< 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
 
   
 

It’s that time again…...911WTC…....just a question.

 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  9350
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
13 October 2016 10:40
 
unsmoked - 13 October 2016 09:25 AM
Skipshot - 12 October 2016 11:30 AM

Thanks for posting that article, unsmoked. We’ll keep you around a while longer.

Gulp.  Has there been talk of having me eliminated?  I’m not able to keep up with all the posts.

It’s a wise crack I use on my wife (with deleterious effect) when she does something well.  I don’t know why she keeps me around.

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1742
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
13 October 2016 18:07
 
Throwdare - 13 October 2016 06:11 AM

I’m not interested in speculations about why and what for who did what regarding 9/11. I merely presented scientific evidence why building 7 did not collapse in free fall due to fire alone.

If you are interested in answers to your questions do the research. There is a lot of speculation out there on why and who did it for what reasons. I don’t deal in that.

Translation:

“I don’t have answers to your questions that are more (or even just as) plausible than the official story. So I will punt and play the “Hey, I’m just the guy asking questions” card.” 

And what GAD said.


Ron

 

 
Throwdare
 
Avatar
 
 
Throwdare
Total Posts:  323
Joined  10-10-2016
 
 
 
13 October 2016 20:50
 
MrRon - 13 October 2016 06:07 PM
Throwdare - 13 October 2016 06:11 AM

I’m not interested in speculations about why and what for who did what regarding 9/11. I merely presented scientific evidence why building 7 did not collapse in free fall due to fire alone.

If you are interested in answers to your questions do the research. There is a lot of speculation out there on why and who did it for what reasons. I don’t deal in that.

Translation:

“I don’t have answers to your questions that are more (or even just as) plausible than the official story. So I will punt and play the “Hey, I’m just the guy asking questions” card.” 

And what GAD said.


Ron

9/11 research is by no means my area of expertise. Therefore I don’t come up with speculation of who did it,, why and what for. But I’m sure the official version isn’t what really happend or at least not fully what really happend. I don’t feel comfortable to comment on this therefore. Is that considered an intellectual crime or what?

 
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1742
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
14 October 2016 03:21
 
Throwdare - 13 October 2016 08:50 PM
MrRon - 13 October 2016 06:07 PM
Throwdare - 13 October 2016 06:11 AM

I’m not interested in speculations about why and what for who did what regarding 9/11. I merely presented scientific evidence why building 7 did not collapse in free fall due to fire alone.

If you are interested in answers to your questions do the research. There is a lot of speculation out there on why and who did it for what reasons. I don’t deal in that.

Translation:

“I don’t have answers to your questions that are more (or even just as) plausible than the official story. So I will punt and play the “Hey, I’m just the guy asking questions” card.” 

And what GAD said.


Ron

9/11 research is by no means my area of expertise. Therefore I don’t come up with speculation of who did it,, why and what for. But I’m sure the official version isn’t what really happend or at least not fully what really happend. I don’t feel comfortable to comment on this therefore. Is that considered an intellectual crime or what?

No… no intellectual crime. But let’s think this through. Do you agree that there’s only three ways the buildings could have come down? Those being:

1) Fire and the related stress (the official story)
2) Controlled explosions
3) Random coincidence of structural failure unrelated to anything else (they would have collapsed on their own that day even if nothing else had happened)

And do you think that all three are equally likely?


Ron

 

 
Throwdare
 
Avatar
 
 
Throwdare
Total Posts:  323
Joined  10-10-2016
 
 
 
14 October 2016 11:29
 
MrRon - 14 October 2016 03:21 AM
Throwdare - 13 October 2016 08:50 PM
MrRon - 13 October 2016 06:07 PM
Throwdare - 13 October 2016 06:11 AM

I’m not interested in speculations about why and what for who did what regarding 9/11. I merely presented scientific evidence why building 7 did not collapse in free fall due to fire alone.

If you are interested in answers to your questions do the research. There is a lot of speculation out there on why and who did it for what reasons. I don’t deal in that.

Translation:

“I don’t have answers to your questions that are more (or even just as) plausible than the official story. So I will punt and play the “Hey, I’m just the guy asking questions” card.” 

And what GAD said.


