SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Continued
You said"People thought at the time that it was unsinkable. Just like how you apparently feel that the Twin Towers were built so perfectly that two commercial airliners couldn't destroy them."
and I said "As I have said, a couple of times now, but you insist on repeating yourself, so I have to put you right, I have never said that I believe the Twin Towers to be built perfectly just built to withstand a strike by multiple airplane."
To which you said"I was pointing out to you how the analogy actually works because you claimed that it doesn’t."
Where is the connection between these three posts and this "I was pointing out to you how the analogy actually works because you claimed that it doesn’t." What did I claim that it does't do?
If you don’t know what you claimed it doesn’t do, how should I know?
Well, there claim that is does was taken seriously by the insurance company and those who rented space in the Twin Towers,
So what? You’re still missing the main point, which is that there is no guarantee that something built by humans is “unsinkable” or “impervious to hits from commercial airliners” or that it’s “impossible” for two airliners to take down two tall towers. We try our best to erect buildings that accommodate maximum safety standards and withstand all kinds of natural and manmade disasters, but we don’t always succeed, many times, due to circumstances that hadn’t been foreseeable.
it is just you who have not taken it seriously and have said, Oh well, people make mistakes, it was only 3000 innocent people that died because of someones exaggeration.
I didn’t trivialize the deaths of 3000 people in any such way and I’ll thank you to not put those words in my mouth.
Like I said before, 3000 people died horrific deaths as a direct result of the actions of deranged terrorists looking for a ticket to heaven. That’s how we got off on this 9/11 conspiracy theory tangent, I believe.
By the very method of the construction made it impossible for just one airplane to cause a collapse. It would be like sticking a pencil through a mosquito net. It would make a who but the overall strength of the net would not be compromised. It is the engineering and design that enables him to say that several holes in the net would not cause it to fall not his opinion but a scientific fact.
There you go using the word “impossible.” Were you there to take the temperature of the fire?
I assumed it because it is a frequent event..
What’s that old saying about the pot calling the kettle black?
OK, you got me. I made a mistake with the date. Damn, what a clutz I am. In the uk it would be 11/9. The 11th September but the USA say September 11th - 9/11
I was just checking to see if something happened on November 9th that had something to do with this conspiracy.
No, but there are videos and photos of them on the internet.
There are videos and photos of ghosts, UFOs and Elvis Presley on the internet too.
And your point is?
You were talking about 757s and 747s, I believe.
If you are scientifically competent it does. That is why the scientific method requires repeatability. Have you heard of an "error factor" that is used in almost everything that is made. One airplane would not exceed any error factor on the design of the mess like cage that encompassed the twin towers.
Please read what I said above.
Ok, I admit. Some elements in this story are speculative. I do not know for instance if Atta was killed in Germany or in America. But the story is an coherent educated speculation. It is an attempt to reconstruct the events of 9/11. Myriads of web sites exist that expose the inconsistencies in the official story, that obviously is a fraud. This story offers an integral explanation of what could have happened and in all likelihood more or less did happen at 9/11 as there can be hardly any doubt about who was behind 9/11 if one rejects the official story. Some elements remain vague, like what happened exactly to WTC7, flight77, flight93 or Mohamed Atta. But these questions are of academic interest only. It's clear who was behind 9/11 and what happened in detail with WTC-1/2 and the planes. That is enough. Here's where most people got killed. The rest of the plot can be uncovered by a tribunal.
More of This can be Found Here
It sounds like most of it is speculation. There are myriad of websites with counterarguments to all of the points brought up in this conspiracy theory as well. The amount of internet space devoted to something doesn’t necessarily lend credibility to it.
This interview of Alex Jones with Andreas von Bulow, the former German Defense Minister said that 9/11 had to be carried out by a very small group of people. Alex asked him 100? 40? He said less than that.
let's start counting:
Read the Rest of this Report Here
Neither am I, so I listen to those pilots who do.
Who cares what number that one person thinks it is? You just implied in your last post that CBS was in on this as well. I bet they employ more than 40 people alone, never mind all the janitors, security personnel, office workers, bomb planters, etc. had to be in on it.
WAR GAMES ON SEPTEMBER 11TH
On the very morning of 9/11/01, five war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, including one "live fly" exercise using REAL planes. Then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers, admitted to 4 of the war games in congressional testimony -- see transcript here or video here (6 minutes and 12 seconds into the video).
Norad had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and "numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft". In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the twin towers, were run. See also official military website showing 2000 military drill, using miniatures, involving a plane crashing into the Pentagon.
Read the Rest of this Report Here
Brigham Young University Professor of Physics Steven Jones has suggested that thermite, or some other powerful, high temperature, high explosive capable of slicing the powerful steel columns that comprised the WTC towers central core, provided the energy missing in the official account.
In a September 1, 2006, New York Times article, "U.S. moves to debunk ‘alternative theories’ on Sept. 11 attacks", Jim Dwyer reports that the National Institute of Standards and Technology, an agency of the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, disputes Professor Jones’ suggestion. NIST believes that such "enormous quantities of thermite would have to be applied to the structural columns to damage them" that engineered demolition is not feasible.
Gentle reader, note what NIST is saying. If no reasonable quantity of the explosive thermite, which is used for engineered demolition, could damage the powerful buildings, the measly energy from an airliner, a bit of jet fuel, and gravity could not have collapsed the buildings. Can you see how incompetent these people are. How could you trust in their accuracy.
The Final Bit of this Article
And?