What Year Did You Stop Your Cognitive Dissonance Towards The 9/11 OS ?

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: enlightenedservant


Huh? I never said I "believed softer objects could not damage harder objects". That's a straight up lie.

Really lets have a look at what YOU said important words in bold.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
How could airliners do that much damage without explosives also inside of the buildings? Especially when people were hearing & getting caught up in explosions, including the firefighters themselves. Firefighters were even having to leave the buildings because of additional explosions. And that doesn't even get to Building 7.

The exteriors of airliners are made from very thin materials in order to keep the planes lightweight. So them knocking down those towers didn't make sense, especially since I've seen failed controlled demolitions. So when people started saying it was strictly the 4 planes, it didn't make sense. If they would've said it was a combination of the planes & controlled demolitions, I would've believed the initial story.

They did have an explosive mixture on board FUEL , I never said that YOU made the other comments it's just a list of BS that get's repeated over and over.

As for people hearing explosions when very LARGE structural components fail guess what they make a LOT OF NOISE and because of the events of the day loud noise becomes an explosion can you imagine hundreds then thousands of tons of steel falling. I have seen people almost 5h1t themselves when a large structural fixing ,or glulam beams or concrete and other items are tested to failure and they don't know it's about to happen.

LOL You can't quote me, bold one half of the sentence, then expect us to conveniently ignore the second half of the very same sentence! I literally said "How could airliners do that much damage without explosives also inside of the buildings?" That's what I've been saying the whole time. And I stand by that. That's the same point I made in the 2nd part you quoted too. There's no way those planes caused the explosions in the basement & front lobby, much less miraculously made Building 7 fall. But those planes combined with an intricate amount of controlled explosions would do it.

Also here's what you did say to me:

YOU believed softer objects could not damage harder objects so we have already seen your understanding of physics,materials and kinetic energy are WRONG so what else could be WRONG!!!

You were wrong there because I never said that. Then you used your false statement to make the rest of your argument.

As for this:

I never said that YOU made the other comments it's just a list of BS that get's repeated over and over.

So why put it in response to my post? Especially when you're in the middle of "proving" how wrong I supposedly am about soft things damaging hard things? Like I said, it looked like you simply copy-and-pasted an "anti-Loose Change/anti-Missing Links" argument to refute my observations, even though I didn't make those points in the first place.

And last, the explosions happened all up & down the buildings before they fell. There are interviews with firefighters explaining how they had to leave the buildings because of the recurring explosions on various floors. I don't believe 2 airliners would cause that, especially since most of the fuel burned off in the initial explosion & the massive fires on the floors where they hit. Obviously you think it did happen like that though. We'll just have to agree to disagree b/c you won't change my mind on it.

a reply to: ADVISOR

Hey brother, been a while. I was home sick that morning and watching the coverage from the beginning. My very first thought was - this was intentional, perfectly clear sky, not an accident. After that it was more and more evidence pointing inward at our own establishment. For multiple jets to be hijacked and not intercepted? Not without serious interference from within our own command structure. People can blame government incompetence all they like but don't make that mistake with the rank and file military. Those people know what they're doing and how to get it done. When it doesn't get done you can bet it wasn't their mistake. We have the best fighter pilots in the world, catching a 757 would be a breeze for all but novice pilots. I also wasn't willing to suspend the laws of physics not even once, forget 2 or even 4 times (I count disappearing planes in Shanksville).

I'm also old enough that 9/11 wasn't my first CT rodeo so to speak. I remember JFK getting shot and the disbelief of my parents must have rubbed off on me. They were from Texas and by God they didn't trust LBJ, they thought he was one mean cuss. Vietnam and Watergate were instrumental in my education then it was Iran/Contra, followed by crack=CIA/Central America - Waco Branch Dravidians and OKC. 9/11 was more like the hammer dropping I half expected to come long before it did. I was almost ready to start believing government could still serve the people but then there was stolen election thing in 2000. Lol at my loss of confidence in them!

