Amen....preach it brother Gold.
It still amazes me how devoid of reality some of these theories have become.
btw.....WATCH "WHO KILLED JOHN O'NEILL"...google it
Printable View
Amen....preach it brother Gold.
It still amazes me how devoid of reality some of these theories have become.
btw.....WATCH "WHO KILLED JOHN O'NEILL"...google it
That is the kind of statement that makes me want to ask, "Did you ever take a course in physics?" About two weeks after 9/11 after my brain started running again and I kept asking myself, "How could those buildings fall straight down?" A demolition really hadn't penetrated my thinking so I was trying to simulate in my head how a plane could do that. All I could imagine was the impact doing enough damage to cause the section above the impact to fall toward the impact zone and to the ground as a solid chunk.Quote:
Trying to figure out what happened is impossible because we don't have the proper access to the people, documentation, etc... It's like trying to put a puzzle together with half of the pieces missing. Every "answer" we have as to what happened is just a "theory." Some are better than others,
Once it is irrefutable what happened that should narrow down who could have done it. Trying to go by motivation would be too speculative.
30 years before the moon landing engineers without computers could design machines that flew thru the air at 400+ mph. It is now 37 years after the moon landing. We have computers coming out of our ears. Why can't everybody figure out that the automobile is just making useless variations in machines that roll along the ground at less than 130 mph? Is it surprising that these people can't see an airliner can't knowck down a skyscraper in less than 2 hours?
psik
Just to add more gory details to my new hobby.
The NIST reports consist of 54 PDF files containing 11,305 PDF pages.
The word steel is mentioned 6,047 times.
The word concrete is mentioned 2,232 times
The words ton and tons are mentioned 136 times.
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/sho...44&postcount=8
I have read every sentence containing any mention of tons. One plane contained 5 tons of cargo and the other had 9 tons. They talk about how many tons of steel came from what companies. They talk about how many tons of steel were delivered to the building on a monthly basis during constrction. They mention 200,000 tons of steel used in both towers 8 times though mostly this is in reference to the miniscule number of samples they have in relation to the amount of steel. They talk about 60 tons of live load per floor in the building. They talk about New York and Chicago building codes for ground settlement per ton. They do not talk about how many tons of concrete were in the buildings.
I have found no discussion of the distribution of mass within the building in terms of more steel being toward the bottom. So I still have no idea how much steel and concrete were on the floors where the planes struck.
psikeyhackr
How dumb can experts get?
http://booksliterature.com/showpost....82&postcount=5
Average intelligence must be bad for PhDs. ROFL
psik
whoa! That is an awesome post.Quote:
How dumb can experts get?
http://booksliterature.com/showpost...382&postcount=5
Average intelligence must be bad for PhDs. ROFL
psik
It certainly IS! (Five years ago). My opinion (again) is that it at this point no longer is viable to discuss the collapse of the buildings and the cause thereof. I mean, feel free by all means. That's what makes this country great! People can feel free to watse their time in as many interesting ways they can dream up. Some of us are too smart for our own good. Do you think all of that great information is going to convince anyone that 911 was an inside job? But hey, nice hobby man.Quote:
Originally Posted by werther
It certainly won't convince most. I hear ya. But to tell the truth it was the Controlled Demolition junk that really got me questioning the official story. Started with flight 93. But I originally just figured the government shot it down and for whatever reason did not want to fess up to it. Controlled Demolition was what brought me in.
I know it is not the only argument the movement has and that there are better ways to 'convince' people. I realize that C.D. just sounds crazy and that is probably why the media latches onto it so much. However, the argument for C.D. when thoroughly examined is pretty damn impressive. Though I do not use it as one of my main talking points (anymore), I do believe it has its merrits.
I agree with you completely about it bringing people in. With all the negatively spun media attention, I'm pretty sure they got the word out there. I think most who would dare to question know, and are already here.
It has been a contention of Jon Golds, and I kinda agree, that the 911 movement has been compromised by people using controlled demolition as their sole plattform to make all of us look nuts. Plants, moles, shills, whatever you call them.
Now, I'm not pointing any fingers, but there are several people on this board who have been pushing this agenda HARD. And to what end? I guess it's just a hooby and that is fine by me. Personally, I believe these fuckers got away with it. ANYONE pushing the CD agenda is automatically lumped into the 911 truth nutjob movement. And there is sooo much more to it than that. When you mention CD to someone, the have a preconceived notion about what you are pushing on them.
valid point.
Do you remember the history channel running that special about 911 conspiracies? What was the main platform of the guys on that show? Controlled demolition! And the interviewers RAN with it.
What sets me off about cerain people in here is that they specifically say they are NOT pushing the CD issue. ANd YET, that is ALL they EVER post about. That is all they come here for. Not as single post about anything OTHER than CD.