EPTThe big ones are kept secret by public incredulity.
edit: by Herbert Marshall McLuhan
sry i forgot that to mention
WikiLeaks releases 911 text messages - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ronibez
Hungary182 Posts
The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity. edit: by Herbert Marshall McLuhan sry i forgot that to mention | ||
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
On November 26 2009 23:31 ronibez wrote: by Herbert Marshall McLuhanOnly the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity. Dam right too. (die hard fan of his work here) | ||
|
udgnim
United States8024 Posts
| ||
|
crayons
Singapore65 Posts
| ||
|
MagisterMan
Sweden525 Posts
| ||
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
On November 26 2009 23:43 udgnim wrote: I love how all conspiracy theorists are experts on how huge ass burning buildings should properly topple down . Well I´m quite sure redhot melting steel in the bottom of the building doesn´t fit if the fires were higher and not hot enough to melt steel. But of course I might be wrong, better stick to the official story as always. LIES Also I love how all those who buy the official story are more expert on how huge ass burning buildings should properly topple down | ||
JWD
United States12607 Posts
On November 26 2009 15:31 Magic84 wrote: It's your government that blew up towers to have an excuse to attack iraq and middle east in general, but it weren't really american people behind it. I'd say who, how and what for exactly, but i don't want to talk about that, it's all very obvious and pretty widely known and it isn't really a conspiracy, but your tv, newspapers and internet news won't give you clues, and it's for a reason. And it will probably be better to tag my post as dumb and move on, as most will do. lol | ||
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
| ||
|
1tym
Korea (South)2425 Posts
The world trade center was designed to take hits from Boeing 707 which is similar to Boeing 767 in mass which was the plane that crashed into the building. If you understand anything about structural engineering, you would be amazed at how much novel safeguards and design elements were put in place to strengthen and to protect the building. World trade center was among the first to use the steel structure, with rigid steel beams, also it used rigid hollow tube of closely packed steel columns with floor trusses around the core (centre) of the building. In plain English, it's like a mosquito net and the planes being struck in the building is like a pen you poke through the net. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. By anticipates loads, we are talking worst case scenarios, like earthquakes and hurricanes. It is also designed to withstand fire. When it comes to the design of WTC, far more greater measure was taken. If the claim that it was destroyed by fire were true, then it would probable be the only steel framed skyscraper ever to have collapsed exclusively due to fire. You can examine other similar cases for modern sky scrappers and you would not find a precedent. Moreover the free-fall of the building and the Squibs that appear at regular intervals about 10 floors below demolition waves are all signs of controlled demolition. It is not really possible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance. P.S Operation Northwood has indeed taken place in 1962's and while JFK has opposed the plan, JFK was assassinated in 1963. I would not know as to if there was any linkage between the two, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was. | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6635 Posts
And the whole conspiracy theory is insane, people believing that it was a missile that hit the pentagon etc. ridiculous lol. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On November 26 2009 18:27 Choros wrote: Osama Bin Laden did work for the US government back in the 1980's this is not in question. Yes it is. The US government supported the mujahideen that were indigenous to Afghanistan in the war with the USSR. Even if weapons had gone to foreign mujahideen in Afghanistan, it would be disingenuous to claim that they worked for the US. | ||
|
1tym
Korea (South)2425 Posts
On November 27 2009 00:20 jello_biafra wrote: The building was designed to collapse in on itself in the event of structural failure and they didn't take the insane amount of burning jet fuel into account when they designed it to be able to take a hit from an airliner. And the whole conspiracy theory is insane, people believing that it was a missile that hit the pentagon etc. ridiculous lol. I advise you to read this. Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html | ||
vGl-CoW
Belgium8305 Posts