Ron

9/11 research is by no means my area of expertise. Therefore I don’t come up with speculation of who did it,, why and what for. But I’m sure the official version isn’t what really happend or at least not fully what really happend. I don’t feel comfortable to comment on this therefore. Is that considered an intellectual crime or what?

No… no intellectual crime. But let’s think this through. Do you agree that there’s only three ways the buildings could have come down? Those being:

1) Fire and the related stress (the official story)
2) Controlled explosions
3) Random coincidence of structural failure unrelated to anything else (they would have collapsed on their own that day even if nothing else had happened)

And do you think that all three are equally likely?


Ron

I don’t understand what point three is all about. Can you elaborate further, please?

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8359
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
14 October 2016 11:33
 
unsmoked - 12 October 2016 10:44 AM

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/11/conspiracy_theory_psychology_people_who_claim_to_know_the_truth_about_jfk.html

This article in Slate begins:

“To believe that the U.S. government planned or deliberately allowed the 9/11 attacks, you’d have to posit that President Bush intentionally sacrificed 3,000 Americans. To believe that explosives, not planes, brought down the buildings, you’d have to imagine an operation large enough to plant the devices without anyone getting caught. To insist that the truth remains hidden, you’d have to assume that everyone who has reviewed the attacks and the events leading up to them—the CIA, the Justice Department, the Federal Aviation Administration, the North American Aerospace Defense Command, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, scientific organizations, peer-reviewed journals, news organizations, the airlines, and local law enforcement agencies in three states—was incompetent, deceived, or part of the cover-up.”

911defender, do you believe that all of these agencies are incompetent, deceived, or part of the cover-up?  Do you believe that not one of the thousands of people who work for these agencies sent some damning inside information to Wikileaks . . . information that supports your suspicions?

 
 
Throwdare
 
Avatar
 
 
Throwdare
Total Posts:  323
Joined  10-10-2016
 
 
 
14 October 2016 11:45
 
unsmoked - 14 October 2016 11:33 AM
unsmoked - 12 October 2016 10:44 AM

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/11/conspiracy_theory_psychology_people_who_claim_to_know_the_truth_about_jfk.html

This article in Slate begins:

“To believe that the U.S. government planned or deliberately allowed the 9/11 attacks, you’d have to posit that President Bush intentionally sacrificed 3,000 Americans. To believe that explosives, not planes, brought down the buildings, you’d have to imagine an operation large enough to plant the devices without anyone getting caught. To insist that the truth remains hidden, you’d have to assume that everyone who has reviewed the attacks and the events leading up to them—the CIA, the Justice Department, the Federal Aviation Administration, the North American Aerospace Defense Command, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, scientific organizations, peer-reviewed journals, news organizations, the airlines, and local law enforcement agencies in three states—was incompetent, deceived, or part of the cover-up.”

911defender, do you believe that all of these agencies are incompetent, deceived, or part of the cover-up?  Do you believe that not one of the thousands of people who work for these agencies sent some damning inside information to Wikileaks . . . information that supports your suspicions?

Questions:

IF he would say Yes to that, what would that mean in your eyes?

IF he would say Yes to that, what would that mean regarding YOUR take on what happend on 9/11, not matter what take you have on it?

IF he would say NO, would that be the beginning of an honest and serious discussion for you to consider that the official version doesn’t look as if that is what actually happend, what was the case?

I think you get my drift.

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8359
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
14 October 2016 12:46
 
Throwdare - 14 October 2016 11:45 AM
unsmoked - 14 October 2016 11:33 AM
unsmoked - 12 October 2016 10:44 AM

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/11/conspiracy_theory_psychology_people_who_claim_to_know_the_truth_about_jfk.html

This article in Slate begins:

“To believe that the U.S. government planned or deliberately allowed the 9/11 attacks, you’d have to posit that President Bush intentionally sacrificed 3,000 Americans. To believe that explosives, not planes, brought down the buildings, you’d have to imagine an operation large enough to plant the devices without anyone getting caught. To insist that the truth remains hidden, you’d have to assume that everyone who has reviewed the attacks and the events leading up to them—the CIA, the Justice Department, the Federal Aviation Administration, the North American Aerospace Defense Command, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, scientific organizations, peer-reviewed journals, news organizations, the airlines, and local law enforcement agencies in three states—was incompetent, deceived, or part of the cover-up.”