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: GBP/JPY

It's the feeling you get when you hold two or more conflicting beliefs.

To a degree, but the theory also dictates that people either keep their normal or original belief and shut out conflicting information or actions OR change their belief and actions to encompass the new info.

originally posted by: glend
When I read an online UK article with the headlined that Bin Laden claimed responsibility for 9/11 but when I clicked their source it linked to an Afghan newspaper interview with Bin Laden where he claimed he had nothing to do with 9/11, said it was done by people within the US.

There was a Pakistani interview with him saying the same. He seemed sincere, actually admitting his attacks on some embassies in Africa but saying killing thousands of innocent people in 911 was against his religious beliefs. So we had someone admitting to his military/government attacks, but saying he wouldn't target random civilians..

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: JeanPaul

Can humble forum members grant applause? If so: APPLAUSE!

Not sure. I can't even post threads.

Anyhow, CIA knowledge of Al Qaeda in America should be investigated. Able Danger should be properly investigated, which it wasnt. NORAD failures should be properly investigated.

None of this will happen and people will remain clueless. Even Richard Clarke said the CIA needs to be investigated for maleficence.

Point blank, the "intelligence failures" and NORAD defense failures are the main issue.

Go herd your sheep and leave the thinking to the big people.
a reply to: chr0naut

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: ForteanOrg

The problem with Gage and his model he is implying that because the mass below the impact zone is more than above it couldn't happen.

Firstly, thank you for your argumentation.

The real problem is with the floor slabs they had same design near the bottom and the top (apart from 3 service floors) The connections for the trusses on each floor slab are designed for the floors own mass plus the load imposed by people office equipment etc plus a safety margin.

Yes, the floors could have collapsed, the so-called pan-cake effect. Recall the old record players, that had a very long spindle on which you stacked a number of records, and the player automatically dropped one record after the other to play it? Well, that's a bit like the twin towers were contructed. With one difference: the tower also had an external girdle of steel to support the floors.

For 'spindle' the Twin Towers had a massive core. Weirdly enough, the official 9/11 report tries to project them as quite flimsy, but when the blueprints are studied and one sees the pictures of them during construction, they are quite impressive. The outer floors of the building were suspended between the outer steel frame and the inner steel frame that surrounds the core. At least parts of te core should have remained, but when you study the images we have of the collaps, it looks as if some invisible ray shatters the colum and it's beams while the building falls. Mind you, I don't say there was such a ray in use. Could have, but even on ATS not too many people are willing to see that as a real scenario

Another big puzzle is the energy equasion. Only gravitational pull was available: all that was available was the energy stored in the building when it was constructed. That is not enough to completely diminish the Towers to rubble and dust. So, where did the extra energy come from?

Any load from above landing on a floor slab could only be resisted by the connections supporting that floor slab. That's what Gage does not take into account. Also a falling mass generates a dynamic load which is FAR greater than the static load it would apply if placed on the floor slab.

Even if you are right - remember my remark about the energy available, these intentionally were very LIGHT floors - the inner cores would have survived. Also, if you were right, why then don't we blow up buildings like that by merely blowing out a floor or two and then wait for the collapse? Nah, it's nonsense in as far as I can see.

We also have the fact that STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS who work out the loads in structures have guess who as the best customers yes ARCHITECTS. Then the problem of the numbers of qualified people who think like Gage.

I'm a bit puzzled by this sequence of sentences; do you suggest that building is some kind of guessing game? Well, no, it is not, you can calculate most relevant forces quite accurately. Not all engineers do this, a famous example being the Spanish master Gaudi, who simply build models to find out what the best way was to build a cathedral. But steel buildings - that's a matter of experience and calculations - and adding margins to keep on the safe side. All that surely was done by the architects and engineers that build WTC 1 & 2. So, it's not a guessing game as you seem to suggest.

