lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Mar 30, 2006 23:08:01 GMT -4
How many structural engineers dispute the official explanations for the collapse of the WTC towers? That is the best way to be on list for lucrative reconstruction contratsThe wise thing these US structural engineers firms have to do is stay in line with the official story. Do you know structural engineeers -inside and outside- the USA which have put time and money for and independant analysis? A gand total of 0 qualified experts from anywhere in the world say they believe the WTC buildings were demo'd not even ones from countries like Iran, Iraqi, Cuba and Serbia where the governments are (or were) strongly anti-US or Muslim countries were large segments of the population hate the US and polls showed most people believed the US govt organized the attacks. How do you nrationalize that?
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Mar 30, 2006 23:16:51 GMT -4
If I thought that there was evidence that explosives brought down buildings and killed 3000 people, YES! So if an Mechanical Engineering Professor thought that there was evidence that -thermite- and explosives brought down buildings and killed 3000 people you will be interested to listen to it ? I'm confused are you referring to the physicist who specializes in solar energy who thinks thermite might have been used or the mechanical engineering prof (who specializes in dental fillings) who thinks the collapses should have come to a complete halt every few floors?
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 30, 2006 23:58:04 GMT -4
A gand total of 0 qualified experts from anywhere in the world say they believe the WTC buildings were demo'd not even ones from countries like Iran, Iraqi, Cuba and Serbia where the governments are (or were) strongly anti-US or Muslim countries were large segments of the population hate the US and polls showed most people believed the US govt organized the attacks. How do you nrationalize that? Do you have any references about the muslim country structural engineering firm reports ?As well as Cuban and Serbia?
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Mar 31, 2006 0:00:59 GMT -4
So if an Mechanical Engineering Professor thought that there was evidence that -thermite- and explosives brought down buildings and killed 3000 people you will be interested to listen to it ? I'm confused are you referring to the physicist who specializes in solar energy who thinks thermite might have been used or the mechanical engineering prof (who specializes in dental fillings) who thinks the collapses should have come to a complete halt every few floors? I talk about the mechanical engineering teacher which is member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Mar 31, 2006 7:41:41 GMT -4
I'm confused are you referring to the physicist who specializes in solar energy who thinks thermite might have been used or the mechanical engineering prof (who specializes in dental fillings) who thinks the collapses should have come to a complete halt every few floors? I talk about the mechanical engineering teacher which is member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Look at her profile linked on the other thread. Nothing in it indicatss she is in any way qualified to analyze the collapse of any building let alone a case as complex as the WTC. Her areas of expertise are moire imaging and dental fillings.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Apr 5, 2006 3:11:12 GMT -4
I note that feelfree222 still hasn't named any Structural Engineers who challenge the official story about the collapse of the WTC Towers.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Apr 5, 2006 16:27:48 GMT -4
Those of you who live outside the U.S. and still believe the official 9/11 cover story amaze me. You're not forced to drink the fluoridated water (promotes passivity) or watch the controlled media (also promotes passivity) like us sheeple, yet you still find no glaring anomalies in the official story. Nor can you see the numerous conflicts of interest in those pushing the government version, especially those appointed to the 9/11 Commission and of course the numerous business ties between Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, the Bin Ladens and Saudi Arabia.
Who's gained the most from 9/11? The global military-industrial complex, not Bin Laden or his allies. Bin Laden pops up like a hand puppet every time Bush needs to sell the latest assualt on the Constitution. We must give up all our freedoms, because the terrorists hate our freedoms. History has shown again and again that those who trade liberty for security lose both and get tyranny instead.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 5, 2006 16:45:22 GMT -4
If I have to choose between the "official story" and a conspiracy theory that requires me to believe that the witnesses who saw the planes crash into the WTC and Pentagon were all suffering from some kind of mass hallucination, I'll choose the official story.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Apr 5, 2006 17:14:21 GMT -4
Those of you who live outside the U.S. and still believe the official 9/11 cover story amaze me.
Excuse me?!
Those of you arrogant enough to suggest that you are immune to the biased propaganda that all the 911 conspiracy sites spew, and consider yourselves to be somehow able to see through the brainwashing that all these poor sheep just must have been exposed to, since of course according to you it's totally impossible for any rational, intelligent person to believe the official story amaze me
Then to somehow apologize for all the poor Americans on this board who, despite their apparent qualifications and rational examination of ALL the evidence still dare disagree with you, by suggesting it just MUST be the fluoride in their water that has turned them into mindless, authority following automatons.
...well, let's just say you have a little self worth problem; you think you have more than you do.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Apr 5, 2006 21:37:42 GMT -4
Mmm, probably not the dumbest but pretty close is the "NASA Planes were used for 9/11", with the evidence: an eye-witness who saw a round blue logo on the second plane.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Apr 5, 2006 22:57:59 GMT -4
911:Inside Job said:
Wow! Are you trying to tell me that the Controlled Media have someone in your house, forcing you to sit in front of the TV and watch the channels they nominate? What happens if you try to listen to National Public Radio, or watch a DVD instead?
