This is how normal people discuss 9/11

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by whatsecret
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

I don't need my own explanation to see that the official one is not true. It's really very simple, but I expect you will find it hard to understand. Have you ever heard an expression " I don't have to be right for you to be wrong"?

Ummmm, actually, yes you do need your own explanation, especially when you're the one trying to convince other people that they're wrong. You aren't telling people they're wrong for believing in a supernatural deity, or for believing Android is better than Apple, or for thinking that vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate ice cream, because those are just personal opinions. You're trying to tell people they're wrong for accepting established facts which has demonstratable proof, like photos of aircraft wreckage to show it really was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon, or news footage of flames to show there really were large scale fires burning in WTC 7.

Those people have every right to want to know why the information they've seen is incorrect and you can't just tell people to disregard it "because you told them to" and then expect them to take you seriously. How is that not doing exactly the same thing that you're accusing the government (or the military industrial complex, or big oil, or Israel, or Xenu the galactic overlord, or whoever it is you believe is pulling the strings) of doing?

Well, you see, you think I'm telling people what to think, and that's wrong. I'm saying that I don't trust without verifying. NIST isn't making it possible to verify and therefor I don't believe that they figured out what happened to building 7. I do not need any other explanation and I don't need to be right. I think it's extremely naive to believe them until it can be verified. So from my point of view you are making a mistake trusting NIST, I might be wrong about that. We'll find out when they release the information.

reply to post by whatsecret


This attitude you have that "they are wrong no matter what" is the problem with truthers.

You start out with this predetermined believe that "they were in on it", the government were in on it so you cant trust any government reports, the media were in on so you cant trust them, and NIST and FEMA must be in on it because they agree with their government pay masters. it creates a cycle of ignorance because you are simply unable to to accept things such as the NIST report, form the outside its almost funny that you seem to want to engage in a discusion about 9/11 but you do so from a platform that says "its all a lie".


I asked you before why you dont trust NIST you said "ahh they wont make their modeling public". Thats it?

so they wont show you the computer modeling so it must be that they were in on it in someway.

never mind the fact that they have produced a huge report that answers pretty much all your questions you dont trust it because you didn't get to look at the computer modeling.

what a absurd position to take.

especially when you cant actually provide any alternative narrative.


What you are doing is basically telling us that a all these experts (way more than the 1500 of Gage et al) are all wrong but you cant tell us why they are wrong or provide a alternate explanation. They only way you could possibly do that is if someone (probably the lovely Mr Griffen) told you NIST was wrong and that fits in with your predetermined belief so you go with him, never mind that the man is a moron. You go on and on about how we should all "do our own research" yet you cant actually tell me why i am wrong when i explain to you in quite some detail how WTC-7 fell other than to say "i still think your wrong"

I have news for you I am not wrong.

You need to wake up, stop buying into this pathetic conspiracy crap thats just making you more and more ignorant and start looking at the real truth.

I have one last question for you and i want a yes or no

Can't you at the very least accept that A&E for 9/11 truth are wrong when they say the building collapsed in less than 7 seconds?

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


I stopped reading your rant after this..

This attitude you have that "they are wrong no matter what" is the problem with truthers.

Can you guess why?

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Things which happened that day were NOT fully explained and damn sure not to an average man's satisfaction on any level. SOMETHING stinks in all that and it could be the WHOLE thing stinks.....

The average man barely understands why an apple falls from a tree.
Nevermind the physics of fire.

You're right. That's why 'We the people' pay our taxes to the point of real pain to see to it other people who DO understand all that can explain it back to us little people. It's that duty to explain things back to we who pay their checks and retirement packages that seems to be getting lost on a regular basis here. Somehow these people got the idea that rather than support them, we're paying for the privilege of having them.

reply to post by -PLB-

Questions like “how is it possible all experts were fooled...”

Hmmm..."all experts were fooled..." If this was the case, then I doubt there would be any discussion; however, it is readily apparent that not all experts were fooled. Especially by the NIST reports, much of which are based on assumptions.

reply to post by -PLB-

I know of just a handful, but they are heavily invested in this conspiracy theory, and they haven't published anything serious. Those are not the kind of experts you should listen to.

LOL! Are you serious? These people have certifications, degrees, and have spent much of their lives dedicated in fields related to construction, architecture, and engineering. How anyone could assume such a position as to dictate to another also lies so far beyond the veil, it defies logical explanation.

reply to post by whatsecret

But that doesn't matter to you since they are all involved in world wide conspiracy to lie to people so that they can sell books, t-shirts and bumper stickers.

