Donćt be sad now, but......

[deanm (Dean)]

Fascinating, Clive...fascinating.
Dean

[PCH (Paul)]

Originally Posted by deanm

Fascinating, Clive...fascinating.
Dean

Ditto Clive - thanks for sharing. I wish I knew more about what really happened.

[drylander (Peter)]

or as mrs brown says....'that's nice'
Pete

[julianh72 (Julian)]

As a practicing professional Structural Engineer, I refuse to debate 9/11 conspiracies with anyone who hasn't read the official Structural Engineering report on what happened to the WTC:
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/index.cfm

You don't have to read the whole report if you don't want to, just read the abstracts and summaries, but DON'T rely on the excerpts that the conspiracy sites link to.

Seriously folks - there's nothing to see here (as far as how and why the twin towers collapsed) - move on.

[bojan]

I am always amazed how come the "official" scince has to defend it's position from attacs by uneducated people who know nothing about what they are talking about.
Just reading the comments on such links makes me wonder what our future will be... ("Idiocracy " comes to mind.. )

I don't think everybody should have right to express their opinion.. however stupid they are.

[Nikolas (Nik)]

Opinions are like bottom sphincters, everyone has one but that doesn't mean we have to be exposed to them. (had to clean that up somehow )

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by julianh72

As a practicing professional Structural Engineer, I refuse to debate 9/11 conspiracies with anyone who hasn't read the official Structural Engineering report on what happened to the WTC:
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/index.cfm

You don't have to read the whole report if you don't want to, just read the abstracts and summaries, but DON'T rely on the excerpts that the conspiracy sites link to.

With all due respect,
It is not factually correct to imply that the NIST report is the only thing wrong with the 'conspiracy theory' promulgated by Rupert Murdoch and his ilk. Nor is it logical to suggest that if one part of an alibi is true, then it all must be true, so we can all stop looking... case closed.

I say the opposite, if it can be established that a premise is false, then all arguments that follow from it are invalid so the conclusion might also be false.
Furthermore, if someone deliberately lies in a criminal investigation then they should not be trusted as a credible source of information or opinion.


Be that as it may, it just so happens that I have read the (NIST NCSTAR 1A) document, and not just the abstracts and summary.

It's not a conspiracy theory on my part to say that there are serious errors in it, not to mention several egregious misrepresentations of factual evidence. In short, NIST lied.
Not only that, but they continue to withhold evidence in as much as (despite several FOI requests) they refuse to release the following information:

1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.
2. All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

Without that data, I don't know how it can be claimed that the analysis of that data (referenced in the report) supports the narrative given to us by the main stream media.

Sorry, but Rupert's conspiracy theory is one that simply doesn't withstand scrutiny.

The truth therefore, must be something else... Cui Bono?
And no, I don't believe the U.S. did this to themselves,
well... no more so than what happened with the USS Liberty back in 1967... ponder that bit of history for a moment, and what the non-accountability of the bad actors implies. (5th column in the corridors of power)
Here's an excellent BBC documentary for historical context.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjOH1XMAwZA

fwiw) Here are 25 examples of egregious scientific fraud (by NIST)
http://www.ae911truth.org/images/art...10-19-14-3.pdf

[Stonius (Markus)]

In keeping an open mind, I'm willing to consider the evidence you present, Clive, but who has the time? There is so much stuff there that it would take days to sort through and assess the quality of the sources, the relevance, the context, whether it's cherry picked information. That's a pretty big ask for an internet thread.

It's not unprecedented for countries to stage an attack on themselves that they then wrongly attribute to an enemy and use as grounds to invade (the Nazis did it). But the sheer number of people required to co-operate in such a huge conspiracy boggles the mind, and if true, I'm sure it will all come out eventually as the chances of a secret being kept decreases with the number of people who know it and time. The chances of some hundreds of people keeping it a secret for 15 years is minuscule and is decreasing all the time.

As yet do we have anyone credible primary sources who can say 'I was involved in that conspiracy and here's proof'?

Originally Posted by AussieTrooper

We are taking the mickey, not attacking you. There's a difference.

You know, I don't think there is. When everyone gangs up on someone to make jokes about them, I think that's pretty much the definition of bullying. It's possible to respectfully disagree without mocking. The man should be treated with respect whether or not you respect his views.

Markus

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by PCH

Ditto Clive - thanks for sharing. I wish I knew more about what really happened.

Well... if there is one thing I have learned studying history over the last 10 years it is that even the portion of the public record that is factually correct is mostly, contextually dubious.

The alternate sources of media are even worse.

The only reliable way to navigate through the morass of bad information is with a thought process described as follows:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKA4w2O61Xo

Suffice it to say that there is more than a grain of truth to the maxims:
The first casualty of war is the truth.
&
The victors write the history books... including the books that tell you who fought who, how the battle lines were defined, why they fought and who the victors actually were. The corollary to that is:
If you want to know who the (real) victors are.. look for those who define the public narrative.