In the area I work there is a population of around 5 miilion and it has more STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS than AE 9/11 truth. I have yet to meet one yhat thinks it's a demo job.

Many engineers and architects do not dare to speak out against main stream beliefs. They fear being labeled 'Truthers' which immediately renders any argument they might have invalid. That's the way humans function: they want to be part of a group, the membership of such a group protects them and so they do as others do, speak as others speak - in public. If none of your engineers there thinks it's a demo job, I'd like to see them blow up a massive steel building like that by simply damaging a few floors. If it were that easy to destruct a building, I wonder what all these controlled demolition man do all day..

Over the years having tested structral components sometimes to destruction he is tuned to the Moon!!!

I'm sorry, but I can't grasp the meaning of that sentence.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Only gravitational pull was available: all that was available was the energy stored in the building when it was constructed. That is not enough to completely diminish the Towers to rubble and dust.

Your conclusion is totally wrong.
You are forgetting rotational torque.
The floor trusses were connected to horizontal beams in the core.
If floor 'A' loses support at some point beyond the core connection, the remaining portion will rotate (tilt) downward, twisting the core beam.
This twisting helped to tear the core apart.

Of course box boy Gage doesn't talk about this because his only source of income is perpetuating the 911 conspiracy.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14. Uh, no. The Daily Ummat submitted a list of questions to the Taliban government to give to Osama. The questions were later returned to the Daily Ummat. They did not sit down and interview Osama. However, several months prior to the attacks on the US Embassies, Osama DID sit down for an interview in which he stated that it did not matter if attacks by his holy warriors killed "innocents".

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I gave the definition.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

The frocking terrorist seemed sincere did he? So glad to hear you think Usama the pig was sincere. Truly glad the swine has a fan.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I gave the definition.

It depends on what you mean by it. There is "cognitive dissonance" and the well known "cognitive dissonance theory," which is so well known that the two are virtually synonymous.

www.simplypsychology.org...

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

The frocking terrorist seemed sincere did he? So glad to hear you think Usama the pig was sincere. Truly glad the swine has a fan.

Hmm, sincere as in that he didn't do 911. I am not excusing his other attacks by the way. But please slow your roll so you can have a logical, calm discussion.

This entire conversation is about cognitive dissonance between alternative theories and the "official story" of 911. Have you read any of those interviews by Osama?

For me, it happened the same time the city became enveloped in dust.

concrete

Structural design[edit]
Main article: Construction of the World Trade Center
The towers were designed as "tube in tube" structures, which provided tenants with open floor plans uninterrupted by columns or walls. Numerous, closely spaced perimeter columns provided much of the strength to the structure, along with gravity load shared with the steel box columns of the core. Above the tenth floor, there were 59 perimeter columns along each face of the building, and there were 47 heavier columns in the core. All of the elevators and stairwells were located in the core, leaving a large column-free space between the perimeter that was bridged by prefabricated floor trusses.[7]
The floors consisted of 4-inch-thick (10 cm) lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck. A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors with shear connections to the concrete slab for composite action.[7] The trusses had a span of 60 feet (18 m) in the long-span areas and 35 feet (11 m) in the short-span area.[7] The trusses connected to the perimeter at alternate columns, and were therefore on 6.8-foot (2.1 m) centers. The top chords of the trusses were bolted to seats welded to the spandrels on the exterior side and a channel welded to interior box columns on the interior side. The floors were connected to the perimeter spandrel plates with viscoelastic dampers, which helped reduce the amount of sway felt by building occupants.
The towers also incorporated a "hat truss" or "outrigger truss" located between the 107th and 110th floors, which consisted of six trusses along the long axis of core and four along the short axis. This truss system allowed optimized load redistribution of floor diaphragms between the perimeter and core, with improved performance between the different materials of flexible steel and rigid concrete allowing the moment frames to transfer sway into compression on the core, which also mostly supported the transmission tower.

Running a 120 lb jack-hammer taught me to appreciate the strength of concrete...