On November 26 2009 21:56 mdb wrote: Even more hilarious is that if you have read those plausible sources and if you think for 2 seconds, they are plausible just as the fucking conspiracy websites. Are you trolling? They're actually debating verifiable facts. If one side was saying that you get HIV by having sex with an infected person and the other side was saying that you get HIV by, say, overexposure to mercury, would you just go "hmm well these both sound about equally plausible, I'm just gonna randomly decide which one is right"? Of course, you would not. You would compare both sides' arguments and counterarguments and then decide what makes the most sense. If you actually did your research, you would find that the counter-conspiracists are to refute pretty much every conspiracist argument. If the conspiracists say that the explosion and fires wouldn't have caused a high enough temperature to cause the steel girders to melt in order to allow a collapse, and then you have the counter-conspiracists stating that, while the temperature indeed was not high enough to cause steel to melt, it was high enough to cause loss of structural integrity to a sufficient degree to allow for the girders to collapse (which is a simple, physical fact), then there's simply nothing more to say. Argument destroyed, counter-conspiracists win, GG. On November 26 2009 22:01 ktp wrote: I think this is true on both sides, people are going to read what they want to hear anyway. I use to be believe in the official story, but then I read a lot of conspiracy websites and it changed my perspective on things. I don't think anyone can deny that governments in the past have exploited tragedy for their personal gains. It's been documented but never really talked about. Thats the thing that really struck out at me. I've always trusted my intuition, and when I put the pieces together, I always get the feeling that something doesn't make sense. I completely understand why people would laugh at the idea that there would bombs in the buildings, it does sound a little ridiculous and over the top. But I don't think those details are important in a debate like this. I think what is more important is the fact that our government exploited a tragic event in order to go to war. This is what disturbs me the most. What I don't understand is how many, many people fail to follow a path of reason when it comes to 9/11. This is how it should go: OK, so 9/11 happened. We're told that it was a terrorist act. Oh, now people are saying it might have been a conspiracy. Well, let's check out their arguments. *reads* Wow, pretty compelling. I guess it could possibly have been an inside job. This merits further attention. Let's see if there are any counterarguments. Oh, there are. *reads* Hm, those actually did a fantastic job of rebutting the conspiracy arguments. Let's see what the conspiracists have to say to that. Oh, nothing at all. Case closed then, the counter-conspiracists are right. This is how it actually goes: OK, so 9/11 happened. We're told that it was a terrorist act. Oh, now people are saying it might have been a conspiracy. Well, let's check out their arguments. *reads* Wow, pretty compelling. Must have been an inside job. Case closed then, the conspiracists are right. Then, they like to think that they're open-minded and Not Afraid To Ask The Tough Questions, when really they're close-minded for skipping the last few crucial steps. Also, you're right in stating that what's really worrying about the whole situation is how, once 9/11 happened, the Bush administration simply tried to figure out a completely immoral way of turning it into economic and political gain. On November 26 2009 23:08 Conquest101 wrote: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm Now with science! And graphs! And youtube links and shit. 10 sec google job, but I browsed through it and it looks pretty legit. UNLESS, it's really just another government site designed to throw us off the.... + Show Spoiler + Oh shit, men in black suits at my door. Gotta split. Yeah, see how it easy it is to find convincing counterarguments? Would you still think that the collapse of building 7 was due to a controlled explosion? I never even understood that argument in the first place. It wouldn't make sense even if there was a conspiracy. Why would they bring down a building that wasn't hit by one of the planes? Apart from looking completely suspicious, there's simply no further gain in bringing down an additional building. It's not like the public is going to be even more shocked that WTC 7 went down along with the twin towers. Scenario A: "Oh my God, did you hear? Terrorists took down the twin towers!" - "Hm, that's pretty bad, I guess." *shrug* Scenario B: "Oh my God, did you hear? Terrorists took down the twin towers AND building seven!" - "THIS IS AN OUTRAGE. LETS BOMB THE SHIT OUT OF IRAQ ASAP." | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6635 Posts