911defender, do you believe that all of these agencies are incompetent, deceived, or part of the cover-up?  Do you believe that not one of the thousands of people who work for these agencies sent some damning inside information to Wikileaks . . . information that supports your suspicions?

Questions:

IF he would say Yes to that, what would that mean in your eyes?

IF he would say Yes to that, what would that mean regarding YOUR take on what happend on 9/11, not matter what take you have on it?

IF he would say NO, would that be the beginning of an honest and serious discussion for you to consider that the official version doesn’t look as if that is what actually happend, what was the case?

I think you get my drift.

If either of you say yes to that question, in my eyes it means you are dyed-in-the-wool conspiracy theorists who aren’t interested in scientific consensus.  Your drift is away from reality.  The compass is pointing to your anchor.

 
 
Throwdare
 
Avatar
 
 
Throwdare
Total Posts:  323
Joined  10-10-2016
 
 
 
14 October 2016 13:09
 
unsmoked - 14 October 2016 12:46 PM
Throwdare - 14 October 2016 11:45 AM
unsmoked - 14 October 2016 11:33 AM
unsmoked - 12 October 2016 10:44 AM

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/11/conspiracy_theory_psychology_people_who_claim_to_know_the_truth_about_jfk.html

This article in Slate begins:

“To believe that the U.S. government planned or deliberately allowed the 9/11 attacks, you’d have to posit that President Bush intentionally sacrificed 3,000 Americans. To believe that explosives, not planes, brought down the buildings, you’d have to imagine an operation large enough to plant the devices without anyone getting caught. To insist that the truth remains hidden, you’d have to assume that everyone who has reviewed the attacks and the events leading up to them—the CIA, the Justice Department, the Federal Aviation Administration, the North American Aerospace Defense Command, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, scientific organizations, peer-reviewed journals, news organizations, the airlines, and local law enforcement agencies in three states—was incompetent, deceived, or part of the cover-up.”

911defender, do you believe that all of these agencies are incompetent, deceived, or part of the cover-up?  Do you believe that not one of the thousands of people who work for these agencies sent some damning inside information to Wikileaks . . . information that supports your suspicions?

Questions:

IF he would say Yes to that, what would that mean in your eyes?

IF he would say Yes to that, what would that mean regarding YOUR take on what happend on 9/11, not matter what take you have on it?

IF he would say NO, would that be the beginning of an honest and serious discussion for you to consider that the official version doesn’t look as if that is what actually happend, what was the case?

I think you get my drift.

If either of you say yes to that question, in my eyes it means you are dyed-in-the-wool conspiracy theorists who aren’t interested in scientific consensus.  Your drift is away from reality.  The compass is pointing to your anchor.

I actually am not interested in your projections of what I may or may not think about the 9/11 events. I was merely asking you questions. Just like you asked the OP questions. I only tried to find out if an un-biased dialog is posssible or not. And I think, by what you said here, it’s not worth the effort.

I’m not a conspiracy theorist by any means. I’m just wondering.

I’m not an architect. Nor a demolition technichian. Therefore I’m as un-informed as anybody else in those matters.

 
 
Dennis Campbell
 
Avatar
 
 
Dennis Campbell
Total Posts:  19789
Joined  20-07-2007
 
 
 
14 October 2016 13:17
 

No… no intellectual crime. But let’s think this through. Do you agree that there’s only three ways the buildings could have come down? Those being:

1) Fire and the related stress (the official story)
2) Controlled explosions
3) Random coincidence of structural failure unrelated to anything else (they would have collapsed on their own that day even if nothing else had happened)

And do you think that all three are equally likely?

You’re being too rational.  Much more exciting to conjure up some vast conspiracy shared by thousands who secretly plotted to…...bring down the towers, fake a moon landing; kill Kennedy, show the earth is a sphere when it is flat; not kill six million people, but blame Jews for making it all up; claim the earth is billions of years old, when it is really six thousand; claim Obama is an American, when we all know he’s a closet Muslim seeking to subvert American values.  Quite often a believer in one of these will be quick to subscribe to other conspiracies.  Otherwise, life is so boring!

