Thread: 9/11 Truth

Please link me to more than 200 demolition/engineering experts that claim 9/11 was not an inside job.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Please link me to more than 200 demolition/engineering experts that claim 9/11 was not an inside job.

Please link me to 200 scientists who argue that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Please link me to 200 scientists who argue that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.

LOL. What does any of the most recent conversation have to do with the FSM? Where did that come from?

I do have to say, UM, that you are constantly talking about how many of the professionals say that 9/11 wasn't an inside job, but I have never seen anything but a few, here or there. You constantly ask for people to present accredited support for their claims, but on this one, you haven't really produced.

Your last claim was "That supervast majority doesn't think anything of the inside job idea." So, please (for the sake of balanced argument) present something, to that end, that rivals the 200+ professionals that do think something of it, or acknowledge it as the assumption that I believe it is.

And I don't think "Well, if they did, we would have heard it from them by now" is any support for that claim, as it is nothing but speculation.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I do have to say, UM, that you are constantly talking about how many of the professionals say that 9/11 wasn't an inside job, but I have never seen anything but a few, here or there. You constantly ask for people to present accredited support for their claims, but on this one, you haven't really produced.

No, I have never said that. What I actually have said is that the general world of engineers and other demolition experts see the 9/11 inside job idea the way scientists generally see the idea of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They see it as too ridiculous to even talk about it. Remember that 9/11 is the biggest news story in history.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What I actually have said is that the general world of engineers and other demolition experts see the 9/11 inside job idea the way scientists generally see the idea of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They see it as too ridiculous to even talk about it.

Exactly. (My fault for wording it wrong)...

Please provide objective support for your claim that the reason we haven't heard from the "majority" of general engineers, chiming in on the 9/11 issue, is because they see it as too ridiculous to even talk about.

The enormity of the story is not evidence to that claim. An simple assumption of what might happen, in response to such a story, is not significantly indicative of the reasoning behind the reactions to (or lack thereof) that story. That would fall under the category of speculation. Do you have anything more substantial to support that claim?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Exactly. (My fault for wording it wrong)...

Please provide objective support for your claim that the reason we haven't heard from the "majority" of general engineers, chiming in on the 9/11 issue, is because they see it as too ridiculous to even talk about.

The enormity of the story is not evidence to that claim. An simple assumption of what might happen, in response to such a story, is not significantly indicative of the reasoning behind the reactions to (or lack thereof) that story. That would fall under the category of speculation. Do you have anything more substantial to support that claim?

Logic is not assumption. Logic is the measure of reality. Demolition experts who have anything to say about this issue are extraordinarily rare. The issue concerns a supposedly false official demolition report regarding the biggest news story in history. Put those two facts together. The enormous world of demolition experts, with very few exceptions, does not even comment on the idea that a demolition report concerning the biggest news story of all time is false. Have they had a rally in your town yet? Have they had a million engineer march anywhere in the country yet? What about anywhere in the world? Is there some big petition out there where as little as ten thousand engineers demand an explanation? Have your town's demolition experts been getting the word out on the underground that the government lied about the biggest news story of all time? Has that been happening anywhere? No. The silence is deafening. That proves their lack of concern for the idea. Can you think of a plausible rival explanation? Fill in the blank with something that even begins to be plausible: They actually are very concerned about it, yet only a microscopic minority ever talks about it because __________________________________________________ _____________.

Can you think of anything? The concern is not there. They don't give a shit. They do not take the issue seriously. Are Memeticverb and Mystic noticing something the actual experts are not noticing? I highly doubt it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Logic is not assumption. Logic is the measure of reality. Demolition experts who have anything to say about this issue are extraordinarily rare. The issue concerns a supposedly false official demolition report regarding the biggest news story in history. Put those two facts together. The enormous world of demolition experts, with very few exceptions, does not even comment on the idea that a demolition report concerning the biggest news story of all time is false. Have they had a rally in your town yet? Have they had a million engineer march anywhere in the country yet? What about anywhere in the world? Is there some big petition out there where as little as ten thousand engineers demand an explanation? Have your town's demolition experts been getting the word out on the underground that the government lied about the biggest news story of all time? Has that been happening anywhere? No. The silence is deafening. That proves their lack of concern for the idea. Can you think of a plausible rival explanation? Fill in the blank with something that even begins to be plausible: They actually are very concerned about it, yet only a microscopic minority ever talks about it because __________________________________________________ _____________.

Can you think of anything? The concern is not there. They don't give a shit. They do not take the issue seriously. Are Memeticverb and Mystic noticing something the actual experts are not noticing? I highly doubt it.

Bit of an essay, but here we go...

Logic, in the human sense, is the measure of subjective reality - which deals heavily in assumption. All assumptions, themselves, are based on logic. What matters is whether or not that logic (when measured objectively) is sound. A failure to acknowledge that simple fact does not bode well for your side of the argument.

I don't know (as you seem to) how large the "world of demolition experts" is. I could no more say that we have 200 demolition "experts" in these united states, than I can say that we have 6,000,000. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to how "enormous" the world of demolition "experts" is, not that it matters, all that much. (In this, I completely agree with R.D. 735)

Let's broaden the concept a little bit: Political and professional ridicule.

In professional, scholarly circles (including sciences of all genres, whether physical, mathematical, political, whatever...), to go too far against the grain is to jeopardize one's entire life (career, lively-hood, peer-relations, etc). To spend even the slightest bit of time researching the political influence that stains "professional," mainstream information, is to know that not all potential truths are voiced. In matters of David vs. Goliath (David being "fringe" theory and Goliath being the majority-supported, "accepted" theory, which are often called "truths") David will always be stomped into the ground, even if it is he that fights for the side of objective truth. Dissent, when backed by a majority, is a much more effective weapon than truth, when those that voice the "truth" are so small in numbers. This truth, alone, damages your idea of "well if there was a conspiracy, everyone who saw it would be running through the streets screaming it."