On November 27 2009 00:24 1tym wrote: I advise you to read this. Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html Okay I'll take a look, I'm just remembering the case study I did in a civil engineering course and the conclusion of the professor and pretty much everyone in the class was that it only made sense for it to collapse under the conditions. I'm no expert though of course so I can't say with 100% certainty | ||
|
irishash
United States285 Posts
On November 26 2009 23:43 udgnim wrote: I love how all conspiracy theorists are experts on how huge ass burning buildings should properly topple down. you and a few others here need to do a bit of research from somewhere other than your ass. | ||
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
On November 27 2009 00:20 jello_biafra wrote: The building was designed to collapse in on itself in the event of structural failure and they didn't take the insane amount of burning jet fuel into account when they designed it to be able to take a hit from an airliner. And the whole conspiracy theory is insane, people believing that it was a missile that hit the pentagon etc. ridiculous lol. No it isn´t insane, if they say one of the planes turned into a rabbit midair, that would be insane. If you think you have the ability to tell what is true and real feel free to enlighten others too, the world would be a much happier place and you would be made into a world leader, might even score a lotta chicks too. Please people try use words like maybe, possibly and probably more than words like is, true and definitely. Also we are talking about people who believe their presidents know some invisible mans (=Gods) will, that´s quite insane too. And that jetfuel probably didn´t have that much effect on anything. E. ![[image loading]](http://aaronhollman.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Empirestate540.jpg) I´m still waiting this one to come down neatly, god damn it´s 40 years older design too... I apologize if my words had negative effect on anyone and even if they didn´t just to be on the safe side. | ||
|
1tym
Korea (South)2425 Posts
On November 27 2009 00:28 jello_biafra wrote: Okay I'll take a look, I'm just remembering the case study I did in a civil engineering course and the conclusion of the professor and pretty much everyone in the class was that it only made sense for it to collapse under the conditions. I'm no expert though of course so I can't say with 100% certainty I would not imagine many US or UK (closest ally to US) professors to be bold enough to claim that the 911 was an inside job and make a headline at the newspaper possibly putting his/her entire career in jeopardy even if he/she felt that way. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On November 26 2009 23:29 HwangjaeTerran wrote: Wasn´t Obamas campaign anti-war? Suddenly we have bank crisis and now Obama sending more troops overseas... Almost like there is someone else pulling the strings...  No, you weren't paying attention. As far as Afghanistan was concerned, Obama was, by far, the most hawkish viable candidate in the race. | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6635 Posts
On November 27 2009 00:34 1tym wrote: I would not imagine many US or UK (closest ally to US) professor to be bold enough to claim that the 911 was an inside job and make a headline at the newspaper possibly putting his/her entire career in jeopardy even if he/she felt that way. He was actually Brazilian and he knew what he was talking about, he didn't just say "it should have collapsed" he went through the entire thing showing his working and explaining every detail of it. And I imagine the Empire State Building didn't go down when it got hit by a plane because that plane was much smaller and travelling much slower. | ||
|
Conquest101
United States1395 Posts
On November 27 2009 00:33 HwangjaeTerran wrote: No it isn´t insane, if they say one of the planes turned into a rabbit midair, that would be insane. If you think you have the ability to tell what is true and real feel free to enlighten others too, the world would be a much happier place and you would be made into a world leader, might even score a lotta chicks too. Please people try use words like maybe, possibly and probably more than words like is, true and definitely. Also we are talking about people who believe their presidents know some invisible mans (=Gods) will, that´s quite insane too. And that jetfuel probably didn´t have that much effect on anything. I apologize if my words had negative effect on anyone and even if they didn´t just to be on the safe side. What was the point of this post? You're bringing in semantics and the fact that President Obama believes in god as your arguments? Very convincing. + Show Spoiler + Obama believes in God! You know who else believes in God? Muslims. You know what a lot of Muslims are? Terrorists. Thus, Obama = Terrorist. QED Also, you are correct. The 90000L of jet fuel burning at 700 degrees celsius probably didn't do anything. | ||
| ||
