Thread: Could this settle what happend on 9/11 once and for all?

Computer simulations are never perfect and ridiculous conspiracy theories never die.

They are never perfect but they can shed some light on the subject. Thats why i never said a computer simulation would setle the matter at hand 100% .

I think it's more of a question of whether it's worth it. As it is, every point raised by the average person (key word: average) has been disproved by real demolition experts. I think the best point that has been raised in regard to this debate was by maddox... How is it possible that the government has enough intelligence to orchestrate the biggest conspiracy in the history of the world, silencing thousands of construction workers, demolition experts, people working in, around, or somehow involved with airplanes, all government officials involved in it, etc., and be able to do this with military and perfect precision.... but they can't silence some college chum who's broadcasting some conspiracy video from his dorm room (loose change). I mean honestly, if they could kill thousands of people at a whim, then killing one person very easily should be absolutely no problem so as to preserve the integrity of their plan. Or at least shut down his website and such. To me that just makes no sense AT ALL.

Originally Posted by wasup

How is it possible that the government has enough intelligence to orchestrate the biggest conspiracy in the history of the world, silencing thousands of construction workers, demolition experts, people working in, around, or somehow involved with airplanes, all government officials involved in it, etc., and be able to do this with military and perfect precision.... but they can't silence some college chum who's broadcasting some conspiracy video from his dorm room (loose change). I mean honestly, if they could kill thousands of people at a whim, then killing one person very easily should be absolutely no problem so as to preserve the integrity of their plan. Or at least shut down his website and such. To me that just makes no sense AT ALL.

I'm still surprised at how people can't figure out the answer to this question.

If you were a branch of government, and somebody put up a website about you that claimed you had a hand in the biggest (alleged) conspiracy ever, and you are trying to create the illusion that that person is a crackpot, and doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, and his theory is so outlandish that nobody in their right mind would believe him...

...why would you kill/silence him?

You might as well just start up your own website saying "Hey, maybe that kid was on to something!!" and further fuel the theorists' suspicions. It's basically accomplishing the same thing.

If anything, I'd say that's the weakest argument against the possibility of it being an inside job.

Good point. If you kill/silence him, then the people would think that maybe he was right.

O is right about killing the person. but wasup is right that the government could not keep so many people who would need to be involved in this quiet.

On to the topic of this thread, I believe a computer simulation could add some food for thought on the subject..though as you said, it wouldnt prove anything, just give one side more ammo

But you can't necessarily say that the simulation would be correct, so no-one gets more "ammo".

Problems here:

- There were a hundred million variables involved in this.
- The planes were identified as: 757's/One C52 Hercules and one heavy Bomber craft.
- Computer simulations are not used to determine WHAT DID happen, but what MIGHT.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

- Computer simulations are not used to determine WHAT DID happen, but what MIGHT, or what DID.

Uhmm......that makes no sense.

Originally Posted by xXSomeGuyXx

Uhmm......that makes no sense.

I was thinking more in the initial stages. Obviously if the person is already "famous" and very well-known killing the person would be a bad decision, but if the person is not very well-known yet, then it seems much easier.

But yeah, does anyone really think they can manage to keep thousands of people quiet who were involved in it? I think that it is rather telling that the only people who argue about the physical impossibility of the crash and collapse, etc. are average joes who search wikipedia for their information, but actual physics, engineering, and demolition experts don't see physical impossibilities in it.

Jet fuel cannot get hot enough to melt steel.

...But all ther papers and nice wooden desks along with human corpses and chairs inside the planes not to mention the fact the plane HIT the building could attribute to the collapse?

They were built to withstand a plane smashing into them.

Originally Posted by wasup

I think that it is rather telling that the only people who argue about the physical impossibility of the crash and collapse, etc. are average joes who search wikipedia for their information, but actual physics, engineering, and demolition experts don't see physical impossibilities in it.

Yep. Imagine the same scenario happening in regard to a brain surgery report. Amateurs on the internet go off about problems in a brain surgery report concerning the biggest news story of all time, yet 99.9999% of brain surgeons have nothing to say about it to anybody.

Originally Posted by xXSomeGuyXx

They were built to withstand a plane smashing into them.

A 757 travelling at upwards of 600 knots can take out anything short of reinforced concrete given the weight and explosives.

(Link)

Some stuff we might want to consider. I'm reading now.

Wikipedia hardly counts for anything past dates things happened.

Originally Posted by wasup

I was thinking more in the initial stages. Obviously if the person is already "famous" and very well-known killing the person would be a bad decision, but if the person is not very well-known yet, then it seems much easier.

He was never famous. He just had a website up. It takes time for knowledge of any given website to be relayed to the government, not matter what the content - more time than it takes for the general public to become aware of the site through sources such as word-of-mouth.

Originally Posted by wasup

I think that it is rather telling that the only people who argue about the physical impossibility of the crash and collapse, etc. are average joes who search wikipedia for their information, but actual physics, engineering, and demolition experts don't see physical impossibilities in it.