And of course when confronted the undeniable past practices of Czar Bush the First (and the Prescotts) of setting up and supporting the Mujaheddin (during his days in the CIA) and the Bin Laden family, of course the argument then turns to "Show me the millions the Bush family, Cheney, et.al., have made! THEY LIVE LIKE PAUPERS!"

reply to post by totallackey

Shouldn't be hard for you then to name one of these experts and post a link to his publication that proves 911 must have been an inside job.

reply to post by whatsecret


hmmm ok then

lets get back to my question.

Can't you at the very least accept that A&E for 9/11 truth are wrong when they say the building collapsed in less than 7 seconds?

yes or no.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by whatsecret

 

hmmm ok then

lets get back to my question.

Can't you at the very least accept that A&E for 9/11 truth are wrong when they say the building collapsed in less than 7 seconds?

yes or no.

Sure. But I don't see the importance of what they say anyway. They don't have to right for NIST to be wrong. I mean we are talking about a 47 story fully occupied skyscraper collapsing completely in only 17 seconds primarily due to ordinary office fire.

Telling people that they were able to reproduce the same outcome using a computer model which was consistent with reality of 9/11, without telling us what was their version of reality and allowing people to verify it, is not gonna cut it for me.

There is undeniable evidence (as far as I'm concerned) of a cover up of events leading up to 9/11. For me that's more than enough of reasons to not just take their words for it.

reply to post by whatsecret


So you can acsept that they are wrong to say that WTC-7 fell in less than 7 second's despite the fact that they repeate this multiple times when talking about WTC-7 as does Jones.

So if they are wrong about something as simple as the time it took the building to collapse, does that not worry you, that these 1500 experts could get something as simple as the time it took the building to fall so wrong, its a obvious lie. they are the experts right? so they must know now long it really took yet they lie about it.

So again, another question for you, if you can acsept that they have lied about how long it took the building to collapse it is not also possible that they are lying about some of thier other claims including thier critisism of NIST and claims of thermate?

EDIT

There is undeniable evidence (as far as I'm concerned) of a cover up of events leading up to 9/11. For me that's more than enough of reasons to not just take their words for it.

Based on what?

what evidance do you have t that there has been a cover up of the events leading up to 9/11?

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

So you can acsept that they are wrong to say that WTC-7 fell in less than 7 second's despite the fact that they repeate this multiple times when talking about WTC-7 as does Jones.

I don't only accept it, I also confirmed it. The less than 7 seconds part is the visible stage of symmetrical collapse of a 47 story fully occupied skyscraper. I don't know what took place between the penthouse disappearing and the visible symmetrical collapse of a 47 story fully occupied skyscraper.

So if they are wrong about something as simple as the time it took the building to collapse, does that not worry you, that these 1500 experts could get something as simple as the time it took the building to fall so wrong, its a obvious lie. they are the experts right? so they must know now long it really took yet they lie about it.

I apologize but do you mind explaining why that should worry me? Maybe I'm missing something but, I don't remember them being responsible for investigating this horrific crime against my country and her residence. I also don't remember trusting them with protecting my country and her residence. I'm also a firm believer that experts and non expert human beings are capable of lying and making mistakes. Trust but verify my friend.

But even with all of that said, I don't know if the penthouse actually fell trough the 47 story fully occupied skyscraper all the way to the ground between the time it disappeared and the rest of the building symmetrically and completely collapsed to the ground with a period of free fall. They might not be wrong at all as far as I'm concerned.

So again, another question for you, if you can acsept that they have lied about how long it took the building to collapse it is not also possible that they are lying about some of thier other claims including thier critisism of NIST and claims of thermate?

This is the same question as the other one. I have the same answer for it.

Based on what? what evidence do you have t that there has been a cover up of the events leading up to 9/11?

Many of the people that was supposed to investigate it made sure to cover their as$ and told us about it. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. if not you can Google it.

reply to post by totallackey

LOL! Are you serious? These people have certifications, degrees, and have spent much of their lives dedicated in fields related to construction, architecture, and engineering. How anyone could assume such a position as to dictate to another also lies so far beyond the veil, it defies logical explanation.

A lot of their degrees do not apply to a 911 investigation.

reply to post by -PLB-


I have stated here on numerous occasions the OS has too many holes. Too much conjecture in the NIST reports. Basically, one demanding empirical science is left to look and still wonder. I am happy you are satisfied. Not enough satisfied people around if you ask me. Me, I am still in amazement. And I am sure I will go to my grave in amazement. No skin off your nose.

reply to post by samkent

Care to point out any signatory of the AE911 petition possessing a degree you would consider "not applicable?"