 

 
 
Throwdare
 
Avatar
 
 
Throwdare
Total Posts:  323
Joined  10-10-2016
 
 
 
14 October 2016 13:21
 
Dennis Campbell - 14 October 2016 01:17 PM

No… no intellectual crime. But let’s think this through. Do you agree that there’s only three ways the buildings could have come down? Those being:

1) Fire and the related stress (the official story)
2) Controlled explosions
3) Random coincidence of structural failure unrelated to anything else (they would have collapsed on their own that day even if nothing else had happened)

And do you think that all three are equally likely?

You’re being too rational.  Much more exciting to conjure up some vast conspiracy shared by thousands who secretly plotted to…...bring down the towers, fake a moon landing; kill Kennedy, show the earth is a sphere when it is flat; not kill six million people, but blame Jews for making it all up; claim the earth is billions of years old, when it is really six thousand; claim Obama is an American, when we all know he’s a closet Muslim seeking to subvert American values.  Quite often a believer in one of these will be quick to subscribe to other conspiracies.  Otherwise, life is so boring!

Yeah, but psychiatry/psychologie is a hard science. Isn’t it, Dennis?

(And no, I’m not a scientologist.)

 

 
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1742
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
14 October 2016 17:43
 
Throwdare - 14 October 2016 11:29 AM
MrRon - 14 October 2016 03:21 AM
Throwdare - 13 October 2016 08:50 PM
MrRon - 13 October 2016 06:07 PM
Throwdare - 13 October 2016 06:11 AM

I’m not interested in speculations about why and what for who did what regarding 9/11. I merely presented scientific evidence why building 7 did not collapse in free fall due to fire alone.

If you are interested in answers to your questions do the research. There is a lot of speculation out there on why and who did it for what reasons. I don’t deal in that.

Translation:

“I don’t have answers to your questions that are more (or even just as) plausible than the official story. So I will punt and play the “Hey, I’m just the guy asking questions” card.” 

And what GAD said.


Ron

9/11 research is by no means my area of expertise. Therefore I don’t come up with speculation of who did it,, why and what for. But I’m sure the official version isn’t what really happend or at least not fully what really happend. I don’t feel comfortable to comment on this therefore. Is that considered an intellectual crime or what?

No… no intellectual crime. But let’s think this through. Do you agree that there’s only three ways the buildings could have come down? Those being:

1) Fire and the related stress (the official story)
2) Controlled explosions
3) Random coincidence of structural failure unrelated to anything else (they would have collapsed on their own that day even if nothing else had happened)

And do you think that all three are equally likely?


Ron

I don’t understand what point three is all about. Can you elaborate further, please?

Sure…

It’s possible that, due to poor design and/or corner-cutting during construction, the buildings were bound to collapse under their own weight one day. And that day just happened to be a day when planes struck, giving the false impression that the ensuing fires were the cause.

I was just trying to cover all the bases as to how the buildings could come down. Do you agree that those are the only three ways the buildings could have collapsed?


Ron

 
Throwdare
 
Avatar
 
 
Throwdare
Total Posts:  323
Joined  10-10-2016
 
 
 
14 October 2016 18:02
 
MrRon - 14 October 2016 05:43 PM
Throwdare - 14 October 2016 11:29 AM
MrRon - 14 October 2016 03:21 AM
Throwdare - 13 October 2016 08:50 PM
MrRon - 13 October 2016 06:07 PM
Throwdare - 13 October 2016 06:11 AM

I’m not interested in speculations about why and what for who did what regarding 9/11. I merely presented scientific evidence why building 7 did not collapse in free fall due to fire alone.

If you are interested in answers to your questions do the research. There is a lot of speculation out there on why and who did it for what reasons. I don’t deal in that.

Translation:

“I don’t have answers to your questions that are more (or even just as) plausible than the official story. So I will punt and play the “Hey, I’m just the guy asking questions” card.” 

And what GAD said.


Ron

9/11 research is by no means my area of expertise. Therefore I don’t come up with speculation of who did it,, why and what for. But I’m sure the official version isn’t what really happend or at least not fully what really happend. I don’t feel comfortable to comment on this therefore. Is that considered an intellectual crime or what?