If you are up for a ripping yarn over a beer... come over some time and I will tell you the tale of the 'black swan's' that have defined history.

best
~c

[FlashDrive (Poppy)]

Originally Posted by Nikolas

Opinions are like bottom sphincters, everyone has one but that doesn't mean we have to be exposed to them. (had to clean that up somehow )

Best part of the thread .....

[xelasnave]

I have no idea where the truth can be found.
The reality is we can be conned.
Secrecy is not an issue in my mind.
Consider how we can be fooled by a magician and do their secrets ever get out.

Unfortunately history tells us that all sorts of nonsence goes on at the top related to money but more importantly power.
Us mere mortals know nothing of that world and how the game is played.
Remember the old tv series "mission impossible".
Does that show hint at reality or fiction or somewhere in between.
There are various aspects of the twin towers that are public and seem to point to this or that but I suggest if there was anything fishy going on we will never know what it is.
If the imaginary brokers of power are in control whatever we think or imagine has been put there by them... And that is if they are there..
Who knows what really goes on... I dont but I would like to believe that we are not just little pawns in a game we know nothing about...
My guess is the eve t was probably more or less what we have been told but "little" side issues may corupt evidence such that we do not get the full picture. And those issues if they exist we sure will never know.
Maybe demolishion crews actually dropped the buildings for example in the interest of safety, not saying but if that was done for example it may be that aspect was covered up.
Was the event used to declare a pre planned war.. Who knows.. We wont.
So finally why speculate at all.
It happened we know that.... Mmmmm or did it was it a movie... See what I mean you can make up stuff until the cows come home.. Why bother go with what history will record.
If you find out a hidden truth they will kill you.
And never believe what someone tells you particulary what you tell yourself.
Alex.

[xelasnave]

Duplicate post deleted

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

Originally Posted by bojan

I don't think everybody should have right to express their opinion.. however stupid they are.

I disagree with you, when it's in an open forum. Free speech is a good thing. But the way the media sometimes presents what they call a "balanced" view of things is screwed up: giving equal time and weight to both sides when the expert consensus is strongly in favour of one over the other. Maybe that's what you meant.(?)

[bojan]

Originally Posted by janoskiss

I disagree with you, when it's in an open forum. Free speech is a good thing. But the way the media sometimes presents what they call a "balanced" view of things is screwed up: giving equal time and weight to both sides when the expert consensus is strongly in favour of one over the other. Maybe that's what you meant.(?)

Actually, yes, exactly that ... you corrected me properly, I should have read what I wrote one more time.
"Balanced" view is not balanced if someone "balances" issues and sides just for the sake of that balance (or for the sake of rating - that approach only confuses un-informed public).

Now, certain aspects about Brexit come to my mind...

[julianh72 (Julian)]

Originally Posted by clive milne

With all due respect,


1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.
2. All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

...

fwiw) Here are 25 examples of egregious scientific fraud (by NIST)
http://www.ae911truth.org/images/art...10-19-14-3.pdf

Take a look at the NIST response to these "examples of egregious scientific fraud":
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi.../faqs_wtc7.cfm

As an example of why these conspiracy theory reports are just so much bunkum:
Point 4 of the 25 "examples" talks about how the NIST analysis shows large deformations, which cannot be seen in the video. The image of the computer analysis model shows the deformations amplified by about 100 times - the unmagnified deformations would be just about imperceptible. This is standard practice in computer structural analysis. If you want to know why, do a 4-year Structural Engineering degree, or talk to a Structural Engineer.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

I'm sorry but there are an awful lot of people who strongly believe a man was born to a virgin in an immaculate conception about 2000 years ago who later claimed to be the son of essentially an imaginary friend for adults and he is said to have performed amazing miracles including raising someone form the dead, walking on water and feeding thousands with a loaf of bread and a fish and then when this man was later brutally tortured and killed it was proclaimed he was doing it for our sins. Then another man a few hundred years later sleeping in a cave alone had a visit from the same imaginary friend for adults who sat on his chest and told him the (slightly different) truth and the way and how things should be so he could spread the new truth..? Now 2000 or so years later 100's of millions of educated adults around the World still believe all this to this day, some very passionately with sometimes deadly consequences, even though there is absolutely no scientific evidence that any of it is true.

So?....not sure why we would worry about the substance of the original post..it pales into insignificance compared to the above really

Mike

[RB (Andrew)]

I think it's time to close this thread off now.
Everyone's had a say and we're straying close to overstepping the TOS.

As Mike Salway's said in the past, there's plenty of other sites that discuss conspiracy theories, religion and so on if people want to discuss these topics further.

RB