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by samkent

 

Care to point out any signatory of the AE911 petition possessing a degree you would consider "not applicable?"

Leslie Simons...Landscape architect

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by samkent

 

Care to point out any signatory of the AE911 petition possessing a degree you would consider "not applicable?"

Leslie Simons...Landscape architect

And why do you think landscape architect is not applicable?

Landscape architecture combines art and science. It is the profession that designs, plans and manages our land. Landscape architecture has strong roots in the U.S., and early examples, such as Monticello, are still much admired. The actual term landscape architecture became common after 1863 when Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux designed New York's Central Park. Today, landscape architects deal with the increasingly complex relationships between the built and natural environments. Landscape architects plan and design traditional places such as parks, residential developments, campuses, gardens, cemeteries, commercial centers, resorts, transportation facilities, corporate and institutional centers and waterfront developments. They also design and plan the restoration of natural places disturbed by humans such as wetlands, stream corridors, mined areas and forested land. Their appreciation for historic landscapes and cultural resources enables landscape architects to undertake preservation planning projects for national, regional and local historic sites and areas. Working with architects, city planners, civil engineers and other professionals, landscape architects play an important role in environmental protection by designing and implementing projects that respect both the needs of people and of our environment. Meeting human needs by making wise use of our environmental resources is work that is in demand today and will continue to be needed in the future. Required Education for a Career in Landscape Architecture A landscape architect needs: Sensitivity to landscape quality Understanding of the arts and a humanistic approach to design. Ability to analyze problems in terms of design and physical form. Technical competence to translate a design into a built work. Skills in all aspects of professional practice including management and professional ethics.

Originally posted by whatsecret


And why do you think landscape architect is not applicable?

Landscape architecture combines art and science. It is the profession that designs, plans and manages our land. Landscape architecture has strong roots in the U.S., and early examples, such as Monticello, are still much admired. The actual term landscape architecture became common after 1863 when Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux designed New York's Central Park. Today, landscape architects deal with the increasingly complex relationships between the built and natural environments. Landscape architects plan and design traditional places such as parks, residential developments, campuses, gardens, cemeteries, commercial centers, resorts, transportation facilities, corporate and institutional centers and waterfront developments. They also design and plan the restoration of natural places disturbed by humans such as wetlands, stream corridors, mined areas and forested land. Their appreciation for historic landscapes and cultural resources enables landscape architects to undertake preservation planning projects for national, regional and local historic sites and areas. Working with architects, city planners, civil engineers and other professionals, landscape architects play an important role in environmental protection by designing and implementing projects that respect both the needs of people and of our environment. Meeting human needs by making wise use of our environmental resources is work that is in demand today and will continue to be needed in the future. Required Education for a Career in Landscape Architecture A landscape architect needs: Sensitivity to landscape quality Understanding of the arts and a humanistic approach to design. Ability to analyze problems in terms of design and physical form. Technical competence to translate a design into a built work. Skills in all aspects of professional practice including management and professional ethics.

Well.....That proves my point. No knowledge of building structures.

Thanks.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by whatsecret


And why do you think landscape architect

Well.....That proves my point. No knowledge of building structures.

Thanks.

Well... First of all, what makes you think he doesn't have that knowledge? And what is he saying that is beyond his scope of practice? Second, why does he need to have specific knowledge of building structure to see that NIST provided no back up for their conclusion?

reply to post by waypastvne

Landscape architecture is a multi-disciplinary field, incorporating aspects of: botany, horticulture, the fine arts, architecture, industrial design, geology and the earth sciences, environmental psychology, geography, and ecology.

link

In addition, course work actually includes architecture.

The bachelor of landscape architecture (BLA) degree is a five-year program that prepares you for a professional career of designing and planning land and outdoor spaces through the application of aesthetic and scientific principles. You will learn to integrate the work of architects, engineers, planners, ecologists, geographers, and physical and social scientists. As an undergraduate student in the College of Architecture and Planning (CAP), you will have a distinctive first-year experience that exposes you to architecture, landscape architecture, and urban planning. During your second year, you will study landscape architecture more intensively. You will be required to complete an internship during your fourth year which provides you with firsthand experience in a professional setting. You will complete the program with a comprehensive project in landscape architecture. In addition, you may choose to study abroad or enroll in a complementary minor to enhance your degree.

link