Topic: [Vote] Who did 911? - page 31. (Read 63039 times)

There are loads of qualified engineers who say that much of 9/11 could be nothing other than an inside job. The coincidences say the same.

It has been Al Qaeda. Stop tricking yourselves with strange theory, stop asking for negative demonstrations: not in logic, neither in law, they have any value.

A lot of researchers did investigate on the happenings. Stop listening to the profit-driven idea of 911profit, i mean, 911scam, whatever, 911truth.

Sure.  Sort of like the experiment where researchers taught monkeys to fly US fighter aircraft.

And such experience comes naturally, first time, to some Muslims.

 

There is zero "evidence" of 9/11 being an Israeli operation.

There is zero "evidence" of 9/11 being anything but an operation by fanatical Muslim terrorists.



The group of Muslims who trained to fly airliners straight and level at US pilot schools, but who didn't bother to learn to take them off or land, is of course the group of Muslims that had the capability to do exactly that - fly airliners straight and level into buildings.  Duhh....

That would be what to think about. We have so many assumptions built into our thinking that we can go an entire lifetime in a state of subtle enslavement without ever noticing. The use of false flag operations is just one layer of the game. Notice the many assumptions the egos that you are arguing with in this topic are making that you see as obvious and absurd, but which they remain completely oblivious to. If you know of a more effective human deconditioning voice than Terence McKenna, I'd love to know about it...

What I was hinting at is that there is more evidence of it being an Israeli operation than a USG-only one.

The exact same question applies to the proposition that it was somehow done by Muslims. The difference is of course that no group of Muslims have the capability, whereas groups operating with USG+MSM resources do. If your cognitive dissonance is so strong that you feel unable to consider anything but the control system's narrative (a "conspiracy theory" of angry Muslims seeking revenge), then yes, of course your "effort" to understand anything will be in vain.

What? Now we should meditate ourselves into figuring out who did 9/11?

I didn't see any 9/11 videos of McKenna listed.

BADecker did

Have you ever heard of this guy? https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=terence+mckenna - This is how we should all be thinking. (How, not what).

Of course you are right. The evidence is reverse-evidence: the military not taking care of the air space by accident; the Twin Towers not withstanding the forces they were made to withstand by accident; the government not responding to all the reports by all the building engineers who say that the Towers' collapse could not have happened the way the formal report says, all by accident.

This is the best way to make your report strong. Suggest it was all an accident.

I wondered that too, in my vain effort to understand conspiracy theories on 911.  How does always wind up being the US government?  

But I'll stick to the physics and chemistry, since I'm not seeing much but junk science there.

That's one of my problems as well, it's similar to convicting a person for murder with no evidence whatsoever, but with a strong motive and lack of alibi.

Rather than concentrating on loads of tiny, supposed anomalies, and trying to compound them together to prove some fantastical plot, I wish these truthers would find some evidence of the ACTUAL PLOT.

I mean, just look above. Someone is saying that a steel beam travelled "too far away", so explosives 100% must have been used. They were probably told this by an "internet expert", so now they refuse to believe there is even a small chance that this could have happened with no explosives.

Now I'm not an architect, but it's pretty obvious to me that there are ways that this could have happened with a normal collapse. They may be unlikely, but certainly not impossible. I mean you have thousands of tons of beams and concrete under all sorts of pressures, there may have been deflections as someone said above, there may have been torsional, catapulting type impacts. Anyway, even if it's a 0.1% chance, it still could have happened.

So we end up getting stuck on a fallacious "appeal to authority", where a supposed expert says an obviously false thing (that something is 100% impossible when it clearly isn't), and this anomaly somehow matches with the initial US Gov false flag theory.

These truthers would make terrible detectives.

Find me some ACTUAL evidence of a plan and we'll talk, in the meantime stop linking totally unrelated little things and fitting them to your own story of what happened.

Pro tip - multiple unlikely things occuring do not make the final evidence any stronger, unless the things are directly linked.

So, let's say the chance of the beams going too far without bombs is 10%, the probability of the Pentagon incident being a missile is 50%, and prob of Building 7 collapsing without bombs is, say 1%. Now, these three events being unlikely, but still all happening, does not make the probability of the attack being a US Gov false flag any higher, because the events are not linked. (even though it seems like it would, it's your mind playing tricks.) It's counterintuitive, humans are shit at this sort of thing.

It was not us gouv.. It was jews and aribs who did 9-11.
this is all over youtube. Just search 9-11 theories

Bob doesn't weigh 4 tons, he didn't travel over 500 feet and he has the assistance of bearings. The mass of the object is the most important factor in the calculation (which you are conveniently ignoring). I am providing fundamental physical calculations to show the force required. You are providing anecdotes. Please excuse me for not being convinced.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang

Bob doesn't weigh 4 tons, and he didn't travel over 500 feet and he has the assistance of bearings. The mass of the object is the most important factor in the calculation (which you are conveniently ignoring). I am providing fundamental physical calculations to show the force required. You are providing anecdotes. Please excuse me for not being convinced.

Since when does gravity act sideways? You would have a point if the girders flew straight up, or hovered in the air. That would be against gravity. But they went sideways, so that's not against gravity.

There are many ways in which vertical momentum can be transferred into lateral speed. Here's one:


Notice how Bob travels as far laterally as his maximum height when airborne, even without the help of his skateboard. Does this break the laws of physics?

(Of course this is an optimum transfer of energy from vertical to horizontal due to the curved ramp, but it still shows that such a thing is possible. I don't see any explosives attached to him.)

@Tecshare, I think you're treating the building collapse like a game of pool, when really it's a bit more complex. To say what you're saying with such conviction, would require evidence such as intricate mathematical models with hundreds of variables.

Again, it might be unlikely but I don't believe you're in a position to say it's 100% impossible.