverment to twist arms and keep people quiet/circulate propaganda through respected sources. It's been done through out modern history. I don't ignore history when trying to understand the present.
Plus, the fact of the matter is that now we know the Goverment had foreknowledge and failed to act. Plus, the Bush Administration's oppurtunistic behaviour, wars of agression, and lies are also obvious by this point. Keeping that in mind and the fact that they had foreknowledge and allowed the attack to take place is complicity in and of itself. Infact, the attacks would never had occured if standard NORAD protocols and procedures went uninterupted. |
i have definitely considered both perspectives. if the government had forewarning of the attacks and did nothing, then thats certainly an argument to be made. but this whole planting explosives argument which has been analysed by heaps of people in the last 5 years, still hasnt produced any real evidence. in the abscence of actual evidence its just not intellectually sound to believe in the controlled demolition position, especially considering all the other questions that must be then answered.
the bush government's behaviour since 2001 isnt evidence of complicity etc. it is a perfect example of political opportunism. thats really what 95% of politics is about afterall.
to be honest, i think you are quite naive when you consider exactly how much power any government has in shaping the inqueries by academics and field experts. governments in liberal democracies are not all powerful, despite what people might try and think. the argument that the government could control all the scientists and engineers that have examined the collapses is simply laughable. they couldnt even keep their intelligence bureaus quiet after they mis-used the intelligence reports to justify the 2003 invasion. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Geez ... even if there was a fire, there were plenty of high-rise fires more intense like Madrid fire, but the building didnt fall. And WTC7 wasnt exactly the same coonstruction like WTC1 WTC2. |
yes, WTC7 was a "tube within a tube" design like WTC1&2.
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
And it was not damaged as much as other nearby buildings that withstood. And those other buildings burned too, and WTC4 didnt collapse in a pile of rubble all the way to the foundation. |
WTC7 was the only one of those buildings that burned for over 6 hours with little fire fighting. it burned and burned whilst everyone else focused elsewhere. fire fighters are quoted saying how bad the building looked. there is no evidence of explosives at all. give it up.
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Enough enoough. Ii see you have some strong support from your end, I believe my evidence is stronger, let's concentrate on other aspects of this event because this is futile. |
no. without evidence of controlled demolition you've got nothing. you can point at all the other supposed issues re 9/11, but without compelling evidence of demolition you cant argue the govt orchestrated the attacks. pure and simple. im not interested in the other anomalies. im interested in ground zero and how those buildings came down. 5 years on, youve still got nothing. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yes, WTC7 was a "tube within a tube" design like WTC1&2.
WTC7 was the only one of those buildings that burned for over 6 hours with little fire fighting. it burned and burned whilst everyone else focused elsewhere. fire fighters are quoted saying how bad the building looked. there is no evidence of explosives at all. give it up.
no. without evidence of controlled demolition you've got nothing. you can point at all the other supposed issues re 9/11, but without compelling evidence of demolition you cant argue the govt orchestrated the attacks. pure and simple. im not interested in the other anomalies. im interested in ground zero and how those buildings came down. 5 years on, youve still got nothing. |
Enjoy living in your fascist country. In anothr 5 years or less, when more terrorist attacks are gonna hit USA, which is widely anticipated, more laws will be passed, more freedoms will be taken away, even Constitution might be suspended. And people like you will say that the government is not at fault of the attacks ... just like Nazi Germany before WW2 in 1930s ... everybody knows what happened afterwards.
I am tired arguing about this building construction crap, its completely futile with government-happy and supportive people like you. You follow them blindly. Well, good luck. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Oh , I almost forgot ... Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 had multiple explosives found inside the federal building that was supposed to bring the whole building down:
I have a DVD with great on-the-scene interviews where police, media and eye witnesses said and saw other explosives in the federal building that didnt go off being diffused. 2 MORE EXPLOSIVES in addition to 2 UNIQUE EXPLOSIONS that were even recorded on the seismic scale.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/R...ombs/bombs.html
http://www.stopcovertwar.com/McVeigh.html
OOOPS, sorry I hijacked the thread. My point is, this has been done. Even the Russians in 1999, the FSB was caught planting bombs in the buildings ;-) its been done over annd over again.
London bombings of 7-7: the same day on the same stations a special team was doing LIVE excercises on a scenario of terrorist attack on their transit system. What are the odds. It was caught on tape, the public official even said this, that they were dooing this ... see the Alex Jones Terror Storm video, its has the ORIGINAL footage froom 3 different stations. Unreal. |
im sorry. but youre really just sounding like a ing crazy lunatic now. if this is the best the 9/11 nutcases have then im not surprised you're being ignored. hint hint: mcveigh planted those bombs in the building champ! |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
I am tired arguing about this building construction crap, its completely futile with government-happy and supportive people like you. You follow them blindly. Well, good luck. |
ill chock that up as yet another win over the lunatics. you all respond this way "oh, im sick of this blah blah blah". its hard when you come up against real evidence isnt it sonny?
enjoy your exciting conspiratorial world mate! must be exciting with everyone out to get you. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
im sorry. but youre really just sounding like a ing crazy lunatic now. if this is the best the 9/11 nutcases have then im not surprised you're being ignored. hint hint: mcveigh planted those bombs in the building champ! |
And he acted alone, right? Like the government said ... this you can never convince me, its ludicrous. Its funny that ATF agents were warned not to come in to work that day, and they were at the scene within minutes IN FULL BOMB GEAR that takes half an hour to put on. As seen in videos, live television. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
I think of you exactly as you think of me.
Oh yes, I believe that Pearl Harbour was set up, and military allowed Japs to bomb it, yeah, I believe IBM helped the genocide by maintaining and selling machines and equipment to Nazis, oh yeah, I am a conspiracy theorist. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
 |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
I live quite a happy life. I am not afraid, you have your illusions about me man. I dont like ignorance thoough.
I believe in more "wacky" things according to you: I thing Diana was murdered, so was JFK, Americans didnt land on the moon, aliens are real, Roswell happened, Illuminati and other secret societies are their world group is real, that they're planning to wipe out three quarters of the world population, that more terrorist attacks much worse than before are coming, etc. etc. etc.
I see you just as crazy as you perceive me, because you live an ignorant life. Like in movie Matrix, you are one of those plugged in the machine, completely unaware and not caring about world's issues, the overpopulation issues, pollution, death, poverty, unknown wars, destruction of Earth's ecosystems, etc. etc. etc. This makes you even more insane, because ignorance is the biggest problem |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
I believe in more "wacky" things according to you: I think Diana was murdered, so was JFK, Americans didnt land on the moon, aliens are real, Roswell happened, Illuminati and other secret societies are their world group is real, that they're planning to wipe out three quarters of the world population, that more terrorist attacks much worse than before are coming, etc. etc. etc.
|
well that just speaks of volumes :haha::haha::haha::haha:
hey shaolin, wheres your support of your brother in arms? :D
well im not gonna bother with you anymore coz youre a ing fruitcake. |
|
|
|
|