And as for the fluoridated water, perhaps you could point me to the randomised double-blind medical study which demonstrated that fluoridation causes passivity. What sort of passivity? Does no one protest against government decisions? Is there no such thing as activism in the USA?
As it happens, most cities and towns in Australia (where I live) have fluoridated water supplies. As far as I can tell, the only difference between people living in fluoridated and un-fluoridated cities is the number of fillings in people’s teeth. The level of anti-government protest and activism seems unaffected.
As for the official story about what happened, yes, I accept it. I haven’t seen any substantial problems demonstrated with it. Unfortunately, I’ve seen a lot of poor-quality arguments from people who reject the official story.
Can you explain to me why there’s something wrong with people having a business relationship with the Bin Laden family, and at the same time trying to capture another member of the same family who happens to be a terrorist? Or are you saying that if a person breaks the law in some way, all members of that person’s family should be treated as criminals as well, regardless of what they’ve done?
Well, now we get to something interesting. This is an issue which can be taken two ways.
There are a lot of people who seem to assume that whoever benefits from a particular situation must necessarily be responsible for that situation. Well, sometimes that’s the case. I’ve certainly heard stories of glaziers who’ve gone around smashing windows in order to build business. But it’s not always the case. In the case of the events of September 11 2001, I’m convinced that a particular group of people (Al-Qaeda) undertook the attacks as part of an anti-American strategy. They had perpetrated previous attacks (such as the bombing of the USS Cole, the WTC attack in 1993, and the attacks on American embassies in Africa), and they were associated with subsequent attacks around the world (the 2002 Bali bombing, the 2004 Madrid bombing and the 2005 London bombing). These are people with a strongly anti-Western sentiment, and their ultimate goal, realistic or not, is the Islamisation of the world. And as a result of their actions, they’ve called down the wrath of Bush and Blair on them.
The other way of looking at the point you raise is the way the Western world (in particular the USA, the UK and Australia) has responded to these attacks. And I don’t like what I’ve seen. The anti-terror laws which have been passed in Australia are draconian, and I’m not convinced they’re necessary. Various government departments have grown massively in response to these changes, but I think the money to fund this growth is poorly spent, and could have been better spent on other projects.
The Global War on Terror is aimed at the wrong target. The violence of groups like Al Qaeda is merely one aspect of a larger cultural conflict – between the West and Islam. That conflict will not be resolved with military action. Instead, either one culture or the other will be absorbed, or either, or both, will accept aspects of the others’ culture. My hope is that Islamic culture will adopt aspects of Western culture such as democracy, the rule of law and secularism. The problem is that these normally aren’t adopted at the point of a gun.
I'd be interested to hear your views on this subject.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Apr 6, 2006 5:32:41 GMT -4
I'd be interested to hear your views on this subject.
Reading his posts, I would submit that an unbiased, rational discussion about it with him would be fairly impossible.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Apr 6, 2006 8:59:06 GMT -4
Those of you who live outside the U.S. and still believe the official 9/11 cover story amaze me. You're not forced to drink the fluoridated water (promotes passivity) or watch the controlled media (also promotes passivity) like us sheeple, yet you still find no glaring anomalies in the official story. Nor can you see the numerous conflicts of interest in those pushing the government version, especially those appointed to the 9/11 Commission and of course the numerous business ties between Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, the Bin Ladens and Saudi Arabia. Who's gained the most from 9/11? The global military-industrial complex, not Bin Laden or his allies. Bin Laden pops up like a hand puppet every time Bush needs to sell the latest assualt on the Constitution. We must give up all our freedoms, because the terrorists hate our freedoms. History has shown again and again that those who trade liberty for security lose both and get tyranny instead. If I may jump in here.... Al Jazeera has broadcast video declarations by the 9-11 hijackers. Not only does bin Laden admit that 9-11 was an Al-Qaeda project but his supporters are proud of it. But if you think that this is also part of the conspiracy then I have to say this. Every historical event has always had conspiracy theories surrounding them. Even the Titanic sinking had conspiracy theories. So did the discovery of The New World in 1492. If some photo needs explanation or looks odd (taken during the 9-11 events), then this is all that that means. It only means that a photo needs explanation. Get the explanation. Don't get the drama. I have seen where all these interpretations of the photos and videos that point to a conspiracy has been debunked. If you search online, you can find them. Also, I might add, I do not think that most conspiracy theorists really believe in the conspiracy. Similar to the people who James Randi goes after, they are people trying to sell something.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 6, 2006 9:12:01 GMT -4
I wonder why is something is so obvious the argument for it is that anyone that can't see it is a brainwashed idiot.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 6, 2006 18:29:50 GMT -4
Those of you who live outside the U.S. and still believe the official 9/11 cover story amaze me. You're not forced to drink the fluoridated water (promotes passivity) or watch the controlled media (also promotes passivity) like us sheeple, yet you still find no glaring anomalies in the official story. Here in Houston we don’t fluorinate our water. (Doubt there is any evidence that it promote passivity) I personally don’t watch the television much. (Agree that it promotes passivity) I still believe that the official story is the best explanations of the events. How do you account for that? If you feel like a sheeple that is your issue don’t count me in on your labels.
|
|