stickyicky0420
Well-Known Member
rofl after reading that i cannot take anything you say seriously considering you said one thing and smokey brough up a post where you say another. just shows how credible you are lol
Could you elaborate a bit for me please? I mean what exactly to you is an unimpeachable source? I feel a lot of potential sources were very easily influenced into being impeachable and even the data from the data flight recorder could have been fucked with - what's unimpeachable really in all this? You have to take it all in and weigh all the evidence against the other evidence to see it clearly.When do you plan to begin this? I would greatly approve of that. Keep in mind, please, that saying "this is a proven fact" does not qualify ... links to an unimpeachable source are required to put some bite into that claim. My difficulty in researching this topic is the near-absence of discussion using unimpeachable sources. One cannot harvest proven facts from a [bad word] blog. cn
There are many many many family members who lost loved ones who don't buy the official story for a second. Instead of diversion how about you address specific points brought up with your own explanations. Or perhaps some more character attacks are the call of the day?your verry smart smoky thank you for takeing the time to post all of this it deserves rep unfortinaly i cant give u any more it wont let me
You can't even read (let alone write or spell, if I had to guess I'd say you were in junior high and not doing so well...). No point arguing.KAENDAR
IS THIS NOT YOUR WORDS??
ITS SOUNDS TO ME AS THOUGH YOUR NOT FROM AMERICA??
Wow, now you guys are calling us anti American?? What a pussy move. Even tho Americans are fat, lazy, judgmental, and take advantage of everybody else, they are still my country men. Wanting to expose the truth about 9/11 is the most patriotic thing possible, and also does the proper justice for all of the victims of that day. The American people deserve to know the truth.
My background is in the sciences, and there one finds a limited group of journals that are peer-reviewed, subject to indefinite review and correction and thus trusted. Something of that caliber would do. I cannot specify what, because outside of the sciences i don't know where to turn for the good stuff. However, the usual blogs, opinion sites, Youtube vids etc. are clearly not held to a standard of truthfulness, considering that one can find all manner of woo-woo there, lovingly described in professional prose that gives it a veneer of respectability. I'd like that sort of thing excluded, preferably by the prospective poster's own sense of factual integrity. Posting propaganda ruins one's credibility. Jmo. cnCould you elaborate a bit for me please? I mean what exactly to you is an unimpeachable source? I feel a lot of potential sources were very easily influenced into being impeachable and even the data from the data flight recorder could have been fucked with - what's unimpeachable really in all this? You have to take it all in and weigh all the evidence against the other evidence to see it clearly.
Things always fall into the paths of most resistance like there was nothing there. Always man. Do your research!!!Smokey & sticky, get the dick out of your mouths before speaking.
It really is getting annoying.
Do to the facts, I am convinced 9/11 was an inside job. I came to this thread hoping to be convinced otherwise but I haven't found many "proofs" or "facts" from either of you to make your points taken seriously. You sound like immature children as stated by some users already. So grow up already, your making the rest of us, me being 21 & being a young adult, look as bad as yourselves.
As for & oppose to some of the rest of the evidence, you are all using "facts" that strictly have there name in "Mainstream". Not very convincing do the the amount of evidence out there that proves otherwise.
I really came to this thread to see otherwise but came to the conclusion that most us are stuck in our own opinions regardless of evidence shown throughout the thread do to personal influence &/or research we find fits our perception of reality.
Which in a contradicting manner, I really can't come to a conclusion do to the lack of seriousness taken from some of the posts read.
What else can be said?
No propoganda necessary. The entire official description of events is absurd if you have even a basic, actual, understanding of physics. Then you start to see all the connections between people, motivations and look at the official investigation and see how lacking it is and you don't have to jump very far to reach the conclusion that the official story is utter hogwash. What the true story is, is a question often asked. That's where things get into crazy land. It serves me no purpose to propose a theory in lieu of more evidence, but it's pretty bloody clear where the first places and people to search for more evidence would be.My background is in the sciences, and there one finds a limited group of journals that are peer-reviewed, subject to indefinite review and correction and thus trusted. Something of that caliber would do. I cannot specify what, because outside of the sciences i don't know where to turn for the good stuff. However, the usual blogs, opinion sites, Youtube vids etc. are clearly not held to a standard of truthfulness, considering that one can find all manner of woo-woo there, lovingly described in professional prose that gives it a veneer of respectability. I'd like that sort of thing excluded, preferably by the prospective poster's own sense of factual integrity. Posting propaganda ruins one's credibility. Jmo. cn
I think we've been taking shifts...Lol, I was starting to think I got left alone with the 2 village idiots.