No… no intellectual crime. But let’s think this through. Do you agree that there’s only three ways the buildings could have come down? Those being:

1) Fire and the related stress (the official story)
2) Controlled explosions
3) Random coincidence of structural failure unrelated to anything else (they would have collapsed on their own that day even if nothing else had happened)

And do you think that all three are equally likely?


Ron

I don’t understand what point three is all about. Can you elaborate further, please?

Sure…

It’s possible that, due to poor design and/or corner-cutting during construction, the buildings were bound to collapse under their own weight one day. And that day just happened to be a day when planes struck, giving the false impression that the ensuing fires were the cause.

I was just trying to cover all the bases as to how the buildings could come down. Do you agree that those are the only three ways the buildings could have collapsed?


Ron

No.

Maybe some ants, who have eaten some spider, or some kryptonite, have pissed on the steel and then….Booom!

In other words, I don’t know what happened. I only know that the offical version of what happend isn’t what actually happend, because that goes against every kind of reason.

Maybe “god” did it. Who knows.

You’re an expert in architecture, the demolition of buildings or otherwise certified as knowledgable regading the causes of buildings who come down in free fall? If not, what kind of expert are you? Just curious.

Edit: I just reply to you like this because I think the way you approach the issue does not seem to be un-biased to me. Maybe I’m just in a paranoid state of mind right now.

[ Edited: 14 October 2016 18:10 by Throwdare]
 
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1742
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
15 October 2016 06:06
 
Throwdare - 14 October 2016 06:02 PM

No.

Maybe some ants, who have eaten some spider, or some kryptonite, have pissed on the steel and then….Booom!

In other words, I don’t know what happened. I only know that the offical version of what happend isn’t what actually happend, because that goes against every kind of reason.

Maybe “god” did it. Who knows.

You’re an expert in architecture, the demolition of buildings or otherwise certified as knowledgable regading the causes of buildings who come down in free fall? If not, what kind of expert are you? Just curious.

Edit: I just reply to you like this because I think the way you approach the issue does not seem to be un-biased to me. Maybe I’m just in a paranoid state of mind right now.

Actually, you’re right! Ants could have brought down the buildings. And maybe a God did it too. Also, other causes that have not been ruled out are:

- Russian psychics (more accurately, those with macro PK ability)
- Unusually powerful localized atmospheric downbursts
- Invisible Alien rays from space

Etc.

So go ahead and write down ALL the ways the buildings could have collapsed. And then put them in order from what you consider most likely to least likely. Which of those ways do you have as most likely?

You say that the official story “goes against every kind of reason”. Yet you seem reluctant to apply reason to the questions I asked (Why use planes when the only way to bring the buildings down is with explosives? Why blame Saudis when we plan on attacking Iraq? And why kill thousands of our own citizens when we could easily concoct a story that wouldn’t involve loss of innocent lives?). If you’re going to dismiss the official story, then you have to provide plausible answers to those questions. And if you’re going to use “reason”, then you have to speculate to some degree. To just stop reasoning your way through the possibilities while insisting that you don’t like/agree with the official story is intellectual dishonesty.   

You don’t need to be an expert in architecture or building demolition to evaluate what happened on 9/11 any more than you need to be an expert in rocketry to conclude that we went to the moon. But hey, if you, or anyone, can someday provide convincing evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, then I’ll gladly accept it. But to punt and say, “I don’t know, but it just couldn’t have been the way we were told” doesn’t cut it.

Thanks.

Ron

[ Edited: 15 October 2016 06:12 by MrRon]
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8359
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
15 October 2016 09:27
 
Throwdare - 14 October 2016 06:02 PM

I don’t know what happened. I only know that the offical version of what happend isn’t what actually happend, because that goes against every kind of reason.

The reason you know this is because it gives you a sense of power and superiority.  You know something that the pundits don’t know.  You know something that even the world’s most experienced engineers, architects, Homeland Security chiefs don’t know.  That’s power!  That’s intelligence!  That’s insight!  You’re one of the world’s scientific elite!

elite  n  1.  The choice or select part;  esp., a group or body considered as socially superior  - (Webster)

 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›