9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-02-2015, 03:35 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(15-02-2015 03:25 PM)roro Wrote:  Well, I watched them with an open mind, and think that their conclusions are based on the evidence provided. Being unwilling to look at evidence provided for fear that it may challenge your beliefs is , to me, being afraid of the truth. If there is evidence that refutes what is presented, I'd want to see it.

The tag-line for this site is:
Assume Nothing. Question Everything. Challenge the Opposition. And Start Thinking.

Anyone not willing to abide by that should probably discontinue using the site.
Dismissing evidence without even looking at it is unacceptable, no matter what the topic.
Best Regards

Valid point, but anybody that tries to present the truther's conspiracy of 9/11 deserves nothing short of ridicule. Only the severely challenged would buy into those long debunked theories, since you like youtube as a method of learning, may I suggest these.





























best wishes on your journey

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
15-02-2015, 03:44 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(15-02-2015 03:25 PM)roro Wrote:  Well, I watched them with an open mind, and think that their conclusions are based on the evidence provided. Being unwilling to look at evidence provided for fear that it may challenge your beliefs is , to me, being afraid of the truth. If there is evidence that refutes what is presented, I'd want to see it.

The tag-line for this site is:
Assume Nothing. Question Everything. Challenge the Opposition. And Start Thinking.

Anyone not willing to abide by that should probably discontinue using the site.
Dismissing evidence without even looking at it is unacceptable, no matter what the topic.
Best Regards

Having already looked at the so-called 'evidence', I can dismiss this video and your insults without batting an eye.

Do you really think you are bringing revelatory information to us?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2015, 04:34 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
Quote:Well, I watched them with an open mind

That was your first mistake, then. You should watch them critically because like ancient alien nuts or Bigfoot nuts or UFO nuts they are mainly interested in asserting that their pet preoccupations are real.

Let me put it to you this way. If some shithead with a theology degree and a bible tells you that jesus really did come back from the fucking dead are you going to believe him?

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Minimalist's post
15-02-2015, 09:46 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(15-02-2015 04:34 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  That was your first mistake, then. You should watch them critically because like ancient alien nuts or Bigfoot nuts or UFO nuts they are mainly interested in asserting that their pet preoccupations are real.

Let me put it to you this way. If some shithead with a theology degree and a bible tells you that jesus really did come back from the fucking dead are you going to believe him?

I have to say that I am disappointed, but not totally surprised by the responses....

First, if a theologian with a bible showed up with verifiable evidence of the Jesus story, I would listen... That's keeping an open mind. No evidence, no listen...

I don't know what the truth is, and probably will never know the whole truth, but it's important to keep probing. There is the official 9/11 report. Then architects, engineers, etc stand up and say they challenge the report and provide their own analysis, experiments, and methodologies to back up their claims (that's evidence). They put their names and credentials on the line.

The Toronto hearings in 2011 were 4 days long and all the raw footage is on Youtube...It's a lot of info. Most of it made sense to me, raising lots of questions.

So, can anyone provide evidence from other architects/ engineers/ scientists that refutes the scientific challenge of these experts? I will gladly review any information from credible sources. Some of you may have information that I have not come across, yet.

Just trying to collect all the info I can....questioning everything, challenging the opposition, etc.

Thanks
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes roro's post
15-02-2015, 09:54 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(15-02-2015 03:25 PM)roro Wrote:  Assume Nothing.

We all assume though. We all have our own ideas and beliefs that colour the lenses we use to see the world. To say otherwise is impossible. You need to use something as a base to break down information, that base is previous knowledge and everything you know/experienced up until that point. Everybodys biased.

I feel so much, and yet I feel nothing.
I am a rock, I am the sky, the birds and the trees and everything beyond.
I am the wind, in the fields in which I roar. I am the water, in which I drown.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2015, 11:49 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(15-02-2015 09:46 PM)roro Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 04:34 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  That was your first mistake, then. You should watch them critically because like ancient alien nuts or Bigfoot nuts or UFO nuts they are mainly interested in asserting that their pet preoccupations are real.

Let me put it to you this way. If some shithead with a theology degree and a bible tells you that jesus really did come back from the fucking dead are you going to believe him?

I have to say that I am disappointed, but not totally surprised by the responses....

First, if a theologian with a bible showed up with verifiable evidence of the Jesus story, I would listen... That's keeping an open mind. No evidence, no listen...

I don't know what the truth is, and probably will never know the whole truth, but it's important to keep probing. There is the official 9/11 report. Then architects, engineers, etc stand up and say they challenge the report and provide their own analysis, experiments, and methodologies to back up their claims (that's evidence). They put their names and credentials on the line.

The Toronto hearings in 2011 were 4 days long and all the raw footage is on Youtube...It's a lot of info. Most of it made sense to me, raising lots of questions.