Not true. The truth is that there are professional architects and engineers and people in other fields that speak out about it. The problem is that anti-theorists state that, no matter how many are presented, it is only a small fraction of the whole and, therefore, insignificant. That's if they choose to acknowledge the existence of the professionals at all.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Not true. The truth is that there are professional architects and engineers and people in other fields that speak out about it. The problem is that anti-theorists state that, no matter how many are presented, it is only a small fraction of the whole and, therefore, insignificant. That's if they choose to acknowledge the existence of the professionals at all.

If it were really a significant percentage, what they are saying would be the biggest issue in the world right now. It still would not mean that the government planted the bombs. It would seem that the terrorists also planted bombs at the WTC just like terrorists did in 1993.

So far, if one wants to be honest, the only supported position by science has been the controlled demolition hypothesis. Why is this the only scientifically supported hypothesis? Because the government funded studies did not analyze the mechanism that caused the sudden, rapid and total collapses.

The NIST investigation was flawed in that it only aimed to try to explain the initiation of collapse, and not what happened after the first instant of support load failure. NIST did everything to stack the experiments against the models being able to survive. But none of their test models could cause a duplicate structure to fail under greatly exaggerated conditions.

Now, how many scientists have written academic literature in favor of the use of explosives at the WTC? How many have been challenged by defenders of the government? Answering these questions will go a long way to finding th truth.

WTC7: Collapses in Seconds and in a manner Indistinguishable from Controled Demolition.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

So far, if one wants to be honest, the only supported position by science has been the controlled demolition hypothesis. Why is this the only scientifically supported hypothesis? Because the government funded studies did not analyze the mechanism that caused the sudden, rapid and total collapses.

The NIST investigation was flawed in that it only aimed to try to explain the initiation of collapse, and not what happened after the first instant of support load failure. NIST did everything to stack the experiments against the models being able to survive. But none of their test models could cause a duplicate structure to fail under greatly exaggerated conditions.

Now, how many scientists have written academic literature in favor of the use of explosives at the WTC? How many have been challenged by defenders of the government? Answering these questions will go a long way to finding th truth.

WTC7: Collapses in Seconds and in a manner Indistinguishable from Controled Demolition.

How many scientists think the issue is even worth mentioning?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If it were really a significant percentage, what they are saying would be the biggest issue in the world right now.

While a reasonable assumption, I think there are more factors that come into play (in respect to both how much/little the issue is talked about and our - including your - perception of how much/little the issue is talked about) than your assumption takes into consideration. For what it's worth; I believe that the issue is talked about much more than you acknowledge, and I, myself, know. I've seen plenty of articles that say speculation, worldwide, about 9/11 being an inside job is very high (and no, not just by average Joes). Of course none of this is conclusive, and I don't try to present it as such, but you and I obviously have two different viewpoints on how much credible speculation their actually is.

I'm not about to sit here and say that just because I haven't heard a certain, arbitrary, amount of people speak out about something is any indication that it's not a widely talked about issue. (especially something that would be so widely debated that any mainstream media source would be basically out of their minds to run - and you can't even begin to deny that newspapers and mediate outlets are above keeping material that seems this inflammatory, and possibly career-ruining, out.)

I, personally, have seen enough speculation within my limited range to consider it a serious issue. Perhaps you have a special perspective to where you can say that the number of professionals in the respective fields that have spoken out are 0.0000000000001% (figuratively speaking, of course), but I simply don't have access to anything that would give me those sorts of figures - aside from an assumption that "well, if there were more, I would have heard about it," which is not a line of thinking that I follow.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

How many scientists think the issue is even worth mentioning?

Originally Posted by wasup

But yeah, does anyone really think they can manage to keep thousands of people quiet who were involved in it? I think that it is rather telling that the only people who argue about the physical impossibility of the crash and collapse, etc. are average joes who search wikipedia for their information, but actual physics, engineering, and demolition experts don't see physical impossibilities in it.

Actually let me correct you guys for a sec.

How about The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth?

Oh ya and here is a seminar done by one of their prominent members: http://www.911blogger.com/node/10025

Contrary to what you said there are people who work in this type in the field who are speaking out about what happend on 9/11.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I, personally, have seen enough speculation within my limited range to consider it a serious issue. Perhaps you have a special perspective to where you can say that the number of professionals in the respective fields that have spoken out are 0.0000000000001% (figuratively speaking, of course), but I simply don't have access to anything that would give me those sorts of figures - aside from an assumption that "well, if there were more, I would have heard about it," which is not a line of thinking that I follow.

If it turned out that talk of a 9/11 WTC demolition has been on the level it has but is actually true and the truth of it has been noticeable by large numbers amateurs on the internet, it would be as shocking as learning that archaeologists found Noah's Ark and Jesus has been living in it.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Actually let me correct you guys for a sec.
How about The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth?

Oh ya and here is a seminar done by one of their prominent members: http://www.911blogger.com/node/10025

Contrary to what you said there are people who work in this type in the field who are speaking out about what happend on 9/11.

Yes, there are a few in the world. That does not get past my point. If you could notice that the WTC was blown up on 9/11, EVERY demolition expert in the entire world would be able to notice it.