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

The frocking terrorist seemed sincere did he? So glad to hear you think Usama the pig was sincere. Truly glad the swine has a fan.

Pigs are intelligent and resourceful animals. Is that supposed to be an insult or a compliment?

I somewhat dislike discussing this topic but would like someone to "challenge" my previous posts.

Has anyone actually taken time to read about Richard Clarke's information? It concerns the fact that the CIA knew Al Qaeda was planning an attack and they knew top level Al Qaeda operatives had entered the country. The CIA, according to Clarke, intentionally withheld that information. Intentionally.

If you believe Clarke then that opens up more unanswered questions concerning the "Able Danger" program. If you look into it one should understand it was not properly investigated. I believe Lt Col Anthony Shaffer. That they identified Al Qaeda cells in America but were prevented from informing the FBI.

This information is huge.

Then, if one can come to terms with the above you can question NORAD's failure on the morning of 9/11. The details boil down to one question. At what point was NORAD informed of the hijackings? According to FAA officials NORAD was given real time updates. If true, and I believe it is, NORAD had pleanty time to scramble jets, as they had thousands of times in the past. Especially after WTC was hit the first time.

All of the details are time consuming. Most people won't bother to take the necessary time to look into this.

Even further everyone seems to be distracted with talk of demolitions or "no planes" or off the wall theories.

IMO the real issues revolve around our so called "intelegence failures" and NORAD failure. The 9/11 "truth" movement itself would be better served focusing on these issues.

a reply to: JeanPaul

Just a heads up, but there are definitely people here who will be willing to challenge you on this. I'd advise you to start a thread on this once you can start threads. They will swarm & attack without mercy. But you seem well versed enough to defend your positions so I look forward to that thread.

Also, the "truth" movement is a bit weird. There are many different people with many different reasons for not believing the official story. And most of us have no connection to the well known "truthers" movements/organizations. My belief is that many of the major "truther" organizations are actually "honeypot" style organizations, meant to gather as many dissidents as possible. Then those gathered participants can be closely monitored & subtly led away from the real inconsistencies, like the ones you mentioned (and that I've mentioned in this very thread).

a reply to: JeanPaul

concerning the "Able Danger" program. If you look into it one should understand it was not properly investigated.

But it was investigated.

In December 2006, a sixteen-month investigation by the US Senate Intelligence Committee concluded "Able Danger did not identify Mohamed Atta or any other 9/11 hijacker at any time prior to September 11, 2001,"

If true, and I believe it is, NORAD had pleanty time to scramble jets, as they had thousands of times in the past. Especially after WTC was hit the first time

8:40 Norad was notified of the first hijacking.
8:46 the first plane impacts.
9:03 The second plane impacts.
9:08 NYC air space is shut down.
If you were Norad where do you send the intercepts?
P.S The word is that they didn't have many planes anyway.
9:37 The Pentagon was hit.

Was there enough time to scramble and send planes to the correct locations?
No

Just because some alphabet agency got word of an impending attack doesn't mean they knew where, when and by what method.

Before 911 no one believed any group would hijack and crash 4 planes into buildings.
You wouldn't have believed it either.
Hindsight is 20/20.
Foresight is limited by memories of hindsight.

Ponder this:
All some group needs to do now is get a couple of professional pilots radicalized and you could have a repeat with an international flight coming into NYC.

a reply to: samkent

Add to fact this is some of the most heavily trafficked air space on earth

You dont send a couple of fighters blasting through - especially without a definitive target

a reply to: samkent

The fighters were sent to a military exercise area east of NYC while waiting on more information

By shutting off transponders hijackers deprived ATC of vital information - ie. location, bearing altitude

ATC could still see the planes by reflection of radar off the aircraft - a skin paint or primary

Fighters would need to know the location. direction and altitude

Because of need for visual id would also need airline, type of aircraft (Boeing, Airbus), model and registration number
aka tail code

None of this information was available at the time ............