So, can anyone provide evidence from other architects/ engineers/ scientists that refutes the scientific challenge of these experts? I will gladly review any information from credible sources. Some of you may have information that I have not come across, yet.

Just trying to collect all the info I can....questioning everything, challenging the opposition, etc.

Thanks

But also don't challenge shit ideas right?

I watched a bit and was not impressed. I watched the part where the guy was trying to convince people that it was an explosion through stretching people's eye witness testimony. He kept going on and on about eye witness like they were the Holy grail of evidence and that the NIST report didn't take into account it.

The biggest weakness to it? The fuck were the charges? To quote Marvin: Where was the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering ka boom!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Kaepora Gaebora's post
16-02-2015, 12:43 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(15-02-2015 09:46 PM)roro Wrote:  ... Wrote lots of stuff...

Okay... not being in any way related to the land mass that is America, I have to ask.

Why do you believe some experts... and not others?

Why do you accept some information and not other information?

Beginning at the beginning...

You do acknowledge that both buildings were designed in the 1960's... with slide rules.
That both building were designed for impacts of a certain sized plane then known to be in existence.
The only other existing data of large plane to collide with large building had happened some thirty years before hand (With a suitable more primitive state of both building technology and aviation technology)
That it was actually a plane that hit each building in question.
That said machines were orders of magnitude bigger, faster AND far more laden with fuel then any concept for design had previously thought possible?

Once we've established our ground work for conversation we;ll see how the chat continues.

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2015, 04:22 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
Critical thinking is open-mindedness.



Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
16-02-2015, 07:37 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(15-02-2015 11:49 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  
(15-02-2015 09:46 PM)roro Wrote:  I have to say that I am disappointed, but not totally surprised by the responses....

First, if a theologian with a bible showed up with verifiable evidence of the Jesus story, I would listen... That's keeping an open mind. No evidence, no listen...

I don't know what the truth is, and probably will never know the whole truth, but it's important to keep probing. There is the official 9/11 report. Then architects, engineers, etc stand up and say they challenge the report and provide their own analysis, experiments, and methodologies to back up their claims (that's evidence). They put their names and credentials on the line.

The Toronto hearings in 2011 were 4 days long and all the raw footage is on Youtube...It's a lot of info. Most of it made sense to me, raising lots of questions.

So, can anyone provide evidence from other architects/ engineers/ scientists that refutes the scientific challenge of these experts? I will gladly review any information from credible sources. Some of you may have information that I have not come across, yet.

Just trying to collect all the info I can....questioning everything, challenging the opposition, etc.

Thanks

But also don't challenge shit ideas right?

I watched a bit and was not impressed. I watched the part where the guy was trying to convince people that it was an explosion through stretching people's eye witness testimony. He kept going on and on about eye witness like they were the Holy grail of evidence and that the NIST report didn't take into account it.

The biggest weakness to it? The fuck were the charges? To quote Marvin: Where was the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering ka boom!

Absolutely challenge shit ideas!
What I am looking for is credible EVIDENCE from both sides.
So, you watched a presentation by a university professor. That was all circumstantial evidence...interesting, but it is what it is.
I focused on the information from architects, engineers, physicists, and other scientists giving a detailed analysis of what happened. That is more direct evidence. The question is, are there any flaws in the analyses? That is why I asked for reference to other evidence. Have there been any peer reviews of the information?

I am interested in what these professionals have to say, not some layman's opinion.
So, any additional information from qualified sources is appreciated.

Thanks!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes roro's post
16-02-2015, 08:51 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(07-02-2015 07:19 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(30-05-2014 06:25 AM)natachan Wrote:  As a Civil and Structural engineering student I would like to call you an idiot.

Here is my statics textbook. And my Strengths of Materials textbook. And my Advanced Steel Construction textbook. And I might have some old homework papers somewhere that explain WHY this fell the way it did.

Point of fact, conspiracy theories of this sort of this sort are dumb.

It is so curious that people who want to wave books in your face don't just build models and demonstrate the physics.

You MUST believe what I say because I claim to understand what is in this book. The trouble is that 9/11 makes all of the engineering schools look silly because they don't dispose of such a simple problem.

Talk is cheap, call me whatever you want. Engineering schools can't build a north tower collapse model in THIRTEEN YEARS!!!

*gentle smile*

Yes, sweety, we do. All the time. What do you think we do with our time? In fact I happen to work in a research lab that does EXACTLY this type of thing.

I've taken a look at the testimonies of the engineers and architects who were on those panels. I've read what they said. They DO NOT UNDERSTAND STRUCTURES. They do not understand distributed loads, maximum shear stress, elastic and inelastic deformation, or axial loading.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes natachan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: