Thread: 9/11 Conspiracy

Originally Posted by Alric

The flaw with your arguement however is there is people who are running around complaining about it. You just call them crazy and move on however. Its easy to say no one is talking about it when you decide to ignore everyone with the 'wrong' view.

I said there are some. But I am talking about social phenomena that involve the masses. If you can figure out the demolition stuff, then every engineer, demolitionist, and construction foreman and supervisor in the world would have understood it in September of 2001. A two minute bar room conversation would result in every one of those people in the world knowing that the government's explanation is incorrect. That would turn into the biggest news story ever. I don't see any way around that. It would be like the government explaining how somebody died and using false medical science in the explanation. The entire medical community would pick up on that in a matter of days, and from there the whole world would know. So if the medical community at large doesn't do that, it means people posting in this thread so far generally would not have some keen understanding of any medical falsehoods the government is using. Think about that. We are talking about the biggest news event ever, and one that is at the root of a war my country is involved in. If there were construction/demolition falsehoods being used by the government that you and Memeticverb and others in this thread understand, how in the world would that not be getting screamed out by the masses of the actual experts? You're saying it, but they aren't? I don't come anywhere near seeing how that makes sense.

There are a lot of them that say it, your only problem is you don't believe there is 'enough' of them saying it. How many is enough? Where is the line between it being true and false based on how many agree? Does 51% of them believing it make it true. Do you only need 40% or do you need nearly all of them to say it before it is true?

Here is a question? How come the masses didn't raise up and ask what happen to building 7? Obviously it fell, thats a fact. Obviously it wasn't hit by a plane, that is a fact. All people agree on both of them but then you put them togather and you get, building 7 wasn't hit by anything yet it fell. The obvious question is why? Yet there are still people don't even know building 7 fell.

Originally Posted by Alric

There are a lot of them that say it, your only problem is you don't believe there is 'enough' of them saying it. How many is enough? Where is the line between it being true and false based on how many agree? Does 51% of them believing it make it true. Do you only need 40% or do you need nearly all of them to say it before it is true?

You are still misunderstanding my point. I am not saying popular belief means truth. I am saying that truth that is so accessible and easy to understand that even regular Joes on a lucid dreaming forum site can understand it will be understood by the masses of experts, and when that happens in the type of evil situation we are talking about and it is the biggest news story of all time, the expert chatter would be the loudest sound in the world. It is about a social phenomenon that is not happening, not that popular belief automatically means truth. If what you are saying about stuff that is so building construction 101 is true, experts who disagree with it should be very rare. I don't know what exact number I would put on it, but it would be something in the insignificant zone. Experts are often wrong, but not about stuff that is this easy for every single one of them. We are not talking about rocket science or brain surgery principles that are debatable among people who understand those things. We are talking about no-brainer stuff for people who understand the basics. Something like what you are saying would be huge. And why would the government lie about something so easy for the experts to figure out in the biggest news story in history?

Again... Who could have possibly been flying the airplanes? What suicide terrorists would be willing to die for Bush? Doesn't it make much more sense that they were suicide bombers dying for Allah and attacking their #1 enemy? The latter is so much more plausible.

Originally Posted by Alric

Here is a question? How come the masses didn't raise up and ask what happen to building 7? Obviously it fell, thats a fact. Obviously it wasn't hit by a plane, that is a fact. All people agree on both of them but then you put them togather and you get, building 7 wasn't hit by anything yet it fell. The obvious question is why? Yet there are still people don't even know building 7 fell.

I am not an expert on how it works, but I think it was supposed to be caused by the debris of two of the tallest buildings in the world crumbling and slamming to the ground. I will ask my construction supervisor friend about it some time. Or do you think I should ask a bar tender?

If you look at the video though, there is next to no damage to the building. If you have a friend like that I don't see why you don't ask him. Honestly I would like to hear his opinion as well. How come one of the least damaged buildings in the area fell?

Originally Posted by Alric

If you look at the video though, there is next to no damage to the building. If you have a friend like that I don't see why you don't ask him. Honestly I would like to hear his opinion as well. How come one of the least damaged buildings in the area fell?

I'll have to wait until he gets out of rehab. He never brought up the issue when we used to hang out all the time, and we were best friends when 9/11 happened and talked a lot about terrorism and the war on terror.

My lay person hypothesis would be that what matters is where the damage occurs and not how much damage there is overall that determines whether a building falls. I guess. But that's about all any of us here can do.

EDIT: My hypothesis is the explanation given in an article in the magazine Popular Mechanics. It goes into detail about what could have happened.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=5

That may true but it fell the same way as the other buildings did, straight down. There isn't one key point in the building if hit, will collapse the entire thing. Now if the building fell over side ways like the site was trying to say it did, then yea I would say that was possible. Theres video from every angle of that building though, including from the side which was damage, up to and including the moment it collapsed and the front of the building that was hit did not collapse first.

Originally Posted by Alric

That may true but it fell the same way as the other buildings did, straight down. There isn't one key point in the building if hit, will collapse the entire thing. Now if the building fell over side ways like the site was trying to say it did, then yea I would say that was possible. Theres video from every angle of that building though, including from the side which was damage, up to and including the moment it collapsed and the front of the building that was hit did not collapse first.

The article talks about internal stress damage that was relevant. It said stress on one face could be transferred to the other faces and cause a vertical collapse.

And again... Who do you think was flying those airplanes?