100 Million Americans Question Official 911 Story

by sammielee24 217 Replies latest members politics

• 

  cyberjesus

  The planes hit the buildings and the buildings came down.

  That makes the study (or lack of a study) prior to the event irrelevant.

  Oh yeah good point. Why waste time engineers and architects with architectural studies and planning. If an airplane hits a building and it is gonna fall then it is, studies are irrelevant.

  With that logic then city planners and code enforcement are irrelevant.

  People want to accept the common opinion and get by with it. It is when we ask the reason of things that we can find the real cause
• 

  notverylikely

  Your question was taken with the scorn and derision it was intended. I answered it in response to that intent - Stay out of the kitchen!

  Again, your intent was quite clear. The meaning was not lost - your condescension masked as some sort of superior arrogance and enlightenment, also evident by the way in your response, is without question.

  That's what happens when you state ridiculous untrue theories and use suspicion, shoddy research and half truth to peddle it. I might notice the kitchen is hot, but at least i can cook.

  No theory at all. I worked in a related field

  But the point kinda went against your compsiracy ideas. That's the part you didn't think through.

  Yeah 'Popular Mechanics' is just an innocent little old magazine that just writes articles about the latest technologies

  Prove they aren't. Writing an article that uses facts that disagrees with conspiracy isn't proof. And they went on Glenn Beck because he's garbage spewing nutbag and clearly someone felt that the exposure might just do one of his listeners some good. Well, I would guess that. Since I wasn't there personally can't attest to exactly why that decision was made. \

  The 911 truthers have alot of evidence, Popular Mechanics did a one sided hit piece on them.

  "WHHAAARRRGARRBLLL!" is not evidence. Can you name some actual evidence that doesn't have a valid explanation?

  BTW: Some of the firefighters reported that most of the fires in the Tower they were in had been put out by the sprinkler system by the time they arrived.

  None of the firefighters made it to the floor where the planes impacted and the fires were raging. They would have no knowledge of this. Maybe those people were jumping out of windows because they thought they could fly, I suppose.
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  CyberJesus, truthfully, your questions are not compelling, thats the whole crux of the matter to me.

  Now trust me, I am going to bed soon, and if it means anything, please believe me when I say that I think my government is lying to me and screwing me in some way I have no idea about.

  I find it amusing that you seem upset that others don't readily agree with you. I wouldn't know that for sure, it just seems like that. Happy to be wrong if I am.

  Again, all you want to do is argue about those who poke holes in your swiss cheese theory. Prior studies are only as good as the evidence that follows. More studies on the construction and design of sky scrapers will be done, and I am damn sure they will be studying the WTC and the events of 9/11 most closely.

  Until then, it is laughable that less then 5 pages of comments based on theories alone in the 1960's somehow makes it impossible that the jets of 9/11 caused the collapse of the WTC towers. It isn't that the 9/11 engineers didn't think about jets flying into their designs, its just that they obviously underestimated the potential for catastrophic damage, thats all.

  And you still don't buy my conspiracy theory that the WTC engineer didn't want to scare away a contract and his payday by not making a big deal about how he knew that his building design really was vulnerable to jets flying into them? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. I say, he wanted a paycheck, and his estimates on how the WTC towers would deal with jets flying into them were purposely hidden. You say, Bush did it. We both have the same evidence.

  People don't want to accept the common opinion when they saw what happened on live TV. You are battling videotape from 4 networks and the eyewitness accounts of thousands of survivors. This isn't the Zapruder tape. But again, have fun living a life where you question everything. Clearly, that is the purpose of mankind....
• 

  read good books

  Until then, it is laughable that less then 5 pages of comments based on theories alone in the 1960's somehow makes it impossible that the jets of 9/11 caused the collapse of the WTC towers. It isn't that the 9/11 engineers didn't think about jets flying into their designs, its just that they obviously underestimated the potential for catastrophic damage, thats

  Jeff for about the umpteenth time building seven wasn't hit by a jet, oh well whats on t.v.
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Yeah, that other tower had the bad luck of being in the way of the WTC fallling on it. Imagine.... ;)
• 

  notverylikely

  Now really if you think about it we can only conclude one of two things from this-

  That's a false dichotomy. Typical of people that wan't to use data to arrive at a point of view rather than use data to get to the right point of view. It could just be that their model was deficient. That's acutally one of the inherent problems with models based on assumptions and data. We don't know what we don't know until the thing we are trying to model happens.

  Oh yeah good point. Why waste time engineers and architects with architectural studies and planning. If an airplane hits a building and it is gonna fall then it is, studies are irrelevant.

  Sometimes they get it wrong. Google the Tacoma Narrows bridge and aeroelastic flutter.
• 

  read good books

  could just be that their model was deficient. That's

  If their model is deficient then it would be safe to choose a. they don't know what their talking about, or don't I speak english???
• 

  notverylikely

  If their model is deficient then it would be safe to choose a. they don't know what their talking about, or don't I speak english???

  No, it wouldn't be safe. It would be incorrect.

  You seen, when people are building a model about an event that hasn't happened, they have to make assumptions. In some areas, they can use the model to predict what they should find, perform tests and see if the model is accurate and use the data from the experiment to update the model. In other cases, they can't really experiment (like a plane flying into the WTC). e

  In the latter case, it's clear that the model was incorrect, but that doesn't imply that they don't know what they were talking about. It means the data they were working with was incomplete and there was no way to get it short of the event they were trying to model.

  Again, this doesn't mean that the people creating the model didn't know what they were talking about. It JUST means they had incomplete data to work with or, having never witnessed the event they are modelling, didn't know what they didn't know or know how big of an impact small variable might have. For instance, weather modelling. There's a reason you don't get weather reports past 10 days out. Complex systems are HARD.
• 

  cyberjesus

  Hey Jeff good night then, by the way I am not upset because people dont agree with me. This is not a forum for agreeable opinions otherwise it will be a convention. My questions might not be compelling to you but thats not my intention. My intention is to share with people what doesnt sound logic to me and hear their impressions.

  Anyway sweet dreams
• 

  read good books

  Yeah, that other tower had the bad luck of being in the way of the WTC fallling on it. Imagine.... ;)

  That makes as much sense as NISTS theory on building seven.