I have a fairly extensive understanding of basic physics, but not of engineering, esp. structural. So I am not quick to make judgments outside of my former profession; i remember how it felt to have outsiders come to utterly wrong conclusions based on a superficially sound but naïve apprehension of my field. Part of the problem is that i can't find much raw/primary info ... all i find are digests, which to me suggests partisan presentation; fidelity to the premise is valued more than correctness. It's easy to hoodwink even an intelligent amateur with a skewed presentation. But I would like to believe that there are some sources/sites for information that are reviewed and cleared of bad info, and have unconfirmed or speculative info marked as such. cnNo propoganda necessary. The entire official description of events is absurd if you have even a basic, actual, understanding of physics.
Brother, the entire NIST report is basically a big cloud of smoke. They write extensively about potentialities and what had to have been for X to happen, basically starting with a conclusion and trying to make things fit (so it seemed). But they almost never had much in the way of hard data and they certainly never made public their simulations (which I am sure are absurd beyond belief).I have a fairly extensive understanding of basic physics, but not of engineering, esp. structural. So I am not quick to make judgments outside of my former profession; i remember how it felt to have outsiders come to utterly wrong conclusions based on a superficially sound but naïve apprehension of my field. Part of the problem is that i can't find much raw/primary info ... all i find are digests, which to me suggests partisan presentation; fidelity to the premise is valued more than correctness. It's easy to hoodwink even an intelligent amateur with a skewed presentation. But I would like to believe that there are some sources/sites for information that are reviewed and cleared of bad info, and have unconfirmed or speculative info marked as such. cn
But that is my point - with that criteria all you are left to say is you don't know what happened but the official story isn't it.My background is in the sciences, and there one finds a limited group of journals that are peer-reviewed, subject to indefinite review and correction and thus trusted. Something of that caliber would do. I cannot specify what, because outside of the sciences i don't know where to turn for the good stuff. However, the usual blogs, opinion sites, Youtube vids etc. are clearly not held to a standard of truthfulness, considering that one can find all manner of woo-woo there, lovingly described in professional prose that gives it a veneer of respectability. I'd like that sort of thing excluded, preferably by the prospective poster's own sense of factual integrity. Posting propaganda ruins one's credibility. Jmo. cn
I don't even know enough to say that. i have not been a consumer of the news services. My life imploded a few months before the towers did. cnBut that is my point - with that criteria all you are left to say is you don't know what happened but the official story isn't it.
I was there! I crawled around on that pile for a couple of weeks! How can anybody say that it wasn't "messy"? It was square blocks of near total destruction! Those buildings didn't just fall straight down into their own footprint either, as is so often suggested by the conspiracy theorists. A LOT of energy was expended when fuel laden jumbo jets slammed into them at 500mph. Even more energy expended in the ensuing explosions/fireballs, and even MORE energy was expended during the actual collapses. I don't think that most people trully appreciate how much energy was expended. It's difficult to quantify, and near impossible to simulate due to the myriad variables.Brother, the entire NIST report is basically a big cloud of smoke. They write extensively about potentialities and what had to have been for X to happen, basically starting with a conclusion and trying to make things fit (so it seemed). But they almost never had much in the way of hard data and they certainly never made public their simulations (which I am sure are absurd beyond belief).
Most of the actual evidence was destroyed on that day. And what does exist really doesn't lineup with the official theory anyway.
I won't go as far to say as collapse is fundamentally impossible, but I will say such a controlled collapse is. It would have been messy because so many other objects would have been involved (buildings etc, much more so than they were). Most likely a tipping variety.
If you just look at how finely ground the concrete was, you get an idea of how much energy was actually expended. It was like a fine dust. Having some experience blasting, let me tell you, it takes a lot of energy to turn things into dust... yet it appeared most of it ended up as dust. Fine fine dust. The finer the dust, the more energy required. Gravity alone is a huge stretch in explaining just the dust, forget the uniformity and symmetry and the fact it ended up failing into itself at a rate of speed that is about the same as a ball dropped from the roof.
Doc, a question ... please indulge my curiosity.I was there! I crawled around on that pile for a couple of weeks! How can anybody say that it wasn't "messy"? It was square blocks of near total destruction! Those buildings didn't just fall straight down into their own footprint either, as is so often suggested by the conspiracy theorists. A LOT of energy was expended when fuel laden jumbo jets slammed into them at 500mph. Even more energy expended in the ensuing explosions/fireballs, and even MORE energy was expended during the actual collapses. I don't think that most people trully appreciate how much energy was expended. It's difficult to quantify, and near impossible to simulate due to the myriad variables.