as I keep saying why not go read up on how they fell, the computer models and the official reports. They tell you exactly why they fell like they did. Just because you doesn't think it should fall like that, doesn't make it true. You are no better than the moon landing CT. They try to relate earth bound pictures to space bound pictures. It simply does not work. You can't use previous experience to relate to the wtc as we have never seen anything like this before. Not only the planes but the way all 3 buildings were designed.
NIST admits freefall speed
- Thread starter gillywibble
- Start date
as I keep saying why not go read up on how they fell, the computer models and the official reports. They tell you exactly why they fell like they did. Just because you doesn't think it should fall like that, doesn't make it true. You are no better than the moon landing CT. They try to relate earth bound pictures to space bound pictures. It simply does not work. You can't use previous experience to relate to the wtc as we have never seen anything like this before. Not only the planes but the way all 3 buildings were designed.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 3,871
I, too, would like to see some of the conspiracy theorists comment on articles such as the above.
If you don't necessarily agree with some people then that is absolutely fine. However, please refrain from insulting people.
Thank you.
Last edited:
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf
Please dude read the thread then I wont have to repost all the time.
and please explain why it is important?
and where does it sa it in that report? I'm surprised you've used that report, have you read it?
Last edited:
Well that shows you dont read NIST letters it says
"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse"
I'm asking where it is as it's a fairly long report and I don't wont to read it at the moment.
Then how is this important? it simply isn't, as they can explain 90+%(figure pulled from thin air) but you get the idea.
On top of that have you actually read it? and seen why they keep denying the change of requests from the CT.
thanks,
but again I ask why this is important and why you think this is not expected?
NISt know why it collapsed what it is saying is the computational power to compute after that point is to large, hence the 100% thing. They know what caused the collapse. Important word FULL, not the initial cause of the collapse. again misrepresentation of what is being said, just like the freefall malarkey.
but again I ask why this is important and why you think this is not expected?
NISt know why it collapsed what it is saying is the computational power to compute after that point is to large, hence the 100% thing. They know what caused the collapse. Important word FULL, not the initial cause of the collapse. again misrepresentation of what is being said, just like the freefall malarkey.
Last edited:
what work? i've even pasted tee section above and using the nist report, not some silly 6th hand regurgitated rubbish.
all they say is yes no steel building has collapsed (which is a lie that I showed evidence before) and that NIST are covering evidence up.
Read that paragraph again, those sites have no idea what they are talking about. Why are you putting more weight behind there selective wording rather than teh full report?
Have you read the part about only modelling up to teh point of instability or are you just ignoring it?
Last edited:
Your confused because your expecting me to be one one side of the fence or the other, I'm sitting on the fence neither convinced one way or the other.
There's no evidence for explosives or alternatives, there's plenty of evidence for plane and fire damage?
So what lack of evidence is making you sit on the fence?
^^^
well said
you get similar behavior from people who support homeopathy, religious fundamentalists, creationists, (insert wacko group here) - despite logic, commons sense and most of the evidence pointing towards them being massively wrong they just pick and chose whatever dubious evidence they want to support their viewpoint
I am still gob smacked by how retarded some of the people in this thread are
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
I'm more confused because your position seems somewhat contradictory, you keep championing that there might be 'unconventional techniques' used but haven't presented any evidence of there being any used and then also state that you aren't saying it is a conspiracy and purposely demolished. The two standpoints are mutually exclusive - if something other than the planes was the instigating action that brought the WTC down then they were purposely demolished and there must be a conspiracy or alternatively the planes crashing into the WTC was the instigating action and had nothing to do with any conspiracy.
Also the reference to lack of hard evidence against there being unconventional techniques used means that I've got to question what you would accept as hard evidence, if anything?
I'm surprised at just how full of themselves people are.
Do you realise that 'logic' is basically governed by opinion? It's just something people use to try and enforce their opinion as fact. Logic isn't the same thing to everyone, and if you asked a large amount of people what their 'logical' soloution to a situation is, you'd get many different answers.
People like you are the worst by far, you have your opinions, which you're well entitled to, but you go one further by personally attacking people who don't share your opinions.
You're no better than the religious nuts you go on about, you're doing the same thing as them, just on a different subject.
Religious nuts are intent on disproving the arrogant scientists, who are intent of proving the religious nuts wrong, and there's the problem. They lose sight of reality to basically try and get one over on the other.
Scientists are know for twisting things to fit in to their theories, or twisting their theories to make findings fit in to the theory as evidence. As do religious nuts. They're the same type of people trying to push different ideas to different people, they're essentially both belief systems.
Before anyone tries to flame me for saying scientists twist things to suit them, you can't really say they don't otherwise there wouldn't be so many different theories on everything, some of them have to be wrong, all of them may be wrong, they don't know they just work best with their theory of choice.
Going on about the whole 'magical creationist' ideas, when you think about it in not such an arrogant way, the scientific approach isn't any less 'magical' than a creationist's. The only reason people try to claim it is less magical is because they go on about cold hard science, as if that actually means anything.
Despite what people beleive, it doesn't actually make it so. Creationists beleive that there is a god, just because of that belief, doesn't mean it's real, same for scientists too.
People who go on about how they're people of logic need to calm down and accept that they are massively insignificant in the grand scheme of things, the universe is bigger than what humans can comprehend, and my opinion is that it's something that will never be understood fully because the way humans operate means they can't understand it all.
It's like trying to claim you know 100% how the mind of animals work, you can't know 100%, you can just make assumptions and theories as you've never experienced it, so you work with the best you can get.
Assuming that god exists, then what does that make of science? Well it doesn't change it, it just means that science is what it's always been, trying to understand the world around us.
The greatest scientists have all been humble, because they understand that what they know is nothing compared to what there is to know.
People need to accept that people have opinions that don't always match their own, and they need to grow up about it becuase it makes them look foolish when they obviously can't handle some one not agreeing with them.
Shows more about them as people really if they can't understand that everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Last edited:
There's having opinion and there's being logical. In this case to assume controlled demolition is not logical. None of the evidence points towards that, all the evidence point's towards planes, fires and mavity.
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 52,812
- Location
- Tamworth, UK
kylew said:
Well said.
I am often surprised just how upset people get when you question the norm and get labelled a 'Conspiracy Theorist' as though it is some form of disease.
I personally don't give two hoots whether the FBI shot JFK, whether we landed on the moon or whether Charles had Diana done over.
911 is a different matter. There are so many things that raise questions it's hard to know where to start, hence why threads like these re-appear time and time again.
I don't know what happened that day, but I certainly don't accept that I am an imbecile simply because I refuse to accept without question the official explanation.