Many people that work in the scientific community are intellectually bound by powers-that-be. All it takes is a single "fringe" theory, to be shunned by professional circles and considered either a radical, zealot or idiot - even if that fringe theory happens to be true. Do you not know this, by now? People have lost their jobs, their statuses, their very credentials in life, over going too hard against the grain. Corporations/organizations/scientific-circles have reputations to uphold, and to become a threat to that reputation is to invite a backlash with almost no equal. You may be fighting for something that is objectively true, but if the rest of the world sees it as bullshit (even without research proving it to be bullshit), you can scream and rally as long and as hard as you want. Do you know what you get out of it? Ridicule. Dissent. Discredit. Hate.

Look at quantum physics:

Quantum physics is the potential "new frontier" in physical sciences. Experiments have been done that have completely demolished Newtonian principles - destroyed them to a point of obscurity. They have been replicated and re-replicated to a point where denying them seems nothing more than an attempt to hold-fast to the principles of yesteryear. What would such a thing mean? That would mean that those people who have worked for generations, to truly understand the workings of the physical world, understand much less than they think they do. At the same time, it is calling out the significance of countless professionals in the field, and threatening to render their research as obsolete, inadequate...wrong. Do you know how hard people will fight against that? Do you realize how hard someone that has the power to "shut you up," if you pose a thread to their very credentials as a scholar, will fight you if you bring to light information that could do just that? How hard is it to turn someone that brings forth information, that is against or beyond everything that the "world" already takes to heart as fact, into a laughing stock? An outcast? A nobody?

Not. Hard.

Do I see scientists running through my neighborhoods screaming that quantum physics are the new frontier? Do I see them rallying together in a "million physicist march?" No. In fact, as far as the American educational system goes, I still see more scientists trying to shy away from advocating the concept of quantum physics than I see those who are embracing and researching it. No scholar wants to be laughed off of their perch. Ever hear of a comfort zone? I've "heard" you say that you are familiar with psychological concepts, so I'm sure that is not new to you. It is human nature to fall into one's comfort zone, and a select few have what it takes to break free of it and expand to new territories, often at the risk of consequences that can range from political dissent to physical harm.

Marinate on that for a moment, and see if that does not deflate your view of "well more people would come forward if..."

But I said all that to say this...

They actually are very concerned about it, yet only a microscopic minority ever talks about it because

Because it is a lot harder to convince the world of something it does not want to believe, than it is to be quiet, and not risk being metaphorically stoned to death, or burned at the stake.

(And, just to cover my own ass, I'm not saying that is what is definitely happening, but you wanted a plausible answer, and I believe you just got one.)

Is there a list of names of all scientists that do and do not give the inside job story credibility? How many scientists vouching for the conspiracy are necessary to prove it? The answer is that it does not matter at all. Science stands by experiment, not by the number of scientists or engineers who believe a certain idea.

Addressing memeticverb's points, though: I'm not sure how the temperature of 1800 Cwas calculated, honestly. Perhaps it was inferred by evidence in the rubble or, in the unusual case, with an infrared camera at the time of the event. I did see the Steve Jones video. It was very interesting, but I found it somewhat inconclusive. The details of the aluminum mixture are not explicit, and there is no Mythbusters-esque replication of the observed phenomenon, which would have been useful. Though the evidence against the aluminum theory is compelling, it doesn't address the deficiencies of the thermite/thermate hypothesis that I mentioned earlier.

The structural argument for WTC7 remains quite unchallenged, though. The Popular Mechanics site has some useful information, and the NIST report no doubt includes the same.

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

What evidence refutes this collapse theory? Is it factually correct, but incomplete, or is it totally wrong? Finally, regarding the sphericles, one would point out that the thermite/thermate composition is exactly what one would expect, even if no thermite/thermate was involved. The process of making concrete involves high temperatures and a variety of compounds. Portland cement is one example:

From Madehow.com
Preparing Portland cement

* 1 The limestone, silica, and alumina that make up Portland cement are dry ground into a very fine powder, mixed together in predetermined proportions, preheated, and calcined (heated to a high temperature that will burn off impurities without fusing the ingredients). Next the material is burned in a large rotary kiln at 2,550 degrees Fahrenheit (1,400 degrees Celsius). At this temperature, the material partially fuses into a substance known as clinker. A modern kiln can produce as much as 6,200 tons of clinker a day.
* 2 The clinker is then cooled and ground to a fine powder in a tube or ball mill. A ball mill is a rotating drum filled with steel balls of different sizes (depending on the desired fineness of the cement) that crush and grind the clinker. Gypsum is added during the grinding process. The final composition consists of several compounds: tricalcium silicate, dicalcium silicate, tricalcium aluminate, and tetracalcium aluminoferrite.

If iron, aluminum, and sulfur are present during the manufacturing process, it makes sense that eutectic iron-aluminum-sulfate particles would form. The question is this: what would their composition be? If their composition is fairly random, some of them are bound to match thermite/thermate products. Considering that thermate is only ~2% sulfur by weight, this seems a likely explanation for the sphericles, unless there are too many of them in dense concentrations around the collapse site.

Do your research, all of the US presidents have the same bloodline, all related...you can trace them back to charlemagne (Presidents are selected, not elected). ET's came and interbred with humans, the interbred races were put into positions of power. That story has been in every major religion as a common theme. The Windors are a reptillion race. America was never and still isn't free. Beat that.